Taylor: “What’s the Worst That Could Happen? They Fire Me?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster who is fighting every single person who thinks Taylor’s actions are a bad look for him needs serious help.

I hope you’re a close friend or family member, given how furiously you’re defending him.

I'm this poster. I have never met the man.

I have not defended him or his actions on this thread until it came to the topic of the letter he issued regarding the safety of schools in the current environment and the assertion that it was appropriate or "picking a fight."

The letter followed established protocols for communicating with local leaders. It commended them for their service during a difficult and dangerous time, asked for their partnership, shared detailed information about plans for dealing with immigration enforcement, updated them on communications by both him and the BOE to staff and the community, and asked them to follow safety protocols set out about visitors to schools. It said in bold "We want you in our schools and we want you to visit regularly." It asked them to stay in communication about visits and respect processes, protocols and policies.

I understand that Taylor is doing a lot of things that people disagree with, and with good reason. But again, I think it is important to maintain some clarity of message in opposition. Expanding the vitriol to a letter about school and student safety protocols in this environment is counterproductive. There is a much bigger picture here.

This response would make sense if Mink herself had not literally responded, saying the letter could only have applied to her, that she took offense and pointed out that despite what the letter implies, that she was following protocol and collaborating with school leadership.

You are doubling down on why this letter is not passive-aggressive or offensive to elected official, even as an elected official is literally saying she was offended by Taylor’s veiled accusations and words.

This is why people are asking if you are an agent of Taylor because you are engaging in reality distortion.

PP here. I don't agree that Mink's response is determinative here.

She herself is an elected politician with a motivation and point of view, that is clearly different from Taylor's. And she also benefits from creating press around her actions, as she is actively campaigning for reelection.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

She above on how Mink's response is not determinative as to the intent or appropriateness of the letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster who is fighting every single person who thinks Taylor’s actions are a bad look for him needs serious help.

I hope you’re a close friend or family member, given how furiously you’re defending him.

I'm this poster. I have never met the man.

I have not defended him or his actions on this thread until it came to the topic of the letter he issued regarding the safety of schools in the current environment and the assertion that it was appropriate or "picking a fight."

The letter followed established protocols for communicating with local leaders. It commended them for their service during a difficult and dangerous time, asked for their partnership, shared detailed information about plans for dealing with immigration enforcement, updated them on communications by both him and the BOE to staff and the community, and asked them to follow safety protocols set out about visitors to schools. It said in bold "We want you in our schools and we want you to visit regularly." It asked them to stay in communication about visits and respect processes, protocols and policies.

I understand that Taylor is doing a lot of things that people disagree with, and with good reason. But again, I think it is important to maintain some clarity of message in opposition. Expanding the vitriol to a letter about school and student safety protocols in this environment is counterproductive. There is a much bigger picture here.

This response would make sense if Mink herself had not literally responded, saying the letter could only have applied to her, that she took offense and pointed out that despite what the letter implies, that she was following protocol and collaborating with school leadership.

You are doubling down on why this letter is not passive-aggressive or offensive to elected official, even as an elected official is literally saying she was offended by Taylor’s veiled accusations and words.

This is why people are asking if you are an agent of Taylor because you are engaging in reality distortion.

PP here. I don't agree that Mink's response is determinative here.

She herself is an elected politician with a motivation and point of view, that is clearly different from Taylor's. And she also benefits from creating press around her actions, as she is actively campaigning for reelection.

Kristin Mink is basically running unopposed. A last-minute, first-time candidate filed on Tuesday, but he has no shot at beating her as a well-known, popular incumbent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster who is fighting every single person who thinks Taylor’s actions are a bad look for him needs serious help.

I hope you’re a close friend or family member, given how furiously you’re defending him.

I'm this poster. I have never met the man.

I have not defended him or his actions on this thread until it came to the topic of the letter he issued regarding the safety of schools in the current environment and the assertion that it was appropriate or "picking a fight."

The letter followed established protocols for communicating with local leaders. It commended them for their service during a difficult and dangerous time, asked for their partnership, shared detailed information about plans for dealing with immigration enforcement, updated them on communications by both him and the BOE to staff and the community, and asked them to follow safety protocols set out about visitors to schools. It said in bold "We want you in our schools and we want you to visit regularly." It asked them to stay in communication about visits and respect processes, protocols and policies.

I understand that Taylor is doing a lot of things that people disagree with, and with good reason. But again, I think it is important to maintain some clarity of message in opposition. Expanding the vitriol to a letter about school and student safety protocols in this environment is counterproductive. There is a much bigger picture here.

This response would make sense if Mink herself had not literally responded, saying the letter could only have applied to her, that she took offense and pointed out that despite what the letter implies, that she was following protocol and collaborating with school leadership.

You are doubling down on why this letter is not passive-aggressive or offensive to elected official, even as an elected official is literally saying she was offended by Taylor’s veiled accusations and words.

This is why people are asking if you are an agent of Taylor because you are engaging in reality distortion.

PP here. I don't agree that Mink's response is determinative here.

She herself is an elected politician with a motivation and point of view, that is clearly different from Taylor's. And she also benefits from creating press around her actions, as she is actively campaigning for reelection.

Kristin Mink is basically running unopposed. A last-minute, first-time candidate filed on Tuesday, but he has no shot at beating her as a well-known, popular incumbent.

Yeah you may not like her but please don't vote for that dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

She above on how Mink's response is not determinative as to the intent or appropriateness of the letter.

An elected official’s negative response to a passive-aggressive letter from the superintendent is not determinative to a debate and discussion on whether the superintendent should have sent such a letter to elected officials given that the tone and content of the letter was likely to elicit precisely the negative response in front of us from an elected official?

That makes sense to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

She above on how Mink's response is not determinative as to the intent or appropriateness of the letter.

An elected official’s negative response to a passive-aggressive letter from the superintendent is not determinative to a debate and discussion on whether the superintendent should have sent such a letter to elected officials given that the tone and content of the letter was likely to elicit precisely the negative response in front of us from an elected official?

That makes sense to you?

DP. I saw Mink's comments as pretty measured, actually. People claiming she said she felt attacked or targeted are overstating things and putting words in her mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

She above on how Mink's response is not determinative as to the intent or appropriateness of the letter.

An elected official’s negative response to a passive-aggressive letter from the superintendent is not determinative to a debate and discussion on whether the superintendent should have sent such a letter to elected officials given that the tone and content of the letter was likely to elicit precisely the negative response in front of us from an elected official?

That makes sense to you?

DP. I saw Mink's comments as pretty measured, actually. People claiming she said she felt attacked or targeted are overstating things and putting words in her mouth.

While Mink was measured, she was very clear that she did believe Taylor was addressing her, as she called it a “thinly veiled reference” to her activities.

She used the words “disappointing” and “counterproductive.”

And then she was defiant that she would continue doing what she has been doing.

No one is putting words in her mouth.

It’s clear she felt confused by the message, since she felt she had not been doing anything wrong, and she felt she was likely the elected official he was referencing, since she could not think of any other elected officials his letter could be addressing.

If she didn’t feel attacked, she would have said as much and she would not have offered all of the color and commentary that she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

She above on how Mink's response is not determinative as to the intent or appropriateness of the letter.

An elected official’s negative response to a passive-aggressive letter from the superintendent is not determinative to a debate and discussion on whether the superintendent should have sent such a letter to elected officials given that the tone and content of the letter was likely to elicit precisely the negative response in front of us from an elected official?

That makes sense to you?

I'm not sure how to parse this. The question is whether it was appropriate. In how you state the question you already conclude it was not.

But no, one person's opinion on the matter is not determinative. That makes complete sense to me. I'm actually confused as to why you think it would be determinative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

She above on how Mink's response is not determinative as to the intent or appropriateness of the letter.

An elected official’s negative response to a passive-aggressive letter from the superintendent is not determinative to a debate and discussion on whether the superintendent should have sent such a letter to elected officials given that the tone and content of the letter was likely to elicit precisely the negative response in front of us from an elected official?

That makes sense to you?

DP. I saw Mink's comments as pretty measured, actually. People claiming she said she felt attacked or targeted are overstating things and putting words in her mouth.

While Mink was measured, she was very clear that she did believe Taylor was addressing her, as she called it a “thinly veiled reference” to her activities.

She used the words “disappointing” and “counterproductive.”

And then she was defiant that she would continue doing what she has been doing.

No one is putting words in her mouth.

It’s clear she felt confused by the message, since she felt she had not been doing anything wrong, and she felt she was likely the elected official he was referencing, since she could not think of any other elected officials his letter could be addressing.

If she didn’t feel attacked, she would have said as much and she would not have offered all of the color and commentary that she did.

Maybe semantics, but there is a difference between being or feeling "attacked" and receiving a letter asking that people in general not do something that you yourself have been doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

She above on how Mink's response is not determinative as to the intent or appropriateness of the letter.

An elected official’s negative response to a passive-aggressive letter from the superintendent is not determinative to a debate and discussion on whether the superintendent should have sent such a letter to elected officials given that the tone and content of the letter was likely to elicit precisely the negative response in front of us from an elected official?

That makes sense to you?

DP. I saw Mink's comments as pretty measured, actually. People claiming she said she felt attacked or targeted are overstating things and putting words in her mouth.

While Mink was measured, she was very clear that she did believe Taylor was addressing her, as she called it a “thinly veiled reference” to her activities.

She used the words “disappointing” and “counterproductive.”

And then she was defiant that she would continue doing what she has been doing.

No one is putting words in her mouth.

It’s clear she felt confused by the message, since she felt she had not been doing anything wrong, and she felt she was likely the elected official he was referencing, since she could not think of any other elected officials his letter could be addressing.

If she didn’t feel attacked, she would have said as much and she would not have offered all of the color and commentary that she did.

You left out her "if" and "then."

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

She above on how Mink's response is not determinative as to the intent or appropriateness of the letter.

An elected official’s negative response to a passive-aggressive letter from the superintendent is not determinative to a debate and discussion on whether the superintendent should have sent such a letter to elected officials given that the tone and content of the letter was likely to elicit precisely the negative response in front of us from an elected official?

That makes sense to you?

DP. I saw Mink's comments as pretty measured, actually. People claiming she said she felt attacked or targeted are overstating things and putting words in her mouth.

While Mink was measured, she was very clear that she did believe Taylor was addressing her, as she called it a “thinly veiled reference” to her activities.

She used the words “disappointing” and “counterproductive.”

And then she was defiant that she would continue doing what she has been doing.

No one is putting words in her mouth.

It’s clear she felt confused by the message, since she felt she had not been doing anything wrong, and she felt she was likely the elected official he was referencing, since she could not think of any other elected officials his letter could be addressing.

If she didn’t feel attacked, she would have said as much and she would not have offered all of the color and commentary that she did.

Maybe semantics, but there is a difference between being or feeling "attacked" and receiving a letter asking that people in general not do something that you yourself have been doing.

Yes, you are debating semantics and splitting hairs and it’s performative and exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

She above on how Mink's response is not determinative as to the intent or appropriateness of the letter.

An elected official’s negative response to a passive-aggressive letter from the superintendent is not determinative to a debate and discussion on whether the superintendent should have sent such a letter to elected officials given that the tone and content of the letter was likely to elicit precisely the negative response in front of us from an elected official?

That makes sense to you?

DP. I saw Mink's comments as pretty measured, actually. People claiming she said she felt attacked or targeted are overstating things and putting words in her mouth.

While Mink was measured, she was very clear that she did believe Taylor was addressing her, as she called it a “thinly veiled reference” to her activities.

She used the words “disappointing” and “counterproductive.”

And then she was defiant that she would continue doing what she has been doing.

No one is putting words in her mouth.

It’s clear she felt confused by the message, since she felt she had not been doing anything wrong, and she felt she was likely the elected official he was referencing, since she could not think of any other elected officials his letter could be addressing.

If she didn’t feel attacked, she would have said as much and she would not have offered all of the color and commentary that she did.

You left out her "if" and "then."

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

Yes, the “if” and “then” was her way of being measured. And her use of those words, paired with the other more directly negative ones, matched the passive-aggressive tone of the letter and MCPS’s denial that the letter was targeted at any elected official in particular.

It’s almost like you missed the bits about subtext when you were taught reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

I see that Mink "said she followed district protocol by checking in with school staff." But both the old McKnight protocol and the new Taylor protocol have more steps than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with analyzing intent behind these emails and letters tells me everything I need to know about the dysfunction in this area. Quick to jump to conclusions (normal - aren’t we all?) but lacking the skills to consider alternative explanations. Let’s work on the latter.

A lighthearted, albeit slightly snarky email has turned your world upside down. Was it the best? No but it really doesn’t deserve this much thought and debate. I’m about 50-50 on Taylor right now. This email shouldn’t be the straw that breaks the camels back.

For the letter, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I prefer do. We are in a very difficult time re: immigration issues and I would prefer consistent training across MCPS so everyone employed by MCPS is at least informed and trained on what to actually do. It is an extremely large population to keep consistent on stuff like this and it is so critical to the safety of our students and staff. There are plenty of other things that are this important too - this is just at the forefront of minds right now for good reason.

Mink doesn’t even really seem to think it’s about her anyways based on that quote - she has followed all procedures. Sure she says a little more but I’ve said plenty of things that don’t mean I actually feel attacked.

Some people are really reaching here. It could be any number of things. What if, someone like Mink, wanted to provide a similar service to the community but is not aware of all the proper rules to actually do it? What if someone tried to schedule something without following every procedure, a principal reached out, and then MCPS thought: well now we are getting more of this, let’s bring visibility back to the procedure. So that thing didn’t even get scheduled yet (or is still being worked on behind the scenes) and could be scheduled when proper procedures are followed, but none of us are privy to it because we have only seen Mink so that is where people are jumping to.

What if someone complained about Mink providing this service, thinking it should only be MCPS - even though she got it cleared? I could totally see a principal blocking this from occurring if they aren’t aware it’s allowed.

If it was for Mink only, sure, he could and should connect with her directly. I would still argue that it’s fine to then spread the information more widely as well. But there are so many other reasonable explanations besides it being a passive aggressive attack at her. Which it still could be.

You are engaging in reality distortion.

These are Mink’s words:

Her POV that Taylor’s words could apply to any other elected official other than her

Mink, who is a member of the council’s Education and Culture Committee, told Bethesda Today on Thursday she wasn’t aware of anyone else who was “holding information sessions specifically about immigration, you know, these kind of the large-scale sessions that I have been doing.”

Her POV that she did follow appropriate protocols and is surprised at Taylor making an issue of this since he attended one of her sessions

Mink said she has worked with staff unions and slideshows she shared in information sessions were approved by MCPS. Also, Taylor attended one of her information sessions, she said.

Her acknowledgment that the letter appeared to be a passive-aggressive, veiled dig at her and the work she’s been doing, and how disappointed she is in Taylor responding that way.

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

So again, all of the pretzel logic arguing how Taylor’s letter isn’t passive-aggressive and isn’t attacking elected officials doesn’t make sense when an elected official is saying she believes the letter was a “thinly veiled reference” to her serving her constituents and that she is disappointed and finds the letter “counterproductive.”

She above on how Mink's response is not determinative as to the intent or appropriateness of the letter.

An elected official’s negative response to a passive-aggressive letter from the superintendent is not determinative to a debate and discussion on whether the superintendent should have sent such a letter to elected officials given that the tone and content of the letter was likely to elicit precisely the negative response in front of us from an elected official?

That makes sense to you?

DP. I saw Mink's comments as pretty measured, actually. People claiming she said she felt attacked or targeted are overstating things and putting words in her mouth.

While Mink was measured, she was very clear that she did believe Taylor was addressing her, as she called it a “thinly veiled reference” to her activities.

She used the words “disappointing” and “counterproductive.”

And then she was defiant that she would continue doing what she has been doing.

No one is putting words in her mouth.

It’s clear she felt confused by the message, since she felt she had not been doing anything wrong, and she felt she was likely the elected official he was referencing, since she could not think of any other elected officials his letter could be addressing.

If she didn’t feel attacked, she would have said as much and she would not have offered all of the color and commentary that she did.

You left out her "if" and "then."

Mink noted Thursday that she wasn’t named in the letter and couldn’t say what prompted the district to send it.

“If this letter is a thinly veiled reference to the work that I have been doing, then I absolutely find it inappropriate and counterproductive and disappointing,” she said.

Yes, the “if” and “then” was her way of being measured. And her use of those words, paired with the other more directly negative ones, matched the passive-aggressive tone of the letter and MCPS’s denial that the letter was targeted at any elected official in particular.

It’s almost like you missed the bits about subtext when you were taught reading comprehension.

You're entitled to your own theories, but others can disagree.