{
  "id": "2020-05-13_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2020-05-13",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — May 13, 2020",
  "date_display": "May 13, 2020",
  "type_display": "Regular Meeting",
  "types_display": [
    "Regular Meeting"
  ],
  "item_count": 0,
  "has_agenda": false,
  "has_notes": true,
  "pdf_filename": null,
  "packet_url": null,
  "generated_at": "2026-06-18T19:45:20.682529Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2020-05-13\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-27 22:26 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe ISD Audit Committee Meeting\n### May 13, 2020 — Regular Meeting\n\n> **Note:** These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.\n\n---\n\n## Attendees\n- **Committee Chair:** Mr. Sanders\n- **Committee Members/Participants:** Mr. Hayden (Internal Audit), Mr. Rice (Finance), Mr. Moore, Mr. Williams, Miss Blacklock, and others\n- **Administration:** Dr. Knoll (Superintendent), Darren (likely Darren from Finance), Mr. Foster (Planning & Construction), Dr. Hahn (joined via call)\n\n---\n\n## 1. Citizens Participation\nNo citizens signed up to speak.\n\n---\n\n## 2. Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes (January 8, 2020)\nMinutes from the January 8 meeting were distributed via email.\n\n**Vote:** Motion to approve as presented — **Passed unanimously (voice vote, all ayes)**\n\n---\n\n## 3. EthicsPoint Reports\nMr. Hayden presented the EthicsPoint report:\n- **Three reports received; all three are closed.**\n- No questions from committee members.\n\n---\n\n## 4. 2019-2020 Internal Audit Plan — Changes\n\nMr. Hayden presented the following changes to the audit plan:\n\n- **Payroll audit moved to Fall 2020.**\n- **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.\n- **All Activity Fund Audits for the year are completed.**\n- **Follow-up audits reduced from five to three** to redirect resources toward the higher-value construction audits.\n\n**Vote:** Motion to accept the EthicsPoint report and approve the audit plan changes — **Passed unanimously (voice vote, all ayes)**\n\n---\n\n## 5. Activity Fund Audits — Summary\nMr. 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.\n\n---\n\n## 6. Consulting Engagement: Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) vs. Competitive Sealed Proposal (CSP)\n\n### Internal Audit Recommendation:\n- Conroe ISD currently uses **only the CMAR method** for construction.\n- **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**.\n- 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**.\n- Potential savings of **up to 5%** were cited — on a $30 million project, that could mean **$1.5 million in savings**.\n\n### Discussion and Concerns:\n\n**Mr. Foster (Planning & Construction)** was brought into the call to provide input:\n- **CSP** is essentially a lump-sum bid — contractor gives a fixed price; changes require change orders.\n- **CMAR** is more of a contractor partnership — allows less detailed drawings with flexibility to achieve desired outcomes without as many change orders.\n- Mr. Foster expressed a **preference for CMAR**, citing his department's efficiency with the current method and concerns about CSP:\n  - CSP is **more staff-intensive** during construction. His department has **5.5 staff** compared to Katy ISD's approximately **16 staff**, which uses CSP.\n  - CSP could lead to **less desirable contractors** winning on price alone.\n  - CMAR delivers **final cost savings** at project completion, while CSP aims for **first cost savings**.\n  - 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.\n- 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.\n\n**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.\n\n**Mr. Sanders** raised concerns about contractor performance risks under CSP, including penalties for lateness and the risk of contractors walking away from projects.\n\n**Dr. Knoll** cautioned:\n- The next elementary (Grand Oaks) **does not yet have land acquired** and may be on a short timeline.\n- 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.\n- 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.\n\n### Outcome:\n**No vote taken** — this was presented as an Internal Audit recommendation/report only. Further discussion will occur at a future full board meeting.\n\n---\n\n## 7. PEIMS Attendance Audit\n\n### Key Findings:\n- **Not all schools were in compliance** with TEA attendance-taking requirements.\n- Attendance-taking times were **highly inconsistent** — some recorded as early as **5:00 a.m.** and as late as **6:00 p.m.**\n\n### Recommendations:\n- Schools should be reminded of the **importance of compliance** due to risk of fines and impact on revenue streams.\n- The **PEIMS office will conduct audits of schools four times per year**, incorporating the data-crunching methodology used by Internal Audit.\n\n### Administration Response:\n- **Dr. Knoll** made it a priority at the next principals' meeting, quantifying the dollar amount at risk from attendance errors.\n- **Dr. Hahn** confirmed training was conducted at principals' meetings twice, reviewing standard practices, and working directly with specific campuses where problems were identified.\n- 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.\n\n---\n\n## 8. Audit Report Format\nMr. Hayden asked the committee for feedback on the report format being used, with a focus on being **more data-driven** (quantifying costs and risks).\n\n**Committee consensus:** The format works well. Members appreciated having the full report in advance and the summary presentation during the meeting.\n\n---\n\n## 9. Campus Audits During Principal Transitions\n\nA committee member asked whether **cursory audits during principal changes** would continue, given the audit schedule changes.\n\n- **Mr. Hayden:** Currently not planned due to limited resources being redirected to higher-risk areas, but could be added back if the committee desires.\n- **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.\n- Mr. Hayden supported this as a **good internal control** — audit can then review the control process rather than visiting each campus.\n- **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.\n\n---\n\n## 10. Procurement Audit — Status Update\n- Currently in progress and **winding down**.\n- Final report expected to be delivered to the committee **by the end of May 2020**.\n\n---\n\n## 11. Next Meeting Date\n- **Tentative date set: Wednesday, September 9, 2020** (ahead of the September 15 board meeting).\n- 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.\n\n---\n\n## 12. Adjournment\n\n**Vote:** Motion to adjourn — **Passed unanimously (voice vote)**\n\n---\n\n## Summary of Key Actions & Takeaways\n\n| Item | Outcome |\n|------|---------|\n| Prior meeting minutes | **Approved unanimously** |\n| EthicsPoint reports (3 closed) | **Accepted unanimously** |\n| Audit plan changes (payroll deferred, construction audits added, follow-ups reduced) | **Approved unanimously** |\n| CSP vs. CMAR recommendation | **Report received; no vote taken.** To be discussed at future full board meeting |\n| PEIMS Attendance Audit | Report received; corrective actions already underway by administration |\n| Principal transition audits | Finance office to handle initial reviews; Internal Audit to audit the control |\n| Procurement Audit | In progress; final report expected by end of May |\n| Next meeting | Tentatively **September 9, 2020** |"
}