Article
Huang, Cindy, County school board approves delayed start times, Sept. 21, 2016.
Snider Comment
It is rare for staff to put their controversial advice in writing. But in this case, Board Member Williams asked the Board’s Executive Assistant, Ms. Connolly, to write to constituents on her behalf:
“[I]t is not the practice for individual school board members to meet with specific stakeholders, as personal meetings have the potential of putting a board member at an advantage of gaining new information that other Board members may not have. Since the Board functions as a unit, and not individually, they do their best to all be on the same ‘playing field.’”
Given the apparently unprecedented and undocumented nature of this claimed Board policy, the letter was passed on to me for comment. Those who listened to the Board’s testimony last night know that other Board members do not follow this claimed Board policy of not talking to constituents. For example, Board Member Gilleland said that he spent much of his work day speaking to constituents about the school start time issue. This claimed Board policy also conflicts with the claims that Board leadership made to the Anne Arundel County delegation to the Maryland General Assembly on Sept. 13, 2016 regarding its responsive constituent service as part of a larger discussion on the future design of the Board of Education. Most members of the public and Maryland General Assembly think that part of the job of a Board member is to speak to individual constituents to gather vital information necessary to represent the public. Ms. Williams needs to personally provide a public explanation for her adoption of this controversial and novel policy regarding constituent communication. Such a policy does her and the public a disservice. My guess is that she would not have been so inarticulate last night if she had been better prepared.
honestoyster Comment
@Snider I am unclear about your comment. How was the smob confused about the procedure? I was in attendance and the board attorney was brought in for clarification over the parliamentary procedure, not for the student, but for the adult board members. Mr. Snider, You were not present in the room during the meeting, so there must have been something lost in the broadcast.
Also Miss Williams did comment on the her position. (although she doesn’t actually have to make any comment or explanation) I do not see a striking gap between the student and the adult board members.
What evidence do you have to suggest that she is getting advice from staff not to speak out? And what newsworthy things are not being said?
Snider Reply
It is rare for staff to put their controversial advice in writing. But in this case, Board Member Williams asked the Board’s Executive Assistant, Ms. Connolly, to write to constituents on her behalf:
“[I]t is not the practice for individual school board members to meet with specific stakeholders, as personal meetings have the potential of putting a board member at an advantage of gaining new information that other Board members may not have. Since the Board functions as a unit, and not individually, they do their best to all be on the same ‘playing field.’”
Given the apparently unprecedented and undocumented nature of this claimed Board policy, the letter was passed on to me for comment. Those who listened to the Board’s testimony last night know that other Board members do not follow this claimed Board policy of not talking to constituents. For example, Board Member Gilleland said that he spent much of his work day speaking to constituents about the school start time issue. This claimed Board policy also conflicts with the claims that Board leadership made to the Anne Arundel County delegation to the Maryland General Assembly on Sept. 13, 2016 regarding its responsive constituent service as part of a larger discussion on the future design of the Board of Education. Most members of the public and Maryland General Assembly think that part of the job of a Board member is to speak to individual constituents to gather vital information necessary to represent the public. Ms. Williams needs to personally provide a public explanation for her adoption of this controversial and novel policy regarding constituent communication. Such a policy does her and the public a disservice. My guess is that she would not have been so inarticulate last night if she had been better prepared.
Honestcrab Comment
@Snider I find it interesting how you continue to criticize the Student Board Member for being “controlled” by aacps staff.
When you just said that the comments were passed on to you. So that tells me that you’re attempting to control people that actually show up to board meetings. I am in constant attendance to board meetings and not once have I seen you there. Why don’t you stop hiding behind the computer screen, antagonizing students that do their job and grow up some.
Administrators throughout that county constantly deal with cyber bullying in middle school. These kids that are bulling are often very immature and I see the same situation for you Mr. Snider.
I hope that one day you can overcome this hatred within you and start having meaningful conversations and comments with those in your community.
Snider Reply
My correspondence with the author of this post, CRASC’s President, can be found at eLighthouse.info.
@Honestcrab, I would encourage you to identify yourself on this website and respond to my article, “The SMOB Election and Riva Road’s Culture of Intimidation.” Your ad hominem attack is consistent with the culture of intimidation I described in the article. You have great power over the nomination of the SMOB. Please demonstrate to the public that you are worthy of the trust placed in you.
Consistent with the moral principle laid out in the Golden Rule, those who engage in ad hominem attacks should identify themselves. Most people who read your comment won’t know who you are unless you tell them
