BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else get a text message from Mandel today asking for your vote? I get them routinely for higher-level offices, but first time I've ever gotten one for a BOE race candidate. I wonder how much those cost to send.

No, but that's fascinating. That kind of targeted SMS is expensive. There's a campaign finance deadline tomorrow, but it's only for expenses through 4/26. So, if she's doing a big targeted outreach campaign but wants to play hide the ball about where the money came from during the primary, now's the time to do it.

I got this too. I get lots of dem texts fwiw

A few elecgtions ago, I gave via ActBlue to a campaign that would give to candidates for all house and senate races nationwide where there was a chance flipping to D. I think I gave $500, so varios candidates got liek $20 each.

Never again. I was then listed as a donor for each of these candidates, and now I get text spam for all these races, like some random candidate running in some district in Oklahoma and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.



It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

[Anonymous]

I feel even better about my support for Rita Montoya, now that I know the so-called "Parents Coalition" opposes her! Thank you to JS for her consistently bad takes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.



It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.

It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

I am more interested in candidate positions than these subtle technicalities of things that seem mostly irrelevant. I'd leave that to wacky outlets like Moderately Moco to obsess about.

Hard disagree with you. These are more than subtle technicalities. And technicalities are exactly what we need to look at if we want a board of education who is not corrupt and can be efficient and effective for everybody. I want an ethical person who does not bend the rules or looks for loopholes to benefit themselves even before being elected. The bar for elected officials needs to be high, not low. There are other candidates who are running in that category that you can vote for.

I wonder what other subtle technicalities the Apple Ballot decided to overlook when they endorsed Montoya, Laura Stewart and Zimmerman.

The Apple Ballot omitted Montoya's occupation. Nowhere in their information does it say her full-time occupation is as an advocate for Medical Cannabis businesses.

Of course it did. That’s not politically helpful so they’re hoping to hide the ball.

Similar to Laura Stewart taking down her formerly public twitter page she used to publicly advocate for issues because her views expressed there were so extreme that they’d be damaging in an election.

Do we know what methodology the apple ballot uses to decide their endorsements? Or is it all about who you know?

The candidates respond to a questionnaire and are interviewed.

I hope an investigative journalist or mainstream local news looks into the story to corroborate or clarify the accusations, because it seems extremely unethical. Playing loosey goosey with bylaws is very slick, and I don’t want slick candidates in the board of education.

Again, doesn't appear to be a violation of bylaws. She is not an MCCPTA officer, and not subject to the requirement from MCCPTA to step down before running. She is the North Chevy Chase ES PTA president, and while NCC PTA follows Free State PTA and National PTA bylaws, it does not appear that NCC PTA or those organizations have bylaws that require a local PTA officer has to step down.

As long as the councilmembers are at the meeting to address a school-related issue (maybe funding or SROs? celebrate NCC cultural diversity?), and not to campaign for a candidate, that's not exactly playing loosey goosey with the bylaws or being unethical. That doesn't mean it's not a really convenient happenstance for her, though. Politics can be like that...without being against the rules.

“Really convenient happenstance” = shady

Definitely not what MCPS needs right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel even better about my support for Rita Montoya, now that I know the so-called "Parents Coalition" opposes her! Thank you to JS for her consistently bad takes.

Support for Medical Cannabis businesses is a key reason to put someone on the Board of Education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.



It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.



It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.



It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.



It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

What conclusion was drawn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.



It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

DP. I remember a "Parents Coalition" post accusing MCPS of hating the US because of something Olympics something artificial turf something something. I wonder if it's still up....

Oh yes, here it is. " Guest Post: MCPS supports the French Olympic team!
Yes you read that right!

By buying its turf at full price through a noncompetitive process, the MCPS [Montgomery County Public School] is supporting the French Olympic team as it competes against our American athletes."

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/08/guest-post-mcps-supports-french-olympic.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the people I am voting for:
At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Reason: I am looking for the safety of the school, improving teaching for better results and disciplining students for bullying, violations or chronic absence with consequences, and ending the nonsense of the current BOE.

I did a lot of digging, listened to the candidates' zoom meeting (https://youtu.be/DTVs3hv_Peo) and looked at their websites.

Well, I'm not voting for any of those people. Just Zimmerman, Stewart, and Montoya. I appreciate their more mainstream positions.

+1

Well, I don't have any problem for your choices. But I don't think they are mainstream positions.

DP. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that they are mainstream positions in Montgomery County (which I, personally, am grateful for).

-another Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya voter

You wouldn’t say that about Laura Stewart if you could go back and see all of her twitter posts that she’s now removed since running for office because they’re so extreme/politically damaging

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the people I am voting for:
At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Reason: I am looking for the safety of the school, improving teaching for better results and disciplining students for bullying, violations or chronic absence with consequences, and ending the nonsense of the current BOE.

I did a lot of digging, listened to the candidates' zoom meeting (https://youtu.be/DTVs3hv_Peo) and looked at their websites.

Well, I'm not voting for any of those people. Just Zimmerman, Stewart, and Montoya. I appreciate their more mainstream positions.

Well, I don't have any problem for your choices. But I don't think they are mainstream positions.

DP. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that they are mainstream positions in Montgomery County (which I, personally, am grateful for).

-another Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya voter

You wouldn’t say that about Laura Stewart if you could go back and see all of her twitter posts that she’s now removed since running for office because they’re so extreme/politically damaging

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the people I am voting for:
At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Reason: I am looking for the safety of the school, improving teaching for better results and disciplining students for bullying, violations or chronic absence with consequences, and ending the nonsense of the current BOE.

I did a lot of digging, listened to the candidates' zoom meeting (https://youtu.be/DTVs3hv_Peo) and looked at their websites.

Well, I'm not voting for any of those people. Just Zimmerman, Stewart, and Montoya. I appreciate their more mainstream positions.

+1

Well, I don't have any problem for your choices. But I don't think they are mainstream positions.

DP. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that they are mainstream positions in Montgomery County (which I, personally, am grateful for).

-another Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya voter

You wouldn’t say that about Laura Stewart if you could go back and see all of her twitter posts that she’s now removed since running for office because they’re so extreme/politically damaging

No that would be Mandel.

And by the way no social media is scrubbed.

All can be found on reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.



It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

DP. I remember a "Parents Coalition" post accusing MCPS of hating the US because of something Olympics something artificial turf something something. I wonder if it's still up....

Oh yes, here it is. " Guest Post: MCPS supports the French Olympic team!
Yes you read that right!

By buying its turf at full price through a noncompetitive process, the MCPS [Montgomery County Public School] is supporting the French Olympic team as it competes against our American athletes."

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/08/guest-post-mcps-supports-french-olympic.html

A guest post from 2012 has what to do with Councilmembers grandstanding during an elementary school Cultural Heritage night?