The Sedona Fire District may undergo a forensic audit soon, thanks to a Dec. 15 decision by three of the four members of the Sedona Fire District Governing Board.

Newly-elected board members Dave Blauert and Phyllis Erick, along with board Clerk Charles Christensen, voted to form a committee to determine whether a forensic audit is needed for the district.

The committee will produce a request for proposals as part of the initial audit inquiry. Forensic audits are typically associated with criminal investigations into fraud and embezzlement, as well as other considerations, though board members stated they considered the audit for budgetary reasons.

New board member Ty Montgomery asked the item to be tabled until a current audit on the district is completed. He said once that information is submitted to board members he would be more inclined to consider another audit.

Blauert said SFD officials would not be included in the particulars of the forensic audit.

“The only way you can do a forensic audit is to have a committee put together request for proposals, and then have the discussion of whoever is willing to do it for X number of dollars, and at that time they will call upon whoever they want from our fire [district] to answer the questions necessary. That’s the way I understand that it is done, and that will come out of the RFP,” Blauert said.

Blauert said the formation of an RFP committee does not mean an audit will necessarily take place. He recommended Christensen head up the RFP committee, which is expected to include one or more accountants. The new committee would serve as a board and be subject to open meeting laws.

“The needs of a forensic audit are probably just areas that we’d like to take a look at. It could help us deeply in our next budgeting year,” Blauert said. “I think this is probably one of the best things that could happen
to the chief and our fire [district].”

Christensen said the formation of the committee would cost nothing for the district.

“I’m going to be preparing it and setting it up,” Christensen said. “At this time I see no problem with doing it. The longer we delay, in my estimation, the more we leave ourselves in a position of not getting it done in a timely manner. I’m all for doing it.”

Resident Mike Schmitt spoke on behalf of his wife, Karen, who could not attend the meeting. Her statement questioned whether or not an audit was necessary, particularly a forensic audit, which she said could be costly for taxpayers.

“Certainly they would not use our money in this tough economy for a witch hunt,” Schmitt said. “If the majority of this new board has some actual facts and specific reasons for spending a quarter of a million dollars, many of [the taxpayers] wish they would share them with us.”

Schmitt asked board members consider waiting until current auditors complete their report.

“Rumors, whispers and innuendos might work for you, but for most of the public it does not. We want defensible reasons for your actions,” Schmitt said.

Blauert, Erick, and Christensen also voted to form a second committee to look into the district’s discrimination policy.

Blauert said he wanted to compare the district’s current policy to other discrimination policies to ensure there are no discrepancies.

Montgomery declined to lead a committee in regards to the policy. He voted against the motion.

“I don’t believe it’s the board’s responsibility to make human resource decisions,” Montgomery said.

Board members also approved a motion to require members to co-sign every check issued by SFD. Checks issued electronically will be submitted via a ledger to board members for review.

Erick, Blauert and Christensen voted in favor of the motion. Montgomery voted against the idea stating he believed the requirement would “disempower” the duties of fire district employees.

Christensen said he thought co-signatures would provide a picture of the “smaller education” when it comes to the district’s expenditures.

“I have no idea right now what they are for, and I would personally like to see this movement pass,” Christensen said.

Dick Fischel, a former fire district candidate, said he disagreed with the idea for co-signatures. The matter would constitute a waste of time for both fire district employees and board members.

“Were you really elected by voters to co-sign everyday checks? Absolutely not,” Fischel said.