Are you able to watch the school board meeting live? Doesn't work??

[Anonymous]

2. She did, but the Democrats don't speak with one voice. And, again, with a 9-3 or 9-2 majority for the past two years, nothing has happened with Lee.

Interesting that the question was part of the interview then. They asked all of the candidates the same questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn't Robert E. Lee HS at the top of the list for the changes?

Because Evans is the SB representative for Stuart. Pretty sure that DKoufax would have had to initiated Lee. If you read the FOIA docs, it appears that Evans had been wanting to do this.

I think D-K voted against it. I wondered if she was hoping to avoid any conflict that would come from re-naming Lee.

I think the Lee students/families would probably be happy to change the name -- not many true "southern history pride" types attending Lee.

D-K and McLaughlin abstained from the vote. Afraid to go against their friends.

[Anonymous]

imho, that's a cheap shot, to accuse TDK and MM of being "afraid to go against their friends". They spent a lot of time to consider a difficult question. They investigated the process and regulations. They drafted a sound motion - whether you agree or not with the objective, it was well drafted and based on the regulations that the School Board has adopted. They explained their position, reasoning and intentions carefully and respectfully. Their decision to abstain made no difference to the outcome but indicated that they were of a different mind than TW and ES who voted against, and the "friends" who voted for the main resolution.

There's a lot of name calling and judgements being passed that show a basic ignorance about the challenges of being in a position of governing over decisions that are contentious. I give them credit for undertaking to raise issues (fidelity to process and respect for regulations and transparency) that are important to protecting the integrity of the Board and its actions. It took a lot of time and courage to take a stand for something when many are clamoring for an easy fix.

The decision to proceed is now fraught with complication and there will be a contentious debate over the appropriate name. The (new) Superintendent will be distracted by this controversy, to the detriment of the rest of his duties, and the Stuart community will continue to be fractured as they lobby for new names. Most people really don't care that much - as evidenced by the relatively small shows of support for a name change. So, we have a small minority of outraged people whose actions are having a disproportionate negative effect on the whole system. This is most unfortunate.

Good government is based on clear process; inclusive, transparent, equitable - this is the basis for achieving any just resolution to conflicts. The fact that so many on the Board rejected this in favor of an ad hoc approach indicates that respect for governance at the School Board is weak - this is a big problem. Kudos to Ms. Derenak Kaufax and Ms. McLaughlin for raising the concern in a respectful, intelligent and considerate way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:imho, that's a cheap shot, to accuse TDK and MM of being "afraid to go against their friends". They spent a lot of time to consider a difficult question. They investigated the process and regulations. They drafted a sound motion - whether you agree or not with the objective, it was well drafted and based on the regulations that the School Board has adopted. They explained their position, reasoning and intentions carefully and respectfully. Their decision to abstain made no difference to the outcome but indicated that they were of a different mind than TW and ES who voted against, and the "friends" who voted for the main resolution.

There's a lot of name calling and judgements being passed that show a basic ignorance about the challenges of being in a position of governing over decisions that are contentious. I give them credit for undertaking to raise issues (fidelity to process and respect for regulations and transparency) that are important to protecting the integrity of the Board and its actions. It took a lot of time and courage to take a stand for something when many are clamoring for an easy fix.

The decision to proceed is now fraught with complication and there will be a contentious debate over the appropriate name. The (new) Superintendent will be distracted by this controversy, to the detriment of the rest of his duties, and the Stuart community will continue to be fractured as they lobby for new names. Most people really don't care that much - as evidenced by the relatively small shows of support for a name change. So, we have a small minority of outraged people whose actions are having a disproportionate negative effect on the whole system. This is most unfortunate.

Good government is based on clear process; inclusive, transparent, equitable - this is the basis for achieving any just resolution to conflicts. The fact that so many on the Board rejected this in favor of an ad hoc approach indicates that respect for governance at the School Board is weak - this is a big problem. Kudos to Ms. Derenak Kaufax and Ms. McLaughlin for raising the concern in a respectful, intelligent and considerate way.

That is why they should have voted against the name change. It was not done properly --and they clearly know that. Even if it is legal, as Ms. Corbett-Sanders indicated, it is still unethical and wrong.

I really think if they had followed the process properly, there would have been a more harmonious result. If the Board really felt there was a compelling need, they could have said so two years ago. Instead, they tried to set it up to have the community say so. I really think Ms. Evans and Ms. Hynes were stunned when the first survey indicated that the community was not in support of it.

And, as we move forward with the name change, it is clear that it will continue to be contentious. Many of the changers have made it clear that they want an African American namesake. I hope they will compromise on a geographical name--which, frankly, FCPS should follow in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:imho, that's a cheap shot, to accuse TDK and MM of being "afraid to go against their friends". They spent a lot of time to consider a difficult question. They investigated the process and regulations. They drafted a sound motion - whether you agree or not with the objective, it was well drafted and based on the regulations that the School Board has adopted. They explained their position, reasoning and intentions carefully and respectfully. Their decision to abstain made no difference to the outcome but indicated that they were of a different mind than TW and ES who voted against, and the "friends" who voted for the main resolution.

There's a lot of name calling and judgements being passed that show a basic ignorance about the challenges of being in a position of governing over decisions that are contentious. I give them credit for undertaking to raise issues (fidelity to process and respect for regulations and transparency) that are important to protecting the integrity of the Board and its actions. It took a lot of time and courage to take a stand for something when many are clamoring for an easy fix.

The decision to proceed is now fraught with complication and there will be a contentious debate over the appropriate name. The (new) Superintendent will be distracted by this controversy, to the detriment of the rest of his duties, and the Stuart community will continue to be fractured as they lobby for new names. Most people really don't care that much - as evidenced by the relatively small shows of support for a name change. So, we have a small minority of outraged people whose actions are having a disproportionate negative effect on the whole system. This is most unfortunate.

Good government is based on clear process; inclusive, transparent, equitable - this is the basis for achieving any just resolution to conflicts. The fact that so many on the Board rejected this in favor of an ad hoc approach indicates that respect for governance at the School Board is weak - this is a big problem. Kudos to Ms. Derenak Kaufax and Ms. McLaughlin for raising the concern in a respectful, intelligent and considerate way.

That's an awful lot of words, but nothing in there to really support the conclusion that there are procedural problems in how the School Board handled this that only Derenek-Kaufax and McLaughlin were smart and courageous enough to spot and point on.

There are lawyers both on the School Board (Hynes and Moon) and advising the School Board, and they were comfortable that the Board was proceeding within its authority. Prior to their hearing that TDK and MM might introduce a motion that would delay a decision yet again, many of the "keepers" were saying that the matter had gone on long enough.

Anyone who knows the facts understands that TDK and MM wanted to delay a decision because they didn't want to deal with the potential consequences on renaming Stuart on two schools within their districts - Lee and Woodson. Kicking the can down the road further on Stuart would have given them the luxury of not taking a stand for, at a minimum, another three months. Of course, abstaining does as well, to some extent, but it's a more obvious punt and abdication of responsibility.

And, of course, good government depends on integrity. MM met with a group favoring the change in Stuart's name shortly before this week's meeting and told them unequivocally she would vote in favor of a name change. She did not do so and, in fact, tried to postpone a decision yet again. After this, she'll need to switch parties, because the FCDC will be unlikely to endorse her for any position ever again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, of course, good government depends on integrity. MM met with a group favoring the change in Stuart's name shortly before this week's meeting and told them unequivocally she would vote in favor of a name change. She did not do so and, in fact, tried to postpone a decision yet again. After this, she'll need to switch parties, because the FCDC will be unlikely to endorse her for any position ever again.

I consider Megan McLaughlin to be one of the worst, if not THE worst, members of the School Board, but even I disagree that this will occur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:imho, that's a cheap shot, to accuse TDK and MM of being "afraid to go against their friends". They spent a lot of time to consider a difficult question. They investigated the process and regulations. They drafted a sound motion - whether you agree or not with the objective, it was well drafted and based on the regulations that the School Board has adopted. They explained their position, reasoning and intentions carefully and respectfully. Their decision to abstain made no difference to the outcome but indicated that they were of a different mind than TW and ES who voted against, and the "friends" who voted for the main resolution.

There's a lot of name calling and judgements being passed that show a basic ignorance about the challenges of being in a position of governing over decisions that are contentious. I give them credit for undertaking to raise issues (fidelity to process and respect for regulations and transparency) that are important to protecting the integrity of the Board and its actions. It took a lot of time and courage to take a stand for something when many are clamoring for an easy fix.

The decision to proceed is now fraught with complication and there will be a contentious debate over the appropriate name. The (new) Superintendent will be distracted by this controversy, to the detriment of the rest of his duties, and the Stuart community will continue to be fractured as they lobby for new names. Most people really don't care that much - as evidenced by the relatively small shows of support for a name change. So, we have a small minority of outraged people whose actions are having a disproportionate negative effect on the whole system. This is most unfortunate.

Good government is based on clear process; inclusive, transparent, equitable - this is the basis for achieving any just resolution to conflicts. The fact that so many on the Board rejected this in favor of an ad hoc approach indicates that respect for governance at the School Board is weak - this is a big problem. Kudos to Ms. Derenak Kaufax and Ms. McLaughlin for raising the concern in a respectful, intelligent and considerate way.

That is why they should have voted against the name change. It was not done properly --and they clearly know that. Even if it is legal, as Ms. Corbett-Sanders indicated, it is still unethical and wrong.

I really think if they had followed the process properly, there would have been a more harmonious result. If the Board really felt there was a compelling need, they could have said so two years ago. Instead, they tried to set it up to have the community say so. I really think Ms. Evans and Ms. Hynes were stunned when the first survey indicated that the community was not in support of it.

And, as we move forward with the name change, it is clear that it will continue to be contentious. Many of the changers have made it clear that they want an African American namesake. I hope they will compromise on a geographical name--which, frankly, FCPS should follow in the future.

The first informal community survey reflected substantial support for a name change - around 35%. I doubt it stunned Pat Hynes and Sany Evans that the percentage was not higher; if anything, they probably were surprised that the percentage was that high. What percentage of the Lake Braddock or Robinson neighborhoods, for example, do you think would vote in favor of a name change at those schools? I bet it would be 5% at most. However, given that it wasn't a statistically rigorous survey and that the reasons given for an against a change hadn't been spelled out, the Board set up a committee to provide further information upon which to make a decision.

The committee was kind of a mess, but that was primarily because (1) FCPS didn't assign a trained mediator to work with the committee and (2) the "keepers" fought tooth and nail to throw as much sand in the gears of the committee as possible to keep it from getting anything accomplished. Predictably, that led to the group's splintering, because others on the committee didn't want to keep wasting their time. Instead, they actually wanted to provide the School Board with additional information, whether it related to reasons for a name change, the results of additional community outreach, or the potential funding mechanisms to pay for the costs.

As for the last point, it's not surprising that, in a county where no high schools are named after women or POC but many are named after white males, there would be support for renaming the school after a black American. However, I'm sure other names will surface as well. What "geographical names" do you favor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, of course, good government depends on integrity. MM met with a group favoring the change in Stuart's name shortly before this week's meeting and told them unequivocally she would vote in favor of a name change. She did not do so and, in fact, tried to postpone a decision yet again. After this, she'll need to switch parties, because the FCDC will be unlikely to endorse her for any position ever again.

I consider Megan McLaughlin to be one of the worst, if not THE worst, members of the School Board, but even I disagree that this will occur.

If people have short memories and just decide to back incumbents, you'll be right. She has pissed off some influential people, however, who've heard about her flip-flop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, of course, good government depends on integrity. MM met with a group favoring the change in Stuart's name shortly before this week's meeting and told them unequivocally she would vote in favor of a name change. She did not do so and, in fact, tried to postpone a decision yet again. After this, she'll need to switch parties, because the FCDC will be unlikely to endorse her for any position ever again.

I consider Megan McLaughlin to be one of the worst, if not THE worst, members of the School Board, but even I disagree that this will occur.

If people have short memories and just decide to back incumbents, you'll be right. She has pissed off some influential people, however, who've heard about her flip-flop.

Braddock District rarely has another candidate running for School Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, of course, good government depends on integrity. MM met with a group favoring the change in Stuart's name shortly before this week's meeting and told them unequivocally she would vote in favor of a name change. She did not do so and, in fact, tried to postpone a decision yet again. After this, she'll need to switch parties, because the FCDC will be unlikely to endorse her for any position ever again.

I consider Megan McLaughlin to be one of the worst, if not THE worst, members of the School Board, but even I disagree that this will occur.

If people have short memories and just decide to back incumbents, you'll be right. She has pissed off some influential people, however, who've heard about her flip-flop.

Braddock District rarely has another candidate running for School Board.

All the more reason why losing the Democratic endorsement could have an impact on her political future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, of course, good government depends on integrity. MM met with a group favoring the change in Stuart's name shortly before this week's meeting and told them unequivocally she would vote in favor of a name change. She did not do so and, in fact, tried to postpone a decision yet again. After this, she'll need to switch parties, because the FCDC will be unlikely to endorse her for any position ever again.

I consider Megan McLaughlin to be one of the worst, if not THE worst, members of the School Board, but even I disagree that this will occur.

If people have short memories and just decide to back incumbents, you'll be right. She has pissed off some influential people, however, who've heard about her flip-flop.

Braddock District rarely has another candidate running for School Board.

All the more reason why losing the Democratic endorsement could have an impact on her political future.

They will need to endorse someone, so Will-She-Ever-Shut-Up Megan is safe.

[Anonymous]

The first informal community survey reflected substantial support for a name change - around 35%. I doubt it stunned Pat Hynes and Sany Evans that the percentage was not higher; if anything, they probably were surprised that the percentage was that high. What percentage of the Lake Braddock or Robinson neighborhoods, for example, do you think would vote in favor of a name change at those schools? I bet it would be 5% at most. However, given that it wasn't a statistically rigorous survey and that the reasons given for an against a change hadn't been spelled out, the Board set up a committee to provide further information upon which to make a decision.

1.Substantial? First, there was poor response--indicating most did not favor a change. Then there was a response of 56% that did not favor a change. How do you get "substantial" out of that?

2.One thing that is substantial is the cost.

3.By juggling with the rules and rewriting the policy to "compelling need" they have opened a real can of worms that will make it hard to deny other schools.
Then the $$$$ and hard feelings will be even more substantial.

[Anonymous]

There are lawyers both on the School Board (Hynes and Moon) and advising the School Board, and they were comfortable that the Board was proceeding within its authority

Yes, Pat Hynes is such a good lawyer that she told the others to take their comments on the change "off line" --I would assume in order to avoid FOIA. Ironic that her comment was caught by FOIA.

And, there is some question to legality. I doubt it will be challenged because it would be time consuming and expensive. And, in any case, there is a big difference between "legal" and "ethical". This process was certainly "unethical."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The first informal community survey reflected substantial support for a name change - around 35%. I doubt it stunned Pat Hynes and Sany Evans that the percentage was not higher; if anything, they probably were surprised that the percentage was that high. What percentage of the Lake Braddock or Robinson neighborhoods, for example, do you think would vote in favor of a name change at those schools? I bet it would be 5% at most. However, given that it wasn't a statistically rigorous survey and that the reasons given for an against a change hadn't been spelled out, the Board set up a committee to provide further information upon which to make a decision.

1.Substantial? First, there was poor response--indicating most did not favor a change. Then there was a response of 56% that did not favor a change. How do you get "substantial" out of that?

2.One thing that is substantial is the cost.

3.By juggling with the rules and rewriting the policy to "compelling need" they have opened a real can of worms that will make it hard to deny other schools.
Then the $$$$ and hard feelings will be even more substantial.

A low response rate speaks more towards a lack of knowledge of the survey than opposition to a change. I think it's substantial because the percentage is obviously much higher than you'd hear at high schools with less controversial or offensive names. But, if you disagree, please feel free to ask for a similar survey at Lake Braddock or Robinson.

The cost is immaterial in the context of the overall budget, and likely to be offset by private contributions, although there's certainly an argument that it ought to be borne entirely by FCPS - which made the original decision to name the school after JEB Stuart with no community input whatsoever.

Contrary to your assertion that the decision to rename Stuart will open a can of worms, the language accompanying the motion went far (perhaps, unnecessarily far) out of its way to distinguish Stuart from other schools, making it harder rather than easier to rename other schools in the future. The "hard feelings" arise from the difficulty that some people have in acknowledging that the School Board considered the interests of current and future minority students as worthy of consideration as those of the community's white residents, which I'm sure comes as a surprise to those used to getting their way all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are lawyers both on the School Board (Hynes and Moon) and advising the School Board, and they were comfortable that the Board was proceeding within its authority

Yes, Pat Hynes is such a good lawyer that she told the others to take their comments on the change "off line" --I would assume in order to avoid FOIA. Ironic that her comment was caught by FOIA.

And, there is some question to legality. I doubt it will be challenged because it would be time consuming and expensive. And, in any case, there is a big difference between "legal" and "ethical". This process was certainly "unethical."

Touche. She should have just her called her colleagues on the phone and told them not to send them any more emails, rather than affirmatively put in writing that they should take it "off line." But that happens all the time in any organization or business that anticipates potential FOIA or discovery requests, and it's hardly illegal to suggest that certain communications should not be put in writing.

In the grand scheme of things, that troubles me far less than McLaughlin misrepresenting her intentions to county residents in person.