My gut feeling on 3/26 BOE vote

[Anonymous]

OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

This was just a question but it also seems like if they truly wanted this to be different or believed they were right (evidence that the state cared in hand), they would share this with MCPS or others BEFOREHAND so as to get this option off the table.

Logically, if the answer was that yes, the state believes they should be or want to be involved in this because it was in their scope, the filers would JUST HAVE COME OUT AND SAID IT. And honestly, that evidence would have made this option moot. And yet, here we are.

That said, it seems obvious there is absolutely 0 chance that the state told some random people that "hey, yea, you're right, we SHOULD be involved in that issue and what they are doing is illegal" without MCPS actually knowing this and changing course because the State said they were unhappy about it and why bother when you KNOW the State disagrees with you. Logic fails here to 1) think that the State believes this is in their purview 2) think that some judge is going to tell the State that they are wrong about knowing their own scope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wasn’t Crown built using state funds not the county?

If this is true, that’s a Mossi g piece of the puzzle. Taylor proposed using Crown as a holding school, then suddenly pivoted 2 days later to proposed closing Wootton and moving its kids to Crown. Perhaps someone in Annapolis told him a holding school was a non-starter?

State is on record saying Crown as a holding school is ok. Ironically, the only option not okayed by state is using Crown as a “relocation” of Wootton

The state is also on record saying they don't get involved in boundary decisions, which is what H is. They would have needed to approve the holding school option because of funding but they do not need to approve H.

Interesting point. This actually isn’t just a boundary study. In fact, the boundary study is the only way MCPS can get away with closing Wootton. Without moving the Wootton boundary to encompass Crown, this would be an absolute school closure and MCPS couldn’t send Wootton’s kids to Crown.

I wonder what would happen if it comes out that this entire move Wootton to Crown idea was cooked up before the State of Maryland cut a $100M check to build Crown (so MCPS wouldn’t lose the land).

Losing the state funding would have been the bigger problem. Rockville always could have handed the land over at a later date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

Laws and policies were not followed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

Laws and policies were not followed.

Cool, thank you for stating generically the basis on which every lawsuit ever is filed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

Laws and policies were not followed.

Cool, thank you for stating generically the basis on which every lawsuit ever is filed.

Do yall expect their attorney to log onto DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

This was just a question but it also seems like if they truly wanted this to be different or believed they were right (evidence that the state cared in hand), they would share this with MCPS or others BEFOREHAND so as to get this option off the table.

Logically, if the answer was that yes, the state believes they should be or want to be involved in this because it was in their scope, the filers would JUST HAVE COME OUT AND SAID IT. And honestly, that evidence would have made this option moot. And yet, here we are.

That said, it seems obvious there is absolutely 0 chance that the state told some random people that "hey, yea, you're right, we SHOULD be involved in that issue and what they are doing is illegal" without MCPS actually knowing this and changing course because the State said they were unhappy about it and why bother when you KNOW the State disagrees with you. Logic fails here to 1) think that the State believes this is in their purview 2) think that some judge is going to tell the State that they are wrong about knowing their own scope.

ma'am this is a wendy's

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it'll be no, but abstentions - they'll say there wasn't enough time to study or enough community feedback.

Also, going on the record that the Wootton community fighting for one school was a huge distraction - had the entire county come together (looking at you MCCPTA, where were you?) against the six region program model, there could have been changes. Instead, Taylor gets his bomb, blowing up the entire school system, and decimating the handful of excellent schools that remained of a once great school system

MCCPTA criticized the regional model last fall, and the board didn't care.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/10/31/mccpta-slow-programming-changes/

They need to say it again and so does MCEA. The boundary battle has let MCPS hide the fact that the regional model is based on assumptions and not backed by any data.

I am not thrilled with the regional model, nor do I have any confidence the implementation will go well. I feel especially terrible for the current 7th and 6th graders that will be the guinea pigs for all of this.

I am not sure what more data they can reasonably collect. It is very hard to gauge interest for programs that will be used by kids that aren't even in middle school yet. As far as evaluating current programs, that would take years and probably not offer too many actionable insights. That particular proposal really does ring like a delay tactic.

I think at this point opponents need to articulate what specifically we don't like about the regional model and what we would like to see changed. I think the Black and Brown Coalition's recommendation to focus implementation on programs in high poverty schools makes a lot of sense and it has been completely ignored.

They have collected almost no data at all, so I think there is plenty more information they could reasonably provide...

They could survey 6th and 7th grade parents/students to see if there is interest in the current proposal. They promised to do this several times but never followed through.

They could make estimates on how many kids will leave each high school based on previous data instead of assumptions. For example, MCPS is suggesting 100+ students will leave Whitman for regional programs each year. Currently, an average of 10 kids per year leave Whitman and there were another 24 on some wait list or another last year. What data do they have suggesting so many more students will leave? The only answer I have been given is "we believe they will."

MCPS said students turn down programs because of long commutes but are offering buses from high schools only which will make the commute impossible for some students. They could provide data on how much commute times will improve.

MCPS could be honest about the budget. The boundary study says new bus routes cost $125,000 each, but the regional model budget claims it is only $50,000 for a new bus route. Which is it?

+1

The fact that they called this the Program Analysis in the first place is because they were originally supposed to conduct a decently thorough ANALYSIS of the existing programs to inform changes to program offerings. Obviously someone told them to start building the plane as they were flying in order to “inextricably link” this to the boundary timeline, and they skipped the whole data collection and analysis part. This is the main objection and concern everyone has. I think they actually did a decent job on the boundaries at the end of the day but the programs leave me very concerned and skeptical. I’m particularly concerned about transportation meltdowns or giant gaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

Laws and policies were not followed.

Cool, thank you for stating generically the basis on which every lawsuit ever is filed.

Do yall expect their attorney to log onto DCUM?

Nope. Let me give you some examples of what would be a normal thing to claim:

1. We are suing because MCPS was supposed to send a letter to the state BOE asking for their input before a vote on shutting down operations in a school building and they didn't.
2. We are suing because they were supposed to hold a meeting at each school impacted before making a proposal.
3. We are suing because only the state law requires mailing notice to each affected property owner before a change in land use.

It isn't hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it'll be no, but abstentions - they'll say there wasn't enough time to study or enough community feedback.

Also, going on the record that the Wootton community fighting for one school was a huge distraction - had the entire county come together (looking at you MCCPTA, where were you?) against the six region program model, there could have been changes. Instead, Taylor gets his bomb, blowing up the entire school system, and decimating the handful of excellent schools that remained of a once great school system

MCCPTA criticized the regional model last fall, and the board didn't care.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/10/31/mccpta-slow-programming-changes/

They need to say it again and so does MCEA. The boundary battle has let MCPS hide the fact that the regional model is based on assumptions and not backed by any data.

I am not thrilled with the regional model, nor do I have any confidence the implementation will go well. I feel especially terrible for the current 7th and 6th graders that will be the guinea pigs for all of this.

I am not sure what more data they can reasonably collect. It is very hard to gauge interest for programs that will be used by kids that aren't even in middle school yet. As far as evaluating current programs, that would take years and probably not offer too many actionable insights. That particular proposal really does ring like a delay tactic.

I think at this point opponents need to articulate what specifically we don't like about the regional model and what we would like to see changed. I think the Black and Brown Coalition's recommendation to focus implementation on programs in high poverty schools makes a lot of sense and it has been completely ignored.

They have collected almost no data at all, so I think there is plenty more information they could reasonably provide...

They could survey 6th and 7th grade parents/students to see if there is interest in the current proposal. They promised to do this several times but never followed through.

They could make estimates on how many kids will leave each high school based on previous data instead of assumptions. For example, MCPS is suggesting 100+ students will leave Whitman for regional programs each year. Currently, an average of 10 kids per year leave Whitman and there were another 24 on some wait list or another last year. What data do they have suggesting so many more students will leave? The only answer I have been given is "we believe they will."

MCPS said students turn down programs because of long commutes but are offering buses from high schools only which will make the commute impossible for some students. They could provide data on how much commute times will improve.

MCPS could be honest about the budget. The boundary study says new bus routes cost $125,000 each, but the regional model budget claims it is only $50,000 for a new bus route. Which is it?

+1

The fact that they called this the Program Analysis in the first place is because they were originally supposed to conduct a decently thorough ANALYSIS of the existing programs to inform changes to program offerings. Obviously someone told them to start building the plane as they were flying in order to “inextricably link” this to the boundary timeline, and they skipped the whole data collection and analysis part. This is the main objection and concern everyone has. I think they actually did a decent job on the boundaries at the end of the day but the programs leave me very concerned and skeptical. I’m particularly concerned about transportation meltdowns or giant gaps.

DP - yep, and the website STILL says Academic Programs Analysis. The documents on it are a little dated at this point but even at that point it was clear it wasn't an analysis,.it was a proposal to dismantle the consortia, establish dozens of new programs and reduce existing magnets that cover.large geographical areas to regional.magnets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

Laws and policies were not followed.

Cool, thank you for stating generically the basis on which every lawsuit ever is filed.

Do yall expect their attorney to log onto DCUM?

Nope. Let me give you some examples of what would be a normal thing to claim:

1. We are suing because MCPS was supposed to send a letter to the state BOE asking for their input before a vote on shutting down operations in a school building and they didn't.
2. We are suing because they were supposed to hold a meeting at each school impacted before making a proposal.
3. We are suing because only the state law requires mailing notice to each affected property owner before a change in land use.

It isn't hard.

This is mostly a delay tactic, and they know the majority of the claims they are making are frivolous. Their plan is:

1) file a whole bunch of claims about various process violations, most of which will get dismissed, but will take time to litigate;
2) hope that at least one of these process claims sticks, even though the remedy won’t be that Wootton doesn’t have to go to Crown - it will be that MCPS will have to go through the missed part of the process;
3) in the meantime, vote in a new BOE who will support them when it comes time to re-vote on this after the process issue has been addressed.

They’re not eager to talk about it for
two main reasons (in addition to being scared of being stripped down in the comments by your legal brilliance): this won’t be satisfying to the families funding this, some of whom want them to be suing to uncover the vast conspiracy that’s been brewing since 2024, probably involving Taylor’s wife, weather control, and some sort of satanic ritual that took place on an electric bus; and they don’t want the rest of us paying close attention to the BOE primary - because they suspect we might care more about voting against anti-vax candidates then them getting to keep Wootton on the parkway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

Laws and policies were not followed.

Cool, thank you for stating generically the basis on which every lawsuit ever is filed.

Do yall expect their attorney to log onto DCUM?

Nope. Let me give you some examples of what would be a normal thing to claim:

1. We are suing because MCPS was supposed to send a letter to the state BOE asking for their input before a vote on shutting down operations in a school building and they didn't.
2. We are suing because they were supposed to hold a meeting at each school impacted before making a proposal.
3. We are suing because only the state law requires mailing notice to each affected property owner before a change in land use.

It isn't hard.

This is mostly a delay tactic, and they know the majority of the claims they are making are frivolous. Their plan is:

1) file a whole bunch of claims about various process violations, most of which will get dismissed, but will take time to litigate;
2) hope that at least one of these process claims sticks, even though the remedy won’t be that Wootton doesn’t have to go to Crown - it will be that MCPS will have to go through the missed part of the process;
3) in the meantime, vote in a new BOE who will support them when it comes time to re-vote on this after the process issue has been addressed.

They’re not eager to talk about it for
two main reasons (in addition to being scared of being stripped down in the comments by your legal brilliance): this won’t be satisfying to the families funding this, some of whom want them to be suing to uncover the vast conspiracy that’s been brewing since 2024, probably involving Taylor’s wife, weather control, and some sort of satanic ritual that took place on an electric bus; and they don’t want the rest of us paying close attention to the BOE primary - because they suspect we might care more about voting against anti-vax candidates then them getting to keep Wootton on the parkway.

PP here and thanks for this. I genuinely want to know if there is a violation here. I've researched COMAR and MCPS policies and procedures and don't see one. And if there were, I would be fine with the lawsuit. That is what the legal process is for, and due process in government administration is important.

What I am not fine with is nuisance/delay litigation, conning people to donate, and wasting taxpayer money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

Laws and policies were not followed.

Cool, thank you for stating generically the basis on which every lawsuit ever is filed.

Do yall expect their attorney to log onto DCUM?

Nope. Let me give you some examples of what would be a normal thing to claim:

1. We are suing because MCPS was supposed to send a letter to the state BOE asking for their input before a vote on shutting down operations in a school building and they didn't.
2. We are suing because they were supposed to hold a meeting at each school impacted before making a proposal.
3. We are suing because only the state law requires mailing notice to each affected property owner before a change in land use.

It isn't hard.

This is mostly a delay tactic, and they know the majority of the claims they are making are frivolous. Their plan is:

1) file a whole bunch of claims about various process violations, most of which will get dismissed, but will take time to litigate;
2) hope that at least one of these process claims sticks, even though the remedy won’t be that Wootton doesn’t have to go to Crown - it will be that MCPS will have to go through the missed part of the process;
3) in the meantime, vote in a new BOE who will support them when it comes time to re-vote on this after the process issue has been addressed.

They’re not eager to talk about it for
two main reasons (in addition to being scared of being stripped down in the comments by your legal brilliance): this won’t be satisfying to the families funding this, some of whom want them to be suing to uncover the vast conspiracy that’s been brewing since 2024, probably involving Taylor’s wife, weather control, and some sort of satanic ritual that took place on an electric bus; and they don’t want the rest of us paying close attention to the BOE primary - because they suspect we might care more about voting against anti-vax candidates then them getting to keep Wootton on the parkway.

PP here and thanks for this. I genuinely want to know if there is a violation here. I've researched COMAR and MCPS policies and procedures and don't see one. And if there were, I would be fine with the lawsuit. That is what the legal process is for, and due process in government administration is important.

What I am not fine with is nuisance/delay litigation, conning people to donate, and wasting taxpayer money.

Agree. They might be able to garner our and others’ support for the suit if they shared what law they believe was broken and it logically checks out. It makes them look like they know it is a nothingburger not to share ANYTHING. No one needs the whole thing spelled out but show us you have SOMETHING of potential merit.
Also, does this mean they are support that psycho Sharon Creed who can hook them up with a lawyer friend to then sue the system that she is (hopefully never) on the board of? Yea, no conflict there. WTAF was that???? OMG.