BOE should stop adding positions to central office and create some positions that report directly to the BOE, do budget and policy analysis in order to make it possible for the BOE to actually act as a check on the Superintendent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://moco360.media/2024/03/15/mcps-to-pay-mcknight-1-3-million-in-separation-agreement/

$1,183,250 in agreed-upon wages. The payment will be made in two equal lump sum payments with the final payment on or before Jan. 31, 2025;
$30,000 in attorney fees;
$20,225 in deferred compensation;
$18,525 from a tax-sheltered annual annuity plan; and
$48,000 paid to McKnight’s annual annuity account.

Wow, just wow.

I am not a lawyer, but it looks like most of this was part of her contract. You can fire someone, but you still have to pay them what the contract requires.

In addition, if I were a candidate considering being the next MCPS superintendent, I would also insist on a contract like that. Dr. McKnight is the third superintendent in a row to leave early, so job security isn't great.

She had two years left on the contract. Her salary was $320,000 per year. Maybe my math is wrong, but that would be $640,000, not $1,183,250.

Can someone explain the math?

I suspect that, with that pittance of compensation and lack of direct staff, the BOE had only a smattering of information, given mostly in closed session by MCPS staff reporting to McKnight, herself, with which to determine any cause against her. Unsurprising, then, that it was difficult for them to construe a proper legal basis for termination, given her contract, which probably, itself, suffered from that same one-sided construction in her favor.

This is on the County Council, folks. Sure, the BOE, probaly some members more than others, failed to provide oversight. Sure, many of them should be replaced. But it is the County Council that is responsible for the lack of funding that might make for an effective MCPS BOE under the structure/auspices of MSDE/the MD state BOE, and they've been aware of that handicap for many years.

Compare that to the rather generous compensation given to their own assistants & certain County appointees, not to mention their own hefty pay. The Council likes to maintain control for their own political purposes, and a weak BOE, which is a relatively independent body, is one way they do that, both by limiting effectiveness in office with under-resourcing and by discouraging more viable candidacies with the same in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:Love it.
DCUM is in full meltdown, while Dr. McKnight is smiling all the way to the bank.

????? Who cares about 5 anonymous people? No one.

But the coverage of this by the media during budget season is going to be stressful for the County Council.

Anonymous wrote:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

Anonymous wrote:Love it.
DCUM is in full meltdown, while Dr. McKnight is smiling all the way to the bank.

Not so sure she will be smiling. I don't think she will be able to replace her 300k per year salary. And I'm pretty sure she has quite a few working years ahead of here.

Love it.
DCUM is in full meltdown, while Dr. McKnight is smiling all the way to the bank.

Anonymous wrote:Just an absolute disgrace and a disgusting look for the BOE. You all are paying the previous superintendent $1.3M despite knowing that she protected someone who sexually harassed and bullied numerous teachers? What does this story teach our children? This story after all the other crap that's happening in the schools..I'm so glad we only have 4 more years of this sh*t show. If I had known 10 years ago what I know now, I would have done things differently.

Yes. In MCPS, if you sexually harass people, you are promoted. If you promote a sexual harasser, you get 1.3 million dollars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Fire the BOE. There have to be consequences for this appalling, disgraceful charade while teachers bear the brunt of a budget freeze.

Elections are 2 months away. Vote them out.

We can't vote them all up because their terms are staggered.

But voting out 3 of them is a start...

The Council can fire all of them right now and should do so. I am so unbelievably disgusted with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://moco360.media/2024/03/15/mcps-to-pay-mcknight-1-3-million-in-separation-agreement/

$1,183,250 in agreed-upon wages. The payment will be made in two equal lump sum payments with the final payment on or before Jan. 31, 2025;
$30,000 in attorney fees;
$20,225 in deferred compensation;
$18,525 from a tax-sheltered annual annuity plan; and
$48,000 paid to McKnight’s annual annuity account.

Wow, just wow.

I am not a lawyer, but it looks like most of this was part of her contract. You can fire someone, but you still have to pay them what the contract requires.

In addition, if I were a candidate considering being the next MCPS superintendent, I would also insist on a contract like that. Dr. McKnight is the third superintendent in a row to leave early, so job security isn't great.

I’m a lawyer. If there’s a material breach of the contract they shouldn’t have to pay it out. There was a good case here for material breach. I would have thought paying her one year was more than fair to get this done. The amount they paid seems like more than 2 years 5 months and benefits. And that also assumes no mitigation at all — so assumes she will just sit on her butt for the next two years which is not reasonable. Presumably she could at least get a teaching job to cover the benefits and earn at least a portion of that.

+1 not a lawyer but this tracks with how incompetent the BOE seems when I watch their work sessions. They seem to completely lack the capability to be critical of MCPS staff. This structure of having a part time board with pittances for stipends and only a couple of staff independent of the superintendent for a multibillion dollar school system is not working. This contract is a perfect example of the total lack of oversight by the board.

She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some people on here hate the apple ballot but I trust the teachers more than any other group here. They have interviewed all the candidates and aren’t endorsing any of the incumbents. They’ve endorsed—Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya. Rallying behind the MCEA endorsed candidates is probably the best way to ensure the incumbents get the boot.

The same MCEA that failed to protect their own members from Beidleman's harrassment? What's a union for, if not to protect their members?

But... I do see who they endorsed are all non-incumbents, so that's at least a sign in the right direction.

Who is to say that new BOE members won't make the same mistakes? I want structural change that ensures very careful monitoring of complaints is institutionalized. Teachers are the bottom of the barrel in American schools and especially in this school district, as history shows, they need much better protection.

Anonymous wrote:I know some people on here hate the apple ballot but I trust the teachers more than any other group here. They have interviewed all the candidates and aren’t endorsing any of the incumbents. They’ve endorsed—Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya. Rallying behind the MCEA endorsed candidates is probably the best way to ensure the incumbents get the boot.

The same MCEA that failed to protect their own members from Beidleman's harrassment? What's a union for, if not to protect their members?

But... I do see who they endorsed are all non-incumbents, so that's at least a sign in the right direction.

Just an absolute disgrace and a disgusting look for the BOE. You all are paying the previous superintendent $1.3M despite knowing that she protected someone who sexually harassed and bullied numerous teachers? What does this story teach our children? This story after all the other crap that's happening in the schools..I'm so glad we only have 4 more years of this sh*t show. If I had known 10 years ago what I know now, I would have done things differently.