Yun Lu proceeded to describe a variety of concerns with the motion itself that had been shared with her by constituents.
Christina Delmont-Small requested that the motion be amended to contain only the language of the correct version off of Board Docs — Ms. Watts denied this request.
Despite being the wrong resolution (possibly the original draft written and sent in by community activist groups), the motion was called to a vote and ultimately passed 6-1-1, with Wu, Cutroneo, Watts, Mallo, Mosley, and the Student Member voting YES, Yun Lu abstaining, and Christina Delmont-Small voting NO.
Ms. Cutroneo stated that she didn’t want to see the resolution fail (given the nature of the resolution’s topic), and that’s why she voted YES, despite it being the wrong resolution.
Chair Wu didn’t give any clarification as to why he voted YES to the wrong version of the resolution.
Ms. Watts, Ms. Mallo, Ms. Mosley & the Student Member were likely locked-in to vote YES to any version of the resolution, regardless of whether or not it was the final or any older version.
The motion could have (and should have) either been rescinded or voted down. After being voted down or withdrawn, a new motion could have been made by reading the correct, final, publicly shared resolution, and that version would have likely passed 8-0. It was stunning to see Board members vote to allow this significant error (bait-and-switch?) be allowed to stand and to see them approve the wrong version of this important resolution.
What occurred tonight transcends any controversies or concerns related to this specific resolution and sets an extremely dangerous precedent for the Board, regarding both procedure and trust.
With this precedent set, after any resolution has been collaboratively refined & publicly shared prior to a BOE meeting, a Board member, if so inclined, can choose to read whatever old or modified version of the resolution they prefer during the BOE meeting, and if there is social pressure & expectations to pass some version, ANY version of the resolution due to the nature of its topic, then that version can pass, to the complete surprise & breach of trust of both the public and other fellow Board members.
With this is mind, it begs the following questions questions:
Why should any Board members ever collaborate again to shape and refine a resolution or statement from the Board when another Board member can just decide on a whim to throw out all collaborative efforts and pick whatever old draft that they prefer to bring forward, as long as the chair ultimately allows the vote and supports the breached process?
Why even post resolutions publicly 3 days before Board meetings if they can be just be changed in the 11th hour, right before the public vote at the whims of a particular Board member?
Many current HCPSS Board of Education members have emphasized transparency and integrity as core values and had them as integral parts of their election campaigns.
What good is transparency if honesty & accountability are thrown out the window?