School Board Workshop

Page 1 Minutes August 25, 2023 Board Workshop - 9:00 AM Manatee County School District 215 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, FL 34205 www.manateeschools.net Times Indicated Are Approximate I) CALL TO ORDER Attendee Name Status Dr. Jason C. Wysong, Superintendent Chad Choate, Chair Cindy Spray, Vice-Chair Gina Messenger, Board Member Mary Foreman, Board Member Richard Tatem, Board Member Joseph Ranaldi, Deputy Superintendent of Operations Rachel Sellers, Deputy Superintendent of Business Services Derek Jensen, Deputy Superintendent of Instructional Services Patricia Petruff, Board Attorney Present Stephen Dye, Board Attorney Pamela D’Agostino, General Counsel Absent Minutes: Chair Choate called the Workshop to order at 9:00 AM. II) PUBLIC COMMENTS Minutes: Public Comment as follows: 1. Dr. Susan Agruso III) WORKSHOP 1. Internal Auditor Update and Discussion of Audit Committee Procedures Minutes: Ms. Rachel Sellers, Deputy Superintendent of Business Services, introduced Mr. Mark Smith and Ms. Lorri Kidder, of Carr Riggs & Ingram (CRI), to give overview of the following Audits: a. Internal Audit – Purchasing b. Post Audit Review (PAR) – Personnel c. Internal Accounts Audit Program and Results

Page 2 After a question posed by Vice-Chair Spray, Mr. Smith noted the approval process within the purchasing department. He recommended that departments lower the monetary threshold for verbal quotes and requested they be received in written form to lower the possibility of audit findings. Board Member Foreman requested a vendor cybersecurity risk assessment be included in Post Audit Reviews going forward; Mr. Smith agreed and noted the process they have included for upcoming Audits. The Board continued to hold discussion. Additional information was provided to the Board by Mr. Smith and Ms. Kidder. 2. Legislative Update and Board Discussion of Legislative Priorities Minutes: Board Member Foreman gave an update of the Greater Florida Consortium of School Boards (GFCSB) Meeting that she recently attended and noted the Consortium’s list of Legislative Priorities for the upcoming 2024 Legislative Session. Board Member Foreman informed the Board of the following Consortium topics of interest: • Millage Referendum • Items related to Millage, including request to restore the 2.0 Mil Levy • Cyber Security and Technology • Transportation 2026 • School Districts being allowed to join State Health Care plan The Board held discussion about the Consortium’s list of Legislative Priorities. Chair Choate noted the consensus of the Board to not withdraw any items from the Consortium’s list and move forward with the Greater Florida Consortium Priorities. The Board asked questions and held discussion regarding health insurance and the State’s health care plan. Mr. Kevin Chapman, Executive Director of Administration, introduced Mr. Andrew Kalel, from Sunrise Consulting. Mr. Kalel answered questions and informed the Board of the state entities that are currently allowed to participate in the State’s insurance plan. The Board agreed after discussion that this item would not be included with the District’s Priorities. Mr. Chapman shared a draft of the Board’s 2024 Legislative Session Priorities and noted that input was provided by Board Members during one-on-one briefings. The Board asked questions and held discussion regarding the list. Mr. Kalel and Mr. Chapman answered questions and provided insight into District topics. The Board came to the following recommendations: • Numbers eight, nine and eleven would be removed from the District’s Legislative Priorities List. • Number six would be moved to next year’s priority list. • Numbers one, two, five, seven and ten would be discussed, re-worded, and re-numbered with input from Mr. Chapman, Mr. Kalel, and the Board Members. Chair Choate described the proposed appropriation request for a Manatee Technical College K-12 pre- apprenticeship and aviation program. He noted that the application for consideration to the State is due mid-September. Chair Choate called for a short recess at 11:40 AM. The Board reconvened at 11:53 AM.

Page 3 3. Master Board Training Follow Up - Creation and Implementation of Superintendent Evaluation Goals Minutes: The Board held discussion regarding the form for the Superintendent evaluation. The Board Members referenced Pinellas County’s Superintendent evaluation form as well as the 2021-2022 Manatee County Superintendent Evaluation form throughout the discussion. Board Member Messenger noted that the Pinellas County evaluation was streamlined as well as allowed for Superintendent provided documentation. Chair Choate questioned the need for the partial points on the rating scale and recommended whole number grading only. Board Member Tatem noted the higher potential of success if a midyear evaluation was utilized before the final evaluation. The Board held discussion on the options for targeted goals and discussed balancing goals with the Strategic Plan Chair Choate requested each Member develop a draft or edit Pinellas’s evaluation form as well as recommend a set goal. He stated that requests would be brought to a future workshop. 4. School Board Operations Discussion Minutes: Vice-Chair Spray noted the lack of office space for Board Members and her desire for an office on the fifth floor at the School Support Center (SSC). Board Member Tatem stated his desire for an office space at the SSC, noting that he did not prefer a specific floor. Board Member Foreman stated she is opposed to fifth floor office space for Board Members and noted concerns of unintentionally interrupting the daily functioning of District employees. Board Member Messenger stated that there are future long-term plans for the building. She discussed potential security issues for Board office space being located on a floor other than floor one. Superintendent Wysong requested direction from the Board on the office space requests. Chair Choate noted the following requirements to finding office space for Board Members: • Not remove current staff • Office is not for a position that will be filled within a specified period • Ensure long-term building plans will create a dedicated space for the Board Members • Consider security of the employees V) ADJOURNMENT Minutes: Chair Choate adjourned the Workshop at 1:13 PM. ______________________________ ______________________________ Dr. Jason C. Wysong, Ex Officio Secretary Chad Choate, III and Superintendent of Schools Chairman

Page 4 NOTICE Any person who desires to appeal any decision made by the School Board with respect to any matter considered at the above-mentioned meeting will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which an appeal may be based. School Board meetings are held in accessible locations. Auxiliary aids will be provided, upon written request received at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, to participants with disabilities.

>> Good morning, everyone. And welcome to AUGUST. 25th, a school board workshop. Have a good agenda here. We're getting ready to rock'n'roll. Board just so that that, you know, we do have a couple board that need to get out of here about 1 o'clock. So we do want to make sure we just concise our stuff and not. Go off on tangents you know, especially with I know, cri coming in there to present their report didn't get to last time. So I make sure that we're I'm focused on you know, what we're doing is set to go off on tangents. I know I can't. My Stu just let me go. Fontaine decide. In teacher the class so with that, we do have some public comments. We have one public comment. I want to get you before we get into our topics for today. And that doctor drew show. Come on up. >> Good morning. Doctor Susan. Agree. So nice to see all of you for the second time this week I am a resident of Manatee County and I am here to talk about item number 4. Have a couple of comments on that. First thing I want to do is thank the 3 board members who are listed as contact on that item for getting back to me and answering all my questions. That said, when you get there speed up your conversation. And just enough. I understand the need for the board clerk to have some assistance. There was an assistant here and works very well and worked with you want to commit. But there are a lot of staffing needs in this school district. And I think it's best left to doctor. Why song to continue his evaluation of what the needs are here and make a determination on how best to get the work done and to give you the service that you need so that you can do your jobs. That's the first part. More importantly, though, for me is the concept of putting office space up on the 5th floor. And I would say to you that that is just wrong. The states down here I know is very tight. I've been in there. I understand you need some more elbow room. There's a very smart district construction people around here. Maybe they can figure out some way to spread it out. Give you some more space. Make it more comfortable. But the fact York presence in this building is disrupting, you MAY not realize the impact you can have on staff because you want the board. And you can be very intimidating to them. Doctor, why song runs the day-to-day operation? The staff report to him. And he needs to have people comfortable trusting him knowing he's charge and he needs to build his team and to have people near him who can do their jobs and do them effectively and efficiently. Your presence on the 5th floor and are ones that makes it harder for him. And you have to display staff because there room there to put 5 offices. So I would urge you to think first about students about the staff. Recognize your not management. You're the border. You've hired yourself excellent superintendent support him. Let him do his job. >> That is. Correct. Heading in a new list that saw for public comments. Great. Thank you very much. Moving on to item workshop. Number one cri and the internal auditor, the reports that united to last workshop. So coming up, you guys are in. Rachel. You can introduce them >> So this is staff with cri who's going to be making a presentation at the best. The presentation today of the reports that have been completed for that, the close out this last fiscal year, we have Mark Smith and morning. Care. So I'm I'm sorry. I was not able to be at the last board workshop. And but >> I occasion it was it was great. I was on a vacation and it was wonderful. But I'm I'm going to let Mark step in and going present a report that was the original plan. I'll be here. If there's any questions. >> Morning, and well, so we have 3 reports this morning. I think it's a good representation of the different kind of reports that we to the district. So we have more of a operational risks type full-blown audit started review. And then what we've done this last year for internal account. So you get a kind of good spectrum year of the the difference reports on that presented to the first reporters to internal audit recall last during the presentation. Kind of our approach is this is what we would apply to this kind of audit for our full audit approach. So we conducted last last school year's presented to the audit committee back in MARCH. And overall, the audit, That was a medium risk on the 2 risk assessment that were conducted in really the main purpose of this that you see on Page 2 in the executive summary is so looking at the bidding rules in the process is implemented by the for policy and then guidance, state statutes. And we did find 2 items and one low risk throughout the report. You can see in each of those areas management's response which was very actually followed up and is part of our follow a process. And that will do post reviews in pri SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, those been addressed. So we'll go to make sure that those responses and what management has done has been implemented one of the items that we did also included here is construction procurement. We did the construction audit the previous year, procurement process for construction was moving from within the construction process to with in procurement. So we had to pick that up in this audit. And so we're able look at that. We had no issues with that. Piece of it. One of the other items we looked at here was vendor analysis. We like to look at sea. Are there any employees set up as vendors and if they are, why are they set up that way? And that resulted in exception we didn't find fraudulent All the reasons why we're we're appropriate and going to Putin. Process in place to address those. And the other that was a moderate item was verbal and written quotes it's really up to the school district below the 50,000 threshold determine what. I would say. That risk appetite isn't their staffing and what they're able to handle if they're going to get written quotes for certain purchases or verbal quotes and really. Rick, quote, serve our fry stronger than getting verbal quote. So part of talking with management through this observation is that they're going analyze, maybe lower that threshold for written quotes to make mean more and to have more oversight of that rather than saying up to 20,000 will just get for bulk quotes. One really, you know, it probably would be beneficial to kind of lower that threshold. A little and look at getting written quote, because they're more solid and, you know, have a better process in place to make sure that those are consistently followed. And there's less than say 3, that they document. And so spend the time on that rather than and a process that might not provide as much benefit. In the last item we had on there was the procedure manual which was low. They have a lot of good guidance that they have internally and that they provide it to throughout the district. And it's just a couple key documents in there that would benefit having that distribute it so that everybody kind of is aware of the process for purchasing and how things flow as well as incorporating some of the recommendations. We had the audit. They don't have any questions on the or with question of report. First, MISTER It spread. >> Yeah. You said that there never will written reports that there were 3 purchases. Did not have. Verbal written, quote, chain and documented. And each one of them or purchases for under. Understand we have purchases without. >> Written So. >> It was somewhere had a. Decisions was made that that price for that item was available. At times I think we saying here to judgment call by the purchasing associate to say at that price where we're getting what we're getting is adequate, which is fine if you do that. But one of our recommendations is that have a form that you justify why that's appropriate in that case because there's always going to be exceptions where you need something and the time you might take to to go find them or you know, yeah, that's for our experience. That's a good price. That's who we've from before. We know it's quality. And instead of, you know, getting it just to get it. That's fine. Just document why you made that decision. That was one of our recommendations was in there. If you you do that, let's have a documented why chose After the purchase. Then get some document. Before the purchases made you decide yet we're going with this vendor here because we purchase from them before we know that they can get it to us tomorrow. So we're going to go so document that with your purchase, your requisition that you put in reviewed. And plus, in each one of these, there's always there's a good flow of approval. So it's just not one person making the decision. There's 2 people in the purchasing department that approve in the workflow. Requisition is made turning into a purchase order. So you do just not one person making that decision. Least you have 2 sets of eyes within that department that requisition. >> Yeah. Could what if any processes that you used to evaluate cybersecurity risk of the chosen vendors was that outside the scope of this? We didn't it wasn't in this. But when we did the benefits audit. >> Before this, that cover doing the piece of it and that they're going to incorporate. Those pieces and we'll follow up when we look at that. >> Did cover just benefit vendors out. They've expanded that to make a decision that. >> If it's a new vendor and there are certain plight, 3 questions. If they're doing any of these, then they have to now have this certain documentation. So they've expanded it from my understanding past. The benefits >> but you didn't evaluate that Not on this because we knew at that time. That was a thing being. Implemented from after benefits So now that's going to be a practice in there. >> You know, be appropriate to put do up when you do the par. On the benefits. Yeah, that you make certain that any vendor that has access to any data. You know, whether their benefits or curriculum or what. But it okay. Yeah. >> envision taking a list of new vendors and then making sure that evaluation. They You know, it's kind of if they answer yes to any of these 3 questions. Now we need to obtain this additional documentation. If they're given information or have access to our system that will incorporate that in that part. >> Do you consider Sock want to be acceptable for? There's a second level, right? Well, there's there's a type one type 2, but act 1, 2, 3, >> So there's different. There's different so want once more like, you know what I'm getting at. We don't want the basic if they yeah. I think it depends on what service they're providing. >> Only question I had just just for. Everybody's knowledge to that. When you say moderate, low moderate, obviously you have any high and critical critical, which is good. So let's say the the couple things we have for the moderate. We obviously had a response back from administration insiders say, hey, here's what we're going to corrected. Whatever. And so, you know, as I read it, obviously, this must be completed within 90 days of the audit report date, right? So you go back and was just done. Know, they give us you. They give you a response. Now you're going back 90 days. Make sure that actually doing it. If at that point they're not does get moved to high. Show. How does it new or it is done is get moved below like how does that work going up? And think it's more given priority of where they should address the items. >> And then sometimes it does take more than the amount of time because we issued a report. We look for initial response of basically agreeing with it and some at this point in time what they feel they would implement and then they go into actually researching in doing that. So we've had times where. Afterwards is expanded the time of it. We don't go back. Actually we have some additional verbiage on what we consider these in our engagement letter. I'm a little more I'd say it's more priority. How to how to. What to implement. And hasn't rise to the occasion where it needs an immediate fix that it's broken so I feel the dates that were put in here were for adequate. Mike, I say if we follow up and they say, well, now we further research done, it's going to take another. Further amount of time we go to the audit committee. We have an exception tracker and summary that we provide on the tracker where currently that items at if it's still so that we kept calling it the pars about some of the things that we look at. Look all. Thank you, MISTER. Thank you for that. One. So the next one is the post audit review of personnel personnel on it. So we have an audit just like we have to pick it will do is will look for a time to go back with management and see are the items that were. Actions put in place. Have they've been fully implemented had enough time where we could come in and take a look at it. If we need to do any additional testing or transactional testing because management, you might be out recommendation. Update a policy. Okay. The updated policy. But if it where there might have been a number of exceptions and they hated the whole procedure. Not only do you want to make sure the procedure is adequate, but is it effective? Is it actually correcting what issue was previously? So on this personnel. We were able to close a number of items. However, were still open. And I talked with a Rick Bailey last week about the status of some of these and the timing of us to go back in and retest or make sure that some of these have been closed. So I think we're thinking about Sept late SEPTEMBER OCTOBER to come in and look at some of these items think there is 1, 2. There's 3 that were still had something open and them. You know, part of the balance of doing the partisan going to make sure enough spin implemented that. When we come, we spend our time coming back in. We're not coming in and then having to come back a month later that enough's. But some MAY be might be good going Periodically. Do some testing so that we don't wait too much time to go in. If something's been completed. But this par we we DECEMBER's that was at the JANUARY audit committee meeting and we hope to go through end. Hopefully close some of these items in the next month or so. I'm from here. So I said, Ric Bailey, are we? We met and talked about the status of these and then what we're going to do to address them and test them in the next month or so. And then we'll go back to the audit committee. We probably won't. We don't present another report like this will have the exception tracker that goes into that and say, what do we tested that we close this item and have a conversation more than producing another draft report or another report that. Says it's been closed. Anybody have a question on this one. Yes, >> what do you do to evaluate? And communicate the adequacy of the action plan? >> You know, you you issue a report. There's management comes back and says this is what we're going to do. How'd it? What if it's not good enough? That's not going to solve the problem. Who evaluates that and how do you communicate that? We look at. There's been a couple times where I said, well, here's the recommendation. Here is the issue. And this only partially. >> Addresses it. So I've talk with management about having to have additional information or things that they need to do to correct the item. I know audit committee. It's come up before where we might have looked at something or they ask, will the that fully or they be for work they get a report. And I think call there is one that we did on that. They had to go back and evaluate. It was in kind entry that they made. And we had to kind of research go back as action plan didn't have that. It had maybe going forward. What was going to be done, but not addressing are the research. So then we're able to. Work with management and then they addressed at the audit committee. So I think it's kind of I look at it from the standpoint of does with does it fully corrected or if they didn't put it in place? >> Did address the item you know, effectively, they might say, will put a policy in place at policy actually address that or is it just you had language are you actually executing it? Are you you communicate it out because then we go to the testing will be able to tell, was it appropriate their process that they put in place? So it's kind of our judgment a little bit. And then, you know, we take audit committees to the committee. >> Does the audit committee over come back to you and say I don't think this? They They do. Okay. Yeah. It's good. Thank Committee. So. Anybody >> question on this report. >> last one is get Colonel Council last year and up. I believe 5 of them? Provide it is program. We for that kind of lays out the different steps and different items that we look at each school. So will complete that with our work papers. But we want to provide it to show the scope and it was discussed with the audit committee that the presentment of. But you see the exceptions behind it was what we would do for internal accounts. We went into a for poor, but that was acceptable with what observational was made and then what recommendation as well as management's response. What you can selected? >> Okay. This >> So last year we perform these the 5 schools in NOVEMBER and DECEMBER and they were based on book keeper or principal changes. And we talked with the finance Department that time, which of those would warrant or feel with their interactions because they do work a lot with the schools. They're there to support them. They'll go out there. If they they'll do training. And so they identified some schools that would probably based on their interactions or maybe the size of school or the internal counts would be go big a visit. So that's how we selected those last year and perform those those internal accounts I explain last time. Yeah. So and then walk for this upcoming year at audit Committee and SEPTEMBER. We talk with finance this week. We'll kind of go over thoughts on when we would go back out there and then also we didn't get a chance to last year, but the law does say in FEBRUARY there's a a but keep or change. Then, you know, if audit committee there, they want us out there or suggest that, you know, that enable us to go out there within the change to see at that point down his cherry back or they're looking at right now all last year. So if we went out there in FEBRUARY of 2024, we can identify maybe if there was an issue or if there are some some items there instead of waiting till. That the next year that they get reviewed and it might be a random sample during that year. So at least we look at that time period. Usually 2 to 3 months. Right before that change or or when we're there. We like looking our samples and pulling documentation. And doing her on it. Any questions about this, the internal one. I just have one >> You say you do that internal audit based on maybe a turnover on a keeper or that Jim, what about? If the if it's the same book keeper for continuous years, that not them? Internal audit at all >> audit committee is focus more on the book Keeper and principal changes at schools. Plus side. Said the Finance Department works very closely with them. And I think they they received information from them monthly. You have cherry Becker in there as well. So there hasn't been any. They identified You know, that's possible. Something if they wanted us be involved by fielder their proactive and they they get involved. If they feel there's an issue where they identify something, you know, during their course work. >> it's not totally just stand by. A change of principle or a bookkeeper. There could be other. Circumstances that warrant internal audit at school. If if if, if it if it got brought up, are they? >> They asked us to they said, oh, we this school, we like you to go. Take a look at, you know, we could financed, discovered something back or does 100%? Yeah. Okay. Just do a different type of audit that every single school district. >> They cover. We cover a little Mike. Look at their program, what they look at their attributes and we a few of them and ours. But we kind of go beyond that were on site were walking through. Show us where you take the cash or you put it. You know, we're we count the cash there. We look at who has combination who has keys, who has system access and we kind of look additional items. One where like finance, like finances like. >> they discovered an issue at a book. Keep with the bookkeeper. MAY be that we never Obama looked at them. You know, you all they absolutely come back and take chat. I actually happened. >> 2 years ago we weren't doing the internal accounts. Then you had your own internal audit staff and there was an issue that came up at one of the schools. And you actually had your own staff along with Mark. They went out and looked at that together. So to answer your question, yes, there's a concern that comes up, tickets raised to the audit committee or to us and that would be something we a look. And we probably wouldn't wait. Yeah, yeah. It would be something that we would go to right way. Can't Does that answer your question? >> I'm great. Thank you very much. That you back here from from last time. You hope we get a fish eyesight. But thank you for come back and doing that. We've got and we've got out rest of the year and into next year already workshops for quarterly. I think we'll see again, not But the one after once the audit committee that comes up with stuff are here, that's where things. Thank absolutely It's we're going ship. Pretty frequent Let's go ahead. And we've got some time before because I think injuries on his breakdown that could be here till 10. Just go ahead and skip in weight on the legislative update and the discussion on that. Let's go to let's go well, let me let's do this. Let's go and start our discussion of our priorities before He won't need to necessarily be here for We can talk about our priorities, the ones that we've already talked Also MISS Form. And you give us an update on but the great consortiums sense want to start with a greater consortia. Just update on what. Some of the major priorities were >> you all received a copy of priority issues. Or greater can sort them. Think yesterday in the mail. Find And you've got stop here. All right. Pages. This is when they gave us. Record. But as approached one of the yeah. Okay. I've got several to look like that. In the discussion, the one thing that I could hope to see for that. We talked about moving academics and accountability. To the front page in place funding bumping funding down because for that yeah, I I regret saying that they did not do that. You know, because frankly, we go the fsb. Manatee County school board. We all go and ask for money and I'm sure that they just kind of glossed right over it. We have some really significant things know. Asking more for academics. I don't think I'm working off to the copy that looking at Yeah, I think should ordered those come us and >> brought this up the other day when she was talking to us about this, too. So the greater consortium will, obviously they came together. They they talked about the parties. It comes back to us with what we're looking at today. And then we've got to as a board, we've got to prove it to go back for it to be approved. If we sit here and say we don't like number this one, then it gets taken out. My correct on that farm. That's correct. So we so that's something like for us to look Hey, do we like these that they have one to be approved? What they're doing today, lined up with what we have. We don't have to copy our lot. You know, we didn't have to copy And so that's that's what I would think we get out and we don't want to be at the that back to I don't know soon, but we just need it to look at it today put it on >> On the next agenda, I get to vote on You