Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
Reply to "Boundary Review Meetings"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I really appreciated Mcelveen’s comments. This was not a comprehensive change and not worth the juice. it sets us the county up for an endless cycle of boundary reviews that impacts other priorities that the county needs to address. So disappointing this passed. [/quote] As a PP said, it would have been better if McElveen was more vocal earlier in the process. But he got it right tonight. The juice was not worth the squeeze. [/quote] Mcelveen spoke to my sentiments tonight. I will vote for him next election and anyone else who opposes a future comprehensive boundary review. That’s my red line.[/quote] What was overall jist of what he said? He does seem to be only one who wasn't patting each other on the back (couldn't take it more than 10 minutes). Also what was the motion that seemed to piss Ried off - something directing her to do what she was going to do anyway?[/quote] Dunne had proposed a series of four follow-on motions considered after the board had voted to approve her boundary recommendations. The first motion would have directed Reid to come up with a specific project plan and timeline relating to the boundary issues that Reid has said she'll come back with further recommendations on in January 2027 and then before the next five-year cyclical review. Dr. Anderson asked Reid whether there was any harm in the Board's passing a motion to direct her to do something she'd already said she would do anyway. Reid's initial response was to say she wasn't going to respond to the question and she looked kind of snippy about it. Then a bunch of other board members said the motion was unnecessary because Reid was trustworthy and didn't need to be micro-managed, etc. The motion ended up failing by a 5-6 vote. Dunne's other three follow-on motions failed as well. [/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