School safety emerged as a primary focus, with conversations about the district’s multi-million dollar investment in safety systems. Concerns were raised about the effectiveness of ID badges issued to substitute teachers, questioning whether these badges are portable and if substitutes need new ones each time they work at a different school. The board underscored the importance of ensuring that every individual on campus, including substitutes, has the means to notify authorities during a crisis, such as a “code red” situation. The functionality and monitoring of these badges were deemed critical, prompting a request for a report on safety measures at the next meeting.

Financial oversight was another significant topic, particularly in light of an audit report revealing discrepancies in cash management at several schools. An unannounced cash count at 18 sample schools found non-compliance with district procedures in 50% of the schools visited. Issues included unrestricted access to drop safes, discrepancies between collected amounts and reported figures, and delays in processing deposits. In response, the board discussed the necessity of automatic audits whenever a new principal assumes control of a school to ensure accountability and transparency.

A notable case involved Lake Worth High School, which held a higher cash amount compared to other schools, due to operating a flea market on weekends. The situation was compounded by the timing of graduation activities and year-end collections. An audit report concerning this flea market is anticipated, which aims to provide further insight into the financial management at the school. This discussion led to a proposal to modify selection criteria for financial audits, incorporating feedback from board members regarding new principals.

The board also reviewed policy changes related to the Inspector General’s office, focusing on the independence and authority of the office. A new definition of independence was introduced, emphasizing that the Inspector General operates as a unique entity, distinct from those it investigates. This change aligns with national standards and clarifies that the Inspector General’s office will not utilize its subpoena power against its own employees but will reserve it for external entities with contractual relations with the district, such as vendors.

Furthermore, an increase in complaints was noted, with CARES complaints rising dramatically. Many of these complaints were non-misconduct in nature, prompting the board to seek clearer definitions of misconduct to streamline the investigative process. A new “zero tolerance” policy was introduced.

The meeting also addressed recent legislative changes affecting the Inspector General’s ability to initiate investigations into ethical misconduct. Now, complaints must include a policy violation or be accompanied by a sworn statement to proceed without one. This legislative shift aims to ensure that investigations are based on substantial and specific allegations.

Lastly, the board discussed the challenge of filtering valid complaints from numerous non-misconduct grievances and proposed changes to improve the complaint submission process. A new form was being developed to ensure that complaints are detailed and meet the necessary criteria for whistleblower protection, if applicable.