BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hidden because they don’t want parents to know that the teachers union endorsed a cannabis promoter (Montoya). Do your research parents. Google her.

I'm a parent, I did my research, I voted for her.

Why was her profession hidden?

Why are you suddenly asking these "When did you stop kicking your dog" questions? I guess someone is suddenly worried that Rita Montoya might win.

She will win. Apple Ballot wants her. The question stands, why is her profession being hidden from voters?

Among all of your "when did you stop kicking your dog" questions, you might have noticed that Apple Ballot candidates do not always win.

Agreed- I think when the Apple ballot candidate is the incumbent, they generally win. But when the Apple Ballot candidate is running against the incumbent it tends to be more of a toss up. Last cycle I’m pretty sure Coll was endorsed by apple ballot but Wolff (the incumbent) won.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hidden because they don’t want parents to know that the teachers union endorsed a cannabis promoter (Montoya). Do your research parents. Google her.

I'm a parent, I did my research, I voted for her.

Why was her profession hidden?

Why are you suddenly asking these "When did you stop kicking your dog" questions? I guess someone is suddenly worried that Rita Montoya might win.

She will win. Apple Ballot wants her. The question stands, why is her profession being hidden from voters?

Among all of your "when did you stop kicking your dog" questions, you might have noticed that Apple Ballot candidates do not always win.

Agreed- I think when the Apple ballot candidate is the incumbent, they generally win. But when the Apple Ballot candidate is running against the incumbent it tends to be more of a toss up. Last cycle I’m pretty sure Coll was endorsed by apple ballot but Wolff (the incumbent) won.

That's true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hidden because they don’t want parents to know that the teachers union endorsed a cannabis promoter (Montoya). Do your research parents. Google her.

I'm a parent, I did my research, I voted for her.

Why was her profession hidden?

Why are you suddenly asking these "When did you stop kicking your dog" questions? I guess someone is suddenly worried that Rita Montoya might win.

If Montoya wins, it's because the teachers' union has installed her there. She is a neophyte with little knowledge of issues facing the school district beyond her own elementary school. By her own admission, she has never managed a budget, much less evaluated a $3.3 billion budget. The teachers' union wants someone they can control and they have found it in Montoya. If she wins, the union will rightfully claim they put her in that elected position and she will be beholden to the teachers' union to tell her what to do.

I also am concerned about the depth of her knowledge of the school system and the mechanics of running an organization, but lots of people run for the BoE without knowledge of how such entities function.

But that aside, I have direct knowledge of her through the NCC PTA and she does not have my vote. Her PTA platform looked great but the execution of it was damaging to relationships between the PTA and school leadership, and with individual students and parents. I ended up feeling that her words and actions were far more in service of her personal ambition than the wellbeing of individual students at the school. Just my personal experience, but it's first hand. I don't agree with or respect how she handled individual circumstances that I was directly involved in. I'm typically happy to vote the Apple ballot, but this year has made me question that whole process. Which is a bummer.

Someone upthread said something similar, but would not provide details because they thought it might make it too obvious who they were or would make the whole issue more damaging. Most PTAs (especially those with lots of parent attention, like NCC) have some who end up disgruntled. I'm not suggesting that that is all you or the other poster are, but it's hard to rely on these thoughts without a better sense of what the disagreements/concerns might be about. I'm on the fence, still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hidden because they don’t want parents to know that the teachers union endorsed a cannabis promoter (Montoya). Do your research parents. Google her.

I'm a parent, I did my research, I voted for her.

Why was her profession hidden?

Why are you suddenly asking these "When did you stop kicking your dog" questions? I guess someone is suddenly worried that Rita Montoya might win.

If Montoya wins, it's because the teachers' union has installed her there. She is a neophyte with little knowledge of issues facing the school district beyond her own elementary school. By her own admission, she has never managed a budget, much less evaluated a $3.3 billion budget. The teachers' union wants someone they can control and they have found it in Montoya. If she wins, the union will rightfully claim they put her in that elected position and she will be beholden to the teachers' union to tell her what to do.

I also am concerned about the depth of her knowledge of the school system and the mechanics of running an organization, but lots of people run for the BoE without knowledge of how such entities function.

But that aside, I have direct knowledge of her through the NCC PTA and she does not have my vote. Her PTA platform looked great but the execution of it was damaging to relationships between the PTA and school leadership, and with individual students and parents. I ended up feeling that her words and actions were far more in service of her personal ambition than the wellbeing of individual students at the school. Just my personal experience, but it's first hand. I don't agree with or respect how she handled individual circumstances that I was directly involved in. I'm typically happy to vote the Apple ballot, but this year has made me question that whole process. Which is a bummer.

Someone upthread said something similar, but would not provide details because they thought it might make it too obvious who they were or would make the whole issue more damaging. Most PTAs (especially those with lots of parent attention, like NCC) have some who end up disgruntled. I'm not suggesting that that is all you or the other poster are, but it's hard to rely on these thoughts without a better sense of what the disagreements/concerns might be about. I'm on the fence, still.

Yeah, it's tough. I also wouldn't provide details. It's very easy to figure out who people are in the PTA subset of NCC. Totally get why posts like mine aren't helpful w/o details, and why others also wouldn't feel able to provide context. I'm already trying to figure out who the other poster is - which just proves the point! And I certainly could own that I'm not unbiased. My kid was hurt so I can't really be impartial.

[Anonymous]

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:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the other thread was removed about Rita Montoya, and an article that came out about bylaws and resigning from the PTA before running. does anybody know why?

The OP of that thread had consistently sock puppeted throughout the thread. It appeared to be more of a oppo campaign ad instead of a discussion.

OK thank you I appreciate the explanation. Can we discuss it here? I thought it was pretty important and I was glad to have read that thread.

Unfortunately when posters sock puppet in this manner it puts everything they have posted in doubt. If you can support what you want to say with authoritative sources, it should be okay. But I will be viewing things very skeptically. Ironically, I discovered the sock puppeting by accident while simply trying to evaluate ad formats on an iPad. It wasn't even my intention to look for such a thing.

The post was heavily sourced. Maybe you should have paid attention.

It also misunderstood the relationship between local PTAs and MCCPTA. The NCC PTA inherits from Free State PTA, which inherits from National PTA. MCCPTA is, literally, a coalition of individual school PTAs aimed at support (like helping get those individual PTA bylaws done) and group advocacy (sometimes contentious among members). Montoya is not an MCCPTA officer, and local school PTAs do not inherit from MCCPTA bylaws, the source of the quoted prohibition on running for office while an officer.



It doesn't appear from the source that the NCC PTA bylaws require her to step down. The NCC PTA's bylaws do restrict campaign support when acting in official capacity, so she can't campaign in her 10 minutes at tonight's meeting (probably reserved for a President's report). If the councilmembers' appearances are tacitly for the purpose of Montoya's campaign, that would be a violation, since the NCC PTA bylaws prohibit association time for that. If they are there for another purpose, then they would not.

Of course, getting that many councilmembers at your PTA meeting might be considered heavy signaling...

Agree with the last statement- it feels like we have to beg/plead to get any council member to come to our DCC MS school events, but getting 5 to come to NCC ES cultural night? Really? Sorry- that just irritates me.

It's ridiculous for Montoya to put out there that all these county council members, including one whose name she misspelled, are coming to her PTA meeting. Montoya is trying to imply endorsements from council members that just don't exist. We don't need this kind of manipulative behavior on the BOE.

That was an NCC PTA message, not campaign. Our PTA definitely puts the names of invitees/ expected attendees (e.g., an MCPS official, BOE,member, County Council member or education specialist) on notices when we have meetings. That aspect is a nothingburger.

It is not a meeting tonight. It is Cultural night for students to showcase their heritage. It is not an event for PTA business or Councilmembers to speak.

Are you kidding me?!?! Do you have any idea what PTAs do[/u]? This is [i]exactly the kind of thing a PTA would be involved with planning/funding/operating, and very much a thing where a PTA president might speak, along with a principal and any visiting dignitaries.

It's only unusual in that there's more than one council member showing up (one is lucky to get, maybe a 25% chance, two is pretty unusual, and I'm not sure five ever show up at once to this kind of thing).

The number of Council members probably has more to do with the fact that it's an election year than with Montoya. Think about it - if the Parent's Coalition hadn't written about this, no one except NCC parents would even know that a bunch of Council members were going to be at a cultural event at the school. It's only because those folks (folk) published about it that we all know.

With that said, getting 5 sitting Council members at what is supposed to be a "eat food and watch cultural dancing" event is WEIRD and I'd be pretty pissed as a parent if I came to International Night hoping to eat tteokbokki and see some circle dancing and instead got subjected to FIVE speeches.

My guess? They invited the whole council and then were surprised when a bunch of folks said yes.

And so, like I said, earlier up thread, I would like to see this picked up by more than just one publication, so that the veracity can be verified, no offense, but by more than just anonymous DCUM poster,.

If it really is a nothing burger, and this bylaw has been misinterpreted, then I would like to know via verified and trusted source.

I don't begrudge your wanting verification.

At the same time, the PC post yesterday that brought this whole thing up cited two bylaws excerpts and, per the past posts about the difference between MCCPTA and local school PTAs, appears to have drawn inappropriate conclusions from them. I would want verification there, too, before giving any credence to the stones thereby cast.

DP. I remember a "Parents Coalition" post accusing MCPS of hating the US because of something Olympics something artificial turf something something. I wonder if it's still up....

Oh yes, here it is. " Guest Post: MCPS supports the French Olympic team!
Yes you read that right!

By buying its turf at full price through a noncompetitive process, the MCPS [Montgomery County Public School] is supporting the French Olympic team as it competes against our American athletes."

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/08/guest-post-mcps-supports-french-olympic.html

A guest post from 2012 has what to do with Councilmembers grandstanding during an elementary school Cultural Heritage night?

It's helpful for evaluating the reliability of the source (i.e., the so-called Parents Coalition) of this purported controversy.

Now evaluate the other 10,000 posts on the Parents' Coalition blog.

Yes, that would be a good way to prove that the Parents' Coalition is bonkers on just about every issue you can imagine, and even some you can't.

Ehhhhh they are definitely conservative but, they have reported on issues prior to, and also getting picked up by local media. So they do have an upside you have to analyze their content.

The problem with them isn't that they are a conservative, it's that they are a crank focused on one topic: If MCPS Does It, It's Bad.

Better to have no one watching the $3 Billion public school system.

And we get Beidleman and front page of The Washington Post. That's what you prefer.

Yes, that is exactly the kind of response the so-called Parents so-called Coalition habitually posts on DCUM.

And? Explain why you hate oversight. You must have a good reason.

DP. If the "Parents Coalition" blogger is interested in providing oversight, why don't they run for the BOE?

That doesn't answer the question. Why are you opposed to oversight?

I love oversight, especially when it's provided by our elected officials, our inspectors general, and actual journalists.

What actual journalists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Parent Coalituon loves to point out problems. They do nothing to solve them, or help the school system in any way, shape, or form. Just fingerpoint. They are pot stirrers

You know the old saying, if you're not part of the solution...

Yes! No one should point out problems in MCPS. Keep everything hidden like the central office wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Parent Coalituon loves to point out problems. They do nothing to solve them, or help the school system in any way, shape, or form. Just fingerpoint. They are pot stirrers

You know the old saying, if you're not part of the solution...

Yes! No one should point out problems in MCPS. Keep everything hidden like the central office wants.

The Parent Coalition is a rw parent org, not a great source of good information.

Kind of like Moderately Montgomery both have agendas.

And while speaking out ie asking questions can be a good thing figuring out the source of the information is coming from is also important.

[Anonymous]

Vote for anyone who will overturn all the BS in our schools!!!! No incumbents or Apple Ballot. These are the people who are responsible for all the crime and unrest in our County!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vote for anyone who will overturn all the BS in our schools!!!! No incumbents or Apple Ballot. These are the people who are responsible for all the crime and unrest in our County!!!!!

All the crime and unrest in Montgomery County are the responsibility of this small group of women. Fascinating!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vote for anyone who will overturn all the BS in our schools!!!! No incumbents or Apple Ballot. These are the people who are responsible for all the crime and unrest in our County!!!!!

Do you realize how unhinged you sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Parent Coalituon loves to point out problems. They do nothing to solve them, or help the school system in any way, shape, or form. Just fingerpoint. They are pot stirrers

You know the old saying, if you're not part of the solution...

Yes! No one should point out problems in MCPS. Keep everything hidden like the central office wants.

The Parent Coalition is a rw parent org, not a great source of good information.

Kind of like Moderately Montgomery both have agendas.

And while speaking out ie asking questions can be a good thing figuring out the source of the information is coming from is also important.

Rw? If that is how you view Democrats, what are you?

Party affiliation is public information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hidden because they don’t want parents to know that the teachers union endorsed a cannabis promoter (Montoya). Do your research parents. Google her.

I'm a parent, I did my research, I voted for her.

Why was her profession hidden?

Why are you suddenly asking these "When did you stop kicking your dog" questions? I guess someone is suddenly worried that Rita Montoya might win.

She will win. Apple Ballot wants her. The question stands, why is her profession being hidden from voters?

Literally not hidden. She talks about it openly. It's even on her candidate web page:

"In my career, I developed:

[other items]; and

a U.S.-based, international, Black-owned cannabis and hemp company..."

You are the only one trying to make it seem like a cover-up.

It is not on her Apple Ballot flyer.

You mean this one?

https://www.mceanea.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/04/montoya.jpg

How terrible that they don't put every single thing about this candidate on their limited-space flyers! Certainly, they did for the other candidates they decided to support:

https://www.mceanea.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/04/zimmerman.png

https://www.mceanea.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/04/stewart.jpg

Seriously, what planet do you live on?

Zimmerman mentions her profession and employment in the flyer and Laura Stewart is unemployed so obviously wouldn’t/can’t mention her employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Parent Coalituon loves to point out problems. They do nothing to solve them, or help the school system in any way, shape, or form. Just fingerpoint. They are pot stirrers

You know the old saying, if you're not part of the solution...

Yes! No one should point out problems in MCPS. Keep everything hidden like the central office wants.

The Parent Coalition is a rw parent org, not a great source of good information.

Kind of like Moderately Montgomery both have agendas.

And while speaking out ie asking questions can be a good thing figuring out the source of the information is coming from is also important.

They're not a "rw parent org", they're one crank whose children haven't been in MCPS for years.

[Anonymous]

^^ and I said they were the finger pointers, and what they should be doing (if they cared about anything other than attention for themselves) is working to solve problems and make improvements, not just point out the problems like an overly critical MIL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Parent Coalituon loves to point out problems. They do nothing to solve them, or help the school system in any way, shape, or form. Just fingerpoint. They are pot stirrers

You know the old saying, if you're not part of the solution...

Yes! No one should point out problems in MCPS. Keep everything hidden like the central office wants.

The Parent Coalition is a rw parent org, not a great source of good information.

Kind of like Moderately Montgomery both have agendas.

And while speaking out ie asking questions can be a good thing figuring out the source of the information is coming from is also important.

They're not a "rw parent org", they're one crank whose children haven't been in MCPS for years.

One person with 18 names? Bloggers are listed.