Once again the electronic voting system failed. That's the system with which board members cast their votes on student matters, such as transfers, and on Motions.
e-Voting should save time, not waste it. When the "question" (the student matter) is to be decided, all a board member has to do is touch a button on his or her official District-owned tablet. The buttons could be labeled as simply "Yes" and "No". How long should it take for the tally to be recorded and displayed on the screens in the room? One second? Two? Three?
But sixty seconds? Or never?
There were hand votes on some questions/issues (did the recording secretary record who voted each way?) and the voting result was announced. For the official record, just reflecting a 4-3 result will not be good enough.
Previously, I've written that all the votes by the Board since November 13, 2018 must be reviewed. The votes by McKie and Holmes must be disregarded. Why? Because they are not legally members of the School Board.
Later in the meeting the board voted on Board Policy revisions. When the board voted on revisions for two Board Policies, the result on one was 3-4 (Failed). However, when you remove the votes of McKie and Holmes, the vote becomes 3-2 (Pass).
And on the other policy, the vote was 4-3 (Pass), but that included Yes votes by McKie and Holmes. When those votes are disregarded, the correct vote was 3-2 (Pass).
While the board was discussing Policy GBEA, Conflict of Interest/Staff Ethics, I made a note "This is a damned three-ring circus." (Pardon my "French".) Round and round she goes; where she stops, nobody knows.Was it a merry-go-round or a Roulette wheel? Or maybe a shell game? Dr. Elkins-Johnson and Ms. Holmes had excellent points and questions why the proposed policy was to keep good potential employees (such as a daughter of a current employee) from being employed in the District.
The board ended up voting on a verbal amendment to the revision. That was so wrong! The amendment should have been stated and then written down by the recording secretary. Then the written amendment should have been voted on. Otherwise, could they have voted on an incorrect wording of a complicated amendment?