On Saturday, Howard County blogger Scott Ewart hosted and moderated an online debate for the Board of Education candidates in District 4. I tried to watch it live, but I turned it off after just a few minutes thanks to the viewing public showing its ass in the comment section in real-time.
I did finally get around to watching it in its entirety; here is my analysis.
First, I had to wait only two minutes for someone to broach the topic of redistricting, and it was Mr. Ewart himself who brought it up, asking the candidates to weigh in on the notion of rethinking the 2019 boundary adjustments in light of the COVID-19 crisis. (I pity those who were playing a redistricting drinking game during the debate; they must have had one hell of a hangover by dinnertime.) Given that if elected, the two non-incumbents would not be sworn in until December, long after redistricting is fully implemented, this question seemed to serve no purpose other than to give the anti-redistricting candidates space to pander to their base.
That said, there were stark contrasts between the two incumbents and the two anti-redistricting challengers.
Kirsten Coombs
Kirsten Coombs of Wilde Lake has been on the BOE since 2016. She was one of several candidates elected, with the teacher’s union’s endorsement, to usher in a new, more transparent era for the BOE. Since then, Ms. Coombs, a moderate Democrat, has worked with county executives from both political parties. During the D4 debate, she noted that having a business background, she found herself needing to learn about the stark differences between administration of a business and a government body. Her responses belied her experience with public education matters, including the need to include special education in the focus on equity in education. Ms. Coombs’ advocacy for the LGBTQIA+ community shows her commitment to diversity and inclusion.
Matt Levine
Matt Levine of River Hill has made a name for himself in local Howard County Facebook groups for his confrontational manner, acerbic tone, and malapropisms. He has been vocal, often rudely so, about the subject of redistricting since the Superintendent released his plan last summer, and this drove Mr. Levine to run for BOE early in the fall. During the D4 debate, aside from his usual talking points against redistricting, using the “neighborhood schools” dog whistle, and peddling in conspiracy theories about developer influence, one thing stood out to me – his assertion that he would always do what his constituents want. Many D4 residents, myself included, who support educational equity and who supported the intent behind Dr. Martirano’s redistricting plan, have interacted online with Mr. Levine to explain our reasons for supporting the plan and how it would benefit our children. Most often, his response was to inform us that we were wrong. I guess we – and our children – are not the constituents he plans to serve.
Jen Mallo
Jen Mallo of Harper’s Choice has served on the BOE since 2018. Her children attended three of the most high-needs schools in the county, and Ms. Mallo’s service as PTA President and chair of the Community Advisory Council, among many other volunteer positions, speaks to her commitment to serve her community. During the redistricting process last fall, the intense pushback against the Superintendent’s plan led her to develop a new plan, taking that community feedback into consideration. Despite being the target of harassment and death threats during the redistricting process last fall, she chose to run for re-election to the BOE with the endorsement of Senator Clarence Lam and Delegates Eric Ebersole, Terri Hill, and Jessica Feldmark, all of District 12. During the D4 debate, her responses were indicative of her experience with the intricacies of a public school system and her keen awareness of the needs of D4’s disadvantaged students. It is clear that Ms. Mallo has established good working relationships with other local elected officials with whom the BOE must collaborate. Her understanding of what the BOE does well, where it can improve, and where its focus must be in the year of COVID-19 show her as a qualified candidate for District 4.
Sezin Palmer
Sezin Palmer of River Hill was outraged last year by what she called the Superintendent’s “busing” plan, as evidenced by the effort she expended on protest rallies and collaborating with other anti-redistricting neighbors (including Montgomery County anti-redistricting activists) on Facebook, and this spurred her to run for BOE. After the D4 debate, several people described her performance as “polished,” and I agree with that. (Although if Ivanka Trump has taught us anything, it’s that a polished comportment does not a qualified government leader make.) Ms. Palmer is undoubtedly an accomplished executive who can talk all day long about effective communication, mutual respect, and listening to other points of view. But her commentary during the redistricting process last fall was anything but respectful, involved partisan potshots at elected officials, and made no concessions to other points of view. As a result, her newly civilized candidate persona gives me a “charlatan” vibe. Add to this the fact that the very first item listed in her platform is redistricting, and that the rest of it presents a lot of criticisms rather than viable solutions indicative of someone who understands educational policy, and I simply cannot see her as anything but a single-issue candidate.
Final thoughts: it’s clear that the two incumbents have the advantage here, given that they have the public education experience and the values consistent with a BOE that supports all students. The challengers are clearly motivated by one issue, and their behavior and expressed viewpoints during the redistricting process reveal core values that prioritize privilege over people.
Mr. Ewart has scheduled debates for districts 2, 3, and 5, so stay tuned for more analysis!