By Adam Pagnucco.
Yesterday, MCPS Superintendent Monifa McKnight came out swinging against the school board, alleging that they were pressuring her to resign. MoCo360 printed this quote:
Officers from the Board of Education indicated last week their desire for me to step away from my role as superintendent, providing me with no justification for their request. The Board has never written, documented, or communicated any concern about my performance, and through the evaluation process has consistently affirmed that I have met expectations.
For these reasons, I’m concerned that its actions are based on something other than my performance, which would constitute a violation of my contract. I will defend my reputation and my decades-long commitment to the students and families of MCPS, and will demand that any considerations of my role as superintendent are made through a fair, legitimate, and legal process — anything less would be unacceptable.
So can the board fire McKnight? The answer is yes – to a point. However, it would not be easy or quick and McKnight can appeal the decision to the state.
McKnight appears before the county council in September.
There are two pertinent documents to McKnight’s situation: her employment contract and Md. Education Code Ann. § 4-201. Let’s start with her contract.
Section 2D of the contract states:
The Superintendent is expected to act professionally and consistent with the core values, tenets, mission and vision of MCPS. The Superintendent shall refrain from acts, conduct, or omissions within or without the scope of employment that brings discredit to MCPS, or may be damaging or injurious to the people or reputation of MCPS.
Section 10B states:
In addition to automatic termination at the end of its term, this Employment Contract may be terminated by:
(1) Material breach of the terms and conditions of this Employment Contract by either party;
(2) Mutual agreement of the parties;
(3) Retirement or resignation by the Superintendent;
(4) Permanent disability of the Superintendent which results in her inability to substantially perform the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodations because of illness or incapacity for a continuous period lasting longer than two consecutive months;
(5) Upon written recommendation by the Board to the Maryland State Board of Education to terminate the Superintendent for cause as set forth in Section 4-201(e)(1) of the Education Article, Annotated Code of Maryland; or
(6) Death of the Superintendent.
The contract refers to Section 4-201(e)(1) of state law, which I discussed in a prior post. It contains the following language on reasons for removal.
(e)(1) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the State Superintendent or a county board may remove a county superintendent for:
(i) Immorality;
(ii) Misconduct in office;
(iii) Insubordination;
(iv) Incompetency; or
(v) Willful neglect of duty.
Additionally, the code states:
(e)(4)
(i) A county board may remove a county superintendent under this subsection if the county board provides the county superintendent with:
- The reason for removal, chosen from one or more of the items in paragraph (1) of this subsection;
- Documentation supporting the case for removal; and
- The opportunity to request a hearing within 10 days before the county board in accordance with this subsection.
(ii) The county superintendent may appeal the decision of the county board to the State Board.
So this action is not to be taken lightly. It must be supported by documentation, it must conform with the employment contract and state law, and the superintendent may appeal it to the State Board of Education. If McKnight chooses to fight, she could potentially draw this out for months.
At this point, any grounds for removal are unclear – and they must be clearly stated with supportive evidence. What we don’t know is what the county’s inspector general will say in her upcoming second report on the current sexual harassment scandal. On September 28, McKnight told the county council that she “was not aware that there was an internal investigation against Dr. Joel Beidleman at the time of his promotion.” Two weeks before, Jackson Lewis – the law firm hired by MCPS to look into the scandal – found that “key decision-makers,” “multiple members of the administration” and “key MCPS leaders” did not “exercise enough due diligence” and “failed to promptly notify the Board” about problems with Beidleman’s promotion. Is any of this, along with the upcoming inspector general report, relevant to the board’s posture towards McKnight?
The board holds one additional trump card: McKnight’s contract expires on June 30, 2026. There will be one round of elections before then (in 2024) and the student member of the board will turn over. That said, if the board of 2026 feels the same way that the board of today allegedly feels, there is nothing compelling them to sign a new contract with McKnight. One way or the other, unless something changes, McKnight will eventually be gone.