BOE - who are people voting for?

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

If analogies don't work for you, here's what happens when you put people like Brenda Diaz in charge of our children. https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2024/10/02/bathrooms-with-a-view-cutting-windows-into-student-restrooms-is-a-new-level-of-weird/75479753007/

"Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These adults want to make it easier for other people to watch your children while they’re in the bathroom. It’s absolutely mind-boggling."

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

Do you often compare people you disagree with to Nazis?

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

If analogies don't work for you, here's what happens when you put people like Brenda Diaz in charge of our children. https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2024/10/02/bathrooms-with-a-view-cutting-windows-into-student-restrooms-is-a-new-level-of-weird/75479753007/

"Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These adults want to make it easier for other people to watch your children while they’re in the bathroom. It’s absolutely mind-boggling."

Which five board members would plausibly vote for that?

[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:Apple Ballot all the way. Our entire family is fed up with the crazy legacy members in office right now.

You do realize that all those incumbent members you hate were endorsed by the Apple Ballot at one time, right? You’ll be saying the same about this new slate of apple ballot candidates once they get voted in start the job.

Most were, not all.

Nobody currently on the Apple Ballot is an incumbent.

Correct. But the PP was trying to point out that many of the incumbents had been endorsed by the Apple Ballot during earlier elections, even if they were not this year or two years ago. Specifically: Evans, Smondrowski, Silvestre, and Wolff had each been on the Apple Ballot when they first ran for the board, but were not when they ran for reelection in either 2022 or 2024.

I think the Apple Ballot got it right when it endorsed these candidates.

They did! Hard to go wrong with the Apple ballot.

+1 for Shebra Evans and the others who have had the Apple Ballot endorsement. Can’t go wrong with their picks.

Nice try. The Apple Ballot has endorsed Evans's opponent Laura Stewart.

The Apple Ballot has also endorsed Shebra Evans. That endorsement was made long before Stewart decided to run for office.

It's 2024. Endorsements from past elections aren't relevant. In 2024, the Apple Ballot decided not to endorse Evans, and instead endorsed Stewart.

I’m sure they got it right just like when they endorsed Shebra Evans.

Yes, Stewart is the better choice this year, even if Evans was a reasonable choice 8 years ago. Now it's time for a change.

I would not say that is the case. While I understand the disdain for the incumbents, and Shebra by extension of being an incumbent, if you’ve seen Laura’s interviews and forum performances, there’s definitely a lot to be concerned about. She is naive, awkward and fumbles over her words quite often. Laura Stewart is most certainly a shaky candidate.

Shebra Evans cares a lot, and has learned a lot over the past 8 years, with the mentorship of ex-longtime BOE member Mike Durso to guide her. The biggest drawback to Shebra Evans was her undying loyalty to the past superintendent.

Shebra Evans is a nice person. She likes making appearances at schools and saying "Great job, thank you so much" whenever central office staff present at board meetings. However she does not ask good questions, she does not press for more information, and she does not hold MCPS accountable. She has been there for eight years, and has been like this the whole time. She has not earned a third term.

No, she's not entirely nice. She picks and chooses who she acknowledges. She hasn't gone to all schools and she doesn't acknowledge parents and students who testify at the BOE meetings. She is part of the current board that has failed our students and staff. ALL of them should do the right thing and resign and if not, hopefully, they will be voted out. Even if she's not the problem, she hasn't stood up for whats right and advocated for change. She goes along with what the other members do. We need someone with far more skill and force than someone who you consider is "nice" and says thank you to a select group.

What about Laura Stewart makes you think she has "far more skill and force"? If she's not reading prepared remarks, she stumbles all over her words and struggles to make a point. Nothing I've seen from her participation in various candidate forums has left me with the impression that Stewart is "skilled and forceful". She seems like a really nice person but in over her head for the most part.

DP. What you mistake for stumbling over words and struggling to make a point (an accusation now levied twice in a 13 hour period in this sub-thread, and several times before in this 140+page topic) is much more the behavior and language of a person who is

1) Giving thoughtful cosideration to a posed question,

2) Providing a nuanced answer, which, given any reasonably detailed knowledge of an issue, often is required to provide proper understanding (though sound bites, by their nature, sound nice), and

3) Attempting to state that in a reasonably digestible way

all on the fly. This would be more obvious to anyone who takes the time needed to listen to the referenced discussions.

All on the fly after happy hour with her crowd.

Yawn. Are you one of her usual haters who like to brand her as a socialite?

Laura Stewart is thoughtful and bright. She sometimes does stumble over words but she has spent YEARS doing advocacy for schools and is very well-respected in the community of policymakers and school folks. She knows how to make things happen and has an intuitive understanding of how to move change forward. I suspect she actually knows much more about MCPS policies than her opponent.

She's got my vote! She's also on the Apple ballot so you know she's the best.

[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:Apple Ballot all the way. Our entire family is fed up with the crazy legacy members in office right now.

You do realize that all those incumbent members you hate were endorsed by the Apple Ballot at one time, right? You’ll be saying the same about this new slate of apple ballot candidates once they get voted in start the job.

Most were, not all.

Nobody currently on the Apple Ballot is an incumbent.

Correct. But the PP was trying to point out that many of the incumbents had been endorsed by the Apple Ballot during earlier elections, even if they were not this year or two years ago. Specifically: Evans, Smondrowski, Silvestre, and Wolff had each been on the Apple Ballot when they first ran for the board, but were not when they ran for reelection in either 2022 or 2024.

I think the Apple Ballot got it right when it endorsed these candidates.

They did! Hard to go wrong with the Apple ballot.

+1 for Shebra Evans and the others who have had the Apple Ballot endorsement. Can’t go wrong with their picks.

Nice try. The Apple Ballot has endorsed Evans's opponent Laura Stewart.

The Apple Ballot has also endorsed Shebra Evans. That endorsement was made long before Stewart decided to run for office.

It's 2024. Endorsements from past elections aren't relevant. In 2024, the Apple Ballot decided not to endorse Evans, and instead endorsed Stewart.

I’m sure they got it right just like when they endorsed Shebra Evans.

Yes, Stewart is the better choice this year, even if Evans was a reasonable choice 8 years ago. Now it's time for a change.

I would not say that is the case. While I understand the disdain for the incumbents, and Shebra by extension of being an incumbent, if you’ve seen Laura’s interviews and forum performances, there’s definitely a lot to be concerned about. She is naive, awkward and fumbles over her words quite often. Laura Stewart is most certainly a shaky candidate.

Shebra Evans cares a lot, and has learned a lot over the past 8 years, with the mentorship of ex-longtime BOE member Mike Durso to guide her. The biggest drawback to Shebra Evans was her undying loyalty to the past superintendent.

Shebra Evans is a nice person. She likes making appearances at schools and saying "Great job, thank you so much" whenever central office staff present at board meetings. However she does not ask good questions, she does not press for more information, and she does not hold MCPS accountable. She has been there for eight years, and has been like this the whole time. She has not earned a third term.

No, she's not entirely nice. She picks and chooses who she acknowledges. She hasn't gone to all schools and she doesn't acknowledge parents and students who testify at the BOE meetings. She is part of the current board that has failed our students and staff. ALL of them should do the right thing and resign and if not, hopefully, they will be voted out. Even if she's not the problem, she hasn't stood up for whats right and advocated for change. She goes along with what the other members do. We need someone with far more skill and force than someone who you consider is "nice" and says thank you to a select group.

What about Laura Stewart makes you think she has "far more skill and force"? If she's not reading prepared remarks, she stumbles all over her words and struggles to make a point. Nothing I've seen from her participation in various candidate forums has left me with the impression that Stewart is "skilled and forceful". She seems like a really nice person but in over her head for the most part.

DP. What you mistake for stumbling over words and struggling to make a point (an accusation now levied twice in a 13 hour period in this sub-thread, and several times before in this 140+page topic) is much more the behavior and language of a person who is

1) Giving thoughtful cosideration to a posed question,

2) Providing a nuanced answer, which, given any reasonably detailed knowledge of an issue, often is required to provide proper understanding (though sound bites, by their nature, sound nice), and

3) Attempting to state that in a reasonably digestible way

all on the fly. This would be more obvious to anyone who takes the time needed to listen to the referenced discussions.

All on the fly after happy hour with her crowd.

Yawn. Are you one of her usual haters who like to brand her as a socialite?

Laura Stewart is thoughtful and bright. She sometimes does stumble over words but she has spent YEARS doing advocacy for schools and is very well-respected in the community of policymakers and school folks. She knows how to make things happen and has an intuitive understanding of how to move change forward. I suspect she actually knows much more about MCPS policies than her opponent.

She's got my vote! She's also on the Apple ballot so you know she's the best.

Damn you, Poe's Law!

[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:Apple Ballot all the way. Our entire family is fed up with the crazy legacy members in office right now.

You do realize that all those incumbent members you hate were endorsed by the Apple Ballot at one time, right? You’ll be saying the same about this new slate of apple ballot candidates once they get voted in start the job.

Most were, not all.

Nobody currently on the Apple Ballot is an incumbent.

Correct. But the PP was trying to point out that many of the incumbents had been endorsed by the Apple Ballot during earlier elections, even if they were not this year or two years ago. Specifically: Evans, Smondrowski, Silvestre, and Wolff had each been on the Apple Ballot when they first ran for the board, but were not when they ran for reelection in either 2022 or 2024.

I think the Apple Ballot got it right when it endorsed these candidates.

They did! Hard to go wrong with the Apple ballot.

+1 for Shebra Evans and the others who have had the Apple Ballot endorsement. Can’t go wrong with their picks.

Nice try. The Apple Ballot has endorsed Evans's opponent Laura Stewart.

The Apple Ballot has also endorsed Shebra Evans. That endorsement was made long before Stewart decided to run for office.

It's 2024. Endorsements from past elections aren't relevant. In 2024, the Apple Ballot decided not to endorse Evans, and instead endorsed Stewart.

I’m sure they got it right just like when they endorsed Shebra Evans.

Yes, Stewart is the better choice this year, even if Evans was a reasonable choice 8 years ago. Now it's time for a change.

I would not say that is the case. While I understand the disdain for the incumbents, and Shebra by extension of being an incumbent, if you’ve seen Laura’s interviews and forum performances, there’s definitely a lot to be concerned about. She is naive, awkward and fumbles over her words quite often. Laura Stewart is most certainly a shaky candidate.

Shebra Evans cares a lot, and has learned a lot over the past 8 years, with the mentorship of ex-longtime BOE member Mike Durso to guide her. The biggest drawback to Shebra Evans was her undying loyalty to the past superintendent.

Shebra Evans is a nice person. She likes making appearances at schools and saying "Great job, thank you so much" whenever central office staff present at board meetings. However she does not ask good questions, she does not press for more information, and she does not hold MCPS accountable. She has been there for eight years, and has been like this the whole time. She has not earned a third term.

No, she's not entirely nice. She picks and chooses who she acknowledges. She hasn't gone to all schools and she doesn't acknowledge parents and students who testify at the BOE meetings. She is part of the current board that has failed our students and staff. ALL of them should do the right thing and resign and if not, hopefully, they will be voted out. Even if she's not the problem, she hasn't stood up for whats right and advocated for change. She goes along with what the other members do. We need someone with far more skill and force than someone who you consider is "nice" and says thank you to a select group.

What about Laura Stewart makes you think she has "far more skill and force"? If she's not reading prepared remarks, she stumbles all over her words and struggles to make a point. Nothing I've seen from her participation in various candidate forums has left me with the impression that Stewart is "skilled and forceful". She seems like a really nice person but in over her head for the most part.

DP. What you mistake for stumbling over words and struggling to make a point (an accusation now levied twice in a 13 hour period in this sub-thread, and several times before in this 140+page topic) is much more the behavior and language of a person who is

1) Giving thoughtful cosideration to a posed question,

2) Providing a nuanced answer, which, given any reasonably detailed knowledge of an issue, often is required to provide proper understanding (though sound bites, by their nature, sound nice), and

3) Attempting to state that in a reasonably digestible way

all on the fly. This would be more obvious to anyone who takes the time needed to listen to the referenced discussions.

All on the fly after happy hour with her crowd.

Yawn. Are you one of her usual haters who like to brand her as a socialite?

Laura Stewart is thoughtful and bright. She sometimes does stumble over words but she has spent YEARS doing advocacy for schools and is very well-respected in the community of policymakers and school folks. She knows how to make things happen and has an intuitive understanding of how to move change forward. I suspect she actually knows much more about MCPS policies than her opponent.

She's got my vote! She's also on the Apple ballot so you know she's the best.

It's mind-boggling how many people would vote against their interests. The Apple Ballot has the union-endorsed candidates. They're not there to advocate for students- they advocate for themselves. No parent in their right mind would vote for candidates selected by the union.

[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:Apple Ballot all the way. Our entire family is fed up with the crazy legacy members in office right now.

You do realize that all those incumbent members you hate were endorsed by the Apple Ballot at one time, right? You’ll be saying the same about this new slate of apple ballot candidates once they get voted in start the job.

Most were, not all.

Nobody currently on the Apple Ballot is an incumbent.

Correct. But the PP was trying to point out that many of the incumbents had been endorsed by the Apple Ballot during earlier elections, even if they were not this year or two years ago. Specifically: Evans, Smondrowski, Silvestre, and Wolff had each been on the Apple Ballot when they first ran for the board, but were not when they ran for reelection in either 2022 or 2024.

I think the Apple Ballot got it right when it endorsed these candidates.

They did! Hard to go wrong with the Apple ballot.

+1 for Shebra Evans and the others who have had the Apple Ballot endorsement. Can’t go wrong with their picks.

Nice try. The Apple Ballot has endorsed Evans's opponent Laura Stewart.

The Apple Ballot has also endorsed Shebra Evans. That endorsement was made long before Stewart decided to run for office.

It's 2024. Endorsements from past elections aren't relevant. In 2024, the Apple Ballot decided not to endorse Evans, and instead endorsed Stewart.

I’m sure they got it right just like when they endorsed Shebra Evans.

Yes, Stewart is the better choice this year, even if Evans was a reasonable choice 8 years ago. Now it's time for a change.

I would not say that is the case. While I understand the disdain for the incumbents, and Shebra by extension of being an incumbent, if you’ve seen Laura’s interviews and forum performances, there’s definitely a lot to be concerned about. She is naive, awkward and fumbles over her words quite often. Laura Stewart is most certainly a shaky candidate.

Shebra Evans cares a lot, and has learned a lot over the past 8 years, with the mentorship of ex-longtime BOE member Mike Durso to guide her. The biggest drawback to Shebra Evans was her undying loyalty to the past superintendent.

Shebra Evans is a nice person. She likes making appearances at schools and saying "Great job, thank you so much" whenever central office staff present at board meetings. However she does not ask good questions, she does not press for more information, and she does not hold MCPS accountable. She has been there for eight years, and has been like this the whole time. She has not earned a third term.

No, she's not entirely nice. She picks and chooses who she acknowledges. She hasn't gone to all schools and she doesn't acknowledge parents and students who testify at the BOE meetings. She is part of the current board that has failed our students and staff. ALL of them should do the right thing and resign and if not, hopefully, they will be voted out. Even if she's not the problem, she hasn't stood up for whats right and advocated for change. She goes along with what the other members do. We need someone with far more skill and force than someone who you consider is "nice" and says thank you to a select group.

What about Laura Stewart makes you think she has "far more skill and force"? If she's not reading prepared remarks, she stumbles all over her words and struggles to make a point. Nothing I've seen from her participation in various candidate forums has left me with the impression that Stewart is "skilled and forceful". She seems like a really nice person but in over her head for the most part.

DP. What you mistake for stumbling over words and struggling to make a point (an accusation now levied twice in a 13 hour period in this sub-thread, and several times before in this 140+page topic) is much more the behavior and language of a person who is

1) Giving thoughtful cosideration to a posed question,

2) Providing a nuanced answer, which, given any reasonably detailed knowledge of an issue, often is required to provide proper understanding (though sound bites, by their nature, sound nice), and

3) Attempting to state that in a reasonably digestible way

all on the fly. This would be more obvious to anyone who takes the time needed to listen to the referenced discussions.

All on the fly after happy hour with her crowd.

Yawn. Are you one of her usual haters who like to brand her as a socialite?

Laura Stewart is thoughtful and bright. She sometimes does stumble over words but she has spent YEARS doing advocacy for schools and is very well-respected in the community of policymakers and school folks. She knows how to make things happen and has an intuitive understanding of how to move change forward. I suspect she actually knows much more about MCPS policies than her opponent.

She's got my vote! She's also on the Apple ballot so you know she's the best.

It's mind-boggling how many people would vote against their interests. The Apple Ballot has the union-endorsed candidates. They're not there to advocate for students- they advocate for themselves. No parent in their right mind would vote for candidates selected by the union.

DP. I don't vote for candidates simply because they're on the Apple Ballot, but I also wouldn't vote against anyone just for that reason. Do your own research, take a look at the candidates as individuals, decide how they compare to their specific opponents, and make your best choice.

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

If analogies don't work for you, here's what happens when you put people like Brenda Diaz in charge of our children. https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2024/10/02/bathrooms-with-a-view-cutting-windows-into-student-restrooms-is-a-new-level-of-weird/75479753007/

"Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These adults want to make it easier for other people to watch your children while they’re in the bathroom. It’s absolutely mind-boggling."

Which five board members would plausibly vote for that?

Every vote the right-wing extremists get on the board is one vote too many. In York County (above), the RWNJs didn't always have a majority, they got one after a low-turnout election allowed them to move into the majority. Now you have book banning and peepholes into kids' bathrooms.

That's not what I want for MoCo. I will happily vote for a slightly inexperienced and idealistic young teacher with real-world classroom knowledge over someone who wants to turn MCPS into Gilead.

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

If analogies don't work for you, here's what happens when you put people like Brenda Diaz in charge of our children. https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2024/10/02/bathrooms-with-a-view-cutting-windows-into-student-restrooms-is-a-new-level-of-weird/75479753007/

"Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These adults want to make it easier for other people to watch your children while they’re in the bathroom. It’s absolutely mind-boggling."

Which five board members would plausibly vote for that?

Every vote the right-wing extremists get on the board is one vote too many. In York County (above), the RWNJs didn't always have a majority, they got one after a low-turnout election allowed them to move into the majority. Now you have book banning and peepholes into kids' bathrooms.

That's not what I want for MoCo. I will happily vote for a slightly inexperienced and idealistic young teacher with real-world classroom knowledge over someone who wants to turn MCPS into Gilead.

You're trading one risk that is inconceivably small for another. It is far more likely that a union-focused BoE will pass policies that are bad for students than ending up with a RWNJ BoE that will pass terrible policies overall. Zimmerman is a much greater risk to students and families than Diaz.

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

If analogies don't work for you, here's what happens when you put people like Brenda Diaz in charge of our children. https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2024/10/02/bathrooms-with-a-view-cutting-windows-into-student-restrooms-is-a-new-level-of-weird/75479753007/

"Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These adults want to make it easier for other people to watch your children while they’re in the bathroom. It’s absolutely mind-boggling."

Which five board members would plausibly vote for that?

Every vote the right-wing extremists get on the board is one vote too many. In York County (above), the RWNJs didn't always have a majority, they got one after a low-turnout election allowed them to move into the majority. Now you have book banning and peepholes into kids' bathrooms.

That's not what I want for MoCo. I will happily vote for a slightly inexperienced and idealistic young teacher with real-world classroom knowledge over someone who wants to turn MCPS into Gilead.

You're trading one risk that is inconceivably small for another. It is far more likely that a union-focused BoE will pass policies that are bad for students than ending up with a RWNJ BoE that will pass terrible policies overall. Zimmerman is a much greater risk to students and families than Diaz.

Well, I also find this assumption that Zimmerman would solely focus on union stuff to be anti-labor and also frankly sexist. If a man wanted to pursue a career in public service, I don't think we'd be scrutinizing his finances the way folks are for Zimmerman. I also trust someone who chose a career in elementary education to care about children.

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

If analogies don't work for you, here's what happens when you put people like Brenda Diaz in charge of our children. https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2024/10/02/bathrooms-with-a-view-cutting-windows-into-student-restrooms-is-a-new-level-of-weird/75479753007/

"Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These adults want to make it easier for other people to watch your children while they’re in the bathroom. It’s absolutely mind-boggling."

Which five board members would plausibly vote for that?

Every vote the right-wing extremists get on the board is one vote too many. In York County (above), the RWNJs didn't always have a majority, they got one after a low-turnout election allowed them to move into the majority. Now you have book banning and peepholes into kids' bathrooms.

That's not what I want for MoCo. I will happily vote for a slightly inexperienced and idealistic young teacher with real-world classroom knowledge over someone who wants to turn MCPS into Gilead.

You're trading one risk that is inconceivably small for another. It is far more likely that a union-focused BoE will pass policies that are bad for students than ending up with a RWNJ BoE that will pass terrible policies overall. Zimmerman is a much greater risk to students and families than Diaz.

Well, I also find this assumption that Zimmerman would solely focus on union stuff to be anti-labor and also frankly sexist. If a man wanted to pursue a career in public service, I don't think we'd be scrutinizing his finances the way folks are for Zimmerman. I also trust someone who chose a career in elementary education to care about children.

Let's summarize. Zimmerman was recruited by the union to run. Two of Zimmerman's first donations came from past union presidents, and 80% of donations have come from union members. A core part of her platform is to give teachers (i.e., the union members) a "voice" on the BoE. She is running for a position that has the demands of a full-time job, which is often held by retirees and individuals that already have flexible jobs. In her case, she will be forced to quit her current job, which pays substantially more than the BoE position, and has not explained how she intends to make up that income if elected.

None of that raises concerns for you? Really? If this was for any other elected position besides BoE, this would be huge.

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

If analogies don't work for you, here's what happens when you put people like Brenda Diaz in charge of our children. https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2024/10/02/bathrooms-with-a-view-cutting-windows-into-student-restrooms-is-a-new-level-of-weird/75479753007/

"Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These adults want to make it easier for other people to watch your children while they’re in the bathroom. It’s absolutely mind-boggling."

Which five board members would plausibly vote for that?

Every vote the right-wing extremists get on the board is one vote too many. In York County (above), the RWNJs didn't always have a majority, they got one after a low-turnout election allowed them to move into the majority. Now you have book banning and peepholes into kids' bathrooms.

That's not what I want for MoCo. I will happily vote for a slightly inexperienced and idealistic young teacher with real-world classroom knowledge over someone who wants to turn MCPS into Gilead.

You're trading one risk that is inconceivably small for another. It is far more likely that a union-focused BoE will pass policies that are bad for students than ending up with a RWNJ BoE that will pass terrible policies overall. Zimmerman is a much greater risk to students and families than Diaz.

Well, I also find this assumption that Zimmerman would solely focus on union stuff to be anti-labor and also frankly sexist. If a man wanted to pursue a career in public service, I don't think we'd be scrutinizing his finances the way folks are for Zimmerman. I also trust someone who chose a career in elementary education to care about children.

Let's summarize. Zimmerman was recruited by the union to run. Two of Zimmerman's first donations came from past union presidents, and 80% of donations have come from union members. A core part of her platform is to give teachers (i.e., the union members) a "voice" on the BoE. She is running for a position that has the demands of a full-time job, which is often held by retirees and individuals that already have flexible jobs. In her case, she will be forced to quit her current job, which pays substantially more than the BoE position, and has not explained how she intends to make up that income if elected.

None of that raises concerns for you? Really? If this was for any other elected position besides BoE, this would be huge.

You keep saying the same thing over and over, and it's not persuasive. Not voting for Diaz. No way, no how.

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

If analogies don't work for you, here's what happens when you put people like Brenda Diaz in charge of our children. https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2024/10/02/bathrooms-with-a-view-cutting-windows-into-student-restrooms-is-a-new-level-of-weird/75479753007/

"Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These adults want to make it easier for other people to watch your children while they’re in the bathroom. It’s absolutely mind-boggling."

Which five board members would plausibly vote for that?

Every vote the right-wing extremists get on the board is one vote too many. In York County (above), the RWNJs didn't always have a majority, they got one after a low-turnout election allowed them to move into the majority. Now you have book banning and peepholes into kids' bathrooms.

That's not what I want for MoCo. I will happily vote for a slightly inexperienced and idealistic young teacher with real-world classroom knowledge over someone who wants to turn MCPS into Gilead.

Exactly, Diaz to me doesn’t think through what she says and goes along with her supporters like Trump. I think she has good intentions but she will be an epic disaster.

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

If analogies don't work for you, here's what happens when you put people like Brenda Diaz in charge of our children. https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2024/10/02/bathrooms-with-a-view-cutting-windows-into-student-restrooms-is-a-new-level-of-weird/75479753007/

"Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These adults want to make it easier for other people to watch your children while they’re in the bathroom. It’s absolutely mind-boggling."

Which five board members would plausibly vote for that?

Every vote the right-wing extremists get on the board is one vote too many. In York County (above), the RWNJs didn't always have a majority, they got one after a low-turnout election allowed them to move into the majority. Now you have book banning and peepholes into kids' bathrooms.

That's not what I want for MoCo. I will happily vote for a slightly inexperienced and idealistic young teacher with real-world classroom knowledge over someone who wants to turn MCPS into Gilead.

You're trading one risk that is inconceivably small for another. It is far more likely that a union-focused BoE will pass policies that are bad for students than ending up with a RWNJ BoE that will pass terrible policies overall. Zimmerman is a much greater risk to students and families than Diaz.

Well, I also find this assumption that Zimmerman would solely focus on union stuff to be anti-labor and also frankly sexist. If a man wanted to pursue a career in public service, I don't think we'd be scrutinizing his finances the way folks are for Zimmerman. I also trust someone who chose a career in elementary education to care about children.

Let's summarize. Zimmerman was recruited by the union to run. Two of Zimmerman's first donations came from past union presidents, and 80% of donations have come from union members. A core part of her platform is to give teachers (i.e., the union members) a "voice" on the BoE. She is running for a position that has the demands of a full-time job, which is often held by retirees and individuals that already have flexible jobs. In her case, she will be forced to quit her current job, which pays substantially more than the BoE position, and has not explained how she intends to make up that income if elected.

None of that raises concerns for you? Really? If this was for any other elected position besides BoE, this would be huge.

And, how is this an issue? I don’t care about her finances. She can get a job outside MCPS. MC would probably hire her to get more money to 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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE

If analogies don't work for you, here's what happens when you put people like Brenda Diaz in charge of our children. https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2024/10/02/bathrooms-with-a-view-cutting-windows-into-student-restrooms-is-a-new-level-of-weird/75479753007/

"Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These adults want to make it easier for other people to watch your children while they’re in the bathroom. It’s absolutely mind-boggling."

Which five board members would plausibly vote for that?

Every vote the right-wing extremists get on the board is one vote too many. In York County (above), the RWNJs didn't always have a majority, they got one after a low-turnout election allowed them to move into the majority. Now you have book banning and peepholes into kids' bathrooms.

That's not what I want for MoCo. I will happily vote for a slightly inexperienced and idealistic young teacher with real-world classroom knowledge over someone who wants to turn MCPS into Gilead.

You're trading one risk that is inconceivably small for another. It is far more likely that a union-focused BoE will pass policies that are bad for students than ending up with a RWNJ BoE that will pass terrible policies overall. Zimmerman is a much greater risk to students and families than Diaz.

Well, I also find this assumption that Zimmerman would solely focus on union stuff to be anti-labor and also frankly sexist. If a man wanted to pursue a career in public service, I don't think we'd be scrutinizing his finances the way folks are for Zimmerman. I also trust someone who chose a career in elementary education to care about children.

Let's summarize. Zimmerman was recruited by the union to run. Two of Zimmerman's first donations came from past union presidents, and 80% of donations have come from union members. A core part of her platform is to give teachers (i.e., the union members) a "voice" on the BoE. She is running for a position that has the demands of a full-time job, which is often held by retirees and individuals that already have flexible jobs. In her case, she will be forced to quit her current job, which pays substantially more than the BoE position, and has not explained how she intends to make up that income if elected.

None of that raises concerns for you? Really? If this was for any other elected position besides BoE, this would be huge.

And, how is this an issue? I don’t care about her finances. She can get a job outside MCPS. MC would probably hire her to get more money to them.

What a strange statement from the person who has called for Silvestre's resignation over her ties to Montgomery College. Why are you making a special exception here for Zimmerman?