In the more than monthlong public hearing process leading up to the Issaquah school board’s vote to close Tiger Mountain Community High School, many speakers appealed to the heart: how it helped them or their child change their lives, how it helped them escape bullying or how it put them back on track to earn their diploma or a place in the job market.

But some protesting closure questioned the very legality of a school board vote.

Call it “the bond defense”: The theory that, because Tiger Mountain High was included in a bond package approved by voters, it is the voter’s will that it stay open and is thus immune from closure.

That was the defense put forward by Mitchell Reed, the parent of a Tiger Mountain student.

“It’s that very information many of us voted upon,” Reed said. “Clearly and unambiguously the (election) FAQ told the voters Tiger Mountain would be improved and strengthened and would continue, in terms of its programs, to exist.”

The renovation and relocation of Tiger Mountain Community High School was included as a project in the $219 million construction and maintenance bond approved by voters in the April 2012 special election.

The Tiger Mountain project called for the campus to be relocated to a portion of the Issaquah Middle School campus to expand career and technical education offerings, at a cost of $3.9 million. Critics of the closure have said Issaquah School District needs to stick to the bond package’s promise.

But school board members countered before their vote that they would, in fact, be sticking to their promise — minus the Tiger Mountain name. Under Supt. Ron Thiele’s recommendation, would open a new alternative high school with a new name in place of where Tiger Mountain would have relocated.

Following the vote, the district has contracted with the Puget Sound Consortium for School Innovation to develop a new non-traditional high school model that will adhere to the new state graduation requirements for the class of 2019 and beyond.

School boards have the authority to repurpose bond funds through a public process via RCW 28A.530.020. School board member Suzanne Weaver cited this policy in response to the bond defense, but added that it did not apply in this case because the opening of a new alternative high school was substantially the same to relocating Tiger Mountain school.

Lorraine Michelle, a spokesperson for the district, said the district’s bond counsel had reviewed the superintendent’s recommendation and determined the new plan was consistent with the terms of the 2012 ballot proposition approved by voters.

Reed did not agree the new school was a good solution.

“The administration is trying to sweep the entire problem of Tiger Mountain under a rug to discard it in its entirety,” Reed said. “And to create a new facility with a fresh coat of paint, some glossy vocational technical education programs, give it a new name while closing Tiger Mountain forever … and yet we don’t know precisely how to handle the current Tiger Mountain population.”