BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lynne Harris teared up at the end and choked on her words. Guess she's taking the loss hard.

That's sad. I feel bad for her but it's time for some fresh perspectives.

Funny she was/is a fresh perspective, as she is the one that has been pushing for CTE investment and review of graduation requirements(or at least the courses that would fulfill them). She is the one being up Sustainability initiatives of the system and getting these in front of kids because guess what it’s a growing field.

The white, female, LGBTQ, environmentalist, liberal perspective she represented is not unique or compelling. It's very compelling in MoCo, especially in Silver Spring/Takoma Park.

Besides, that perspective won't be lost on the BOE since Laura Stewart is very much that. So have no fears, sustainability as a focus for the BOE isn't going anywhere. Laura will see to that.

I’ve talked to Laura Stewart in person. Seen her in a forum. Not impressed is an understatement. She may have very good intentions and put in work with PTAs but we’ll have to see if she has what it takes to sit on the BOE which is much more responsibility and has lots of competing interest that are not afraid to be vocal. Budget, Boundaries, Blueprint are going to be a real first test.

Realistically, she's going to speak from her soapbox occasionally, but ultimately vote for whatever admin recommends. She has no experience in addressing competing interests and isn't going to put her neck out on the line by picking winners and losers herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

Why should the Superintendent get more than the teachers? Because nobody would take that job for a teacher salary. Board members should not get paid as much as the Superintendent, but these should be full time positions and paid according to the skills and experience required for the job. These aren't entry level roles ffs.

Its tonedeath that he gets a huge raise and benefits over the previous Superintendent when bus drivers, office staff and para's barely make minimum wage.

Do you think a Superintendent position is comparable to the responsibilities and skills of a bus driver or paraeducator?

I think a bus driver or para is far more important.

That wasn't the question.

But, it's also a ridiculous claim. The potential for harm (or good) on the system from a Superintendent is obviously much higher.

I suspect you're suggesting that we don't need the position, but that's ridiculous, too. There's always someone (or a set of people) serving those functions. And poor pay would increase the chance of those people being bad at their jobs.

The guy has been in the 5 months and nothing has changed or been fixed. This continue to be bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lynne Harris teared up at the end and choked on her words. Guess she's taking the loss hard.

That's sad. I feel bad for her but it's time for some fresh perspectives.

Funny she was/is a fresh perspective, as she is the one that has been pushing for CTE investment and review of graduation requirements(or at least the courses that would fulfill them). She is the one being up Sustainability initiatives of the system and getting these in front of kids because guess what it’s a growing field.

The white, female, LGBTQ, environmentalist, liberal perspective she represented is not unique or compelling. It's very compelling in MoCo, especially in Silver Spring/Takoma Park.

Besides, that perspective won't be lost on the BOE since Laura Stewart is very much that. So have no fears, sustainability as a focus for the BOE isn't going anywhere. Laura will see to that.

Sorry. Meant to say "it's very COMMON in MoCo"

Perspectives which are common in MoCo should be well represented on the BOE.

The loudest voices does not equate to common perspectives. we should have learned that from the general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lynne Harris teared up at the end and choked on her words. Guess she's taking the loss hard.

That's sad. I feel bad for her but it's time for some fresh perspectives.

Funny she was/is a fresh perspective, as she is the one that has been pushing for CTE investment and review of graduation requirements(or at least the courses that would fulfill them). She is the one being up Sustainability initiatives of the system and getting these in front of kids because guess what it’s a growing field.

The white, female, LGBTQ, environmentalist, liberal perspective she represented is not unique or compelling. It's very compelling in MoCo, especially in Silver Spring/Takoma Park.

Besides, that perspective won't be lost on the BOE since Laura Stewart is very much that. So have no fears, sustainability as a focus for the BOE isn't going anywhere. Laura will see to that.

Sorry. Meant to say "it's very COMMON in MoCo"

Perspectives which are common in MoCo should be well represented on the BOE.

The loudest voices does not equate to common perspectives. we should have learned that from the general.

Are you really arguing that liberal perspectives are uncommon in Montgomery County?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

I fail to see how the current crop of BOE nominees is demonstrably worse than the outgoing one.

Lynne Harris, sucked. Smondrowski was sweet and empathetic, but often incoherent and confused. Shebra is also kind and she occasionally spoke on behalf of Black people. But that's it.

What do you think we're at risk of with the incoming BOE? You cannot say budget knowledge and experience because the most offensive and serious fiscal failings happened under Lynne and Shebra's watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

I fail to see how the current crop of BOE nominees is demonstrably worse than the outgoing one.

Lynne Harris, sucked. Smondrowski was sweet and empathetic, but often incoherent and confused. Shebra is also kind and she occasionally spoke on behalf of Black people. But that's it.

What do you think we're at risk of with the incoming BOE? You cannot say budget knowledge and experience because the most offensive and serious fiscal failings happened under Lynne and Shebra's watch.

The big issue is the BOE president. Until she goes nothing will change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

Why should the Superintendent get more than the teachers? Because nobody would take that job for a teacher salary. Board members should not get paid as much as the Superintendent, but these should be full time positions and paid according to the skills and experience required for the job. These aren't entry level roles ffs.

Its tonedeath that he gets a huge raise and benefits over the previous Superintendent when bus drivers, office staff and para's barely make minimum wage.

Do you think a Superintendent position is comparable to the responsibilities and skills of a bus driver or paraeducator?

I think a bus driver or para is far more important.

That wasn't the question.

But, it's also a ridiculous claim. The potential for harm (or good) on the system from a Superintendent is obviously much higher.

I suspect you're suggesting that we don't need the position, but that's ridiculous, too. There's always someone (or a set of people) serving those functions. And poor pay would increase the chance of those people being bad at their jobs.

The guy has been in the 5 months and nothing has changed or been fixed. This continue to be bad.

You should definitely testify at the next meeting that we should fire him and hire whoever bids the lowest for the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

I fail to see how the current crop of BOE nominees is demonstrably worse than the outgoing one.

Lynne Harris, sucked. Smondrowski was sweet and empathetic, but often incoherent and confused. Shebra is also kind and she occasionally spoke on behalf of Black people. But that's it.

What do you think we're at risk of with the incoming BOE? You cannot say budget knowledge and experience because the most offensive and serious fiscal failings happened under Lynne and Shebra's watch.

The big issue is the BOE president. Until she goes nothing will change.

The board president doesn't really have any extra power. I know you think there's some massive Montgomery College conspiracy, but you really need to get out more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

I fail to see how the current crop of BOE nominees is demonstrably worse than the outgoing one.

Lynne Harris, sucked. Smondrowski was sweet and empathetic, but often incoherent and confused. Shebra is also kind and she occasionally spoke on behalf of Black people. But that's it.

What do you think we're at risk of with the incoming BOE? You cannot say budget knowledge and experience because the most offensive and serious fiscal failings happened under Lynne and Shebra's watch.

The big issue is the BOE president. Until she goes nothing will change.

The members will choose their new president next month. My prediction: Wolff or Yang.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

I fail to see how the current crop of BOE nominees is demonstrably worse than the outgoing one.

Lynne Harris, sucked. Smondrowski was sweet and empathetic, but often incoherent and confused. Shebra is also kind and she occasionally spoke on behalf of Black people. But that's it.

What do you think we're at risk of with the incoming BOE? You cannot say budget knowledge and experience because the most offensive and serious fiscal failings happened under Lynne and Shebra's watch.

The big issue is the BOE president. Until she goes nothing will change.

I do agree Karla as BOE president sucks. She has the personality of a wet blanket and she tries to project a judicial posture, but she comes off more like a heartless gargoyle. She needs to go back to whatever it is she does at Montgomery College.