Board wants Monifa to step down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but we, the public, don’t know for certain who actually clammed up. Which begs the question: where is the transparency there, then? If indeed it was McKnight then it would make things a lot easier to push her out, really. For now, it’s all wild speculation, and that makes things worse. We don’t know whom to trust. And that is a dysfunctional and chilling situation. (And untenable, in the short- and long-term.)

They rely on the personnel confidentiality law for way too much, and I don't think it's always truly applicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He said students walked out in protest because she is popular with students. ???

What? This makes no sense.

Where and when did this happen?

[Anonymous]

The only protests I saw covered in the news was at the board meeting, with McKnight cheerleaders outside and inside the room. And they didn’t seem young enough to have children in the school system, so I’m giving a little side-eye to that whole mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but we, the public, don’t know for certain who actually clammed up. Which begs the question: where is the transparency there, then? If indeed it was McKnight then it would make things a lot easier to push her out, really. For now, it’s all wild speculation, and that makes things worse. We don’t know whom to trust. And that is a dysfunctional and chilling situation. (And untenable, in the short- and long-term.)

Does the public have your personnel information? Of course not. You don’t have a need to know because you can’t do anything with the information. The board has the information. No one has been fired. If you don’t like it, hold the board accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would actually put the squeeze on April Key and Brian Hull. They know what happened, and someone also knows which employee refused to answer questions to the investigation. My guess is that it was McKnight who clammed up.

I would add Dana Edwards to the list since she is Chief Operating Officer and oversees the HR department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would actually put the squeeze on April Key and Brian Hull. They know what happened, and someone also knows which employee refused to answer questions to the investigation. My guess is that it was McKnight who clammed up.

I would add Dana Edwards to the list since she is Chief Operating Officer and oversees the HR department.

You mean Chief Administrative Officer. But yes. But Hull is above her and she has to get his approval on stuff, so I still say Hull and McKnight are the key stakeholders here.

[Anonymous]

This is what happens when you hire to check boxes and no the most well qualified candidate. Everybody knew she was batty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would actually put the squeeze on April Key and Brian Hull. They know what happened, and someone also knows which employee refused to answer questions to the investigation. My guess is that it was McKnight who clammed up.

I would add Dana Edwards to the list since she is Chief Operating Officer and oversees the HR department.

Edwards is Chief of District Operations and does not oversee HR. Both Edwards and Key report directly to Hull, who reports to McKnight.

[Anonymous]

In the moco360 article, it spoke about 2 chiefs and McKnight who were at a social gathering where someone tried to drunkenly remove their clothes. Diane Morris is one of the Chiefs, who is the other? Dana Edwards? Ruschelle Reuben?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but we, the public, don’t know for certain who actually clammed up. Which begs the question: where is the transparency there, then? If indeed it was McKnight then it would make things a lot easier to push her out, really. For now, it’s all wild speculation, and that makes things worse. We don’t know whom to trust. And that is a dysfunctional and chilling situation. (And untenable, in the short- and long-term.)

Does the public have your personnel information? Of course not. You don’t have a need to know because you can’t do anything with the information. The board has the information. No one has been fired. If you don’t like it, hold the board accountable.

Wait so how do YOU know no one was fired?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but we, the public, don’t know for certain who actually clammed up. Which begs the question: where is the transparency there, then? If indeed it was McKnight then it would make things a lot easier to push her out, really. For now, it’s all wild speculation, and that makes things worse. We don’t know whom to trust. And that is a dysfunctional and chilling situation. (And untenable, in the short- and long-term.)

Does the public have your personnel information? Of course not. You don’t have a need to know because you can’t do anything with the information. The board has the information. No one has been fired. If you don’t like it, hold the board accountable.

Wait so how do YOU know no one was fired?

I hear voices that tell me these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but we, the public, don’t know for certain who actually clammed up. Which begs the question: where is the transparency there, then? If indeed it was McKnight then it would make things a lot easier to push her out, really. For now, it’s all wild speculation, and that makes things worse. We don’t know whom to trust. And that is a dysfunctional and chilling situation. (And untenable, in the short- and long-term.)

Does the public have your personnel information? Of course not. You don’t have a need to know because you can’t do anything with the information. The board has the information. No one has been fired. If you don’t like it, hold the board accountable.

Wait so how do YOU know no one was fired?

I hear voices that tell me these things.

Exactly
So you think you need to know but no one else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but we, the public, don’t know for certain who actually clammed up. Which begs the question: where is the transparency there, then? If indeed it was McKnight then it would make things a lot easier to push her out, really. For now, it’s all wild speculation, and that makes things worse. We don’t know whom to trust. And that is a dysfunctional and chilling situation. (And untenable, in the short- and long-term.)

Does the public have your personnel information? Of course not. You don’t have a need to know because you can’t do anything with the information. The board has the information. No one has been fired. If you don’t like it, hold the board accountable.

Wait so how do YOU know no one was fired?

No one from the CO has been fired since the IG found that a senior administrator was evasive. Therefore, it’s very easy to conclude that no one was fired.

[Anonymous]

The BOE should conduct their own investigation and call witnesses under oath in a public hearing.

Walker, his boss, Hull to start

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The BOE should conduct their own investigation and call witnesses under oath in a public hearing.

Walker, his boss, Hull to start

The have no jurisdiction by which to do this. Only the Superintendent is their contract. Everyone else in the system works for MCPS. Plus they now have the Jackson- Lewis report, and two OIG reports..