Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

He runs the police department and he pulled them regardless of what anyone else wants.

The council cut the funding for the program, led by Riemer and Jawando.

No they didn’t. The police are still working, just aren’t allowed in the school.s

Please inform yourself.

“Two Montgomery lawmakers propose bill to remove police from schools”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/montgomery-school-resource-officers/2020/11/17/6ad7d0ba-284f-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html

The bills died.

Elrich did this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/montgomery-schools-police-officer-program/2021/08/25/99fe70d2-058b-11ec-a654-900a78538242_story.html

There is a CEO program made up of most of the same officers. There were no budget cuts for existing sros

There is a state mandate for SROs. MCPS believed having cops outside schools and not inside satisfied that mandate. No positions were cut, but open positions were eliminated. The CEO program does not allocate one cop per school. And the council did not fund “cops inside schools”.

Council didn't have anything to do with the actual decision. It was all Elrich, and Elrich has to turn it around unless the Council proposes legislation, which they likely won't do. Jawando and Riemer definitely hate police too. The rest don't want to appear racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

He runs the police department and he pulled them regardless of what anyone else wants.

The council cut the funding for the program, led by Riemer and Jawando.

No they didn’t. The police are still working, just aren’t allowed in the school.s

Please inform yourself.

“Two Montgomery lawmakers propose bill to remove police from schools”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/montgomery-school-resource-officers/2020/11/17/6ad7d0ba-284f-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html

The bills died.

Elrich did this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/montgomery-schools-police-officer-program/2021/08/25/99fe70d2-058b-11ec-a654-900a78538242_story.html

There is a CEO program made up of most of the same officers. There were no budget cuts for existing sros

There is a state mandate for SROs. MCPS believed having cops outside schools and not inside satisfied that mandate. No positions were cut, but open positions were eliminated. The CEO program does not allocate one cop per school. And the council did not fund “cops inside schools”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

He runs the police department and he pulled them regardless of what anyone else wants.

The council cut the funding for the program, led by Riemer and Jawando.

Also, the chief of police runs the police department. Elrich has little influence over the day to day operations of the department and he rightfully shouldn’t and we shouldn’t want that.

Did he support removing SROs and does he continue to support keeping them out? Yes. He said so himself during the press conference. But it’s not his call. It’s MCPSs call to request the program and the councils job to provide the funding.

Elrich is micromanager of the police. He hates them. Always has.

MCPS cannot force county government to provide police officers to schools. They don't pay for them. They are solely under Elrich's control.

The idea that Elrich is a micromanager of anything is ridiculous. The knock on him from the people running against him is that he doesn’t care about the details. Further ridiculous is the idea that the chief of police would take day-to-day operations instructions from Elrich. That’s just utterly ridiculous and the chief would probably consider it defamatory. No self respecting police chief would do that.

But, I could really care less about Elrich. He’s part culpable in that he has sufficient political power that if he opposed removing the SROs or came out in favor their return, SROs would be in schools right now. But beyond that, all of the responsibility lies with 3 people: McKnight, Jawando and Riemer.

Elrich did not order the removal of SROs from the schools. The council literally ended the program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

He runs the police department and he pulled them regardless of what anyone else wants.

The council cut the funding for the program, led by Riemer and Jawando.

Also, the chief of police runs the police department. Elrich has little influence over the day to day operations of the department and he rightfully shouldn’t and we shouldn’t want that.

Did he support removing SROs and does he continue to support keeping them out? Yes. He said so himself during the press conference. But it’s not his call. It’s MCPSs call to request the program and the councils job to provide the funding.

Elrich is micromanager of the police. He hates them. Always has.

MCPS cannot force county government to provide police officers to schools. They don't pay for them. They are solely under Elrich's control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

He runs the police department and he pulled them regardless of what anyone else wants.

The council cut the funding for the program, led by Riemer and Jawando.

No they didn’t. The police are still working, just aren’t allowed in the school.s

Please inform yourself.

“Two Montgomery lawmakers propose bill to remove police from schools”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/montgomery-school-resource-officers/2020/11/17/6ad7d0ba-284f-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html

The bills died.

Elrich did this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/montgomery-schools-police-officer-program/2021/08/25/99fe70d2-058b-11ec-a654-900a78538242_story.html

There is a CEO program made up of most of the same officers. There were no budget cuts for existing sros

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

He runs the police department and he pulled them regardless of what anyone else wants.

The council cut the funding for the program, led by Riemer and Jawando.

No they didn’t. The police are still working, just aren’t allowed in the school.s

Please inform yourself.

“Two Montgomery lawmakers propose bill to remove police from schools”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/montgomery-school-resource-officers/2020/11/17/6ad7d0ba-284f-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

He runs the police department and he pulled them regardless of what anyone else wants.

The council cut the funding for the program, led by Riemer and Jawando.

Also, the chief of police runs the police department. Elrich has little influence over the day to day operations of the department and he rightfully shouldn’t and we shouldn’t want that.

Did he support removing SROs and does he continue to support keeping them out? Yes. He said so himself during the press conference. But it’s not his call. It’s MCPSs call to request the program and the councils job to provide the funding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

He runs the police department and he pulled them regardless of what anyone else wants.

The council cut the funding for the program, led by Riemer and Jawando.

No they didn’t. The police are still working, just aren’t allowed in the school.s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

He runs the police department and he pulled them regardless of what anyone else wants.

The council cut the funding for the program, led by Riemer and Jawando.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

He runs the police department and he pulled them regardless of what anyone else wants.

Anonymous wrote:Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Elrich doesn’t run schools. MCPS and specifically Dr. McKnight run schools. She has been the chief proponent of removing SROs and adamant that they don’t return. By the way, she lives in PG County and her kids attend PGPS.

Question for Marc Elrich, since he unilaterally pulled the SROs out of the schools: why didn't you do an independent, validated survey of a representative sample of parents, teachers, and kids about whether they want SROs or not?

Prince George's County, which has 55% AA enrollment and 37% Latino/a enrollment, did a real survey, and 82% thought SROs were important or very important to have in schools.

Charles County conducted one, too, with 56% AA enrollment and 10% Latino/a, and 90% thought SROs were important to have in schools.

So why does a group of 30 child advocates get to call the shots here? I get listening to kids, giving them input, validating their experiences. But in the end, adults need to make the decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blair hasn't articulated his position on many issues. Where does he stand on the vaccine passport proposal?

I thought he was against it because it hurts business

He praised the council President for delaying action.

Okay. But that’s not a position on the substance. That’s a position on the process.

What’s his position on the the county instituting a vaccine mandate to enter local businesses? Crickets?

If everything with Blair is going to be like this, then he’s going to find himself losing support really quick.

Unless you're being intentionally obtuse it's pretty easy to infer that he doesn't think the county should have a mandate under the current circumstances. I wouldn't want an ideologue candidate (like Hucker, Riemer, or Elrich) who's not willing to change their positions as facts change.

According to you I am being obtuse but it is the candidate himself that is playing the semantic games.

The idea that someone should have to infer a candidate’s position is ridiculous.

He’s like this on every issue. Trying to be too clever by half. It’s transparently obnoxious.

He retweeted a story about the council delaying the passport and said: "Appreciate the Council President's thoughtful approach. COVID is rapidly changing and we need to better understand what is reasonable to ask of local businesses in implementing a mandate." That's not clever at all. It's really straight forward.

Can you read? He endorsed the “approach” which is the process.

He has never stated whether he is for or against vaccine passports.

Stop being disingenuous.

Still only reading the first sentence I see.

Blair said “COVID is rapidly changing and we need to better understand what is reasonable to ask of local businesses in implementing a mandate." The only reasonable conclusion to reach from that statement about his position is “we shouldn’t do a vaccine mandate right now.”

That sentence only expresses concern about the enforcement mechanism proposed in the bill and the burden on businesses.

He’s against it, which is fair, but he doesn’t want to come out and say it explicitly because it’s popular among the TPSS set as it would follow what DC has done, because they are more oriented towards DC than the county as a whole.

It’s clear as day what he’s doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blair hasn't articulated his position on many issues. Where does he stand on the vaccine passport proposal?

I thought he was against it because it hurts business

He praised the council President for delaying action.

Okay. But that’s not a position on the substance. That’s a position on the process.

What’s his position on the the county instituting a vaccine mandate to enter local businesses? Crickets?

If everything with Blair is going to be like this, then he’s going to find himself losing support really quick.

Unless you're being intentionally obtuse it's pretty easy to infer that he doesn't think the county should have a mandate under the current circumstances. I wouldn't want an ideologue candidate (like Hucker, Riemer, or Elrich) who's not willing to change their positions as facts change.

According to you I am being obtuse but it is the candidate himself that is playing the semantic games.

The idea that someone should have to infer a candidate’s position is ridiculous.

He’s like this on every issue. Trying to be too clever by half. It’s transparently obnoxious.

He retweeted a story about the council delaying the passport and said: "Appreciate the Council President's thoughtful approach. COVID is rapidly changing and we need to better understand what is reasonable to ask of local businesses in implementing a mandate." That's not clever at all. It's really straight forward.

Can you read? He endorsed the “approach” which is the process.

He has never stated whether he is for or against vaccine passports.

Stop being disingenuous.

Still only reading the first sentence I see.

Blair said “COVID is rapidly changing and we need to better understand what is reasonable to ask of local businesses in implementing a mandate." The only reasonable conclusion to reach from that statement about his position is “we shouldn’t do a vaccine mandate right now.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blair hasn't articulated his position on many issues. Where does he stand on the vaccine passport proposal?

I thought he was against it because it hurts business

He praised the council President for delaying action.

Okay. But that’s not a position on the substance. That’s a position on the process.

What’s his position on the the county instituting a vaccine mandate to enter local businesses? Crickets?

If everything with Blair is going to be like this, then he’s going to find himself losing support really quick.

Unless you're being intentionally obtuse it's pretty easy to infer that he doesn't think the county should have a mandate under the current circumstances. I wouldn't want an ideologue candidate (like Hucker, Riemer, or Elrich) who's not willing to change their positions as facts change.

According to you I am being obtuse but it is the candidate himself that is playing the semantic games.

The idea that someone should have to infer a candidate’s position is ridiculous.

He’s like this on every issue. Trying to be too clever by half. It’s transparently obnoxious.

He retweeted a story about the council delaying the passport and said: "Appreciate the Council President's thoughtful approach. COVID is rapidly changing and we need to better understand what is reasonable to ask of local businesses in implementing a mandate." That's not clever at all. It's really straight forward.

Can you read? He endorsed the “approach” which is the process.

He has never stated whether he is for or against vaccine passports.

Stop being disingenuous.