[00:00:01]
ARE WE ON THE RECORD? THANK YOU SIR. GOOD EVENING.
[I. Call to Order]
WELCOME AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AT THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF DEL VALLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES. I AM PRESIDENT WEGNER AND I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 7:51 P.M.ON APRIL 30TH, 2025. PLEASE LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT A QUORUM IS PRESENT, AND THAT A NOTICE OF THIS MEETING WAS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT. OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
IF Y'ALL WILL STAND SO THAT WE CAN DO THAT, THAT'D BE GREAT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. NEXT UP, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE 715 MEETING? WE'LL CONFIRM, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE ARE EITHER. THANK YOU. NO OKAY.
THANK YOU. FOR OUR PUBLIC WE HAD A 6:15 WORKSHOP THAT WE RECESSED TO COME TO THIS MEETING.
[IV. A. Forensic Audit]
WHICH IS THE FINANCIAL AUDIT, AND THEN THE HUMAN RESOURCES FORENSIC AUDIT.SURE. GOOD EVENING. TRAVIS CASNER WITH WEAVER.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT THE FORENSIC AUDIT THIS EVENING.
SO I'M GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THE REVIEW OF THE 2022 BOND PROGRAM.
I'M GOING TO PULL UP THE SLIDES HERE. OKAY.
OKAY. SO THE LAST ITEM THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS WITH THE 2022 BOND PROGRAM IS THE REVIEW OF THE TOTAL COSTS THROUGH FEBRUARY 2025 AND THEN THE ESTIMATED COST TO COMPLETION. SO WE'VE CALCULATED A TOTAL ACTUAL AND THEN ESTIMATED COST TO COMPLETE OF 275.7 MILLION COMPARED TO THE BUDGET OF 300 MILLION.
SO THERE'S YOU KNOW ESTIMATED THERE'S PROJECTED TO BE SOME EXCESS FUNDS HERE.
BUT AGAIN, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECOND HIGH SCHOOL WAS ROUGHLY 37% COMPLETED AS OF FEBRUARY 2025.
WHEN THESE NUMBERS ARE BASED ON. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME LIKELY VARIANTS THAT WILL OCCUR, BUT THAT'S OUR BEST ESTIMATE AS OF THROUGH FEBRUARY 2025.
THE NEXT SCOPE OF WORK IS THE PAYMENTS TO VENDORS AND CONTRACTORS.
AND THE WAY THAT WE APPROACH THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE, WE LOOKED AT VENDORS THAT FALL WITHIN SOME OF THOSE COST CATEGORIES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, WHERE COSTS ARE HIGHER COMPARED TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
WE ALSO LOOKED AT AREAS WHERE THERE WERE INCREASES YEAR OVER YEAR WITH THE SPECIFIC VENDOR.
WE ALSO LOOKED FOR THINGS LIKE ROUND DOLLAR AMOUNTS OR PAYMENTS THAT ARE JUST BELOW, YOU KNOW, LIKE THRESHOLDS SUCH AS 50,000 WHERE BOARD APPROVAL IS REQUIRED.
AND THEN WE ALSO DID AN ANALYSIS WHERE WE COMPARED ALL OF THE VENDOR ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER AND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE FROM THE VENDOR MASTER FILE TO THE EMPLOYEE ROSTER. SO IF THERE'S A VENDOR THAT HAS THE SAME PHONE NUMBER OR SAME ADDRESS AS AN EMPLOYEE FROM THE EMPLOYEE ROSTER, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THAT ONE FURTHER JUST TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
SO THE FIRST ONE WAS THE TRUE NORTH PROFESSIONAL LEARNING, LLC.
SO THIS IS THE CONSULTING FIRM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY DOCTOR TORRES IN 2018.
SO THIS WAS AFTER HE HAD RESIGNED FROM A SUPERINTENDENT AT PFLUGERVILLE ISD, AND HE WAS BROUGHT ON TO DO CONSULTING WORK FOR THE DISTRICT, WHICH WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY DOCTOR TELE, WHO USED TO WORK WITH DOCTOR TORRES AT PFLUGERVILLE ISD.
[00:05:05]
THE CONSULTING FIRM RECEIVED $138,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2019.SO THE END OF HIS CONSULTING PERIOD WAS, WAS FEBRUARY 2019.
A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO NOTE. SO THE AFFILIATION BETWEEN DOCTOR TORRES AND DOCTOR TELE WE KNOW THAT AT LEAST AS OF MAY 2023, THAT THEY SHARED A RESIDENCE THERE, YOU KNOW, ON THE SAME MORTGAGE FOR THEIR CONDO.
THERE'S EMAILS THAT WOULD INDICATE THEY WERE PROBABLY IN A RELATIONSHIP BY 2022.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TIME, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST BY 20 2023.
THEY, YOU KNOW, SHARED A RESIDENCE AND WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT LEAVE IT THERE.
THEY ALSO CREATED A ANOTHER CONSULTING FIRM TOGETHER CALLED EDUCATIONAL ESSENTIALS LLC, WHICH WAS FORMED IN 2018, AND IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A CONSULTING FIRM THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO SELL CURRICULUM WRITING MANUALS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
AND THIS WAS, I THINK, THE SIMILAR TO THE PLC MODEL THAT WAS BEING USED IN THE DISTRICT.
AS OF 2017. SO WE SEE EMAILS, YOU KNOW, IN 2018, 2019 WHEN DOCTOR TIELLE AT THAT TIME WAS THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION, WAS TALKING WITH OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS SUCH AS GARLAND AND WEATHERFORD ISD ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PROPOSING ON SELLING THEM THE CURRICULUM MODEL AND TRAINING AND SOME OF THAT STUFF.
WE DID NOT SEE ANY PAYMENTS FROM THE DISTRICT TO THIS FIRM, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT DOES SPEAK TO, AGAIN, THIS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH DOCTOR TIELLE AND DOCTOR TORRES, WHICH WAS ALREADY IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THAT SHE RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD TO BRING HIM ON AS A CONSULTANT IN 20 2018 THROUGH TRUE NORTH PROFESSIONAL LEARNING LLC.
SO ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ABOUT THAT ONE? BOARD.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T HAVE ANY. THE SECOND ONE THAT WE REVIEWED AND HAD FINDINGS TO SHARE WITH THE BOARD WAS THE RESOURCES FOR LEARNING, LLC.
AND SO, FOR BACKGROUND, THE DISTRICT EXECUTED A SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT WITH THIS VENDOR IN OCTOBER 2023, AND THIS WAS TO PERFORM AN EVALUATION OF THE DAEP PROGRAM FOR APPROXIMATELY $30,000.
THE PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT DELIVERABLES THAT WERE PREPARED BY AND SUBMITTED TO DOCTOR TIELLE FOR THIS INCLUDED NOT ONLY THE EVALUATION BUT THEN THE SECOND DELIVERABLE WAS TO INCLUDE A PROMOTIONAL STORY FEATURING THE YOUTH UNLIMITED PROGRAM WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, UNUSUAL. WE RESEARCHED THAT ENTITY FURTHER.
WHAT WE FOUND OUT, AND THIS MAY BE INFORMATION THE BOARD IS ALREADY AWARE OF THAT YOUTH UNLIMITED IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT WAS FORMED BY RICHARD FRANKLIN, THE THIRD WHO WAS A FORMER BOARD MEMBER, BUT ALSO AS OF 2023, WAS ALSO THE SPOUSE OF THE BOARD PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME, TRUSTEE BIRCH. YOUTH UNLIMITED PREVIOUSLY HAD A CONTRACT WITH THE DISTRICT, WHICH WE SAW PAYMENTS IN 2019.
2020 APPEARS THAT THAT WAS NOT RENEWED AFTER 2020 AS A RESULT OF COMPLAINTS BY STAFF.
SO THE CONCERN HERE IS THE POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THIS CONTRACT, WHICH WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD, IT WAS UNDER THE $50,000 THRESHOLD. BUT IT INCLUDED A SPECIFIC DELIVERABLE RELATED TO PROMOTING THE YOUTH UNLIMITED PROGRAM.
AND AGAIN, WITH THE BOARD PRESIDENT AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BOARD PRESIDENT AND MR. FRANKLIN. YOU KNOW, THERE'S POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE, EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD DID NOT VOTE ON ANYTHING WITH THIS, THAT'S STILL SOMETHING THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE THE BOARD AWARE OF.
SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON FROM THAT, I HAVE A QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO THE SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY TEA BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A SPECIALTY.
[00:10:06]
IS THAT ACCURATE? AND IF SO, WAS THIS SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT APPROVED BY TEA? SO I'M AWARE OF WITH RESPECT TO ESSER FUNDS THAT THAT'S A REQUIREMENT.IS IT POTENTIAL THAT WE COULD ASK OUR CFO? SURE.
SO IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT PROCUREMENT OF SOLE SOURCE BE APPROVED BY TEA IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A SOLE SOURCE VENDOR, AND THAT WOULD BE FOR OVER 50,000. ANYTHING OVER 50,000.
AND THAT'S A WHOLE PROCESS. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE.
THANK YOU. AND THEN ACTUALLY, SINCE YOU'RE HERE, DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHY THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SOLE SOURCE? I MEAN, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT IS TO ME, BUT MAYBE I'M MISSING SOMETHING.
AND THAT'S THE REASON YOU'RE GOING TO PERFORM THIS SERVICE. CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? YES, SIR.
I THINK I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, BUT I'M NOT SURE YOU SAID THAT UNDER 50,000 SOLE SOURCES ALLOWED, BUT ABOVE OR RATHER. BUT IT'S NOT BEST PRACTICE OR IT IS NOT ALLOWED AT ALL WHATSOEVER SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT? UNDER 50. I'D HAVE TO READ THE RULE ON THAT, BUT OVER 50 FOR SURE, YOU WOULD NEED THE TEA APPROVAL.
UNDER 50, I'D PROBABLY HAVE TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT THRESHOLD IS.
SO IT MIGHT JUST BE BEST PRACTICE AND NOT ACTUALLY.
NO. UNDERSTOOD. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I CLARIFIED. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION.
JUST FOR CLARITY, WHEN THESE CONTRACTS WERE GIVEN, IT'S FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WE AS THE BOARD DID NOT EVEN KNOW THEY EXISTED. WERE THERE ANY BOARD MEMBERS THAT DID FROM YOUR FROM YOUR RESEARCH? I COULDN'T SAY CONCLUSIVELY THAT WHETHER ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS KNEW I KNOW IT WASN'T BROUGHT TO THE BOARD, AND WE REVIEWED ANY EMAIL THAT INVOLVED RESOURCES FOR LEARNING.
BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T MEAN IT'S WE CAN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, YES OR NO.
DO WE KNOW IF THEY EVER DID THE EVALUATION AND IF IT WAS SOMETHING WAS TURNED IN OF THE DAEP, LIKE WAS THERE MATERIALS FROM THEIR EVALUATION OF IT? AND DID WE ACTUALLY PAY THEM? YES. THERE WERE FOUR PAYMENTS.
THE TOTAL, THE 30,105. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS I HAVEN'T SEEN THE DELIVERABLE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS SUBMITTED, BUT IT WASN'T IN THE EMAIL DOCUMENTS.
SO IT MAY HAVE BEEN SHARED THROUGH LIKE A SHARED FILE TYPE OF LINK.
AND SO WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SEEN THAT DELIVERABLE.
ONE MORE CLARIFYING QUESTION. SO THE YOUTH UNLIMITED PROGRAM, THE NONPROFIT FOUNDED BY MR. FRANKLIN, DO WE KNOW WHY THEY WERE DOING A STORY ON THEM OR WHAT THE INTENT WAS THERE? WERE THEY WORKING FOR THIS RESOURCE UNLIMITED, OR WERE THEY JUST REALLY GOOD PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT? WHAT WAS THE DEAL, WHY THEY WERE GOING TO DO A STORY ON THEM? DOES IT IS THERE ANY INDICATION MY UNDERSTANDING IS I THINK THAT THAT PROGRAM HAS SOME AFFILIATION WITH THE DAEP PROGRAM, BUT THAT DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY THEY.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE DOING A INDEPENDENT EVALUATION STUDY, YOU KNOW, TO EVALUATE IT.
AND THEN DELIVERABLE TWO IS A PROMOTIONAL STORY.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS BEFORE, YOU KNOW, THE CONTRACTS EVEN SIGNED.
[00:15:03]
THE DELIVERABLE IS TO DO A PROMOTIONAL STORY FEATURING YOUTH UNLIMITED.UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELL, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT AT THIS POINT THAT AND YOU SAID IT, BUT I'M PUTTING PIECES TOGETHER. AND SO THAT THIS WAS EXECUTED IN OCTOBER OF 2023.
THERE WAS NO RECORD OF ACTUALLY HAVING THE DELIVERABLE.
AND IT WAS TO HIGHLIGHT HOW DID YOU SAY IT? FEATURING A PROMOTIONAL STORY FEATURING YOUTH UNLIMITED THAT HADN'T BEEN ASSOCIATED THROUGH CONTRACT WITH OUR DISTRICT SINCE FY 2020.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THREE YEARS AFTER HE'S NO LONGER WITH US, WE'RE DOING INTERESTING.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER BOARD. THANK YOU.
THE THIRD ONE, AS FAR AS THE REVIEWS OF VENDORS THAT WE HAD, FINDINGS THAT WE WANTED TO SHARE WITH THE BOARD, THIS IS RIDGEVIEW SYSTEMS LLC. SO AS BACKGROUND, THE DISTRICT ENTERED INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MOU IN AUGUST OF 2022 FOR RIDGEVIEW SYSTEMS TO PROVIDE SERVICES SPECIFICALLY TO THE EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL P-TECH CAMPUS AND THOSE SERVICES AS OUTLINED IN THE MOU RELATED TO PLANNING AND MANAGING.
REPORTING AND TRACKING STUDENT DATA, ALSO DOING A COMPUTER SOFTWARE CERTIFICATION COURSE.
AND SO THAT WAS THE TERMS. THE COMPENSATION WAS 49,700.
SO WE NOTED WITH THIS ONE AND THAT WAS IN FY 2023.
THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS JUST BELOW THE $50,000 THRESHOLD.
SO IT DID NOT GO TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL. WE ALSO REVIEWED THIS ONE BECAUSE THE ADDRESS OF THE VENDOR WAS ALSO MATCHED WITH THE ADDRESS OF AN EMPLOYEE. AND SO THOSE TWO WE WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE AFFILIATION WITH THIS VENDOR.
WHAT WE DETERMINED WAS THAT THE THIS ENTITY, RIDGEVIEW SYSTEMS, IT'S OWNED BY A SINGLE EMPLOYEE OR A SINGLE OWNER WHO IS ALSO THE CEO. AND HIS NAME IS J.D. EUBANK. THE MOU SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT THE DISTRICT WAS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK OF THE ENTITY OR ANY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ENTITY WHO WERE GOING TO BE ON CAMPUS WORKING WITH STUDENTS. SO FROM WHAT WE'VE DETERMINED, THAT THAT BACKGROUND CHECK DID NOT OCCUR.
AND WHAT WE DETERMINED FROM OUR BACKGROUND CHECK OF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY A CRIMINAL RECORD WHICH SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED A AN OFFENSE RELATED TO COMPUTER SECURITY BREACH AT ANOTHER SCHOOL DISTRICT.
SO THE CONTRACT IS IT WAS NOT RENEWED. AND, YOU KNOW, THE CONCERNS HERE WAS GIVEN THE LEVEL OF ACCESS THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS GIVEN A DISTRICT EMAIL WAS GIVEN ACCESS TO VARIOUS OF THE DISTRICT'S SYSTEMS AND DATABASES. THERE WAS CONCERNS PRESENTED BY THE TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT TO DOCTOR TORRES, WHO APPEARS TO BE THE ONE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN STRUCTURING THIS AGREEMENT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A NUMBER OF CONCERNS FROM LIKE A SECURITY DATA RISK AND THEN A PROCEDURAL ITEM WITH, YOU KNOW, BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR CONTRACTORS, WHICH THAT PROCESS HAS CHANGED.
BUT THIS WAS ONE THAT WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT BECAUSE OF THOSE RISK FACTORS.
AND ANY QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THIS VENDOR, I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE TO THE REST OF THE BOARD THAT WE HAD A TECHNOLOGY AUDIT PRIOR TO THIS ADMINISTRATION WHERE KEY FACTORS WERE POINTED OUT.
NAMES WEREN'T GIVEN, SPECIFIC NAMES WEREN'T GIVEN.
AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE GOING TO FIX ALL THAT. BUT FROM THIS AUDIT, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY KEPT EMPLOYEES THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN AND CONTINUED TO GIVE THEM ACCESS TO. YEAH. CONTRACTORS. SORRY. THANK YOU.
[00:20:03]
CONTINUE TO GIVE THEM ACCESS TO VITAL INFORMATION THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD ACCESS.AND THAT'S ONE THING. SO THAT THE TECHNOLOGY AUDIT WAS IN THE SUMMER OF 2023.
AND HONESTLY, PERSONALLY, I KNOW THAT WE LOST SEVERAL EMPLOYEES IN THE TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THE RESULTS WERE SAID TO BE FALSE. AND CLEARLY JUST IN READING THIS, THEY WEREN'T.
SO I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW, IT'S BAD.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. TRUSTEE PANTOJA, WHO'S REGARDING TO THE SECOND TO LAST BULLET POINT, WHOSE ROLE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO ENFORCE THE MOU? YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT DID NOT GET DONE. SO THEN WHO SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT DONE? SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE CONTRACTOR WHO WAS GOING TO BE ONBOARDED AND GIVEN ACCESS TO EMAIL, YOU KNOW, WAS NOT GOING THROUGH HR AS FAR AS THE BACKGROUND CHECK, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF IT'S AN EMPLOYEE, THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO DO THE BACKGROUND CHECK WITH A CONTRACTOR.
THIS WAS IT WAS, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WASN'T DONE IN THE PROCESS.
NOW IT'S HUMAN RESOURCES WOULD DO THE BACKGROUND CHECK ON THE CONTRACTORS.
AND IS THAT THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO IT WAS THE PROCESS WAS NOT IN PLACE YOU KNOW IS IT TO ENSURE THAT THIS REQUIREMENT WAS ADHERED TO IN 2022 AND 2023? BOARD ANYTHING FURTHER? YEAH, I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT WE DIDN'T DO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON CONTRACTORS WHEN WE DO BACKGROUND CHECKS.
SO IT'S JUST BOGGLES MY MIND THAT WE DIDN'T DO THAT.
NOW KNOWING THIS LIKE I'M SO UPSET RIGHT NOW WITH THIS, WITH THESE FINDINGS.
I CAN I COMPLETELY AGREE. ANYTHING FURTHER? THANK YOU.
SO NOW WE'RE MOVING INTO THE REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL FUNDS AND THEN THE, THE GRANTS.
AND SO I APOLOGIZE. THIS IS A SMALL TABLE. BUT WE WANTED TO JUST SHOW THE BREAKOUT OF THE FUNDS OR THE EXPENDITURES BY FUNDS. SO OVER THE SIX YEAR PERIOD, THERE WAS ABOUT $136 MILLION OF FEDERAL FUNDS AND GRANTS ACROSS THESE 20 FUNDS. SO THE LARGEST BEING THE NATIONAL SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM.
ON THIS SLIDE. AS FAR AS OBSERVATIONS THE FIRST ONE WE NOTED WAS THAT ABOUT 18 MILLION OF THE 136 MILLION, OR 13%, WAS RECLASSIFIED FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE RESPECTIVE FEDERAL FUNDS OR GRANT FUNDS AS PART OF A YEAR END ADJUSTMENT.
WE ALSO NOTED, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE 136 MILLION BROKEN OUT BY CATEGORY.
SO THE MAINLY IT'S THE EMPLOYEE SALARIES AND THEN THE PAYMENTS TO VENDORS, ABOUT A LITTLE OVER 50% OF THE OF THE EXPENDITURES WAS FOR THE EMPLOYEE SALARIES AND BENEFITS.
SO ABOUT 70 MILLION. AND SO I THINK THIS GETS INTO, YOU KNOW, THE AGAIN, THE SALARIES THAT ARE BEING PAID WITH ESSER FUNDS AND OTHER, YOU KNOW, SOURCES OF FEDERAL FUNDS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO CONTINUE.
I THINK THAT'S EVIDENCED BY THIS SLIDE WITH THE VOLUME OR THE PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURES THAT ARE GOING TOWARDS THE EMPLOYEE SALARIES AND BENEFITS. I APOLOGIZE, CAN WE BACK UP TO. AND I'M GOING TO BUTCHER THIS I APOLOGIZE.
R A A W E E IS THAT RAAWEE? YES. WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN THE SLIDES, BUT IT'S IN THE REPORT.
YES, YES, BECAUSE WHAT I'VE NOTICED IS ON JULY THE 13TH OF 2021, INVOICE NUMBER 009 26 WAS PRESENTED FOR $27,401. AND THEN. 15 DAYS LATER, ON JULY
[00:25:07]
THE 28TH, 2021, INVOICE NUMBER 00609, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 300 INVOICE NUMBERS BEFORE THE ONE SUBMITTED TWO WEEKS PRIOR, IS FOR $49,999.AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. IT'S ON PAGE 82 OF 98 ON OUR REPORT.
SO, YEAH, THAT WAS. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR, IF IT GOES OVER THE $50,000 THRESHOLD, IT HAS TO BE REPORTED TO THE BOARD.
DINA, DO YOU MIND COMING TO THE MIC, PLEASE, MA'AM? THANK YOU. SO OUR BOARD POLICY INDICATES THAT IF IT GOES OVER 50 IN A YEAR, THEN IT HAS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AT THAT POINT, AT WHICH POINT IT GOES OVER 50 OR WE KNOW IT'S ABOUT TO.
IT ALSO HAS TO BE COMPETITIVELY PROCURED IF WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO GO OVER 50.
THIS FEELS INTENTIONAL. WELL, AND IF YOU READ ABOVE THAT, WHICH I DIDN'T BRING UP, BUT THEY DID DO A COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE. TRUANCY AND DROPOUT PREVENTION SYSTEM SOFTWARE AND THEN RECEIVE BIDS FROM SCHOOL INNOVATIONS AND ACHIEVEMENT TOTALING 99,800 AND FROM STUDENT ONE FOR $248,420.
HOWEVER, IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT RAAWEE SUBMITTED A BID.
IT APPEARED THAT THE DISTRICT CONTINUED TO USE THEM IN FISCAL YEAR 2020.
SO THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION. AND DID WE ADOPT THIS POLICY SINCE 2022 OR HAS IT BEEN IN PLACE THAT YOU KNOW OF? I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN IN PLACE, BUT I CAN. NO, I JUST TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IT HASN'T BEEN IT'S NOT ANYTHING YOU PUT IN PLACE SINCE YOU'VE BEEN HERE. ABSOLUTELY NOT. OKAY. BUT STILL, THE COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT IS A LAW.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. THANK YOU. BOARD. ANYTHING FURTHER? THANK YOU. AND THE FINAL SCOPE OF WORK THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THE REVIEW OF THE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES.
AND SO WE STARTED BY REVIEWING THE DISTRICT'S POLICIES, THE MANUAL, THE EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK, YOU KNOW, ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT PROVIDE THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR HIRING CHANGES TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN.
WE ALSO REVIEWED THE CHANGES TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN EACH YEAR AND THEN REVISIONS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, MODIFIED WHERE IT DIDN'T GO TO THE BOARD.
SO WE REVIEWED ALL OF THAT FOR THE SIX YEAR PERIOD.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS WITH THE HIRING OF THE SPED DIRECTOR IN JULY 2024 WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL.
AND JUST TO MAKE CLEAR, THIS ISN'T THE CURRENT SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR.
THIS WAS YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY THE OFFER WAS ULTIMATELY RESCINDED.
BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THE USE OF THE TERM SPED DIRECTOR IS NOT THE CURRENT SPED DIRECTOR.
BUT WHAT WE DETERMINED FROM THE REVIEW OF EMAILS IS THAT THERE WAS AN OFFER LETTER SUBMITTED TO CATHERINE WYMAN WHICH WAS ON JULY 10TH, 2024, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED. AND THE DISTRICT HR DEPARTMENT INITIATED THE ONBOARDING PROCESS OF THAT EMPLOYEE, THE HIRE WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED UNDER DC LOCAL FOR ANY POSITION ABOVE THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL.
THAT THAT IS A REQUIREMENT TO BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD.
THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF DOCTOR KELLY AND HR DEPARTMENT AS FAR AS. OKAY. IN JULY OF 24, SO. SUPERINTENDENT DOCTOR TIELLE WAS PUT ON EMERITUS STATUS IN APRIL OF 2024.
[00:30:05]
OKAY. THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED BY THE BOARD.WHAT RESULTED FROM IT WAS THE OFFER LETTER WAS RESCINDED.
THE RECENT EMPLOYMENT OF THAT AND THAT SEEMED TO BE A BROADER ISSUE THAT THE REFERENCE CHECKS AND HOW THOSE WERE VALIDATED AND SO FORTH. SO THIS WAS A ONE THAT WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT FROM, YOU KNOW, THE ADHERENCE TO DC LOCAL.
THE NEXT ONE RELATES TO THE HIRING OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SUBSTITUTE POSITION WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL, WHICH WAS IN OCTOBER 2023. AND SO WHAT WE DETERMINED FROM THE REVIEW OF EMAILS WAS THAT THERE WAS A, A CABINET MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 3RD, 2023, IN WHICH A DOCUMENTATION FOR A NEW POSITION FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR SUBSTITUTE WAS PROPOSED AND PRESENTED TO DOCTOR TIELLE AS WELL AS THE WHAT THE COMPENSATION WOULD BE FOR THAT POSITION.
IN LATE OCTOBER, THE DISTRICT THEN HIRED RAY PRENTICE AS THE ADMINISTRATOR SUBSTITUTE ASSIGNED TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AS AN ADMINISTRATOR. SO WE WHAT WE KNOW IS MR. PRENTICE HAD RETIRED FROM THE DISTRICT IN DECEMBER 2021, WAS ALSO MARRIED TO THE DISTRICT'S ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES AT THE TIME. SUZI WALLACE DID NOT APPEAR THAT THERE WAS INTERVIEWS THAT WERE CONDUCTED OF OTHER CANDIDATES.
WE ALSO SAW EMAILS SHOWING THAT MR. PRENTICE WAS ACTUALLY INTERVIEWING FOR A ADMINISTRATOR SUBSTITUTE POSITION AT HAYS CISD, AND ACTUALLY HAD REACHED OUT TO GET A REFERENCE FOR THAT.
AND SO WE NOTED THAT THERE WERE POTENTIAL ISSUES RELATED TO BOTH DC LOCAL AS FAR AS HIRING WITHOUT BOARD OF BOARD APPROVAL, AND THEN DEA LOCAL, WHICH RELATES TO THE ADDING OF THIS POSITION INTO THE COMPENSATION PLAN WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL.
AND WE SAY POTENTIAL ISSUES, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, THE ADMINISTRATOR SUBSTITUTE POSITION, THE DUTIES OR, YOU KNOW, TREATED LIKE A ESSENTIALLY HE WAS ACTING AS A PRINCIPAL AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL YOU KNOW, SO WHETHER OR NOT IT FALLS UNDER ABOVE THE PAY GRADE OF ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IS, IS PROBABLY REQUIRES A LEGAL OPINION, BUT WE KNOW IT WASN'T APPROVED BY THE BOARD.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S. I JUST WANT TO ITERATE.
IT SAYS THE DISTRICT RECEIVED APPLICATIONS FROM 19 INDIVIDUALS, ALTHOUGH NO INTERVIEWS WERE MADE, AND THEY JUST HIRED HIM. CORRECT. YEAH. WE DIDN'T SEE IN THE TALENT ED SYSTEM ANY INDICATION THAT THERE WERE INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WITH THE OTHER THING I'LL MENTION TO THE REVIEW OF THE PAYROLL REGISTER DATA SHOWS THAT HE WAS PAID AROUND 39,000 FROM NOVEMBER OF 23 THROUGH JUNE OF 24 FOR THAT POSITION. SO THANK YOU. BOARD ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? MOVING ON. T HE NEXT ITEM THAT WE WANTED TO DISCUSS WAS THE REASSIGNMENT OF THE HIGH SCHOOL BAND DIRECTOR IN MARCH 2023 WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL. SO WE DETERMINED THAT THE HIGH SCHOOL BAND DIRECTOR, WAS REASSIGNED TO THE POSITION OF BAND TEACHER AT OJEDA MIDDLE SCHOOL IN MARCH OF 2023.
THE BOARD WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THAT REASSIGNMENT.
THERE WERE EMAILS WITH COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS AND DOCTOR TIELLE ABOUT WHY IT WASN'T DISCUSSED, AND DOCTOR TIELLE'S RESPONSE WAS THAT IT WAS ON THE AGENDA TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION.
BUT ULTIMATELY THAT THERE WASN'T TIME OR THERE WERE TOO MANY OTHER ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED.
[00:35:01]
WOULD INDICATE THAT THIS WAS AN ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED.SO THERE REALLY WASN'T ANY WAY FOR THE BOARD TO KNOW THAT THE REASSIGNMENT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ON THE AGENDA, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT WAS DISCUSSED OR NOT. AND DOCTOR TIELLE INDICATED THAT THE REASON DETAILS WERE NOT PROVIDED ON THAT BOARD AGENDA WAS DUE TO ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE. ULTIMATELY, THE INDIVIDUAL RESIGNED AT THE END OF THAT SCHOOL YEAR.
SO AS FAR AS BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE WASN'T TERMINATED, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY NOT BE ISSUES WITH D.C.
LOCAL, BUT STILL, JUST FROM A BOARD TRANSPARENCY STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, THERE SEEM TO BE GAPS OF COMMUNICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE REASSIGNMENT OF THIS POSITION, WHICH LED TO THE RESIGNATION AS WELL.
WAS IT CLEAR TO Y'ALL THAT HE DID NOT WORK AT THE HIGH SCHOOL IN THAT CAPACITY AFTER SPRING BREAK, WHEN HE WAS NOTIFIED THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE MOVED? ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT OR WAS IT? I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
BUT HE DIDN'T MAINTAIN THE POSITION. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOME KIND OF VIOLATION.
IS WHAT THE. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHAT'S ON PAPER.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO COMPLETE HIS CONTRACT.
OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST ITEM HERE RELATES TO THE PROCESS FOR GRIEVANCES AND INVESTIGATION OF GRIEVANCES.
SO ONE OF THE FINDINGS THAT WE IDENTIFIED WAS THAT THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE LEVEL ONE GRIEVANCES WERE ASSIGNED A REVIEWER OR AN INVESTIGATOR, THAT PROCESS PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN DONE ON AN AD HOC BASIS.
THERE WERE INDICATIONS THAT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE HR DEPARTMENT WHO WERE BEING ASSIGNED THE DUTY OF REVIEWING A LOVED ONE GRIEVANCE, YOU KNOW, FELT THAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T HAVE THEY HAD INSUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OR TRAINING ON HOW TO DO THIS OR HOW TO INVESTIGATE THE GRIEVANCES AND WHAT THE PROCESS WAS.
AND YOU KNOW, THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THEIR SUPERIORS.
SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE SAW IN EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS.
MANY OF THE GRIEVANCES WERE ASSIGNED TO OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR REVIEW.
AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO EMAILS INDICATING THAT EMPLOYEES WHO SUBMITTED GRIEVANCES OR WERE TRYING TO SUBMIT GRIEVANCES EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THERE BEING A LACK OF CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS AND GUIDELINES ON HOW TO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, DO THAT.
WE KNOW THAT THERE IS DISCUSSION IN THE EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK, WHICH ALSO REFERENCED THE POLICIES.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE WASN'T KIND OF A SINGLE DOCUMENT THAT JUST OUTLINES THE PROCESS WHO TO FILE THE GRIEVANCE WITH, WHAT'S THE NEXT STEPS, AND SO FORTH. EXCUSE ME.
CAN WE GO BACK TO MR. GUYTON FOR A SECOND? THE BAND DIRECTOR? SURE. AND DO WE KNOW WHO WAS NAMED AS HIS REPLACEMENT? I DON'T KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I KNOW THAT.
NO, I'M SORRY. I KNOW. IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS AT THE AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL. SO WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO WAS SWITCH OVER TO MIDDLE SCHOOL, TO THE HIGH SCHOOL, AND THEN VICE VERSA. AND BECAUSE THAT INDIVIDUAL WORKED WITH THE FINE ARTS, THE PREVIOUS FINE ARTS COORDINATOR AT THE TIME.
AND SO THEY HAD A PRIOR RELATIONSHIP. THANK YOU.
YOU'RE WELCOME. SO THAT'S THE END OF THE FINDINGS SECTION. AND SO WE'VE GOT TWO SLIDES ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND WE'VE DISCUSSED IF I CAN INTERRUPT YOU. SURE.
I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS TWO ASPECTS OF THIS THAT WERE IN THE FINDINGS.
OKAY. E, [INAUDIBLE] PAGE 83 OF 98. THERE'S A LINE ITEM UNDER THE CATEGORY OF INVOICES BECAUSE IT'S BROKEN DOWN.
I WANT TO SAY ABOUT 10 TO 12 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, BUT THERE'S ONE THAT TOTALS $81,000, WHICH IS ACTUALLY JUST TWO YEARS, FY 22 AND THEN 23 FOR 56,000 AND 25,000. BUT THE LINE ITEM IS INVOICE DETAIL NOT AVAILABLE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE PAY $81,000 AND THE INVOICE DETAILS NOT AVAILABLE.
[00:40:03]
SO WHAT WE WHAT WE DID WAS WE EXTRACTED ALL OF THE INVOICES FROM SKYWARD THAT WERE UPLOADED, FOR THE LEGAL FEES FROM ISCHEMIA AND PANIC. AND THERE WERE SOME OF THEM WHERE THEY TYPICALLY HAVE DETAIL WHICH ATTORNEY HOW MANY HOURS DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES. AND WE, YOU KNOW, ANALYZE THAT WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS A SUMMARY OF.BUT NOT THERE WERE CERTAIN INVOICES THAT THAT DETAILED SHEET WASN'T UPLOADED.
SO IT COULD BE THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT AND DIDN'T GET UPLOADED TO SKYWARD.
WE JUST KNOW THAT WHENEVER WE EXTRACTED THOSE INVOICES, THEY WEREN'T IN SKYWARD.
SO WE DON'T KNOW. WE KNOW THAT THEY WERE INVOICED.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW THE DETAIL UNDERLYING THAT.
THANK YOU. THE SECOND POINT I'D LIKE TO BRING UP IS ON PAGE 26 OF 98.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS LINE ITEM. OH I APOLOGIZE, GO AHEAD.
SORRY. EARLIER THERE WAS MENTIONED THAT WE DID A LAND PURCHASE IN 22 AND THERE WASN'T MUCH LEGAL INVOLVEMENT IN IT. SO DOES THAT REFLECT WHY THERE'S ONLY 11,000 AND CHANGE IN 22? BUT THEN WE LIKE TRIPLED IN 23. OR DID WE PURCHASE LAND IN 23? WELL, THIS WOULD BE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2023. WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LAND PURCHASE 22.
GOT IT. YEAH. AND THE THERE WAS ESCAMBIA AND PONTIAC WAS INVOLVED IN THE PURCHASE, BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER THE, YOU KNOW, THE SITE WAS DETERMINED, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE DOCTOR TORRES AND THE DEVELOPER.
YOU KNOW, PART OF IT, BUT NOT THE IT WAS LATER IN THE PROCESS.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANYTHING FURTHER ON THAT? OKAY. BACK TO PAGE 26 OF 98 BECAUSE WE SPOKE ABOUT THE BOND APPROVAL FOR THE 2019 BOND PROGRAM.
AND YOUR STATEMENT IS, IN MY OPINION, NECESSARY BECAUSE IT SAYS WHILE CERTAIN OF THE BOARD MEMBERS FELT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO WAIT UNTIL MAY 2020 FOR THE BOND PACKAGE TO ALLOW TIME FOR A NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY, OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FELT THAT WAITING UNTIL MAY 2020 WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE BOND PACKAGE, DUE TO NEW LEGISLATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE CERTAIN ITEMS TO BE SEPARATED INTO INDIVIDUAL BOND PROPOSITIONS.
AND NOW ONE OF YOUR FINDINGS WAS THAT WERE FLAGGED FOR NOT HAVING THOSE ITEMS. IS THAT CORRECT? FOR NOT HAVING WHICH ITEMS THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR 2019? OH, CORRECT. YEAH. AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE LEGISLATION COULD IMPACT THE ABILITY TO LUMP ALL OF THESE PROJECTS INTO A SINGLE BOND PACKAGE, AND THERE WOULD BE A NEED TO KIND OF SPECIFY, YOU KNOW.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN A PRIORITY FOR SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS VERSUS FEASIBILITY STUDY.
AND, YOU KNOW, MORE OF THE DUE DILIGENCE. THANK YOU.
ANYTHING FURTHER ON THIS ITEM? YEAH. I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 29 BOND.
I DON'T HAVE TOO MANY ISSUES WITH THE 2019 AND HOW IT WAS DONE.
I THINK THAT THE BOARD WAS FAIRLY INVOLVED IN THAT PARTICULAR BOND.
IT'S JUST A HUGE DISCREPANCY FROM 2019 TO 2022, WHEN WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. WHAT PAGE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON? SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IN THE LAST PORTION OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
SO THOSE ARE GOING TO BE PAGE 13 OF 98. SO PAGE 13 THROUGH 15.
THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAVE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR AREAS OF PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.
SOME OF THESE ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY WITH NEW LEADERSHIP IN THE BUSINESS OFFICE AND HR DEPARTMENT.
BUT WE WANTED TO JUST TOUCH ON THESE BRIEFLY.
AND THEN AGAIN, THERE IS MORE DETAIL IN THE IN THE REPORT.
SO THE FIRST IS THE EVALUATION OF THE PRACTICE OF THE SALARIES BEING PAID OUT OF BOND FUNDS.
[00:45:03]
AND YOU KNOW, WHETHER ONE, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD WAS AWARE THAT THAT WAS A PRACTICE.AND, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT IT, CONSULTING WITH LEGAL COUNSEL TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S COMPLIANCE.
AND, YOU KNOW, REALLY BRINGING THAT TO LIGHT, YOU KNOW, FROM A BOARD BEING INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION, THE NEXT ONE RELATES TO THE IMPROVING THE TRANSPARENCY WITH THE BOND PLANNING PROCESS.
SO WE TALKED ABOUT THE DECISION WAS MADE TO SWITCH THE EXPANSION OF THE HIGH SCHOOL INTO THE EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, APPEARS TO BE HAD BEEN DONE WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL AND WASN'T PART OF THE PACKAGE THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN 2019.
BUT LIKE WHEN THE BOND PLANNING COMMITTEE PRESENTED THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROJECTS TO BE INCLUDED, THE FIRST TIER AND SECOND TIER. SO THE BOARD APPROVED THE EXPANSION OF THE HIGH SCHOOL, AND THAT WAS THEN THE BASIS FOR THE BUDGET OF 284 MILLION.
BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, YEAR TWO OR YEAR THREE INTO THE BOND PROGRAM, THE DECISION WAS MADE BY THE FORMER SUPERINTENDENT TO REPLACE THAT WITH THE EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL. YOU KNOW, WITHOUT GOING BACK TO THE BOARD.
SO AND THEN ALSO THE LAND PURCHASES AND THE SITE SELECTION, YOU KNOW, WAS REALLY DONE WITHOUT MUCH PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND BOARD INVOLVEMENT IN THAT PROCESS.
SO THAT WAS RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE LOOKING AT THE PROCESS OF, YOU KNOW, THE HISTORICAL PROCESS THE BOARD USED, WHETHER THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE USED GOING FORWARD, WHERE THE BOARD AUTHORIZES AND THEN DELEGATES AUTHORITY TO THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR EXECUTING REAL ESTATE PURCHASES. SO THAT ONE'S, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A DIRECT CORRELATION TO THE WHAT WE OBSERVED IN 2022.
THE NEXT ONE IS THAT TO ENSURE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR CONTRACTORS ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE GIVEN ACCESS TO DISTRICT EMAIL AND DATA SYSTEMS. SO THIS IS ONE THAT IS ALREADY CHANGES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
SO NOW, AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, THAT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT IS DOING THE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR CONTRACTORS, WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE IN 2022. DIGITIZATION OF THE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PROCESSES, THIS ONE IS ALSO UNDERWAY. WE DID NOTE AND THEN I THINK WE JUST KIND OF TOUCHED ON IT WITH THE LEGAL INVOICES, BUT THERE WAS A LARGE NUMBER OF WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT VENDORS WHERE WE DIDN'T SEE INVOICES UPLOADED INTO SKYWARD.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE FOUND CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS AND THERE WERE INVOICES, BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME VENDORS WHERE SOME OF THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, MORE SPARSE. AND SO JUST HAVING A LOT OF THOSE RECORDS, YOU KNOW, DIGITIZED.
WOULD REALLY HELP THE PROCESS TO JUST TO VERIFY, YOU KNOW, AND NOT JUST FOR AUDITS, BUT JUST TO ENSURE THAT THE RECORDS THAT ARE REQUIRED ARE AVAILABLE. I APOLOGIZE, I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT.
I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE WEREN'T DIGITIZING OUR INVOICES.
SO HOW ARE THEY TRACKED? I MEAN, IS IT JUST LUMP SUM AND ADD IT INTO SKYWARD? WELL, IF, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE. HERE COMES THE CFO.
THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. SO WHEN I ARRIVED HERE IN NOVEMBER OUR ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TEAM IS ACTUALLY STILL FILING IN FILING CABINETS.
SO WHEN OUR AUDITORS COME TO AUDIT, WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY PULL THE ACTUAL FILE.
SO I COULD PULL THAT INVOICE FOR YOU, BUT IT'S IT'S SITTING IN A FILING CABINET RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE SINCE CHANGED OVER. SO SINCE JANUARY WE ARE NOW ATTACHING ALL THE CONTRACTS AND INVOICES AS WE AS WE GO, AS WE PAY. SO THAT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO TURN OVER, YOU KNOW.
BUT I WOULD TELL YOU IN 25-26 IT WILL ALL BE IN THERE.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THAT WOULD ALSO, YOU KNOW, ALLOW FOR SOME OF THE AUTOMATED RECORDS RETENTION MANAGEMENT AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS AS WELL.
[00:50:03]
EXPENDITURES ARE BEING TRACKED TO THE PROPER CODE.YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, WAITING UNTIL YEAR END TO SORT IT OUT.
AND WE SPOKE WITH THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT AND REVIEWED THOSE.
AND SO THE RECOMMENDATION WE HAVE IS REALLY JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S CONTINUED TRAINING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS AWARE AND UNDERSTANDS THOSE PROCEDURES, AND ADHERES TO THOSE.
YOU KNOW, AND THIS GETS INTO SOME OF THE FINDINGS WHERE THE REFERENCES.
YOU KNOW, WERE NOT BEING VALIDATED OR THEY WEREN'T LOOKING AT REFERENCES FOR THE MOST RECENT EMPLOYMENT, OR THE REFERENCES WERE FROM SOMEBODY AT THE DISTRICT AND NOT AN EXTERNAL ORGANIZATION.
SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY UNDERWAY.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE COMPENSATION PLAN AND REVISIONS TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN, AND SPECIFICALLY THE CONTEXT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SUBSTITUTE POSITION BEING ADDED WITHOUT BEING APPROVED BY THE BOARD. SO WE WHEN WE TALKED WITH HUMAN RESOURCES, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S A THE CURRENT PROCESS IS THERE'S CURRENTLY A PLAN TO HAVE WRITTEN PROTOCOLS TO REALLY DETERMINE WHEN REVISIONS TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN WOULD GO TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL SO THAT THERE'S A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF OF THAT, BECAUSE NOT EVERY REVISION YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY NEEDS TO GO TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL.
BUT HAVING SOME PROTOCOLS IN PLACE TO TAKE THE SUBJECTIVITY OUT OF THAT, I THINK WILL BE BENEFICIAL.
AND THEN STANDARDIZED PROCESSES FOR INVESTIGATING GRIEVANCES.
AND THEN PROCESSES RELATED TO THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PERFORMED.
WHEREAS PREVIOUSLY THIS WAS MORE OF AN AD HOC BASIS.
AND SO HAVING THOSE STANDARDIZED WRITTEN PROCEDURES IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS THE INTEGRATION OF SKYWARD AND TALENT ED DATA SYSTEMS. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN, I THINK, A TOPIC OF CONCERN FOR 4 OR 5 YEARS.
I KNOW THAT THERE IS A APPLICATION THAT HAS A COST TO IT.
I THINK THAT THERE'S I THINK WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IS THAT THERE BE, YOU KNOW, A COST BENEFIT, YOU KNOW, STUDY JUST TO SEE, NOT A, YOU KNOW, JUST SOME KIND OF INFORMATION TO ASSESS WHAT THE COST IS.
WEIGH THAT AGAINST THE BENEFITS AND LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THAT WILL ALLOW AUTOMATION BETWEEN THE HR PORTION AND THEN THE SALARIES AND THINGS LIKE STAFFING CHARTS AND VACANCIES AND SOME OF THAT THAT'S STILL BEING DONE, YOU KNOW, WITH SPREADSHEETS AND, YOU KNOW, THE SOFTWARE IS NOT TALKING TO EACH OTHER.
I THINK THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH SOME OF THE DATA MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS THERE, BUT THERE IS A COST TO IT. SO JUST EVALUATING THAT RELATIVE TO COST.
SO WITH THAT, THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. BOARD, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? SO I JUST WANT TO COMMENT THAT IN THE TIME FRAME WHERE THIS FORENSIC AUDIT WAS TAKING PLACE, THE DISTRICT HAD A TOTAL OF $1.4 BILLION IN EXPENDITURES.
THAT'S THE NINTH HIGHEST OUT OF 110 SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN TEXAS.
THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. AND ALSO, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THE WAY THAT PEOPLE HAVE LEFT OUR DISTRICT AND A LOT OF BLAME ON THE BOARD. BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT WITH THIS FORENSIC AUDIT, PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND NOW WHERE THE BOARD IS COMING FROM AND THE DECISIONS THAT WE DID MAKE LAST YEAR AND WHY WE DID WHAT WE DID.
SO I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. THANK YOU.
ANYTHING FURTHER? BOARD. GO AHEAD. TRUSTEE. FRANCO.
LET'S HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THIS IS A VERY ENLIGHTENING PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HARD WORK.
[00:55:03]
WITH REGARDS TO SCOPE, IS THIS WAS THE SCOPE OF THIS, LIKE, IS THIS A GENERAL SCOPE JUST ACROSS THE BOARD THAT WE WOULD THAT YOU WOULD PERFORM FOR ANY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR WAS IT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HANDPICKED? I KNOW YOU WENT THROUGH CONTRACTS. THERE WAS A REASON WHY SOME CONTRACTS SET OUT SOME OTHERS DIDN'T. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT AS FAR AS THE SCOPE OF SERVICES THAT YOU LOOK AT IS THIS IS THIS STANDARD FOR A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR ARE THERE ARE THERE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE CHOSE? AND THIS COULD BE ALSO FOR THE BOARD, I DON'T KNOW. I WAS ON PAGE FOUR.IT LISTS THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WAS DISCUSSED, WHICH CAME FROM US AS THE BOARD AT THE TIME.
YES, SIR. GOTCHA. YOU DIDN'T TELL HIM WHAT TO GO LOOK FOR.
WE SAID, IN GENERAL, THIS IS WHAT WE'D LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT, HR, SPED, FINANCE, THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
WELL, WE DID SPECIFY THE 2019 BOND AND THE 2022 BOND.
AND I MEAN, THERE ARE SEVEN THINGS AND THE GRANTS AWARDED TO THE DISTRICT, AND THEN PAYMENTS TO VENDORS AND THIRD PARTIES, AND THEN THE AR RECORDS. ARE THERE OTHER AREAS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IN BOTH YOUR OPINION OR DOCTOR GUTIERREZ OPINION OR YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION RIGHT, A RE THERE OTHER AREAS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT MAYBE FOR? I MEAN, AS FAR AS LIKE THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS GO, IT'S THE BETWEEN THE, THE SALARIES, YOU KNOW, IT'S PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES AND THEN PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTY VENDORS AND CONTRACTORS.
AND SO ALL OF THE OUTFLOW OF FUNDS ARE, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY COVERED.
AND SO, YEAH, I THINK THAT THIS ONE IS IT WAS, I THINK, A BROAD SCOPE BECAUSE THERE, YOU KNOW, WAS A NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT AREAS OR THERE WAS MAYBE GENERAL CONCERNS OF, OF THAT. IT'S, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW.
AND SO YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR IT TO BE THAT BROAD OF A SCOPE.
GOTCHA. THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER? AND THEN.
FRANCO'S QUESTION. ABSOLUTELY. TRUSTEE FRANCO ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING FURTHER I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK INTO? THERE IS, AND I'D LIKE TO SAVE THAT DISCUSSION FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AND WHEN WE ARE IN A FINANCIAL POSITION THAT GOES NEGATIVE, THEN I ULTIMATELY ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S NOT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
THERE'S AN EXPECTATION THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING ABOVE THE LINE AND FOLLOWING BOARD POLICY, AND I'M GOING TO BE TRANSPARENT WITH OUR BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
BUT IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT I HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS THAT ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE CONSIDERING WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW FINANCIALLY AND AND THERE ARE TOUGH DECISIONS.
AND AS I'VE SHARED WITH VARIOUS GROUPS OF PEOPLE, BOTH INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY, WE'RE TALKING SPECIFICALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT POSITION ELIMINATION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS WHO LOVE THEIR JOBS, WHO ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT THE WORK THAT THEY DO.
BUT THERE ARE TOUGH DECISIONS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE, AND THIS DATA ALWAYS TELLS A STORY.
NUMBERS TELL A STORY. AND THIS FORENSIC AUDIT TELLS A STORY.
AND IT TELLS A STORY AS TO WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE FINANCIALLY, AND WHY WE'VE GOT TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO GET US TO A BALANCED BUDGET. BUT TO ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE VERY THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY, THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS THAT ARE GOING TO INCREASE, THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW, AND THE UNCERTAINTY THAT LIES AHEAD.
THE OPENING OF A COMPREHENSIVE SECOND HIGH SCHOOL IN IN TWO YEARS.
AND I JUST WANT TO ASSURE ALL OF YOU THAT WE WILL MAINTAIN HIGH LEVELS OF INTEGRITY TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR TAXPAYERS DOLLARS, AND THEY PUT THEIR TRUST IN THE BOARD.
[01:00:02]
THANK YOU FOR THAT BOARD. ANYTHING FURTHER? I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR COMPANY FOR ALL THE DILIGENCE IN THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS EXTREMELY COMPREHENSIVE. IT'S NOT THE BEST LIGHT FOR OUR DISTRICT, BUT IT EXPLAINS A LOT.TO YOUR POINT, AND WE HAVE MOVED PAST IT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND JUST LIKE OUR SPECIAL ED AUDIT, IT WAS JUST A PORTION OF SAMPLES THAT WERE PULLED.
SO I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT ELSE IS NOT BEING SHARED OR FOUND OR LOOKED AT.
BUT THIS ALREADY ENOUGH HAS RED FLAGS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
IT'S TRUE. THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
AND WE'LL SUBMIT THE FINAL REPORT PROBABLY TOMORROW.
SO IT'LL BE THE SAME THING JUST WITHOUT THE THE DRAFT ON IT.
SO THANK YOU AGAIN. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. THANK YOU.
SO NOW DO WE WANT TO GO BACK TO CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL.
[V. Closed Session]
OKAY. AT THIS TIME WE WILL RECESS OUR SPECIAL MEETING.THE TIME IS NOW 8:52. WE WILL GO BACK INTO THE WORKSHOP AND MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER TGC 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND THEN TGC 551.074 DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL. THE TIME IS 8:52.
THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, BOARD. THE BOARD ENDED ITS EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:18. WE ARE BACK IN OPEN SESSION AT 10:20.
[VI. Approve Action Items Discussed in Closed Session]
FORENSICS AUDITS. IT'S LATE. I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES FORENSIC AUDIT AS PRESENTED.MOTION MADE BY THE MOTION WAS MADE BY SECRETARY GUADIAN, SECONDED BY VICE PRESIDENT LEDESMA WOODY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? BY SHOW OF HANDS. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0.
SECRETARY GUADIAN MADE THE MOTION, SECONDED BY TRUSTEE PANTOJA.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR BY A SHOW OF HANDS, PLEASE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0.
NO, 7 TO 0. AND THE OTHER ONE WAS 7 TO 0. THANK YOU.
I WAS LIKE, NO CHICKEN. SO LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA BEFORE WE ADJOURN IS DISCUSS, CONSIDER AND POSSIBLY ACT ON SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POSSIBLE HIRING OF DAILY MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL, PLEASE. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF KRISTEN GILLESPIE AS DAILY MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL.
SECOND. MOTION WAS MADE BY SECRETARY GUADIAN, SECONDED BY TRUSTEE PANTOJA.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THE MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0 AT 10:22.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT.
SO I THINK WE HAD TO SAY THAT. SO THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
OKAY. PERFECT. AT 10:22. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? TRUSTEE PANTOJA SHOT HIS ARM IN THE SKY, SECONDED BY TRUSTEE CISNEROS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0. Y'ALL HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.