CRC Finds Out What They Agreed To
Yesterday the CRC web site had big, red, bolded headlines screaming the Big News (they've moved it down on the page since then):
(Hey, what do you make of that Moody Blues allusion? What are they trying to tell us?)
CRC is crying because MCPS intends to uphold some standards in selecting people for the citizens advisory committee. I don't know what discussion they're citing, maybe they waltzed over to tell the Board who would be on the committee, and were told that the Board would choose. Somewhere though they were reminded that the Board was not going to accept just anybody.
That is, "reminded." Because, of course, this is in the agreement. That they signed.
They're complaining that the Board is changing the procedures by saying "that PFOX and CRC may only submit 'nominees'." But that's exactly what the agreement says.
They signed it. Didn't they read it? It says, plain as day:
To pick out a couple of things here:
I'm trying to figure out how this happened.
Liberty Counsel lawyers came up here to Maryland and said they'd work for free, and pretty much pulled off a good one. Tricked the judge, got the ruling, left town. MCPS made a lot of adjustments, pretty soon it was clear that there was no case any more. No committee, no background resources, no curriculum ... no case. Then, I figure, MCPS said, OK, dudes, let's talk.
Then one of two things happened. One, maybe Liberty Counsel lawyers came back and negotiated a settlement, and made sure they got their money and didn't worry about the rest of it. Two, LC said they'd sign anything as long as they got their money, and let the local lawyer negotiate the agreement.
The first theory would explain why CRC seems so surprised to find out what's in the agreement, and the second one would explain why they gave away the farm in the first place.
I just don't know.
But they seem real unhappy about it.
FLASH!
DAYS OF FUTURE PAST AHEAD??
-------------
LESS THAN 48 HOURS after signing legally binding settlement agreement, MCPS Board of Education 'changing the procedures' for picking CRC and PFOX members of the new Sex-Ed Committee.
-------------
Says that PFOX and CRC may only submit 'nominees', and will not guarantee that any one person will be appointed.
-------------
What other 'changes' to the make-up of the committee will occur?
(Hey, what do you make of that Moody Blues allusion? What are they trying to tell us?)
CRC is crying because MCPS intends to uphold some standards in selecting people for the citizens advisory committee. I don't know what discussion they're citing, maybe they waltzed over to tell the Board who would be on the committee, and were told that the Board would choose. Somewhere though they were reminded that the Board was not going to accept just anybody.
That is, "reminded." Because, of course, this is in the agreement. That they signed.
They're complaining that the Board is changing the procedures by saying "that PFOX and CRC may only submit 'nominees'." But that's exactly what the agreement says.
They signed it. Didn't they read it? It says, plain as day:
MCPS agrees that the newly-constituted CAC, for the term during which the consultation on the Revisions contemplated by the Board’s May 23, 2005 resolution will occur, will include a maximum of 15 members and will include one representative of PFOX and one representative of CRC, to be selected by the Board in accordance with Section C(2)(a)(3) of Board Policy BMA, provided such representatives are Montgomery County residents and are otherwise qualified and able to serve on the committee. PFOX and CRC will inform the Board of their nominees in writing by July 1, 2005.
To pick out a couple of things here:
- to be selected by the Board does not mean, "for Recall to force onto the committee no matter who they are"
- otherwise qualified is going to be a tough one. Oh no, this doesn't mean their, uh ... doctor ... ends up on this committee, does it?
- nominees Pretty clearly, this means they're "nominated," not necessarily chosen.
I'm trying to figure out how this happened.
Liberty Counsel lawyers came up here to Maryland and said they'd work for free, and pretty much pulled off a good one. Tricked the judge, got the ruling, left town. MCPS made a lot of adjustments, pretty soon it was clear that there was no case any more. No committee, no background resources, no curriculum ... no case. Then, I figure, MCPS said, OK, dudes, let's talk.
Then one of two things happened. One, maybe Liberty Counsel lawyers came back and negotiated a settlement, and made sure they got their money and didn't worry about the rest of it. Two, LC said they'd sign anything as long as they got their money, and let the local lawyer negotiate the agreement.
The first theory would explain why CRC seems so surprised to find out what's in the agreement, and the second one would explain why they gave away the farm in the first place.
I just don't know.
But they seem real unhappy about it.
posted by JimK at 10:39 PM
3 Comments:
One cannot help but wonder why they are not happy with this. They simply put in nominations for a few qualified candidates from CRC and PFOX and the county selects one candidate from each pool. It's not like they didn't have qualified members on the CAC before.
And they get a head start, as their nominations are due tomorrow and the BOE is otherwise discussing the CAC on July 6th.
CRC is doing its best to spin this in the way they've tried to spin the original pilot--They are saying that parents have been locked out. But in fact the CAC is by law a representative group, who, by law must review the materials in the Health curriculum. Note that the agreement signed on Monday says that the BOE will CONTINUE to notify parents and hold information meetings prior to teaching the classes. The BOE has signed a legal agreement to do what they've been doing, but if parents haven't been paying attention, it might look as if the CRC has forced the BOE to greater disclosure.
The CRC could have posted a notice saying, "CAC now half its previous size--CRC and PFOX votes in committee carry greater weight!" but that would not suit their intention to make the BOE appear secretive and anti-parent.
We know the attorney fees ($36,000) are to be for LC and local atty.
So one of those two did not do their job as Recall/PFOX wanted.
Kay R
What is ridiculous is that anyone can read the settlement- it is public information. If MCPS really changed it, Liberty Counsel would be sure to be all over it- but they are not. Too bad someone didn't read what they signed -or that the lawyer didn't tell the clients what the lawyer was signing on their behalf. Could the culprit be John "WE LOVE YOU,BOE" Garza?
Post a Comment
<< Home