Nancy Van Doren just went off the deep end

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AEM has lost a lot of credibility this week. First, someone from another town put Ste about the Lander thing to get the topic started. Ok. It was a big gaffe. She didn't stop there, though, calling out other Arl Dems by name asking if they will withdraw support. Later, she's outed as Ann on-APS stakeholder and a former Arl Dem insider.

Then, someone apparently brings up NVD's behavior and the mods immediately shut it down. The episode of nasty behavior wasn't gossip, it's public record. Are the mods just afraid of NVD?

How does the post by a "non-stakeholder" that provided information of interest to Arlington voters undermine AEM's credibility?

If you read the thread, the poster came back later in the thread and commended one ACB member for withdrawing support. She then tagged/called out other ACB members to pressure them into doing the same thing. She was then outed as someone with no stake in what goes down in APS. Then, she said she'd leave the group, but only after the caucus b/c she doesn't want her post removed. She's obviously playing games.

She wanted Arlington residents to know. I'm an Arlington resident, and I'm grateful.

Someone else who was a resident also posted it. I thought it was kind of creepy the way the lady posted it - very deceptive. The info is important to know, but she shouldn't have passed herself as an Arlington voter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AEM has lost a lot of credibility this week. First, someone from another town put Ste about the Lander thing to get the topic started. Ok. It was a big gaffe. She didn't stop there, though, calling out other Arl Dems by name asking if they will withdraw support. Later, she's outed as Ann on-APS stakeholder and a former Arl Dem insider.

Then, someone apparently brings up NVD's behavior and the mods immediately shut it down. The episode of nasty behavior wasn't gossip, it's public record. Are the mods just afraid of NVD?

She is a huge Nancy Van Doren booster.

I think the Lander thing was harder to quash because it was in the Post. Also, it really was a beyond-the-pale kind of remark.

Nancy just made herself look silly with the outburst about twins. It wasn't the same category. Also, she's not actually up for reelection now. Lander is.

I know a thing or two about Nancy and how she operates and find her reprehensible. But I *do* know the moderator of that forum is a big NVD backer.

[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?

In my experience, most people in Arlington zip codes tend to behave this fashion, perhaps with the exception of some of the immigrant communities, and they're the ones who should find a voice.

But this isn't a "22207" thing.

[Anonymous]

They constantly allow people to criticize their school or principal, but NVD is off-limits (you know, the one people can actually choose). Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AEM has lost a lot of credibility this week. First, someone from another town put Ste about the Lander thing to get the topic started. Ok. It was a big gaffe. She didn't stop there, though, calling out other Arl Dems by name asking if they will withdraw support. Later, she's outed as Ann on-APS stakeholder and a former Arl Dem insider.

Then, someone apparently brings up NVD's behavior and the mods immediately shut it down. The episode of nasty behavior wasn't gossip, it's public record. Are the mods just afraid of NVD?

She is a huge Nancy Van Doren booster.

I think the Lander thing was harder to quash because it was in the Post. Also, it really was a beyond-the-pale kind of remark.

Nancy just made herself look silly with the outburst about twins. It wasn't the same category. Also, she's not actually up for reelection now. Lander is.

I know a thing or two about Nancy and how she operates and find her reprehensible. But I *do* know the moderator of that forum is a big NVD backer.

This is where it lost some credibility. It's a FB page with nearly 2,000 members, including APS staff and School Board members, and generally seems to be open to debate and discussion on a lot of issues. This was one where the mods let their own political leanings shut down discussion on a matter that wasn't too their liking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AEM has lost a lot of credibility this week. First, someone from another town put Ste about the Lander thing to get the topic started. Ok. It was a big gaffe. She didn't stop there, though, calling out other Arl Dems by name asking if they will withdraw support. Later, she's outed as Ann on-APS stakeholder and a former Arl Dem insider.

Then, someone apparently brings up NVD's behavior and the mods immediately shut it down. The episode of nasty behavior wasn't gossip, it's public record. Are the mods just afraid of NVD?

She is a huge Nancy Van Doren booster.

I think the Lander thing was harder to quash because it was in the Post. Also, it really was a beyond-the-pale kind of remark.

Nancy just made herself look silly with the outburst about twins. It wasn't the same category. Also, she's not actually up for reelection now. Lander is.

I know a thing or two about Nancy and how she operates and find her reprehensible. But I *do* know the moderator of that forum is a big NVD backer.

This is where it lost some credibility. It's a FB page with nearly 2,000 members, including APS staff and School Board members, and generally seems to be open to debate and discussion on a lot of issues. This was one where the mods let their own political leanings shut down discussion on a matter that wasn't too their liking.

Honestly, I think they were right to moderate it. I am no Nancy supporter. I think what she said was petty and unprofessional. However, I don't think it's up to me to be outraged on behalf of her colleague. He's an adult, and I'm sure would prefer to handle the matter himself. Frankly, if he has as low esteem for her as she has for him, he may not be too concerned with receiving an apology. He may want to wear her scorn around like a badge of honor. I would.

Anyway, I think this should be handled differently than what Lander said, because Lander's remarks were broader and could be (and were) offensive to large swaths of the population. NVD's remarks, while outrageous, were intended to insult only one very specific person. I didn't agree with them, but it's between them. She doesn't owe me an apology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AEM has lost a lot of credibility this week. First, someone from another town put Ste about the Lander thing to get the topic started. Ok. It was a big gaffe. She didn't stop there, though, calling out other Arl Dems by name asking if they will withdraw support. Later, she's outed as Ann on-APS stakeholder and a former Arl Dem insider.

Then, someone apparently brings up NVD's behavior and the mods immediately shut it down. The episode of nasty behavior wasn't gossip, it's public record. Are the mods just afraid of NVD?

She is a huge Nancy Van Doren booster.

I think the Lander thing was harder to quash because it was in the Post. Also, it really was a beyond-the-pale kind of remark.

Nancy just made herself look silly with the outburst about twins. It wasn't the same category. Also, she's not actually up for reelection now. Lander is.

I know a thing or two about Nancy and how she operates and find her reprehensible. But I *do* know the moderator of that forum is a big NVD backer.

This is where it lost some credibility. It's a FB page with nearly 2,000 members, including APS staff and School Board members, and generally seems to be open to debate and discussion on a lot of issues. This was one where the mods let their own political leanings shut down discussion on a matter that wasn't too their liking.

Honestly, I think they were right to moderate it. I am no Nancy supporter. I think what she said was petty and unprofessional. However, I don't think it's up to me to be outraged on behalf of her colleague. He's an adult, and I'm sure would prefer to handle the matter himself. Frankly, if he has as low esteem for her as she has for him, he may not be too concerned with receiving an apology. He may want to wear her scorn around like a badge of honor. I would.

Anyway, I think this should be handled differently than what Lander said, because Lander's remarks were broader and could be (and were) offensive to large swaths of the population. NVD's remarks, while outrageous, were intended to insult only one very specific person. I didn't agree with them, but it's between them. She doesn't owe me an apology.

Disagree completely. This went way beyond Nancy's insult to a peer. As a voter and APS parent, I want to know, I want others to know, and I want to be able to discuss with them APS policy and SB members' thought process on same and APS SB members' professional interactions. All of that is perfectly legitimate for the AEM FB group and Nancy's outburst related to both. And I'm not looking for an apology from Nancy; I am looking for her to put her own personal interests behind the thousands of children she makes decisions on behalf of and for her to act like the professional she supposedly is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disagree completely. This went way beyond Nancy's insult to a peer. As a voter and APS parent, I want to know, I want others to know, and I want to be able to discuss with them APS policy and SB members' thought process on same and APS SB members' professional interactions. All of that is perfectly legitimate for the AEM FB group and Nancy's outburst related to both. And I'm not looking for an apology from Nancy; I am looking for her to put her own personal interests behind the thousands of children she makes decisions on behalf of and for her to act like the professional she supposedly is.

+1

This isn't about her personal relationship with another SB member. It's about her inability to separate her personal bias from her policy making (and her general instability and lack of professionalism in expressing a rather extreme position). She is in a position of public trust and I think it's important for the community to be aware of how she operates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree completely. This went way beyond Nancy's insult to a peer. As a voter and APS parent, I want to know, I want others to know, and I want to be able to discuss with them APS policy and SB members' thought process on same and APS SB members' professional interactions. All of that is perfectly legitimate for the AEM FB group and Nancy's outburst related to both. And I'm not looking for an apology from Nancy; I am looking for her to put her own personal interests behind the thousands of children she makes decisions on behalf of and for her to act like the professional she supposedly is.

+1

This isn't about her personal relationship with another SB member. It's about her inability to separate her personal bias from her policy making (and her general instability and lack of professionalism in expressing a rather extreme position). She is in a position of public trust and I think it's important for the community to be aware of how she operates.

She openly insulted one SB member, but her actions and words generally that night were directed at the staff, SB, and by extension to the APS parents and Arlington County taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree completely. This went way beyond Nancy's insult to a peer. As a voter and APS parent, I want to know, I want others to know, and I want to be able to discuss with them APS policy and SB members' thought process on same and APS SB members' professional interactions. All of that is perfectly legitimate for the AEM FB group and Nancy's outburst related to both. And I'm not looking for an apology from Nancy; I am looking for her to put her own personal interests behind the thousands of children she makes decisions on behalf of and for her to act like the professional she supposedly is.

+1

This isn't about her personal relationship with another SB member. It's about her inability to separate her personal bias from her policy making (and her general instability and lack of professionalism in expressing a rather extreme position). She is in a position of public trust and I think it's important for the community to be aware of how she operates.

She openly insulted one SB member, but her actions and words generally that night were directed at the staff, SB, and by extension to the APS parents and Arlington County taxpayers.

And her egregiously bad behavior at that one meeting is of a piece with her behavior on other occasions: she is rude, dismissive, and uninterested in views other than her own. Combine that with her inability to behave professionally at meetings, and she's an impediment to good decision-making.

Might she have served your needs at some point? Fine. That doesn't make her a good board member. It means you got lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree completely. This went way beyond Nancy's insult to a peer. As a voter and APS parent, I want to know, I want others to know, and I want to be able to discuss with them APS policy and SB members' thought process on same and APS SB members' professional interactions. All of that is perfectly legitimate for the AEM FB group and Nancy's outburst related to both. And I'm not looking for an apology from Nancy; I am looking for her to put her own personal interests behind the thousands of children she makes decisions on behalf of and for her to act like the professional she supposedly is.

+1

This isn't about her personal relationship with another SB member. It's about her inability to separate her personal bias from her policy making (and her general instability and lack of professionalism in expressing a rather extreme position). She is in a position of public trust and I think it's important for the community to be aware of how she operates.

Okay, these are fair points and I agree with them. I just don't know that AEM is an appropriate forum for such comments. Mostly because I think that until you witness, IRL, or have it directed at you personally, you might not "get it." Not here, but elsewhere I've seen people who don't love the "victim" in this case sort of insinuate that he had it coming, and they'd say the same thing. I could not disagree more strongly, because I don't think any colleague deserves such treatment for ANY reason. Also, I have been both a personal witness to and the recipient of this exact treatment from her, the shouting/belittling, when she is challenged. I think the AEM moderators have NO idea what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this treatment. And I'm not sure whether the general audience can appreciate, from a FB post, the reality. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope people do understand that this is not an isolated incident. But I'm worried that now it seems as if people with an axe to grind are just going at her unfairly, because the Lander thing opened up a floodgate. Honestly, had I not had the encounter I had with her, I might think that. I worry that by bringing it there, it will backfire and make her seem sympathetic.

[Anonymous]

I get what you're saying but my understanding is that the AEM post included a link to the video. Her behavior is there for anyone to see and judge for themselves.

[Anonymous]

As someone who has been on the receiving end of her hostility, I have been both reassured and depressed to learn that I am not alone.

[Anonymous]

Beyond her bad behavior, I think it is fair to talk about what she proposed as a policy. I disagree that twins are so special, especially at middle and high school, that they should be guaranteed two slots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Beyond her bad behavior, I think it is fair to talk about what she proposed as a policy. I disagree that twins are so special, especially at middle and high school, that they should be guaranteed two slots.

Agree. If there's room at a lottery school to add more kids, they should simply increase capacity. They should anyway to ease even a little bit the overcrowding at the three comprehensive high schools.