[Washington Post] Ex-Montgomery superintendent McKnight to get $1.3M in separation deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

Don't know about the BoE but people here were out for her from day 1. The Beidleman crisis just provided an opportunity they had wanted.

I'm curious - do you NOT think the Beidelman crisis was bad? I mean, even if some folks didn't like her, or had previous experience with her that made them think she was not the best choice, was this not sufficient for anyone to lose their job over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully she never finds a job again and truly needs this payout from our pockets

The least they could do after pinning the Beidlemen mess on her which was as much or more their failure as hers.

It was known that they were close friends. She shielded him. Idk how that’s the board’s failure.

There was no evidence to support this allegation. It's the board's failure not to divert more funds from education to investigate the many anonymous complaints.

Gaslight much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

The issue is the BOE was equally complicit in her mistakes and malfeasance, either by being on board with what McKnight was doing initially, or through their poor oversight. McKnight has serious dirt on the BOE, hence their agreement to not mutually disparage each other in public. If the BOE's hands were clean, they wouldn't have asked for that kind of a discretion agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

The issue is the BOE was equally complicit in her mistakes and malfeasance, either by being on board with what McKnight was doing initially, or through their poor oversight. McKnight has serious dirt on the BOE, hence their agreement to not mutually disparage each other in public. If the BOE's hands were clean, they wouldn't have asked for that kind of a discretion agreement.

That makes sense to me. Maybe someday the actual truth will come out, but I’m not holding my breath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

The issue is the BOE was equally complicit in her mistakes and malfeasance, either by being on board with what McKnight was doing initially, or through their poor oversight. McKnight has serious dirt on the BOE, hence their agreement to not mutually disparage each other in public. If the BOE's hands were clean, they wouldn't have asked for that kind of a discretion agreement.

"Equally complicit" is quite an exaggeration. McKnight withheld critical information from the board, and she lost their trust. That alone is grounds for her termination. The board has already issued a statement acknowledging their oversight of her was lacking, and they have taken measures to correct that. McKnight has never owned up to her numerous mistakes here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

The issue is the BOE was equally complicit in her mistakes and malfeasance, either by being on board with what McKnight was doing initially, or through their poor oversight. McKnight has serious dirt on the BOE, hence their agreement to not mutually disparage each other in public. If the BOE's hands were clean, they wouldn't have asked for that kind of a discretion agreement.

"Equally complicit" is quite an exaggeration. McKnight withheld critical information from the board, and she lost their trust. That alone is grounds for her termination. The board has already issued a statement acknowledging their oversight of her was lacking, and they have taken measures to correct that. McKnight has never owned up to her numerous mistakes here.

Whether it was equally complicit or not, they were complicit enough to ask her to keep quiet about it. That tells you a lot. Again: If their hands were clean they would have been more aggressive about firing her for cause or at the very least, giving her a much less generous settlement and not insisting on this non-disparagement clause. She has dirt on them that they'd prefer not be aired in public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

The issue is the BOE was equally complicit in her mistakes and malfeasance, either by being on board with what McKnight was doing initially, or through their poor oversight. McKnight has serious dirt on the BOE, hence their agreement to not mutually disparage each other in public. If the BOE's hands were clean, they wouldn't have asked for that kind of a discretion agreement.

"Equally complicit" is quite an exaggeration. McKnight withheld critical information from the board, and she lost their trust. That alone is grounds for her termination. The board has already issued a statement acknowledging their oversight of her was lacking, and they have taken measures to correct that. McKnight has never owned up to her numerous mistakes here.

Whether it was equally complicit or not, they were complicit enough to ask her to keep quiet about it. That tells you a lot. Again: If their hands were clean they would have been more aggressive about firing her for cause or at the very least, giving her a much less generous settlement and not insisting on this non-disparagement clause. She has dirt on them that they'd prefer not be aired in public.

My point is that they already said their hands were not clean. She never did that, never apologized, never took any responsibility for all that happened on her watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully she never finds a job again and truly needs this payout from our pockets

The least they could do after pinning the Beidlemen mess on her which was as much or more their failure as hers.

It was known that they were close friends. She shielded him. Idk how that’s the board’s failure.

There was no evidence to support this allegation. It's the board's failure not to divert more funds from education to investigate the many anonymous complaints.

Gaslight much?

Provide the evidence instead of making baseless claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

The issue is the BOE was equally complicit in her mistakes and malfeasance, either by being on board with what McKnight was doing initially, or through their poor oversight. McKnight has serious dirt on the BOE, hence their agreement to not mutually disparage each other in public. If the BOE's hands were clean, they wouldn't have asked for that kind of a discretion agreement.

"Equally complicit" is quite an exaggeration. McKnight withheld critical information from the board, and she lost their trust. That alone is grounds for her termination. The board has already issued a statement acknowledging their oversight of her was lacking, and they have taken measures to correct that. McKnight has never owned up to her numerous mistakes here.

Whether it was equally complicit or not, they were complicit enough to ask her to keep quiet about it. That tells you a lot. Again: If their hands were clean they would have been more aggressive about firing her for cause or at the very least, giving her a much less generous settlement and not insisting on this non-disparagement clause. She has dirt on them that they'd prefer not be aired in public.

My point is that they already said their hands were not clean. She never did that, never apologized, never took any responsibility for all that happened on her watch.

I know, but it is as much the BoE fault for not insisting on diverting more funds from education to investigate all the anonymous complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

The issue is the BOE was equally complicit in her mistakes and malfeasance, either by being on board with what McKnight was doing initially, or through their poor oversight. McKnight has serious dirt on the BOE, hence their agreement to not mutually disparage each other in public. If the BOE's hands were clean, they wouldn't have asked for that kind of a discretion agreement.

"Equally complicit" is quite an exaggeration. McKnight withheld critical information from the board, and she lost their trust. That alone is grounds for her termination. The board has already issued a statement acknowledging their oversight of her was lacking, and they have taken measures to correct that. McKnight has never owned up to her numerous mistakes here.

Whether it was equally complicit or not, they were complicit enough to ask her to keep quiet about it. That tells you a lot. Again: If their hands were clean they would have been more aggressive about firing her for cause or at the very least, giving her a much less generous settlement and not insisting on this non-disparagement clause. She has dirt on them that they'd prefer not be aired in public.

I'm not so sure about this. The fundamental weakness of this BoE is their reluctance to hold Dr. McKnight and her team accountable. They do not ask hard questions, they accept mealy-mouthed and duplicitous answers to the questions they DO ask, and they just have never really taken up their oversight responsibilities.

Rather than assume conspiracy, why not just assume this is more of the same? They've demonstrated a reluctance to ever take a hard line with McKnight and with the Central Office more generally. A golden parachute for a superintendent who flat-out lied to them is just a continuation of the trend.

[Anonymous]

So these people want to push teachers out and to hold them accountable. They can't even account for their double overtime hours or inability to have bathroombreaks or lunch breaks or pressured grade inflation etc etc etc. Teachers are the only ones holding this shtshow together and they are mistreated by fatcats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

The issue is the BOE was equally complicit in her mistakes and malfeasance, either by being on board with what McKnight was doing initially, or through their poor oversight. McKnight has serious dirt on the BOE, hence their agreement to not mutually disparage each other in public. If the BOE's hands were clean, they wouldn't have asked for that kind of a discretion agreement.

"Equally complicit" is quite an exaggeration. McKnight withheld critical information from the board, and she lost their trust. That alone is grounds for her termination. The board has already issued a statement acknowledging their oversight of her was lacking, and they have taken measures to correct that. McKnight has never owned up to her numerous mistakes here.

Whether it was equally complicit or not, they were complicit enough to ask her to keep quiet about it. That tells you a lot. Again: If their hands were clean they would have been more aggressive about firing her for cause or at the very least, giving her a much less generous settlement and not insisting on this non-disparagement clause. She has dirt on them that they'd prefer not be aired in public.

My point is that they already said their hands were not clean. She never did that, never apologized, never took any responsibility for all that happened on her watch.

I think you're being very generous with the statements Silvestre has made. I don't think Siilvestre has taken the level of accountability and responsibility that she should have as the head of the board, so I hardly expect McKnight to do so either.

That being said, yes, the BOE has marginally been a little more apologetic that they regret the situation happened, but they haven't really taken responsibility for their massive oversight failures, hence why Elrich and the Council have been flaming and shaming them publicly and repeatedly for not taking more accountability and being more transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

The issue is the BOE was equally complicit in her mistakes and malfeasance, either by being on board with what McKnight was doing initially, or through their poor oversight. McKnight has serious dirt on the BOE, hence their agreement to not mutually disparage each other in public. If the BOE's hands were clean, they wouldn't have asked for that kind of a discretion agreement.

"Equally complicit" is quite an exaggeration. McKnight withheld critical information from the board, and she lost their trust. That alone is grounds for her termination. The board has already issued a statement acknowledging their oversight of her was lacking, and they have taken measures to correct that. McKnight has never owned up to her numerous mistakes here.

Whether it was equally complicit or not, they were complicit enough to ask her to keep quiet about it. That tells you a lot. Again: If their hands were clean they would have been more aggressive about firing her for cause or at the very least, giving her a much less generous settlement and not insisting on this non-disparagement clause. She has dirt on them that they'd prefer not be aired in public.

I'm not so sure about this. The fundamental weakness of this BoE is their reluctance to hold Dr. McKnight and her team accountable. They do not ask hard questions, they accept mealy-mouthed and duplicitous answers to the questions they DO ask, and they just have never really taken up their oversight responsibilities.

Rather than assume conspiracy, why not just assume this is more of the same? They've demonstrated a reluctance to ever take a hard line with McKnight and with the Central Office more generally. A golden parachute for a superintendent who flat-out lied to them is just a continuation of the trend.

I'm not assuming conspiracy. I actually don't know that the board is smart enough to successfully conspire. My assumption is that McKnight has documentation and evidence of them rubberstamping her decisions (i.e. a positive performance evaluation), or agreeing with her privately, only for them to flip on her once it became a headline story in the news. Also, that there is precedence in the system for superintendents getting away with precisely what McKnight was trying to get away.

That is essentially what McKnight and her lawyers have argued all along. So it's not a conspiracy, per se. But it is a case of McKnight and the BOE agreeing to not mutually destroy one another because they both could lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

Don't know about the BoE but people here were out for her from day 1. The Beidleman crisis just provided an opportunity they had wanted.

I'm curious - do you NOT think the Beidelman crisis was bad? I mean, even if some folks didn't like her, or had previous experience with her that made them think she was not the best choice, was this not sufficient for anyone to lose their job over?

Yes, Beidelman should have lost his job. And he did. It's far from clear that McKnight did anything improper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

Don't know about the BoE but people here were out for her from day 1. The Beidleman crisis just provided an opportunity they had wanted.

I'm curious - do you NOT think the Beidelman crisis was bad? I mean, even if some folks didn't like her, or had previous experience with her that made them think she was not the best choice, was this not sufficient for anyone to lose their job over?

Yes, Beidelman should have lost his job. And he did. It's far from clear that McKnight did anything improper.

Sorry, but it is crystal clear that McKnight acted improperly. Her predecessors may also have acted improperly, so perhaps her impropriety is nothing new or shocking, but that does not absolve her of her responsibilities.