Reply to 8/20 2024 BOE meeting

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "8/20 2024 BOE meeting"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Probably will hear from many many heartbroken and disappointed mva families.[/quote]

MVA will be at each and every BOE meeting until the MVA is restored.  But, otherwise nothing will come of the BOE meeting.  The BOE is a joke.[/quote]

I don't know why the BOE is still allowing MVA testimonies when they clearly have the ability to screen and filter out testimonies based on topics that aren't on the BOE's agenda for that meeting.[/quote]

Why screen it?  MVA famlies have a right to speak and will continue.[/quote]

They've already spoken. Now they're just wasting everyone's time.[/quote]

They are working on funding for next school year.  They can easily reopen it.  Its not a waste of time if its important to them.  Why are you so hateful and bitter to the MVA?  What experience do you have with it?[/quote]

They're not. The BoE and council had opportunities to fund it, and they chose not to. The budget situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. If Courtney and Sterling were serious about finding a long-term solution to virtual school, they'd be lobbying the state to create a program, rather than continuing to whine to the people that already told them no.[/quote]

Even if the state created a program, MCPS would have to pay for it.  Are you really that clueless?  All the state can do is approve a private program, which will cost more than the MVA.  Why the obsession with the state doing it?  States only approve programs, they do not run programs.[/quote]

But two BOE members are virtual because they want that option.[/quote]

That's intereting isn't it.  They also are known to work virtually regularly.  But, some are working two jobs, not sure how they can work full time, lets say at MC and the BOE.  More interesting given they are working full-time at another job, they are asking for a pay raise.[/quote]

If you don't effectively compensate elected representatives for their time, you get one of these as candidates:

1) Wealthy socialites who don't need compensation
2) Folks whose alternate employment opportunities are limited to at or near minimum wage
3) Ideologues willing to sacrifice financially to push their agenda
4) Folks that will spend the absolute minimum time on the job

If you want highly capable representatives spending the more-than-full-time needed to do this job well (it covers 200+ schools and a multi-billion-dollar budget), then you need to offer commensurate compensation, say the equivalent of a GS-14 step 6 or so with the locality adjustment for this area -- somewhere north of $160k.  [i]Then[/i] you can expect them not to have other jobs.[/quote]

Its a huge conflict of interest when one works for MC, and clearly cannot be working 40 hours with all her duties.  It would be ok paying them a salary if that was their only job but its not ok they are double dipping.  Most board jobs are volunteer.  Paying them $160K would not be ok when thats way more than an average teacher.  Most don't have any educational background or training specific to this job.  And, we don't need to pay them that much to muck things up.[/quote]

The idea isn't to pay them on top of a primary job, it's to expect that being on the BOE [i]would be[/i] their primary, if not only, job.  The idea of having competent oversight of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise on a part-time or volunteer basis is a joke.  They'd all come from one of the 4 categories mentioned.  Why do you think it's such a mess?[/quote]

That would only work if they quit their other jobs, which is doubtful.  I think its a mess as they aren't financial folks and they allow their personal bias and friends/employers to take advantage of them.[/quote]

I think you might mistake the suggestion that BOE members be paid a salary commensurate with our expectation of their compentency and of their time commitment as a suggestion that [i]these[/i] BOE members be paid that much.  [i]Some[/i] of them might, if they won an election against the array of competent (likely much more so, from a financial/managerial perspective) opponents who threw their hat in the ring once a realistic compensation was offered (and understanding the expectation of professional levels of effort -- full time or more, as likely would be needed).[/quote]

Anyone who is truely tallented wlll want $200-600K, and the point of boards is not to have paid positions.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics