I was on the 10pm news at KOLD, but that video is not online yet.
Stegeman now (after talking to legal?) thinks he moved the approval of the USP as filed on 12/10/12, the District’s objections to the plan, and three particular objections. Adelita said she could not vote for the USP with the objection to the culturally relevant programs and wanted that objection separated. Stegeman now says that by excising one of the three “additional” objections, what the board approved on the 5-0 vote was the plan, the district’s objections and the first two “additional” objections. The original objection in the USP remained and was approved.
First, Stegeman did not make an additional objection regarding MAS. He restated the same objection that the district has made all along. What is “additional?” It was identical.
If all it was, as Adelita said, was an “exclamation mark,” then why would she say that she couldn’t vote for the whole USP if it remained?
When objections are stated in the USP and in TUSD’s separate filing of objections, what is the purpose of making an “additional” objection?
Why would it be so important for Stegeman to get a unified revote against his amendment going forward if it was meaningless and had no effect? What was that about? Why would he need a 5-0 vote against his additional objection when there already was a 5-0 vote in favor of the USP and the district’s objections?
Why would Stegeman offer an “additional” objection that had no effect one way or the other?