Thursday 5/21 Board of Education Meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

You'd need both a repeat request from the Montgomery County delegation (delegates & state senators) at the behest of the County Council. And then you'd need to convince enough of the rest of the legislature to vote for that when they know it would mean consideration among their own county's residents to pay their own BOE members more, which would take from their county's revenues and probably reduce the likelihood that their friends get BOE seats due to the greater interest in candidacy for a better compensated position.

Should that happen? Yes. Tough hill to climb, though. Even our hegemonic Council didn't really want it, but went through the motions with the delegation due to expressed interest from the public. There wasn't much hand-wringing, there, when the state legislature turned it down, even though the proposed compensation was still low in comparison to that commanded in public service positions by those with the kind of education/experience/capability credentials most would want for BOE candidates to bring to the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they are going to start exercising their oversight duties just because they get more money though. I think they will start doing so if voters are calling and emailing them about tax increases though.

The point is not to pay these current board members more, it's to incentivize better candidates to run and become members in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they are going to start exercising their oversight duties just because they get more money though. I think they will start doing so if voters are calling and emailing them about tax increases though.

The point is not to pay these current board members more, it's to incentivize better candidates to run and become members in the future.

I don't think anyone will do any better given the current structure. they literally have no incentive to push back against the superintendent, no reason to scrutinize spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

I don't know why you think they don't have enough responsibilities for this to be a full-time job. The BOE compensation committee has already documented that current board members routinely spend more than 40 hours a week in the role.

That you think there isn't enough for them to do is bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

I don't know why you think they don't have enough responsibilities for this to be a full-time job. The BOE compensation committee has already documented that current board members routinely spend more than 40 hours a week in the role.

That you think there isn't enough for them to do is bizarre.

I have no doubt that they spend a lot of time in their roles, but it isn't effective. They all seem afraid to question the Superintendent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

I don't know why you think they don't have enough responsibilities for this to be a full-time job. The BOE compensation committee has already documented that current board members routinely spend more than 40 hours a week in the role.

That you think there isn't enough for them to do is bizarre.

I have no doubt that they spend a lot of time in their roles, but it isn't effective. They all seem afraid to question the Superintendent.

That's why you need better candidates, people who have experience overseeing large organizations and budgets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they are going to start exercising their oversight duties just because they get more money though. I think they will start doing so if voters are calling and emailing them about tax increases though.

The point is not to pay these current board members more, it's to incentivize better candidates to run and become members in the future.

I don't think anyone will do any better given the current structure. they literally have no incentive to push back against the superintendent, no reason to scrutinize spending.

I agree with this. They need independent staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

Maybe they could take on an adequate load of responsibilities if they have adequate compensation for the time needed to do so.

So we agree that if they are given more responsibility, they should be in compensated more

Dunno. I would agree if you stated it more as, "the elected positions should he compensated at levels reflective both of the qualifications we desire in candidates and of the levels of effort we expect from them, such that duty in those positions would be attractive in comparison to alternate likely employment to those we deem qualified." Right now, I do not see that as remotely the case -- greater compensation is advisable given current expectations for the BOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they are going to start exercising their oversight duties just because they get more money though. I think they will start doing so if voters are calling and emailing them about tax increases though.

The point is not to pay these current board members more, it's to incentivize better candidates to run and become members in the future.

I don't think anyone will do any better given the current structure. they literally have no incentive to push back against the superintendent, no reason to scrutinize spending.

I agree with this. They need independent staff.

l
That would help but again as long as their decisions are disconnect from fiscal realities they will not be willing to question the superintendent. Right now, the BOE, the Superintendent and the unions are all in bed with one another. Yes they have disagreements, but when it comes to the budget they all work together to extract as much money as possible from taxpayers. Parents are not organized well enough. You need the pressure from taxpayers to learn how to justify the tax increases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

Maybe they could take on an adequate load of responsibilities if they have adequate compensation for the time needed to do so.

So we agree that if they are given more responsibility, they should be in compensated more

Dunno. I would agree if you stated it more as, "the elected positions should he compensated at levels reflective both of the qualifications we desire in candidates and of the levels of effort we expect from them, such that duty in those positions would be attractive in comparison to alternate likely employment to those we deem qualified." Right now, I do not see that as remotely the case -- greater compensation is advisable given current expectations for the BOE.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they are going to start exercising their oversight duties just because they get more money though. I think they will start doing so if voters are calling and emailing them about tax increases though.

The point is not to pay these current board members more, it's to incentivize better candidates to run and become members in the future.

I don't think anyone will do any better given the current structure. they literally have no incentive to push back against the superintendent, no reason to scrutinize spending.

I agree with this. They need independent staff.

l
That would help but again as long as their decisions are disconnect from fiscal realities they will not be willing to question the superintendent. Right now, the BOE, the Superintendent and the unions are all in bed with one another. Yes they have disagreements, but when it comes to the budget they all work together to extract as much money as possible from taxpayers. Parents are not organized well enough. You need the pressure from taxpayers to learn how to justify the tax increases.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they are going to start exercising their oversight duties just because they get more money though. I think they will start doing so if voters are calling and emailing them about tax increases though.

The point is not to pay these current board members more, it's to incentivize better candidates to run and become members in the future.

I don't think anyone will do any better given the current structure. they literally have no incentive to push back against the superintendent, no reason to scrutinize spending.

I agree with this. They need independent staff.

Taylor fired their auditor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montoya has her flaws, but I’m super glad she mentioned all the unpopular things MCPS is doing and how it’s affecting enrollment.

She’s also the only one that seems to understand board members have a role in this and can break the cycle by intervening where needed.

Some people said on this board said she has a kid in compacted math. She has skin in the game, and can see how frustrating some MCPS decisions are first hand.

She voted to destroy high school magnets. I wonder if her kid was in HS at the time of the vote, what would have been her vote? Do board members care only about their kids?

If her kids are at some schools, its not really a big deal as they will have the opportunities. The bigger issue is the DCC and NEC.

+1 And some of us don't think the changes to the magnets are bad. It's bad for the 100 ultra-talented kids who won't get their gold-plated STEM opportunities in quite the same way at Blair, but it's better for many other kids are also smart but whose schools had no advanced offerings.

It is also bad for thousands of kids in the DCC and NEC who previously had transportation from their neighborhoods to attend schools with offerings that rich kids have at their home schools because that transportation is being taken away. In many cases DCC kids also no longer have access to established programs near their homes and have to travel to a further school to access half baked programs. All because MCPS and the BOE subscribe to a bizarre definition of "equity" that apparently is about bussing highly motivated and well resourced kids from lower income schools to higher income schools.

But what about the many thousands more who do not have that currently. Heck even for the little bit of magnet opportunity that exist for kids outside the DCc/NEC, they don’t have access to it with transportation from their neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montoya has her flaws, but I’m super glad she mentioned all the unpopular things MCPS is doing and how it’s affecting enrollment.

She’s also the only one that seems to understand board members have a role in this and can break the cycle by intervening where needed.

Some people said on this board said she has a kid in compacted math. She has skin in the game, and can see how frustrating some MCPS decisions are first hand.

She voted to destroy high school magnets. I wonder if her kid was in HS at the time of the vote, what would have been her vote? Do board members care only about their kids?

If her kids are at some schools, its not really a big deal as they will have the opportunities. The bigger issue is the DCC and NEC.

+1 And some of us don't think the changes to the magnets are bad. It's bad for the 100 ultra-talented kids who won't get their gold-plated STEM opportunities in quite the same way at Blair, but it's better for many other kids are also smart but whose schools had no advanced offerings.

It is also bad for thousands of kids in the DCC and NEC who previously had transportation from their neighborhoods to attend schools with offerings that rich kids have at their home schools because that transportation is being taken away. In many cases DCC kids also no longer have access to established programs near their homes and have to travel to a further school to access half baked programs. All because MCPS and the BOE subscribe to a bizarre definition of "equity" that apparently is about bussing highly motivated and well resourced kids from lower income schools to higher income schools.

But what about the many thousands more who do not have that currently. Heck even for the little bit of magnet opportunity that exist for kids outside the DCc/NEC, they don’t have access to it with transportation from their neighborhood.

How does taking it away from DCC and NEC kids and forcing DCC kids to travel to BCC and Whitman for programs and classes BCC and Whitman kids have at their home schools solve that problem? Would have been better to keep the DCC schools together at least, that way we would still have access to Wheaton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montoya has her flaws, but I’m super glad she mentioned all the unpopular things MCPS is doing and how it’s affecting enrollment.

She’s also the only one that seems to understand board members have a role in this and can break the cycle by intervening where needed.

Some people said on this board said she has a kid in compacted math. She has skin in the game, and can see how frustrating some MCPS decisions are first hand.

She voted to destroy high school magnets. I wonder if her kid was in HS at the time of the vote, what would have been her vote? Do board members care only about their kids?

If her kids are at some schools, its not really a big deal as they will have the opportunities. The bigger issue is the DCC and NEC.

+1 And some of us don't think the changes to the magnets are bad. It's bad for the 100 ultra-talented kids who won't get their gold-plated STEM opportunities in quite the same way at Blair, but it's better for many other kids are also smart but whose schools had no advanced offerings.

It is also bad for thousands of kids in the DCC and NEC who previously had transportation from their neighborhoods to attend schools with offerings that rich kids have at their home schools because that transportation is being taken away. In many cases DCC kids also no longer have access to established programs near their homes and have to travel to a further school to access half baked programs. All because MCPS and the BOE subscribe to a bizarre definition of "equity" that apparently is about bussing highly motivated and well resourced kids from lower income schools to higher income schools.

But what about the many thousands more who do not have that currently. Heck even for the little bit of magnet opportunity that exist for kids outside the DCc/NEC, they don’t have access to it with transportation from their neighborhood.

It takes a special level of twisted logic to insist that taking stuff away from other people's kids will help your kid.