MOCO BOE update: Beidleman Report summary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This right here proves that both MCPS and Dr. McKnight knew. This is a problem that goes deeper than Bidelman. Mcps has a cancer, and it needs to be taken care of which means many people who will need new employment.

Link https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/09/18/when-did-mcps-management-know-about-beidleman/?fbclid=IwAR1kN9QZuRDxl9u58q3bt7UdGlagxNbvnAYHQ8_pEuAoexgYxKqspIYdutM_aem_ARYynh0od4xlWOA8kNrXaHs6VKThOBwZaDqc3LJmG8bmjQftMG0Aevqxs4bQl-FNrWA&fs=e&s=cl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This right here proves that both MCPS and Dr. McKnight knew. This is a problem that goes deeper than Bidelman. Mcps has a cancer, and it needs to be taken care of which means many people who will need new employment.

Link https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/09/18/when-did-mcps-management-know-about-beidleman/?fbclid=IwAR1kN9QZuRDxl9u58q3bt7UdGlagxNbvnAYHQ8_pEuAoexgYxKqspIYdutM_aem_ARYynh0od4xlWOA8kNrXaHs6VKThOBwZaDqc3LJmG8bmjQftMG0Aevqxs4bQl-FNrWA&fs=e&s=cl

Oh.

Well, that settles the call for the union to provide its receipts.

Alexandra, are you seeing the above?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This right here proves that both MCPS and Dr. McKnight knew. This is a problem that goes deeper than Bidelman. Mcps has a cancer, and it needs to be taken care of which means many people who will need new employment.

Link https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/09/18/when-did-mcps-management-know-about-beidleman/?fbclid=IwAR1kN9QZuRDxl9u58q3bt7UdGlagxNbvnAYHQ8_pEuAoexgYxKqspIYdutM_aem_ARYynh0od4xlWOA8kNrXaHs6VKThOBwZaDqc3LJmG8bmjQftMG0Aevqxs4bQl-FNrWA&fs=e&s=cl

MONIFA, YOU'RE IN TROUBLE, GIRL.

[Anonymous]

I bet McKnight and BOE will claim the emails went to spam and/or that an employee accessed their email and deleted it before they got a chance to see it.

BUT GOOD ON THE MCEA FOR PROVIDING THE RECEIPTS.

[Anonymous]

But why does the first message not included any "To" addresses? They need that missing piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But why does the first message not included any "To" addresses? They need that missing piece.

For what, exactly? How many more times is there going to be a demand that the union provide some piece of evidence that then gets concern-trolled to death here?

The second email included the first, received a reply from the Director of Labor Relations (that is: that email did not go to spam or sit unread), and said she was going to forward the entire message--including the body of the first message--to be investigated. That's the whole situation tied up in a bow. They received the email, they knew about it, they knew they had an obligation to investigate, and two years later the man became a principal.

I mean, it will be informative if the To line on the first email is released and includes the Board and Supt. They may claim it went to spam or some such. (I would bet Adam P. has already seen this To line, or he would have disclosed that he hadn't.) But it is not necessary to see that to conclude that this whole situation was a cluster of monumental proportions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet McKnight and BOE will claim the emails went to spam and/or that an employee accessed their email and deleted it before they got a chance to see it.

BUT GOOD ON THE MCEA FOR PROVIDING THE RECEIPTS.

They are ready with their CYA excuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why does the first message not included any "To" addresses? They need that missing piece.

For what, exactly? How many more times is there going to be a demand that the union provide some piece of evidence that then gets concern-trolled to death here?

The second email included the first, received a reply from the Director of Labor Relations (that is: that email did not go to spam or sit unread), and said she was going to forward the entire message--including the body of the first message--to be investigated. That's the whole situation tied up in a bow. They received the email, they knew about it, they knew they had an obligation to investigate, and two years later the man became a principal.

I mean, it will be informative if the To line on the first email is released and includes the Board and Supt. They may claim it went to spam or some such. (I would bet Adam P. has already seen this To line, or he would have disclosed that he hadn't.) But it is not necessary to see that to conclude that this whole situation was a cluster of monumental proportions.

I know but emails with any recipients aren't meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But why does the first message not included any "To" addresses? They need that missing piece.

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why does the first message not included any "To" addresses? They need that missing piece.

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Hopefully Adam addresses why the "To:" line wasn't in the first email, but even if you dismiss that one for that reason, the other two emails DO have "To:" lines on them and it proves that the system was aware of these complaints and ignored or failed to follow up on them. So MCEA's point still stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why does the first message not included any "To" addresses? They need that missing piece.

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Hopefully Adam addresses why the "To:" line wasn't in the first email, but even if you dismiss that one for that reason, the other two emails DO have "To:" lines on them and it proves that the system was aware of these complaints and ignored or failed to follow up on them. So MCEA's point still stands.

But we already know that some people in central office knew there were complaints. What we don't know is if those people escalated the complaints up the chain of command, and if so, to whom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why does the first message not included any "To" addresses? They need that missing piece.

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Hopefully Adam addresses why the "To:" line wasn't in the first email, but even if you dismiss that one for that reason, the other two emails DO have "To:" lines on them and it proves that the system was aware of these complaints and ignored or failed to follow up on them. So MCEA's point still stands.

But we already know that some people in central office knew there were complaints. What we don't know is if those people escalated the complaints up the chain of command, and if so, to whom?

Well, now we have two of those names of who should be held accountable, thanks to the MCEA and Adam Pagnucco: Steve Blivess and Carrie Booth.

Blivess is a director-level employee within MCPS so he is part of that chain of command. Now, we just need to know who above him dropped the ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why does the first message not included any "To" addresses? They need that missing piece.

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Hopefully Adam addresses why the "To:" line wasn't in the first email, but even if you dismiss that one for that reason, the other two emails DO have "To:" lines on them and it proves that the system was aware of these complaints and ignored or failed to follow up on them. So MCEA's point still stands.

But we already know that some people in central office knew there were complaints. What we don't know is if those people escalated the complaints up the chain of command, and if so, to whom?

Well, now we have two of those names of who should be held accountable, thanks to the MCEA and Adam Pagnucco: Steve Blivess and Carrie Booth.

Blivess is a director-level employee within MCPS so he is part of that chain of command. Now, we just need to know who above him dropped the ball.

Also note: they are two names that hadn't come up before.

[Anonymous]

Blivess is not appearing in the staff directory. Booth is now a Director in the Department of Labor Relations, which reports to the Chief of District Operations, Dana Edwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This morning's Post article has been updated with a statement from McKnight:

in a statement, Superintendent Monifa B. McKnight said: “In the coming days I’ll be announcing a series of swift and immediate actions I’ll be prepared to take to ensure accountability. I will also be working closely with my team to develop a comprehensive corrective action plan, as directed by the Board.”

Your team is what created this problem! No way you should be creating the solution!!!!

+1 this reminds me of when Barney Frank was given a key role in writing financial reform bills as a response to the housing/mortgage crisis 15 years ago. Those that contributed to a problem with their negligence should not be tasked with developing the corrective action plan.