How has Karl Frisch raised $371,559 for his campaign, when . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those are all legal contributions.

Nice bringing up a quote from 2009, where it was literally his job to strategize.

Karl is well connected from his previous political jobs and is a fantastic fundraiser. No candidate is going to turn down good money.

Terry McAuliffe was a "fantastic fundraiser" as well. Eventually people got sick of him, just like they'll get sick of Karl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain what "dark money" is? Or how these donations are "dirty"? I don't understand.

I assume PP means a large number of the donors to a local school board election come from out of state; most of the money won’t actually be needed for or spent on Frisch’s campaign; and eventually most of the money will get recycled to other local candidates sympathetic to the agenda of the donors. He’s a crappy SB member but a useful bag man.

That is not dark money.

A large percentage of the donations to Frisch come from NY, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois, and Texas. That's quite unusual for a candidate running for a local School Board in Virginia.

He won't need but a small fraction of that money for a school board race. He'll keep some for his next campaign and re-route some of it to other Democratic campaigns. Then people may see the other candidate got money from Frisch, but not be aware of the source of Frisch's money. It's legal but not necessarily ethical, and in any event he is a crappy School Board member who wastes taxpayer money while neglecting the needs of his constituents.

Don't care. Why can't you talk about actual issues facing the school system? That's all Karl talks about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain what "dark money" is? Or how these donations are "dirty"? I don't understand.

I assume PP means a large number of the donors to a local school board election come from out of state; most of the money won’t actually be needed for or spent on Frisch’s campaign; and eventually most of the money will get recycled to other local candidates sympathetic to the agenda of the donors. He’s a crappy SB member but a useful bag man.

That is not dark money.

A large percentage of the donations to Frisch come from NY, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois, and Texas. That's quite unusual for a candidate running for a local School Board in Virginia.

He won't need but a small fraction of that money for a school board race. He'll keep some for his next campaign and re-route some of it to other Democratic campaigns. Then people may see the other candidate got money from Frisch, but not be aware of the source of Frisch's money. It's legal but not necessarily ethical, and in any event he is a crappy School Board member who wastes taxpayer money while neglecting the needs of his constituents.

Don't care. Why can't you talk about actual issues facing the school system? That's all Karl talks about.

That's a laugh. Karl spends most of his time either asking for money or talking about state or national political issues over which a local school board has no authority. And he wastes FCPS's scarce resources on boondoggles like the totally unnecessary Dunn Loring ES.

[Anonymous]

Kilmer has trailers and a cheap modular. Marshall has a cheap modular. McLean has cheap trailers and a cheap modular. Longfellow has trailers. All have kids that live in Providence.

Meanwhile, Frisch got $60 million allocated to build an elementary school in Vienna/Dunn Loring, which no one asked for and is surrounded by under-enrolled elementary schools.

It takes a special kind of moron to do that, so the fact that some people contribute so lavishly to his campaign suggests they have an agenda that has little to do with education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kilmer has trailers and a cheap modular. Marshall has a cheap modular. McLean has cheap trailers and a cheap modular. Longfellow has trailers. All have kids that live in Providence.

Meanwhile, Frisch got $60 million allocated to build an elementary school in Vienna/Dunn Loring, which no one asked for and is surrounded by under-enrolled elementary schools.

It takes a special kind of moron to do that, so the fact that some people contribute so lavishly to his campaign suggests they have an agenda that has little to do with education.

The number of trailers in Providence has gone down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kilmer has trailers and a cheap modular. Marshall has a cheap modular. McLean has cheap trailers and a cheap modular. Longfellow has trailers. All have kids that live in Providence.

Meanwhile, Frisch got $60 million allocated to build an elementary school in Vienna/Dunn Loring, which no one asked for and is surrounded by under-enrolled elementary schools.

It takes a special kind of moron to do that, so the fact that some people contribute so lavishly to his campaign suggests they have an agenda that has little to do with education.

The number of trailers in Providence has gone down

Not something you can take credit for in any way, shape, or form, Karl.

And the money you’re wasting on Dunn Loring could have been put to much better uses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain what "dark money" is? Or how these donations are "dirty"? I don't understand.

I assume PP means a large number of the donors to a local school board election come from out of state; most of the money won’t actually be needed for or spent on Frisch’s campaign; and eventually most of the money will get recycled to other local candidates sympathetic to the agenda of the donors. He’s a crappy SB member but a useful bag man.

That is not dark money.

A large percentage of the donations to Frisch come from NY, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois, and Texas. That's quite unusual for a candidate running for a local School Board in Virginia.

He won't need but a small fraction of that money for a school board race. He'll keep some for his next campaign and re-route some of it to other Democratic campaigns. Then people may see the other candidate got money from Frisch, but not be aware of the source of Frisch's money. It's legal but not necessarily ethical, and in any event he is a crappy School Board member who wastes taxpayer money while neglecting the needs of his constituents.

Don't care. Why can't you talk about actual issues facing the school system? That's all Karl talks about.

+1. These people know when we talk about the issues, Karl wins. People support the Dunn Loring school, the work being done to address learning loss, offering free access to therapy, raising teacher pay, banning guns from all school property, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain what "dark money" is? Or how these donations are "dirty"? I don't understand.

I assume PP means a large number of the donors to a local school board election come from out of state; most of the money won’t actually be needed for or spent on Frisch’s campaign; and eventually most of the money will get recycled to other local candidates sympathetic to the agenda of the donors. He’s a crappy SB member but a useful bag man.

That is not dark money.

A large percentage of the donations to Frisch come from NY, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois, and Texas. That's quite unusual for a candidate running for a local School Board in Virginia.

He won't need but a small fraction of that money for a school board race. He'll keep some for his next campaign and re-route some of it to other Democratic campaigns. Then people may see the other candidate got money from Frisch, but not be aware of the source of Frisch's money. It's legal but not necessarily ethical, and in any event he is a crappy School Board member who wastes taxpayer money while neglecting the needs of his constituents.

Don't care. Why can't you talk about actual issues facing the school system? That's all Karl talks about.

+1. These people know when we talk about the issues, Karl wins. People support the Dunn Loring school, the work being done to address learning loss, offering free access to therapy, raising teacher pay, banning guns from all school property, etc.

Very few support the Dunn Loring school and it is going to unnecessarily tear apart surrounding school communities in the Marshall pyramid and leave a few schools like Stenwood shells.

Also, guns were already banned from school property before you were elected. Any changes to those laws were incremental and not something the School Board effected.

You have zero capacity to tell the truth - just a big campaign war chest to spread misinformation.

[Anonymous]

PP was probably referring to the newish law banning guns from school administrative buildings. Because some parents have gone completely nuts and threatened teachers and staff.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2022/02/09/fairfax-county-school-board-moves-to-expand-ban-on-firearms-rise-in-threats-of-violence/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP was probably referring to the newish law banning guns from school administrative buildings. Because some parents have gone completely nuts and threatened teachers and staff.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2022/02/09/fairfax-county-school-board-moves-to-expand-ban-on-firearms-rise-in-threats-of-violence/

Right - it was about purporting to protect Gatehouse, not the schools. Meanwhile Karl and his cronies waste $60M on an entirely unnecessary ES when that money could be getting kids out of detached trailers and modulars with no “security vestibules.”

[Anonymous]

Woosh. Almost hurt my neck there on that goal shift.

Adding seats at a new ES can help get kids out of trailers.

[Anonymous]

So is Karl’s plan to send kids in trailers and cheap modulars at Kilmer MS and McLean HS to Dunn Loring ES?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woosh. Almost hurt my neck there on that goal shift.

Adding seats at a new ES can help get kids out of trailers.

It could, in theory, but it won't at "Dunn Loring ES," a site surrounded by under-enrolled elementary schools. The only way it will ever get kids out of trailers would be through massive and unnecessary boundary shifts that will tear apart some schools and result in other kids having much further trips to school. It is a total fiasco.

I really do wonder if it's Karl responding on this thread. He has a well-earned reputation among his colleagues for playing with the truth and you can see that in some of the comments here as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woosh. Almost hurt my neck there on that goal shift.

Adding seats at a new ES can help get kids out of trailers.

It could, in theory, but it won't at "Dunn Loring ES," a site surrounded by under-enrolled elementary schools. The only way it will ever get kids out of trailers would be through massive and unnecessary boundary shifts that will tear apart some schools and result in other kids having much further trips to school. It is a total fiasco.

I really do wonder if it's Karl responding on this thread. He has a well-earned reputation among his colleagues for playing with the truth and you can see that in some of the comments here as well.

LOL. Definitely not KF. If you want to get kids out of trailers and don't want to fund additions to various schools, then boundary changes are necessary. They happen everywhere - it's ridiculous to completely oppose any boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woosh. Almost hurt my neck there on that goal shift.

Adding seats at a new ES can help get kids out of trailers.

It could, in theory, but it won't at "Dunn Loring ES," a site surrounded by under-enrolled elementary schools. The only way it will ever get kids out of trailers would be through massive and unnecessary boundary shifts that will tear apart some schools and result in other kids having much further trips to school. It is a total fiasco.

I really do wonder if it's Karl responding on this thread. He has a well-earned reputation among his colleagues for playing with the truth and you can see that in some of the comments here as well.

LOL. Definitely not KF. If you want to get kids out of trailers and don't want to fund additions to various schools, then boundary changes are necessary. They happen everywhere - it's ridiculous to completely oppose any boundary changes.

For all the talk about Shrevewood’s enrollment decline, they still have classes out in trailers. Either the goal needs to be that there are enough seats for everyone, or there is an acknowledgment that trailers aren’t that big of a deal.