Maryland high court will hear challenge to student school board members

Maryland’s top court will consider whether counties violate the state constitution by having a high school student serve as a voting member on their school boards and having non-voting-age pupils elect that member.

The Court of Appeals last week agreed to hear an appeal by Howard County public school parents of a judge’s decision that the student member’s service and election by fellow pupils do not violate constitutional mandates that voters be at least 18 years old and that those in elected office be registered voters.

The Court of Appeals is expected to hear arguments in the case in November and render its decision by Aug. 31, 2022. The case is docketed at the high court as Traci Spiegel et al. v. Board of Education of Howard County, No. 18, September Term 2021.

“Maryland’s practice of allowing minors to serve in binding voting capacity on school boards is largely unique and unprecedented,” the parents’ attorney, Anthony M. Conti, wrote in their successful request for high court review. “No Maryland appellate court has ruled on the constitutionality of minors holding an office of general governmental power, nor has any Maryland appellate court ever decided whether any minor children aged 11 and older can validly elect or appoint a member to a governmental board possessing general governmental powers.”..

https://thedailyrecord.com/2021/06/25/md-high-court-will-hear-challenge-to-student-school-board-members/

Baltimore Co. parent & student group says it's filing action against School Board

BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD (WBFF) - New action is being taken against the Baltimore County School Board.

A group of community members and taxpayers say they’re being left out of the decision-making process for County students.

The Baltimore County Parent and Student Coalition announced Thursday it is filing an appeal with the State Board of Education against the Baltimore County Board of Education...

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/baltimore-co-parent-student-group-says-its-filing-action-against-school-board?fbclid=IwAR0fJ2W3SI3Y2SFTr6ViGm_u3fidbq-gCA7wwks7JfEmPWfJ3zV1hPlor0M

MCPS teacher John Vigna - Convicted Md. child molester appeals to Supreme Court

A former Silver Spring elementary school teacher convicted of having sexually abused students has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn his conviction, saying testimony regarding his appropriate behavior toward pupils should have been permitted at trial...

...The intermediate Court of Special Appeals upheld the conviction, as did the Maryland Court of Appeals last August.

“For many years, John Vigna was a popular elementary school teacher in Silver Spring, Maryland,” Judge Jonathan Biran wrote for the state’s high court.

“But, as our nation has learned all too well, it is possible for a person to be a popular teacher (or coach or trainer or member of the clergy, etc.) and, at the same time, to sexually abuse children entrusted to his care,” Biran added. “According to the evidence the jury heard in this case, Vigna sexually abused several female students while he was their teacher.”..

https://thedailyrecord.com/2021/02/12/convicted-md-child-molester-appeals-to-supreme-court/

MCPS Board of Education Taking Down 55 Trees at Gaithersburg City Park

As a reminder, the Montgomery County Board of Education owns a dedicated, paid for, elementary school site right down the road from the City of Gaithersburg Kelley Park.  But, instead of using the land that they own, the Board of Education is going to build an elementary school on a City of Gaithersburg Park.  This plan has the Board of Education paying over $1.5 MILLION Operating Budget (teacher salary) dollars to the City of Gaithersburg for an artificial turf football field, bleachers, lights and a tot lot.  

The Board of Education could build a school on their own land and they wouldn't have to pay a thing to the City of Gaithersburg.  But this plan provides a way for the City of Gaithersburg to take in $1.5 MILLION dollars from the MCPS Operating Budget.  

And this Plan is going forward, even during a Global Pandemic where MCPS students are struggling to learn through virtual platforms.  The Board of Education does not have any problem handing over $1.5 MILLION to the City of Gaithersburg, even during a Global Pandemic.  

-----

On Saturday, October 17, 2020, the residents of the Kelley Park neighborhoods will say good-bye to the 55 TREES that the Montgomery County Board of Education will be taking from the local park.  

LOVE A TREE

We anticipate that MCPS will do whatever it takes to start construction in January, even despite our appeal. Save Kelley Park wants to help Gaithersburg residents appreciate the impact that the construction will have on just the trees in the park. Every tree within the 7.1 acres that composes the Level of Development is scheduled to be removed. We are working hard to prevent 55 trees from coming down, especially two amazing Bald Cypress tree located near the tot lot.

• We invite you to RSVP and join us on October 17th (rain date October 18th) where you can “adopt” your tree.

• You will be given a time slot.

• Bring a love note to your tree or create a drawing.

• We’ll help you safely place it on your tree

• Have a picture taken with YOUR tree

• Then take some time to visit the park….while we still have it.

This event is going to be conducted in accordance with current Montgomery County COVID-19 safety guidance. As a result, no more than 50 people can be on site at one time. You and your party will be given a time slot. You will be expected to wear a mask at all times, except during your picture with YOUR tree if you so choose. Your time slot allows time for you to make a drawing or write a letter to your tree--materials will be available, however we encourage you to prepare your item in advance and bring it with you. Should you have questions, please reach out to Lynn (202 236-6776) or Steve (240 671-5072). In the event of rain, we will send an email and post to our website SAVEKELLEYPARK.com.

https://savekelleypark.com/love-a-tree

Board of Ed Voted to Overrule Jack Smith. Suspended Student May Not Return to Previous School Placement.

Below are minutes from a Closed Session of the Montgomery County Board of Education.  The matter shown is an appeal from the suspension of a student.  The Superintendent had ruled that the student would be suspended for 10 days and could then return to their home school.

Initially, Board members and Apple Ballot endorsed candidates Pat O'Neill and Judy Docca moved to affirm the Superintendent's decision.  Board member Brenda Wolff agreed with that motion.

However, the rest of the Board of Education did not agree and instead moved to affirm the suspension but reverse the decision to allow the student to return to their home school.

The public does not know what this case involved.  Did this case involve a victim?  Did this decision force an offender to move instead of telling the victim to find a new school? 

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/BMET5874F709/$file/200310%20Report%20of%20Previous%20Closed%20Session.pdf

Appeal Filed in Response to Board of Education's Boundary Changes

Appeal of UpCounty Boundary... by Parents' Coalition of Montg... on Scribd

Residents Appeal Lighted Artificial Turf Fields at Julius West Middle School

 July 11, 2018

Maryland State Board of Education

200 West Baltimore Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

Re: Montgomery County Board of Education

To the Maryland State Board of Education:

This letter appeals the June 12, 2018, decision of the Montgomery County Board of Education (Local Board) to approve Agenda Item: Award of Contract – Installation of Artificial Turf Fields at Julius West Middle School and Albert Einstein High School. (Attachment A). The undersigned reside in Montgomery County, Maryland.

This appeal is made by Janis Zink Sartucci, Bonnie Clausen, Douglas Dull, Rosanne Hurwitz, Eileen Sherr, Carol L. Starr, Peter Lovell, and Jason Mitchell (Appellants) to the Maryland State Board of Education (State Board). The State Board has authority to hear this appeal pursuant to the Code of Maryland as outlined in Code Section 13A.01.05. The State Board can substitute its judgment for that of the County Board because this decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal. The decision was contrary to sound educational policy and is an abuse of discretionary powers. A reasonable mind could not have reasonably reached the decision reached by the Local Board.

Award of Contract – Installation of Artificial Turf Fields

The first “whereas” in the Local Board's Memorandum on this Action (Attachment A) states that this Action item is:

“in accordance with the settlement agreement with Montgomery Soccer, Inc.;

The Local Board's Action did not include the “settlement agreement” nor any details as to what this document may detail.

The fourth “whereas” in the Local Board's Memorandum on this Action states:

WHEREAS, The scope of the project at Julius West Middle School includes the construction of two fields, one full-size field and an additional smaller field, as well as the installation of lights;

The Memorandum does not contain any additional information.

No documents detailing the “scope of the project,” actual size of the fields, or details about “lights” were presented in the Local Boards Action item.

This Action item appears to involve the Local Board turning over public school land to a private entity. The terms of this alleged agreement are unknown to the public.

The Julius West Middle School site is contiguous with two Maryland State roads (270 and 189). This Action item also appears to involve the construction of “lights” of unknown specifications next to these two State roads.

Alleged Settlement Agreement

Appellants do not have access or information as to what is contained in the alleged Settlement Agreement.

The Local Board Action item did not include a Settlement Agreement and did not detail what the alleged agreement may contain. Local Board members were not provided with any of this information for their public deliberation of this Action item.

This transfer of public school land to this private entity has not complied with Maryland or Local Board procurement requirements and has not complied with Maryland law with regard to the disposition of public school land.

Appellants are concerned that the alleged Settlement Agreement may contain agreements that violate Local Board and State procurement laws and regulations, as the alleged Settlement Agreement is being put forth to transfer public school land to one private entity (Montgomery Soccer, Inc.). The transfer of this land to one private entity has not complied with public school procurement laws or regulations and is a violation of the trust given to Local Board with regard to public school land.

Julius West Middle School fields

Local Board did not review or approve any “scope” of work documents for the Julius West Middle School fields referenced in this Action item. Appellants do not have any information as to the size, location, or details regarding the field work that the Local Board allegedly approved in this Action item.

Included in the Local Board's Action is a reference to “lights” for the Julius West Middle School field. No plan for “lights” has been presented to the Local Board and Appellants are unable to determine what these “lights” will entail. Appellants are concerned that any “lights” installed on the Julius West Middle School field will impact one or both of the Maryland State roads that run contiguous to the Julius West Middle School property. In addition, Appellants are concerned that any “lights” installed will impact homes surrounding the Julius West Middle School property.

The Maryland State Department of Transportation, Office of Traffic and Safety reports that they have not been contacted about the installation of lights next to these State roads and have not reviewed the proposal. Appellants have serious safety and health concerns regarding the placement of “lights” next to these State roads. If these “lights” will impact the movement of traffic on these State roads the impact of this Local Board action could put the Appellants and public at risk of harm when using these State roads. The “lights” could also seriously impact the neighbors to this property and could diminish property values.

Maryland State Finance and Procurement Section 14-412 requires energy efficient outdoor lighting fixtures, but Appellants are unable to determine if this Local Board Action complies with this State requirement.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Appellants requests that the State Board rule the Local Board's approval of this June 12, 2018, Action item to be null and void, and direct the Local Board to immediately halt the construction of artificial turf fields at Julius West Middle School and Albert Einstein High School.

If a BOE vote is arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal, you can Appeal

Here is what parents, teachers, citizens and vendors need to know from the Code of Maryland (COMAR) if they wish to Appeal a decision of the Montgomery County Board of Education. 

13A.01.05.02

.02 Appeal Contents.

A. Contents. The request for an appeal shall:

(1) Specify the party or parties taking the appeal;

(2) Designate the decision or order for which review is requested;

(3) Contain a statement of the facts necessary to an understanding of the appeal;

(4) Contain the issues or charges for which the appeal is being taken;

(5) Contain reasons in support of the appeal;

(6) Contain a statement of the relief sought;

(7) Include any supporting documents, exhibits, and affidavits; and

(8) Include, if possible, a copy of the order and opinion from which the appeal is sought.

B. Deadlines.

(1) Appeals.

(a) An appeal shall be taken within 30 calendar days of the decision of the local board or other individual or entity which issued the decision on appeal.

(b) The 30 days shall run from the later of the date of the order or the opinion reflecting the decision.

(2) The day of the decision of the local board may not be included in computing any period of time prescribed by these regulations.

(3) For appeals taken on or after April 1, 2011, an appeal shall be deemed to have been transmitted within the 30-day period of time permitted under §B(1) of this regulation if, before the expiration of the time, it has been:

(a) Delivered to the State Board; or

(b) Deposited in the United States mail, as registered or certified mail or Express Mail, or deposited with a delivery service, such as Fed Ex, UPS, or DHL, that provides verifiable tracking of the item from the point of origin.

(4) The last day of the period of time prescribed by this chapter shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a State legal holiday, in which event the period ends on the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or State legal holiday.

(5) Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceeding within a prescribed period after service upon the party of a notice or other paper and service is made by mail, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period.

C. Acknowledgment. The State Board shall promptly acknowledge receipt of the appeal in writing and send a copy of an appeal involving a local school system to the local superintendent.

D. Petition for Declaratory Ruling.

(1) A party may file a petition for declaratory ruling by the State Board on the interpretation of a public school law or regulation of the State Board that is material to an existing case or controversy.

(2) The procedures in this chapter apply to the review of a petition for declaratory ruling.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Maryland State Department of Education

200 West Baltimore Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

Phone:  410-767-0467 TTY/TDD:  410-333-6442 Fax:  410-333-2226 Email:  stateboard@msde.state.md.us

-----------------------------------------------------------------

.05 Standard of Review.

A. General. Decisions of a local board involving a local policy or a controversy and dispute regarding the rules and regulations of the local board shall be considered prima facie correct, and the State Board may not substitute its judgment for that of the local board unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal.

B. A decision may be arbitrary or unreasonable if it is one or more of the following:

(1) It is contrary to sound educational policy; or

(2) A reasoning mind could not have reasonably reached the conclusion the local board or local superintendent reached.

C. A decision may be illegal if it is one or more of the following:

(1) Unconstitutional;

(2) Exceeds the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the local board;

(3) Misconstrues the law;

(4) Results from an unlawful procedure;

(5) Is an abuse of discretionary powers; or

(6) Is affected by any other error of law.

D. The appellant shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

E. State School Laws and Regulations. The State Board shall exercise its independent judgment on the record before it in the explanation and interpretation of the public school laws and State Board regulations.

F. Certificated Employee Suspension or Dismissal pursuant to Education Article, §6-202, Annotated Code of Maryland.

(1) The standard of review for certificated employee suspension and dismissal actions shall be de novo as defined in §F(2) of this regulation.

(2) The State Board shall exercise its independent judgment on the record before it in determining whether to sustain the suspension or dismissal of a certificated employee.

(3) The local board has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

(4) The State Board, in its discretion, may modify a penalty.

G. Student Suspension and Expulsion.

(1) The decision of a local board in a student suspension and expulsion matter shall be final pursuant to Education Article, §7-305(c), Annotated Code of Maryland.

(2) The State Board may not review the merits of a student suspension or expulsion, but shall accept an appeal if there are specific factual and legal allegations of one or more of the following:

(a) The local board has not followed State or local law, policies, or procedures;

(b) The local board has violated the due process rights of the student; or

(c) The local board has acted in an unconstitutional manner.

(3) The State Board may reverse or modify a student suspension and expulsion if the allegations set forth in §G(2) of this regulation are proven true or if the decision of a local board is otherwise illegal as defined in §C of this regulation.

(4) The appellant shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

H. Library Personnel Dismissal. An employment dismissal decision of a board of library trustees shall be considered prima facie correct, and the State Board may not substitute its judgment for that of the board of library trustees unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal.

State Legislators Finally Notice that State Board of Ed Sits on Appeal Decisions

Legislative+BOE+Letter

Cell Tower Appeal: Appellants Respond to Board of Education's Motion to Dismiss

J.F. Kennedy High School cell phone tower
as seen from neighborhood.

On July 15, 2011, five Montgomery County residents appealed a vote of the Board of Education to permit new easements to be granted at public schools with telecommunications transmission facilities (also known as cell phone towers) to the Maryland State Board of Education.

On August 18, 2011, the Montgomery County Board of Education responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss with the State Board of Education.

Below is the Appellants September 15, 2011 response to the Board of Education's Motion to Dismiss.

Cell Tower Appeal Memorandum 9-15-2011

Press Release: Kensington Citizens Appeal Board of Ed’s Park Grab

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 31, 2011

Contact: David Kaplan

Email: SaveRCHP@gmail.com

Kensington Citizens Appeal Board of Ed’s Park Grab

Community cites violation of rules, lack of community input, arbitrary and irrational selection process in choosing park as site for Bethesda-Chevy Chase cluster middle school

Kensington, Md. – The citizens of Kensington’s Rock Creek Hills community filed an appeal with the Maryland State Board of Education, to overturn the Montgomery County school board’s April 28 decision to build a middle school complex on the site of the neighborhood’s small park. The Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association (RCHCA) cited the County Board’s “abuse of discretion” and “imprudent” actions when the Board confiscated Rock Creek Hills Park as the site of a future middle school, without any community input, notice, or adequate factual support for doing so.

In its appeal, RCHCA emphasized concerns over “the potential impact on the retirement community that was funded in part by the Housing Opportunities Commission on public land, and particularly on its residents,” referring to the Kensington Park retirement community, which stands on much of the site of the former Kensington Junior High School, adjacent to Rock Creek Hills Park.

The appeal criticized the lack of transparency in the secretive selection process, and the absence of any Rock Creek Hills residents on the Site Selection Advisory Committee (SSAC). “From the outset, the site selection process was arbitrary and unfair. There was not a single community represented from the area north of East-West Highway or east of Connecticut Avenue, where the two sites that were ultimately given first and second ranking are located.” Board of Ed member Mike Durso noted the absence of community representation when he cast the lone vote against the site selection.

The SSAC’s March 8 report on which the recommendation of Rock Creek Hills Park is based contains numerous factual errors. Most sites were mischaracterized, and evaluation criteria were not clearly defined or consistently applied. Ms. Francoise Carrier, Chair of the Maryland National Park and Planning Commission, noted in an April 27 letter to the County Board: “Our representative has stated that he did not have the opportunity to present the cost and other data that would have made for a fairer comparison among all the sites under consideration, and that his objections to conversion of parkland were ignored.” The Parks Department also noted the use of Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF), via Maryland’s Program Open Space (POS), to renovate and improve the site for use as a park. The State of Maryland would “have to be made whole” for the use of these funds, and a replacement park of equivalent size and amenities created in the vicinity of the existing park, per POS.

The County Board’s standard for a middle-school site is 20 acres, while the flat terrain at Rock Creek Hills Park is less than half of that. Rock Creek Hills Park has two regulation soccer fields; Board of Ed testimony states that a middle school built on the site of the park would have room for none.

Though the County Board described Rock Creek Hills Park as “vacant”, it is a thriving center of the Rock Creek Hills community and the BCC cluster. Its soccer fields host hundreds of athletes weekly, including the State champion B-CC High School girls soccer team.

Just hours prior to the site selection vote on April 28, the County Board changed its meeting agenda to include Rock Creek Hills Park. The County Board staff’s original recommendation of another park, the Rosemary Hills/Lyttonsville Park, was dated March 8, 2011. From March 8 until the afternoon of April 28, 2011, the only site scheduled for County Board action was the Rosemary Hills/Lyttonsville Park site.

Also on April 28, Montgomery County Executive Isaiah Leggett wrote to the Local Board, requesting that “parcels used for park and recreation purposes be avoided,” and urging the Board “… to undertake an aggressive community and public input process to ensure that resident concerns are discussed and addressed before action is taken”. However, the Board disregarded Mr. Leggett’s prudent guidance when it voted only hours later to take Rock Creek Hills Park.

“The County Board’s one-day rush-to-judgment ignored many facts, was deficient in its reasoning, and failed to engage the residents who will be most impacted by its decision,” stated Mr. Sam Statland, RCHCA Vice President. “The RCHCA is requesting that the site selection decision at issue be halted immediately and be brought back to the County Board for further consideration and involvement of local communities and the Parks Department.”

###

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Contact: David Kaplan

Email: SaveRCHP@gmail.com

ON THE WEB:

Friends of Rock Creek Hills Park: http://SaveRockCreekHillsPark.org

Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association: http://rchca.org

Kensington Park retirement community: http://KensingtonRetirement.com

State Board Denies Appeal of Charter School

On October 26, 2010, the Maryland State Board of Education issued its opinion in the Academic Enrichment and Training Academy (AETA) v.  Montgomery County Board of Education appeal. 


The State Board found that the appellant, AETA, had not appealed the denial of their application to the local Board of Education before appealing to the State Board. Therefore, the appeal could not be reviewed at the State Board level.


From the State Board opinion:  

...Ms. Webb, the Executive Director to the Deputy Superintendent of Schools, issued a decision regarding the untimely filing of the charter school application. Presumably, Ms. Webb was the Superintendent's designee, thus an appeal of her decision should have been taken to the local board pursuant to Section 4-205 of the process. Only after the local board decides issues raised in an appeal, does the right to an appeal to the State Board arise...

Struggling student booted from Churchill HS, but State Board steps in...

MCPS' Chief Operating Officer Larry Bowers granted a student from Poolesville a transfer to Churchill High School in Potomac.

But when the student's grades fell and attendance dropped, the principal Joan Benz, MCPS COO Larry Bowers, Superintendent Weast and the Board of Education revoked the student's transfer.

However, MCPS hadn't notified the family that the transfer was contingent on performance at Churchill High School. The family appealed to the State Board of Education.

The State Board of Education found that the decision of the MCPS Board of Education to revoke the transfer, without notification to the family that the transfer was contingent on performance, to be:

"arbitrary and unreasonable".

Sheri T. v. Montgomery County Board of Education