Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So does BOE actually care about public sentiment? Bc it seems from DCUM that they vociferously oppose public and want to do the exact opposit
I’m sure it’s tricky. I remember seeing a slide about responses to the boundary study, and I noted that a much larger share of responses had come from W clusters. The DCC was much less represented. While I am sure the BOE is interested in feedback, I’m sure they note that not all perspectives are equally represented.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.
This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.
There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?
It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?
Are you a board member?
So members of the public aren’t allowed to care that the BOE be able to do its job? -DP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.
This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.
There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?
It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?
Are you a board member?
So members of the public aren’t allowed to care that the BOE be able to do its job? -DP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.
This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.
There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?
It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?
Are you a board member?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.
This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.
There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?
It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.
This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.
There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?
It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?
+1
I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)
And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.
+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.
I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.
This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.
There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?
It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?
+1
I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)
And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.
+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.
This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.
There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?
It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?
+1
I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)
And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.
+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.
This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.
There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?
It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?
+1
I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)
And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.
Anonymous wrote:So does BOE actually care about public sentiment? Bc it seems from DCUM that they vociferously oppose public and want to do the exact opposit
Anonymous wrote:So does BOE actually care about public sentiment? Bc it seems from DCUM that they vociferously oppose public and want to do the exact opposit
Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure these are the regions:
BCC
Blair
Einstein
Northwood
Whitman
Churchill
WJ
Wheaton
Woodward
Crown
Gaithersburg
Northwest
Seneca Valley
Watkins Mill
Blake
Paint Branch
Springwood
Sherwood
Kennedy
Magruder
RM
Rockville
Wootton
Clarksburg
Damascus
Poolesville
QO
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.
This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.
There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?
It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?