Delegates Vogel and Charkoudian’s giveaway to their friends on the Board of Education includes a scholarship to the student member of the board (SMOB).
SMOBs already receive a $25,000 scholarship, and Vogel-Charkoudian want to increase that to the lesser of a) the highest tuition + room + board within UMD and b) 80% of a BoE salary. In addition the student receives a one-time stipend of 20% of a BoE salary.
The wording in MC 7-25 regarding this provision is extremely confusing. It’s not clear if the scholarship is paid for all four years, or how the stipend is included in the cap. Nevertheless, let’s work out some numbers.
Currently the UMD campus with the highest tuition + room + board is College Park, shamelessly clawing in an astonishing $30,558 for 2024–2025. Vogel-Charkoudian want to boost the BoE salary to $124,000 starting in 2026, so the cap on the scholarship is $124,000 × 0.8 = $99,200. In addition, the student receives a one-time stipend of $124,000 × 0.2 = $24,800. If the scholarship is for all four years of undergraduate study, the student receives a total of 30,558 × 4 + 24,800 = $147,032 (or maybe $99,200?). From my reading of IRS Topic 421, the portion of the scholarship applied toward tuition is tax free.
There are many unethical aspects of this provision; let’s go through the top seven.
First, what on earth does a SMOB do to receive $147,032?
Second, why is the tuition conditioned on attending a UMD campus? UMD has its struggle with loose ethics (such as hiring Monifa McKnight) and administrative bloat. There is no need to reward UMD with even more taxpayer money than it already receives in the form of research grants and student loans.
Third, some of you are undergraduates, or parents of undergraduates, who are taking out loans for a college degree. Some of you are paying off that loan for decades. In addition to that burden, you are also being asked to pay for the SMOB’s tuition-free experience.
Fourth, MCPS’s decline is assignable to both the BoE and the teachers’ union. The student member is just as much to blame for that decline as the “adults.” Student Member Sami Saeed had the misfortune to hold office when the Biedelman scandal broke, and he didn’t have the moral fiber to resign. (One wonders if he didn’t resign to ensure he qualified for his scholarship.) There is no need to throw money at SMOBs who are as unethical as the adult members.
Fifth, you are paying that scholarship out of your after-tax income; from the student’s perspective, that gift is largely tax free.
Sixth, SMOBs are very impressive and talented, for they are elected after putting together a winning campaign—never an easy job. They have skills that very few teenagers have. Because they already have those skills, they do not need a scholarship funded by taxpayers; they can find their own scholarships.
Seventh, and most importantly, this scholarship fosters a sense of entitlement and shows young people how easy it is to live off the labor of others.
Personally, I would prefer identifying those students who demonstrate ethical awareness, critical thinking, and an ability to give instead of to take.
