Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired

A Center for
Educational Services

Board of Trustees - Minutes

Return to Minutes Index

November 18, 2005 Minutes

Meeting of the Board of Trustees
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired

November 19, 2005 Minutes

The regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Trustees, Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (TSBVI) was held in Room 116 of the Administration Building, located at 1100 West 45 th Street, Austin, Texas on November 18, 2005.

Call to Order : Frankie Swift, Board President, called the meeting to order at 10:32 AM. In addition to Ms. Swift, the following Board members were in attendance: Dr. Gene Brooks, Jamie Wheeler, Mary Sue Welch, Debbie Louder, Toby Galindo, and Donna Clopton.

Introduction of Audience: Others in attendance at the meeting included Carol Vaughan, Cyral Miller, Shelly Allen, Debra Barton, Debra Nesbitt, Dr. Lauren Newton, Russell Gregorczyk, Miles Fain, Malcolm Cleveland, Barney Schulz, James Lambert, Ken Miller, John Botti, Dr. Phil Hatlen, and Susan Houghtling.

Award of Certificates of Appreciation to TSBVI Retirees: Shelly Allen introduced Debra Barton as an outstanding residential instructor who retired earlier this year. The Board presented Ms. Barton with a certificate of appreciation. Nancy Pearson, a residential instructor who also retired this year but was not present at the meeting, was also recognized with a certificate of appreciation.

Public Comments/Open Forum : There were no public comments.

Consideration of Approval of Minutes of July 25 and 26, 2005 Board Meeting: Frankie Swift presented the minutes of the July 25 and 26, 2005 Board Meeting to the Board for approval.Donna Clopton moved that the minutes be accepted as presented.

Debbie Louder seconded the motion. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Report from the Program Committee:

Consideration of Approval of Board Policies: Ms. Louder presented policies CKC, EHBK, EIA, EIE, FD, FFAF, FFG, and FL to the Board for approval. The Program Committee moved that all policies be accepted as presented. Since the motion for approval came from the Program Committee, no second was needed. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Report from the Comprehensive Program Principal: Miles Fain reported on the program committee's discussion on the plan to improve the TAKS, SDAA, and LDAA performance indicator program. The master plan for the improvement of the TAKS and SDAA programs was presented on page 146 of the board packet. Mr. Fain explained that this plan was the result of extensive review and analysis of TAKS and SDAA results for students, and of work with specialists at Region XIII. Region XIII really liked the plan, and as a result the Region XIII Education Service Center (ESC) will pay for any TSBVI teacher training this school year related to TAKS and SDAA performance.

Mr. Fain also reported on the status of English as a Second Language (ESL) on our campus. He stated that last school year we had 17 students of limited English proficiency, and 11 teachers with ESL certification. Each of the 17 students had an ESL-certified teacher assigned either as their teacher or as a consultant to their regular teacher. All of these students were assessed using the state's new Texas Observation Profile Assessment. All of the students made a demonstrated improvement on their rating levels on this instrument for the areas in which they were assessed.

Mr. Fain further reported that our Language Proficiency Assessment Committee maintained their training requirements last school year, and that we had special training for all staff to get up to speed with the new state requirements and assessment procedures and to go over innovative methods for ESL instruction.

Consideration of approval of appointment of a Textbook Committee: The Program Committee moved to approve a textbook committee consisting of Sonia Fair, Susan Osterhaus, Glenda Torrence, Debra Sewell, with Diane Nousanen as chairperson. Since the motion for approval came from the Program Committee, no second was needed. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Consideration of approval of a School Health Advisory Council: The Program Committee moved to accept the following people as the school Health Advisory Council: Deanna Bethea, Monique Munoz, Bob Richter, Debra Sewell, with Pat Stephenson as chair. Since the motion for approval came from the Program Committee, no second was needed. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Report from Special Programs Principal: Dr. Lauren Newton distributed an attendance report for the various summer 2005 programs. These numbers were compared to attendance for the years 1996-2005. She pointed out that the total enrollment was 258 in 2005 and 242 in 2004. The numbers appear to be increasing. Whereas the number of students attending summer programs was quite high ten years ago, the yearly totals dropped when our budget was reduced.

Ms. Clopton asked about the column labeled "under target" on the final attendance report for 2005. Dr. Newton responded that the "under target" column reflects the number by which attendance is lower than they originally planned. She further remarked that there are a great number of unavoidable dropouts, and that they have put into place a number of procedures designed to reduce the number of students who drop out after they are originally accepted.

Dr. Newton also passed out copies of the proposed Summer 2006 Calendar. She explained that the summer program offerings that will be posted for academic secondary students will not all be offered. The plan is to offer the students make choices and then offer the ones that are most desired. These secondary academic classes will vary in length from one to three weeks, and their specific calendar dates will be determined after the classes are determined. She added that one goal of the special programs department is to restore some of the summer programs to their original lengths, since they have been shortened.

Summer program applications are due on Valentine's Day. Ms. Swift asked whether there is a place on the application form for VI teachers to be listed with their contact information. Dr. Newton responded that there is such a field, and that the VI teachers are contacted in various ways. Ms. Clopton pointed out that the VI teachers are often helpful in getting transportation arranged.

In summer 2006 two short-term IEP classes will be offered, in addition to a possible SBOE credit class in Physical Education. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has told Dr. Newton in writing that SBOE credit is available for a class regardless of length, as long as the students pass the test, are taught all of the TEKS, and are taught by a certified teacher.

The Program Committee recommended approval of the summer programs calendar, with the request that we look into SBOE requirements for offering fine arts credit for Braille Music Workshop or Rock Band, and credit for the two vocational programs. Since the motion for approval came from the Program Committee, no second was needed. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Report from Outreach Director: Cyral Miller reported on parental feedback on outreach programs, which was overwhelmingly positive.

Report from the Personnel Committee:

Consideration of approval of board policies: The Personnel Committee recommended approval of the following policies: CRD, CRE, DAA, DBA, DBAA, DC, and GKG. Since the motion for approval came from the Personnel Committee, no second was needed. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Consideration of approval of new contract staff: Ms. Clopton reported that the list of new contract staff as presented in the board packet contained one omission: Pat Van Geem, who was hired in the Outreach Department. The Personnel Committee submitted the revised list of new contract staff for approval. Debra Nesbitt reported that the teachers will need to get their VI teacher certification within three years; Dr. Hatlen indicated that they have all begun working towards that goal, and that Jennifer Fierro is already a certified VI teacher and is one year away from being a certified diagnostician.

Since the motion for approval came from the Personnel Committee, no second was needed. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Review of the Abuse and Neglect Procedures and Follow-up on Audit Recommendations: Ken Miller reported on the steps taken to implement Russell Gregorczyk's audit recommendations of abuse and neglect procedures as presented in the July board meeting. The procedure had been revised in November and December of 2003. At the time of Mr. Gregorczyk's audit, there had been no reports of abuse or neglect since the adoption of the procedure. There was subsequently one report of suspected abuse and neglect near the end of last school year, and there have been two so far this semester. Mr. Miller reported that the investigations are always conducted according to procedure, and that the electronic documentation has always had a backup copy. All documents for those recent investigations are now in triplicate—two electronic copies and one hardcopy. Mr. Gregorczyk will help Mr. Miller check up on it in the spring. Ms. Louder asked about final reports to Dr. Hatlen's office. Mr. Miller indicated that those had been submitted to Dr. Hatlen.

Ms. Swift and Ms. Clopton asked Carol Vaughan to check to see if she had received a report from counselor Roy Martz about the one confirmed case of abuse/neglect. Dr. Hatlen said that he is up to date on those reports. In response to a query from Dr. Brooks, Mr. Miller said that the procedure and the associated report forms are available on the TSBVI intranet in Microsoft Word format, and therefore should be accessible to staff using screen-reading software.

Discussion of Agency Strategic Planning: Mr. Miller gave an overview of the strategic plan. The overall plan is a compilation of the component planning that goes on here at the school in the areas of student learning, facilities, staff, special programs, outreach, new services/initiatives, the Instructional Planning Council (IPC), and technology. The purpose of the strategic plan is to determine and guide how we want to position the school from now until the end of the 2011 school year.

The strategic plan is due to the legislature in June. After that, it gets distilled into the legislative appropriations request, which is where we ask for funding for items that are needed for the following biennium.

Ms. Louder indicated that she would like an outside strategic planning professional to come in and help with the strategic planning coordination. She suggested hiring someone who knows how to plan rather than someone versed in education. Ms. Wheeler expressed concern about the cost. Ms. Louder mentioned the possibility of finding someone who would do it pro bono.

Toby Galindo asked how the cost of hiring someone from outside compares to the cost of the time spent by our current planning team. Ms. Clopton said that the outside contractor would be hired just to facilitate, rather than to replace the current who are involved. Ms. Louder stressed that many public agencies hire an independent planning contractor in order to get an outside perspective.

Dr. Hatlen asked why Ms. Louder wanted external representation in the planning process—whether it was out of dissatisfaction or in an attempt to garner an additional source of information. Ms. Louder replied that the planning needs to be looked at from an outside perspective to bring everybody's ideas and desires together without hurt feelings or bias.

Ms. Swift asked that the school bring back data about who would be available to do this work and the cost of professional strategic planning consulting.

Mr. Miller pointed out that the format of the plan is determined by the state.

Consideration of Nomination of a Board Liaison to the Instructional Planning Council: Mr. Miller led a perusal of the strategic planning calendar that he and Susan Houghtling passed out. He indicated that the Board's bi-monthly meetings do not afford much time to get Board input into the strategic plan, which is why he is asking for a board member to attend regular IPC meetings.

Ms. Swift said that she would like to have the board as a group work on the strategic plan in the form of an in-service day, and to have one member show up even more often. Dr. Hatlen mentioned that the sesquicentennial celebration takes place on Friday, January 27, 2006—the same day as the next board meeting. He expressed hope that board members would stay after the meeting to attend that celebration, and suggested the following day as a good day for an in-service.

Ms. Louder asked about teleconferencing via the Texas Education Telecommunications Network (TETN). Dr. Hatlen mentioned that the Board had discussed it before, but that there were issues with the Open Meetings Act.

Ms. Swift asked if any member of the Board would like to serve as IPC liaison. Dr. Brooks volunteered, and pointed out that Tuesdays and Thursdays are already booked. Mr. Fain offered to send the meeting schedule to Dr. Brooks.

The Board asked that Ms. Vaughan look into any quorum issues with meeting via TETN, as well as the possibility of teleconferencing.

Mr. Miller asked whether any members of the Board were familiar with Cindy Martin, who used to do strategic planning for Region XIII and is now working at Eanes-Westlake. Ms. Swift said that Ms. Martin "does a good job," and also suggested checking with the Region XIII Education Service Center (ESC) to see if they had resources available for strategic planning. Mr. Miller agreed to follow up with that.

The Board decided to hold a strategic planning in-service on Saturday, January 28, 2006, from 8:00 AM-12:00 PM. Ms. Welch expressed concern about attaining a quorum. Ms. Louder said that she may have to leave early for Abilene if that meeting runs late. Mr. Miller said that he will try to hire a strategic planner for that morning.

Ms. Swift asked the board to think over the holidays where they would like to see the school in 5 years, so that they will be ready to report and discuss in January.

Internal Auditor's report:

Consideration of approval of Human Resources System and Controls Audit: Russell Gregorczyk reported on the Audit of Human Resources Systems and Controls. He indicated that this may be the first audit that looked at the entire HR system. The audit found that:

The audit revealed that some internal promotions were not based upon an objective and up-to-date job performance appraisal. It is board policy to base promotions on job performance. Mr. Gregorczyk suggested that the school should strive to be sure that any promotions are backed by a recent performance appraisal.

Ms. Swift stated that she had heard from others outside TSBVI that they are unable to apply for positions here.

Dr. Hatlen mentioned that professional positions are never only posted internally. He said that all teacher positions are posted externally, and that TA positions are often initially listed internally.

Ms. Nesbitt stated that it is board policy to give first consideration to internal applicants.

Ms. Swift expressed concern that we are opening ourselves up for a lawsuit, and that we are hiring not-yet-qualified personnel on emergency permanent status instead of hiring highly qualified staff.

Dr. Hatlen said that the school never does that. Ms. Nesbitt said that we currently only have one employee – a diagnostician – on emergency permanent status, and that no one ever gets hired in that status without an external posting going out. In response to Ms. Swift's concerns about TSBVI hiring non-VI-certified Teaching Assistants (TAs) currently employed here to teaching positions without offering them to certified teachers outside TSBVI, Dr. Hatlen reiterated that all teaching positions are externally posted.

Ms. Louder wondered what happens when a position is open for VI-certified staff and an external VI-certified applicant applies and so does a Special Education-certified TA from TSBVI. Ms. Swift said that she had heard that VI teachers found that they couldn't even apply. Mr. Fain said that perhaps it was confusion caused by the applicant's having visited the website during the first five days of the posting, during which time the position is open to internal applicants only. After that five days, a new, external posting is made. Mr. Fain said that he does not recall any time since he's been the principal at TSBVI that a teacher position was filled in the initial five days.

Ms. Nesbitt reported that most Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) specialists consider it favorable to hire from within. Many members of underrepresented populations who advance in the workforce do so through internal advancement and promotion, so it is not considered compatible with promoting workforce diversity not to give preference to qualified internal applicants.

Ms. Swift expressed concern that the postings are being misrepresented as being for internal applicants only, and that we are encouraging stagnation by allowing employees to be hired on with a promise to get VI certification within a specified time period rather than hiring outside teachers who are already certified.

Ms. Nesbitt estimated that it had been 5 years since the last emergency teaching permit was issued by TSBVI. It was after an open posting, but we hired non-VI-certified teachers because the certified applicants had worked here before and had performance issues. So in that case, non-VI-certified folks were hired.

Mr. Fain commented that his department encourages VI-certified teachers from outside to apply. He also stated that usually there is little turnover in the academic teaching positions, and that our external applicants often come from itinerant academic teaching backgrounds and are not interested in taking a position teaching the multiple-impaired, which is where many of our openings are.

Ms. Swift asked that we look to make sure that the postings are not misleading.

Mr. Gregorczyk commented that all agencies post internally.

Ms. Swift asked that Ms. Nesbitt review the internal policy that guides us to give first consideration to internal applicants, and Policy DBA.

Mr. Gregorczyk expressed concern that not everyone is getting performance appraisals on a yearly basis. Ms. Nesbitt said that they have been brought up to date.

Mr. Gregorczyk suggested the possibility of making managers ineligible for promotions or raises if they do not appraise their staff. The problem was mainly with classified staff appraisals.

Mr. Gregorczyk also reported having found problems with the leave and timekeeping systems. He said that we have a very complicated system here, and we need to do a better job of recordkeeping, especially with regards to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) non-exempt employees. This may require a new part-time position in the human resources (HR) department.

Ms. Nesbitt reported that many of the audit suggestions have already been implemented. The HR department could support other departments more, but that would probably not lead to more centralization. Some of the timekeeping problems are aspects of supervision within departments. Human Resources can help coordinate and standardize monitoring, auditing, and training of timekeepers.

Ms. Clopton said that she felt that HR would be asking for more information from timekeepers in order to increase accountability.

Ms. Nesbitt said that one way to increase accountability is to do FLSA audits. We can also find disciplinary actions to enforce the procedures. She pointed out that under federal law, if someone works overtime even though you told them not to, you still have to pay them. Therefore other disciplinary actions besides non-payment would have to be used in those circumstances. She said that the problem that we have is usually that people are working without clocking in.

Ms. Wheeler expressed concern that inaccurate timekeeping makes it hard to determine whether a department needs to add staff, because the amount of work that is being done is not documented. Mr. Miller pointed out that it could also lead to the school incurring a huge back-pay situation that we were not aware of.

Ms. Nesbitt explained that according to the FLSA, non-exempt staff cannot volunteer for a job that is similar to their own job.

Mr. Fain clarified to the board that some of his hardest-working staff are his timekeepers. Ms. Swift asked whether some of the standardization of timekeeping practices could be accomplished through the implementation of new accounting software. Ms. Nesbitt responded that leave accounting and fiscal accounting at TSBVI are vastly different from those at other agencies. The complexity of our system is primarily due to our need to force the state leave accounting and payroll system onto a school calendar.

Mr. Gregorczyk said that this is the most complicated payroll and time accounting system that he has encountered. He reported not finding any overpayments.

He also praised the progressive disciplinary action system for being thorough and well-documented. The only problem that he found with that was that when someone is in disciplinary action, the outcome is not required to be documented in their personnel folder.

He reported having given suggestions to Ms. Nesbitt about the filing system and how it can more effectively be used.

Consideration of approval of Fiscal Year 2006 Internal Audit Plan: Mr. Gregorczyk reported having updated the risk assessment. He also indicated that there are a few typos on the table that he passed out— the heading for column 3 should read "PLAN FY 06", and instead of Residential Programs, he intends to audit School & Student Services.

Mr. Gregorczyk proposed four audit areas for FY 2006 in the audit plan: Accounting/Purchasing, Technology Services, Student-Related Services, and Investments. The State Auditor's Office (SAO) looked at a lot of the same areas in terms of business operations, but he would like to do a thorough audit so he can help them implement new budgeting and accounting systems. He reported having finished the investment audit already.

Mr. Gregorczyk proposed possibly also auditing the Weekends Home program in lieu of the Accounting/Purchasing audit. Ms. Swift pointed out that Weekends Home is spread among many different accounts, with an estimated total of over $500,000 a year devoted to sending students home. Mr. Miller commented that if the students did not go home, there would still be costs associated with having them stay here.

Ms. Clopton said that we had visited this issue before, but she would like a thorough audit.

Dr. Brooks wanted the board to also consider the impact for children going home versus not going home. He reported that Mr. Gregorczyk said in the committee meeting that he could do more than just number crunch; he could also send surveys out to families to find out how the travel affects them and the students.

Mrs. Welch worried about the impacts of travel on the students and their learning, due to weariness from traveling so frequently.

Ms. Clopton recommended skipping the Accounting Systems audit in favor of an audit of the Weekends Home program, and accepting the amended FY 2006 Audit Plan.

Ms. Swift added that the audit should look at not just dollars, but also how the students are affected when they do or do not go home regularly. Mr. Gregorczyk said that he would update the plan and send it to the Board.

Ms. Louder seconded the motion. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Consideration of approval of the Public Funds Investment Act Audit: Mr. Gregorczyk reported on this required audit, which is due around January 1 every other year. The purpose is to ensure that our investment policies comply with the Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA).

He reported that we are complying with the PFIA, and that our policies meet all of the requirements of that Act. He did note a suggestion for rewording in our policy. The statute says that one's policy specifically has to address yield as one of the considerations of how one is going to select investments. This was not explicit in the policy, but it has now been changed in committee.

He also reported that the investment officer has begun adding a statement in the investment report, claiming that he has no conflicts of interest nor business relationships with any of the investments. It is technically only required to claim when one does have a conflict of interest.

The legacy fund had been kept in a non-interest-bearing account, and never had less than $25,000 in the account. He suggested moving most of that money into an interest-bearing account.

Ms. Louder moved approval of the Public Funds Investment Act Audit, and Gene Brooks seconded. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Presentation of the Annual Internal Audit Report for FY 2005: The annual report is a required document due by November 1, which goes to all the oversight agencies. The primary purpose is to outline the recommendations that have been made and relate where the management stands on implementing those recommendations. Mr. Gregorczyk referred to the table contained in the handout, which summarizes the recommendations, the impact designs, and the status as reported by the management.

Mr. Gregorczyk reported that he did not do any non-audit projects in the past year, and that he generally shies away from doing them.

In the coming year there will be a peer review of the internal auditor, which is required every three years. We are currently delinquent. The approximate cost is $2500. This will probably be done by an external contractor. This individual will probably contact the board members.

Ms. Swift asked whether anyone looks at the Audit Annual Report and follows up on implementation of recommendations. Mr. Gregorczyk responded that sometimes it happens if an agency has a particular interest in TSBVI or an aspect of our audit. Mr. Schulz said that the oversight agencies rely on the internal auditor to provide them with information for their own reports or audits.

Ms. Louder had questions about the status of the audit in regards to ethics training. Certain policies were suggested for yearly review with staff; management did not concur. She asked why staff is not getting ethics training?

Mr. Gregorczyk responded that he thought that it has to do with the amount of things that are already required during orientation.

Ms. Nesbitt said that ethics training happens at New Employee Orientation (NEO), but not annually for incumbent employees.

Mr. Miller related that his part of NEO is to train new employees professional standards of conduct.

Consideration of initiating Internal Auditor's performance appraisals: Ms. Nesbitt reported that Judy Schauer, previous TSBVI auditor, prepared an appraisal instrument for herself, which the board would review after she had filled it out. Mr. Gregorczyk has been here for almost a year, so his appraisal is almost due. She said that they should be able to find the appraisal instrument that Ms. Schauer used.

Mrs. Welch expressed her belief that the Finance and Audit Committee would do the appraisal.

Ms. Swift asked Ms. Nesbitt to find the old appraisal and email it to the board members.

Ms. Vaughan indicated that even if the Finance and Audit Committee conducts the appraisal, the full board needs to approve it. Any communications about the appraisal need to be between a single board member and Debra Nesbitt.

Consideration of 2004-05 superintendent's summative appraisal results: At 12:40 PM the Board convened in closed session under the authority of the Texas Open Meetings Act, Section 551.074, with the intent to reconvene in open session at 2:00 PM.

At 2:30 PM, Ms. Swift reconvened the meeting in open session.

Ms. Clopton moved to approve the summative appraisal results. Ms. Louder seconded the motion. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Update on Management Responses to the State Auditor's Office Audit on Financial Systems: Mr. Schulz passed out a table outlining the audit recommendations from the State Auditor's Office (SAO). He reported that the school has not yet implemented the first item, item 1a., which pertains to development and updating of policies in the area of financial planning, budgeting, and student enrollment forecasting. The original due date was November 1, 2005. He estimated that the Board will consider a policy or procedure at its January Board meeting.

He also reported that the expenditure monitoring is now done on a different basis— department heads are to review expenditures and report any discrepancies to Dr. Hatlen.

Mr. Cleveland said that his office is developing a user's manual for holders of procurement cards— which are essentially credit cards— based upon TBPC guidelines. Cardholders will be requested to review the manual and sign that they have read it. They are also implementing more supervisory control over purchases. Mr. Schulz related that the cardholder's supervisor will have to review procurement card purchases in all cases.

Mr. Schulz went on to explain that item 1b., regarding superintendent approval of transfers between budget items, is on this meeting's agenda; that action item will be completed at the closure of this meeting.

He also mentioned in reference to item 1c. that any future budget amendments will be submitted within 30 days of approval, and that no budget amendments have occurred since the recommendations were made.

Mr. Schulz continued with the following report on the audit recommendations:

The item pertaining to entering detailed budgets into the Uniform Statewide Accounting System in a timely manner (1d.) was done September 23, 2005.

1e. Supervisory review of monthly budget statements- Dr. Hatlen has already initiated the process. We're developing new procedures for the implementation of this item so that everyone understands their roles and responsibilities.

1f. Segregate duties related to the budget and budget revisions- All revisions are initiated by accounting, reviewed by another person in that department, and then entered by yet another, so the separation is now in place.

Seeking Board approval for a budgeting position- This is being phased in. We may have a temporary employee in that position as of January 1, 2006, leading to an evaluation of how best to use that position.

1g. Deposit cash within three days of receiving it- this was implemented immediately.

2a. Cross-training is being done. Mr. Cleveland said there are no jobs in the business office that cannot be handled by another person, except for certain payroll functions. These could still be accomplished in the event of an absence, but that is the only potentially weak area in their cross-training. He expressed belief that the auditors did not realize that his office was capable of duplicating its functions so completely, and that they primarily judged based on the small size of the department.

Mr. Schulz continued his report:

2b. Develop and document succession plan that addresses all key positions- scheduled to be implemented by June 1. Dr. Hatlen indicated that we are currently determining which positions will have a succession plan—some of them will not.

3. Updating and streamlining the accounting processes, including updated automated systems- this item is on the agenda of this meeting, and was discussed at the Finance and Audit Committee meeting.

Report from Finance and Audit Committee:

Consideration of approval of board policies: The Finance and Audit Committee recommended that the board approve the following board policies: BBG, CDA, CE, CHC, GBAA-E. The motion did not require a second because it came from the committee. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Report of fiscal year 2005budget status: Mr. Schulz handed out the reports, and indicated that the figures reflected in these reports may be altered slightly in the future, depending upon the utilization of some grant monies.

Ms. Swift said that we had a surplus thanks to having received $443,694 more tax dollars than we projected. She expressed concern that we would have been short by approximately $150,000 on the revenue side if that unexpected surplus had not occurred.

Ms. Clopton asked about the apparent underbudgeting of instructional programs by about $40,000.

Mr. Schulz explained that we had budgeted for 16 days of instructional days in August, but that then they decided to have 18 days that month, resulting in a difference of about $20,000. The fiscal year begins in September, and the school year begins in August. The school calendar is set after the budget for the next fiscal year is set, so the budget needs to anticipate the calendar; sometimes there is a discrepancy.

Ms. Clopton asked what would have happened if we had not had the excess? Mr. Schulz replied that the departments that had savings helped pay for departments that are short.

Mr. Schulz then related that there are two other transfers that needed to occur after the report was submitted to the Board. In the past his department made an effort to finalize all those transfers before reporting to the Board, but that led to the report not being delivered on a timely basis. The first was student salaries— out of convenience this had been paid out of the operating budget, but should have been paid out of the Legacy Budget. Secondly, some stipends paid over the summer needed to be paid from the curriculum and publications fund.

Ms. Swift asked if the change that the Board has made in the due date of the budget report to the state from November to December would alter the date of the presentation to the Board. Barney said that he hoped to continue with our current timeline, and that the report given to the state is not the same format as the report to the Board, although it is based on the same numbers.

Ms. Clopton asked about the budget for Hepatitis-B shots, and whether everyone gets one. Mr. Schulz responded that we budgeted $15,000 in FY 2005 for such shots, but only spent $1,560, causing a budget surplus. For this year the budget has been reduced by half. The other half was put into criminal records checks.

Ms. Clopton asked about the revenue figures for the curriculum and publications area. Mr. Cleveland said that the expected curriculum revenues were $216,000, but $257,000 was the actual revenue from publications.

Ms. Wheeler asked about the budgetary impacts of housing hurricane survivors on the budget.

Dr. Hatlen replied that we are not claiming any hurricane-related costs to FEMA nor to the governor's office.

Consideration of approval to transfer funds between budget codes for 2005-06: The Finance and Audit Committee recommended that the Board approve the alteration of board policy CE, authorizing the Superintendent to transfer up to 12.5% from any one appropriation to another appropriation item for the purpose of consolidating any budget savings in departmental operating budgets. The motion did not require a second because it came from the committee. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Consideration of approval of renewal of Nolan County farm contracts: The Finance and Audit Committee recommended that the board approve the renewal of the farm contracts. The motion did not require a second because it came from the committee. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Approval of a proposal by Wells Fargo Bank, trustee for the Bert Broday Jr. Trust, to initiate or participate in a petition to allow diversification of the Trust: This item was tabled until the January Board meeting. Mr. Schulz indicated that the Board's questions about this item should be answered at the November 19, 2005 training session, and that TSBVI is not prepared to make a decision on this topic.

Update on the Roscoe Wind Farm proposal: Mr. Schulz reported that the farmers have made a significant amount of income for the school this past year operating those farms. It doesn't look as though the school would stand to benefit much financially from the wind farm proposal, and that the transmission lines may be disruptive to the farming operations. We are still looking in to the matter.

Consideration of approval of Investment Report: This report is found on pages 18 and 19 of the Finance and Audit Committee handout. The short-term investment balance as of October 31 was $250,000. The balance was increased by $25,500 that had been in a non-interest-bearing checking account. The Rate of return at that point was 3.65%. According to the current daily update, the rate of return was slightly over 4%.Mr. Schulz reported that he has no business relationship with any of the investment managers.

The Finance and Audit Committee recommended that the board approve the Investment Report. The motion did not require a second because it came from the committee. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Approval of receipt of gifts and donations: Mr. Schulz reported on the donations received since the last meeting. The following gifts over $500 require acceptance by the Board:

The Finance and Audit Committee recommended that the board accept these donations. The motion did not require a second because it came from the committee. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Dr. Hatlen reported that the money from Delta Gamma and the Dark Horse Riders came with stipulations for their use in student enrichment activities and carts for the track respectively. He asked that the ERDT donation be placed into the staff, volunteers and guests activity account. The Finance and Audit Committee recommended approval of these uses of the donations. The motion needed no second. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Report on Public Funds Investment Act training received by Investment Officer: Mr. Schulz reported to the Board that he had reported to the Finance and Audit Committee that he is required to have investment training in the amount of 5 hours every 2 years. He last had this training in February 2004. By February of 2006 he will have 5 more hours of investment training.

Report on book sales: Mr. Schulz handed out a report documenting book sales over the past 7 years. The number of handling charges is number of customers that we've served— about 1100 in the last year. The "shipping charges" category reflects the number of orders outside the US.

Ms. Louder asked whether the assessment book is out yet. Ms. Miller responded that it is very close to being released, if it is not already out.

Dr. Hatlen pointed out that sales of the three-volume set Independent Living stay consistent year-on-year, as do sales of the Low Vision Resource Guide, which had a very good year last year. Kay Holbrook contacted Dr. Hatlen about revising her Learning Media Assessment book, and asked him how much we would pay her for it. He also indicated that we are looking into revising several publications, but that Curriculum Coordinator Debra Sewell has a list of potential new publications, four or five of which should come out this year.

Mr. Schulz reported that the total book sales revenue over the past six years is $1,470,000.

Discussion of options for updating accounting software: Mr. Schulz reported having led a search for an accounting system that is truly accessible for the people handling the data. Technology Services Interim Director Jim Allan could not find one. There is an option that could be exported to Word or Excel that would be accessible.

He said that he and Mr. Cleveland would be sending out a survey during the next week to other state agencies to find out what they use, whether they like it, how much it costs, what its features are, whether it interfaces with the state payroll accounting system, etc.

They hope to get results back in early December, then take a week to review those. They will then interview the agencies that have systems that may interest us, then select vendor some tome the first week in January 2006. Factors that will be considered are the initial purchase price, the ongoing operating costs, the programming needs that will arise and whether TSBVI will have to outsource that work, hardware needs, and training needs.

They hope to do beta testing by June 1, 2006, and to move to a new system by the beginning of next fiscal year. "Beta testing" refers to having the system in place with real data, then using it for a few months alongside the current system to work out problems and learn how to use the new system. The transition date would be after then beginning of the next fiscal year, leaving June, July and August for the testing. They are looking at contacting the Department of Information Resources (DIR), Texas School for the Deaf, the SAO, the Governor's office, as well as learning from Mr. Gregorczyk's personal assessment of what other agencies are using.

The decision has not been made as to what supplemental systems we may implement at the same time. One idea that came out of the morning's discussions was that of implementing timekeeping functionality. Other possible systems include the student trust fund system, the cash system for legacy funds, student activity funds, curriculum book sales inventory, and warehouse inventory.

Ms. Wheeler asked how long the new system will last, to which Mr. Schulz responded that he would like it to last 10-20 years. She then asked how long the current system has lasted. Mr. Schulz reported that the previous system was online from 1982 until May 1993. We changed to the current method, which is not really a "system" in the sense that we are looking to implement, in 1993.

Mr. Cleveland estimated that the new system would last us a long time, and placed the likely cost of the new system at $60,000-70,000. He also said that the purchase would not be a formal bid. Instead, he would publish a Request For Proposals, then negotiate with vendors that submit proposals.

Consideration of Approval of TSBVI Organizational Chart: The chart reflects the placement of the Director of Community Resources into the superintendent's office. The chart is set to be revised in January. The Board tabled approval of the organizational chart until January.

Discussion of the Low Vision Clinic and Reimbursements for Low Vision Evaluations: Mr. Miller reported that if a student's ARD committee agrees that it wants the student to receive a low vision evaluation, TSBVI makes it clear to the local district that we will not be responsible for the cost. The district determines who will perform the evaluation. If it is done by TSBVI, we have a placeholder, revolving account that allows us to pay the doctor in a timely manner, and then place money from the districts back into the account. The districts are responsible for the costs, and our ARD staff is trained to let the districts know that we will not pay for them.

At 3:30 PM the Board recessed for a 10-minute break.

After the break Gloria Bennett presented the opportunities for friends and family of the Board to sponsor All Blind Children of Texas (ABCTx) and the TSBVI Sesquicentennial and to promote the Sesquicentennial calendar and the "Touch Life" bracelet. She also passed out the schedule of events for TSBVI Sesquicentennial activities.

Mrs. Bennett also reported on the APH In Touch With Knowledge traveling museum, which will be hosted on campus in 2006.

Mrs. Welch made an impassioned plea to the board members to provide sponsorship for the Sesquicentennial.

Ms. Swift pointed out to the Board that the Finance and Audit Committee handout contained a good breakdown of the cost per student of summer school programs, as well as a page on the Legacy Budget.

Report on Achievement of Objectives for 2004-2005 from the Agency Strategic Plan and the Annual Improvement Plan and a Discussion on Areas in Need of Improvement: Mr. Miller reported that 71% of our students (89 out of 125) made substantial progress on all performance indicators. That means that 36 students did not make progress on every area. In some cases the student may have failed to make progress in just one indicator area.

The legislature wants to know how satisfied Texas taxpayers are with the agency. The survey results indicated that for the regular school year, 96% of the LEAs, parents and students who responded indicated that they were at least satisfied in the indicator area "student progress in Comprehensive Programs".

In reference to the employment measures, Mrs. Welch reported that she had heard that the chances for employment of a blind person are greater the earlier they learn Braille.

Mr. Miller said that of those students who had graduated from TSBVI in the last 5 years, 19 out of 48 respondents (39%) of them are either in post-secondary education or training, or have been employed for at least 4 hours in the past month prior to the survey. He said that the Texas Effectiveness Study for Public Education (TESPE) wants 65% of students with disabilities to be competitively employed, but that 65% of the overall population if the U.S. is not competitively employed, so there is an issue of unclear definitions.

Dr. Hatlen mentioned that he is dissatisfied about the current measure. In an informal follow-up, he reported having found that 8 of the 9 graduates who are considered "unemployed" by this measure were considered by their former teachers and staff not likely to ever be employed. He said that most of the "employable" students who come here do not graduate from here, especially the "competitively employable" students.

Mr. Miller said that we need to use the targets set by the TEA for children with disabilities as a benchmark against which to look at ourselves, but we also need to add corollaries to those that more effectively measure what it is we are doing with the students that we get. The state has taken cognizance of the discrepancy.

He said that a more valuable measure of success could be to look at the transition plan from each student's IEP, to see what the goals were. Then we can compare where the student is five years after graduation to determine our success in achieving the transition plan targets.

He reported that the customer satisfaction surveys tell us that our respondents find Outreach and Special Programs, especially the summer school, to be just what they need. So the strategic planners ask how else should we situate the school in order to continue and expand to meet the needs that are identified through these surveys.

Ms. Swift asked if the surveys look at gender and race. Ms. Houghtling responded that we have never used those measures. Ms. Swift indicated that she was surprised that the state does not require it. Mr. Miller pointed out that these assessment measures are specific to us, and not used statewide. He then reiterated that we will continue to use the current measures as a state benchmark for our success and for reporting to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), but that we have the opportunity to occasionally ask for changes in those. We can also use the Texas Effectiveness Study measures to develop other benchmarks of our own.

Discussion of Critical Issues Facing the School and Resources Needed in the Next Two Biennia: Mr. Miller and Mrs. Houghtling passed out the list of critical issues that have been put forward by the various stakeholders in the planning process.

Ms. Clopton asked about TSBVI meeting the goal of employing 100% highly qualified teachers as defined by the No Child Left Behind Act.

Mr. Fain responded that the designation "highly qualified" is based upon a teacher's assignment. In some cases here, a teacher with special education certification may teach the class on a routine basis, and the class will get VI-specific teaching from a VI-certified teacher until their regular teacher has attained certification.

In reference to the item in the planning handout about the problem with VI professional "baby boomers" aging out, Ms. Swift asked whether we know internally who is planning on retiring, so that the Board can consider anticipated turnover as an aspect of the strategic plan. She wondered how many of the administrators present at the meeting would still be working at TSBVI in 2011.

Ms. Nesbitt mentioned that most retirees come back as retire/rehires. We sent out a survey at beginning of the last biennium to budget for the retire/rehires. She felt that gathering that information could give rise to allegations of discrimination, and that the answer to the question "When do you plan to retire" would not likely be very meaningful because of all of the choices that the potential retiree could make. For members of the Employees Retirement System, there is no penalty for rehiring a retiree; this is not the case for employers under the Teachers Retirement System.

Ms. Swift asked whether we know about administrators, assistant principals and the like. Ms. Nesbitt responded that we cannot know that. She also indicated that she finds this kind of information overrated, but that if the board would like it and Ms. Vaughan agrees that it is legal, she will survey the staff to find out how long they are planning to work here. In the strategic plan for the current biennium, Ms. Nesbitt wrote a section called the Strategic Workforce Plan. The section on retention and succession contains a breakdown of the likely rate of attrition over the next five years.

Mr. Miller then mentioned that some other planning ideas include an infant and early childhood program and performing assessments for school districts, either here or remotely. This critical issues list does not specify from whom the ideas came. Mr. Miller also reported that expanding partnerships in the community was a very popular idea at the Parents Weekend planning meeting.

Dr. Brooks mentioned that attitudes toward blindness are the major barrier to employment for the blind. He was interested in researching further after having discussed this at the Parent Weekend planning meeting, and found that there are tax credits available for people who volunteer their time.

Mr. Miller said that increasing the skills of our blind population is a focus of Mr. Fain's planning group. He also said that Dr. Hatlen has been very interested in determining what partnerships the school can engage in to demonstrate the abilities of blind students to the broader community vis-à-vis changing the attitudes toward the employability of the blind and visually impaired. He asked the Board to look over the list and think about it to prepare for the January planning in-service.

Ms. Swift asked that Susan Houghtling please re-email the critical issues for January so that they'll have an update for the planning session on the 28th of January.

Report on Completion of Action Plans in the 2004-2005 School Year: Phil Hatlen alerted the Board that this agenda item should read "Report on Status of Action Plans in the 2005-2006 School Year." He then reported that of the 37 action plans for this school year, 11 are done, 26 are ongoing, and none have been abandoned. He said that he will report again in March.

Mrs. Welch asked whether they are still planning to have a goal-setting meeting for Dr. Hatlen. He asked to defer it to later when he has his calendar with him.

Status of All Blind Children of Texas Charity: Mary Sue Welch reported having been given a list of groups in Dallas that may help raise funds; she will contact them.

Ms. Swift indicated a desire to take the "Touch Life" bracelets to various conferences and meetings. Ms. Louder suggested that each board member send one to their senator, along with a sponsorship form. She also mentioned sending one to Marisha Negovetich at the governor's office.

Superintendent's Report: Dr. Hatlen expressed his desire to email his report to the Board, to which the Board agreed.

Report on Maintenance, Annual Inspection, and Results of Annual Property Inventory of the Campus Residence: James Lambert gave the following report about the campus residence that is currently home to Principal Miles Fain and his family:

Mr. Cleveland reported to him that all campus property in Mr. Fain's care is present in the residence.

The November 3 and November 10, 2005, inspections revealed the following:

The estimated cost for these repairs is $2730.

There are three additional items under consideration:

Ms. Swift said that she would like for us to look into considering part of what is currently the residence yard to be available for other uses in the building master plan.

Mr. Lambert reminded the Board that one of the construction bond projects is replacing the roof and the air conditioning for the residence, at an estimated cost of $112,000.

Ms. Clopton inquired whether we recovered the property from the July break-in. Mr. Lambert said that it was mostly recovered.

Ms. Swift said that she did not know about the theft of the audio/visual equipment until the audit report, and that this is an example of a communication issue between the school and the Board. Dr. Hatlen responded that thefts have never been reported to the Board, but that we can do so. Mr. Galindo asked why that is the case. Dr. Hatlen responded that it had never been asked for. Ms. Clopton said that it ties back in with the audit on campus security, and that the Board really needs to think on it when considering the needs assessment in January, as security is a big issue.

Dr. Hatlen reported that the school has a perimeter security plan, but that he is concerned about how much our security measures will be impacted by our construction projects. The Burnet Rd. gate and the RFB&D parking lot entrance are closed now. The facilities committee is now determining whether opening the visitor's center planned for Dorm A would impact future construction. The plan is to put a parking lot in front of it, and have all visitors go through there for signing in. There is a possibility of closing Miller Dr. as well, and the Sunshine entrance except for deliveries. Dr. Hatlen said that he needs to ask the architect about the impact these changes would have on the future construction.

Ms. Swift reported having seen security devices on other campuses where a photo visitor badge is printed with an image directly off of the visitor's driver's license. She expressed the notion that this approach may help track our clock-in problems as well.

Report of Consultants' Contracts Approved at the Administrative Level – Contracts Greater than $600 and Equal To or Less Than $10,000: All of the contracts are under the cutoff point past which the Board is required to approve them. Most of them pertain to Texas Focus or the mentor program.

Ms. Clopton moved to approve the report. Mr. Galindo seconded the motion. The motion to pass was unanimous.

Discussion on Dress Code for Staff and Students: Ms. Louder said that the wife of a superintendent, as a guest at TSBVI, had an issue with a teacher over the summer. This teacher had apparently not bathed in days, and was wearing a tube top with an exposed midriff.

Dr. Hatlen indicated that this teacher was apparently not following the dress code— the school is a little less rigid during the summer, but this teacher's deviance from the dress code was extreme.

Ms. Swift reported that she has seen many female employees at TSBVI who needed to wear undergarments but lacked them.

Ms. Miller and Nesbitt said that this is a supervisory issue, and that these supervisors would like to address these issues as they arise—in this case the supervisor(s) must not have known about the infractions.

Ms. Clopton pointed out that this is not a problem that is restricted to TSBVI. She remembers a time when women were not allowed to wear slacks to work, and has seen a great deal of change over the past 30 years.

Ms. Wheeler said that the Board wants the image of the school to be professional for the parents and teachers that visit.

Ms. Louder said that the teachers that she saw inappropriately dressed were working with severely disabled children, and it appeared that the teacher didn't care.

Dr. Hatlen said that the school can try to make sure that the students and staff are reminded of the dress code, and that it seemed to him that Dr. Newton would want to review the dress code with the staff at the beginning of every summer school session.

Dr. Brooks pointed out that, speaking as someone who has worked on the dorms here, staff spend their hard work days on the floor, on the jungle gym, in the shower and the toilet, and it is not camp cupcake.

Ms. Louder expressed that if the staff wish to be regarded as professionals, they should dress as professionals.

Mr. Fain said that he believes that TSBVI should allow casual but professional dress. We reinforce with staff that we want them to be role models for students, and that "stinky" and "messy" do not achieve that goal.

Ms. Louder indicated that many schools are moving towards requiring uniforms. Ms. Clopton mentioned that she loves uniforms. Mr. Lambert said that for the maintenance and security teams it would be great to have uniforms. Dr. Hatlen said that that idea had been discussed many times, and that our food service workers used to wear TSBVI tee-shirts, and that they enjoyed it.

Discussion of Future Board Meeting Topics: Ms. Clopton asked whether we need to follow up with the HR audit report. Ms. Nesbitt said that the actions necessary are well laid out in the recommendations, and are all scheduled to be completed by the time specified in the audit report. She will present two changes to a policy at the January board meeting.

Ms. Louder expressed a desire to look at the confidentiality issue of the filing system of student records that was pointed out in the audit. Dr. Hatlen noted that this has to do with fire-proof, locking filing cabinets. He would like to report on the security audit in January.

Ms. Swift said that she will get information to the Board on the security system that she saw in Houston.

Ms. Louder asked whether the students wear ID badges at TSBVI. Mr. Fain said that they are issued ID badges for security, and that the badges are mainly used by the students who use public transportation.

At 5:12 PM Ms. Swift called the meeting into recess until 8:30 AM Saturday, November 19, at Summerfield Suites.

November 19, 2005 MINUTES

Meeting of the Board of Trustees
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired

Call to Order: Frankie Swift reconvened the meeting of the Board of Trustees at 8:45 AM. In addition to Ms. Swift, the following board members were present: Gene Brooks, Mary Sue Welch, Debbie Louder, Donna Clopton, and Jamie Lou Wheeler.

Introduction of Audience: In addition to the members of the Board, the meeting was attended by Phil Hatlen, Barney Schulz, and John Botti.

Use of Bond Funds and the Legacy Budget: Barney Schulz outlined the appropriations process. TSBVI requests the legislature to appropriate funds, and the legislature decides what to fund and how to do so. They could have put general revenue funds towards our capital projects, but they chose to use bonds.

"Bond funds" refers the State of Texas borrowing money. The voters have to approve the sales of the bonds. In Texas, this means passing a constitutional amendment.

Two years ago, the state was not borrowing any more money because of a financial crunch. The State has to pay back the loans by making appropriations from the general revenue to pay down the debt and interest.

The Texas Public Finance Authority (TPFA) is responsible for selling the bonds and getting the loans for the money. They require us to provide them with the specifics of the buildings and projects that we wish to undertake.

The Texas Building and Procurement Commission (TBPC) is responsible for all buildings belonging to the State of Texas, and they had to do a cost validation study for our bond projects to make sure that the appropriations is an appropriate amount to spend.

The Texas Bond Review Board authorizes the TPFA to actually process the loans. This body is a small agency composed mostly of appointees from other state agencies.

These bonds are usually sold over a 20-year period. TPFA has the authority to acquire them. TSBVI is not responsible for acquiring nor repaying the bonds.

Mary Sue Welch asked who buys the bonds.

Mr. Schulz responded that they are made available to the general public through brokers.

The TPFA has the ability to call in bonds early if the interest rate changes, as well as to refinance the loans.

The TPFA also has the authority to sell commercial paper, which is a quicker way to get a loan. Pay back is faster, and the interest rate is higher. In our case, the TPFA wished to be able to get started quickly, so they are selling commercial paper to pay for our building projects. They can also pool all the funds from their various agencies' accounts to float each other, and we're responsible just for our part of that account.

Ms. Clopton asked who the school's investment counselor is. Mr. Schulz said that he is the investment officer, and the school only has the discretion to invest the Legacy Funds.

Mr. Schulz reported that stability of principal and low risk are more important than yield for public finance purposes.

Mr. Brooks asked whether we have to wait until all of the bonds are sold before we can go out and say "we have the money," or if the state guarantees the funding and handles selling the bonds to investors.

Mr. Schulz replied that once the TPFA board gives them the authority to sell the bonds, there's no need to go back. Now when we ask them for money, they'll make sure that the money is in the bank. There's no reason right now not to move forward now with the projects.

Mrs. Welch asked who decides how our money is spent.

Mr. Schulz said that the legislature specifies the capital budget. The legislature gave us $36million for the bond projects that we asked for, with authority to transfer funds among those projects. The school has the authority to transfer 25% out of any area, and 25% into any area.

Mrs. Welch asked whether the bond funds allocated to the school include funds for architects and planning for the project, or is it a set amount that you're allowed to spend.

Mr. Schulz replied that it includes all costs associated with the project, including testing, design, planning, and TBPC management fees.

Mrs. Swift asked whether the contract for roofing and air conditioning replacement on the campus residence will go out for bid.

Mr. Schulz responded that the TBPC will select the best proposal. The TBPC makes the choice on most of the contractors. They can give us permission to make the choice for some smaller projects, but they have overall authority for buildings belonging to the State of Texas. If TSBVI is given authority to decide, we would decide what kind of roof we want, write the specifications, then go out to bid and select the best bid.

Dr. Hatlen said that the roofs on the gym and the residence are part of an old project. Neither was done, but the cost estimates are based on actual bids.

Dr. Brooks asked whether state agencies end up paying more for building projects.

Mr. Schulz said that the price goes up based upon TBPC's involvement because of extra red tape and the need to hire professionals. It is also open record how much we have authority to spend on a project. The roofing project is part of the deferred maintenance. The estimate of $100,000 for the roofing project reflects the cost of the project, not simply the cost of the roof itself.

Ms. Louder asked why the Board had needed to approve the bonds in July in order to get the building started in January, if we are actually just starting the master plan in January.

Mr. Schulz explained that TSBVI was the first agency that got the TPFA to issue bonds this biennium. The next step is architect selection. The TBPC has narrowed the firms to three firms in the Austin area that are sufficiently large to carry out the projects.

The master plan will tell us which buildings are going to be replaced right now, and which ones we will need to replace in the future. There are two buildings that they want to start building right away. They can begin to design and build the new residential units, because they know where they are going to put them.

Mr. Schulz reported that instead of hiring a construction coordinator, they will look to replace James Lambert with someone who has some architecture or engineering experience in the next six months. This person will hire someone to assist them in working with the architects on the master plan. There may be a program administrator who will act as the sole person funneling information and communicating the needs of the school to the architecture firm.

A very thorough survey of our campus was just completed. At the January meeting, the Board will look at a plot plan and look at the potential locations of the new buildings.

Dr. Brooks asked if there is an impact to the project timeline of not having a team in place.

Dr. Hatlen responded that it looks as though it is not a problem; the critical time starts in January. The master planning will be finished in summer 2006. Building is scheduled begin in 2007.

Ms. Louder asked whether the legislature could hold up funding for our projects. Mr. Schulz replied that there is a remote possibility of that; however, the appropriation has already been made, and they would have to take significant action to stop it.

Ms. Swift asked if the planning assistant is going to be the person who checks to make sure that the contractor is doing things right. Dr. Hatlen replied that the TBPC designee and our planner will work in tandem to do this job.

Mr. Schulz added that the TBPC liaison is going to work on campus throughout the process. His name is Keith Westmoreland, and he was in charge of Corpus Christi Navy facilities. Mr. Westmoreland's boss is Rob Roy Parnell, who was instrumental in helping us get the funding and oversight for these projects.

There followed a discussion of the specifications and process for building the new residences, and not letting the contractors sit around waiting for decisions to be made.

Ms. Swift expressed exasperation about the new buildings, which have exposed wires and roof strap problems.

Ms. Clopton said that we need to have a person to check on these issues for the upcoming projects.

Dr. Hatlen said that the director of operations may become the facilities director, in which case some of the old duties of that position would be reassigned.

Mr. Schulz reminded the Board that Mr. Westmoreland's salary comes out of the fee that we pay TBPC. That fee comes out of the bond money.

Dr. Hatlen said that the estimates for how much each bond project will cost were done by Director of Operations James Lambert, with some help. They were then confirmed by a TBPC-hired consultant who did a thorough review. The figures include furniture costs.

Texas Education Code Updates Enacted in the 79 th Legislative Session: Joe Thedford, Deputy Executive Director for the Region XIII Education Service Center, reported on legislative changes to the Texas Education Code.

Not all of the bills passed during the legislative session are applicable to a state agency such as TSBVI. There was a lot of legislation in the 79 th Session, and much discussion about things that would impact schools, but not a lot of it passed.

In the 78 th Session, the Republicans dominated the House, Senate, and gubernatorial offices for the first time since the Reconstruction. There were great expectations for them to be on the same page; however, the large number of rookie legislators proved to be a hindrance to leadership.

They came in to a $10billion deficit in the 78 th Legislative Session, though the Comptroller had estimated that it would be $5billion. They tried to balance the budget. They wanted to take care of school finance in special session, of which there were three. 99% of the time in those sessions was spent on redistricting.

In the 79 th Session the Comptroller certified a $400million surplus. Governor Perry had four goals for public schools during that session:

  1. Property tax relief:
    1. 50% school funding comes from local property tax;
    2. constitutional prohibition on state property tax;
  2. Killing "Robin Hood";
  3. Providing new funds in the form of incentive/merit pay for teachers; and
  4. Pumping new money into schools.

These did not happen. The Governor wanted to cut the tax on new property by $.50, which would take $5bn out of the state revenues. Removing Robin Hood would remove revenues that would take $1.3bn to replace.

They agreed that these initiatives should be done, but the House could not agree on how to fund them. They tried to reform the franchise tax loophole that helps firms keep from paying franchise tax, with the intent to generate $7bn, but Governor Perry threatened to veto it.

They considered increasing the state sales tax to the highest in the nation, raising sin tax, slot machines, casino gambling, taxes on professional services, taxing bottled water-- these did not happen. There were big splits among the leadership, the house, the senate, and the governor. Nothing happened and they went home mad.

Many of the proposed laws that would have reformed or affected school policies were tied to House Bill 2; when that bill died, those initiatives died as well.

Legislation that did not pass:

Mr. Thedford said that the executive order that the commissioner establish a rule that 65% of a school's budget be used for instruction shows a mistrust of boards and school leadership. The legislative model for this rule did not consider library costs "instructional".

Mr. Thedford distributed a binder containing printouts of his slide show presentation, and additional information and resources. He then presented the legislative update presentation.

Mr. Thedford said that open records training is required of all boards, and that they now must post meeting notices online.

Dr. Brooks asked whether there is a policy that the email addresses for public school board members be accessible via the website.

Mr. Thedford responded that it is probably a school policy. The State has no law except for a new ruling about board members using email with intent to circumvent the Open Meetings Act. The attorney general ruled that emails received from or among the Board are subject to open records act.

Mr. Thedford reported that a financial literacy pilot program will be funded. The Board asked Mr. Thedford to put forth the idea of TSBVI and possibly TSD to be part of the pilot program.

Ms.Vaughan said that she will discuss the new rules about cell phone use in school vehicles with James Lambert and Camella Rivers in the operations department.

Mr. Thedford indicated that schools can now apply for funds to retrofit busses in order to reduce emissions.

Adjournment: Frankie Swift adjourned the Board meeting at 12:00 PM.

Frankie Swift Date Board President

Donna Clopton Date Board Secretary

John Botti Date Recording Secretary

BOARD DIRECTIVES

November 18, 2005

January Board Meeting Topics

 
Home | Site Map | Search TSBVI | Comments
Agency Contact Information | Texas State Homepage | Texas State Wide Search |
©1997-2005 TSBVI