Beidleman Coat Tax Payers More than $2 Million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/07/22/beidleman-scandal-cost-taxpayers-more-than-2-million/

“It’s safe to say that the scandal cost taxpayers at least $2.3 million and perhaps more. That’s why so many MoCo residents are appalled at the hiring of McKnight to a newly created position by the University of Maryland, which like MCPS is a taxpayer-funded institution. McKnight’s tenure generated millions of dollars in losses for taxpayers – including a payout of $1.3 million to her – so why should they be paying her even more?

The whole episode was not the finest moment for good government in Montgomery County and Maryland.”

You keep starting new threads about this each week. Maybe it's time to move on and find a new hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McKnight clear lives rent free in some folks head. To attempt to lay this all at her feet is poor reporting. Why do we keep bringing up threads about her again ?

$2M is not rent free.
We are all paying for her cover up of sexual harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/07/22/beidleman-scandal-cost-taxpayers-more-than-2-million/

“It’s safe to say that the scandal cost taxpayers at least $2.3 million and perhaps more. That’s why so many MoCo residents are appalled at the hiring of McKnight to a newly created position by the University of Maryland, which like MCPS is a taxpayer-funded institution. McKnight’s tenure generated millions of dollars in losses for taxpayers – including a payout of $1.3 million to her – so why should they be paying her even more?

The whole episode was not the finest moment for good government in Montgomery County and Maryland.”

You keep starting new threads about this each week. Maybe it's time to move on and find a new hobby.

This article was published today. I don’t understand why you’re upset about local reporters sharing the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McKnight clear lives rent free in some folks head. To attempt to lay this all at her feet is poor reporting. Why do we keep bringing up threads about her again ?

She remains divisive because she keeps living off the public dime. It's not all at her feet; Jack Smith is a misogynist who has a share of the blame as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean $1.3 M of that was paid to her and you can’t blame her for that. Never understood why the county didn’t just let her ride out her contract and not renew it.

McKnight's incompetence stretched far beyond Beidleman. She didn't know how to lead teams of people and was a toxic presence in the district. She lacked follow-through and often changed her mind after decisions were made. She did not take advice well. She lied. All this caused chaos throughout the system.

And they didn't suss ANY of that out during her time as interim superintendent? The MCEA gave her a vote of no confidence while she was interim, so the red flags and warning signs were there. But the BOE coronated her as permanent superintendent anyway.

McKnight had the support of 4 of the 7 BOE members (not counting the student BOE, who doesn't vote on personnel).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean $1.3 M of that was paid to her and you can’t blame her for that. Never understood why the county didn’t just let her ride out her contract and not renew it.

McKnight's incompetence stretched far beyond Beidleman. She didn't know how to lead teams of people and was a toxic presence in the district. She lacked follow-through and often changed her mind after decisions were made. She did not take advice well. She lied. All this caused chaos throughout the system.

And they didn't suss ANY of that out during her time as interim superintendent? The MCEA gave her a vote of no confidence while she was interim, so the red flags and warning signs were there. But the BOE coronated her as permanent superintendent anyway.

McKnight had the support of 4 of the 7 BOE members (not counting the student BOE, who doesn't vote on personnel).

The BOE voted unanimously (including the SMOB) to approve McKnight as permanent superintendent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/07/22/beidleman-scandal-cost-taxpayers-more-than-2-million/

“It’s safe to say that the scandal cost taxpayers at least $2.3 million and perhaps more. That’s why so many MoCo residents are appalled at the hiring of McKnight to a newly created position by the University of Maryland, which like MCPS is a taxpayer-funded institution. McKnight’s tenure generated millions of dollars in losses for taxpayers – including a payout of $1.3 million to her – so why should they be paying her even more?

The whole episode was not the finest moment for good government in Montgomery County and Maryland.”

You keep starting new threads about this each week. Maybe it's time to move on and find a new hobby.

This article was published today. I don’t understand why you’re upset about local reporters sharing the truth.

There's nothing new here. You're just beating a dead horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean $1.3 M of that was paid to her and you can’t blame her for that. Never understood why the county didn’t just let her ride out her contract and not renew it.

McKnight's incompetence stretched far beyond Beidleman. She didn't know how to lead teams of people and was a toxic presence in the district. She lacked follow-through and often changed her mind after decisions were made. She did not take advice well. She lied. All this caused chaos throughout the system.

And they didn't suss ANY of that out during her time as interim superintendent? The MCEA gave her a vote of no confidence while she was interim, so the red flags and warning signs were there. But the BOE coronated her as permanent superintendent anyway.

McKnight had the support of 4 of the 7 BOE members (not counting the student BOE, who doesn't vote on personnel).

The BOE voted unanimously (including the SMOB) to approve McKnight as permanent superintendent.

The public vote has always been unanimous, and the SMOB's vote doesn't count. That public vote is just the window-dressing acknowledgement that one side had the most votes for a particular job candidate, in this case, McKnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean $1.3 M of that was paid to her and you can’t blame her for that. Never understood why the county didn’t just let her ride out her contract and not renew it.

McKnight's incompetence stretched far beyond Beidleman. She didn't know how to lead teams of people and was a toxic presence in the district. She lacked follow-through and often changed her mind after decisions were made. She did not take advice well. She lied. All this caused chaos throughout the system.

And they didn't suss ANY of that out during her time as interim superintendent? The MCEA gave her a vote of no confidence while she was interim, so the red flags and warning signs were there. But the BOE coronated her as permanent superintendent anyway.

McKnight had the support of 4 of the 7 BOE members (not counting the student BOE, who doesn't vote on personnel).

The BOE voted unanimously (including the SMOB) to approve McKnight as permanent superintendent.

The public vote has always been unanimous, and the SMOB's vote doesn't count. That public vote is just the window-dressing acknowledgement that one side had the most votes for a particular job candidate, in this case, McKnight.

Not true. The SMOB does not vote on negative personnel actions, but they do vote to approve hiring the superintendent and the other positions that come before the board for approval.

[Anonymous]

She is like a female donald teflon trump. No matter what greasy actions her dum dum (or money orieted corrupt) brain comes up with she never faces negative consequences except for her actions. She is irresponsible and a drain on society.

[Anonymous]

These threads give stalker vibes. Creepy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These threads give stalker vibes. Creepy

New thread based on new reporting.

Get out of your basement and catch up with reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/07/22/beidleman-scandal-cost-taxpayers-more-than-2-million/

“It’s safe to say that the scandal cost taxpayers at least $2.3 million and perhaps more. That’s why so many MoCo residents are appalled at the hiring of McKnight to a newly created position by the University of Maryland, which like MCPS is a taxpayer-funded institution. McKnight’s tenure generated millions of dollars in losses for taxpayers – including a payout of $1.3 million to her – so why should they be paying her even more?

The whole episode was not the finest moment for good government in Montgomery County and Maryland.”

The Beidleman issues PRE-DATED her arrival. Are you dumb, Makstein? Stop beating dead horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These threads give stalker vibes. Creepy

New thread based on new reporting.

Get out of your basement and catch up with reality.

I think you’re the one in the basement throwing darts at pictures of McKnight living a miserable life. GET OVER IT! Mcknight nor Beidelman are thinking of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The costs ate much higher considering how many good teachers left because of her policies.

+1