{
  "id": "2023-02-01_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2023-02-01",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — February 1, 2023",
  "date_display": "February 1, 2023",
  "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": "2026-06-18T19:45:21.017994Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2023-02-01\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 15:10 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe ISD School Safety and Security Committee Meeting\n### February 1, 2023 – Regular Meeting\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.*\n\n---\n\n## Attendees (as introduced)\n\n**Board Members:** Sker Hubert (Board President), Tiffany Nelson (Trustee), Miss Yodweller (Trustee)\n\n**District Staff:** Dr. Null (Superintendent), Chris Po (Asst. Superintendent – High Schools), Easy Foster (Director of Planning & Construction), Michael Ferguson (School Safety Specialist), Ethan Martin (School Safety Coordinator), Chris Ford/McCord (Asst. Superintendent – School Safety), Barbara Robertson (Director of Health Services), Matt Blake (Chief of Police), Sam (Director of Transportation), Shelley Winkler (Asst. Superintendent – Elementary Schools), Marshall Schrader (Director of Maintenance), Bethany Medford (Asst. Superintendent – Middle Schools), Carrie Golas (General Counsel), Linda Godfrey (Assistant to Dr. Null), Tim Mann (Director of Student Support Services)\n\n**Community/Other Members:** Amy Brown (CIS Parent Representative), Joe (Parent), Matt Benson (Parent), Libra Thompson (Teacher – Conroe HS 9th Grade Campus), Lupa Baharlo (Teacher – Conroe HS), Sandra Young (Retired Teacher/Law Enforcement Background), Montgomery County Sheriff's Office representative\n\n---\n\n## Approval of Minutes (September 13 Meeting)\n\n- Motion made by Ethan Martin, seconded.\n- **Vote: Approved unanimously (all in favor, none opposed)**\n\n---\n\n## Item 2A: Naloxone (Narcan) Administration Protocol\n\n**Presenter:** Barbara Robertson, Director of Health Services\n\n### Key Points:\n- **Fentanyl crisis:** Illicitly manufactured fentanyl is now the leading cause of death for ages 18-45 in the U.S. (per DEA/CDC/Governor's office data). Any drug not prescribed and purchased from a legitimate pharmacy carries risk, as illicit fentanyl is being mixed into many substances including cocaine and THC vape products.\n- **How naloxone works:** Displaces opioids from receptors controlling breathing, sedation, and blood pressure. Has no effect on someone without opioids in their system.\n- **Legal basis:** Health and Safety Code 483.102–483.106, policies FFAC.\n- **Deployment:** Narcan (nasal spray only) is now stocked at:\n  - Junior high and high school clinics\n  - High school athletic training rooms\n  - All Conroe ISD police officers\n  - Moorehead Stadium and WoodForest Bank Stadium\n- **Training completed:** All junior high and high school nurses and all CISD police officers trained on signs/symptoms of opioid overdose, administration of naloxone, and supporting the individual until EMS arrives.\n- **Program launched January 4, 2023** when students returned to secondary campuses.\n- **Shelf life:** FDA now manufacturing with a 3-year expiration.\n- **Dosing:** Each box contains 2 doses; multiple boxes stocked per location because overdoses often come in pairs (students sharing substances). Texas A&M training indicated both doses may be needed per person.\n- **Summer training:** District participated in a mock mass overdose exercise at Caney Creek in conjunction with Montgomery County — this experience helped drive urgency for the program.\n- **Special thanks** to Dr. Joy Lanto and the Texas A&M Opioid Task Force for ~10 months of collaboration to launch the program.\n\n---\n\n## Item 2B: MEOP Audit Submission to Texas School Safety Center\n\n**Presenter:** Ethan Martin, School Safety Coordinator\n\n### Key Points:\n- The Texas School Safety Center required submission of the district's Multi-Hazard Emergency Operation Plan (MEOP), basic plan, active threat annex, and active shooter appendix.\n- Submitted approximately one month before the deadline.\n- **Initial result:** District received a \"deficient\" notice (18 pages of deficiencies). Upon review, Martin found that many items flagged as deficient were actually included in the plan but not formatted to the state's preferred framework.\n- After reformatting to align with the state's template while maintaining CISD's existing approved plan, the submission was **approved with no additional information required**.\n- Total documentation submitted included campus-based MEOPs totaling approximately **16,000 pages**.\n- **Notable:** Dr. Null reported that no district's plan was accepted on first submission. Multiple superintendents from other districts reached out for help; Ethan Martin personally assisted **three other districts** in getting their plans approved.\n- The Texas School Safety Center recently sent out a pre-submission checklist; Martin volunteered to provide feedback on the checklist. Next submission likely due **October 2024**.\n\n---\n\n## Item 2C: Review and Input for 2023-2024 Multi-Hazard Emergency Operations Plan\n\n**Presenter:** Ethan Martin\n\n### Key Points:\n- Committee members will receive the current MEOP framework document (approximately 137–187 pages) via email for review and input.\n- A deadline will be set for feedback submission.\n- The plan will be presented for committee recommendation/approval at the **summer meeting**.\n- Any proposed changes will be vetted through appropriate channels.\n- Format is largely dictated by the state; limited flexibility on structure.\n- **Reminder:** The document is internal/confidential — \"your eyes only.\"\n\n---\n\n## Item 2D: Smart Tag System Implementation (Bus Safety)\n\n**Presenters:** Chris McCord (Asst. Superintendent) and Sam (Director of Transportation)\n\n### Overview:\nSmart Tag is a tablet-and-badge system used on school buses for student identification, route management, and safety.\n\n### Key Technical Details:\n- **RFID badge cards** issued to all ~71,000 students (approximately 40,000 are bus riders)\n- Cards contain only a **14-digit randomized ID number** — no battery, no GPS, no tracking capability\n- Cards can only be read by CISD Smart Tag readers mounted on buses (must physically touch reader)\n- System uses **cellular connectivity** (not Wi-Fi)\n- Highest-level data security protocols followed\n\n### Implementation Status:\n- **Oak Ridge High School feeder:** Successfully implemented (several weeks)\n- **Grand Oaks feeder:** Implemented starting January 2023; going well\n- **The Woodlands feeder:** Planned for the following week but delayed ~1 week due to weather (badge printer company based in Austin unable to ship)\n- **Goal:** Full implementation before spring break\n\n### Safety Benefits Highlighted:\n1. **Parent notifications:** Parents can opt in to receive text alerts when the bus approaches their stop — first time in 130 years parents will have this capability. Reduces time children wait exposed at bus stops.\n2. **Confirming correct drop-offs:** Especially critical for PreK/K students and when substitute/standby drivers are used. System shows student photos and flags young students requiring authorized adult pickup.\n3. **Substitute driver support:** Routes displayed on tablet; prevents wrong turns and getting lost (real-world example of standby driver ending up in Willis area shared).\n4. **End-of-route child check:** System alerts drivers if students are still scanned as on-bus at route end — added layer beyond physical walk-through checks.\n5. **Preventing unauthorized riders:** Helps confirm only CISD students board buses.\n6. **Real-world success stories:**\n   - January 24 flood: Principals in Oak Ridge feeder used system to confirm bus status for worried parents during street closures\n   - First day at Suchma Elementary: Parent's concern about locating children resolved within minutes\n   - Loading time improvement: Bradley Elementary loaded buses in 11 minutes vs. usual 15 minutes\n\n### District Statistics:\n- CISD buses drive **6.3 million miles/year** (14 times to moon and back)\n- **~25 million** student on/off bus events per year\n- Currently at **24 driver vacancies** (best staffing level in years, down from 30-34)\n\n### Discussion Points:\n- **Opt-out:** Available; only 1 parent has opted out across both implemented feeders so far\n- **Lost badges:** Each school has its own badge printer for quick replacement; $5 replacement fee planned but no student will be denied a badge; students without badges are still transported (manual entry available)\n- **Lanyards:** Breakaway lanyards provided for safety; personalization may be allowed in the future\n- **Badge uses beyond bus:** Can be used at cafeteria point-of-sale and library checkout\n- Every student receives a badge and lanyard regardless of rider status (students may become riders mid-year)\n\n---\n\n## Item 2E: Student ID Badges (Campus Identification)\n\n**Presenters:** Chris McCord, with input from Dr. Null, Sandra Young, Libra Thompson, and others\n\n### Current State:\n- No CISD campuses currently require students to wear ID badges\n- Conroe High School previously required them under a former principal (who is on the committee) but discontinued after principal's departure\n- Grand Oaks began requiring ID badges as of the prior week (serving as informal pilot)\n\n### Research Findings:\n- Extensive research of major Texas districts and Montgomery County districts showed **CISD is an anomaly** — most comparable districts require student IDs\n- Various models exist: all grades, 5-12, or 7-12\n- District did not investigate enforcement practices at other districts\n\n### Benefits Discussed:\n- **Identifying who belongs on campus:** Critical for large secondary campuses (4,000-5,000+ students)\n- **Preventing unauthorized individuals:** Real-world examples shared:\n  - Three individuals from Westfield HS entered another campus intending to harm students — caught because they lacked IDs\n  - A high school-age student from another district entered a CISD campus, passed three layers of adults, and was found in a restroom with a large quantity of drugs and $1,300+ cash\n- **Reducing anonymity:** Teachers cannot know every student; IDs help identify students involved in incidents\n- **Attendance potential:** Teachers expressed interest in using badges for automated attendance\n- **Camera integration:** IDs help correlate surveillance footage with student identity\n\n### Challenges Discussed:\n- **Teenager pushback:** Students will test boundaries; task-avoidant students may exploit temporary ID processes to avoid class\n- **Enforcement consistency:** Must be enforced uniformly across ALL staff and ALL campuses to be effective\n- **Discipline escalation:** Repeated non-compliance leads to escalating consequences that can seem disproportionate\n- **Counterfeiting concerns:** Acknowledged but mitigated by changing badge design annually (landscape vs. portrait, background colors)\n- **Faculty buy-in:** Essential for success; if some teachers don't enforce, system fails\n\n### Committee Feedback:\n- **High school principals want ID badges** and expect them\n- Grand Oaks principal proactively started implementation\n- **Strong support** from committee for moving forward\n- Suggestion to start at **secondary level** (most critical due to campus fluidity, driving access, larger populations)\n- Multiple members advocated for **district-wide implementation** (elementary through high school) to build early habits\n- Acknowledged this involves multiple departments: principals, technology, processes for temporary IDs, etc.\n- Parent/teacher member (Libra Thompson) reported positive personal experience with Grand Oaks implementation\n- Committee member who previously lived in another district shared positive elementary ID experience\n\n### Outcome:\n- **No formal vote taken** — Dr. Null confirmed the committee's feedback supports exploring and moving toward implementation\n- District will begin working with principals and technology departments on processes\n- Grand Oaks serving as pilot/test case\n- **Decision to be continued** at future meetings; may eventually come to school board as part of dress code\n\n---\n\n## Item 2F: TAC Chapter 61 Proposed Facility Security Requirements (Fencing)\n\n**Presenters:** Chris McCord, Marshall Schrader (Director of Maintenance), Easy Foster (Director of Planning & Construction)\n\n### Context:\n- Texas is proposing new facility security requirements under TAC Chapter 61\n- State has **not yet rendered final opinion** on minimum fencing requirements for \"secured areas\"\n- A **grant with a February 17 deadline** is available for fencing improvements\n- District wants to order fencing that will meet likely future state requirements and beat the expected rush from other districts\n\n### Current District Status:\n- All portables have been fenced in (major accomplishment, completed proactively)\n- Egress gates installed (significant investment)\n- Current standard: 6-foot black vinyl-coated chain link fence\n- Some campuses still have 4-foot fencing\n- District already locks/secures all perimeter doors (exceeds likely state requirements)\n- Impact-resistant window film currently applied at front entry vestibules only\n\n### Proposed State Framework:\n- **\"Secured area\"** concept: If an area is fenced to meet the state's secure definition, schools gain operational flexibility on door/window treatment within that area\n- Without a secured area: All doors and glass near doors around the building must have impact-resistant film\n- Likely acceptable fencing options:\n  - **6-foot fence with privacy slats** (anti-scalable feature — prevents toe-holds)\n  - **8-foot fence** (with or without slats)\n  - Other options (rod iron, stone) exist but are significantly more expensive\n\n### Cost Comparison (per linear foot):\n- 8-foot chain link (no slats): ~$5 cheaper than 6-foot with slats\n- 8-foot with slats: ~$20 more than 8-foot without slats\n\n### Maintenance/Planning Considerations:\n- **Maintenance preference:** 8-foot non-slatted (easier to maintain; slats degrade over time, require hurricane prep)\n- **Aesthetic concerns:** 8-foot fencing can look institutional/prison-like, especially at elementary campuses\n- **Wind concerns:** Slats add wind load; do not come out easily for storm prep\n- **Windscreens** (like at Rice and Paw elementary playgrounds): Can serve as anti-scalable feature on 6-foot fence; allow seeing out but not in; can include school logos; ~$4,000 for significant length; ~5-year lifespan; require zip-tie replacement after storm removal\n\n### Committee Discussion & Direction:\n- **Consensus emerged** for a **flexible, campus-by-campus approach:**\n  - **8-foot non-slatted fencing** in back/playground areas (not publicly visible, maximum security)\n  - **6-foot slatted fencing** in forward-facing/visible areas (better aesthetics while meeting anti-scalable requirements)\n  - Windscreens with logos on forward-facing areas where appropriate\n  - Not a one-size-fits-all approach; administrator discretion by campus\n- Some older campuses with 4-foot brick walls will require creative solutions\n- Where secure areas cannot be created, district will comply by applying impact-resistant film to windows/doors\n- **Urgency emphasized:** District wants to place orders ahead of statewide demand surge expected when rules are finalized\n\n---\n\n## Item 2G: Texas School Safety Center Intruder Detection Audits\n\n**Presenter:** Chris McCord\n\n### Audit Results:\n- Governor Abbott mandated intruder detection audits starting January 2022\n- **6 campuses audited in January 2023** → total of 19 campuses audited to date\n- **10 campuses** scheduled for audit in February\n- **2 campuses had findings** (one phase each) out of 19 total\n- **CISD success rate: 89%** (17 of 19 passed) vs. **state average: 71%**\n\n### Required Actions for Findings:\n- Safety and Security Committee must meet (accomplished at this meeting)\n- Develop a detailed training plan for the 2 campuses with findings\n- **Training scheduled for February 17** (inservice day) for all staff, auxiliary, and subs at those campuses\n- Follow-up meetings planned to catch anyone who misses the February 17 training\n- Training plan must be submitted to Texas School Safety Center by **March 13** (will be submitted before spring break)\n\n### Additional District Initiative:\n- **All campuses** (not just those with findings) will view a new perimeter door safety and security video on February 17\n- Video created by Andrew Stewart; premiered at the principal/director update meeting earlier that day\n- All campuses will also review existing access control procedures\n\n---\n\n## Closed (Executive) Session\n\n- Committee entered closed session at **5:47 PM** pursuant to Texas Open Meetings Act Sections **551.076** and **551.089** (security deliberations and security devices/audits)\n- Committee returned to open session at **6:02 PM**\n\n---\n\n## Vote: Approval of Campus Training Plan\n\nFollowing return from executive session:\n\n- **Motion:** Made (unidentified member — \"So moved\")\n- **Second:** Miss Yodweller\n- **Vote: Approved unanimously (all in favor, none opposed)**\n\nThe training plan for the two campuses with intruder detection findings was approved.\n\n---\n\n## Meeting Adjournment\n\n- Motion to adjourn accepted\n- Meeting concluded at approximately **6:02–6:05 PM**\n\n---\n\n## Summary of Key Outcomes\n\n| Item | Outcome |\n|------|---------|\n| September 13 Minutes | **Approved unanimously** |\n| Narcan/Naloxone Program | Informational; program already launched Jan. 4, 2023 |\n| MEOP State Submission | **Approved by Texas School Safety Center**; informational update |\n| 2023-24 MEOP Review | Document to be distributed to committee; feedback deadline TBD; approval at summer meeting |\n| Smart Tag (Bus System) | Informational; implementation ongoing across feeders; goal to complete before spring break |\n| Student ID Badges | **Committee supports exploration/moving forward**; no formal vote; principals and departments to begin planning; Grand Oaks serving as pilot |\n| Fencing Standards | **Direction given:** 8-foot non-slatted in back areas, 6-foot slatted in front-facing areas, flexible by campus; grant application to proceed by Feb. 17 deadline |\n| Intruder Detection Training Plan | **Approved unanimously**; training set for Feb. 17 |"
}