FCPS is hiring an executive protection agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ABC7 news had a story about it. The statement put out by FCPS made it sound like they wanted someone to be general security at events she goes to. Not necessarily for her? But an immediate response person should there be an issue at an event?

Each school has security point so why need anyone additional 24/7, holidays, weekends???

[Anonymous]

20:04 sounds confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she is receiving numerous frequent violent threats, who are we to say she doesn’t need protection? Attacks on public officials are on the rise. If the police and the SB think she needs protection, it’s quite possible she needs protection.

Shouldn’t she have a social worker protect her instead of armed security?
Social worker salaries are much less than armed security, and according to FCPS, more effective.

Exactly. If Reid is so progressive she probably wants to defund the police. Hire a SW to chat with anyone who makes Dr. Reid feel uncomfy.

I was thinking the same thing. People who support defund the police or reduced ROs should not have tax payer funded security, esp when the salary is 400k.

This is a ‘let them eat cake’ moment, if there ever was one.

[Anonymous]

Dr. Reid, read the room:

90+% of constituents against boundary changes

90+% of constituents against boys in girls sports

Majority of constituents against DEI as implemented at FCPS

99+% of constituents against bodyguard for superintendent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of bodyguard is going to work for $90k? Is that 9-5pm because usually you need 24 hour protection ...

From the job posting:

Requires exceptional flexibility; schedule will be unpredictable and driven by the superintendent's daily activities and security needs.

Must be available for irregular hours, including early mornings, evenings, weekends, holidays, travel, and extended on-call duty.

Travel? Travel?

It’s basically to have someone with her on all of her school visits, etc.

Wonder if it comes with a vehicle? Glorified chauffeur?

She’s already driven everywhere.

THIS IS A LIE. I’m a principal and my colleagues and I have all had her at our schools. No one drives Michelle Reid anywhere (except maybe her husband who accompanied her to a Saturday event at our school last fall). We have regular meetings with her and see her in the parking garage getting out of her car alone.

I don’t agree with everything she does, and you don’t have to either. But you don’t get to post straight-up lies.

As for a security person, I have no problem with it. The new head of security is a former Secret Service member. My guess is that this coming from him based on credible threats and/or incidents. I’ve done more “no trespass” letters in the last several years than in ten previous years combined. People are unhinged.

First I've ever heard about a husband.

Same

I met her husband when he accompanied her to a play at my child’s school. They both seemed lovely, to be honest. Nobody in their right mind would want that job - everyone hates you.

Please. People just want competence. Not an apologist for a crooked football program, an advocate for a boundary study that she pitched as "transformative" and has gradually revealed itself as pointless, or a spendthrift who wastes county funds on unnecessary staff and expenditures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of bodyguard is going to work for $90k? Is that 9-5pm because usually you need 24 hour protection ...

From the job posting:

Requires exceptional flexibility; schedule will be unpredictable and driven by the superintendent's daily activities and security needs.

Must be available for irregular hours, including early mornings, evenings, weekends, holidays, travel, and extended on-call duty.

Travel? Travel?

It’s basically to have someone with her on all of her school visits, etc.

Wonder if it comes with a vehicle? Glorified chauffeur?

She’s already driven everywhere.

THIS IS A LIE. I’m a principal and my colleagues and I have all had her at our schools. No one drives Michelle Reid anywhere (except maybe her husband who accompanied her to a Saturday event at our school last fall). We have regular meetings with her and see her in the parking garage getting out of her car alone.

I don’t agree with everything she does, and you don’t have to either. But you don’t get to post straight-up lies.

As for a security person, I have no problem with it. The new head of security is a former Secret Service member. My guess is that this coming from him based on credible threats and/or incidents. I’ve done more “no trespass” letters in the last several years than in ten previous years combined. People are unhinged.

First I've ever heard about a husband.

Same

I met her husband when he accompanied her to a play at my child’s school. They both seemed lovely, to be honest. Nobody in their right mind would want that job - everyone hates you.

No doubt it's a very tough job, which is why it pays so much, but I can't remember any former superintendent getting quite the response Reid has been getting. She seems to thrive off of being disliked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reid is a typical left wing DEI grifter.

This type of knee jerk comment takes away from the seriousness of this issue. Her need for personal staff on our dime has nothing to do with DEI or “left wing.”

you're free to have your opinion, but I'm entitled to mine, and it is hardly knee jerk. she is a grifter of the highest order and is using the power of county government to impose left wing values. Armed protection at our expense is great for her, but she would love to take away our First Amendment, Second Amendment, and plenty of our other rights.

something tells me that if a book had two mommies in it you wouldn't be so pro first amendment

Something tells me that you have no idea how the first amendment works (it's your post, the words in your post are telling me that).

[Anonymous]

I think they are preparing to refuse to comply with the demands of the feds. She's scared people will be angry that --aside from the boys in girls' spaces--that FCPS will be spending tax dollars on more legal fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Reid, read the room:

90+% of constituents against boundary changes

90+% of constituents against boys in girls sports

Majority of constituents against DEI as implemented at FCPS

99+% of constituents against bodyguard for superintendent

Post links to the data backing this up or kindly crawl back under your MAGA rock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be more supportive if there credible reports of actual threats. Without them, this feels like an anticipatory move to try and chill people from disagreeing with Reid and the School Board, especially if, as some in FCPS have asserted, the next round of boundary proposals are “substantially different” from the proposals released in April and May.

We’ve seen this type of behavior from FCPS before, when they cut speaker time at board meetings and stopped showing the faces of speakers (supposedly to protect them but more likely to just make the speakers seem like random, faceless drones). They really do not tolerate criticism well at all.

Don't forget about the DEI issues.

Not sure how that cuts. The most agitated folks in that issue might be far-left activists if FCPS did what the Trump DEI and Youngkin want. If they are defiant, the far-right will more likely just be keyboard warriors who try to use it as campaign fodder.

A lot more people will care about boundary decisions than DEI decisions, as far as I can tell.

Boundary changes = DEI driven.

Just watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Reid, read the room:

90+% of constituents against boundary changes

90+% of constituents against boys in girls sports

Majority of constituents against DEI as implemented at FCPS

99+% of constituents against bodyguard for superintendent

Post links to the data backing this up or kindly crawl back under your MAGA rock.

Not either PP. Found a Pew Poll, though. First PP may have overstated, but certainly a vast majority are against boys in girls' sports, etc.

It may be lower in Fairfax County, but I agree that a large majority are against it.

I think most parents are against the boundary changes and most other residents are unaware.

[Anonymous]

p.s. forgot the link to the Pew Poll

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ABC7 news had a story about it. The statement put out by FCPS made it sound like they wanted someone to be general security at events she goes to. Not necessarily for her? But an immediate response person should there be an issue at an event?

The posting is very clearly personal security for her. Not general security. The fcps spin pretended it was general security. Perhaps they will change the job posting now that there is some scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they are preparing to refuse to comply with the demands of the feds. She's scared people will be angry that --aside from the boys in girls' spaces--that FCPS will be spending tax dollars on more legal fees.

This is a narrow take dictated by your pet issue. It’s a much more basic pattern that has emerged over and over since she took the position. She spends lots of money on her personal wants. The main thing has been ever expanding high level staff.

[Anonymous]

Exciting day for Reid, all the applications are due. I assume that she will want the best looking applicant since he'll probably end up appearing in the background of a lot of pictures with her.