The forensic audit Lee County ordered last year did not turn up fraud, the auditor told the Board of Supervisors in August. It did find weak record-keeping in the school system and the Department of Social Services. One gap stood out: $40,937 in Social Services credit card charges that the auditor could not check, because detailed statements were not provided.
Brandon Waldren, a director at Eide Bailly, presented the findings at the board’s August 18 meeting. Based on the procedures performed and the records reviewed, he said, the firm “did not identify improper, suspicious or transactions that are indicative of fraudulent activity,” according to the minutes of that meeting. He said what he was seeing was weakness in internal controls, the checks that are supposed to stop misuse before it happens.
The Lee Daily Register followed the audit through the board’s minutes from August 2025 to August 2026. Here is what was found, and what is still open.
The $40,937 the auditor could not see
Social Services gave the auditors summary sheets for one of its credit cards, not the detailed statements that show where each dollar went. Waldren said the firm asked for the detail, was told the agency would get it from the bank, and then waited through a staff turnover. When the statements were said to be in, he said, the firm received what appeared to be the same summary sheets again.
As a result, the auditors could verify only 43.5% of the agency’s credit card activity. The rest, $40,937 paid from the Social Services general fund, could not be reviewed. Without the statements, Waldren told the board, he “has no idea if any or all of the transactions are questionable.” He offered to review them if they turn up and then revise the report.
The school system had a similar gap on a smaller scale. It did not provide statements for one credit card account because it could not get them from the bank, so the auditors have no total for that card.
What the auditors flagged at the schools
Most of the findings were about paperwork. Waldren described these problems in the Lee County Public Schools records:
- Seven checks totaling $10,407.37 had no purchase orders, which school policy requires.
- Of 40 credit card purchases totaling $111,926.48, 15 had no purchase order and two lacked adequate supporting documents.
- Payroll testing of 26 employees produced 36 findings, including a missing timesheet, missing signatures and six forms signed after the date they took effect.
- Pay and position changes were recorded in board memos instead of formal personnel action forms, and some memos were missing.
The auditors also checked several rumors that had circulated in the county. One was a $61,500 equipment lease said to be “setting on a hill.” The auditors found it was being used after hours by the school system’s director of facilities, who had been asked to help with a project. Truck logs showed a new truck being checked in and out for business use. The tutoring program they were asked about showed no teachers being paid after it ended.
One questioned transfer turned out to be the county’s own mistake. The county had accidentally taken $74,991.33 out of the schools’ carryover account with a journal entry in November and did not reverse it for eight months. The auditors verified that the money was returned to the Capital Reserve Fund.
Social Services: purchase orders, a truck and Amazon
At Social Services, the auditors tested 40 checks totaling $208,728.06. Twenty-seven had no purchase orders and nine lacked adequate support. The agency often uses case actions instead of purchase orders, which Waldren said can be acceptable under its policy. Still, he said, the results suggest purchase orders should be used for every transaction.
Four checks had supporting papers showing different amounts than what cleared the bank. Five were “questionable in nature,” and two of those were a down payment on a truck and Amazon purchases with no receipts. Waldren said he expected the Amazon receipts that week and was not concerned about them. The truck down payment was his main concern, he said, and he was working with the agency’s accounts payable clerk to get it documented. He also described one $475.74 charge marked by hand as unauthorized and requiring repayment.
How the audit started
The audit grew out of distrust between the supervisors and the School Board. In August 2025, Supervisor Mike Kidwell, a former School Board member, asked for a countywide audit. He listed concerns he said he and the public shared, from carryover funds to the personal use of school vehicles, according to the August 19, 2025 minutes.
Four firms bid. The board picked Eide Bailly at $113,000 on November 3, 2025, even though Brown Edwards had bid less at $93,000, because a county committee judged Eide Bailly the best fit. The vote was 4 to 0, with D.D. Leonard absent, according to the minutes of that special meeting. The audit covered the school system, Social Services and the courthouse. The supervisors asked the School Board to pay about $40,000, and the minutes from that fall record repeated back-and-forth over whether it would.
The report was first expected in May 2026. In April, the auditor told the county the school work was 75% to 80% done. Social Services was only 40% to 50% done, because requested records had not arrived, according to the April 28 minutes. The board passed a resolution asking the agency for everything by May 1. In June, as the bill neared the contract’s not-to-exceed amount, it added $5,000 to finish the work.
Where the written report stands
The August presentation was oral. Waldren said he would give the school system and Social Services a week to send any remaining records. Then he would issue the written report, with recommendations for the schools, Social Services and the county. The board can ask for further investigation of specific problems at any time, he said.
As of October 20, the written report was not among the documents on the county’s audits page, which lists annual audits through fiscal 2024. At the August meeting, Kidwell’s assessment was brief. It sounded, he said, like “a very good, thorough investigation and that’s what we needed.”
