BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sort of boils down to 3 groups of choices (District 2,4, at-large):
1. Incumbents - Smondrowski, Evans, Harris
2. Apple ballot (teacher's union endorsed) - Zimerman, Stewart, Montoya
3. Rebels: Diaz, Mandel, Mofor

Sorry, couldn't come up with a better name for group 3, but they are all sort of consistent in wanting big change, SROs back in schools, and stuff like that.

So if you like how things are going, vote group 1.

If you like the teacher's union (keep in mind their 2022 apple ballot picks currently sit on the board, but aren't up for election this cycle), vote group 2.

If you think big changes are needed, vote group 3.

Mandel is not an acceptable candidate.

She is Moms4Liberty

In the video, Mandel says she wants to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the board.

As I said, which is ridiculous. Regardless of her politics and endorsements, this is a non-starter for a Board of Education member of the public school system. This immediately disqualifies her.

That is not a disqualification measure. Cite where this disqualifies a candidate.

DP. It can certainly disqualify her from consideration by many voters. Indeed, I expect MOST voters would disqualify her from consideration on the basis of her wanting to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the Board of Education - if not on the basis of a great number of her other statements and actions.

And it can qualify her into consideration because it’s nothing more than desperate attempt at fear-mongering.
So petty.

Fear mongering?? Queen is Mandel and her band of yuck. Diaz too.

it seems like their people are responsible for a lot of the misinformation in this thread. I'd rely on mainstream sources.

No fact Diaz and Mandel are Moms4liberty candidates neither is fit for any office period. No misinformation fact.

Those are opinions obsessive one.

I'm pretty sure it's a fact that they're Moms4Liberty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote out ALL incumbents up this cycle. Then vote out the remaining incumbents in the next cycle.

As recommended by the Apple Ballot.

The Apple Ballot always gets it right - that's why they've endorsed D4's best - Shebra Evans - in previous races.

Nice lady, wrong for D4.

Yep, let her retire from K-12 public education, her kid is graduating this season. New faces, new ideas.

Agreed. But I think Laura Stewart’s kids graduated a couple years ago so it’s been a couple years since she’s had kids in MCPS. She’s been advocating and working for years and years while her kids were in MCPS schools and look where it’s gotten us. Definitely time for new faces and new ideas.

There are no good candidates for district 4. I decided I’m not going to vote in D4.

That's not a good decision.

You are right. I’m torn. Mandel is a NO. So that leaves me with Evans and Stuart. I don’t like Stuart so that leaves Evans but I think her time is past.

That's the same boat I'm in. I'm lukewarm on Evans, but she's the best option of the bunch. Laura Stewart is well-intentioned, but she's a bit of a mess and another white, liberal social justice warrior like Lynne. No thanks.

Yeah as a progressive I’m not sure I can vote against Evans. I’d rather have someone who walks the walk than an imposter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote out ALL incumbents up this cycle. Then vote out the remaining incumbents in the next cycle.

As recommended by the Apple Ballot.

The Apple Ballot always gets it right - that's why they've endorsed D4's best - Shebra Evans - in previous races.

Nice lady, wrong for D4.

Yep, let her retire from K-12 public education, her kid is graduating this season. New faces, new ideas.

Agreed. But I think Laura Stewart’s kids graduated a couple years ago so it’s been a couple years since she’s had kids in MCPS. She’s been advocating and working for years and years while her kids were in MCPS schools and look where it’s gotten us. Definitely time for new faces and new ideas.

There are no good candidates for district 4. I decided I’m not going to vote in D4.

That's not a good decision.

You are right. I’m torn. Mandel is a NO. So that leaves me with Evans and Stuart. I don’t like Stuart so that leaves Evans but I think her time is past.

That's the same boat I'm in. I'm lukewarm on Evans, but she's the best option of the bunch. Laura Stewart is well-intentioned, but she's a bit of a mess and another white, liberal social justice warrior like Lynne. No thanks.

Yeah as a progressive I’m not sure I can vote against Evans. I’d rather have someone who walks the walk than an imposter.

Evans walks the walk? She just sits there and says "thank you for the presentation, it was great." How is that helpful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sort of boils down to 3 groups of choices (District 2,4, at-large):
1. Incumbents - Smondrowski, Evans, Harris
2. Apple ballot (teacher's union endorsed) - Zimerman, Stewart, Montoya
3. Rebels: Diaz, Mandel, Mofor

Sorry, couldn't come up with a better name for group 3, but they are all sort of consistent in wanting big change, SROs back in schools, and stuff like that.

So if you like how things are going, vote group 1.

If you like the teacher's union (keep in mind their 2022 apple ballot picks currently sit on the board, but aren't up for election this cycle), vote group 2.

If you think big changes are needed, vote group 3.

Mandel is not an acceptable candidate.

She is Moms4Liberty

In the video, Mandel says she wants to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the board.

As I said, which is ridiculous. Regardless of her politics and endorsements, this is a non-starter for a Board of Education member of the public school system. This immediately disqualifies her.

That is not a disqualification measure. Cite where this disqualifies a candidate.

DP. It can certainly disqualify her from consideration by many voters. Indeed, I expect MOST voters would disqualify her from consideration on the basis of her wanting to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the Board of Education - if not on the basis of a great number of her other statements and actions.

And it can qualify her into consideration because it’s nothing more than desperate attempt at fear-mongering.
So petty.

Fear mongering?? Queen is Mandel and her band of yuck. Diaz too.

it seems like their people are responsible for a lot of the misinformation in this thread. I'd rely on mainstream sources.

No fact Diaz and Mandel are Moms4liberty candidates neither is fit for any office period. No misinformation fact.

Those are opinions obsessive one.

I'm pretty sure it's a fact that they're Moms4Liberty.

That’s not a disqualifier as fit for office, idiot. You know that is an opinion, not factual information. If you can’t see the difference between the two, you are not fit to vote or have an opinion.
State facts, not your emotional thoughts that discredit you and make you look like a loon.

DP. It's a disqualifier as fit for office as far as my vote is concerned. In my opinion, candidates associated with "Moms For Liberty" are not fit for office.

[Anonymous]

I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote out ALL incumbents up this cycle. Then vote out the remaining incumbents in the next cycle.

As recommended by the Apple Ballot.

The Apple Ballot always gets it right - that's why they've endorsed D4's best - Shebra Evans - in previous races.

Nice lady, wrong for D4.

Yep, let her retire from K-12 public education, her kid is graduating this season. New faces, new ideas.

Agreed. But I think Laura Stewart’s kids graduated a couple years ago so it’s been a couple years since she’s had kids in MCPS. She’s been advocating and working for years and years while her kids were in MCPS schools and look where it’s gotten us. Definitely time for new faces and new ideas.

There are no good candidates for district 4. I decided I’m not going to vote in D4.

That's not a good decision.

You are right. I’m torn. Mandel is a NO. So that leaves me with Evans and Stuart. I don’t like Stuart so that leaves Evans but I think her time is past.

That's the same boat I'm in. I'm lukewarm on Evans, but she's the best option of the bunch. Laura Stewart is well-intentioned, but she's a bit of a mess and another white, liberal social justice warrior like Lynne. No thanks.

Yeah as a progressive I’m not sure I can vote against Evans. I’d rather have someone who walks the walk than an imposter.

What walk does she walk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

...says the Evans supporter who hopes folks don't look back through the 80-plus pages of this thread to see nearly the same thing said over and over again, trying to piant the challenger as soft-headed, when Evans has done almost nothing substantive besides make sure her base got theirs early on and that MCPS leadership was put in place to keep it that way. That's basically the reason Evans supported MCPS upper admin, including McKnight, with both reticence and assent, neglecting the broad needs of the community.

Meanwhile, Stewart's advocacy, despite not having the privilege of meeting time/authority afforded to a BOE member like Evans, has been far clearer, though her deep understanding of issues like capital improvements can lead to nuanced responses. Some folks not paying attention might see that as wishy-washy from her "nice" presentation, when it's actually the kind of fine tuning that presents the opportunity for better results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

Oddly enough, this was exactly my opinion of Shebra Evans the first time she ran for BoE, and nothing she has done since then has changed my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

...says the Evans supporter who hopes folks don't look back through the 80-plus pages of this thread to see nearly the same thing said over and over again, trying to piant the challenger as soft-headed, when Evans has done almost nothing substantive besides make sure her base got theirs early on and that MCPS leadership was put in place to keep it that way. That's basically the reason Evans supported MCPS upper admin, including McKnight, with both reticence and assent, neglecting the broad needs of the community.

Meanwhile, Stewart's advocacy, despite not having the privilege of meeting time/authority afforded to a BOE member like Evans, has been far clearer, though her deep understanding of issues like capital improvements can lead to nuanced responses. Some folks not paying attention might see that as wishy-washy from her "nice" presentation, when it's actually the kind of fine tuning that presents the opportunity for better results.

Your intense desperation to prop up Laura Stewart is putting more people off than persuading people to vote for her, just so you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

...says the Evans supporter who hopes folks don't look back through the 80-plus pages of this thread to see nearly the same thing said over and over again, trying to piant the challenger as soft-headed, when Evans has done almost nothing substantive besides make sure her base got theirs early on and that MCPS leadership was put in place to keep it that way. That's basically the reason Evans supported MCPS upper admin, including McKnight, with both reticence and assent, neglecting the broad needs of the community.

Meanwhile, Stewart's advocacy, despite not having the privilege of meeting time/authority afforded to a BOE member like Evans, has been far clearer, though her deep understanding of issues like capital improvements can lead to nuanced responses. Some folks not paying attention might see that as wishy-washy from her "nice" presentation, when it's actually the kind of fine tuning that presents the opportunity for better results.

Your intense desperation to prop up Laura Stewart is putting more people off than persuading people to vote for her, just so you know.

I'll take that chance in the face of the Evans-supporter distortions.

[Anonymous]

Smondrowski seems to have missed several of the forums. Is she still campaigning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

...says the Evans supporter who hopes folks don't look back through the 80-plus pages of this thread to see nearly the same thing said over and over again, trying to piant the challenger as soft-headed, when Evans has done almost nothing substantive besides make sure her base got theirs early on and that MCPS leadership was put in place to keep it that way. That's basically the reason Evans supported MCPS upper admin, including McKnight, with both reticence and assent, neglecting the broad needs of the community.

Meanwhile, Stewart's advocacy, despite not having the privilege of meeting time/authority afforded to a BOE member like Evans, has been far clearer, though her deep understanding of issues like capital improvements can lead to nuanced responses. Some folks not paying attention might see that as wishy-washy from her "nice" presentation, when it's actually the kind of fine tuning that presents the opportunity for better results.

I agree with you there, since her "advocacy" has most often been in the form of reading her written testimony out loud to the BOE. Points for being able to read very clearly, I guess. Outside of that format, like in the candidate forums where she needed to speak extemporaneously and on her feet, she struggled quite a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

...says the Evans supporter who hopes folks don't look back through the 80-plus pages of this thread to see nearly the same thing said over and over again, trying to piant the challenger as soft-headed, when Evans has done almost nothing substantive besides make sure her base got theirs early on and that MCPS leadership was put in place to keep it that way. That's basically the reason Evans supported MCPS upper admin, including McKnight, with both reticence and assent, neglecting the broad needs of the community.

Meanwhile, Stewart's advocacy, despite not having the privilege of meeting time/authority afforded to a BOE member like Evans, has been far clearer, though her deep understanding of issues like capital improvements can lead to nuanced responses. Some folks not paying attention might see that as wishy-washy from her "nice" presentation, when it's actually the kind of fine tuning that presents the opportunity for better results.

I agree with you there, since her "advocacy" has most often been in the form of reading her written testimony out loud to the BOE. Points for being able to read very clearly, I guess. Outside of that format, like in the candidate forums where she needed to speak extemporaneously and on her feet, she struggled quite a bit.

Indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sort of boils down to 3 groups of choices (District 2,4, at-large):
1. Incumbents - Smondrowski, Evans, Harris
2. Apple ballot (teacher's union endorsed) - Zimerman, Stewart, Montoya
3. Rebels: Diaz, Mandel, Mofor

Sorry, couldn't come up with a better name for group 3, but they are all sort of consistent in wanting big change, SROs back in schools, and stuff like that.

So if you like how things are going, vote group 1.

If you like the teacher's union (keep in mind their 2022 apple ballot picks currently sit on the board, but aren't up for election this cycle), vote group 2.

If you think big changes are needed, vote group 3.

Mandel is not an acceptable candidate.

She is Moms4Liberty

In the video, Mandel says she wants to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the board.

As I said, which is ridiculous. Regardless of her politics and endorsements, this is a non-starter for a Board of Education member of the public school system. This immediately disqualifies her.

That is not a disqualification measure. Cite where this disqualifies a candidate.

DP. It can certainly disqualify her from consideration by many voters. Indeed, I expect MOST voters would disqualify her from consideration on the basis of her wanting to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the Board of Education - if not on the basis of a great number of her other statements and actions.

And it can qualify her into consideration because it’s nothing more than desperate attempt at fear-mongering.
So petty.

Fear mongering?? Queen is Mandel and her band of yuck. Diaz too.

it seems like their people are responsible for a lot of the misinformation in this thread. I'd rely on mainstream sources.

No fact Diaz and Mandel are Moms4liberty candidates neither is fit for any office period. No misinformation fact.

Those are opinions obsessive one.

I'm pretty sure it's a fact that they're Moms4Liberty.

That’s not a disqualifier as fit for office, idiot. You know that is an opinion, not factual information. If you can’t see the difference between the two, you are not fit to vote or have an opinion.
State facts, not your emotional thoughts that discredit you and make you look like a loon.

DP. It's a disqualifier as fit for office as far as my vote is concerned. In my opinion, candidates associated with "Moms For Liberty" are not fit for office.

So you agree it’s an opinion and not fact.

What's opinion and not fact?

It's a fact that Mandel and Diaz are associated with "Moms For Liberty".

It's a fact that this does not legally disqualify them from office.

It's a fact that I plan to never vote for anybody associated with "Moms For Liberty" for anything.

DP. You can avoid voting for Mandel and Diaz and others can vote for Mandel or Diaz at their own choosing if they wish.

No one said they can not. Although, Mandel does subscribe to only her point of view being correct. Not like she can collaborate with others her words by the way.

However, getting the word out she's not fit not qualified is a horrible candidate, supports Moms4liberty, is suing MCPS/BOE with a gobblygook lawsuit. Yeah let's keep the facts out there.

Being not fit is an opinion. Let’s keep the facts out there apart from you, it seems.

The facts make her unfit. Full stop.

Therefore, she is fit, because opinions are not facts.
Anyone can be involved with groups that you don’t like. You can’t state your emotions about it as factual. You know that and are twisting yourself into a pretzel desperately trying to force something.

What do you not understand about facts?

What exactly does Mandel or Diaz bring to the BOE besides hate?

Not curriculum
Not working with others.
Nothing but book banning, suing the school system which by the way fact again we taxpayers are paying to defend against Mandel's funded by outside sources Family Council, America Legal First both RW hate groups that have no business in MCPS.

So far all you have done is write the word "opinion"

Your "opinion" is yours.

Mine is based on facts, yours is not. Fact you have zero facts that Mandel or Diaz are qualified. You have not listed one thing that makes them nothing but again book banning, haters, rw crazies, homeschooling (not picking on homeschoolers) like Mandel who knows nothing about MS or HS Curriculum, nothing about budgets, nothing about school boards, both want to control 160,000 students to RW Christion Nationalism and fact that dumbs down schools.

Where are your facts? Hum... none

It's heartening to see the ongoing recognition and repudiation of Moms4Liberty candidates Mandel and Diaz. Mandel has been successful in gaining funds from outside the state to fund her outreach. Not sure why Diaz has not had similar support, but I am glad for that. Nationwide, there is a movement for MAGAs, et al, to seek locally elected positions (such as on boards of education) to gain a foothold in governance.

Maybe because she is not a mom‘s for liberty? I know she held a talk with them but it’s possible she is not affiliated with them.