[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:

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.

agree but there was a faction out for McKnight from the beginning and this was all the excuse they needed

[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.

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.

agree but there was a faction out for McKnight from the beginning and this was all the excuse they needed

[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.

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.

+1

Even if we limit the discussion of the Beidelman affair, she:

1) Oversaw a HR team that ignored both best practices and its own guidelines in refusing to investigate harassment complaints that arrived via the anonymous reporting line, via MCEA, or which were submitted officially but on an incorrect form.

2) Oversaw a team that committed fraud by backdating a signature to make investigators believe a process had been completed before it actually had

3) Had personal knowledge of retaliation against the initial investigator tasked with looking into the Beidelman allegations, after the WaPo story

4) Lied to the Board of Education about whether she knew he was under investigation at the time she recommended him for promotion

These are all fireable offenses, particularly the final one.

[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: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.

+1

Even if we limit the discussion of the Beidelman affair, she:

1) Oversaw a HR team that ignored both best practices and its own guidelines in refusing to investigate harassment complaints that arrived via the anonymous reporting line, via MCEA, or which were submitted officially but on an incorrect form.

2) Oversaw a team that committed fraud by backdating a signature to make investigators believe a process had been completed before it actually had

3) Had personal knowledge of retaliation against the initial investigator tasked with looking into the Beidelman allegations, after the WaPo story

4) Lied to the Board of Education about whether she knew he was under investigation at the time she recommended him for promotion

These are all fireable offenses, particularly the final one.

Then why did the BOE agree to pay her 1.3 million dollars?

[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: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.

+1

Even if we limit the discussion of the Beidelman affair, she:

1) Oversaw a HR team that ignored both best practices and its own guidelines in refusing to investigate harassment complaints that arrived via the anonymous reporting line, via MCEA, or which were submitted officially but on an incorrect form.

2) Oversaw a team that committed fraud by backdating a signature to make investigators believe a process had been completed before it actually had

3) Had personal knowledge of retaliation against the initial investigator tasked with looking into the Beidelman allegations, after the WaPo story

4) Lied to the Board of Education about whether she knew he was under investigation at the time she recommended him for promotion

These are all fireable offenses, particularly the final one.

Then why did the BOE agree to pay her 1.3 million dollars?

They wanted her to keep quiet about their role in this and just take the blame for their failings.

[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: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.

+1

Even if we limit the discussion of the Beidelman affair, she:

1) Oversaw a HR team that ignored both best practices and its own guidelines in refusing to investigate harassment complaints that arrived via the anonymous reporting line, via MCEA, or which were submitted officially but on an incorrect form.

2) Oversaw a team that committed fraud by backdating a signature to make investigators believe a process had been completed before it actually had

3) Had personal knowledge of retaliation against the initial investigator tasked with looking into the Beidelman allegations, after the WaPo story

4) Lied to the Board of Education about whether she knew he was under investigation at the time she recommended him for promotion

These are all fireable offenses, particularly the final one.

And yet, as McKnight clearly pointed out, at no point did the board make her aware they were losing faith in her, did they note failure to perform or create a performance improvement plan. So as others have stated, they paid McKnight because they wanted the issue to quiet down and go away without the BOE and the entire system looking worse.

[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: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.

+1

Even if we limit the discussion of the Beidelman affair, she:

1) Oversaw a HR team that ignored both best practices and its own guidelines in refusing to investigate harassment complaints that arrived via the anonymous reporting line, via MCEA, or which were submitted officially but on an incorrect form.

2) Oversaw a team that committed fraud by backdating a signature to make investigators believe a process had been completed before it actually had

3) Had personal knowledge of retaliation against the initial investigator tasked with looking into the Beidelman allegations, after the WaPo story

4) Lied to the Board of Education about whether she knew he was under investigation at the time she recommended him for promotion

These are all fireable offenses, particularly the final one.

And yet, as McKnight clearly pointed out, at no point did the board make her aware they were losing faith in her, did they note failure to perform or create a performance improvement plan. So as others have stated, they paid McKnight because they wanted the issue to quiet down and go away without the BOE and the entire system looking worse.

This is an interesting point, because I haven't read McKnight's contract but typically a PIP is only needed for lower-level incompetence or needed improvement. In this case, you have something pretty egregious (lying, conspiring to cover up harassment). I would not assume that needs a conversation/PIP.

[Anonymous]

Both McKnight and the BOE are incompetent.

If the superindent needs to go, the only one who can fire them is the BOE and they did.
If the BOE needs to go, the only one who can fire them is the electorate, and we have that chance in a few weeks (Ok, for 1/3 of them).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is an interesting point, because I haven't read McKnight's contract but typically a PIP is only needed for lower-level incompetence or needed improvement. In this case, you have something pretty egregious (lying, conspiring to cover up harassment). I would not assume that needs a conversation/PIP.

Yeah I don't think you do a PIP for someone at CEO level. In corporate America, they fire the CEO all the time without doing a PIP. They aren't some line worker. They are top managment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is an interesting point, because I haven't read McKnight's contract but typically a PIP is only needed for lower-level incompetence or needed improvement. In this case, you have something pretty egregious (lying, conspiring to cover up harassment). I would not assume that needs a conversation/PIP.

Yeah I don't think you do a PIP for someone at CEO level. In corporate America, they fire the CEO all the time without doing a PIP. They aren't some line worker. They are top managment.

But there's usually a paper trail of documented performance concerns, even if they don't do a PIP, which I agree they might not do for Supe.

[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: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.

+1

Even if we limit the discussion of the Beidelman affair, she:

1) Oversaw a HR team that ignored both best practices and its own guidelines in refusing to investigate harassment complaints that arrived via the anonymous reporting line, via MCEA, or which were submitted officially but on an incorrect form.

2) Oversaw a team that committed fraud by backdating a signature to make investigators believe a process had been completed before it actually had

3) Had personal knowledge of retaliation against the initial investigator tasked with looking into the Beidelman allegations, after the WaPo story

4) Lied to the Board of Education about whether she knew he was under investigation at the time she recommended him for promotion

These are all fireable offenses, particularly the final one.

Then why did the BOE agree to pay her 1.3 million dollars?

Well I for one think they should have to explain to all of us why they agreed to that. Rather than all of us guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is an interesting point, because I haven't read McKnight's contract but typically a PIP is only needed for lower-level incompetence or needed improvement. In this case, you have something pretty egregious (lying, conspiring to cover up harassment). I would not assume that needs a conversation/PIP.

Yeah I don't think you do a PIP for someone at CEO level. In corporate America, they fire the CEO all the time without doing a PIP. They aren't some line worker. They are top managment.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is an interesting point, because I haven't read McKnight's contract but typically a PIP is only needed for lower-level incompetence or needed improvement. In this case, you have something pretty egregious (lying, conspiring to cover up harassment). I would not assume that needs a conversation/PIP.

Yeah I don't think you do a PIP for someone at CEO level. In corporate America, they fire the CEO all the time without doing a PIP. They aren't some line worker. They are top managment.

But there's usually a paper trail of documented performance concerns, even if they don't do a PIP, which I agree they might not do for Supe.

Agree. An executive level person doesn’t usually get a PIP, but there is conversation and documentation of concern or changes desired. And top management have severance packages in their contracts precisely because they can be fired at any time.

[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: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.

+1

Even if we limit the discussion of the Beidelman affair, she:

1) Oversaw a HR team that ignored both best practices and its own guidelines in refusing to investigate harassment complaints that arrived via the anonymous reporting line, via MCEA, or which were submitted officially but on an incorrect form.

2) Oversaw a team that committed fraud by backdating a signature to make investigators believe a process had been completed before it actually had

3) Had personal knowledge of retaliation against the initial investigator tasked with looking into the Beidelman allegations, after the WaPo story

4) Lied to the Board of Education about whether she knew he was under investigation at the time she recommended him for promotion

These are all fireable offenses, particularly the final one.

Then why did the BOE agree to pay her 1.3 million dollars?

Well I for one think they should have to explain to all of us why they agreed to that. Rather than all of us guess.

Yes, they should have to explain this sum to the tax payers. Does anyone have oversight over them? The County Council?