Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see anyone denigrating the so-called "FACTS team" come up with any real evidence or factual information about that indicates the FACTS candidates are wrong, incorrect, slanderous, or twisted.

Smerdon herself has explained very eloquently and passionately why she Supports the Girls, that has nothing to do with getting elected. She has laid out very clearly data indicating there is need for improvement by FCC school leadership that to date has been ignored or publicly un-addressed by those in positions of authority. She has articulated why she and others co-sponsored a petition to ask a neutral third-party to interpret policies that school system leadership believes give them the right to interfere with a committee that provides community voice (and that also seems to collect and interpret data better than they do--the horror).

No one posting on DCUM has offered clear articulation of any specific wrongdoing, bullying, or lying perpetrated by those listed on the FACTS site. Instead, the "FACTS people" have provided clear documentation of insufficient information and transparency in leadership's public documents used to justify very big, expensive decisions such as school system budgets, funding allocations, and teacher retention decisions. The FACTS candidates have posted these documents online. The biggest local newspaper FCNP has failed in its journalistic duty to investigate and report on these actual facts, because FCNP is arm-in-arm with people who want to continue the status quo.

I believe the only voices that have explicitly tied the We Support the Girls folks to an election are, well, the families of the girls. They've stated who they support and why.

It is no wonder that those decrying "FACTS candidates" are merely asserting this group is of bad character and describe them with negative adjectives rather than offering real information to support these conclusions. Because there is no real information. The lack of real information seems to be an endemic pattern.

Well, you get what you vote for.

This article and the comments--which generally have actual information embedded within--is a perfect example of the wily tactics of FCC school system leadership, in cahoots with the FCNP. Reading the comments is essential for understanding what is going on and how. The attempts to wrest control over the Special Education community committee by school system leadership are sneaky and underhanded. It is not how you want "the best school system in Virginia" to operate. Shame, shame, shame.

As I mentioned: you get what you vote for. Today, for the voters of FCC, this is very good news. Get out there and do what you know is right.

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see anyone denigrating the so-called "FACTS team" come up with any real evidence or factual information about that indicates the FACTS candidates are wrong, incorrect, slanderous, or twisted.

Smerdon herself has explained very eloquently and passionately why she Supports the Girls, that has nothing to do with getting elected. She has laid out very clearly data indicating there is need for improvement by FCC school leadership that to date has been ignored or publicly un-addressed by those in positions of authority. She has articulated why she and others co-sponsored a petition to ask a neutral third-party to interpret policies that school system leadership believes give them the right to interfere with a committee that provides community voice (and that also seems to collect and interpret data better than they do--the horror).

No one posting on DCUM has offered clear articulation of any specific wrongdoing, bullying, or lying perpetrated by those listed on the FACTS site. Instead, the "FACTS people" have provided clear documentation of insufficient information and transparency in leadership's public documents used to justify very big, expensive decisions such as school system budgets, funding allocations, and teacher retention decisions. The FACTS candidates have posted these documents online. The biggest local newspaper FCNP has failed in its journalistic duty to investigate and report on these actual facts, because FCNP is arm-in-arm with people who want to continue the status quo.

I believe the only voices that have explicitly tied the We Support the Girls folks to an election are, well, the families of the girls. They've stated who they support and why.

It is no wonder that those decrying "FACTS candidates" are merely asserting this group is of bad character and describe them with negative adjectives rather than offering real information to support these conclusions. Because there is no real information. The lack of real information seems to be an endemic pattern.

Well, you get what you vote for.

Anonymous wrote:You know what is one of the worst parts of tying what happened to those girls to this election day? That when some or all of the candidates running on "we support the girls" don't win, those families and girls will likely see it as their community not supporting them. That is a tragedy in itself. Not voting for certain candidates because I don't like their politics (like Mabry) does NOT mean I am a Gardner supporter.

Anonymous wrote:You know what is one of the worst parts of tying what happened to those girls to this election day? That when some or all of the candidates running on "we support the girls" don't win, those families and girls will likely see it as their community not supporting them. That is a tragedy in itself. Not voting for certain candidates because I don't like their politics (like Mabry) does NOT mean I am a Gardner supporter.

This is one bizarre place. It needs to join back into a larger county so it can be run with independence and processes not cronyism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By his demonstrates the insularity. You plan to vote against her because you don't like who she "associates" herself with. For no clear reason. Just a hatred of FACTS.

Meanwhile you don't mind Duncan associates himself with a convicted child molester??

This is one bizarre place. It needs to join back into a larger county so it can be run with independence and processes not cronyism.

I'm not voting for Duncan for the same reason. Royce acts the same exact way on the blogs as how Gardener did, before he got arrested for molestation. If a candidate lets a person like that be their "hit" person - ie aligns with that person and let bag person attack their opponents (and doesn't stand up), then yeah, it puts a pall on their candidacy. The FACTs team chose to run as a slate. The oher candidates didn't. When you choose to run as a slate, market yourself as a team - then there are some downsides too. Mark Kaye wrote a hit piece with all sorts of squeezy insinuations. They chose to run as a team so his tar marks them all. Not hard to understand. And not sure what it has to do with merging with another county. The problems some of these people are complaining about would not merit a drop of ink or concern in Fairfax. That could be good thing too. Ie we have it pretty good, so we need to complain about the most insignificant things (relatively).

So instead you'd rather sit back and vote for someone who allows a disaster mess like that of the Mount Daniel construction debacle? Come on.


I don't mean the letters by the way! I mean rules over a school board committee or Alison's crusade last year about a class that was dropped - that no one affected actually cared that it was changed. We have the luxury/curse here to make big splashes over very minor things. I do want someone on the school board who knows the difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By his demonstrates the insularity. You plan to vote against her because you don't like who she "associates" herself with. For no clear reason. Just a hatred of FACTS.

Meanwhile you don't mind Duncan associates himself with a convicted child molester??

This is one bizarre place. It needs to join back into a larger county so it can be run with independence and processes not cronyism.

I'm not voting for Duncan for the same reason. Royce acts the same exact way on the blogs as how Gardener did, before he got arrested for molestation. If a candidate lets a person like that be their "hit" person - ie aligns with that person and let bag person attack their opponents (and doesn't stand up), then yeah, it puts a pall on their candidacy. The FACTs team chose to run as a slate. The oher candidates didn't. When you choose to run as a slate, market yourself as a team - then there are some downsides too. Mark Kaye wrote a hit piece with all sorts of squeezy insinuations. They chose to run as a team so his tar marks them all. Not hard to understand. And not sure what it has to do with merging with another county. The problems some of these people are complaining about would not merit a drop of ink or concern in Fairfax. That could be good thing too. Ie we have it pretty good, so we need to complain about the most insignificant things (relatively).

Anonymous wrote:By his demonstrates the insularity. You plan to vote against her because you don't like who she "associates" herself with. For no clear reason. Just a hatred of FACTS.

Meanwhile you don't mind Duncan associates himself with a convicted child molester??

This is one bizarre place. It needs to join back into a larger county so it can be run with independence and processes not cronyism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know how Becky Smerdon isn't more "on the radar" for FCC School Board. I know she's a FACTS candidate, but let's face it, her experience in education is beyond what any other candidate possesses. A PHD in education and 20 years working analyzing data in school systems nationwide.

Erin Gill will be another Justin Castillo, rubber stamp as FC Post said, but there is no doubt she's personable.

How could you be offended by supporting the girls? City leaders stood up for a man who sexually abused them while they sat in court brave and alone. Why wasn't Phil Duncan on their side? It is mind-boggling.

Because despite the PhD she made an incredibly poor judgment call aligning herself with the FACTS group early on as a newcomer. She lost credibility by association in addition to initiating legal action against the schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know how Becky Smerdon isn't more "on the radar" for FCC School Board. I know she's a FACTS candidate, but let's face it, her experience in education is beyond what any other candidate possesses. A PHD in education and 20 years working analyzing data in school systems nationwide.

Erin Gill will be another Justin Castillo, rubber stamp as FC Post said, but there is no doubt she's personable.

How could you be offended by supporting the girls? City leaders stood up for a man who sexually abused them while they sat in court brave and alone. Why wasn't Phil Duncan on their side? It is mind-boggling.

Because despite the PhD she made an incredibly poor judgment call aligning herself with the FACTS group early on as a newcomer. She lost credibility by association in addition to initiating legal action against the schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not that PP and don't say that Mabry is a "trickster", but I do think he has cynically mischaraterized the positions of his opponents. I also think is absolutely using the Duncan letter writing incident in an utterly unfair way against Hardi and Gill, who had nothing to do with any of it. And it's weird to me that as part of his campaign for City Council he is repeatedly digging at Gill, who is not running for that office. He implies on his website that Hardi and Gill are part of a team with Duncan. It's just nasty and I can't believe that he is remotely good for the city. Reasonable minds can and do differ about development in the city, but Mabry and the other Falls Church FACTS people aren't reasonable.

Many of the FACTS people know what's going on, and sometimes what's going on is that some people in leadership don't really know what's going on. It's not just that people reach different conclusions based on "the data." It's that sometimes there isn't enough actual data demanded and shared with the public by leadership to warrant well-informed conclusions about very important things.