Craig et al. -
The only business of the County Committee, until we showed up, has been to approve/disapprove completed petitions based on the 9 criteria. Our Council's resolution was asking them to create a completed petition which would then be evaluated against the 9 criteria. Not one committee member, and staff did not provide much guidance, indicated that they were aware that this was the case. They were in their County Committee mindset.
Part of the job that we were asking them to take on was to define the territory. Different definitions would result in different student head counts. Since no territory definition was specified, no one knew what the actual head count was. The head count argument at this point was, at best, a red herring.
One committee member said that the Council's resolution was too narrow. Hogwash. The Council's resolution merely included the Council's preferences. In my opinion the resolution's contents, other than the request for reorganization, in no way constrained the County Committee, contrary to what that member said.
My overall take was that the members of the County Committee did not want to take on this legally defined, yet novel, task. It appeared that "Any excuse to sink it!" was their motto.
P.S. The best reason that was presented for voting us down was that there were no signs that the students were being underserved educationally. If we want success going forward we have to strongly demonstrate that they are being underserved by the current arrangement. This is not new information.