Oxnard Union High trustees approve letter disputing auditor's 'going concern' finding

Oxnard 'On Jan. 31 the Oxnard Union High School District Board of Trustees voted 3-2 to approve a board letter documenting disagreement with the 2024-25 audit opinion from Eide Bailly that expressed 'substantial doubt' about the district's ability to continue as a going concern. President Schaer, Trustee Genevieve Flores Harrow and Trustee Wotelo voted yes; Trustees Estrada and Baker Torres voted no.

The board's action attaches the three-page staff letter to the audit when it is submitted to the Ventura County Office of Education and the California State Controller's Office. District staff and retained consultants told trustees the audit covers the 2024-25 fiscal year, arrived late because of a federal government shutdown, and contains errors the auditors corrected after staff review; the auditors, staff said, nevertheless retained their going-concern opinion.

Why it matters: A 'substantial doubt' notation can affect bond ratings and long-term perceptions of fiscal stability. Staff and outside consultants said the disagreement does not erase the audit's finding but provides the district's context and rationale alongside the auditors' report.

Chief points and evidence

Mr. Urias and Anna Campbell, presenting the staff report, told trustees the district received a nearly complete draft of the 127-page audit only a few weeks before the special meeting. Staff said they identified and secured corrections to multiple errors but that Eide Bailly maintained its opinion about a potential going-concern issue for 2024-25. Dr. McCoy said the audit reflects conditions in 2024-25 and does not capture corrective steps taken in the current year, including benefit and furlough savings.

Tarina (Terina) Morris, a retired county chief business official retained as an outside fiscal consultant, told the board she has more than 30 years of experience in school finance and called the auditor's substantial-doubt opinion 'very unusual.' Morris said the audit correctly lists contributing factors'declining enrollment, cash-flow timing and prior deficit spending'but that those factors did not, in her assessment, meet the GASB-56 threshold for 'substantial doubt.'

Public comment and trustee concerns

Public commenters urged transparency and fiscal responsibility. Nick Gaffuri, a teacher at Pacifica High School, said the district has 'been deficit spending since 2023' and cited a projected deficit figure of $10,800,000, urging trustees not to treat the problem with short-term measures such as furlough days. Jasmine Duran of the Autism Society of Ventura County asked the board to delay action so the community could review the audit; Tim Allison of the Oxnard Federation of Teachers and School Employees pressed for clarity about whether earlier fall actions had resolved prior shortfalls.

Trustees pressed staff on process questions: whether the district could have requested an extension from the county (staff said the county rarely grants extensions), how the auditors reached their opinion, and whether the district had adequate time and internal review. Trustee Baker Torres argued that protesting the finding could raise legal, fiduciary and reputational risks and said the board's focus should be corrective action. Trustee Estrada urged formation of a finance committee and more time to review documents.

The vote and next steps

President Schaer made the motion and Trustee Flores Harrow seconded for discussion; the motion passed 3-2. The approved letter will be included with the audit packet the district submits to county and state review offices. Staff told the board it will present a budget stabilization plan and the second interim budget in March; the district also plans a request-for-proposals process for audit services to conclude by April 1.

What remains unresolved

The auditors' going-concern opinion remains part of the official audit record; the board's letter records the district's disagreement but does not remove the finding. Trustees who voted no said they feared negative downstream effects and preferred focusing on remedial fiscal steps rather than a formal protest. Staff and consultants said the letter documents the district's position for future reviewers and bond analysts but cannot guarantee mitigation of rating impacts.

The board adjourned after the vote; staff said the next formal fiscal update and the proposed budget stabilization plan will appear on the regular board agenda in March.