Scott Joftus appointed to District 3 seat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the Parent Coalition twitter his wife company just got $1.6M from MCPS.

Thank you for this. I immediately discount any information that loony website whines about so now I think I'm satisfied with this appointment. If Parents' Coalition hates him, he must be OK.

+1

+2

Leave it to Parent Coalition to complain about something as benign as the KID Museum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scott has integrity, as does his wife. She founded KID Museum and the org has funded programming around maker learning for kids in high poverty schools. Also in schools with more money. They both are thoughtful and smart and I'm sure Scott will recuse himself from decisions involving the KID museum. I was surprised he got it but pleased. I don't think he will yes the board to death, and I think he will actually think about the impact decisions have on schools.

In his interview he said he wanted board decisions to be unanimous. He also said he teaches Jerry Weast to his students. He longs for the Weast years when data was falsified.

No, that is not what he said. He said it's best for the board to speak to the public with one voice. And he teaches the Harvard case study about MCPS to his students. You seem to be the one interested in falsifying.

The Harvard case study was debunked years ago and removed from Harvard’s website.

What is this Harvard case study about MCPS?

It was from 2006. And is still available on the website:

https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/PEL028-PDF-ENG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the Parent Coalition twitter his wife company just got $1.6M from MCPS.

Thank you for this. I immediately discount any information that loony website whines about so now I think I'm satisfied with this appointment. If Parents' Coalition hates him, he must be OK.

+1

+2

Leave it to Parent Coalition to complain about something as benign as the KID Museum.

Where was that complaint? The tweet in the article was about Scott Joftus recusing himself as a Board member when the Board is writing his wife a church for $1.6M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the Parent Coalition twitter his wife company just got $1.6M from MCPS.

Thank you for this. I immediately discount any information that loony website whines about so now I think I'm satisfied with this appointment. If Parents' Coalition hates him, he must be OK.

+1

+2

Leave it to Parent Coalition to complain about something as benign as the KID Museum.

Where was that complaint? The tweet in the article was about Scott Joftus recusing himself as a Board member when the Board is writing his wife a church for $1.6M.

Of course that question was a complaint--suggesting something nefarious that hasn't happened and won't happen.

[Anonymous]

And here I thought it was something scandalous. The kid museum, really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought it was something scandalous. The kid museum, really?

$1.6m to the wife of a Board of Education member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought it was something scandalous. The kid museum, really?

$1.6m to the wife of a Board of Education member.

To the museum, you dolt. Find me one thinking person who doesn't support its educational objectives. I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought it was something scandalous. The kid museum, really?

$1.6m to the wife of a Board of Education member.

To the museum, you dolt. Find me one thinking person who doesn't support its educational objectives. I'll wait.

And of course his new position had nothing to do with this prior allocation. So long as it doesn't increase wildly, there is exactly zero problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought it was something scandalous. The kid museum, really?

$1.6m to the wife of a Board of Education member.

To the museum, you dolt. Find me one thinking person who doesn't support its educational objectives. I'll wait.

And of course his new position had nothing to do with this prior allocation. So long as it doesn't increase wildly, there is exactly zero problem.

Then why didn’t he disclose the conflict of interest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought it was something scandalous. The kid museum, really?

$1.6m to the wife of a Board of Education member.

To the museum, you dolt. Find me one thinking person who doesn't support its educational objectives. I'll wait.

And of course his new position had nothing to do with this prior allocation. So long as it doesn't increase wildly, there is exactly zero problem.

Then why didn’t he disclose the conflict of interest?

How do you know he didn't? They said the background check would be happening during this time, before he's sworn in on Dec. 14th. That's when things like potential conflicts of interest will be evaluated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought it was something scandalous. The kid museum, really?

$1.6m to the wife of a Board of Education member.

To the museum, you dolt. Find me one thinking person who doesn't support its educational objectives. I'll wait.

And of course his new position had nothing to do with this prior allocation. So long as it doesn't increase wildly, there is exactly zero problem.

Then why didn’t he disclose the conflict of interest?

How do you know he didn't? They said the background check would be happening during this time, before he's sworn in on Dec. 14th. That's when things like potential conflicts of interest will be evaluated.

The Board of Education vote on his appointment was yesterday and he did not disclose before the vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought it was something scandalous. The kid museum, really?

$1.6m to the wife of a Board of Education member.

To the museum, you dolt. Find me one thinking person who doesn't support its educational objectives. I'll wait.

And of course his new position had nothing to do with this prior allocation. So long as it doesn't increase wildly, there is exactly zero problem.

Then why didn’t he disclose the conflict of interest?

How do you know he didn't? They said the background check would be happening during this time, before he's sworn in on Dec. 14th. That's when things like potential conflicts of interest will be evaluated.

The Board of Education vote on his appointment was yesterday and he did not disclose before the vote.

Is this true? I would like to see non-biased reporting on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought it was something scandalous. The kid museum, really?

$1.6m to the wife of a Board of Education member.

To the museum, you dolt. Find me one thinking person who doesn't support its educational objectives. I'll wait.

And of course his new position had nothing to do with this prior allocation. So long as it doesn't increase wildly, there is exactly zero problem.

Then why didn’t he disclose the conflict of interest?

How do you know he didn't? They said the background check would be happening during this time, before he's sworn in on Dec. 14th. That's when things like potential conflicts of interest will be evaluated.

The Board of Education vote on his appointment was yesterday and he did not disclose before the vote.

Is this true? I would like to see non-biased reporting on this.

Do you own research. Resumes of applicants are public and the board interviews are public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the Parent Coalition twitter his wife company just got $1.6M from MCPS.

Thank you for this. I immediately discount any information that loony website whines about so now I think I'm satisfied with this appointment. If Parents' Coalition hates him, he must be OK.

Not necessarily. She/they hate everyone.

It's certainly not disqualifying, though!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here I thought it was something scandalous. The kid museum, really?

$1.6m to the wife of a Board of Education member.

To the museum, you dolt. Find me one thinking person who doesn't support its educational objectives. I'll wait.

And of course his new position had nothing to do with this prior allocation. So long as it doesn't increase wildly, there is exactly zero problem.

Then why didn’t he disclose the conflict of interest?

How do you know he didn't? They said the background check would be happening during this time, before he's sworn in on Dec. 14th. That's when things like potential conflicts of interest will be evaluated.

The Board of Education vote on his appointment was yesterday and he did not disclose before the vote.

Is this true? I would like to see non-biased reporting on this.

Do you own research. Resumes of applicants are public and the board interviews are public.

Do my own research? Sure I can Google his résumé but I’m not going have inside knowledge of what they disclosed on their application or what they said in their interview. That’s what real reporters are for. They have sources and connections.