BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that they are mainstream positions in Montgomery County (which I, personally, am grateful for).

-another Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya voter

You wouldn’t say that about Laura Stewart if you could go back and see all of her twitter posts that she’s now removed since running for office because they’re so extreme/politically damaging

+1

These are MOms4liberty candidates and belong no where near any BOE

At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Horrific candidates. Zero qualifications for BOE .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

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

DP. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that they are mainstream positions in Montgomery County (which I, personally, am grateful for).

-another Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya voter

You wouldn’t say that about Laura Stewart if you could go back and see all of her twitter posts that she’s now removed since running for office because they’re so extreme/politically damaging

No that would be Mandel.

And by the way no social media is scrubbed.

All can be found on reddit.

So Laura Stewart transferred her twitter page to reddit? Could you post a link? For a candidate running on a platform of accountability and transparency, it sure is difficult to find the twitter page containing her views on issues that previously was easily available to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

Doesn't take a whole lot of journalism. The bylaws of the N. Chevy Chase ES PTA are here: https://www.nccpta.org/bylaws-and-minutes

Notably, there is no blanket prohibition on running for office while you hold a position on the PTA leadership. There is the language that's been cited upthread about not participating in political campaigns in one's official capacity (Article III, section (g)).

You can read them yourself and judge whether Montoya is in violation of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that they are mainstream positions in Montgomery County (which I, personally, am grateful for).

-another Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya voter

You wouldn’t say that about Laura Stewart if you could go back and see all of her twitter posts that she’s now removed since running for office because they’re so extreme/politically damaging

+1

These are MOms4liberty candidates and belong no where near any BOE

At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Horrific candidates. Zero qualifications for BOE .

Don’t lump Hidayat into your M4L boat unless you have sources to prove it. If you don’t agree with him- fine. But don’t bad mouth the man. He has made a number of sensible proposals to improve safety and accountability, which we desperately need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

DP. I remember a "Parents Coalition" post accusing MCPS of hating the US because of something Olympics something artificial turf something something. I wonder if it's still up....

Oh yes, here it is. " Guest Post: MCPS supports the French Olympic team!
Yes you read that right!

By buying its turf at full price through a noncompetitive process, the MCPS [Montgomery County Public School] is supporting the French Olympic team as it competes against our American athletes."

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/08/guest-post-mcps-supports-french-olympic.html

A guest post from 2012 has what to do with Councilmembers grandstanding during an elementary school Cultural Heritage night?

It's helpful for evaluating the reliability of the source (i.e., the so-called Parents Coalition) of this purported controversy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that they are mainstream positions in Montgomery County (which I, personally, am grateful for).

-another Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya voter

You wouldn’t say that about Laura Stewart if you could go back and see all of her twitter posts that she’s now removed since running for office because they’re so extreme/politically damaging

+1

These are MOms4liberty candidates and belong no where near any BOE

At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Horrific candidates. Zero qualifications for BOE .

Don’t lump Hidayat into your M4L boat unless you have sources to prove it. If you don’t agree with him- fine. But don’t bad mouth the man. He has made a number of sensible proposals to improve safety and accountability, which we desperately need.

No, he does not.

He also has no qualifications. Big Whoop he was a police officer. That does not translate to any qualifications for a BOE.

He is a bully and he belongs nowhere near a BOE.

Given he has not denounced Moms4liberty nor has Diaz, Mandel, or Mui they are all supporters.

I asked every candidate. These are the ones I got no response to that question.

At the Moderately Montgomery forum, he said nothing of substance, yelled threw his sign up, and acted completely inappropriately. He can not work with others. A BOE requires that. He has not one original thought he parrots others RW nonsense.

Spare me your thoughts. You have not done your research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that they are mainstream positions in Montgomery County (which I, personally, am grateful for).

-another Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya voter

You wouldn’t say that about Laura Stewart if you could go back and see all of her twitter posts that she’s now removed since running for office because they’re so extreme/politically damaging

+1

These are MOms4liberty candidates and belong no where near any BOE

At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Horrific candidates. Zero qualifications for BOE .

Don’t lump Hidayat into your M4L boat unless you have sources to prove it. If you don’t agree with him- fine. But don’t bad mouth the man. He has made a number of sensible proposals to improve safety and accountability, which we desperately need.

I completely agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that they are mainstream positions in Montgomery County (which I, personally, am grateful for).

-another Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya voter

You wouldn’t say that about Laura Stewart if you could go back and see all of her twitter posts that she’s now removed since running for office because they’re so extreme/politically damaging

+1

These are MOms4liberty candidates and belong no where near any BOE

At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Horrific candidates. Zero qualifications for BOE .

Don’t lump Hidayat into your M4L boat unless you have sources to prove it. If you don’t agree with him- fine. But don’t bad mouth the man. He has made a number of sensible proposals to improve safety and accountability, which we desperately need.

DP. According to his website, he's a former police officer who supports "bring back SROs" and "work to empower parents to be active partners in their child's education". Now, either he knows what those phrases mean, in the context of MCPS, in which case he likely agrees with Moms For Liberty on these issues. Or he doesn't know what those phrases mean, in which case he's unqualified to serve on the BoE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

DP. I remember a "Parents Coalition" post accusing MCPS of hating the US because of something Olympics something artificial turf something something. I wonder if it's still up....

Oh yes, here it is. " Guest Post: MCPS supports the French Olympic team!
Yes you read that right!

By buying its turf at full price through a noncompetitive process, the MCPS [Montgomery County Public School] is supporting the French Olympic team as it competes against our American athletes."

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/08/guest-post-mcps-supports-french-olympic.html

A guest post from 2012 has what to do with Councilmembers grandstanding during an elementary school Cultural Heritage night?

It's helpful for evaluating the reliability of the source (i.e., the so-called Parents Coalition) of this purported controversy.

Now evaluate the other 10,000 posts on the Parents' Coalition blog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

Doesn't take a whole lot of journalism. The bylaws of the N. Chevy Chase ES PTA are here: https://www.nccpta.org/bylaws-and-minutes

Notably, there is no blanket prohibition on running for office while you hold a position on the PTA leadership. There is the language that's been cited upthread about not participating in political campaigns in one's official capacity (Article III, section (g)).

You can read them yourself and judge whether Montoya is in violation of them.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that they are mainstream positions in Montgomery County (which I, personally, am grateful for).

-another Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya voter

You wouldn’t say that about Laura Stewart if you could go back and see all of her twitter posts that she’s now removed since running for office because they’re so extreme/politically damaging

+1

These are MOms4liberty candidates and belong no where near any BOE

At large: Sharif Hidayat
District 2: Ricky Fai Mui
District 4: Bethany S. Mandel.

Horrific candidates. Zero qualifications for BOE .

Don’t lump Hidayat into your M4L boat unless you have sources to prove it. If you don’t agree with him- fine. But don’t bad mouth the man. He has made a number of sensible proposals to improve safety and accountability, which we desperately need.

DP. According to his website, he's a former police officer who supports "bring back SROs" and "work to empower parents to be active partners in their child's education". Now, either he knows what those phrases mean, in the context of MCPS, in which case he likely agrees with Moms For Liberty on these issues. Or he doesn't know what those phrases mean, in which case he's unqualified to serve on the BoE.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

DP. I remember a "Parents Coalition" post accusing MCPS of hating the US because of something Olympics something artificial turf something something. I wonder if it's still up....

Oh yes, here it is. " Guest Post: MCPS supports the French Olympic team!
Yes you read that right!

By buying its turf at full price through a noncompetitive process, the MCPS [Montgomery County Public School] is supporting the French Olympic team as it competes against our American athletes."

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/08/guest-post-mcps-supports-french-olympic.html

A guest post from 2012 has what to do with Councilmembers grandstanding during an elementary school Cultural Heritage night?

It's helpful for evaluating the reliability of the source (i.e., the so-called Parents Coalition) of this purported controversy.

Now evaluate the other 10,000 posts on the Parents' Coalition blog.

Yes, that would be a good way to prove that the Parents' Coalition is bonkers on just about every issue you can imagine, and even some you can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

DP. I remember a "Parents Coalition" post accusing MCPS of hating the US because of something Olympics something artificial turf something something. I wonder if it's still up....

Oh yes, here it is. " Guest Post: MCPS supports the French Olympic team!
Yes you read that right!

By buying its turf at full price through a noncompetitive process, the MCPS [Montgomery County Public School] is supporting the French Olympic team as it competes against our American athletes."

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/08/guest-post-mcps-supports-french-olympic.html

A guest post from 2012 has what to do with Councilmembers grandstanding during an elementary school Cultural Heritage night?

It's helpful for evaluating the reliability of the source (i.e., the so-called Parents Coalition) of this purported controversy.

Now evaluate the other 10,000 posts on the Parents' Coalition blog.

Yes, that would be a good way to prove that the Parents' Coalition is bonkers on just about every issue you can imagine, and even some you can't.

^^^(responding to myself) next comes a post accusing me of being a MCPS central office employee...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

DP. I remember a "Parents Coalition" post accusing MCPS of hating the US because of something Olympics something artificial turf something something. I wonder if it's still up....

Oh yes, here it is. " Guest Post: MCPS supports the French Olympic team!
Yes you read that right!

By buying its turf at full price through a noncompetitive process, the MCPS [Montgomery County Public School] is supporting the French Olympic team as it competes against our American athletes."

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/08/guest-post-mcps-supports-french-olympic.html

A guest post from 2012 has what to do with Councilmembers grandstanding during an elementary school Cultural Heritage night?

It's helpful for evaluating the reliability of the source (i.e., the so-called Parents Coalition) of this purported controversy.

Now evaluate the other 10,000 posts on the Parents' Coalition blog.

Yes, that would be a good way to prove that the Parents' Coalition is bonkers on just about every issue you can imagine, and even some you can't.

Ehhhhh they are definitely conservative but, they have reported on issues prior to, and also getting picked up by local media. So they do have an upside you have to analyze their content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

DP. I remember a "Parents Coalition" post accusing MCPS of hating the US because of something Olympics something artificial turf something something. I wonder if it's still up....

Oh yes, here it is. " Guest Post: MCPS supports the French Olympic team!
Yes you read that right!

By buying its turf at full price through a noncompetitive process, the MCPS [Montgomery County Public School] is supporting the French Olympic team as it competes against our American athletes."

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/08/guest-post-mcps-supports-french-olympic.html

A guest post from 2012 has what to do with Councilmembers grandstanding during an elementary school Cultural Heritage night?

It's helpful for evaluating the reliability of the source (i.e., the so-called Parents Coalition) of this purported controversy.

Now evaluate the other 10,000 posts on the Parents' Coalition blog.

Yes, that would be a good way to prove that the Parents' Coalition is bonkers on just about every issue you can imagine, and even some you can't.

Ehhhhh they are definitely conservative but, they have reported on issues prior to, and also getting picked up by local media. So they do have an upside you have to analyze their content.

The problem with them isn't that they are a conservative, it's that they are a crank focused on one topic: If MCPS Does It, It's Bad.