Blog Full Content – Rising to Learn

Public Comment: 5/19/26

Hello, Mr. Evans, Dr. Sovine and Board members. As you know, I am Roger Stenersen, speaking on behalf of Rising to Learn, a nonprofit organization which follows the actions of the Board of Education and reports them to the public. Members of the public are invited to join with us by navigating to our website at RisingtoLearn.com.

First, I noted that Mr. Guessford and Mr. Evans were notably absent from the Board of Education candidates’ forum two weeks ago, a circumstance which deprives voters from obtaining a true impression of their viability as candidates for the next Board of Education.

Second, it is also noteworthy that only Ms. Murray was present at the recent County Commissioners’ budget hearing; despite encouragement that Board members would advocate for additional funding to the commissioners, the silence from members of our Board of Education spoke loudly.

Finally, on July 31, 2025, Rising to Learn wrote to this board requesting the censure of Board Member and at the time Board Vice President Michael Guessford for his misconduct while presiding over two Board of Education meetings in which he violated WCBOE Policy KD, misinformed the public, breached organization values, and undermined the public trust in Washington County Board of Education and Washington County Public Schools. Other than having the Board President acknowledge receipt of our communication, Board members neither responded to the email nor censured Mr. Guessford for his actions.

Again, in mid-October, 2025, in response to a comment Mr. Guessford made on a very public Herald-Mail Media Facebook post about an Open House to be held at the local mosque, numerous commenters on the same post expressed their outrage at Mr. Guessford’s comment – “We should protest.” Mr. Guessford’s comment on the Herald-Mail Media Facebook post coupled with offensive and bigoted posts regarding Islam and Muslims made on his personal Facebook page compelled speaker after speaker to address this board during Public Comment at the earliest possible Board of Education Business meeting calling for Mr. Guessford’s immediate resignation. A Change.org petition signed by 491 citizens called for his immediate resignation, as well. It is apparent to all that Mr. Guessford did not resign.

Also in mid-October, 2025, a request to the State Board of Education for Mr. Guessford’s removal from the Washington County Board of Education was made by a group of Washington County citizens. In February of 2026, the State Board of Education issued Opinion No. 26-07 in response to that request. This opinion was published and can be found on the State Board of Education’s website. This Board has made no public acknowledgment of that issued Opinion, and it’s unclear whether this Board and the public is even aware of the State Board of Education’s conclusion regarding the request for Mr. Guessford’s removal from the Washington County Board of Education.

Quoting directly from Opinion No. 26-07, the State Board of Education stated:

“…we admonish Mr. Guessford for his conduct and behavior. We caution Mr. Guessford that his pattern of behavior - particularly his public rhetoric regarding the Muslim community; his unprofessional and demeaning behavior towards his colleagues and staff; and his attempts to circumvent the superintendent - is deeply problematic, unprofessional, and beneath the standards expected of an elected official. This approach undermines effective governance and must be addressed to ensure lawful and constructive board governance. While the State Board is not issuing charges at this time, it remains seriously concerned about the pattern of conduct and urges Mr. Guessford to reflect carefully on his role and responsibilities as a member of the local board. Continued behavior of this nature, specifically that which marginalizes students and other groups; harasses colleagues or staff; or undermines statutory governance, may lead the Board to consider formal action in the future.”

We urge voters in the upcoming election to take all three of these points of information into account as they consider for whom they will vote in the upcoming election for Board of Education.

RTL Response: MD State Board Opinion: (pt. 4)

This is the fourth post in a series of posts regarding the Maryland State Board of Education’s Opinion 26-07 in the matter of requests to remove Michael Guessford from the Washington County Board of Education.

There are two sides to every story and there’s the truth.

Excerpt from the Maryland State Board of Education Opinion No. 26-07:
Read the Opinion No. 26-07 in full here

DEI Initiatives and Personnel Decisions

The petition also alleges Mr. Guessford violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act and the Superintendent’s authority regarding personnel. On January 23, 2025, Mr. Guessford sent an email to the entire board and the Superintendent with the subject line “ending DEI” and requested the Superintendent to “drop any DEI programming starting as of Monday morning” and requesting the immediate removal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) positions and suggesting a specific employee be demoted to a teaching role. (Main Aff. pp. 4-5). This action was viewed as an illegal attempt to exert individual authority over the local superintendent’s personnel decisions and the local board’s obligations to provide educational equity to support all students without partiality or prejudice as required by State law and our equity and nondiscrimination in education regulations. Mr. Guessford asserts that the elimination of the DEI position was a legitimate budgetary action taken by a majority board by a vote of 6-1 at a local board meeting in open session. He also asserts that DEI programing was not removed from the school system but rather the responsibilities were shifted to other senior leadership. (Opposition p. 7).

DEI and Personnel Decisions

In defending his actions, Mr. Guessford stated that the elimination of the DEI position was a legitimate budgetary action taken by a majority board vote of 6 to 1 in an open session WCBOE meeting. He also asserted that DEI programming was not removed from the school system but rather the responsibilities were shifted to other senior leadership.

Observation:

Mr. Guessford does not deny independently directing the Superintendent “to drop and DEI programming starting as of Monday morning”, requesting the removal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion positions, and suggesting a specific employee be demoted to a teaching role in an attempt to exert individual authority over a local superintendent’s personnel decisions and the local board’s obligations to provide educational equity to support all students as required by State Law. No board member has the authority to direct the superintendent. That authority rests solely with the Board of Education as a corporate body.

DEI programming was not dropped from the school system as Mr. Guessford directed the Superintendent to do, however, responsibilities for much of it was shifted to other individuals. This does not change the fact that Mr. Guessford, unilaterally, inappropriately gave a directive to the superintendent despite that fact that Maryland law and WCBOE policy dictates how educational equity is to be implemented. This unilateral direction occurred prior to any Board’s formal budgetary action to eliminate the position.

This excerpt from the Maryland State Board of Education’s Opinion No. 26-07 addresses Mr. Guessford’s conduct in local Board of Education meetings:

CONCLUSION We find the totality of the allegations are not legally sufficient to support the removal of Mr. Guessford and we dismiss the request to issue charges for removal at this time. We do not issue charges based on the allegations before us; however, we admonish Mr. Guessford for his conduct and behavior. We caution Mr. Guessford that his pattern of behavior—particularly his public rhetoric regarding the Muslim community; his unprofessional and demeaning behavior towards his colleagues and staff; and his attempts to circumvent the superintendent—is deeply problematic, unprofessional, and beneath the standards expected of an elected official. This approach undermines effective governance and must be addressed to ensure lawful and constructive board governance. While the State Board is not issuing charges at this time, it remains seriously concerned about the pattern of conduct and urges Mr. Guessford to reflect carefully on his role and responsibilities as a member of the local board. Continued behavior of this nature, specifically that which marginalizes students and other groups; harasses colleagues or staff; or undermines statutory governance, may lead the Board to consider formal action in the future.

RTL Response: MD State Board Opinion: (pt. 3)

This is the third in a series of posts regarding the Maryland State Board of Education’s Opinion 26-07 in the matter of requests to remove Michael Guessford from the Washington County Board of Education.

There are two sides to every story and there’s the truth.

One undeniable truth is that people may forget what was said, but they will remember how they felt in the moment when it was said.

Excerpt from the Maryland State Board of Education Opinion No. 26-07:
Read the Opinion No. 26-07 in full here

Conduct at Local Board Meetings

The Complainants also allege Mr. Guessford has engaged in repeated violations of Local Board Policy KD – Opportunity for Public Comment at Board Business Meetings, Town Meetings, and Public Hearings and the Procedures Governing such Proceedings which governs public comment at local board meetings. He is accused of engaging in an inappropriate two minute dialogue with a speaker from the organization Rising to Learn at the July 15, 2025 local board meeting. (Main Aff. p. 1). He is accused of spreading false information by claiming that Rising to Learn was founded by former local board members who he claimed, “were voted off for a reason.” (Main Aff. p. 2). The Complainants allege Rising to Learn was not founded by former local board members but that former local board members were later asked to join the organization founded by Mrs. Dottie Gruhler. Id. Complainants also allege that Mr. Guessford violated Local Bd. Policy KD, while presiding over a meeting, by failing to stop a speaker from using profanity against school staff and for discussing the speaker discussing her son, a student, and two staff members during the January 21, 2025 local board meeting. (Main Aff. p. 3). Furthermore, Complainants allege Mr. Guessford unilaterally granted "extra time" to a specific speaker, which the petition claims empowered a well-known aggressive individual and bypassed the board’s established time limits in violation of Local Bd. Policy KD. Id.

Mr. Guessford defends his actions as practical leadership decisions. He claims that his interaction with "Rising to Learn" was intended to provide transparency about the organization's leadership and lasted only about one minute. On the matter of granting "extra time" to another speaker, Mr. Guessford asserts that the previous board president had set a precedent for allowing speakers to exceed time limits, and his decision that night successfully prevented a public argument and resulted in the speaker finishing early. (Opposition pp. 5, 11, 23). The petition also alleges that at the September 2, 2025 local board work session, Mr. Guessford acted unilaterally to “table" a the presentation to a committee he chaired, which was not televised and less accessible to the public. (Main Aff. p. 4-5). Petitioners argue this was an attempt to control the narrative of school redistricting and deprived the full board of hearing recommendations first-hand in violation of local board Policies BD – Types and Notification of Meetings; BDE – Board Member Standing Committees; presentation to the local board by the Facilities and Enrollment Advisory Committee “FEAC” during a televised work session. Without a motion or board consensus, he moved BEDD-R – Rules of Order for Meetings (Regular Session); Administrative Regulations BDF-R – Advisory Committees to the Board; Robert’s Rules of Order; and local board precedent. Id. Mr. Guessford responds that the decision to table the FEAC report was discussed in an agenda planning meeting with the Superintendent, the local board president, and others to allow members more time to digest a complex 70-slide presentation. He asserts that there was no objection to table the discussion during the local board meeting and that the FEAC report was forwarded to the local board at the next meeting without change. (Opposition p. 27). In addition, Complainants allege Mr. Guessford created a hostile work environment in closed session local board meetings. One Complainant alleges that he yelled at her when she attempted to leave a meeting on February 4, 2025. (L.M. Aff. p.1). During a February 18, 2025 session, he allegedly "screamed" at the Superintendent in front of senior staff and threatened not to recommend a contract renewal. Furthermore, during a June 24, 2025 meeting, he is accused of 3 being "completely hostile" toward the local board president and another female board member, allegedly shouting at the president to "buy a hearing aid" and threatening to have her removed as president if she did not comply with his wishes. (L.M. Aff. 2). Mr. Guessford denies yelling, characterizing these interactions as "strong debates" over serious issues. (Opposition p.1). He also states that he is no longer in a local board leadership position. (Opposition p. 23).

Observation: Mr. Guessford defended his actions by stating they were “practical leadership decisions.” Whatever his intention was regarding his interaction with Roger Stenerson, Communications Director of Rising to Learn and regardless of how long it lasted, the information he claims to have been made to provide transparency was not factual and largely his opinion. Mr. Guessford was made aware of his inaccuracies and falsehoods publicly by Roger Stenersen during the Public Comment portion of a business meeting of the WCBOE on August 19, 2025.

Previous WCBOE presidents have, indeed, allowed speakers to continue past the time limit to allow them to bring their remarks to a conclusion. This was done on occasion, and not solely as a decision of the president, but at the urging of one or more board members. Mr. Guessford fails to acknowledge the difference between showing that courtesy and his announcing to a speaker, in this case Shaun Porter, “Take as much time as you need.” before Mr. Porter even began. Mr. Guessford’s claim that his decision successfully prevented a public argument and resulted in the speaker finishing early is pure conjecture on his part. Furthermore, his decision was not in keeping with the WCBOE’s Policy KD.

Mr. Guessford denies yelling in WCBOE Closed Sessions that are held out of public view, and he characterized what the complainants described as his creating a hostile work environment as “strong debates over serious issues.” He further dismisses this behavior by saying he is no longer in a local board leadership position.

Speaking to fellow board members, the superintendent, and other staff in ways that are disrespectful have no place in debate, strong or otherwise. Mr. Guessford’s behavior was reported by those who experienced it first-hand as creating a hostile work environment. Mr. Guessford is dismissive of the feelings of those with whom he works and has minimized the effects of his behavior.

This excerpt from the Maryland State Board of Education’s Opinion No. 26-07 addresses Mr. Guessford’s conduct in local Board of Education meetings:

CONCLUSION:

We find the totality of the allegations are not legally sufficient to support the removal of Mr. Guessford and we dismiss the request to issue charges for removal at this time. We do not issue charges based on the allegations before us; however, we admonish Mr. Guessford for his conduct and behavior. We caution Mr. Guessford that his pattern of behavior—particularly his public rhetoric regarding the Muslim community; his unprofessional and demeaning behavior towards his colleagues and staff; and his attempts to circumvent the superintendent—is deeply problematic, unprofessional, and beneath the standards expected of an elected official. This approach undermines effective governance and must be addressed to ensure lawful and constructive board governance. While the State Board is not issuing charges at this time, it remains seriously concerned about the pattern of conduct and urges Mr. Guessford to reflect carefully on his role and responsibilities as a member of the local board. Continued behavior of this nature, specifically that which marginalizes students and other groups; harasses colleagues or staff; or undermines statutory governance, may lead the Board to consider formal action in the future.

RTL Response: MD State Board Opinion: (pt. 2)

There are two sides to every story and there’s the truth.

An excerpt from Maryland State Board of Education’s Opinion No. 26-07:
Read the Opinion No. 26-07 in full here

Social Media Posts

The Complainants allege that Mr. Guessford has engaged in several instances of unprofessional public and social media conduct in violation of Section F of the local board’s – Communication Processes. Section F (4) of the Communications Processes provides that local board members: Must refrain from mentioning other Board of Education members, school system employees, or other members of the school community (e.g., parents or others) on personal social networking sites without such individuals’ express consent unless the Board member is addressing an issue of public concern and the Board member’s speech falls under applicable constitutional protections pertaining to the same. (Affidavit signed by nine individuals “Main Aff.” Ex 4). Shortly after the November 8, 2024 elections, Mr. Guessford made disparaging Facebook posts about four fellow board members, falsely accusing them of shirking duties and demanding that they forfeit a portion of their salaries. The information that Mr. Guessford posted was inaccurate and the Complainants allege Mr. Guessford’s attendance record at local board meetings was worse than any of the local board members he singled out in his post for poor attendance. (Main Aff. p. 11 & Ex. 15). More recently in October of 2025, he made several offensive posts on social media regarding Islam and Muslims on his personal Facebook page. He also posted a comment on social media calling for a protest of an Islamic Center open house, which the Complainants claim demonstrates partiality and prejudice, ultimately undermining the trust of the diverse community he serves. His posts were offensive to many in the community and resulted in approximately 250 community members signing a petition calling for his resignation from the local board. (Main Aff. pp.12-13, Exs. 15 – 20).

Mr. Guessford defends his personal conduct and social media presence, asserting that his Facebook page is a private forum for his First Amendment personal expression and does not identify him as a board member. He addressed the protest comment by explaining it was sparked by concerns from LGBTQ students regarding religious texts and was never intended as a specific call to protest the Mosque open house. He also expressed his concerns that his friends who live in Dearborn, Michigan warned him that “Muslims have taken over and are NOT assimilating to the United States Constitution.” (Opposition p. 9). He notes that he conducted meetings with Muslim leadership to learn about their beliefs and subsequently issued a public apology during a broadcasted November 2025 meeting for his lack of sensitivity and removed the posts he made about Muslims. (Opposition, pp. 9-13).

Observation: Mr. Guessford does not deny the disparaging comments he made on his personal Facebook page about four fellow board members falsely accusing them of shirking duties and demanding they forfeit a portion of their salaries. He maintained it was his First Amendment personal expression to post those comments, despite the untruthfulness of them.

Mr. Guessford defended his personal conduct and social media presence, asserting that his Facebook page is a private forum for his First Amendment personal expression and does not identify him as a board member. While Mr. Guessford’s profile on his Facebook page does not identify his as a board member, he has made posts on that Facebook page in which he presents himself as such.

In October, 2025, Mr. Guessford made offensive social media posts regarding Islam and Muslims on his personal Facebook page. These posts were offensive to many in the community. Four hundred and ninety-one (491) community members signed a petition calling for his resignation and numerous individuals spoke during the Public Comment portion of the October 21, 2025 WCBOE Business meeting calling for his resignation.

Contrary to his statement of defense Mr. Guessford did not “conduct meetings with Muslim leadership to learn about their beliefs” and what he calls his public apology can be viewed here. Mr. Guessford was invited to attend a lunch meeting by representatives of the local Islamic Society. On October 20, 2025, Mr. Guessford met for lunch with Shahab Siddiqui, President Anwar Qadri, and Imam Nazir Faruki, Hagerstown Area Religious Council’s (HARC) President Rabbi Mark Perman and Executive Director Kathy Powderly, and Washington County Commissioner Derek Harvey.

As reported by the press, Mr. Guessford did not apologize for his Facebook comment at that meeting. “Told about Guessford's apology during the board meeting, Faruki said he was glad to hear Guessford apologized. Asked if Guessford apologized during the Oct. 20 meeting, Faruki said, "Directly? I would say no."

Faruki said Guessford, as he did during his statement during the board meeting, talked about his freedom of speech. ‘We're fine with that,’ Faruki said.” Faruki said Guessford was asked to "take the post back" and invited to visit the mosque.”

In comments made by Mr. Guessford at the October 21, 2025 WCBOE Business meeting, he maintained that the protest comment – “We should protest.” - was made on his private Facebook page. It was not. The “We should protest.” comment Mr. Guessford made was on the very public Herald-Mail Media Facebook page. He stated his posts were sparked by concerns from LGBTQ students regarding religious texts and was not intended as a specific call to protest the Mosque open house. Where is the documentation of these expressed student concerns? Were the Superintendent and his fellow board of education members made aware of these concerns in accordance with WCBOE Communication Processes?

While Mr. Guessford may have removed some posts from his Facebook page other posts about Muslims and Islam were not removed.

Mr. Guessford maintains that his Facebook page is a private forum for his personal First Amendment expression, and we agree.

At the same time, we also understand that what one chooses to post can carry natural consequences. While Mr. Guessford may have the right to publicly disparage the Muslim community, those reading these posts also have the right to conclude that his disdain for the Muslim community could filter down and affect Muslim parents and students within WCPS. They also have every right to question whether that disdain extends beyond just one group.

RTL Response: MD State Board Opinion (pt.1)

We deserve leaders whose behavior and judgment inspire trust.

In October of 2025, the Maryland State Board of Education received numerous requests to remove Michael Guessford as an elected member of the Washington County Board of Education for misconduct in office. Mr. Guessford filed an opposition to the requests for removal. In late February, the Maryland State Board of Education issued Opinion No. 26-07.

Opinion No. 26-07 is posted here for your convenience. We encourage you to read it in full. Opinion No 26-07 is available to the public on the State Board of Education’s website at marylandpublicschools.org by searching under Legal Opinions and Orders. For your convenience, here’s the link to the full report: In the Matter of Request for Removal of Local Board Member Michael Guessford.

The complainants alleged that Mr. Guessford violated numerous local board policies, procedures and processes and undermined the local board’s authority, disregarded the role of the local superintendent and the advice of legal counsel, and harmed the reputation of the school system. They claimed his behavior was not a simple isolated incident but a history of unprofessional misconduct that violated his oath of office and was a systemic disregard for the operating and communication processes that govern the local board.

In his filing of opposition, Mr. Guessford characterized the petition as “a coordinated effort by former colleagues who disagree with his politics and did not address many of the complaints while they were serving together but waited until they were voted off the local board to file the petition in retaliation for losing the election.”

The Maryland State Board of Education’s ruling was this:

“CONCLUSION

What more needs to be said about Mr. Guessford’s behavior in his role as a member of the Washington County Board of Education? This is the first of a series of posts to be made regarding Maryland State Board of Education Opinion No. 26-07. Please watch for future posts.

Email Response: 4/21/26

Dear Board Members,

Before sharing suggestions for amending the 2027 budget, allow me to observe that very few community members ever attend your work sessions; for the last year I have been there on behalf of Rising to Learn because our organization is interested enough to observe and spend time trying to understand the many challenges before you and our school system and, based on that understanding, to provide feedback and input to you. Accordingly, I am writing to share two ideas, both of which have been shared previously with you, but, I believe, they are worth repeating.

First, at your most recent business meeting the report of the Budget Advocacy and Review Committee was presented to you by the committee’s chairperson, Evvie Williams. Among the most significant recommendations that group made was to provide you with the order in which to prioritize financial needs of the system during the coming budget process. First priority, the group shared, was to provide any enhancement possible to employee salaries. As you consider how to direct the $800,000 of financial resources the administration has freed up for you to direct as you see fit, I urge you to follow the suggestion of the committee you appointed to provide this kind of recommendation to you: enhance the salary resource pool.

As a brief aside, if you fail to take advantage of the recommendation of the Budget Advisory Committee, why bother to appoint one? The work done by the Budget Advocacy and Review Committee is intended to spare you the deliberation in determining how to spend additional “found” money. The voice of the Budget Advocacy and Review Committee represents the input of citizens in our community; it should be honored and their recommendations implemented unless you care to cast aside the input of our community.

Secondly, as I have previously shared with you and as two Board members discussed in your work session, the elementary ABLE program, which has provided for online instruction for only forty-seven students during the 2025-2026 academic year, is a highly underutilized program, and it is unusually expensive. As Mr. Proulx stated, the cost of the program is about a half million dollars, and the staffing of 6.25 FTE staff members only adds to the program’s exorbitant total cost. It appears the only criteria the Board of Education has for measuring the success of this program is enrollment. What about attendance? What about student achievement? What about the cost effectiveness? Delaying the elimination of the Elementary ABLE program because a few Board members believe the program has not been properly advertised begs the questions - What additional advertising is to occur? When? At what additional cost? With nearly one million dollars dedicated to this one underutilized program, it would benefit the entire school system much more to direct the resources supporting it to the priority needs of the system as defined by your Budget Advocacy and Review Committee: support the salary resource pool with these dollars.

Sincerely,

Roger Stenersen,

Communications Director

Rising to Learn

Public Comment: 3/17/26

PRESENTATION TO WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FROM RISING TO LEARN

Tuesday, March 17, 2026

In 2022, at the time of Dr. Sovine’s hiring, several of you board members objected to or abstained from the vote to hire him due to concerns regarding the process used to select the new superintendent and also his salary package. On behalf of WCPS stakeholders, I ask you tonight to identify what exactly is this Board’s plan and process for finding a leader of excellence at a reasonable cost to replace the leader you are unable to retain? Budget pressures are certainly no less today than what they were in 2022. Specifically, what is this Board’s plan to identify, hire and provide the school system with an excellent leader?

To remind and guide you, here’s what was reported in a Herald-Mail article dated June 22, 2022, regarding Board member votes in hiring Dr. Sovine:

Mr. Guessford “mentioned concerns about the contract when another teacher or other staff could have been hired, that he felt rushed to pick a superintendent with a July 1 deadline, and that he struggled with a national search that only produced five candidates from within a 50-mile radius. He said he thought the school system, which had two internal candidates for the position, "missed our mark on growing our own."

Mr. Evans also said he felt rushed and that the contract was a "little bit rich," noting the school board hasn't been able to give teachers the raise they've wanted in some time. He also said it was a "huge red flag" when he received a couple comments from stakeholders that they weren't able to ask their own questions during stakeholder group interviews with the two finalists. Mr. Evans said his no vote mainly expressed his disappointment with the process.

Dr. Zentmeyer said she believes developing talent within the system is the best hiring practice and that is why she was against a national search for a superintendent. She said she was impressed with Dr. Sovine, and when he confided he walked and prayed at 4 a.m., "her vote was secured." But there was a hiccup with a contract counteroffer. "For me, it is not about the measure of the man, but spending money you don't have," she said.”

So, it seems there were reservations about a rushed process in 2022; accordingly, I ask that you please tell us, with approximately ninety days remaining until you are required by law to have a superintendent hired, what you are doing to avoid a rushed search process for replacing the superintendent, to include the public in your decision, and to find, interview and hire the best possible successor for Dr. Sovine. Surely, based on your criticism of what happened in 2022, you have a plan to research and make it possible for WCPS to have the best possible applicants for the position of superintendent.

Public Comment: 2/17/26

Hello, Mr. Evans, Dr. Sovine and Board members. As you know, I am Roger Stenersen, speaking on behalf of Rising to Learn, a
nonprofit organization which follows the actions of the Board of Education and reports them to the public. Members of the
public are invited to join with us by navigating to our website at RisingtoLearn.com. This evening, I ask that you as a Board
reflect on the outcomes of your work over the past fourteen months to determine your success.

Stakeholders have increasing concerns about the loss of experienced, talented, dedicated professionals who are leaving or have
left WCPS. Over the past fourteen months, we have seen the departure of both the school system’s Chief Legal Counsel and
Deputy Legal Counsel; those positions remain vacant. The absence of consistent in-house legal guidance weakens an important
layer of oversight and increases the risk of decisions that may not fully align with policy and law, including the Open Meetings
Act. Strong legal guidance is essential to protect the integrity and compliance of our school system. This Board’s Policy Review
and Development Committee has not met since July due to the lack of a liaison, who in the past has been the Chief Legal
Counsel.

The departure of the Director of Special Education and the elimination of the position of Supervisor of Equity and Excellence
under your watch have impacted the work of ensuring and advancing equity and inclusion necessary to meet the needs of ALL
WCPS students and raise concern about your intent and the school system’s obligations to maintain the strong and consistent
support on which WCPS students and its employees depend. The loss of an experienced, effective, and highly regarded Associate Superintendent, a Deputy Communications Officer, and building-level administrators and teachers could be attributed to the lack of a positive, supportive work culture. These losses undermine stability and the forward momentum of WCPS.

Leaving key positions unfilled and the eliminating others negatively impacts the effectiveness of the school system and the work
of its employees. At what point does continuing to eliminate positions and shifting responsibilities onto already overburdened
staff undermine the excellence all should be striving for? A culture of fear and discouragement, overburdening, and undervaluing
is not conducive to excellent employee performance. Remember, employee performance impacts student success.
This Board has not adhered to its own policies regarding meetings and has altered policies to align with the personal agendas of
individual members. While touting the importance of safety and security and bemoaning out of control students, this Board was
unsupportive of increasing the number of much needed school security officers proposed by the Superintendent in his
recommended budget last year.

It comes with little surprise and deep concern, that now WCPS is losing its Superintendent. Dr. Sovine has consistently modeled
a positive, collaborative approach to his work, provided highly effective leadership, and is recognized in our community and in
the states of Maryland and Virginia as a transformative leader.

These are outcomes of this Board’s actions and conduct over the past fifteen months. Increasing concerns from the community
extend beyond what can be presented to you in four minutes this evening. This Board’s decisions, directives to the
Superintendent, and the culture of discouragement that has been created in our school system are not serving well our students,
employees, and community. This along with pandering to the County Commissioners by not requesting the funding necessary to
meet the needs of students is leading us down the path to being a second-class school system.

Rising to Learn urges you to reflect, to reassess and to do better. Be strong advocates for the funding necessary to address the
increasing needs of our students and to provide livable and competitive wages to WCPS employees. The students, employees,
and Washington County deserve better.

Public Comment: 1/20/26

PRESENTATION TO WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FROM
RISING TO LEARN
Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Good evening, Mr. Evans, Board members and Dr. Sovine. As you know, I am Roger Stenersen, speaking as Communications Director for Rising to Learn.
Earlier this month, at your January 6th Work Session, five of this Board’s seven members who were present discussed and proposed revisions to this Board’s Operational Norms. Statements made at the end of that portion of the Work Session suggest a lack of understanding by some of you, raising concern among stakeholders of the school system. For example, Mr. Guessford in his closing remarks regarding the Operating Norms stated, “Just a reminder. These aren’t rules. They’re guidelines.” Additionally, President Evans agreed by saying, “Yeah. Yes. They’re just guidelines. Yeah.”

In the same discussion Mr. Burkett proposed that, when a Board member plans to visit a school, it should no longer be necessary to notify the principal in advance, as the current rule delineates. Though he suggested that no principal with whom he has spoken expressed disagreement with this idea, it is not hard to grasp that a principal is an effective subordinate to a Board member, and therefore unlikely to want to disagree for political reasons. The former rule suggested that advance notification be extended out of professional courtesy. In the absence of any positive reason to change this rule, are we to assume that professional courtesy is just falling by the wayside and is no longer an element of the Board’s values?

I invite you to consider that principals are busy individuals whose days typically require them to be in attendance at central office meetings, IEP meetings, and team and department meetings as well as assuring the safety and security of their students, teachers and staff by monitoring lunch, hallway transitions and parking lot activity; along the way, of course they are expected to deal with parental concerns, student disciple and telephone and email communications. It is unlikely that a spontaneous visit by a Board member will be able to fit into the thickly scheduled day of a principal and that this proposed change will greatly diminish Board members’ experiences visiting schools.

At the risk of being redundant, you should understand that the rules you adopt will now have the effect of policy upon their adoption, so they are not just guidelines. They constitute this board’s agreement to operate in a manner delineated by fourteen statements. As a sitting board member, conducting the business of the board, each of you is to hold yourself and your fellow board members accountable for operating in accordance with the agreed upon operating norms.

Your vote this evening will codify these Operating Norms and they will be filed along with all other Washington County Board Policies. The first line of the Washington County Board of Education Operating Norms says it all – “As Board Members we pledge to:…” “Pledge to” does not mean to take into consideration or to be guided by. A pledge is an oath or a vow. As individual board members and collectively
with this vote you are committing to operating in the manner delineated in the fourteen statements listed in the document.

You are establishing rules by which you are to operate, not suggestions. Lead this school system by example, familiarize yourself with, follow, and enforce the Board’s Policies, Norms, and Communication Policies as written and hold the expectation that those who do not follow and enforce them will be held accountable. Rising to Learn encourages you to begin with your Board Norms and Board Policy KD.

Public Comment: 11/18/25

Good evening, Dr. Zentmeyer, Board Members, and Dr. Sovine.

As you know, I’m Roger Stenersen, Communications Director for Rising to Learn, and I’m pleased to be able to speak with you again this evening. Tonight I’d like to focus on a number of things, all of which are seen as positives. It’s fitting to do so in this season of Thanksgiving, and to intentionally place our focus on a number of factors which support the learning and development of students.

First, our diverse community provides the exposure of students to a range of perspectives. Some years ago, a magnet school in our county held a Multicultural Day, which had as its goal to broaden student understanding of our greater community. I also recall a week-long exchange program between students on Smith Island, in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay, and students in a WCPS middle school which, incidentally, provided the first live glimpse for some islanders of a cow. We all benefit from these experiences, not the least of which, our students.

Second, it is appreciated that the public, on behalf of whom you lead our school system, has access to you in this forum so we can make known to you our thoughts and concerns. It is noteworthy that at last month’s meeting, shortly after you returned Board meetings to an evening hour, you heard from more speakers than at any Board meeting in the last six months. As President Zentmeyer has stated, you value the input of the public, and Rising to Learn is pleased to have advocated for a return to the evening meeting time when more individuals can attend and express their interests.

Third, Rising to Learn wishes to highlight for the public that Dr. Sovine and his staff have been instrumental in refining and honing the programming and effectiveness of WCPS. Indeed, it is an honor to have as our school system’s top officer the president of the Maryland Public School Superintendents’ Association, a true leader of leaders! Wee are fortunate to have such positive leadership in Washington County schools.

Fourth, as we know you concur, it is vital to have the support and cooperation of the many community members who populate school system committees and assume both leadership and line roles in school organizations such as boosters and PTA’s. Of course, a precursor to participation is knowledge, and Rising to Learn is grateful to be a “force multiplier” in this regard by providing access for our public to summaries of Board meetings and other information which is helpful in following the workings of the school system. In fact, we will be posting on our website a new series of interviews with VIPs who play key parts in our school communities.

Finally, we would be remiss not to highlight the countless contributions made by the special individuals who make up the teaching, administrative and classified staff working on behalf of our school system. The everyday work of these valued persons, which is sometimes overshadowed by other organizational challenges, is most appreciated. Those of us at Rising to Learn wish WCPS employees and you, Board members, a Happy Thanksgiving.

« Previous