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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

+1 lol

The voters are ultimately the ones that pick the BoE, and obviously voters don't always make the smartest choices. But it's more likely to work out better if there's a choice other than the rubber stamps and the kooks.

+2 Or those whose full-time jobs are in institutions that would bring them into conflicts of interests with MCPS.

They would just double dip.

Wow you should get a job where they make use of your incredible ability to predict the behavior of every adult in MoCo. /s

+1. Some people are just too pig headed to listen to anything. There are a lot of unexpectedly out of work Feds, Fed adjacent contractors and laid off former corporate workers in MoCo due to all the turmoil.

I don’t doubt that many good candidates are there with experience in finance, accounting, project management, law and other areas that would serve them well on the Board. But many of them would need more than 25k a year to support their families.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

+1 lol

The voters are ultimately the ones that pick the BoE, and obviously voters don't always make the smartest choices. But it's more likely to work out better if there's a choice other than the rubber stamps and the kooks.

+2 Or those whose full-time jobs are in institutions that would bring them into conflicts of interests with MCPS.

They would just double dip.

Wow you should get a job where they make use of your incredible ability to predict the behavior of every adult in MoCo. /s

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

+1 lol

The voters are ultimately the ones that pick the BoE, and obviously voters don't always make the smartest choices. But it's more likely to work out better if there's a choice other than the rubber stamps and the kooks.

+2 Or those whose full-time jobs are in institutions that would bring them into conflicts of interests with MCPS.

They would just double dip.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

+1 lol

The voters are ultimately the ones that pick the BoE, and obviously voters don't always make the smartest choices. But it's more likely to work out better if there's a choice other than the rubber stamps and the kooks.

+2 Or those whose full-time jobs are in institutions that would bring them into conflicts of interests with MCPS.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

+1 lol

The voters are ultimately the ones that pick the BoE, and obviously voters don't always make the smartest choices. But it's more likely to work out better if there's a choice other than the rubber stamps and the kooks.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

Do you not understand its a volunteer position with a stipend and not a job. If you are not independently wealthy you aren't going to terminate your stable well paying job for $120K a year.

Do you not understand that volunteers don't get paid $25K a year while being asked to provide oversight to a school district with 211 schools? Not all school districts pay board members something they call a stipend. Do you live on a planet where nothing ever can be changed?

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

It's not about paying these particular board members more. It's about attracting stronger candidates to run in the future.

+1. Not sure what people don't get about how a job that pays $25K, involves heavy public scrutiny and criticism, and requires full-time hours to do well, is not going to attract a large pool of high-quality applicants...

This isn't a job. Its a board position that comes with a stipend. Look at the county council. We pay them very good salaries and they are not doing a good job either. Paying more isn't going to attract better people. And, without holding them accountable, this will continue to happen.

There's no way the Board of Ed can be effective without putting in full-time hours (heck, many of them put in full-time hours already and are clearly not doing an effective enough job of oversight so far.). It absolutely is or should be a job and I don't know why you're so obsessed with not paying it like one and thinking you're going to somehow magically attract better candidates without that.

+1 I don't know why some people are insistent on calling it a "stipend" and that the status quo of $25k is how it must be forever. There's plenty of research on corporate governance that shows if you want Board members to take their responsibilities seriously, you need to compensate them appropriately for their time and make those responsibilities clear.

I think it is just a childish, vindictive mentality. Like a 6 year old-level thought process-- "Those people don't do what I want and I don't like them, so I think they should be punished! They're bad so no way should they get anything good, that wouldn't be fair!"-- without actually using an adult's logic and common sense to think through the actual strategy to get what you want.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

Do you not understand its a volunteer position with a stipend and not a job. If you are not independently wealthy you aren't going to terminate your stable well paying job for $120K a year.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

There is a big difference in paying someone $25K a year for a full-time job and paying them $120K a year. What are you not understanding? We're not all independently wealthy such that we can care for our families by feeding them stupid generalizations.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

It's not about paying these particular board members more. It's about attracting stronger candidates to run in the future.

+1. Not sure what people don't get about how a job that pays $25K, involves heavy public scrutiny and criticism, and requires full-time hours to do well, is not going to attract a large pool of high-quality applicants...

This isn't a job. Its a board position that comes with a stipend. Look at the county council. We pay them very good salaries and they are not doing a good job either. Paying more isn't going to attract better people. And, without holding them accountable, this will continue to happen.

There's no way the Board of Ed can be effective without putting in full-time hours (heck, many of them put in full-time hours already and are clearly not doing an effective enough job of oversight so far.). It absolutely is or should be a job and I don't know why you're so obsessed with not paying it like one and thinking you're going to somehow magically attract better candidates without that.

+1 I don't know why some people are insistent on calling it a "stipend" and that the status quo of $25k is how it must be forever. There's plenty of research on corporate governance that shows if you want Board members to take their responsibilities seriously, you need to compensate them appropriately for their time and make those responsibilities clear.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.

If they will take a decrease in pay they can do it for the stipend. Would you take a decrease?

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

It's not about paying these particular board members more. It's about attracting stronger candidates to run in the future.

+1. Not sure what people don't get about how a job that pays $25K, involves heavy public scrutiny and criticism, and requires full-time hours to do well, is not going to attract a large pool of high-quality applicants...

This isn't a job. Its a board position that comes with a stipend. Look at the county council. We pay them very good salaries and they are not doing a good job either. Paying more isn't going to attract better people. And, without holding them accountable, this will continue to happen.

There's no way the Board of Ed can be effective without putting in full-time hours (heck, many of them put in full-time hours already and are clearly not doing an effective enough job of oversight so far.). It absolutely is or should be a job and I don't know why you're so obsessed with not paying it like one and thinking you're going to somehow magically attract better candidates without that.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

It's not about paying these particular board members more. It's about attracting stronger candidates to run in the future.

+1. Not sure what people don't get about how a job that pays $25K, involves heavy public scrutiny and criticism, and requires full-time hours to do well, is not going to attract a large pool of high-quality applicants...

This isn't a job. Its a board position that comes with a stipend. Look at the county council. We pay them very good salaries and they are not doing a good job either. Paying more isn't going to attract better people. And, without holding them accountable, this will continue to happen.

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:

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.

+1. MCPS BOE members are being paid equivalent amounts to school board members of much smaller and less complex districts, when the scope of the responsiobilities is not remotely the same.

It’s not pay. It’s a volunteer job with a stipend. Even if we paid them $500k a year we still would be in this situation.

You have no evidence to show that, and you are wrong. Difficult jobs attract more candidates when they are well renumerated: you can look up "compensating differentials" and try to learn something rather than throwing around false generalizations.

+2 Offering a reasonable salary would entice candidates who are already employed but see being on the Board as a reasonable option to help MCPS be better, while not impoverishing their family....Pay them $120K a year like the Council and I'm sure we'd get more and more qualified candidates.

Anyone good isn't going to leave a corporate or government job for a term job that only pays $120K per year.

People join public service for many reasons--some are willing to do a job for a short period as long as they can make enough to feed their family, which $120K a year provides them with. But since there are people on this thread convinced that no good candidate could possibly be found even at $500K a year, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

Very few strong candidates would do it for that money or take a pay decrease.

That's garbage. Salaries for many extremely powerful government positions are in that range and people take them because there's a chance to do some good and then return to their existing job. Plenty of people take a pay decrease to do a public service job for a period (sometimes short and sometimes long). You are just too myopic to see beyond your tiny circle of acquaintances.