MOCO BOE update: Beidleman Report summary

[Anonymous]

Elizabeth Thomas- 2011-2016- Director over Beidleman-check this one out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elizabeth Thomas- 2011-2016- Director over Beidleman-check this one out

? She was Kingsview principal from 2008-12, then director 2012-18, then QO principal 2018-present.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Concern troll all you want but the email (presumably with the addresses) was also forwarded to a person who acknowledged receipt and referred the matter. The superintendent and BOE should have known all of this was going on and if they didn’t it’s just as bad as knowing it was going on and doing nothing. It is time to clean house at the BOE and central office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Concern troll all you want but the email (presumably with the addresses) was also forwarded to a person who acknowledged receipt and referred the matter. The superintendent and BOE should have known all of this was going on and if they didn’t it’s just as bad as knowing it was going on and doing nothing. It is time to clean house at the BOE and central office.

Yeah, "presumably," which is why it would be nice if the addresses were actually included. Otherwise, we don't know anything about who the first letter was sent to, we are just presuming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elizabeth Thomas- 2011-2016- Director over Beidleman-check this one out

? She was Kingsview principal from 2008-12, then director 2012-18, then QO principal 2018-present.

Beidleman was an AP when she was a Director over Clemente and Farquhar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Concern troll all you want but the email (presumably with the addresses) was also forwarded to a person who acknowledged receipt and referred the matter. The superintendent and BOE should have known all of this was going on and if they didn’t it’s just as bad as knowing it was going on and doing nothing. It is time to clean house at the BOE and central office.

Yeah, "presumably," which is why it would be nice if the addresses were actually included. Otherwise, we don't know anything about who the first letter was sent to, we are just presuming.

A lot of assumptions here with few facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Concern troll all you want but the email (presumably with the addresses) was also forwarded to a person who acknowledged receipt and referred the matter. The superintendent and BOE should have known all of this was going on and if they didn’t it’s just as bad as knowing it was going on and doing nothing. It is time to clean house at the BOE and central office.

Yeah, "presumably," which is why it would be nice if the addresses were actually included. Otherwise, we don't know anything about who the first letter was sent to, we are just presuming.

The letter started “Dear Members of the Board as well as Dr. McKnight.” What does it matter if the senior official who acknowledged the email from MCEA had the actual email addresses to which it was sent? Also, we’re not presuming. We’re relying on Adam P, who doesn’t have a history of fabricating or exaggerating.

You’re grasping at straws. MCPS is a sick organization and the leadership needs to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Concern troll all you want but the email (presumably with the addresses) was also forwarded to a person who acknowledged receipt and referred the matter. The superintendent and BOE should have known all of this was going on and if they didn’t it’s just as bad as knowing it was going on and doing nothing. It is time to clean house at the BOE and central office.

Yeah, "presumably," which is why it would be nice if the addresses were actually included. Otherwise, we don't know anything about who the first letter was sent to, we are just presuming.

The letter started “Dear Members of the Board as well as Dr. McKnight.” What does it matter if the senior official who acknowledged the email from MCEA had the actual email addresses to which it was sent? Also, we’re not presuming. We’re relying on Adam P, who doesn’t have a history of fabricating or exaggerating.

You’re grasping at straws. MCPS is a sick organization and the leadership needs to go.

Because that's how email works? You need the addresses to have any proof of where you sent something. If what Adam P. received from MCEA didn't have the To addresses, he should be asking why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Concern troll all you want but the email (presumably with the addresses) was also forwarded to a person who acknowledged receipt and referred the matter. The superintendent and BOE should have known all of this was going on and if they didn’t it’s just as bad as knowing it was going on and doing nothing. It is time to clean house at the BOE and central office.

Yeah, "presumably," which is why it would be nice if the addresses were actually included. Otherwise, we don't know anything about who the first letter was sent to, we are just presuming.

The letter started “Dear Members of the Board as well as Dr. McKnight.” What does it matter if the senior official who acknowledged the email from MCEA had the actual email addresses to which it was sent? Also, we’re not presuming. We’re relying on Adam P, who doesn’t have a history of fabricating or exaggerating.

You’re grasping at straws. MCPS is a sick organization and the leadership needs to go.

Because that's how email works? You need the addresses to have any proof of where you sent something. If what Adam P. received from MCEA didn't have the To addresses, he should be asking why.

You seem to be missing that MCPS otherwise confirmed receipt of that email. How indifferent to sexual harassment would an organization have to be for the director not to make sure the superintendent and board had seen a letter like that that was addressed to them? You’re arguing over an irrelevant detail, probably to deflect from the obvious misfeasance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Concern troll all you want but the email (presumably with the addresses) was also forwarded to a person who acknowledged receipt and referred the matter. The superintendent and BOE should have known all of this was going on and if they didn’t it’s just as bad as knowing it was going on and doing nothing. It is time to clean house at the BOE and central office.

Yeah, "presumably," which is why it would be nice if the addresses were actually included. Otherwise, we don't know anything about who the first letter was sent to, we are just presuming.

The letter started “Dear Members of the Board as well as Dr. McKnight.” What does it matter if the senior official who acknowledged the email from MCEA had the actual email addresses to which it was sent? Also, we’re not presuming. We’re relying on Adam P, who doesn’t have a history of fabricating or exaggerating.

You’re grasping at straws. MCPS is a sick organization and the leadership needs to go.

Because that's how email works? You need the addresses to have any proof of where you sent something. If what Adam P. received from MCEA didn't have the To addresses, he should be asking why.

You seem to be missing that MCPS otherwise confirmed receipt of that email. How indifferent to sexual harassment would an organization have to be for the director not to make sure the superintendent and board had seen a letter like that that was addressed to them? You’re arguing over an irrelevant detail, probably to deflect from the obvious misfeasance.

We already know that some people at MCPS received the email from MCEA; no one is disputing that. What we still don't know, and what these emails don't shed any light on: 1) whether the board and Dr. McKnight received the first, anonymous email, and 2) whether the MCPS labor relations staff who received MCEA's email sent it on to their supervisors or other higher-ups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The common thread is that a bunch of the "key leaders" in MCPS were middle school principals around the same time that McKnight was. They all know each other and apparently McKnight likes to promote her former colleagues:

McKnight: Ridgeview principal 2011-16
Beidleman: Farquhar principal 2014-23
Edwards: MLK principal 2010-15
Dawson: Wood principal 2008-13
Jones: Rosa Parks principal 2009-15
Morris: Farquhar principal 2010-14
Reuben: Banneker principal 2011-14
Sheron: Briggs Chaney principal 2018-20

You have 0 tangible evidence of this. I get you don't like Mcknight but this is pure conjecture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sadly without that, this doesn't prove anything.

Concern troll all you want but the email (presumably with the addresses) was also forwarded to a person who acknowledged receipt and referred the matter. The superintendent and BOE should have known all of this was going on and if they didn’t it’s just as bad as knowing it was going on and doing nothing. It is time to clean house at the BOE and central office.

Yeah, "presumably," which is why it would be nice if the addresses were actually included. Otherwise, we don't know anything about who the first letter was sent to, we are just presuming.

The letter started “Dear Members of the Board as well as Dr. McKnight.” What does it matter if the senior official who acknowledged the email from MCEA had the actual email addresses to which it was sent? Also, we’re not presuming. We’re relying on Adam P, who doesn’t have a history of fabricating or exaggerating.

You’re grasping at straws. MCPS is a sick organization and the leadership needs to go.

Because that's how email works? You need the addresses to have any proof of where you sent something. If what Adam P. received from MCEA didn't have the To addresses, he should be asking why.

You seem to be missing that MCPS otherwise confirmed receipt of that email. How indifferent to sexual harassment would an organization have to be for the director not to make sure the superintendent and board had seen a letter like that that was addressed to them? You’re arguing over an irrelevant detail, probably to deflect from the obvious misfeasance.

We already know that some people at MCPS received the email from MCEA; no one is disputing that. What we still don't know, and what these emails don't shed any light on: 1) whether the board and Dr. McKnight received the first, anonymous email, and 2) whether the MCPS labor relations staff who received MCEA's email sent it on to their supervisors or other higher-ups.

Whether they received it or not does not bear on the question of whether the board should retain McKnight. If McKnight received it and did nothing, then McKnight should be terminated for her personal indifference to serious misconduct. If the senior staff didn’t send it to McKnight, then McKnight should be terminated for running an organization indifferent to serious misconduct. Either way, McKnight should be terminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The common thread is that a bunch of the "key leaders" in MCPS were middle school principals around the same time that McKnight was. They all know each other and apparently McKnight likes to promote her former colleagues:

McKnight: Ridgeview principal 2011-16
Beidleman: Farquhar principal 2014-23
Edwards: MLK principal 2010-15
Dawson: Wood principal 2008-13
Jones: Rosa Parks principal 2009-15
Morris: Farquhar principal 2010-14
Reuben: Banneker principal 2011-14
Sheron: Briggs Chaney principal 2018-20

You have 0 tangible evidence of this. I get you don't like Mcknight but this is pure conjecture.

What is conjecture? Those names, positions, and dates are all taken from BOE public documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The common thread is that a bunch of the "key leaders" in MCPS were middle school principals around the same time that McKnight was. They all know each other and apparently McKnight likes to promote her former colleagues:

McKnight: Ridgeview principal 2011-16
Beidleman: Farquhar principal 2014-23
Edwards: MLK principal 2010-15
Dawson: Wood principal 2008-13
Jones: Rosa Parks principal 2009-15
Morris: Farquhar principal 2010-14
Reuben: Banneker principal 2011-14
Sheron: Briggs Chaney principal 2018-20

For every complaint that came in regarding Beidleman, there were superiors who would be in the chain of command that was advised of the complaints. The Principal(s) who supervised him as a teacher and AP to the Director(s) who supervised him when he was Principal and the Director who selected him for Paint Branch. The number of complaints would have also gotten the attention of the Chief(s) of Staff, the Associate Superintendent(s), and most likely at least been known by Superintendent(s). Six years is a long time and people were fluid in these jobs but the outcome was the same - no action by MCPS. Hence there was a long standing practice by many administrators in MCPS to do nothing.

MCPS needs to clean house and bring in new administrators from outside the school system and probably outside Maryland. They have only groomed talent from within for decades, hence why Administrators all ignored repeated complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The common thread is that a bunch of the "key leaders" in MCPS were middle school principals around the same time that McKnight was. They all know each other and apparently McKnight likes to promote her former colleagues:

McKnight: Ridgeview principal 2011-16
Beidleman: Farquhar principal 2014-23
Edwards: MLK principal 2010-15
Dawson: Wood principal 2008-13
Jones: Rosa Parks principal 2009-15
Morris: Farquhar principal 2010-14
Reuben: Banneker principal 2011-14
Sheron: Briggs Chaney principal 2018-20

For every complaint that came in regarding Beidleman, there were superiors who would be in the chain of command that was advised of the complaints. The Principal(s) who supervised him as a teacher and AP to the Director(s) who supervised him when he was Principal and the Director who selected him for Paint Branch. The number of complaints would have also gotten the attention of the Chief(s) of Staff, the Associate Superintendent(s), and most likely at least been known by Superintendent(s). Six years is a long time and people were fluid in these jobs but the outcome was the same - no action by MCPS. Hence there was a long standing practice by many administrators in MCPS to do nothing.

MCPS needs to clean house and bring in new administrators from outside the school system and probably outside Maryland. They have only groomed talent from within for decades, hence why Administrators all ignored repeated complaints.

The big question is would any of the current Central Office Administrators have taken the complaints seriously? I bet if you look at all the sexual harassment complaints in the past six years, most current Central Office staff would have a history of protecting the harasser. It’s more than just protecting one bad employee. It’s how MCPS deals with these types of complaints.