MINUTES
Board of Education Regular Meeting
September 20, 2010 06:00 PM
Central on Main, 201 North Main, Broken Arrow, OK 74012
Attendance Taken at 6:09 PM:
Present Board Members:
Cheryl Kelly
Sharon Whelpley
Shari Wilkins
Absent Board Members:
Jerry Denton
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dr. Jarod Mendenhall, Amy Fichtner, Melissa Addison, Cathey Metevelis, Ann Wade, Steve Cowen, Michelle Bergwall, Kay Long, Diana Beaulieu, Janet Dunlop, Cindy Williamson, Jean Brassfield, Joan West, Ron Rieff, Jamie Milligan, Ginger Powell, Karla Dyess, Barbara Jones, Sue Katterhenry, Dawna Mosburg, Ken Ellett, Larry Smith, Melissa Galloway, Todd Greathouse, Amy Oglesbee, Pam Bradley, Vicki Beckswith, Jamie Milligan, Ken Ellett, Jim Taylor, Gary Gerber, Louis Wood, Brian Daley, Brian Grimes, Harold Vermillion, Jan King, Gail Saravia, Alex Saravia, Sarah Fitzhugh, Carol Lunn, Fred Montes-PBK, Susan Meeker-Flintco, Bill Lenhart-WCL, Dr. Lonnie Melvin-Office of Accountability, Robert Buswell-Office of Accountability, Clifton Adcock-Tulsa World, Nour Habib-BA Ledger
A. Meeting Called to Order
A.1. Call to Order
B. Moment of Silence
B.1. Statement by Board President: "As we begin this meeting, let us pause for a 60 second moment of silence to reflect, meditate, pray or engage in other silent activity."
C. Formal Adoption of the Agenda
C.1. Formal Adoption of Agenda
Motion Passed: Approve passed with a motion by Shari Wilkins and a second by Cheryl Kelly.
Jerry Denton Absent
Cheryl Kelly Yes
Sharon Whelpley Yes
Shari Wilkins Yes
D. Minutes
D.1. Discussion, motion and vote on motion to approve or disapprove the September 7, 2010 Regular meeting minutes which may be approved as presented or approved following modifications.
Tabled. C. Kelly would like the language from Dr. Mendenhall that was said during the 9.7.10 Regular BOE meeting to state that Dr. Mendenhall said it. Dr. Mendenhall stated that he would provide a hard copy of the Encumbrance Report and Change Order Report to the BOE in their packets monthly, as well as keeping the reports on the school website. Also, Dr. Mendenhall said the Encumbrance Report and Change Order Report will now go as separate line items and not as consent agenda items.
D.2. Discussion, motion and vote on motion to approve or disapprove the September 9, 2010 Special meeting minutes which may be approved as presented or approved following modifications.
Motion Passed: passed with a motion by Cheryl Kelly and a second by Shari Wilkins.
Jerry Denton Absent
Cheryl Kelly Yes
Sharon Whelpley Yes
Shari Wilkins Yes
E. Summary of Awards and Achievements
E.1. Introduction of the National Merit Semi-Finalists: Hunter Ash, Alexander Cowden, Richard Fitzhugh, Greg Jones, Catherine Thomas, and Erin Westbrook. D. Blackburn
F. Reports to the Board
F.1. Broken Arrow Education Association Report K. Cook
None given.
F.2. Professional Oklahoma Educators Report T. Garrett
Mrs. Garrett announced that there is a Character First professional development opportunity sponsored by the Oklahoma Professional Educators. It will be held at OSU Tulsa on October 21st, 2010. It is free to BOE members, but open to anyone who would like to attend for $25. For more information, please visit their website at professionaloklahoma educators.org.
F.3. Discussion and update on bus transportation in the district.
D. Thompson
Chief Administrative Officer Dwayne Thompson gave a report on the bus transportation at Country Lane Elementary and Country Lane 4/5. Mr. Thompson did a three day study on arrival and departures. At CL 4/5, school ends at 3:10, then the students go to gym. Wait time in gym from the three day average was 6 minutes up to 27 minutes. On one day, Mr. Thompson observed two buses were blocked when an individual was dropping off paper in the recycle bin. All buses were in place by 3:40 PM at Country Lane Elementary. Mr. Thompson said there is a lot of opportunity to improve our transportation processes in order to improve wait time of kids. Mr. Thompson hopes that within the next month he’ll have had enough time to get all the information gathered in order to discuss suggestions and recommendations. C. Kelly asked that we have parental representation in our research. S. Wilkins asked for an update in a couple of weeks. S. Whelpley asked if our buses had GPS. David Haines said that we do, but it’s not live time. Dr. Mendenhall cautioned everyone not to make this just a transportation issue only. It could be that we have too many students on one campus or small parking lots adding to the equation. Dr. Mendenhall asked that we look at a long term solution to the problem, and that could mean redistricting.
G. Superintendent/Board of Education/Communications
G.1. Discussion, motion and vote on motion to approve or disapprove the engagement agreement with the State Auditor for him to conduct an investigative audit of the Broken Arrow School District. Dr. Mendenhall
Dr. Mendenhall reads the engagement letter:
In accordance with the Attorney General’s request and the requirements of 74 O.S. 2001, § 18f, the State Auditor and Inspector will conduct a special audit of the Broken Arrow Public School District No. 72I0003, for the period July 1, 2006 through March 31, 2009.
The objectives of our special audit will be possible improper procurement and other financial practices and possible illegal conduct related thereto.
Because the above procedures do not constitute an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, we will not express an opinion on any account balances or financial statements of the Broken Arrow Public School District No. 72I003. Further, due to the test nature and other inherent limitations of a special audit, together with the inherent limitations of any internal control structure, there is an unavoidable risk that even some material misstatement may remain undiscovered.
We understand that you will provide us with the basic information required for us to perform our special audit procedures and that you are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of that information. At the conclusion of our special audit, we will discuss our findings with management to insure that all pertinent documentation was available for our review. We will issue a special audit report on the results obtained after applying the above procedures.
The estimated cost of our special audit will range from $35,000.00 to $40,000.00; however, if unexpected circumstances arise beyond our control, it may require us to request that you encumber additional funds. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable upon receipt. Our fees are based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the special audit.
Our engagement fees do not include any time for post-engagement consultation with your personnel or third parties, consent letters and related procedures for the use of our reports in offering documents, inquiries from regulators or testimony or deposition regarding any subpoena. Charges for such services will be billed separately.
Dr. Mendenhall stated that we intend to fully cooperate with this audit. Dwayne Thompson will be the point of contact for this audit.
He also said that it what his understanding that none of the past documents will be used and that it will be much like the last audit with the Auditor sitting with him and the BOE before it is released to the public.
Dr. Mendenhall said that the State Auditor was very apologetic about the leak from his office.
S. Whelpley asked if BAPS had received the $45,000 back from the State Auditor’s office and Ann Wade said no.
Motion Passed: In accordance with the Attorney General’s request and the requirements of 74 O.S. 2001, § 18f, the State Auditor and Inspector will conduct a special audit of the Broken Arrow Public School District No. 72I0003, for the period July 1, 2006 through March 31, 2009. passed with a motion by Cheryl Kelly and a second by Shari Wilkins.
Statement by Cheryl Kelly:
Prior to voting on this motion, I believe it is important to advise the board and public of my intention to cast a vote to approve the required agreement with the State Auditor and that he conduct an investigative audit of the Broken Arrow Public School District. At the same time, it is important to explain the reason for my vote and have it part of the public
record.
Like many in our community, I have been very disappointed with several aspects of the process used in the prior audit engagement between this Board and the State Auditor. After approximately 18 months, the State Auditor failed to provide a signed audit addressing very specific issues which he was asked to examine. Furthermore, an unsigned and tainted draft of the audit was unprofessionally leaked by someone in the
Auditor’s Office. Much of the information leaked clearly was written by someone within the Auditor’s office with an agenda. In fact, Auditor Burrage publicly stated, “I just think she [meaning the original investigator from his office] got caught up in it. I think she was relying on information from people that had an agenda.” Mr. Burrage called his auditor’s independence “detrimentally impaired”. These issues should cause any reasonable board member to be concerned whether a second audit by the State Auditor’s Office can ever have any validity. To Mr. Burrage’s credit, he properly refused to release what he clearly saw was an extremely biased and unprofessional audit. I am pleased that the State Auditor will be returning all of the money that the District paid for the prior tainted work.
As you know, the Attorney General has directed Mr. Burrage’s office to conduct an investigative audit of the Broken Arrow Schools. Under the law, I am advised that the District has no choice but to acquiesce to the State Auditor’s Office conducting the investigation, the cost of it to be paid by the district. Recently, we were told by the Auditor’s Office that the very specific issues which this board wanted addressed in the first audit will be contained within the investigative audit. Accordingly, since the board is required by law to pay for the investigative audit, and since the issues the board wanted examined will be contained in the investigative audit, there is no reason to ask the State Auditor to conduct his first audit again. As a result, this will prevent the board from having to pay for 2 audits. The money refunded by the State Auditor to the District for the first audit can be used to pay for the investigative audit.
By electing to vote for this required contract to initiate the investigative audit, it is my hope that a full, fair, frank, and complete audit will be issued by the State Auditor – and at the earliest possible time. I and the people of this community expect nothing less.
G.2. Discussion of Superintendent's Goals. Dr. Mendenhall
Dr. Mendenhall said that having concrete goals and objectives filters
through the organization and that principals and administrators can’t do
their jobs without knowing what the goals are. He also mentioned he would
be evaluated again in March by the BOE.
Goal #1 – To complete the 100 Day Entry Plan for the 2010-2011 school
year.
Goal #2 – To develop the comprehensive construction plan.
Goal #3 – To develop a strategic planning process that utilizes the State
Audit report and the Oklahoma Strategic Performance Review.
Dr. Mendenhall mentioned that this isn’t the final document. He wanted the BOE have a chance to review and then officially adopt the goals at the next board meeting. C. Kelly felt it was in order for the BOE to review and then come back to. S. Wilkins asked about the identifying a facilitator under Goal #3. Dr. Mendenhall talked about bringing in a 3rd party for a community process. C. Kelly asked that we map it out to our staff and the public via our website.
The adoption of these goals will be adopted after the BOE has given him feedback.
G.3. Discussion regarding BOE meetings, use of OSSBA eMeeting, and Electronic School Board. Discussion and schedule date for ESB training.
Dr. Mendenhall
Dr. Mendenhall gave some ideas and thoughts on ESB and eMeeting. He told them that the choice was the pleasure of the BOE. He did say that whatever system they chose that we needed to get staff trained.
S. Wilkins wanted to compare apples to apples.
C. Kelly said that eMeeting was just a meeting manager. She said going from ESB to eMeeting that she saw no advantages. She personally feels that there are more advantages to ESB than eMeeting.
S. Wilkins asked if the technology side is an issue as well.
C. Kelly wanted screen shots of ESB and eMeeting for comparison.
S. Wilkins talked to ESB and they told her that they do most of their training online and that the maintenance fee for this year is $4,500.
B. Daley said a flash version had to be installed on the server, but it was installed on the wrong server. Need to update old 2000 sequel database to 2005 database. That would be about $800-$1000. Would need
to run at least 2 updates a year.
Dr. Mendenhall said lets go ahead and go with ESB and get the training and updates that we need. Dr. Mendenhall just wants a smooth process.