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

[Anonymous]

Hynes practiced law for one year - insufficient time to understand the dduties of a public servant to conduct the public's business transparently and impartially. Moon and Wilson practice law.

The process was not conducted in compliance with Regulation 8170.7. Technically, a Regulation is put in place by the Superintendent and applies to him and his staff. Policies are statements by the Board. So John Foster (counsel to the Board and to the Division - an unusual arrangement with possible conflicts of interest), determined something about the freedom of the Board to act outside of the constraints of the Regulation. While possibly "legal", this is the kind of self-serving distinction that discredits the Board's oft-vaunted commitment to transparency and accountability - fidelity to process is the term that Ms. McLaughlin and Ms. Derenak-Kaufax used. Adherence to process is important. The WaPo editorialized last week about the importance of adherence to process in lambasting the Trump administration. Credibility and integrity and trust are lost when the Board acts without reliance on procedures and process. This is the unfortunate outcome here. Emotional appeals and assertions win the day - but we haven't seen a definition of "compelling need", we haven't seen what is "sufficient interest" and we don't know what "community" we should be listening to... It was interesting to hear Mr. Hanson testify at the Board meeting against the name change - and he was the only "black person" to testify.

So we have a Board that does what it wants to, without restraint or logic or process. As long as the outcome is aligned with your interests this seems to be good. But when the tables turn, the lack of recourse, process and accountability leave you without recourse. The rule of law is most important for those with little power - and they should be most careful, mindful, to ensure that it is strictly observed and honored. The powerful will act without constraint if the rule of law doesn't operate.

So, Ms. McLaughlin and Ms. Derenak-Kaufax were acting to protect the institution. It is completely clear that the name would be changed in any event. The only difference is that we now have a group of advocates who feel that they were cheated. This will unnecessarily complicate the reconciliation process.

btw, any "influential" people in Fairfax who don't see the effort, the integrity and the good intent of Ms. McLaughlin and Ms. Derenak -Kaufax are people who are not contributing to the good of our community. It's easy to threaten, spout, assert - it's significantly harder to actually get in the game and contribute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hynes practiced law for one year - insufficient time to understand the dduties of a public servant to conduct the public's business transparently and impartially. Moon and Wilson practice law.

The process was not conducted in compliance with Regulation 8170.7. Technically, a Regulation is put in place by the Superintendent and applies to him and his staff. Policies are statements by the Board. So John Foster (counsel to the Board and to the Division - an unusual arrangement with possible conflicts of interest), determined something about the freedom of the Board to act outside of the constraints of the Regulation. While possibly "legal", this is the kind of self-serving distinction that discredits the Board's oft-vaunted commitment to transparency and accountability - fidelity to process is the term that Ms. McLaughlin and Ms. Derenak-Kaufax used. Adherence to process is important. The WaPo editorialized last week about the importance of adherence to process in lambasting the Trump administration. Credibility and integrity and trust are lost when the Board acts without reliance on procedures and process. This is the unfortunate outcome here. Emotional appeals and assertions win the day - but we haven't seen a definition of "compelling need", we haven't seen what is "sufficient interest" and we don't know what "community" we should be listening to... It was interesting to hear Mr. Hanson testify at the Board meeting against the name change - and he was the only "black person" to testify.

So we have a Board that does what it wants to, without restraint or logic or process. As long as the outcome is aligned with your interests this seems to be good. But when the tables turn, the lack of recourse, process and accountability leave you without recourse. The rule of law is most important for those with little power - and they should be most careful, mindful, to ensure that it is strictly observed and honored. The powerful will act without constraint if the rule of law doesn't operate.

So, Ms. McLaughlin and Ms. Derenak-Kaufax were acting to protect the institution. It is completely clear that the name would be changed in any event. The only difference is that we now have a group of advocates who feel that they were cheated. This will unnecessarily complicate the reconciliation process.

btw, any "influential" people in Fairfax who don't see the effort, the integrity and the good intent of Ms. McLaughlin and Ms. Derenak -Kaufax are people who are not contributing to the good of our community. It's easy to threaten, spout, assert - it's significantly harder to actually get in the game and contribute.

More babble. It's the legal training that's most relevant here to understanding legal obligations, not how long one practiced with a private corporate law firm in New York City that specializes in transactional work.

It's ironic that people complaining about the costs of a name change would then advocate for either requiring separate legal counsel for the School Board and FCPS staff or filing a lawsuit against the School Board that is sure to lose, but would consume FCPS and county resources. Moreover, unless Mr. Foster or you are breaching the attorney-client privilege, which ought to subject you to disciplinary action, you don't know what legal advice he provided.

After two years, the suggestion that FCPS should spend more time on a matter that is squarely within the School Board's discretion simply reflects a name change opponent's desire to delay the decision yet again - comparable to Ms. Schultz's squeals that FCPS should wait until after the special election to replace the School Board member who departed, although the School Board clearly has a quorum to do business and she apparently was not asking the School Board to delay action on other items until after Ms. Hough's replacement was elected. Those who oppose the name change would not be satisfied with that decision under any scenario that exists on this planet, because their anger, at its core, has nothing to do with the School Board's processes, and everything to do with their feeling that their own privileges and memories were being ascribed less weight than the interests of current and future minority students at what they were used to thinking of as "their school." Because they so desperately wanted to avoid taking a stand, TDK and MM tried to kick the can down the road yet again, but in doing so they aligned themselves with a group that includes in its ranks a significant number of racist, bigoted neo-Confederates. That will have consequences for their political futures in this county, as well it should.

[Anonymous]

I was so happy to hear that Fairfax County was changing the name of this school. It makes me feel like, even in this awful era of Donald Trump, people can still take small steps towards progress.

[Anonymous]

44% in favor of a name change is certainly "substantial."

If the regulations wanted "majority" support, they could have easily used the word "majority" or "predominant." The regulation says "substantial" -- which means something greater than de minimus or fringe.

Definition of substantial: considerable importance, size, or worth.

Certainly 44% support is "considerable" support. While "substantial" does not indicate a specific numeric value, I would suggest it is something at least 20% or so. It is a gray area, but I do not think there is any doubt that 44% is quite "substantial."

[Anonymous]

Because they so desperately wanted to avoid taking a stand, TDK and MM tried to kick the can down the road yet again, but in doing so they aligned themselves with a group that includes in its ranks a significant number of racist, bigoted neo-Confederates. That will have consequences for their political futures in this county, as well it should.

It is statements like this that make your case destructive. It waters down the meaning of "racist".

If you cannot understand why people do not want to spend almost a million dollars to change the name of a school, and must fall back on calling "racist", you have a lot to learn. This is why the "keepers" were so offended. The changers should have made their case without calling "racism".
The case could have been made without that tone.

It demeans your cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:44% in favor of a name change is certainly "substantial."

If the regulations wanted "majority" support, they could have easily used the word "majority" or "predominant." The regulation says "substantial" -- which means something greater than de minimus or fringe.

Definition of substantial: considerable importance, size, or worth.

Certainly 44% support is "considerable" support. While "substantial" does not indicate a specific numeric value, I would suggest it is something at least 20% or so. It is a gray area, but I do not think there is any doubt that 44% is quite "substantial."

But, an even more substantial number did not want the name change. And, where do you get the 44%?

[Anonymous]

The real travesty is the horrible educational outcomes at Stewart. Not a freakin name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:44% in favor of a name change is certainly "substantial."

If the regulations wanted "majority" support, they could have easily used the word "majority" or "predominant." The regulation says "substantial" -- which means something greater than de minimus or fringe.

Definition of substantial: considerable importance, size, or worth.

Certainly 44% support is "considerable" support. While "substantial" does not indicate a specific numeric value, I would suggest it is something at least 20% or so. It is a gray area, but I do not think there is any doubt that 44% is quite "substantial."

But, an even more substantial number did not want the name change. And, where do you get the 44%?

PP mentioned that 56% didn't want to change it (according to a survey PP referenced). I just did the math -- assuming that everyone in the survey chose either "for" or "against". True, that an even more substantial number of survey responders didn't want to change. A "majority" is not required by the regulations. Typically, when civil rights of a minority are involved (in other situations), the majority (i.e. predominant) group doesn't see a need for change. If all civil rights issues required a majority, we wouldn't have made much progress in this country.

At any rate, I think "majority" is a common enough concept that if the regulation writers thought that it was important for most people to want a change, they would have required a majority approval. They did not require a "majority." So, it is up to the school board to determine what a "substantial" amount of support is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real travesty is the horrible educational outcomes at Stewart. Not a freakin name.

Well, maybe a rebranding effort is a start at creating a new outcome. I don't have a lot of hope, but who knows.

[Anonymous]

PP mentioned that 56% didn't want to change it (according to a survey PP referenced). I just did the math -- assuming that everyone in the survey chose either "for" or "against". True, that an even more substantial number of survey responders didn't want to change. A "majority" is not required by the regulations. Typically, when civil rights of a minority are involved (in other situations), the majority (i.e. predominant) group doesn't see a need for change. If all civil rights issues required a majority, we wouldn't have made much progress in this country.

Well, you need to pay a little more attention.

It was about 36% who voted for the change--have you ever heard of those who don't care? The survey also included erroneous information--such as that the school was named because of integration and massive resistance. This has falsely been repeated over and over by "changers" and media--even though there is no evidence of this, and, in fact, there is evidence to the contrary.

If the School Board had just been honest and said that they feel the name is inappropriate and that the school will be renamed, then --while the community and the county would likely disagree, it would have, at least been honest. And, it might have stopped the divisiveness in the school. Instead, Evans and Hynes kept manipulating the process in an attempt to get the result they wanted. When that didn't work, then they basically encouraged the attacks on the keepers by stacking the committee with outsiders.

The process was smoke and mirrors from the beginning. Poor stewardship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:44% in favor of a name change is certainly "substantial."

If the regulations wanted "majority" support, they could have easily used the word "majority" or "predominant." The regulation says "substantial" -- which means something greater than de minimus or fringe.

Definition of substantial: considerable importance, size, or worth.

Certainly 44% support is "considerable" support. While "substantial" does not indicate a specific numeric value, I would suggest it is something at least 20% or so. It is a gray area, but I do not think there is any doubt that 44% is quite "substantial."

But, an even more substantial number did not want the name change. And, where do you get the 44%?

PP mentioned that 56% didn't want to change it (according to a survey PP referenced). I just did the math -- assuming that everyone in the survey chose either "for" or "against". True, that an even more substantial number of survey responders didn't want to change. A "majority" is not required by the regulations. Typically, when civil rights of a minority are involved (in other situations), the majority (i.e. predominant) group doesn't see a need for change. If all civil rights issues required a majority, we wouldn't have made much progress in this country.

At any rate, I think "majority" is a common enough concept that if the regulation writers thought that it was important for most people to want a change, they would have required a majority approval. They did not require a "majority." So, it is up to the school board to determine what a "substantial" amount of support is.

This (except the initial survey was 36% for change). Still that's a significant percentage that led the SB to probe further and ultimately change the name. It has brought out how many racists and neo Confederates are left in NoVa.

[Anonymous]

This (except the initial survey was 36% for change). Still that's a significant percentage that led the SB to probe further and ultimately change the name. It has brought out how many racists and neo Confederates are left in NoVa.

And, this is the problem with the whole procedure. If it had just been presented as offensive to some students, it would have been a little bit acceptable. However, the process was not educational. The process was built around attacks on the keepers.

And, FWIW, the people who want to keep it are not racists or neo-Confederates. They are sensible people who realize that this is a very expensive project that will have a statistically insignificant impact on the students who attend Stuart. In fact, this process has had a very negative impact.

This is what is wrong.

If it was "wrong" to have Stuart be named after Jeb, the SB did not need to put out a survey. Once they did not get the results they wanted, they changed the rules--including stacking the committee with outsiders.

I have seen the SB act like this before in boundary disputes. Arrogance to the highest and demeaning to those who disagree. Deceit. Why do you think Scultz was elected? I suspect that we will see some changes next year, too. I doubt Moon's constituency is going to be pleased with his vote wasting money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This (except the initial survey was 36% for change). Still that's a significant percentage that led the SB to probe further and ultimately change the name. It has brought out how many racists and neo Confederates are left in NoVa.

And, this is the problem with the whole procedure. If it had just been presented as offensive to some students, it would have been a little bit acceptable. However, the process was not educational. The process was built around attacks on the keepers.

And, FWIW, the people who want to keep it are not racists or neo-Confederates. They are sensible people who realize that this is a very expensive project that will have a statistically insignificant impact on the students who attend Stuart. In fact, this process has had a very negative impact.

This is what is wrong.

If it was "wrong" to have Stuart be named after Jeb, the SB did not need to put out a survey. Once they did not get the results they wanted, they changed the rules--including stacking the committee with outsiders.

I have seen the SB act like this before in boundary disputes. Arrogance to the highest and demeaning to those who disagree. Deceit. Why do you think Scultz was elected? I suspect that we will see some changes next year, too. I doubt Moon's constituency is going to be pleased with his vote wasting money.

Not all those who opposed the change were racists or neo Confederates, but a lot of the opponents were. Some of their remarks have simply been astonishing in their naked racism and xenophobia.

The argument that the opponents would have fallen in line if only there was more process is not credible and is only asserted by people looking either to delay or give color to those like TDK and MM who tried to delay.

As noted earlier, TDK and MM are getting called out for their lack of courage and efforts to screw over their Democratic colleagues.

http://bluevirginia.us/2017/07/video-fairfax-county-public-school-board-votes-change-name-jeb-stuart-high-school

And, yes, Schultz's predecessor on the SB was as bad as she was, just in different ways. Springfield isn't exactly budding with political talent of any stripe, but people will work hard to unseat Schultz.

Moon and McElveen have seats on the SB as long as they like.