May 13, 2020 — Regular Meeting
Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2020-05-13
Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes
Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.
Generated 2026-03-27 22:26 UTC
Unofficial Meeting Notes
Conroe ISD Audit Committee Meeting
May 13, 2020 — Regular Meeting
Note: These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.
Attendees
- Committee Chair: Mr. Sanders
- Committee Members/Participants: Mr. Hayden (Internal Audit), Mr. Rice (Finance), Mr. Moore, Mr. Williams, Miss Blacklock, and others
- Administration: Dr. Knoll (Superintendent), Darren (likely Darren from Finance), Mr. Foster (Planning & Construction), Dr. Hahn (joined via call)
1. Citizens Participation
No citizens signed up to speak.
2. Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes (January 8, 2020)
Minutes from the January 8 meeting were distributed via email.
Vote: Motion to approve as presented — Passed unanimously (voice vote, all ayes)
3. EthicsPoint Reports
Mr. Hayden presented the EthicsPoint report:
- Three reports received; all three are closed.
- No questions from committee members.
4. 2019-2020 Internal Audit Plan — Changes
Mr. Hayden presented the following changes to the audit plan:
- Payroll audit moved to Fall 2020.
- Two construction audits added in its place, with assistance from Weaver (external firm). The goal is to build institutional knowledge within Internal Audit so future construction audits can be performed in-house, saving money long-term.
- All Activity Fund Audits for the year are completed.
- Follow-up audits reduced from five to three to redirect resources toward the higher-value construction audits.
Vote: Motion to accept the EthicsPoint report and approve the audit plan changes — Passed unanimously (voice vote, all ayes)
5. Activity Fund Audits — Summary
Mr. Hayden confirmed all Activity Fund Audits for the year were completed with a good sampling of schools across the district. Going forward, the focus will shift toward high-value, high-risk items rather than Activity Fund audits.
6. Consulting Engagement: Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) vs. Competitive Sealed Proposal (CSP)
Internal Audit Recommendation:
- Conroe ISD currently uses only the CMAR method for construction.
- All peer districts use CSP, and of the 20 districts represented by Mickey Morris, Conroe ISD is the only one that does not use CSP.
- Internal Audit recommends the full board approve using the CSP method and designate one of the four new elementary schools in the bond as a CSP pilot project.
- Potential savings of up to 5% were cited — on a $30 million project, that could mean $1.5 million in savings.
Discussion and Concerns:
Mr. Foster (Planning & Construction) was brought into the call to provide input:
- CSP is essentially a lump-sum bid — contractor gives a fixed price; changes require change orders.
- CMAR is more of a contractor partnership — allows less detailed drawings with flexibility to achieve desired outcomes without as many change orders.
- Mr. Foster expressed a preference for CMAR, citing his department's efficiency with the current method and concerns about CSP:
- CSP is more staff-intensive during construction. His department has 5.5 staff compared to Katy ISD's approximately 16 staff, which uses CSP.
- CSP could lead to less desirable contractors winning on price alone.
- CMAR delivers final cost savings at project completion, while CSP aims for first cost savings.
- He cited an example of Humble ISD bidding one elementary school three times under CSP before getting close to budget, and still having to increase the budget.
- Mr. Foster confirmed he could successfully build a school under either method and noted that CSP is the state's default method under government code, while the Conroe ISD board previously set CMAR as its local default.
Committee member Del asked whether the district can choose project-by-project — confirmed yes, the board can select the method on a per-project basis.
Mr. Sanders raised concerns about contractor performance risks under CSP, including penalties for lateness and the risk of contractors walking away from projects.
Dr. Knoll cautioned:
- The next elementary (Grand Oaks) does not yet have land acquired and may be on a short timeline.
- Recommended being strategic about timing for a CSP pilot — suggested the last elementary in the bond program may be a better candidate to avoid sabotaging the pilot.
- Emphasized this was not the time for a full debate since not all board members were present; it will need to be placed on a future full board agenda.
Outcome:
No vote taken — this was presented as an Internal Audit recommendation/report only. Further discussion will occur at a future full board meeting.
7. PEIMS Attendance Audit
Key Findings:
- Not all schools were in compliance with TEA attendance-taking requirements.
- Attendance-taking times were highly inconsistent — some recorded as early as 5:00 a.m. and as late as 6:00 p.m.
Recommendations:
- Schools should be reminded of the importance of compliance due to risk of fines and impact on revenue streams.
- The PEIMS office will conduct audits of schools four times per year, incorporating the data-crunching methodology used by Internal Audit.
Administration Response:
- Dr. Knoll made it a priority at the next principals' meeting, quantifying the dollar amount at risk from attendance errors.
- Dr. Hahn confirmed training was conducted at principals' meetings twice, reviewing standard practices, and working directly with specific campuses where problems were identified.
- Dr. Knoll shared an example of Grand Oaks High School implementing a structured process where a student announcement reminds teachers to take attendance at the designated time.
8. Audit Report Format
Mr. Hayden asked the committee for feedback on the report format being used, with a focus on being more data-driven (quantifying costs and risks).
Committee consensus: The format works well. Members appreciated having the full report in advance and the summary presentation during the meeting.
9. Campus Audits During Principal Transitions
A committee member asked whether cursory audits during principal changes would continue, given the audit schedule changes.
- Mr. Hayden: Currently not planned due to limited resources being redirected to higher-risk areas, but could be added back if the committee desires.
- Dr. Knoll proposed that the finance office accountant who coordinates Activity Funds could perform high-level audits during principal/secretary transitions and flag concerns to Internal Audit.
- Mr. Hayden supported this as a good internal control — audit can then review the control process rather than visiting each campus.
- Darren Rice noted that reconciling accounts at transition points could involve some historical review, but agreed a robust audit process wasn't needed for routine transitions.
10. Procurement Audit — Status Update
- Currently in progress and winding down.
- Final report expected to be delivered to the committee by the end of May 2020.
11. Next Meeting Date
- Tentative date set: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 (ahead of the September 15 board meeting).
- Acknowledged uncertainty about what September may look like due to COVID-19; date will be firmed up over the summer as TEA provides more clarity.
12. Adjournment
Vote: Motion to adjourn — Passed unanimously (voice vote)
Summary of Key Actions & Takeaways
| Item | Outcome |
|------|---------|
| Prior meeting minutes | Approved unanimously |
| EthicsPoint reports (3 closed) | Accepted unanimously |
| Audit plan changes (payroll deferred, construction audits added, follow-ups reduced) | Approved unanimously |
| CSP vs. CMAR recommendation | Report received; no vote taken. To be discussed at future full board meeting |
| PEIMS Attendance Audit | Report received; corrective actions already underway by administration |
| Principal transition audits | Finance office to handle initial reviews; Internal Audit to audit the control |
| Procurement Audit | In progress; final report expected by end of May |
| Next meeting | Tentatively September 9, 2020 |