SMOB should be non-voting: HOCO parents are right
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I”m a HoCo parent who is annoyed with our board, thinks it is largely populated by dumb adults, but doesn’t think the student is the issue to focus on.
I do think the lack of any in person education for any kids for nearly 2 years (mark my words it will be this long) is the problem. But the student isn’t your only obstacle people. Focus on Jolene, Antonia and Jen. And why they and Colleen confer constantly and plan to do nothing for kids. Nothing. Special Ed, K-3, its crazy. All to protect that teacher contract I guess. |
Anonymous
| Ugh. The most recent concern with the current SMOB is that he has posted comments like “F*ck police” and “ACAB “( all cops are b*stards,) on his social media accounts. He is not doing himself or the students he is supposed to be representing any favors. What a mess |
Anonymous
We have a legacy of impressive and smart SMOBs. Tinbite felt like he was phoning it in and too focused on building a woke national profile. But Asante is awesome, as was Tadikonda and Guerci. |
Anonymous
|
This lawsuit is absurd. The SMOB doesn’t rule by fiat but is rather one vote.
People can disagree with an individual SMOB’s views and/or how the SMOB does their job—just as you can disagree with any other elected. But disagreement should NOT prompt an effort to strip students of their representation. Goodness. |
Anonymous
I think the point of the lawsuit was to break the stalemate. Nothing good comes from zero movement on either side. The lawsuit fixed the glitch. |
Anonymous
I'm sorry, what? This is some bizarre spin. The point of the lawsuit was to take away the student's voting rights, after the student cast a vote against returning to in-person instruction. Further, this ongoing suit hasn't "fixed" anything. |
Anonymous
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/readers-respond/bs-ed-rr-howard-school-board-letter-20201230-vwa446ay2rfupleoxhx5owinbm-story.html |
Anonymous
These lawsuits are just like President Trump's desperate lawsuits to try to overturn the elections. This is a group of people who dislike the results of the current political leadership and want to use a lawsuit to change the conditions of the votes to suit their goals. It has nothing to do with legally or morally right. Maybe we should have a lawsuit to strip one of the BoE directors in support of in-person voting of their rights. That would make it 4-3 in favor of continuing distance learning and it wouldn't be the student BoE member's vote that caused the 4-4 tie. It's the same issue; if you don't agree with the current results try to disenfranchise a large stakeholder group (say one district of homeowner/parents instead of the student body) to get your way. It's ridiculous. The current system requires 5 votes in favor to pass a resolution. There have been 4, which is not enough to pass the resolutions. So they fail. That's the way it is currently decided. |
Anonymous
Well, in fairness, one of the resolutions that "failed" sought to work on a plan to return students to in person learning in the future. Such a ridiculous goal, right? |
Anonymous
Lol, I'm sorry, did you really just link to an opinion piece to try and justify your point? Yes, I'm aware of how the two women's attorney has framed the suit in the press, particularly as they have gotten pushback for the bullying the poor SMOB is undergoing. But in court, the filings--not talking points--matter. And let's be clear what the suit would accomplish, if successful. This suit doesn't challenge the fact that the board is even numbered. The suit doesn't challenge the process being undertaken to determine reopening. The suit challenges the SMOB's right to vote, declaring his or her ability to do so unconstitutional. If the suit is successful, students will be stripped of their representation across the board. Perhaps, if successful, these parents may get the political outcome they want and end this instance of "gridlock"--but the impact will be much more far-reaching than that. And those far-reaching impacts are the point of the lawsuit, even if the women and their attorney don't want to own up to true repercussions of their actions here. Further, at least one of the two women who (in my opinion) foolishly attached their name to this stunt have also mocked the right for a student to vote in board proceedings writ large: "Even if the student voted for me I don’t think I want his vote, he’s a child," said Kim Ford. https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/former-howard-county-student-members-of-the-board-band-together-to-protect-voting-rights |
Anonymous
Well, I stand by any action is better than none. It's been gridlock and since they two women wrote this commentary, I don't have any reason to not believe it's what they want to get across. The system is clearly flawed since the board can't get anything done. Why would people care how the gridlock is fixed, as long as it is fixed? |
Anonymous
and I agree that a student should not have a vote in whether the district returns to in-person learning. as a parent to a special needs child who is significantly behind because of the closures, I don't want a student voting. I want the adults to make decisions and take action. I don't care if they want to stay virtual until 2023, I want them to make a plan and end the gridlock. |
Anonymous
Listen, I think the board should be doing a lot more to prepare the district for reopening when it is safe to do so and have all the sympathy in the world for families struggling with DL. Those with learning differences, those from lower means, and for those with parents that MUST work and cannot afford effective childcare that helps those students with DL. It's an awful situation to be in, and it represents policy failures at the local, state, and federal level. But you have to recognize that, after failing to lobby a majority of the board effectively, those frustrated with the board's decision filed a lawsuit attacking the SMOB's right to vote because it is the only anti-reopening vote they could figure out a legal argument against. The motivations behind the lawsuit are transparent. Sure, I'd imagine the litigants want to end gridlock--but the suit targets the student, not the processes dictating the board. Long-term, state-wide impact on student representation and civic engagement be damned. If someone wants to cite to a lawsuit filed by these people previously challenging the right of the SMOB to vote, I will be happy to learn that at least their suit here in based in principle and as opposed to political desire. That said, I could not disagree more with your opposition to a voting SMOB. Parents, teachers, taxpayers--all have a lot more power in any education policy debate than students. Giving one young adult the ability to represent students on the board, which I believe has been in place for nearly 15 years in HoCo, is important to giving students on the precipice of adulthood a voice in decisions that can have huge repercussions on their lives. I do not know the women who brought the lawsuit at all and so cast no judgment on them as people, but I do not respect their attempt to use the legal system in such a manner. |
Anonymous
Woah, this is dangerous short-term thinking. The "how" always, always matters. |
Anonymous
|