[Washington Post] Ex-Montgomery superintendent McKnight to get $1.3M in separation deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers did not like Monifa. She comes across as fake, nothing genuine about her. Very shallow.

Yes. Adding to that, when she visited our elem school last year, she came with three bodyguards…a bit excessive when we were not even fully staffed.

Bodyguards? I have seen the DCPS superintendent at an event and he had an official car and driver but no bodyguards

[Anonymous]

What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers did not like Monifa. She comes across as fake, nothing genuine about her. Very shallow.

Teachers didn't like McKnight because she made them come to work.

Teachers didn't like McKnight because she didn't have their backs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Hushhhhhh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

One-year severance for a position like this is hardly generous. There are relatively few superintendent positions in districts of this scale, and you're almost guaranteed both a long hiring process and a long-distance move.

McKnight thought the board had her back. Right or wrong, the next superintendent won't make the same mistake. I strongly suspect the next contract will have a much larger severance clause for early termination.

And if MCPS would have tried to take her to court over termination for cause, them they definitely would have had a hard time finding a replacement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From my perspective, and I admit I do not know many details, I can see how, if Dr. McKnight maybe didn't know the scope of B's issues, and knew him personally, and also may have believed he was just being targeted, promoting him was a decision she felt she could make. There has been so. much. over the years in MCPS, and some comes to light and some doesn't, for some people but not others. That is all. I'm not an MCPS employee but I am an alum and also a parent and I've seen a lot over the years even given the vast scope of what I can't know. Crap everywhere in any system. i do think MCPS needs a huge shift in being more transparent and not being terrified (at individual & institutional levels) to take responsibility and admit & try to rectify grave mistakes.

The BOE took responsibility and rectified a grave mistake by firing McKnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

It was the price of letting them scapegoat her for their own failures. If you got a problem with it, take it up with the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my perspective, and I admit I do not know many details, I can see how, if Dr. McKnight maybe didn't know the scope of B's issues, and knew him personally, and also may have believed he was just being targeted, promoting him was a decision she felt she could make. There has been so. much. over the years in MCPS, and some comes to light and some doesn't, for some people but not others. That is all. I'm not an MCPS employee but I am an alum and also a parent and I've seen a lot over the years even given the vast scope of what I can't know. Crap everywhere in any system. i do think MCPS needs a huge shift in being more transparent and not being terrified (at individual & institutional levels) to take responsibility and admit & try to rectify grave mistakes.

The BOE covered up their mistakes by firing McKnight at the taxpayer's expense.

Fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

It was the price of letting them scapegoat her for their own failures. If you got a problem with it, take it up with the board.

She was only a small part of the problem. She is in no way blameless and I'm glad she's gone but the BOE never ever takes responsibility for their actions or choices, especially those that have left our kids and school staff in unsafe situations nor making sure students have what they need. And, the violence in schools and lack of consequences (and partnering with parents) is appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

It was the price of letting them scapegoat her for their own failures. If you got a problem with it, take it up with the board.

She was only a small part of the problem. She is in no way blameless and I'm glad she's gone but the BOE never ever takes responsibility for their actions or choices, especially those that have left our kids and school staff in unsafe situations nor making sure students have what they need. And, the violence in schools and lack of consequences (and partnering with parents) is appalling.

I keep hearing about violence in some schools so glad it doesn't happen at ours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

One-year severance for a position like this is hardly generous. There are relatively few superintendent positions in districts of this scale, and you're almost guaranteed both a long hiring process and a long-distance move.

McKnight thought the board had her back. Right or wrong, the next superintendent won't make the same mistake. I strongly suspect the next contract will have a much larger severance clause for early termination.

And if MCPS would have tried to take her to court over termination for cause, them they definitely would have had a hard time finding a replacement.

By that standard a superintendent can pretty much do anything they want, in fact they benefit financially from getting fired since they get more money than they would if they stayed. Great job for someone at the end of their career. SMH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

One-year severance for a position like this is hardly generous. There are relatively few superintendent positions in districts of this scale, and you're almost guaranteed both a long hiring process and a long-distance move.

McKnight thought the board had her back. Right or wrong, the next superintendent won't make the same mistake. I strongly suspect the next contract will have a much larger severance clause for early termination.

And if MCPS would have tried to take her to court over termination for cause, them they definitely would have had a hard time finding a replacement.

By that standard a superintendent can pretty much do anything they want, in fact they benefit financially from getting fired since they get more money than they would if they stayed. Great job for someone at the end of their career. SMH.

Your scheme only works for people at retirement age, which generally aren't going to be the best candidates anyway. It would be a very bad sign to only get applicants for superintendent that are 55 or older.

Regardless, in a district like MCPS, there's a very high risk that the superintendent will
be scapegoated. A $300k salary for a few years isn't a good tradeoff for that, unless there's a good severance package. Kind of like a CEO position.