BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Here are the people I am voting for:
At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Reason: I am looking for the safety of the school, improving teaching for better results and disciplining students for bullying, violations or chronic absence with consequences, and ending the nonsense of the current BOE.

I did a lot of digging, listened to the candidates' zoom meeting (https://youtu.be/DTVs3hv_Peo) and looked at their websites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.

It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

I am more interested in candidate positions than these subtle technicalities of things that seem mostly irrelevant. I'd leave that to wacky outlets like Moderately Moco to obsess about.

Hard disagree with you. These are more than subtle technicalities. And technicalities are exactly what we need to look at if we want a board of education who is not corrupt and can be efficient and effective for everybody. I want an ethical person who does not bend the rules or looks for loopholes to benefit themselves even before being elected. The bar for elected officials needs to be high, not low. There are other candidates who are running in that category that you can vote for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.

It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.

It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

I am more interested in candidate positions than these subtle technicalities of things that seem mostly irrelevant. I'd leave that to wacky outlets like Moderately Moco to obsess about.

Hard disagree with you. These are more than subtle technicalities. And technicalities are exactly what we need to look at if we want a board of education who is not corrupt and can be efficient and effective for everybody. I want an ethical person who does not bend the rules or looks for loopholes to benefit themselves even before being elected. The bar for elected officials needs to be high, not low. There are other candidates who are running in that category that you can vote for.

I wonder what other subtle technicalities the Apple Ballot decided to overlook when they endorsed Montoya, Laura Stewart and Zimmerman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.

It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

Middle schools are ignored. It's a shame because that's where the biggest impact can be made... before kids get to high school. Trying to fix high school with cops and suspensions is really not the answer. The ship has generally sailed by that point.

Elementary School is still fun and exciting. It's an easy mark for candidates to get exposure without the pressure of actually having to fix something or stand for something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.

It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

I am more interested in candidate positions than these subtle technicalities of things that seem mostly irrelevant. I'd leave that to wacky outlets like Moderately Moco to obsess about.

Ethics is a subtle technicality.

And there is the problem with MCPS.

This isn't ethics just administrative nonsense that you have to be super uptight to focus on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are the people I am voting for:
At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Reason: I am looking for the safety of the school, improving teaching for better results and disciplining students for bullying, violations or chronic absence with consequences, and ending the nonsense of the current BOE.

I did a lot of digging, listened to the candidates' zoom meeting (https://youtu.be/DTVs3hv_Peo) and looked at their websites.

Well, I'm not voting for any of those people. Just Zimmerman, Stewart, and Montoya. I appreciate their more mainstream positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.

It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

Cultural nights usually have great food (not that this is a reason to skip MS events).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.

It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

I am more interested in candidate positions than these subtle technicalities of things that seem mostly irrelevant. I'd leave that to wacky outlets like Moderately Moco to obsess about.

Hard disagree with you. These are more than subtle technicalities. And technicalities are exactly what we need to look at if we want a board of education who is not corrupt and can be efficient and effective for everybody. I want an ethical person who does not bend the rules or looks for loopholes to benefit themselves even before being elected. The bar for elected officials needs to be high, not low. There are other candidates who are running in that category that you can vote for.

I wonder what other subtle technicalities the Apple Ballot decided to overlook when they endorsed Montoya, Laura Stewart and Zimmerman.

The Apple Ballot omitted Montoya's occupation. Nowhere in their information does it say her full-time occupation is as an advocate for Medical Cannabis businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.

It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

I am more interested in candidate positions than these subtle technicalities of things that seem mostly irrelevant. I'd leave that to wacky outlets like Moderately Moco to obsess about.

Hard disagree with you. These are more than subtle technicalities. And technicalities are exactly what we need to look at if we want a board of education who is not corrupt and can be efficient and effective for everybody. I want an ethical person who does not bend the rules or looks for loopholes to benefit themselves even before being elected. The bar for elected officials needs to be high, not low. There are other candidates who are running in that category that you can vote for.

I wonder what other subtle technicalities the Apple Ballot decided to overlook when they endorsed Montoya, Laura Stewart and Zimmerman.

The Apple Ballot omitted Montoya's occupation. Nowhere in their information does it say her full-time occupation is as an advocate for Medical Cannabis businesses.

Of course it did. That’s not politically helpful so they’re hoping to hide the ball.

Similar to Laura Stewart taking down her formerly public twitter page she used to publicly advocate for issues because her views expressed there were so extreme that they’d be damaging in an election.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone else get a text message from Mandel today asking for your vote? I get them routinely for higher-level offices, but first time I've ever gotten one for a BOE race candidate. I wonder how much those cost to send.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the people I am voting for:
At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Reason: I am looking for the safety of the school, improving teaching for better results and disciplining students for bullying, violations or chronic absence with consequences, and ending the nonsense of the current BOE.

I did a lot of digging, listened to the candidates' zoom meeting (https://youtu.be/DTVs3hv_Peo) and looked at their websites.

Well, I'm not voting for any of those people. Just Zimmerman, Stewart, and Montoya. I appreciate their more mainstream positions.

Well, I don't have any problem for your choices. But I don't think they are mainstream positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else get a text message from Mandel today asking for your vote? I get them routinely for higher-level offices, but first time I've ever gotten one for a BOE race candidate. I wonder how much those cost to send.

No. What party are you registered with? Somebody sold your information.

[Anonymous]

Stewart and Zimmerman; not sure about at large yet but of the incumbents I don’t think Harris is necessarily the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.

It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

I am more interested in candidate positions than these subtle technicalities of things that seem mostly irrelevant. I'd leave that to wacky outlets like Moderately Moco to obsess about.

Hard disagree with you. These are more than subtle technicalities. And technicalities are exactly what we need to look at if we want a board of education who is not corrupt and can be efficient and effective for everybody. I want an ethical person who does not bend the rules or looks for loopholes to benefit themselves even before being elected. The bar for elected officials needs to be high, not low. There are other candidates who are running in that category that you can vote for.

I wonder what other subtle technicalities the Apple Ballot decided to overlook when they endorsed Montoya, Laura Stewart and Zimmerman.

The Apple Ballot omitted Montoya's occupation. Nowhere in their information does it say her full-time occupation is as an advocate for Medical Cannabis businesses.

Of course it did. That’s not politically helpful so they’re hoping to hide the ball.

Similar to Laura Stewart taking down her formerly public twitter page she used to publicly advocate for issues because her views expressed there were so extreme that they’d be damaging in an election.

Do we know what methodology the apple ballot uses to decide their endorsements? Or is it all about who you know?