BOE - who are people voting for?

[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.

What a strange statement about people that haven't done *anything.*

[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.

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.

I think Wolff has been president before. But I guess she could serve as president again.

I like Julie but not sure I can see her as BOE president. She's smart and sometimes asks good questions, but she lacks the presence to be the BOE president, IMO.

Our other option is Grace Rivera-Oven but she's too sloppy to be BOE president too.

Are any of the incoming candidates eligible to be BOE president? My guess is no, but just not sure what the rules dictate.

[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:

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.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

[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.

What a strange statement about people that haven't done *anything.*

I've worked with her in the MCCPTA. She went along with MCPS's BS more than once.

[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:

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.

I think Wolff has been president before. But I guess she could serve as president again.

I like Julie but not sure I can see her as BOE president. She's smart and sometimes asks good questions, but she lacks the presence to be the BOE president, IMO.

Our other option is Grace Rivera-Oven but she's too sloppy to be BOE president too.

Are any of the incoming candidates eligible to be BOE president? My guess is no, but just not sure what the rules dictate.

Yes, Wolff has been president before, and can be again. The rules don't dictate that new members can't be president, but I think that's very unlikely.

[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:

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.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

[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.

Montoya is a dud. Stewart has never seen a program that she didn't want to fund. Zimmerman is going to stick to MCEA's position of across-the-board salary increases for all positions, which frankly we can't afford.

And I think there's a strong chance that Zimmerman is going to try to cut instructional hours.

[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:

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.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

[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:

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.

I think Wolff has been president before. But I guess she could serve as president again.

I like Julie but not sure I can see her as BOE president. She's smart and sometimes asks good questions, but she lacks the presence to be the BOE president, IMO.

Our other option is Grace Rivera-Oven but she's too sloppy to be BOE president too.

Are any of the incoming candidates eligible to be BOE president? My guess is no, but just not sure what the rules dictate.

Rivera-Oven has often been absent or virtual at meetings. I don't know if she has the time to be president.

[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.

Montoya is a dud. Stewart has never seen a program that she didn't want to fund. Zimmerman is going to stick to MCEA's position of across-the-board salary increases for all positions, which frankly we can't afford.

And I think there's a strong chance that Zimmerman is going to try to cut instructional hours.

I'm going to set aside whether I agree with any of your assertions about the incoming candidates. But how even if they were, how are they WORSE than the outgoing BOE members who:

- Bungled in selecting McKnight as Superintendent even after the MCEA voted no-confidence in her
- Ignored messages from teachers about Beidleman's misconduct and "enthusiastically" voted to confirm him as principal of Paint Branch
- Fumbled in ousting her, costing the county and school system millions in a payout to prematurely end her term rather than waiting out the rest of the school year
- Botched in naming Felder as interim superintendent as many people pointed out problems with HER appointment as well
- Blew it with cutting, funding and unfunding the MVA
- Got reamed by the County Council for overly redacting the Jackson-Lewis report and then releasing a less redacted version of the report 24 hours before the Council hearing
- Allowed the misguided EV contract to happen and failed to hold MCPS's feet to the fire for enforcement of the contract when its vendor failed to meet the terms
- Allowed fiscal mismanagement of the EBP fund to the tune of 10s of millions of dollars
- Allowed Seth Adams to phase the Woodward and Northwood construction projects to move forward with missing elements like auditoriums and atheltic fields, leading to mass protests
- Allowed the first school shooting to happen in MCPS history with Magruder and failed to security shift its security strategy after the incident
- Ignited ongoing protests by forcing LGBTQ content into ELA curriculum prompting outrage and protest
- Paid millions of dollars for an antiracism audit and action plan that it has failed to do anything with

And I'm just gonna stop there cause I'm tired of typing. Again: What exactly do you think we're losing by shedding Shebra, Lynne and Rebecca? They did a poor job of providing oversight of MCPS and deserved to go.

[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:

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.

I think Wolff has been president before. But I guess she could serve as president again.

I like Julie but not sure I can see her as BOE president. She's smart and sometimes asks good questions, but she lacks the presence to be the BOE president, IMO.

Our other option is Grace Rivera-Oven but she's too sloppy to be BOE president too.

Are any of the incoming candidates eligible to be BOE president? My guess is no, but just not sure what the rules dictate.

Rivera-Oven has often been absent or virtual at meetings. I don't know if she has the time to be president.

True. It seems like she's barely hanging on, but then again, it's a part-time job so I can't say I blame her for juggling priorities.

[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.

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.

Montoya is a dud. Stewart has never seen a program that she didn't want to fund. Zimmerman is going to stick to MCEA's position of across-the-board salary increases for all positions, which frankly we can't afford.

And I think there's a strong chance that Zimmerman is going to try to cut instructional hours.

I'm going to set aside whether I agree with any of your assertions about the incoming candidates. But how even if they were, how are they WORSE than the outgoing BOE members who:

- Bungled in selecting McKnight as Superintendent even after the MCEA voted no-confidence in her
- Ignored messages from teachers about Beidleman's misconduct and "enthusiastically" voted to confirm him as principal of Paint Branch
- Fumbled in ousting her, costing the county and school system millions in a payout to prematurely end her term rather than waiting out the rest of the school year
- Botched in naming Felder as interim superintendent as many people pointed out problems with HER appointment as well
- Blew it with cutting, funding and unfunding the MVA
- Got reamed by the County Council for overly redacting the Jackson-Lewis report and then releasing a less redacted version of the report 24 hours before the Council hearing
- Allowed the misguided EV contract to happen and failed to hold MCPS's feet to the fire for enforcement of the contract when its vendor failed to meet the terms
- Allowed fiscal mismanagement of the EBP fund to the tune of 10s of millions of dollars
- Allowed Seth Adams to phase the Woodward and Northwood construction projects to move forward with missing elements like auditoriums and atheltic fields, leading to mass protests
- Allowed the first school shooting to happen in MCPS history with Magruder and failed to security shift its security strategy after the incident
- Ignited ongoing protests by forcing LGBTQ content into ELA curriculum prompting outrage and protest
- Paid millions of dollars for an antiracism audit and action plan that it has failed to do anything with

And I'm just gonna stop there cause I'm tired of typing. Again: What exactly do you think we're losing by shedding Shebra, Lynne and Rebecca? They did a poor job of providing oversight of MCPS and deserved to go.

Several of those are ridiculous. McKnight was the obvious heir apparent, and the no-confidence votes were simply staff complaining about schools being open. It's absurd to expect the Board to be their own own actuaries to know the health care plan was being underfunded, nor could their frisk students going into schools for weapons. MVA played out mostly as expected. It was never likely to go on after covid relief funds expired, and it barely squeaked by in their initial proposed budget. Of course it was going to be a one of their cuts when their full request wasn't funded.

You could complain about a lot of things with the Board, but most of your list wouldn't have played out differently under anyone else.

[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:

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.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

[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.

Montoya is a dud. Stewart has never seen a program that she didn't want to fund. Zimmerman is going to stick to MCEA's position of across-the-board salary increases for all positions, which frankly we can't afford.

And I think there's a strong chance that Zimmerman is going to try to cut instructional hours.

We can afford it and more if MCPS managed the money properly. The lower level employees deserve raises.

[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:

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.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

They were thinking rationally that the current board has failed MCPS and needed to go.