Reply to Kate Stewart asks BOE to reject SSIMS closure resolution

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Kate Stewart asks BOE to reject SSIMS closure resolution"

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]Wolff put up a new resolution asking the the SSIMS/SCES decision be delayed and considered during the upcoming elementary school boundary study.[/quote]

Wolff's resolution was approved.[/quote]

Wait, really?  Did MCPS staff argue against it?  Was there any discussion about what this means for the MS/HS boundary options?   Do you know what time stamp on the board meeting video to look for to watch this? [/quote]

It's at 1:51.  Clearly all the Board members had prepped and agreed on it beforehand.  I suspect Taylor was only pretending to argue for the faster timeline at the beginning, or he would have argued harder (and twisted arms behind the scenes.)

https://www.youtube.com/live/1bWb9wK1gH0?si=7kztMzaas45u3eHs[/quote]

You're probably right, but it was beautiful to watch when he read his resolution for an accelerated closure process and no one seconded him.

[/quote]

Taylor isn’t a member of the Board of Education and he can’t make a Resolution.  Resolutions have to come from the elected Board members. [/quote]

Well whatever you call it, he wanted the BOE to vote to approve his recommendation for accelerating the closing of SSIMS and no one even seconded the motion.   [/quote]

Of course not. He can’t make a motion. [/quote]

DP.

If you’re trying to make a point, maybe get to it?

Stewart’s letter references the superintendent’s “resolution.”  I saw him make a statement and I saw the whole BOE decline to second it.  Maybe some
of us are missing key process terminology — please enlighten us.[/quote]

They're being pedantic.  He/MCPS wrote and read the resolution but he cannot make a motion to adopt it.  The SMOB did that, and no one even seconded it, so it didn't even move to discussion and just immediately failed (clearly choreographed.)

MCPS clearly knew about that in advance.  They had a letter ready to go to SSIMS families talking about how waiting is such a wise choice.[/quote]

Agree it all felt choreographed. 
 So if the BOE can clap back against Taylor’s inextricably linked SSIMS/boundary study timeline, why did we even spend the money and time to expand the scope and out out these options? And if we are getting the guts to tell him his proposed timeline is too fast and doesn’t need to be inextricably linked, why didn’t we de-link the regional program analysis? [/quote]

Great questions.

My guess is the reason the BOE folded was because Councilmembers pull their strings behind the scenes not to move forward with a controversial school closure while three councilmembers are running for the County Executive office.

They probably placated MCPS and Taylor by saying they just needed a delay so that the decision to close SSIMS happens well after the election is over.[/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