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:

Anonymous wrote:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

That's exactly what a board member's job is.

Right. It's the BOE's job to shut down the crap from CO.

+1 There are people on this thread who don't understand what Board oversight should entail.

And others who don't understand that reasonably commensurate compensation (however termed -- wage, salary, stipend, total compensation to account for benefits, etc.) would tend to attract the kinds of candidates who better might perform that oversight, and, if enough, might afford them the time to do so.

The current members are all ones capable. Their leadership, biases and conflict of interests are the issue. Paying them a salary wouldn’t have made a difference and even if we paid the 500+ a year, Mcps outs be a hot mess.

You may have that opinion about the capabilities and motives of the current BOE. I might agree with you, at least with regard to some, whether with regard to capabilities, to motives or to both.

But if we set good compensation for the position, we are far more likely to get other highly capable candidates, versus the more typical mix of:

Those who have such independent wealth as for such compensation not to matter,

Those who are too close to the system to treat it objectively/for the clearer benefit of the electorate, and

Those whose political views are antithetical to the broad provision of high-quality public education.

For each of these, the motives well may be questioned. The more qualified candidates we attract, the more likely that some might be of the kind you (or I, or many of us) seek.

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:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

If they've screwed up MCPS for years and now allowing this to happen, paying them more isn't going to fix things. It just takes more money to overhead and not the students and staff. Let me guess, you are a BOE member.

Let us guess. You're quite wealthy.

-- DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

If they've screwed up MCPS for years and now allowing this to happen, paying them more isn't going to fix things. It just takes more money to overhead and not the students and staff. Let me guess, you are a BOE member.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOE is clearly behind Taylor in pushing the regional model. Paying them more stipend or changing to full-time job wouldn’t resolve the issue at all.

It's not the whole BOE. But I'm guessing it's Brenda, Karla, Grace and Julie? Cause Rita, Natalie and Laura are new. And Rita and Laura seem like they might be skeptical or open to the skepticism.

Natalie has, unfortunately, shown she is far too willing to toe the line. Laura is too tentative. Rita doesn't have friends on the board.

Of the other four, Grace is the only one I see as willing to challenge, but not broadly enough. Julie, as President, has shown herself to be complicit in her management of the meetings. Karla, too, though less clearly so, when she was President, and pretty much for the entire time after her first year on the board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOE is clearly behind Taylor in pushing the regional model. Paying them more stipend or changing to full-time job wouldn’t resolve the issue at all.

It's not the whole BOE. But I'm guessing it's Brenda, Karla, Grace and Julie? Cause Rita, Natalie and Laura are new. And Rita and Laura seem like they might be skeptical or open to the skepticism.

Natalie has, unfortunately, shown she is far too willing to toe the line. Laura is too tentative. Rita doesn't have friends on the board.

Of the other four, Grace is the only one I see as willing to challenge, but not broadly enough. Julie, as President, has shown herself to be complicit in her management of the meetings. Karla, too, though less clearly so, when she was President, and pretty much for the entire time after her first year on the board.

I think every single one of them is skeptical of this plan except Brenda who is literally a rubber stamp and Karla who is disengaged. Grace thinks families don’t want to travel far, which is true. Laura knows the value of the existing programs. Rita knows this is being rammed through despite lots of community objections. Julie thinks the central office staff have definitely not done their hw or provided enough data on costs. Natalie thinks they are naive and cavalier about staffing all these programs. The student member thinks students will not be interested in watered down programs. They have collective concern and could actually demand a change of course.

They all hired Taylor. They already made their choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOE is clearly behind Taylor in pushing the regional model. Paying them more stipend or changing to full-time job wouldn’t resolve the issue at all.

It's not the whole BOE. But I'm guessing it's Brenda, Karla, Grace and Julie? Cause Rita, Natalie and Laura are new. And Rita and Laura seem like they might be skeptical or open to the skepticism.

Natalie has, unfortunately, shown she is far too willing to toe the line. Laura is too tentative. Rita doesn't have friends on the board.

Of the other four, Grace is the only one I see as willing to challenge, but not broadly enough. Julie, as President, has shown herself to be complicit in her management of the meetings. Karla, too, though less clearly so, when she was President, and pretty much for the entire time after her first year on the board.

I think every single one of them is skeptical of this plan except Brenda who is literally a rubber stamp and Karla who is disengaged. Grace thinks families don’t want to travel far, which is true. Laura knows the value of the existing programs. Rita knows this is being rammed through despite lots of community objections. Julie thinks the central office staff have definitely not done their hw or provided enough data on costs. Natalie thinks they are naive and cavalier about staffing all these programs. The student member thinks students will not be interested in watered down programs. They have collective concern and could actually demand a change of course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOE is clearly behind Taylor in pushing the regional model. Paying them more stipend or changing to full-time job wouldn’t resolve the issue at all.

It's not the whole BOE. But I'm guessing it's Brenda, Karla, Grace and Julie? Cause Rita, Natalie and Laura are new. And Rita and Laura seem like they might be skeptical or open to the skepticism.

Natalie has, unfortunately, shown she is far too willing to toe the line. Laura is too tentative. Rita doesn't have friends on the board.

Of the other four, Grace is the only one I see as willing to challenge, but not broadly enough. Julie, as President, has shown herself to be complicit in her management of the meetings. Karla, too, though less clearly so, when she was President, and pretty much for the entire time after her first year on the board.

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:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

That's exactly what a board member's job is.

Right. It's the BOE's job to shut down the crap from CO.

+1 There are people on this thread who don't understand what Board oversight should entail.

And others who don't understand that reasonably commensurate compensation (however termed -- wage, salary, stipend, total compensation to account for benefits, etc.) would tend to attract the kinds of candidates who better might perform that oversight, and, if enough, might afford them the time to do so.

The current members are all ones capable. Their leadership, biases and conflict of interests are the issue. Paying them a salary wouldn’t have made a difference and even if we paid the 500+ a year, Mcps outs be a hot mess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOE is clearly behind Taylor in pushing the regional model. Paying them more stipend or changing to full-time job wouldn’t resolve the issue at all.

It's not the whole BOE. But I'm guessing it's Brenda, Karla, Grace and Julie? Cause Rita, Natalie and Laura are new. And Rita and Laura seem like they might be skeptical or open to the skepticism.

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:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

That's exactly what a board member's job is.

Right. It's the BOE's job to shut down the crap from CO.

+1 There are people on this thread who don't understand what Board oversight should entail.

And others who don't understand that reasonably commensurate compensation (however termed -- wage, salary, stipend, total compensation to account for benefits, etc.) would tend to attract the kinds of candidates who better might perform that oversight, and, if enough, might afford them the time to do so.

The current members are all ones capable. Their leadership, biases and conflict of interests are the issue. Paying them a salary wouldn’t have made a difference and even if we paid the 500+ a year, Mcps outs be a hot mess.

Anonymous wrote:BOE is clearly behind Taylor in pushing the regional model. Paying them more stipend or changing to full-time job wouldn’t resolve the issue at all.

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:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

That's exactly what a board member's job is.

Right. It's the BOE's job to shut down the crap from CO.

+1 There are people on this thread who don't understand what Board oversight should entail.

And others who don't understand that reasonably commensurate compensation (however termed -- wage, salary, stipend, total compensation to account for benefits, etc.) would tend to attract the kinds of candidates who better might perform that oversight, and, if enough, might afford them the time to do so.

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:How about Silvestre? She looks bored and unconcerned about most issues. Can't imagine why she is running for county council because she doesn't care enough to meaningfully participate in the BOE.

Silvestre does come off as incredibly cold and distant.

Gosh--who wouldn't want to be a BOE member and have MCPS parents write mean things about your personality while you slave away for $25K a year. /s

Silvestre is free to join us in lobbying for the BOE to be a full-time position with much better compensation. But as you know, elected officials tend to be subject to scrutiny by the public on their demeanor in public. It's part of the job.

If she didn't want that spotlight, she shouldn't be running for public office.

They don't need to be full time positions. Board positions are not and its a state decision. Even if they were better compensated, it would still be the same. Silvestre is getting paid via the county for MC and there is no way she's workign 40 hours at MC given her BOE duties. She failed our kids.

I disagree. Oversight of a school system this size is not in any way a part-time position. We've tried that model for years and look at what it's gotten us.

You know the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

They don't provide oversight. They just listen to MCPS nonsense and agree. They don't even read or investigate anything. We don't need to take funds meant for the school to pay for them. The state determines the stipend, and they agreed to it. Paying more isn't going to lead to a better MCPS. They created this mess. MCPS is failing unders their leadership. You want to financially reward them?

I don’t understand. I 100% agree that the BOE does not currently provide oversight. Hence why I’m advocating better compensation and full-time status to incentivize them to commit to the role they are structurally obligated to fulfill.

If you don’t want to pay them more and make the job full-time, what’s your idea to get the BOE to fulfill its oversight responsibilities?

Paying them more isn't going to give a better outcome. You need to fire those not performing or who have conflicts of interest.

Paying board members more would attract more talented candidates interested in FT jobs, which could have a better outcome.

Bullshit. It’s central office. Paying board members more will not change the culture of central office unless someone is willing to challenge central office in public. A career politician will not do that because their paycheck depends on it.

That's exactly what a board member's job is.

Right. It's the BOE's job to shut down the crap from CO.

+1 There are people on this thread who don't understand what Board oversight should entail.