It appeared some school district trustees were interested in reconsidering proposed cutbacks to deaf and hard of hearing services, but confusion among board members resulted in a final vote which left the cuts intact.
During a discussion on approving the proposed budget report, trustees Debbie Evans and Larissa Lutjen asked about the impact of $20,000 in cutbacks to this program.
While also attributed to a reduced need for service as a result of fewer deaf and hard of hearing students in the school district, discussion on the cuts also revealed that the change will mean a delay in assessing students for hearing difficulties that could be contributing to learning issues in classrooms.
This could mean children who were once assessed for hearing issues in kindergarten may not be identified as having a hearing problem until Grade 2 or 3.
Morag Asquith, director of student services, told the board that reductions in service were a reality of the board decision to prioritize spending money on buildings over programs.
‘The system is not perfect, but that is the reality of cost pressures. We have to keep spreading our peanut butter thinner on our loaf of bread.”
As discussion progressed, the vote on the budget motion was called and carried with Lutjen opposed. Following the vote, Lutjen was taken aback, as she stated after the vote she wanted to amend the decision to re-instate funding for the deaf and hard of hearing. Lutjen, who is in her first term as trustee, was told she could not amend a motion after a vote was taken. This provoked grumblings from the assembled audience, and an admonishment to the gallery from board chair Bobbi Johnson.
It was also later pointed out by CUPE representative Sylvia Lindgren that, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, a reconsideration of the motion could have taken place as long as a member of the prevailing side made a motion for reconsideration.
Without any reconsideration, the cuts to the deaf and hard of hearing program will stand.
***
The original version of the story indicated the board vote was unanimous, however trustee Larissa Lutjen voted against the motion. The Observer apologizes for any confusion this may have caused.