{
  "id": "2024-04-24_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2024-04-24",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — April 24, 2024",
  "date_display": "April 24, 2024",
  "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": "2026-06-18T19:45:21.312390Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2024-04-24\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 16:56 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe ISD School Safety and Security Committee Meeting\n### April 24, 2024 — Regular Meeting\n\n> **Note:** These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions. They are not a substitute for official board minutes.\n\n---\n\n## Call to Order\nThe meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM on April 24, 2024.\n\n---\n\n## Item 1: Approval of Minutes\n**Action:** Minutes from the previous Safety and Security meeting (November 2023) were considered for approval.\n\n**Vote:** Motion made and seconded. Approved unanimously with no opposition.\n\n---\n\n## Item 2: Cell Phone Safety Awareness Initiative\n\n**Presenter:** Ms. Rodriguez (and Dr. Medford for cell phone guidelines overview)\n\n### Key Points:\n- Based on recommendations from the SHAC (School Health Advisory Council), the district implemented several cell phone safety awareness efforts:\n  - **Ongoing social media campaign** educating schools and parents about cell phone safety tips\n  - **Community presentations** equipping parents with tools to navigate the digital age\n  - **Cell Phone Safety Week** planned for the 2024–2025 school year (similar to Suicide Prevention Week and Red Ribbon Week), led by school counselors to empower students with responsible cell phone usage\n\n### Cell Phone Guidelines (approved by the Board):\n- **PreK–6th grade:** Cell phones off and away for the entire school day\n- **Junior High:** Cell phones away all day except during lunch and passing periods (campus discretion on specifics)\n- **High School:** Cell phones away except for clear instructional purposes\n\n- Junior high and high school guidelines were rolled out at the semester break\n- **Positive feedback** received from teachers and parents\n- Community surveys were conducted during the development process to gather parent input\n- End-of-year feedback from faculty and community will be gathered to refine guidelines for next year\n\n**Discussion:** The chair noted this was a great example of the system working — an idea originating from the SHAC, flowing to the board, going through a large committee process, and being implemented in buildings. Guidelines are a starting point and may evolve over time.\n\n---\n\n## Item 3: Artificial Intelligence Software Exploration\n\n**Presenters:** Ethan (Safety staff) and Chief Block\n\n### Background:\n- Conroe ISD has **4,500+ cameras** with approximately **12,000+ camera views/channels**\n- Five AI vendors were evaluated for potential integration with the district's camera systems\n\n### Vendors Reviewed:\n\n| Vendor | Key Details | Pricing |\n|--------|------------|---------|\n| **21st Century AI** | 90% camera coverage integration | $7.8 million upfront; 10% annual maintenance for 5 years; $10,000 per campus installation |\n| **Omnilert** | Initial meeting held; vendor stopped responding after January 5 | No final pricing received |\n| **Actuate** | Pricing per camera per month | ~$18/camera/month (weapons detection only); estimated ~$500,000+/year for district |\n| **Zero Eyes** | Tiered pricing by camera streams | 5-year: $2.6M annually; 3-year: $3.15M annually; plus $15,000 platform fee (possibly per campus) |\n| **Drift Net** (proprietary) | Installs own camera hardware; includes visitor management (could replace Raptor); claims ability to detect edged weapons/knives | $400,000–$550,000/year; 3-year contract: $1.24M–$1.7M |\n\n### Key Findings & Concerns:\n- **All systems require a weapon to be visibly brandished** — they cannot detect concealed weapons (in backpacks, under clothing, etc.)\n- Four of the five vendors offer substantially similar technology; Drift Net is the proprietary outlier\n- Systems can generate **false positives** from BB guns, airsoft guns, toy weapons, etc.\n- **A human element is always required** — alerts must be vetted by a person before response\n- By the time AI detects a brandished weapon, the threat is already active — these systems **do not prevent attacks**, they enable faster notification and response\n- **Network concerns** raised about Drift Net's proprietary cameras potentially taxing the district's network\n- **Data privacy concerns** raised regarding who owns/stores video when using external camera systems, particularly with students involved\n\n### Weapons Detection Systems (walk-through type):\n- Brief discussion of weapons detection systems (similar to those at Astros games)\n- Estimated cost: ~$20,000 per movable unit\n- Significant **staffing requirements** — each unit needs dedicated personnel, ideally police officers\n- Challenge of large high schools with 120+ exterior doors noted\n\n**No action taken — informational item only.**\n\n---\n\n## Item 4: Staying Safe School Safety Response Training (Texas School Safety Center)\n\n**Presenters:** Ethan and Chief Block\n\n### Background:\n- At the committee's direction, Ethan and Chief Block attended the \"Staying Safe\" training at the Region 6 Service Center in Huntsville, provided by the Texas School Safety Center.\n\n### Key Findings:\n\n- The curriculum aims to **empower students** in active shooter response situations\n- Uses familiar framework (Run/Hide/Fight or Avoid/Deny/Defend) but **changes \"Defend\" to \"Disrupt\"**\n- The \"Disrupt\" concept would be introduced at the **intermediate and junior high levels and up** (not elementary)\n- The curriculum encourages **students to think critically and make independent decisions** during a crisis\n- Would facilitate **small group discussions** where teachers guide students on how to respond, including the \"fight/disrupt\" option\n\n### Concerns Raised:\n- **Language change** from \"Defend\" to \"Disrupt\" could create confusion with the existing Standard Response Protocol\n- The presenter themselves **inconsistently used terminology**, creating confusion during the training\n- **Does not include all five phases of emergency management** — focused only on response, not prevention or mitigation\n- **Does not include parent involvement** — many parents would likely have strong opinions about their children being taught these concepts\n- Concern about **asking too much of teachers** — could become traumatic for staff and students even in the training context\n- **Cognitive ability concerns** — questioning whether intermediate-age students can appropriately analyze crisis situations and make independent decisions\n- **Risk of independent student action** potentially conflicting with teacher instructions and endangering others (e.g., a student trying to flee while a teacher directs lockdown)\n- Other districts at the training table **shared similar reservations**\n- The program may be better suited for districts without robust existing safety infrastructure (e.g., rural districts without dedicated police departments)\n\n### Recommendation:\n- Presenters and committee expressed that **this program is not a good fit for Conroe ISD at this time** given its infancy\n- May warrant revisiting in 4–5 years after further development and implementation elsewhere\n- Some elements could potentially be incorporated into existing training\n\n### Mandatory Status:\n- The Texas School Safety Center made clear this training is **voluntary, not mandatory**, and there is **no indication it will become mandatory**\n\n**No formal action taken — informational item.**\n\n---\n\n## Item 5: Intruder Detection Audits for 2023–2024 School Year\n\n**Presenter:** Mr. McCord\n\n### Key Points:\n- This is the **second year** of intruder detection audits\n- The district has **65 physical buildings**; **58 have been audited** as of the meeting date\n- **7 remaining buildings** will be audited in May\n- **Results: 57 out of 58 audited buildings had no findings** (98.27% success rate)\n- The **one finding** occurred in November and was previously discussed (specifics reviewed in prior executive session)\n\n### Notable Highlights:\n- **No executive session was needed** for this item — all information could be shared in open session\n- Results have **exceeded expectations** — described as \"unbelievable\" and \"transformative\"\n- **Students have been exemplary** — not a single instance of a student letting an unauthorized person into a building through a door\n- Credit given to students, staff, teachers, administrators, and maintenance crews for persistent effort despite the inconvenience\n- Some of the district's campuses are compared to small cities in size (Conroe High School would be in the top quartile of Texas cities/towns by population)\n- Final results will be reported to the Board of Trustees at the May board meeting\n- Additional requirements from the state may come in fall 2024 (details still pending)\n\n**No formal action taken — informational item.**\n\n---\n\n## Closing Remarks\n- Committee members were encouraged to share ideas, concerns, or topics for future investigation with leadership at any time\n- Reminder that items like the AI exploration originated from committee member suggestions\n\n---\n\n## Adjournment\n**Motion to adjourn** made by Dr. Stickler. Meeting adjourned.\n\n---\n\n*These notes are unofficial and based on an auto-generated transcript. For official minutes, please refer to Conroe ISD board records.*"
}