$2M no bid contract to Joftus wife? BOE to approve on 9/8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Thanks MCPS PR. Nice try. That $2.37M could have given every teacher in MCPS (over 11,600) an extra $200 this year. Teachers know they are being short changed. That’s why they’re turning to Facebook/Nextdoor/etc and asking the community to help them out.

Your "MCPS PR" bit is getting really old. Believe it or not, everyone doesn't share your opinions.

Well then tell the pr dept to cool it. We’re all sick of it.

Not really. More sick of the unhinged poster who tries to invent all these conspiracies that don't exist.

For people who approve of the money being spent, can you please explain to the non believers where the millions of dollars go? I think we would all feel better if we knew what is being done with the money.

How about for people who have an issue with this explain what exactly was unethical? We elected the board to make these decisions on our behalf. This was done by the book. End of story.

The superintendent writing a memo to the Board of Education that lied about a procurement.

What book says that's the way a public school system should operate when spending public school funds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Ya, if it's a sole source, so not much can be done. . What I'd like to know is when does the contract expire? At that point, they should open it up to other bidders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Ya, if it's a sole source, so not much can be done. . What I'd like to know is when does the contract expire? At that point, they should open it up to other bidders.

It's not sole source. It's single source. That means MCPS knows there are other companies that can do the same thing and they are ignoring them. That's single source.
There's no contract. Nothing is in writing.

They could open it up to other bidders this week, but why bother? Discriminating against businesses is accepted in MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Ya, if it's a sole source, so not much can be done. . What I'd like to know is when does the contract expire? At that point, they should open it up to other bidders.

It's not sole source. It's single source. That means MCPS knows there are other companies that can do the same thing and they are ignoring them. That's single source.
There's no contract. Nothing is in writing.

They could open it up to other bidders this week, but why bother? Discriminating against businesses is accepted in MoCo.

There's so much faux outrage in fiction in this thread I just can't accept these things on your word. Can you substantiate these accusations with a citation from any credible source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Ya, if it's a sole source, so not much can be done. . What I'd like to know is when does the contract expire? At that point, they should open it up to other bidders.

It's not sole source. It's single source. That means MCPS knows there are other companies that can do the same thing and they are ignoring them. That's single source.
There's no contract. Nothing is in writing.

They could open it up to other bidders this week, but why bother? Discriminating against businesses is accepted in MoCo.

There's so much faux outrage in fiction in this thread I just can't accept these things on your word. Can you substantiate these accusations with a citation from any credible source?

Is the Board of Education meeting yesterday credible enough for you? Watch the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Ya, if it's a sole source, so not much can be done. . What I'd like to know is when does the contract expire? At that point, they should open it up to other bidders.

It's not sole source. It's single source. That means MCPS knows there are other companies that can do the same thing and they are ignoring them. That's single source.
There's no contract. Nothing is in writing.

They could open it up to other bidders this week, but why bother? Discriminating against businesses is accepted in MoCo.

There's so much faux outrage in fiction in this thread I just can't accept these things on your word. Can you substantiate these accusations with a citation from any credible source?

Is the Board of Education meeting yesterday credible enough for you? Watch the discussion.

Got it. You got nothing...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Ya, if it's a sole source, so not much can be done. . What I'd like to know is when does the contract expire? At that point, they should open it up to other bidders.

It's not sole source. It's single source. That means MCPS knows there are other companies that can do the same thing and they are ignoring them. That's single source.
There's no contract. Nothing is in writing.

They could open it up to other bidders this week, but why bother? Discriminating against businesses is accepted in MoCo.

There's so much faux outrage in fiction in this thread I just can't accept these things on your word. Can you substantiate these accusations with a citation from any credible source?

Is the Board of Education meeting yesterday credible enough for you? Watch the discussion.

Got it. You got nothing...

If you don't consider a Board of Education meeting agenda item discussing a procurement a credible source for information about the procurement that what would you consider a credible source? Donald Trump?

This whole discussion is about a Board of Education vote. The discussion at the meeting yesterday is the meat of this thread. Why would you claim to care about this topic yet be unable to view the actual Board of Education discussion to hear for yourself what was said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Ya, if it's a sole source, so not much can be done. . What I'd like to know is when does the contract expire? At that point, they should open it up to other bidders.

It's not sole source. It's single source. That means MCPS knows there are other companies that can do the same thing and they are ignoring them. That's single source.
There's no contract. Nothing is in writing.

They could open it up to other bidders this week, but why bother? Discriminating against businesses is accepted in MoCo.

There's so much faux outrage in fiction in this thread I just can't accept these things on your word. Can you substantiate these accusations with a citation from any credible source?

Is the Board of Education meeting yesterday credible enough for you? Watch the discussion.

Got it. You got nothing...

If you don't consider a Board of Education meeting agenda item discussing a procurement a credible source for information about the procurement that what would you consider a credible source? Donald Trump?

This whole discussion is about a Board of Education vote. The discussion at the meeting yesterday is the meat of this thread. Why would you claim to care about this topic yet be unable to view the actual Board of Education discussion to hear for yourself what was said?

On the contrary, everything meeting was completely by the book and above board so basically you got nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Thanks MCPS PR. Nice try. That $2.37M could have given every teacher in MCPS (over 11,600) an extra $200 this year. Teachers know they are being short changed. That’s why they’re turning to Facebook/Nextdoor/etc and asking the community to help them out.

Your "MCPS PR" bit is getting really old. Believe it or not, everyone doesn't share your opinions.

Well then tell the pr dept to cool it. We’re all sick of it.

Not really. More sick of the unhinged poster who tries to invent all these conspiracies that don't exist.

For people who approve of the money being spent, can you please explain to the non believers where the millions of dollars go? I think we would all feel better if we knew what is being done with the money.

I'm sure someone will accuse me of being MCPS PR, but here is what I understand from what Niki Hazel said in the meeting yesterday. The new contract is to expand the existing MS programs to elementary schools. Kid Museum staff have been working together with MCPS central office staff for 5-ish years to connect Kid Museum activities with the specific grade-level units of MCPS science curriculum. There are in person and virtual "field trips" and also supposed to be activities done at the schools in science units with materials and training of teachers provided by Kid Museum. They also mentioned some after-school programs. It sounded good, but I think (and board members did too) that they should provide a more detailed summary of the different components of their partnership and an accounting of the annual and overall costs.

Thanks for a summary.

If the quoted above were true and actually had happened, it would be easy for KIDS Museum or MCPS to provide specific examples and results in future meetings. BOE members should request these from MCPS side at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Ya, if it's a sole source, so not much can be done. . What I'd like to know is when does the contract expire? At that point, they should open it up to other bidders.

It's not sole source. It's single source. That means MCPS knows there are other companies that can do the same thing and they are ignoring them. That's single source.
There's no contract. Nothing is in writing.

They could open it up to other bidders this week, but why bother? Discriminating against businesses is accepted in MoCo.

There's so much faux outrage in fiction in this thread I just can't accept these things on your word. Can you substantiate these accusations with a citation from any credible source?

Is the Board of Education meeting yesterday credible enough for you? Watch the discussion.

Got it. You got nothing...

If you don't consider a Board of Education meeting agenda item discussing a procurement a credible source for information about the procurement that what would you consider a credible source? Donald Trump?

This whole discussion is about a Board of Education vote. The discussion at the meeting yesterday is the meat of this thread. Why would you claim to care about this topic yet be unable to view the actual Board of Education discussion to hear for yourself what was said?

On the contrary, everything meeting was completely by the book and above board so basically you got nothing.

Saying "you got nothing" is like saying "sure, but you have no evidence to catch me"?

This seems like a Maryland IG investigation to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Thanks MCPS PR. Nice try. That $2.37M could have given every teacher in MCPS (over 11,600) an extra $200 this year. Teachers know they are being short changed. That’s why they’re turning to Facebook/Nextdoor/etc and asking the community to help them out.

Your "MCPS PR" bit is getting really old. Believe it or not, everyone doesn't share your opinions.

Well then tell the pr dept to cool it. We’re all sick of it.

Not really. More sick of the unhinged poster who tries to invent all these conspiracies that don't exist.

For people who approve of the money being spent, can you please explain to the non believers where the millions of dollars go? I think we would all feel better if we knew what is being done with the money.

I'm sure someone will accuse me of being MCPS PR, but here is what I understand from what Niki Hazel said in the meeting yesterday. The new contract is to expand the existing MS programs to elementary schools. Kid Museum staff have been working together with MCPS central office staff for 5-ish years to connect Kid Museum activities with the specific grade-level units of MCPS science curriculum. There are in person and virtual "field trips" and also supposed to be activities done at the schools in science units with materials and training of teachers provided by Kid Museum. They also mentioned some after-school programs. It sounded good, but I think (and board members did too) that they should provide a more detailed summary of the different components of their partnership and an accounting of the annual and overall costs.

Agree. It sounded like it could be a great way to enrich the curriculum. Unfortunately, as pp stated and Rebecca on the board pointed out, this is just a big lump sum total and no one has seen an accounting of what is specifically actually being provided and a breakdown of the costs. How can there be accountability if you’re just handing over millions of dollars without knowing what you’ve bought? I can’t believe the other members of the board were fine to just vote for this without seeing that info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Thanks MCPS PR. Nice try. That $2.37M could have given every teacher in MCPS (over 11,600) an extra $200 this year. Teachers know they are being short changed. That’s why they’re turning to Facebook/Nextdoor/etc and asking the community to help them out.

Your "MCPS PR" bit is getting really old. Believe it or not, everyone doesn't share your opinions.

Well then tell the pr dept to cool it. We’re all sick of it.

Not really. More sick of the unhinged poster who tries to invent all these conspiracies that don't exist.

For people who approve of the money being spent, can you please explain to the non believers where the millions of dollars go? I think we would all feel better if we knew what is being done with the money.

I'm sure someone will accuse me of being MCPS PR, but here is what I understand from what Niki Hazel said in the meeting yesterday. The new contract is to expand the existing MS programs to elementary schools. Kid Museum staff have been working together with MCPS central office staff for 5-ish years to connect Kid Museum activities with the specific grade-level units of MCPS science curriculum. There are in person and virtual "field trips" and also supposed to be activities done at the schools in science units with materials and training of teachers provided by Kid Museum. They also mentioned some after-school programs. It sounded good, but I think (and board members did too) that they should provide a more detailed summary of the different components of their partnership and an accounting of the annual and overall costs.

I contacted them last year for a virtual program and they wanted $10 a student - no supplies or anything provided so what was the point of that (and we had to decline as we didn't have the money).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent and total outsider to all of this except for living in Scott Joftus’s district, regardless whether this is all above board, legal and ethical, the appearance looks like banana republic type stuff. And this is the kind of stuff that eroded public confidence in institutions.

Im sure he and his wife are great people, but this situation should never have been allowed and it reflects poorly on the Board chair.

It really doesn't. The guy disclosed his conflicts of interest before starting this job and recused himself from any decision involving the kids museum. It was completely above board. This is just the usual drummed-up faux outrage to push some far-right agenda by a few unhinged uber Karens.

Disclosure doesn’t make it okay. Why don’t you get that?

The appearance of conflicts and back dealing is the problem. Doesn’t matter if he followed proper procedures.

Well, of course it matters that he followed proper procedures. But I think Rebecca Smondrowski agrees with you about the appearance of conflicts and that's why she voted against the contract.

You really should take some ethics training. Things can be both legal and wrong with the effect of undermining faith in institutions. Aggressive use of the tax code to get favorable tax treatment is a great example. There is an expectation of higher standards from someone in a position of public trust. Unfortunately Mr, Joftus has been found wanting. I have nothing against the guy, but it’s his choices which is why he’s going to get voted off his appointed board seat as the incumbent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent and total outsider to all of this except for living in Scott Joftus’s district, regardless whether this is all above board, legal and ethical, the appearance looks like banana republic type stuff. And this is the kind of stuff that eroded public confidence in institutions.

Im sure he and his wife are great people, but this situation should never have been allowed and it reflects poorly on the Board chair.

It really doesn't. The guy disclosed his conflicts of interest before starting this job and recused himself from any decision involving the kids museum. It was completely above board. This is just the usual drummed-up faux outrage to push some far-right agenda by a few unhinged uber Karens.

Disclosure doesn’t make it okay. Why don’t you get that?

The appearance of conflicts and back dealing is the problem. Doesn’t matter if he followed proper procedures.

Well, of course it matters that he followed proper procedures. But I think Rebecca Smondrowski agrees with you about the appearance of conflicts and that's why she voted against the contract.

You really should take some ethics training. Things can be both legal and wrong with the effect of undermining faith in institutions. Aggressive use of the tax code to get favorable tax treatment is a great example. There is an expectation of higher standards from someone in a position of public trust. Unfortunately Mr, Joftus has been found wanting. I have nothing against the guy, but it’s his choices which is why he’s going to get voted off his appointed board seat as the incumbent.

By whom, the DCUM Board of Ethics? The actual ethics panel with discretion over BOE members did not find him "wanting."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See article- apparently the superintendent claimed in the memo to the BOE there had been a bidding process for this contract, but that wasn’t the case.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/08/mcps-says-clerical-error-led-to-concern-about-stem-program-contract/

Can the county council come in and review this given they fund MCPS? If so, how can that be requested?

This just seems way off….

If you watch the youtube link from the meeting above, they explain it. It seems like much ado about nothing.

Thanks MCPS PR. Nice try. That $2.37M could have given every teacher in MCPS (over 11,600) an extra $200 this year. Teachers know they are being short changed. That’s why they’re turning to Facebook/Nextdoor/etc and asking the community to help them out.

Your "MCPS PR" bit is getting really old. Believe it or not, everyone doesn't share your opinions.

Well then tell the pr dept to cool it. We’re all sick of it.

Not really. More sick of the unhinged poster who tries to invent all these conspiracies that don't exist.

For people who approve of the money being spent, can you please explain to the non believers where the millions of dollars go? I think we would all feel better if we knew what is being done with the money.

I'm sure someone will accuse me of being MCPS PR, but here is what I understand from what Niki Hazel said in the meeting yesterday. The new contract is to expand the existing MS programs to elementary schools. Kid Museum staff have been working together with MCPS central office staff for 5-ish years to connect Kid Museum activities with the specific grade-level units of MCPS science curriculum. There are in person and virtual "field trips" and also supposed to be activities done at the schools in science units with materials and training of teachers provided by Kid Museum. They also mentioned some after-school programs. It sounded good, but I think (and board members did too) that they should provide a more detailed summary of the different components of their partnership and an accounting of the annual and overall costs.

Thanks for a summary.

If the quoted above were true and actually had happened, it would be easy for KIDS Museum or MCPS to provide specific examples and results in future meetings. BOE members should request these from MCPS side at least.

I 100% agree. Explain what the money is being put towards, name schools it has partnered with, maybe even bring in a student or teacher to advocate for the program.

I am a classroom teacher who was asked to give testimony about the benefits of another long-standing community partnership for the BOE several years ago. My testimony had to discuss qualitative and quantitative benefits for my students and I took follow up questions from the Board.

If that level of scrutiny was required for a long standing community partnership with a clear mission and goals, then certainly the same should have held true here.