Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Southampton County School Board’s counsel sent a letter to the county administrator Sept. 19 indicating that there exists no legal authority for the forensic audit of Southampton County Public Schools that the county’s Board of Supervisors is pursuing.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Dr. Alan W. Edwards said in a Monday, Oct. 21, interview that the board is still going to obtain the equivalent of a forensic audit of SCPS.

On Aug. 27, the Southampton County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to pursue a forensic audit of the school division.

School Board Counsel Pamela O’Berry, of Sands Anderson PC, stated in her Sept. 19 letter to County Administrator Brian S. Thrower that “a forensic audit is an examination of financial records to derive evidence to prosecute a party for fraud, embezzlement or other financial crimes.”

The Board of Supervisors’ unanimous vote followed a Citizens Comment Period earlier in the Aug. 27 meeting during which 17 people spoke, all expressing concerns about the state of the school system.

The board’s decision also followed an extended period of time in which some members of the board have sought answers to specific questions regarding the school division’s finances.

In the Oct. 21 interview, Edwards indicated that what is driving the board to pursue a forensic audit of the school system is “the deterioration of the quality of education. The Southampton County Public Schools has gone from a four-star down to a one-star system since 2016. They’re losing students. They’re going to Franklin. That, and financial irregularities that we are seeing and lack of response to very legitimate questions that we’ve asked the school system.”

SchoolDigger is a school-ranking website that states that Southampton High School has experienced a significant decline in its statewide ranking and SchoolDigger rating over the years.
“The school ranked as high as 60th out of 322 Virginia high schools in 2014-15, but has since dropped to 257th out of 329 schools in the 2023-24 ranking, with a one-star rating,” states the website’s summary of SHS. “This is in contrast to its previous four-star ratings from 2013-14 to 2016-17.”

The data sources for SchoolDigger include the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Census Bureau and the Virginia Department of Education.

The website also lists the important disclaimer that not all boundaries are included.

“We make every effort to ensure that boundaries are up-to-date,” the website states. “But it’s important to note that these are approximations and are for general informational purposes only. To verify legal descriptions of boundaries or school locations, contact your local tax assessor’s office and/or school district.”

After O’Berry defined what a forensic audit is in her letter, she stated, “The School Board is unaware of any credible information that supports your request for a forensic audit, nor any legal authority which authorizes such action.”

Her letter noted that the School Board’s and school division’s accounts and records had been audited as recently as June 2024 as a part of the county’s mandated annual audits.

“The independent auditor’s report for the 2023 fiscal year was compiled and released on Dec. 14, 2023, and cited no irregularities or issues of concern related to the School Board or school division’s financial accounts or records,” O’Berry stated.

Later in the letter, she wrote, “Virginia law provides no authority to support your engagement of an outside auditing firm to conduct a forensic audit of the School Board and/or school division. To the extent that the BOS has the ability to conduct an audit outside of the annual audit process described above [in the letter], it must be by a request to, and conducted by the Auditor of Public Accounts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and only then with the approval of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission.”

O’Berry indicated that a local governing body may be able to proceed with an “administrative audit” that may have limited permissibility and scope when directly related to a specific appropriation, as discussed in an attorney general opinion that she cited. However, she then went on to state that this situation “differs greatly from the BOS’ present request for a forensic audit with no stated purpose or scope, and without credible information underlying the request.”

She concluded her letter by writing that “as stewards of public funds, the School Board welcomes the opportunity to discuss specific requests for information that the BOS may have. Any such requests should be provided in writing to School Board Counsel at Sands Anderson PC, for the School Board’s consideration.”

Edwards shared what the next steps forward would be for the Board of Supervisors in the wake of receipt of the letter from O’Berry.

“The Southampton County Board of Supervisors is going to obtain a forensic audit, or the equivalent of the same, on the Southampton County Public School division,” he said. “We have agreed not to spare any time or resources in that endeavor, and it will be done.”

He indicated that the board is “involved with the legal situation to do so” and that it will become public once things are finalized.