Supporters of socioeconomic diversity are hoping to block passage of Wake County's new student assignment policy by requiring a two-thirds vote by the school board.
There would seem to be five votes on the nine-member board on Tuesday to approve the revised policy to make proximity a priority while eliminating references to socioeconomic diversity. But six votes is unlikely.
Members of the board minority have asked board attorney Ann Majestic for her legal interpretation of whether a two-thirds majority is needed to change the policy. They haven't heard back from her yet.
Those same board members had made similar arguments to try to unsuccessfully block March's passage of the community assignment resolution.
Board policy says you need two-thirds support to suspend a policy. But I can't find where in policy that it says more than a simple majority is needed to change a policy.
Part of the issue is that, before December, 5-4 votes on policy changes were not common. But no requirement for a two-thirds majority was invoked several years ago when prior boards fought over sex education changes.
The board had voted 5-4 in 2002 to amend the healthful living curriculum. A new board voted 5-3 in 2004 to modify the policy again.
Comments
What did I miss?
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 11:54 — g88ky07Why is this being voted on AGAIN? Wasn't this already voted on? Why do we have to vote on and do things 42 times before we can move forward in this dysfunctional system?
According to Ms. Goldman
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 13:23 — Dove314In the discussion at the policy committee meeting, that earlier thing was just a resolution which pretty much did nothing except provide herself with guidance on what she wanted to put in the actual policy, hence the answer that it was NOT a policy change during the various board meetings. The resolution has to be turned in to a policy (that is this step) which will actually replace the existing Policy 6200 which has been in the netherworld effectively anyway. Policy 6200 then sets the direction for the actual student assignment plan but is not the actual assignment plan as that is handled by the student assignment committee which is different from the policy committee. Apparently the student assignment committee must either be waiting for the policy to officially change to begin action on their plans or else this is just another needless way to raise contentious debate again as it could have been raised and changed anytime between now and the release of any new assignment plan, including concurrent with the student assignment plan.
Heh...
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 09:25 — Bob_SconceGood luck on that one. The closest I've seen is Policy 1323 (E) (15), which is part of the rules of order. However, that's a *procedural* motion and refers to what you need to do to rescind or repeal a previously-made motion.
In other words, one board member could make a (substantive) motion to say "I move to do X." Then, he could make a (procedural) motion to say "I move to rescind my previous motion," and that second motion would need a 2/3ds vote. If it doesn't get it, then the entire board votes on the substantive motion.