Board wants Monifa to step down

[Anonymous]

One way to support superintendents is to stop hiring and promoting sketchy-AF administrators and to investigate to the fullest extent, top and bottom, the MCPS culture that allowed all this to happen in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Modern day lynching at its finest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Modern day lynching at its finest

It’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll still call out racism even if the person is antisemitic (which affects me personally).

And she's not even antisemitic. I heard her speak at a local synagogue last year at an event organized by the Jewish Community Relations Council and she definitely took it seriously and was not dismissive and also seemed to have an ongoing relationship with JCRC. The antisemitism at MCPS reflects antisemitism in society in general. Sadly, these kids are seeing swastikas and hearing antisemitic things on Discord and other social media.

[Anonymous]

But is it really only McKnight's fault? SHe should go. But wasn't the BOE involved in promotional decisions also? They are just CYAing the whole thing.

[Anonymous]

I hear Beidleman’s brother is a superintendent in New York. I wonder if all of this is affecting his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But is it really only McKnight's fault? SHe should go. But wasn't the BOE involved in promotional decisions also? They are just CYAing the whole thing.

Beidleman partied with Smondrowski alot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But is it really only McKnight's fault? SHe should go. But wasn't the BOE involved in promotional decisions also? They are just CYAing the whole thing.

Of course it's not only her fault. The Council should remove the BOE members. They won't, but they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But is it really only McKnight's fault? SHe should go. But wasn't the BOE involved in promotional decisions also? They are just CYAing the whole thing.

Beidleman partied with Smondrowski alot.

Actually McKnight partied with Joel a lot at various sorority/fraternity events and has for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But is it really only McKnight's fault? SHe should go. But wasn't the BOE involved in promotional decisions also? They are just CYAing the whole thing.

Beidleman partied with Smondrowski alot.

Actually McKnight partied with Joel a lot at various sorority/fraternity events and has for years.

Did they all party together?

[Anonymous]

The board gets a one-page document about the recommended hires. You can see them in the packet. They are not discussed or debated. They assume (now we know wrongly) that the professional staff are doing their due diligence. Their employee is the super. She is the “buck stops here” for other employment decisions.

Should the board have been aware of the various issues and held the super accountable? Yes. But don’t think that they actually get the whole truth all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Settlement of FEW YeARS? What?

That would be crazy. She’s only entitled to 1 year of pay under her contract.

Rumor is the settlement will be around $750k. Let's see.

Meanwhile, we're in a budget freeze and can't even get paper and printer ink in our schools!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Modern day lynching at its finest

NAACP enters the chat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The board gets a one-page document about the recommended hires. You can see them in the packet. They are not discussed or debated. They assume (now we know wrongly) that the professional staff are doing their due diligence. Their employee is the super. She is the “buck stops here” for other employment decisions.

Should the board have been aware of the various issues and held the super accountable? Yes. But don’t think that they actually get the whole truth all the time.

BUt it's still their responsibility to vet. I mean, Board member!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The board gets a one-page document about the recommended hires. You can see them in the packet. They are not discussed or debated. They assume (now we know wrongly) that the professional staff are doing their due diligence. Their employee is the super. She is the “buck stops here” for other employment decisions.

Should the board have been aware of the various issues and held the super accountable? Yes. But don’t think that they actually get the whole truth all the time.

BUt it's still their responsibility to vet. I mean, Board member!

No, it isn't. They're part-timers. There is a whole staff at central office in HR and OSSWB who have FT jobs to do all the vetting.