Superintendent Taylor hires without Board approval

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Janice and her tin foil hat strike again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Janice and her tin foil hat strike again.

Scared of the truth?

[Anonymous]

For the benefit of the sane:

There is nothing in the linked documents that in any way indicates that Taylor did anything wrong. Like, nothing.

(The poster also clearly does not understand how retaining lawyers works....and the fact that one often has to go back to counsel on old matters when they come back around or new matters arise that touch on them.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For the benefit of the sane:

There is nothing in the linked documents that in any way indicates that Taylor did anything wrong. Like, nothing.

(The poster also clearly does not understand how retaining lawyers works....and the fact that one often has to go back to counsel on old matters when they come back around or new matters arise that touch on them.)

So then yes, tin foil hat. Imagine if she put her energy to actual productive and constructive use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For the benefit of the sane:

There is nothing in the linked documents that in any way indicates that Taylor did anything wrong. Like, nothing.

(The poster also clearly does not understand how retaining lawyers works....and the fact that one often has to go back to counsel on old matters when they come back around or new matters arise that touch on them.)

He just violated Board policy, that is all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the benefit of the sane:

There is nothing in the linked documents that in any way indicates that Taylor did anything wrong. Like, nothing.

(The poster also clearly does not understand how retaining lawyers works....and the fact that one often has to go back to counsel on old matters when they come back around or new matters arise that touch on them.)

He just violated Board policy, that is all.

He did not. Nothing in what was linked is evidence of a violation of Board policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the benefit of the sane:

There is nothing in the linked documents that in any way indicates that Taylor did anything wrong. Like, nothing.

(The poster also clearly does not understand how retaining lawyers works....and the fact that one often has to go back to counsel on old matters when they come back around or new matters arise that touch on them.)

He just violated Board policy, that is all.

He did not. Nothing in what was linked is evidence of a violation of Board policy.

You didn’t read it, remember?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the benefit of the sane:

There is nothing in the linked documents that in any way indicates that Taylor did anything wrong. Like, nothing.

(The poster also clearly does not understand how retaining lawyers works....and the fact that one often has to go back to counsel on old matters when they come back around or new matters arise that touch on them.)

He just violated Board policy, that is all.

He did not. Nothing in what was linked is evidence of a violation of Board policy.

You didn’t read it, remember?

Um, I read all of it and summarized for the sane. Remember?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the benefit of the sane:

There is nothing in the linked documents that in any way indicates that Taylor did anything wrong. Like, nothing.

(The poster also clearly does not understand how retaining lawyers works....and the fact that one often has to go back to counsel on old matters when they come back around or new matters arise that touch on them.)

He just violated Board policy, that is all.

He did not. Nothing in what was linked is evidence of a violation of Board policy.

You didn’t read it, remember?

Um, I read all of it and summarized for the sane. Remember?

Missed the IG investigation of Jeffrey Krew and Board policy violations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the benefit of the sane:

There is nothing in the linked documents that in any way indicates that Taylor did anything wrong. Like, nothing.

(The poster also clearly does not understand how retaining lawyers works....and the fact that one often has to go back to counsel on old matters when they come back around or new matters arise that touch on them.)

He just violated Board policy, that is all.

He did not. Nothing in what was linked is evidence of a violation of Board policy.

You didn’t read it, remember?

Um, I read all of it and summarized for the sane. Remember?

Missed the IG investigation of Jeffrey Krew and Board policy violations.

enough parents coalition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janice and her tin foil hat strike again.

Scared of the truth?

He’s scared of parents noticing he spent $139,000 without a board vote. Anything over $25,000 requires a board vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janice and her tin foil hat strike again.

Scared of the truth?

He’s scared of parents noticing he spent $139,000 without a board vote. Anything over $25,000 requires a board vote.

This is so wildly false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janice and her tin foil hat strike again.

Scared of the truth?

He’s scared of parents noticing he spent $139,000 without a board vote. Anything over $25,000 requires a board vote.

This is so true.

[Anonymous]

I can visualize Taylor yelling at his staff to respond to PC, with Chris Cram getting people to land hard on this thread, as if MCPS can invalidate the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can visualize Taylor yelling at his staff to respond to PC, with Chris Cram getting people to land hard on this thread, as if MCPS can invalidate the truth.

You are insane