In new run for school board, Fletcher focuses on fiscal responsibility
After an unsuccessful run for school board last year, Frederick County Board of Education candidate Heather Fletcher said she needs 'every minute' of campaign time before 2026.
Fletcher, a former air traffic controller at Joint Base Andrews, said she pulled her children out of Frederick County Public Schools in 2021 because 'I didn't feel like it was a safe place.'
'They weren't listening to the parents,' she said. 'They had no concern over the parents.'
Fletcher ran for a seat on the school board in 2022, but lost in the primary.
She ran as a write-in candidate in 2024 and lost again. She received 21,185 votes, or 6.42% of all votes cast for school board candidates in the election.
Fletcher said after the COVID pandemic, she made it her full-time job 'to inform the public about what's really happening in the schools.'
'I feel like if they know, and they still choose to elect these candidates, and they are informed voters, then that's their choice,' she said. 'But I feel like there's been so many lies and so much deceit that the regular person might not be researching these policies and the curriculum and have no idea what's going on in these schools.'
Fletcher said her biggest priorities for the school system were school safety, fiscal responsibility, academic excellence and parental rights. She explains her priorities on her website, fletcherforboe.com.
She said it was not fair to students or staff members at Brunswick High School, who deal with 'asbestos tiles crumbling on their heads and a roof leaking,' because the school board's room in the FCPS central office underwent construction last year.
The Frederick News-Post reported in 2023 that community members advocated to the Frederick County Council about asbestos in Brunswick High School.
In 2024, the school board met virtually from late February to early May, with one in-person meeting in April.
The construction was for 'modernization ... including the installation of new audio and video equipment, to replace dated infrastructure utilized since the building opened in 2010,' according to an FCPS Facebook post.
Fletcher said the construction was 'just a humongous waste of our taxpayer money.'
She said she would 'cut absolutely everything that wasn't down to bare basics' in the budget if she were elected.
'Get rid of everything that is not absolutely necessary to improve our test scores, to help our teachers out,' she said.
Fletcher said she volunteers as a teacher's assistant and a substitute at her children's school.
FCPS said in 2023, 17 out of 42 elementary schools, excluding charter schools, had more students than state-rated capacity, according to the 2024 Educational Facilities Master Plan.
'I would much rather pay to have assistants' helping with teachers and class sizes than pay administrator salaries, she said. She said teacher's assistants could help with overcrowded classrooms.
Fletcher has been outspoken against a districtwide transgender and gender nonconforming affirmation policy.
Policy 443 was created to 'prevent discrimination, stigmatization, harassment, and bullying of students who are transgender or gender nonconforming' and to 'create school cultures that are safe, welcoming, and affirming for all students.'
The policy compels students, staff members and teachers to refer to students by their preferred names and pronouns.
Fletcher said that part of the policy is unconstitutional.
'They cannot force speech,' she said. 'In Policy 443, it says that whatever pronouns somebody wants to use, that the staff and teachers have to use it. You are violating our constitution.'
The policy also allows students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with a student's gender identity, and allows students to bunk with students of the same gender identity for overnight field trips.
She said if a student does not feel comfortable using the girls' or boys' bathrooms, they can use a private bathroom.
'If they're LGBTQIA, they identify as whatever. ... I don't want any person harmed,' she said. 'Nobody should be bullied.'
In 2022, Fletcher checked out around 20 LGBTQ books from a pride month display at the Brunswick Library, saying she was 'disturbed' and worried it would prompt 'age-inappropriate' questions from young children. She returned the books a few days later.
For the 2026 election, four seats are on the ballot.
Casey Day, Jess Douglass, Chad King Wilson Sr. and David Migdal have filed as school board candidates.
Current school board members Karen Yoho and Nancy Allen have said they are not running again.
Board President Rae Gallagher and Vice President Dean Rose have said they are unsure if they will run again.
The deadline to file to run is 9 p.m. on Feb. 24, 2026.
The primary election is on June 30, 2026, and the general election is on Nov. 3, 2026.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
It's a really bad time to be an expert in Washington
At the Pentagon, 14 advisory boards have been dismantled, with curt, thank-you-for-your-service notes sent to Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the boards dealt with obscure matters. But others focused on vital issues, like rethinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal as China's nuclear buildup, Russian President Vladimir Putin's episodic nuclear threats and Trump's ambitious demand for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system have changed the nature of nuclear strategy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also gone: the board of experts who were trying to learn lessons from China's astoundingly successful hack into the country's telecommunications networks -- where, by all accounts, the hackers remain to this day. Then came historians at the State Department and the climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which employed experts in weather, oceans, climate and biodiversity. Advertisement The National Weather Service lost so many people that the agency had to hire some back. No such luck for researchers relying on the National Science Foundation, where projects are disappearing every month. Advertisement No one killed off the expert advisory board at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it deliberated whether healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. They did not have to. While it weighed the pros and cons, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues announced that they had already made their decision. When the history of these tumultuous past four months is written, it will doubtless focus on the moments when teams from the Department of Government Efficiency shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, when the president issued tariff threats to much of the world and when he went to war with Harvard. Less noticed, perhaps, may be the devastation of the expert class, which once dominated the city, moving between think tanks and government offices, generating alternative views in its best moments, engaging in groupthink at its worst. Today, the experts are swelling the ranks of Washington's suddenly unemployed. To the MAGA faithful, each one of these disbanded groups is a victory for a trimmer government that follows the president's wishes. To them, the National Security Council was the heart of the so-called deep state, whose members testified against Trump during his first impeachment inquiry. The raft of advisory committees mostly slowed down decision-making, they argued, when they were not undercutting policies they did not like. Worse yet, they were the source of leaks. So if an advisory committee of experts was not needed to help James K. Polk, the 11th president, figure out how to spread the United States to the West Coast, why do we need them to figure out the strategy for adding Greenland and Canada? (The expansionist Polk has been restored to a place of pride in the Oval Office -- his portrait now hangs just below and to the right of Thomas Jefferson's.) Advertisement Part of Trump's problem with experts is their portrayal as neutral arbiters, more interested in the data than presidential spin. That is what has led to the White House this week trying to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that, yes, the new tax bill could really add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, no matter the spin. Lacking the authority to fire the budget experts there, the White House turned to casting them as politically biased. And while every new president replaces board members and demands some fealty to the new leader's ideology, what has happened in the past four months seems to some in the federal government more like China's cultural revolution, where the only good ideas are the ones that flow from the leader, and both research reports and intelligence findings should support the president's desires. And when they are not, trouble follows. Just ask the National Intelligence Council, a small subset of intelligence experts -- many drawn from academia -- what happened when it came to the conclusion that the Venezuelan government was not controlling a criminal gang, an argument that Trump had used to justify deportations. The experts were told to 'do some rewriting' so the material could not be used against the president and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. After the intelligence findings were left unchanged, the board's leadership resisted and was removed. The whole institution is being moved into Gabbard's organization, where its independent judgments can be better controlled. Advertisement At the Environmental Protection Agency, self-protective action has replaced scientific inquiry. 'We've taken the words 'climate' and 'green energy' off every project document,' one scientist still in the government's employ said recently, refusing to speak on the record for obvious reasons. Veterans of Trump's first term say these changes are a manifestation of the president's bitter memories. 'I think somebody convinced President Trump, based on his experience in his first administration, that his own staff would be the biggest obstructionists,' H.R. McMaster, Trump's second national security adviser, said at a conference on artificial intelligence and national security Wednesday. (Trump's current national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is one of around a half dozen across both terms.) While McMaster, now at Stanford, said he did not object to shrinking the National Security Council staff, he worried that also lost would be the capacity to run 'a deliberative process, which I think would be kind of nice on some of these issues, like tariffs, to clarify what you are trying to achieve.' 'Deliberative process' appears to be exactly what Trump is trying to avoid. And if that means eviscerating the expert class, so be it. It helps explain why the Department of Government Efficiency was given license to wipe out USAID. McMaster is hardly alone in concluding that some of the aid agency's programs had 'drifted.' Many Democrats say they agree, though almost never on the record. But McMaster gave voice to the question raised all over Washington when he asked, 'Should you just crush the entire organization or recognize there is a mission for that organization to advance American interests?' It was crushed, with foreign service officers, child health experts and others locked out of the offices. And that has led to both professional and personal angst. Advertisement 'If you work in the field of maternal and child health, you are in trouble,' said Jessica Harrison Fullerton, a managing director at the Global Development Incubator, a nonprofit that is trying to fill some of the gaps USAID's dismantlement left. 'Not only are you devastated by the impacts on the people you have been serving, but your expertise is now being questioned and your ability to use that expertise is limited because the jobs are gone.' In fact, what many of Washington's experts discovered was that crushing the organizations -- and putting their experts out on the street -- was the point of the exercise. It helped create a frisson of fear, and reinforced the message of who was in control. It has also led to warnings from more traditional Republicans that Trump's demand for loyalty over analysis is creating a trap for himself. 'Groupthink and a blinkered mindset are dangers for any administration,' said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which, in the days of bipartisanship, described itself as a bipartisan think tank. 'Pulling from multiple sources in and outside of government to develop solid options for foreign policy decision makers is the way to go.' Well, maybe in the Washington of a previous era. Within a 200-yard radius of USAID, DOGE teams moved into the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank that had significant private funding and money from Congress. They shuttered it, from its Cold War archives to the Kennan Institute, one of the country's leading collections of scholars about Russia. At a moment when superpower conflict is back, it was the kind of place that presented alternative views. Advertisement DOGE was unimpressed. Like their USAID colleagues in another part of the Ronald Reagan Building, they were soon stuffing their notes into cartons and discovering their computer access had been shut down. (The Wilson Center also sponsored book writers, including some from The New York Times.) The war on expertise has raised some fundamental questions that may not be answerable until after the Trump administration is over. Will the experts stick around -- after hiding out in the private sector or changing professions -- only to reoccupy the 'swamp'? And more immediately, what damage is being done in what may be the country's defining challenge: the competition with China over artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, electric vehicles, quantum computing? That is what many in the intelligence agencies worry about, not least because Europe is already openly recruiting disillusioned American scientists, and China's intelligence services are looking for the angry and abandoned. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who writes often on the U.S.-China technological and military competitions, told an audience at the AI Summit on Wednesday that America is not acting like it understands that 'China has emerged as a full-spectrum competitor.' 'Our secret sauce,' he said, has been the American ability to 'recruit the most talented people in the world. Einstein didn't come from America.' 'The idea that we would be taking action that would undermine that makes no sense to any strategic thinker,' he said. Of course, those strategic thinkers rank among the suspect class of Washington experts. This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians
Black America Web
7 hours ago
- Black America Web
Dave Chappelle Reflects On 2016 Trump ‘SNL' Speech
Source: Arturo Holmes / Getty For comedian Dave Chappelle, the opening monologue he gave as the host of Saturday Night Live after the 2016 presidential election isn't something he regrets. He had the chance to reflect on it during a conversation with comedian Mo Amer for the Actors on Actors series for Variety. 'I haven't watched it in a while, but I remember it fondly,' Chappelle said at the 27-minute mark of the conversation, which was shared Wednesday (June 4) after Amer asked him about his perspective on it from back then to now. The monologue went viral, as Chappelle declared that 'an internet troll' had won the White House, also pointing out his history of sexual assault. He would then segue into how he felt after former President Barack Obama won in 2008. 'And it made me very happy about the prospects of our country,' he said then. 'So, in that spirit, I'm wishing Donald Trump luck. And I'm going to give him a chance. And we, the historically disenfranchised, demand that he give us one, too.''Oh, I remember that part,' Chappelle said. 'You know what? I look at it like a photograph. That's what it felt like in that moment. Now, if it ages well or not, I don't get mad if I look at a picture because it's not today. That's what it was at that time.' He continued, 'You might look at an old set and cringe, but you could just cringe because of how you were at that time. And in that sense, I'm fine with it.' Chappelle's conversation with Amer is one of the rare moments he's opened up for media – he has declined direct interviews in the wake of brushback from jokes he made against the transgender community in his 2021 Netflix special The Closer . But he and the Palestinian comedian bonded during the COVID-19 pandemic, making this a keen opportunity for the two to talk about comedy and their perspectives on the current times particularly with Amer's hit Netflix show. 'As you know, I notoriously don't like to do press,' Chappelle said, 'but today I wouldn't have missed, because it's you.' Check out the entire conversation above. SEE ALSO Dave Chappelle Reflects On 2016 Trump 'SNL' Speech was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
