A tired and angry Denver Public Schools’ Board of Education passed a proposal Thursday that will limit the way innovation schools operate but ensure teachers’ job protections.

The vote came shortly before midnight and followed a contentious two-hour discussion between board members that included a motion to table the proposal, known as executive limitation, and came after a five-hour public comment session where a majority of the speakers were against the proposal.

In fact, only nine of 66 speakers were in favor of the proposal and those who spoke against executive limitation cited reasons including lack of transparency, the speed at which the vote was brought and inequity. Those in favor said the executive limitation would give innovation teachers more rights.

Several of the board members said the process was flawed and one, Scott Essermann, referred to the process as “ambush governance.” But despite these concerns, the board voted 5-2 for executive limitation with only  board Vice President Tay Anderson and member Michelle Quattlebaum voting against the proposal.

A quarter of the district’s schools are classified as innovation schools and, despite being district-run, can waive certain policies and portions of the teachers union contract. The new proposal prohibits some of those waivers but won’t take effect until an individual school applies for innovation status or seeks to renew their current contract.

The new policy will require all schools, with the exception of those facing sanctions for low test scores, to follow the teachers union contract and the state law that grants  tenure.

Despite that, some teachers spoke out Thursday against the executive limitation.

“What I value the most is the autonomy and flexibility I have over my classroom,” said Dennis Ho, a teacher at one of the district’s innovation schools. “We customize our curriculum, our calendar and assessments to ensure student success.”

Royden Mills, parent of a student at an innovation school, a former DPS student himself and current teacher at a school in the metro area, said parents pay thousands of dollars to send their children to similar schools with innovative approaches.

“Why you would want to strip schools of something people pay $30,000 a year for is mind-boggling,” Mills said. “This is not wise. It’s the opposite.”

Rob Gould, president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, spoke in favor of the motion and said it would provide innovation school teachers tools they currently don’t possess.

Most innovation schools waive tenure because it makes it easier to fire a teacher who is a poor fit for their school. This will now be prohibited.

Madison Masilonis, a first-year teacher at an innovation school, also spoke in favor of the new policy, arguing that ending that waiver could encourage more teachers to stay in the district.

“My fear is, due to teachers at our school not having probationary status, this community of teachers will change,” she said. “Many teachers are choosing to leave the profession entirely. Do everything you can to hold onto these teachers.”

The executive limitation proposal was introduced in January and co-written by board President Xóchtil “Sochi” Gaytàn and Scott Baldermann. It came as a surprise to  the teachers union, who supports the proposal, and innovation school leaders who oppose it.

The initial proposal contained requirements for a 40-hour workweek, a ban on “busy work,” and ensured teacher salaries that would be in the top tier in the region. That version was modified in a work session Monday night, according to Anderson.

Speakers who addressed the board Thursday said the speed at which this vote was brought forth was one of their biggest concerns, because they felt there was not enough community input. However, Gaytàn said 60 days was enough for the community to provide input.

Before the vote, Anderson moved to postpone the vote until June, saying it would be in everyone’s best interest — especially the teachers — to ensure everything was done properly.

“I would rather lose my reelection and lose support from DCTA than violate my moral compass and vote for something I do not believe we have had the proper time to engage with the community on. We cannot be selective when we say that we are ‘community-led and district supported.’ I want to vote for something that I believe in.”

Board members Carrie Olson, Esserman and Quattlebaum agreed with Anderson, and Esserman said moving so quickly on a big vote was “wrong.”

“We need to get it right and we’re not about to get it right, and that’s disappointing to me,” he said, imploring the board to find a third option.

Superintendent Alex Marrero said prior to the vote regardless of the outcome he also will work with the innovative school leaders as the new teachers union contract is negotiated and reached.

“Regardless of the outcome if there are pieces of the DCTA agreement that actually prevent any school from implementing any unique programming, I think thats my duty (to work) with said leaders at said schools to determine if I need to engage DCTA,” Marrero said. “It’s not like we’re shutting the door on anything … so I don’t see this as an opportunity to close the door in its entirety.”