Board debate over facilities‑prioritization work group fails to overturn June 25 resolution

Board members spent a substantial portion of Thursday's meeting discussing a resolution that had established a facilities‑prioritization work group. The central questions were whether the original group produced an adequately vetted prioritization tool and whether a new, evaluation‑focused work group with broader flexibility should replace the existing resolution.

Miss McCoy said the prior work lacked a clear evaluation and recommended an "evaluation work group" to review the earlier product and bring recommendations back to the board. "When you put the real numbers in there, if you put the real world situation in there, it goes, wait a minute. These numbers just don't ... there should not be this huge gap," she said, arguing for tangible equity measures tied to the tool rather than ad hoc adjustments.

Miss Chamblee cautioned that a work group without a charter, timeline or deliverable could produce unfocused work, saying the proposed group needed a clearer plan. Miss Moseley argued the original resolution already included deadlines and deliverables and that the board's subcommittee rules allow up to three members.

Miss Watts moved to rescind the June 25 resolution to replace it with a version that explicitly included an evaluative component and more flexibility on membership. The motion was seconded and the board took a roll‑call vote: Miss Mosley — No; Miss Watts — Yes; Miss Ricks — No; Miss McCoy — No; Miss Chamblee — No; Miss Mallow (Chair) — Yes. The motion failed by a 4–2 margin and the existing resolution remained in effect.

Board members said they would continue to address concerns raised about the tool’s formula, equity scoring and timing, and staff indicated they will present additional analyses (including the sufficiency study) as data becomes available.

The discussion left open how the board will incorporate substantive equity measures into prioritization; several members asked that any technical tool be transparent and produce results that align with real‑world facility conditions before being used to guide capital decisions.