There was a distinct sense of “what happened?” in the air at last night’s Austin ISD Board Meeting as the trustees voted 5-3 (kinda) to reject (in a way) the administration’s request for a declaration of financial exigency.
What was on the table was a choice of two options. First, a declaration of exigency and a program change, which would allow the district to get rid of 113 positions and take further structural steps to reshape the district. Secondly, a program change with no exigency, which would still allow for the positions to be removed, but didn’t paint the district as a financial disaster area.
The board never voted on exigency, instead passing the program change with a final vote of 5-3-1. In the “aye” column were Sam Guzman, Annette LoVoi, Lori Moya, vice-president Vince Torres and Karen Dulaney Smith: In the “nays,” Robert Schneider, president Mark Williams, and Christine Brister (Cheryl Bradley was the sole abstention.)
However, that wasn’t the first vote: Initially, Moya was a nay. Yet Guzman, who had clearly been reading Robert’s Rules of Order, noted that since Moya had put the motion to vote on option two forward, she couldn’t vote against it. Her initial vote made it 4-4-1 for option two, yet it’s unclear whether the board could have passed exigency if they had taken that motion up.
The vote also doesn’t take exigency off the table. However, there was a clear opinion amongst the solid aye votes that it was a dangerous band-aid solution that didn’t solve the core issues in the district, and could too readily be interpreted by outside observers like bond raters as a warning sign.
This article appears in February 19 • 2010.
