BoE--We voted for them

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

That's exactly what a board member's job is.

Right. It's the BOE's job to shut down the crap from CO.

+1 There are people on this thread who don't understand what Board oversight should entail.

And others who don't understand that reasonably commensurate compensation (however termed -- wage, salary, stipend, total compensation to account for benefits, etc.) would tend to attract the kinds of candidates who better might perform that oversight, and, if enough, might afford them the time to do so.

The current members are all ones capable. Their leadership, biases and conflict of interests are the issue. Paying them a salary wouldn’t have made a difference and even if we paid the 500+ a year, Mcps outs be a hot mess.

You may have that opinion about the capabilities and motives of the current BOE. I might agree with you, at least with regard to some, whether with regard to capabilities, to motives or to both.

But if we set good compensation for the position, we are far more likely to get other highly capable candidates, versus the more typical mix of:

Those who have such independent wealth as for such compensation not to matter,

Those who are too close to the system to treat it objectively/for the clearer benefit of the electorate, and

Those whose political views are antithetical to the broad provision of high-quality public education.

For each of these, the motives well may be questioned. The more qualified candidates we attract, the more likely that some might be of the kind you (or I, or many of us) seek.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

+1 lol

The voters are ultimately the ones that pick the BoE, and obviously voters don't always make the smartest choices. But it's more likely to work out better if there's a choice other than the rubber stamps and the kooks.

+2 Or those whose full-time jobs are in institutions that would bring them into conflicts of interests with MCPS.

They would just double dip.

Wow you should get a job where they make use of your incredible ability to predict the behavior of every adult in MoCo. /s

+1. Some people are just too pig headed to listen to anything. There are a lot of unexpectedly out of work Feds, Fed adjacent contractors and laid off former corporate workers in MoCo due to all the turmoil.

I don’t doubt that many good candidates are there with experience in finance, accounting, project management, law and other areas that would serve them well on the Board. But many of them would need more than 25k a year to support their families.

This job isn't one to support their family. Its a volunteer position.

Why don't you step up and run?

Why don’t you try and learn to read? Someone already posted the MCPS annual report upthread and Board positions are not referred to as volunteer positions. Are you afraid of some actual oversight at MCPS?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

That's exactly what a board member's job is.

Right. It's the BOE's job to shut down the crap from CO.

+1 There are people on this thread who don't understand what Board oversight should entail.

And others who don't understand that reasonably commensurate compensation (however termed -- wage, salary, stipend, total compensation to account for benefits, etc.) would tend to attract the kinds of candidates who better might perform that oversight, and, if enough, might afford them the time to do so.

The current members are all ones capable. Their leadership, biases and conflict of interests are the issue. Paying them a salary wouldn’t have made a difference and even if we paid the 500+ a year, Mcps outs be a hot mess.

You may have that opinion about the capabilities and motives of the current BOE. I might agree with you, at least with regard to some, whether with regard to capabilities, to motives or to both.

But if we set good compensation for the position, we are far more likely to get other highly capable candidates, versus the more typical mix of:

Those who have such independent wealth as for such compensation not to matter,

Those who are too close to the system to treat it objectively/for the clearer benefit of the electorate, and

Those whose political views are antithetical to the broad provision of high-quality public education.

For each of these, the motives well may be questioned. The more qualified candidates we attract, the more likely that some might be of the kind you (or I, or many of us) seek.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

+1 lol

The voters are ultimately the ones that pick the BoE, and obviously voters don't always make the smartest choices. But it's more likely to work out better if there's a choice other than the rubber stamps and the kooks.

+2 Or those whose full-time jobs are in institutions that would bring them into conflicts of interests with MCPS.

They would just double dip.

Wow you should get a job where they make use of your incredible ability to predict the behavior of every adult in MoCo. /s

+1. Some people are just too pig headed to listen to anything. There are a lot of unexpectedly out of work Feds, Fed adjacent contractors and laid off former corporate workers in MoCo due to all the turmoil.

I don’t doubt that many good candidates are there with experience in finance, accounting, project management, law and other areas that would serve them well on the Board. But many of them would need more than 25k a year to support their families.

This job isn't one to support their family. Its a volunteer position.

Why don't you step up and run?

Why don’t you try and learn to read? Someone already posted the MCPS annual report upthread and Board positions are not referred to as volunteer positions. Are you afraid of some actual oversight at MCPS?

We have oversight and they failed. Paying them more will not fix this.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

That's exactly what a board member's job is.

Right. It's the BOE's job to shut down the crap from CO.

+1 There are people on this thread who don't understand what Board oversight should entail.

And others who don't understand that reasonably commensurate compensation (however termed -- wage, salary, stipend, total compensation to account for benefits, etc.) would tend to attract the kinds of candidates who better might perform that oversight, and, if enough, might afford them the time to do so.

The current members are all ones capable. Their leadership, biases and conflict of interests are the issue. Paying them a salary wouldn’t have made a difference and even if we paid the 500+ a year, Mcps outs be a hot mess.

You may have that opinion about the capabilities and motives of the current BOE. I might agree with you, at least with regard to some, whether with regard to capabilities, to motives or to both.

But if we set good compensation for the position, we are far more likely to get other highly capable candidates, versus the more typical mix of:

Those who have such independent wealth as for such compensation not to matter,

Those who are too close to the system to treat it objectively/for the clearer benefit of the electorate, and

Those whose political views are antithetical to the broad provision of high-quality public education.

For each of these, the motives well may be questioned. The more qualified candidates we attract, the more likely that some might be of the kind you (or I, or many of us) seek.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

It's not about paying these particular board members more. It's about attracting stronger candidates to run in the future.

Its not going to make a difference as the issue isn't pay.

It's one of the issues.

No, its not. Throwing more money at them is the worst thing we can do. We need to hold them and the county council accountable.

Good luck holding minimally paid volunteers accountable. Your expectations are completely out of line with the current reality.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

That's exactly what a board member's job is.

Right. It's the BOE's job to shut down the crap from CO.

+1 There are people on this thread who don't understand what Board oversight should entail.

And others who don't understand that reasonably commensurate compensation (however termed -- wage, salary, stipend, total compensation to account for benefits, etc.) would tend to attract the kinds of candidates who better might perform that oversight, and, if enough, might afford them the time to do so.

The current members are all ones capable. Their leadership, biases and conflict of interests are the issue. Paying them a salary wouldn’t have made a difference and even if we paid the 500+ a year, Mcps outs be a hot mess.

You may have that opinion about the capabilities and motives of the current BOE. I might agree with you, at least with regard to some, whether with regard to capabilities, to motives or to both.

But if we set good compensation for the position, we are far more likely to get other highly capable candidates, versus the more typical mix of:

Those who have such independent wealth as for such compensation not to matter,

Those who are too close to the system to treat it objectively/for the clearer benefit of the electorate, and

Those whose political views are antithetical to the broad provision of high-quality public education.

For each of these, the motives well may be questioned. The more qualified candidates we attract, the more likely that some might be of the kind you (or I, or many of us) seek.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

+1 lol

The voters are ultimately the ones that pick the BoE, and obviously voters don't always make the smartest choices. But it's more likely to work out better if there's a choice other than the rubber stamps and the kooks.

+2 Or those whose full-time jobs are in institutions that would bring them into conflicts of interests with MCPS.

They would just double dip.

Wow you should get a job where they make use of your incredible ability to predict the behavior of every adult in MoCo. /s

+1. Some people are just too pig headed to listen to anything. There are a lot of unexpectedly out of work Feds, Fed adjacent contractors and laid off former corporate workers in MoCo due to all the turmoil.

I don’t doubt that many good candidates are there with experience in finance, accounting, project management, law and other areas that would serve them well on the Board. But many of them would need more than 25k a year to support their families.

This job isn't one to support their family. Its a volunteer position.

Why don't you step up and run?

Why don’t you try and learn to read? Someone already posted the MCPS annual report upthread and Board positions are not referred to as volunteer positions. Are you afraid of some actual oversight at MCPS?

We have oversight and they failed. Paying them more will not fix this.

That's your opinion, and not a particularly well-informed one. Changing the BoE positions to be full-time professional roles and compensating them accordingly is in line with good practices for corporate governance.

[Anonymous]

???? County council is well paid. What oversight have they had over BOE?
Guess you aren’t well informed.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

That's exactly what a board member's job is.

Right. It's the BOE's job to shut down the crap from CO.

+1 There are people on this thread who don't understand what Board oversight should entail.

And others who don't understand that reasonably commensurate compensation (however termed -- wage, salary, stipend, total compensation to account for benefits, etc.) would tend to attract the kinds of candidates who better might perform that oversight, and, if enough, might afford them the time to do so.

The current members are all ones capable. Their leadership, biases and conflict of interests are the issue. Paying them a salary wouldn’t have made a difference and even if we paid the 500+ a year, Mcps outs be a hot mess.

You may have that opinion about the capabilities and motives of the current BOE. I might agree with you, at least with regard to some, whether with regard to capabilities, to motives or to both.

But if we set good compensation for the position, we are far more likely to get other highly capable candidates, versus the more typical mix of:

Those who have such independent wealth as for such compensation not to matter,

Those who are too close to the system to treat it objectively/for the clearer benefit of the electorate, and

Those whose political views are antithetical to the broad provision of high-quality public education.

For each of these, the motives well may be questioned. The more qualified candidates we attract, the more likely that some might be of the kind you (or I, or many of us) seek.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

+1 lol

The voters are ultimately the ones that pick the BoE, and obviously voters don't always make the smartest choices. But it's more likely to work out better if there's a choice other than the rubber stamps and the kooks.

+2 Or those whose full-time jobs are in institutions that would bring them into conflicts of interests with MCPS.

They would just double dip.

Wow you should get a job where they make use of your incredible ability to predict the behavior of every adult in MoCo. /s

+1. Some people are just too pig headed to listen to anything. There are a lot of unexpectedly out of work Feds, Fed adjacent contractors and laid off former corporate workers in MoCo due to all the turmoil.

I don’t doubt that many good candidates are there with experience in finance, accounting, project management, law and other areas that would serve them well on the Board. But many of them would need more than 25k a year to support their families.

This job isn't one to support their family. Its a volunteer position.

Why don't you step up and run?

Why don’t you try and learn to read? Someone already posted the MCPS annual report upthread and Board positions are not referred to as volunteer positions. Are you afraid of some actual oversight at MCPS?

We have oversight and they failed. Paying them more will not fix this.

That's your opinion, and not a particularly well-informed one. Changing the BoE positions to be full-time professional roles and compensating them accordingly is in line with good practices for corporate governance.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:???? County council is well paid. What oversight have they had over BOE?
Guess you aren’t well informed.

Structurally, the County Council does not have direct oversight of our BOE. MSDE does.

The Council has indirect oversight in that they can call hearings/work sessions to hold MCPS accountable in public and/or they can withhold funds. Although given that they can’t reject funding requests by line item, and given that Maintenance of Effort means MCPS is never really at risk of losing funding from the county, that lever isn’t very strong either.

[Anonymous]

One party rule is your problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:???? County council is well paid. What oversight have they had over BOE?
Guess you aren’t well informed.

Yes, read the BOE manual. County council has oversight via an education committee. They choose not to have oversight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One party rule is your problem.

There hasn't exactly been a long list of GOP candidates for the board (which is of course a non-partisan election). MoCo voters are sometimes willing to consider non-MAGA, non-insane Republicans in the Larry Hogan model, but they are few and far between these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:???? County council is well paid. What oversight have they had over BOE?
Guess you aren’t well informed.

Yes, read the BOE manual. County council has oversight via an education committee. They choose not to have oversight.

The County Council has certainly provided more oversight on the regional programs plan that the BOE has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:???? County council is well paid. What oversight have they had over BOE?
Guess you aren’t well informed.

Yes, read the BOE manual. County council has oversight via an education committee. They choose not to have oversight.

The County Council has certainly provided more oversight on the regional programs plan that the BOE has.

This is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:???? County council is well paid. What oversight have they had over BOE?
Guess you aren’t well informed.

Yes, read the BOE manual. County council has oversight via an education committee. They choose not to have oversight.

The County Council has certainly provided more oversight on the regional programs plan that the BOE has.

Define oversight.

0+0=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One party rule is your problem.

There hasn't exactly been a long list of GOP candidates for the board (which is of course a non-partisan election). MoCo voters are sometimes willing to consider non-MAGA, non-insane Republicans in the Larry Hogan model, but they are few and far between these days.

I lived in Moco for 30 years - left 4 ago before 10% (!) property tax hike.

Hate to say this but must: the fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves. (William Shakespeare)

Si se puede (Cesar Chavez)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One party rule is your problem.

There hasn't exactly been a long list of GOP candidates for the board (which is of course a non-partisan election). MoCo voters are sometimes willing to consider non-MAGA, non-insane Republicans in the Larry Hogan model, but they are few and far between these days.

I lived in Moco for 30 years - left 4 ago before 10% (!) property tax hike.

Hate to say this but must: the fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves. (William Shakespeare)

Si se puede (Cesar Chavez)

So, why are you posting here about the schools?