Nancy Van Doren just went off the deep end

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironically I had heard good things about her from Reid Goldstein!

It's a problem with Arlington's one-party system -- all the Democrats are very busy being loyal to their fellow party members.

Well, except Nancy, who seems to think she doesn't have peers, just minions.

[Anonymous]

I think Nancy was probably good when she was in a position that only required her to advocate for things she knows something about- special ed, etc. She doesn't have the educational background or work experience to deal with the other complex issues that the School Board is grappling with right now-- demographic predictions, school construction, educational models, long-term planning, etc. Now that she's chair of the School Board, she's having a harder time hiding the fact that she is in over her head. Rather than viewing debate as healthy, she sees it as personal and some sort of intentional effort to undermine her "leadership" role. It is classic behavior-- I'm sure many of us have seen the same thing in our own workplaces when managers are in over their heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Nancy was probably good when she was in a position that only required her to advocate for things she knows something about- special ed, etc. She doesn't have the educational background or work experience to deal with the other complex issues that the School Board is grappling with right now-- demographic predictions, school construction, educational models, long-term planning, etc. Now that she's chair of the School Board, she's having a harder time hiding the fact that she is in over her head. Rather than viewing debate as healthy, she sees it as personal and some sort of intentional effort to undermine her "leadership" role. It is classic behavior-- I'm sure many of us have seen the same thing in our own workplaces when managers are in over their heads.

I agree. It can be hard to pick a candidate when none of them have experience in every area and it's hard to figure out who is going to be willing to admit s/he's wrong or doesn't know enough. Even long after the rest of us have noticed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironically I had heard good things about her from Reid Goldstein!

Of course, NVD doesn't think he's very smart (roll tape)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically I had heard good things about her from Reid Goldstein!

Of course, NVD doesn't think he's very smart (roll tape)

If "not very smart" means asking important questions to get to the bottom of the bullshittery, I'm ok with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically I had heard good things about her from Reid Goldstein!

Of course, NVD doesn't think he's very smart (roll tape)

If "not very smart" means asking important questions to get to the bottom of the bullshittery, I'm ok with that.

No, that's a comment on her replying "That's for sure" when he said something self-deprecating (and ironic) about his own lack of intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Also, she has very loyal supporters on AEM, which means Thou Shalt Not point out that petulance ill becomes a public servant.

Maybe no AEM members would care, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, she has very loyal supporters on AEM, which means Thou Shalt Not point out that petulance ill becomes a public servant.

Maybe no AEM members would care, anyway.

Saw that.

[Anonymous]

Did this get posted and then taken do2n on Aem? I just saw the no personal attacks thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did this get posted and then taken do2n on Aem? I just saw the no personal attacks thread

I saw the thread talking about public shaming. Was this about NVD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did this get posted and then taken do2n on Aem? I just saw the no personal attacks thread

I saw the thread talking about public shaming. Was this about NVD?

Yes. Someone posted a link to the recording of the April 27 meeting and noted the two times to watch. Evidently there's no difference between public record and public shaming if you're a NVD booster.

[Anonymous]

Seriously - AEM deleted a post on this topic? And then self-righteously proclaimed "this post stays" in reference to a post criticizing Lander's recent (abhorrent) remarks??

Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously - AEM deleted a post on this topic? And then self-righteously proclaimed "this post stays" in reference to a post criticizing Lander's recent (abhorrent) remarks??

Wow.

Yep.

Fairness and logic, the 22207 way. Can you see why APS problems aren't going to get fixed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously - AEM deleted a post on this topic? And then self-righteously proclaimed "this post stays" in reference to a post criticizing Lander's recent (abhorrent) remarks??

Wow.

Yep.

Fairness and logic, the 22207 way. Can you see why APS problems aren't going to get fixed?

You know that the AEM moderator doesn't live in 22207. I got the impression that the NVD post was deleted because a number of AEM people thought the James post has gotten personal; however, that thread also had some important conversation. The NVD thing is never going to be constructive, because she was just CRAZY! No discussion necessary, at least not with my name associated. NVD reads AEM and is she also seems punitive.

[Anonymous]

Call me crazy, but I think an elected official allowing her personal bias to affect her decision making on policy matters, and expressing said personal bias by lashing out at and disrespecting her colleagues and APS staff with outrageous and bullying behavior is important for people to know about. Censorship by AEM on this topic is disappointing and displays their own bias.