Elaine Tholen's recall is goin to court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Point made. I hope you are all doing the real work, as well. Have you identified a slate of alternative, electable candidates for the full school board the next election? A group of candidates that focuses on families and children first? Have you made FOIA requests that follow the money - found out who made money off keeping the schools closed? Or are you just tilting at windmills?

Followed the money? I can’t think of any industry that would have made money out of keeping kids out of school.

Ha! Who signed the distance learning (software and associated hardware/infrastructure) contracts? Did they personally benefit financially? Their families? Any conflicts of interest? How about the HARD push f oh r things like ST math?

Right. No one made any money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Point made. I hope you are all doing the real work, as well. Have you identified a slate of alternative, electable candidates for the full school board the next election? A group of candidates that focuses on families and children first? Have you made FOIA requests that follow the money - found out who made money off keeping the schools closed? Or are you just tilting at windmills?

Followed the money? I can’t think of any industry that would have made money out of keeping kids out of school.

Ha! Who signed the distance learning (software and associated hardware/infrastructure) contracts? Did they personally benefit financially? Their families? Any conflicts of interest? How about the HARD push f oh r things like ST math?

Right. No one made any money.

Is this all speculation or has anyone actually found anything?

[Anonymous]

I really doubt there's anything as blatant as PP is implying. In FCPS, at least, it's usually SB members being utterly self-serving (elevating the interests of their own communities and schools over everyone else) rather than explicitly corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Point made. I hope you are all doing the real work, as well. Have you identified a slate of alternative, electable candidates for the full school board the next election? A group of candidates that focuses on families and children first? Have you made FOIA requests that follow the money - found out who made money off keeping the schools closed? Or are you just tilting at windmills?

Followed the money? I can’t think of any industry that would have made money out of keeping kids out of school.

Ha! Who signed the distance learning (software and associated hardware/infrastructure) contracts? Did they personally benefit financially? Their families? Any conflicts of interest? How about the HARD push f oh r things like ST math?

Right. No one made any money.

Is this all speculation or has anyone actually found anything?

Former school board members and the former superintendent made buckets of money from signing that shady Enron company green energy deal that resulted in schools losing food from refrigerators getting turned off and schools molding due to AC being shut off over the summer. Not to mention the poor custodians having to work in blazing hot and freezing cold schools after hours.

Fcps fired the person investigating it, then they superintendent and others quit.

No one got punished for their shady corruption, except the poor lower level whistle blowers who lost their jobs. The school board members and superintendent got away with it and moved to greener pastures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, no judge is going to want to set the legal precedent that would allow a small subset of the electorate the ability to get an elected official thrown out outside of regular election cycle just because those people didn't agree with the way the elected official handled a particular issue.

Oh boy, here come the legal eagles again. You guys are clearly hack lawyers if you have nothing better to do then throw out your constantly wrong opinions and guarantees about the outcomes of these cases. I'm glad I'm married to a lawyer that went to a real law school and has a real career.

I dunno but your pedigree qualifies you for what exactly? Room mom? Troop leader?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Point made. I hope you are all doing the real work, as well. Have you identified a slate of alternative, electable candidates for the full school board the next election? A group of candidates that focuses on families and children first? Have you made FOIA requests that follow the money - found out who made money off keeping the schools closed? Or are you just tilting at windmills?

Followed the money? I can’t think of any industry that would have made money out of keeping kids out of school.

Ha! Who signed the distance learning (software and associated hardware/infrastructure) contracts? Did they personally benefit financially? Their families? Any conflicts of interest? How about the HARD push f oh r things like ST math?

Right. No one made any money.

Is this all speculation or has anyone actually found anything?

Former school board members and the former superintendent made buckets of money from signing that shady Enron company green energy deal that resulted in schools losing food from refrigerators getting turned off and schools molding due to AC being shut off over the summer. Not to mention the poor custodians having to work in blazing hot and freezing cold schools after hours.

Fcps fired the person investigating it, then they superintendent and others quit.

No one got punished for their shady corruption, except the poor lower level whistle blowers who lost their jobs. The school board members and superintendent got away with it and moved to greener pastures.

I think you are missing the point. When the corruption is exposed, it paints the whole party as corrupt. Corruption that profited off choices that were harmful to the children and families of their constituents. When combined with an electable alternative, change happens.

Trying to achieve “justice” on an individual level through recalls, criminal prosecution, and public shaming may FEEL gratifying, but is not an effective long range plan. Get the truth. Expose the truth. Have a better plan. Otherwise, you are just solidifying a base that LOVES to play the role of “victim of the right wing.”

[Anonymous]

Alicia Plerhoples would have been so much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt there's anything as blatant as PP is implying. In FCPS, at least, it's usually SB members being utterly self-serving (elevating the interests of their own communities and schools over everyone else) rather than explicitly corrupt.

A politician representing an area is supposed to advocate for that area

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt there's anything as blatant as PP is implying. In FCPS, at least, it's usually SB members being utterly self-serving (elevating the interests of their own communities and schools over everyone else) rather than explicitly corrupt.

A politician representing an area is supposed to advocate for that area

There’s a difference between representing the district you were elected to serve and favoring your own neighborhood’s schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt there's anything as blatant as PP is implying. In FCPS, at least, it's usually SB members being utterly self-serving (elevating the interests of their own communities and schools over everyone else) rather than explicitly corrupt.

A politician representing an area is supposed to advocate for that area

There’s a difference between representing the district you were elected to serve and favoring your own neighborhood’s schools.

That's so McLean. So want to be Langley, but aren't. So any decision not expressly pro McLean is ant-McLean. I don;t hear Herndon griping. I guess they don't have Langley envy like some...

[Anonymous]

Aren’t many of the recall people from Langley? It’s so Langley to favor Tholen’s recall, but only for the reasons it deems appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt there's anything as blatant as PP is implying. In FCPS, at least, it's usually SB members being utterly self-serving (elevating the interests of their own communities and schools over everyone else) rather than explicitly corrupt.

A politician representing an area is supposed to advocate for that area

There’s a difference between representing the district you were elected to serve and favoring your own neighborhood’s schools.

That's so McLean. So want to be Langley, but aren't. So any decision not expressly pro McLean is ant-McLean. I don;t hear Herndon griping. I guess they don't have Langley envy like some...

There’s no Langley envy involved in thinking Tholen made a poor decision (one of many) when she refused to accept the recommendation of FCPS staff to have Langley share some of the growth in Tysons. As it turns out, most of the rising 9th graders from the Vienna single-family neighborhoods Tholen waited until the last minute to cherry-pick opted to attend McLean, not Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt there's anything as blatant as PP is implying. In FCPS, at least, it's usually SB members being utterly self-serving (elevating the interests of their own communities and schools over everyone else) rather than explicitly corrupt.

A politician representing an area is supposed to advocate for that area

There’s a difference between representing the district you were elected to serve and favoring your own neighborhood’s schools.

That's so McLean. So want to be Langley, but aren't. So any decision not expressly pro McLean is ant-McLean. I don;t hear Herndon griping. I guess they don't have Langley envy like some...

There’s no Langley envy involved in thinking Tholen made a poor decision (one of many) when she refused to accept the recommendation of FCPS staff to have Langley share some of the growth in Tysons. As it turns out, most of the rising 9th graders from the Vienna single-family neighborhoods Tholen waited until the last minute to cherry-pick opted to attend McLean, not Langley.

Lordy people who move to the areas zoned for McLean like the high school and their neighborhoods.

It's reasonable to be irritated with Tholen and everyone who voted with her on that last-minute change to the boundary process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt there's anything as blatant as PP is implying. In FCPS, at least, it's usually SB members being utterly self-serving (elevating the interests of their own communities and schools over everyone else) rather than explicitly corrupt.

A politician representing an area is supposed to advocate for that area

There’s a difference between representing the district you were elected to serve and favoring your own neighborhood’s schools.

That's so McLean. So want to be Langley, but aren't. So any decision not expressly pro McLean is ant-McLean. I don;t hear Herndon griping. I guess they don't have Langley envy like some...

There’s no Langley envy involved in thinking Tholen made a poor decision (one of many) when she refused to accept the recommendation of FCPS staff to have Langley share some of the growth in Tysons. As it turns out, most of the rising 9th graders from the Vienna single-family neighborhoods Tholen waited until the last minute to cherry-pick opted to attend McLean, not Langley.

Actually, there was a committee formed to decide on the best course of action for the boundary change. It involved the whole community, including neighborhoods and larger associations. That group, after months of work, recommended to FCPS and Tholen the course of action that was eventually adopted by the school board. Gatehouse decided to completely ignore what all the people actually affected wanted, and recommended a completely different boundary change. When Tholen and the rest of the school board finally decided on the actual boundary change, they followed the recommendation of the committee rather that gatehouse. Would you rather they go with gatehouse? By the way, it’s not actually about Langley capacity, it’s about the middle school. The middle school is already above capacity and will be over capacity after an addition as well. The middle school can’t support the growth from Tysons.

I wonder who these people are who are so upset by this boundary change. I get being upset about schools being closed, but why do people keep going on about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt there's anything as blatant as PP is implying. In FCPS, at least, it's usually SB members being utterly self-serving (elevating the interests of their own communities and schools over everyone else) rather than explicitly corrupt.

A politician representing an area is supposed to advocate for that area

There’s a difference between representing the district you were elected to serve and favoring your own neighborhood’s schools.

That's so McLean. So want to be Langley, but aren't. So any decision not expressly pro McLean is ant-McLean. I don;t hear Herndon griping. I guess they don't have Langley envy like some...

There’s no Langley envy involved in thinking Tholen made a poor decision (one of many) when she refused to accept the recommendation of FCPS staff to have Langley share some of the growth in Tysons. As it turns out, most of the rising 9th graders from the Vienna single-family neighborhoods Tholen waited until the last minute to cherry-pick opted to attend McLean, not Langley.

Actually, there was a committee formed to decide on the best course of action for the boundary change. It involved the whole community, including neighborhoods and larger associations. That group, after months of work, recommended to FCPS and Tholen the course of action that was eventually adopted by the school board. Gatehouse decided to completely ignore what all the people actually affected wanted, and recommended a completely different boundary change. When Tholen and the rest of the school board finally decided on the actual boundary change, they followed the recommendation of the committee rather that gatehouse. Would you rather they go with gatehouse? By the way, it’s not actually about Langley capacity, it’s about the middle school. The middle school is already above capacity and will be over capacity after an addition as well. The middle school can’t support the growth from Tysons.

I wonder who these people are who are so upset by this boundary change. I get being upset about schools being closed, but why do people keep going on about this?

The boundary change was delayed for almost four years because Scott Brabrand said there needed to be complete transparency and the School Board claimed any change needed to take “equity” into account. Some of us are unhappy because, after hearing that for years, the exact opposite happened courtesy of Tholen.

The “committee” that you mention was hand-picked by Tholen, spoke privately, and had no transparency, whereas the FCPS staff recommendation that Tholen tossed aside at the last minute (literally two hours before the board meeting) was developed after multiple community meetings where feedback was widely solicited from community members.

Sorry, but Tholen screwed up. Her last-minute flip-flop lacked transparency, will relieve Langley from sharing in any of the projected growth in Tysons (while putting all that burden on McLean and Marshall, each of which has less capacity now than Langley), and over time will increase the demographic gap between Langley and every other high school in the county - despite the SB’s prior talk about the need for “equity.” Quite a few of us will be happy to see her go, whether by recall or otherwise.