Beidleman Coat Tax Payers More than $2 Million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She knew his attitude and style from back when they were both middle school administrators who socialized in addition to having a professional relationship in the cluster. Even if his behavior at fms was occurring before she came on as super, she knowingly promoted him, and ignored direct complaints from his current staff. She had the ability to do better.

DP. And did not follow the previous OIG recommendations to fix the problems in the compliance and investigations office.

[Anonymous]

"socialized"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You two people on this board have to find a hobby, a man or a good toy.

Sounds exactly like something Beidleman would say at a school meeting to his subordinates!

Well, then he would have a point because crazy people need something to do besides beat on this dead issue. It's not helping anyone that Beidleman or McKnight harmed.

I'm not sure McKnight was involved anymore than the previous two supers and the evidence against Beidleman seemed sketchy. They need to do better than this.

Yes, she was more involved. She promoted him to HS principal while he was under investigation. No, the evidence didn't seem sketchy.

Have to disagree. She relied on her staff which recommended he get promoted based on his past performance reviews under the previous super. The evidence is sketchy because aside from a teacher who was sending him nude pics the only evidence was 38 anonymous complaints. How do we know this wasn't just was a single disgruntled student?

Quit the gaslighting, you fool. The measure of McKnight's complicity in protecting Beidleman has been carefully detailed in reporting by The Post and MoCo 360.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You two people on this board have to find a hobby, a man or a good toy.

Sounds exactly like something Beidleman would say at a school meeting to his subordinates!

Well, then he would have a point because crazy people need something to do besides beat on this dead issue. It's not helping anyone that Beidleman or McKnight harmed.

I'm not sure McKnight was involved anymore than the previous two supers and the evidence against Beidleman seemed sketchy. They need to do better than this.

Yes, she was more involved. She promoted him to HS principal while he was under investigation. No, the evidence didn't seem sketchy.

Have to disagree. She relied on her staff which recommended he get promoted based on his past performance reviews under the previous super. The evidence is sketchy because aside from a teacher who was sending him nude pics the only evidence was 38 anonymous complaints. How do we know this wasn't just was a single disgruntled student?

Quit the gaslighting, you fool. The measure of McKnight's complicity in protecting Beidleman has been carefully detailed in reporting by The Post and MoCo 360.

I read the article twice but must've missed that part. I just remember them going on about anonymous soruces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You two people on this board have to find a hobby, a man or a good toy.

Sounds exactly like something Beidleman would say at a school meeting to his subordinates!

Well, then he would have a point because crazy people need something to do besides beat on this dead issue. It's not helping anyone that Beidleman or McKnight harmed.

I'm not sure McKnight was involved anymore than the previous two supers and the evidence against Beidleman seemed sketchy. They need to do better than this.

Yes, she was more involved. She promoted him to HS principal while he was under investigation. No, the evidence didn't seem sketchy.

Have to disagree. She relied on her staff which recommended he get promoted based on his past performance reviews under the previous super. The evidence is sketchy because aside from a teacher who was sending him nude pics the only evidence was 38 anonymous complaints. How do we know this wasn't just was a single disgruntled student?

Quit the gaslighting, you fool. The measure of McKnight's complicity in protecting Beidleman has been carefully detailed in reporting by The Post and MoCo 360.

I read the article twice but must've missed that part. I just remember them going on about anonymous soruces.

You have missed a lot of things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You two people on this board have to find a hobby, a man or a good toy.

Sounds exactly like something Beidleman would say at a school meeting to his subordinates!

Well, then he would have a point because crazy people need something to do besides beat on this dead issue. It's not helping anyone that Beidleman or McKnight harmed.

I'm not sure McKnight was involved anymore than the previous two supers and the evidence against Beidleman seemed sketchy. They need to do better than this.

Yes, she was more involved. She promoted him to HS principal while he was under investigation. No, the evidence didn't seem sketchy.

Have to disagree. She relied on her staff which recommended he get promoted based on his past performance reviews under the previous super. The evidence is sketchy because aside from a teacher who was sending him nude pics the only evidence was 38 anonymous complaints. How do we know this wasn't just was a single disgruntled student?

Quit the gaslighting, you fool. The measure of McKnight's complicity in protecting Beidleman has been carefully detailed in reporting by The Post and MoCo 360.

The Post had a picture with multiple women.
Try to catch up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You two people on this board have to find a hobby, a man or a good toy.

Sounds exactly like something Beidleman would say at a school meeting to his subordinates!

Well, then he would have a point because crazy people need something to do besides beat on this dead issue. It's not helping anyone that Beidleman or McKnight harmed.

I'm not sure McKnight was involved anymore than the previous two supers and the evidence against Beidleman seemed sketchy. They need to do better than this.

Yes, she was more involved. She promoted him to HS principal while he was under investigation. No, the evidence didn't seem sketchy.

Have to disagree. She relied on her staff which recommended he get promoted based on his past performance reviews under the previous super. The evidence is sketchy because aside from a teacher who was sending him nude pics the only evidence was 38 anonymous complaints. How do we know this wasn't just was a single disgruntled student?

Quit the gaslighting, you fool. The measure of McKnight's complicity in protecting Beidleman has been carefully detailed in reporting by The Post and MoCo 360.

The Post had a picture with multiple women.
Try to catch up.

Best I could tell the only person who wasn't "anonymous" was the teacher sending Joel nude photos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You two people on this board have to find a hobby, a man or a good toy.

Sounds exactly like something Beidleman would say at a school meeting to his subordinates!

Well, then he would have a point because crazy people need something to do besides beat on this dead issue. It's not helping anyone that Beidleman or McKnight harmed.

I'm not sure McKnight was involved anymore than the previous two supers and the evidence against Beidleman seemed sketchy. They need to do better than this.

Yes, she was more involved. She promoted him to HS principal while he was under investigation. No, the evidence didn't seem sketchy.

Have to disagree. She relied on her staff which recommended he get promoted based on his past performance reviews under the previous super. The evidence is sketchy because aside from a teacher who was sending him nude pics the only evidence was 38 anonymous complaints. How do we know this wasn't just was a single disgruntled student?

Quit the gaslighting, you fool. The measure of McKnight's complicity in protecting Beidleman has been carefully detailed in reporting by The Post and MoCo 360.

The Post had a picture with multiple women.
Try to catch up.

Best I could tell the only person who wasn't "anonymous" was the teacher sending Joel nude photos.

You have tried this argument ad nauseum, Joel, time to give it up. 🤢

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You two people on this board have to find a hobby, a man or a good toy.

Sounds exactly like something Beidleman would say at a school meeting to his subordinates!

Well, then he would have a point because crazy people need something to do besides beat on this dead issue. It's not helping anyone that Beidleman or McKnight harmed.

I'm not sure McKnight was involved anymore than the previous two supers and the evidence against Beidleman seemed sketchy. They need to do better than this.

Yes, she was more involved. She promoted him to HS principal while he was under investigation. No, the evidence didn't seem sketchy.

Have to disagree. She relied on her staff which recommended he get promoted based on his past performance reviews under the previous super. The evidence is sketchy because aside from a teacher who was sending him nude pics the only evidence was 38 anonymous complaints. How do we know this wasn't just was a single disgruntled student?

Quit the gaslighting, you fool. The measure of McKnight's complicity in protecting Beidleman has been carefully detailed in reporting by The Post and MoCo 360.

The Post had a picture with multiple women.
Try to catch up.

Best I could tell the only person who wasn't "anonymous" was the teacher sending Joel nude photos.

You have tried this argument ad nauseum, Joel, time to give it up. 🤢

Joel can’t count. Give him a break.

[Anonymous]

I heard a rumor his ex wife is being interviewed by the washington post soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard a rumor his ex wife is being interviewed by the washington post soon.

Did she also send him dirty texts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You two people on this board have to find a hobby, a man or a good toy.

Sounds exactly like something Beidleman would say at a school meeting to his subordinates!

Well, then he would have a point because crazy people need something to do besides beat on this dead issue. It's not helping anyone that Beidleman or McKnight harmed.

I'm not sure McKnight was involved anymore than the previous two supers and the evidence against Beidleman seemed sketchy. They need to do better than this.

Yes, she was more involved. She promoted him to HS principal while he was under investigation. No, the evidence didn't seem sketchy.

Have to disagree. She relied on her staff which recommended he get promoted based on his past performance reviews under the previous super. The evidence is sketchy because aside from a teacher who was sending him nude pics the only evidence was 38 anonymous complaints. How do we know this wasn't just was a single disgruntled student?

Quit the gaslighting, you fool. The measure of McKnight's complicity in protecting Beidleman has been carefully detailed in reporting by The Post and MoCo 360.

The Post had a picture with multiple women.
Try to catch up.

Best I could tell the only person who wasn't "anonymous" was the teacher sending Joel nude photos.

You have tried this argument ad nauseum, Joel, time to give it up. 🤢

Nobody has provided evidence to the contrary or disproven it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the reason we gave her millions of our tax dollars regardless of corruption was for her to f off and go have fun retiring on our hard earned money. Why cant hiring personell admit this is a ridiculously moronic and hazardous decision? I hope someone is fired for this but my intuition says this is more reflective of the degraded standards and inaccountibility to the people who fund thwir bloated salaries.

Meanwhile we had schools without copy paper or toilet paper. Wish we did have to give Monifa McKnight a payout but I guess the increased cost of lawyers would have made up the difference. As a future employer, UMD had to know she was trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the reason we gave her millions of our tax dollars regardless of corruption was for her to f off and go have fun retiring on our hard earned money. Why cant hiring personell admit this is a ridiculously moronic and hazardous decision? I hope someone is fired for this but my intuition says this is more reflective of the degraded standards and inaccountibility to the people who fund thwir bloated salaries.

Meanwhile we had schools without copy paper or toilet paper. Wish we didn’t have to give Monifa McKnight a payout but I guess the increased cost of lawyers would have made up the difference. As a future employer, UMD had to know she was trouble.

[Anonymous]

@Joel Beidelman, I’m sorry you haven’t found a new job but please piss off and stop commenting on this board. You’ve claimed as nauseam that these were just anonymous complaints shared by teenagers. Give it a rest- maybe your lawyers can explain to you like you are five. You victimized your staff and are being held accountable.