APS - Who is running for School Board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so WHICH CANDIDATE sabotaged Symone's campaign? Come on DCUM, someone knows.

I don't get why Symone's campaign isn't saying.

Well, Priddy has already issued a “not it” statement, so we just have to wait for the rest of them. There’s a clear front runner in my mind just based on other actions.

It’s pretty juvenile to do this “ hint hint “ thing especially when she was so blatantly violating the Hatch Act anyhow,

Munnell did too. I’m sure it was Cristina

My bet is on Terron.

Your bet would be correct!!

He apparently called repeatedly.

Wow. Do you know for sure? Not who I thought...

So...are we to assume there is infighting in the black community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so WHICH CANDIDATE sabotaged Symone's campaign? Come on DCUM, someone knows.

I don't get why Symone's campaign isn't saying.

Well, Priddy has already issued a “not it” statement, so we just have to wait for the rest of them. There’s a clear front runner in my mind just based on other actions.

It’s pretty juvenile to do this “ hint hint “ thing especially when she was so blatantly violating the Hatch Act anyhow,

Munnell did too. I’m sure it was Cristina

My bet is on Terron.

Your bet would be correct!!

He apparently called repeatedly.

Wow. Do you know for sure? Not who I thought...

So...are we to assume there is infighting in the black community?

I do know for sure although can’t comment too much on the issue. I don’t think this is an infight issue.

[Anonymous]

If it’s really Terron, it’s like he just handed a big gift wrapped with a bow to Cristina. It makes him look bad, it removes a real contender from the field, and redirects some of the ire away from Cristina and onto Terron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it’s really Terron, it’s like he just handed a big gift wrapped with a bow to Cristina. It makes him look bad, it removes a real contender from the field, and redirects some of the ire away from Cristina and onto Terron.

He should make a statement and just own it. Maybe he's totally right on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it’s really Terron, it’s like he just handed a big gift wrapped with a bow to Cristina. It makes him look bad, it removes a real contender from the field, and redirects some of the ire away from Cristina and onto Terron.

Yup. She’ll have the endorsement and win in a blue landslide in the general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s really Terron, it’s like he just handed a big gift wrapped with a bow to Cristina. It makes him look bad, it removes a real contender from the field, and redirects some of the ire away from Cristina and onto Terron.

Yup. She’ll have the endorsement and win in a blue landslide in the general.

Maybe it also helps Priddy.

[Anonymous]

Priddy's statement on this was quite good. It's clear he respected her candidacy.

What did Sandy say?

I don't believe any gossip about who actually did it until something more official is said, but I think it's pretty dirty to call someone's employer if her agency already gave an opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Priddy's statement on this was quite good. It's clear he respected her candidacy.

What did Sandy say?

I don't believe any gossip about who actually did it until something more official is said, but I think it's pretty dirty to call someone's employer if her agency already gave an opinion.

Honestly it reflects poorly on BOTH Symone and Terron (if it was him).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s really Terron, it’s like he just handed a big gift wrapped with a bow to Cristina. It makes him look bad, it removes a real contender from the field, and redirects some of the ire away from Cristina and onto Terron.

He should make a statement and just own it. Maybe he's totally right on this.

I don't quite understand why Symone is considered a victim in this. As a lot of people have pointed out, her Hatch Act analysis smelled fishy. No one's action forced her out of the race. She's still in it. No one's action forced her out of the caucus -- the federal law did. She said on FB that her agency cleared her to run as an independent and that's what she is now doing. She just seems mad that someone let it be known that her actions weren't really in line with the Hatch Act's requirements. Personally, I'm ok having people on the SB who are willing to call out violations of laws/regs when they see it.

On AEM, they are crying about someone jeopardizing her job as working mother. What about her personal responsibility to know the laws that apply to her and then to stay within the confines of those laws? It's pretty common knowledge among feds that Hatch Act prevents you from doing a lot of things that non-feds can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean that no federal employee can ever run for school board unless they run as an independent? Which is basically death sentence here in Arlington.

It might get more educators in the races though

As long as ACDC keeps its stranglehold on the caucus, then yes, no feds would be able to run for the Dems endorsement. Under Hatch, they can only run as an independent. And there is case law on what it means to stay an independent candidate. You can’t seek the endorsement from a partisan party.

The ACDC needs to get out of this process and then it would open up a lot of new, and I bet qualified, candidates.

This. This is an Arlington problem. I thought it was pretty clear that feds couldn’t run other than as an independent. I was pretty surprised by the whole “opinion” of her agency. I’m not sure they really understood the process in Arlington? There has to be more of a story here.

[Anonymous]

The initial supposed go ahead from her employer always seemed off to me.

I wasn't going to call up her employer or do anything about it, but I don't necessarily have a problem if someone did. Maybe they were offended at her not following the rules.

I mean, do we even know what information she gave to her employer when they say it was ok? Did they have all the facts? Did they know she was actually running in a caucus, participating in dem debates and seeking the dems endorsement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s really Terron, it’s like he just handed a big gift wrapped with a bow to Cristina. It makes him look bad, it removes a real contender from the field, and redirects some of the ire away from Cristina and onto Terron.

He should make a statement and just own it. Maybe he's totally right on this.

I don't quite understand why Symone is considered a victim in this. As a lot of people have pointed out, her Hatch Act analysis smelled fishy. No one's action forced her out of the race. She's still in it. No one's action forced her out of the caucus -- the federal law did. She said on FB that her agency cleared her to run as an independent and that's what she is now doing. She just seems mad that someone let it be known that her actions weren't really in line with the Hatch Act's requirements. Personally, I'm ok having people on the SB who are willing to call out violations of laws/regs when they see it.

On AEM, they are crying about someone jeopardizing her job as working mother. What about her personal responsibility to know the laws that apply to her and then to stay within the confines of those laws? It's pretty common knowledge among feds that Hatch Act prevents you from doing a lot of things that non-feds can do.

+1

I would also point out that APS is required to follow a lot of laws. Do we really want someone on the Board who is a lawyer and can't even follow the Hatch Act?

[Anonymous]

She's trying to paint herself as a victim. We don't all have to fall for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The initial supposed go ahead from her employer always seemed off to me.

I wasn't going to call up her employer or do anything about it, but I don't necessarily have a problem if someone did. Maybe they were offended at her not following the rules.

I mean, do we even know what information she gave to her employer when they say it was ok? Did they have all the facts? Did they know she was actually running in a caucus, participating in dem debates and seeking the dems endorsement?

What was off to me is that she was so smug and performative about it. The fact that she is playing the victim now is actually totally on-brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The initial supposed go ahead from her employer always seemed off to me.

I wasn't going to call up her employer or do anything about it, but I don't necessarily have a problem if someone did. Maybe they were offended at her not following the rules.

I mean, do we even know what information she gave to her employer when they say it was ok? Did they have all the facts? Did they know she was actually running in a caucus, participating in dem debates and seeking the dems endorsement?

What was off to me is that she was so smug and performative about it. The fact that she is playing the victim now is actually totally on-brand.

Yup. Not the first time. At least she can't claim it was racist if it was Terron. I mean, can you imagine if it was a white person who "harassed" her????