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:

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.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

[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:

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.

It's not rational to blindly vote against someone without considering how bad the person you're voting for is. That's just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[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:

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.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

[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.

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

Yes, we should be prioritizing pay for entry-level positions and those most hard-to-fill. That should be the focus for pay, not English teachers making $100k.

[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.

The Maryland State Department of Education mandates the number of instructional hours for public schools in Maryland.

[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.

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

The reality is that we don't have enough money for everything that everyone wants to do. MVA was an incredibly small niche with a corresponding priority 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:

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.

The Maryland State Department of Education mandates the number of instructional hours for public schools in Maryland.

Yes, and we have more than that. Do you think we should cut it back to the legal minimum?

[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:

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.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

[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.

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.

If you believe most of what I listed would not have played out differently, then you are part of the problem and I’m you’re mad that the incumbents were booted.

Rather than complaining that voters wiped the slate clean, why don’t you help Shebra, Lynne and Rebecca find something else to do with their newfound free time.

[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.

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.

The reality is that we don't have enough money for everything that everyone wants to do. MVA was an incredibly small niche with a corresponding priority level.

We do, and the MVA played an important role in MCPS and a good number of those have left or are not getting an education. When kids leave, MCPS loses money.

[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:

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.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

[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.

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.

The Maryland State Department of Education mandates the number of instructional hours for public schools in Maryland.

Yes, and we have more than that. Do you think we should cut it back to the legal minimum?

They cannot cut it back with snow days and mandates. You are making up stuff to create drama. Go back to X.

[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.

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.

The Maryland State Department of Education mandates the number of instructional hours for public schools in Maryland.

Yes, and we have more than that. Do you think we should cut it back to the legal minimum?

They cannot cut it back with snow days and mandates. You are making up stuff to create drama. Go back to X.

You're wrong. They can't cut days, but we're well over the hour requirement. So they could add early release days. And they could try to lobby the state to allow non-instructional snow days, as MCEA supported in the past.

[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:

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.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

[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:

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.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.