APS - Who is running for School Board?

[Anonymous]

If I asked my ethics counsel and they said OK, I would not feel entitled. And then if someone else in the race perputally called my employer until they changed their mind, I would feel harassed.

I'm sympathetic to her position on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I believe it's personal - not community or political in-fighting; but I don't know the specifics. I just know they don't particularly like each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, maybe someone was actually harassing her. Maybe someone was emailing her constantly, being abusive. Maybe yelling at her. Maybe calling her employer and complaining in a way that includes personal attacks and words seeking to get her fired.

It is one thing to Force a competitor to back out if seeking the dem endorsement. It is another to do it in an unprofessional and harassing way that could consequences far beyond this election.

Those are the details I would want to know about before accusing her of playing victim here.

+1. I don't know why people are assuming she wasn't wronged.

I also think the people attacking her have never worked for a federal agency. As a federal agency attorney, I would not be at all shocked if (a) she initially got approval, (b) someone kept complaining about her, and (c) higher ups then told her to run as an independent. Many bosses change their mind under pressure, especially in a government bureaucracy.

I am one of the people “attacking” her and while not an attorney I do work for a federal agency. The rules are the rules. I’m not sure why she felt she was the exception, even if she did get what she felt was permission from her ethics counsel.

So much talk of entitlement on AEM, yet the biggest talkers seem to be blind to it in this situation.

Isn't that because entitlement doesn't apply when you're talking about a woman of color?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I asked my ethics counsel and they said OK, I would not feel entitled. And then if someone else in the race perputally called my employer until they changed their mind, I would feel harassed.

I'm sympathetic to her position on this.

One, we don’t know any info on what actually happened and whether it constitutes harassment. Two, I would be more sympathetic if the law was on her side here. No one in this SB race has enough pull to cause a federal agency to overturn or overlook federal law. But the Hatch Act and its related guidance is pretty clear that a fed employee can run as an independent but can’t seek the endorsement of a political party. So are we more concerned that someone tattled on her rather than the fact that she was skirting the law?

Don’t you think it’s weird that no other Fed runs for SB? It’s bc feds know they can’t, at least not in the Dem caucus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I asked my ethics counsel and they said OK, I would not feel entitled. And then if someone else in the race perputally called my employer until they changed their mind, I would feel harassed.

I'm sympathetic to her position on this.

I mostly agree with this, except I think the issue is all Feds, previously, have known not to even ask. They just don’t run in the first place. That’s been the interpretation, by everyone, for forever. I was surprised that her ethics counsel interpreted the issue the way they did.

While I don’t like how this went down, perhaps this is what will lead to an actually apolitical School Board? The ACDC should have no business in this whatsoever. Their caucus system for endorsement in an “apolitical” race is and always has been a bunch of BS. It has kept out both Feds and other qualified candidates who haven’t kissed the right rings or fundraised for the right people, despite being good and faithful D voters. I don’t want professional politicians on the SB. I want the people who will do right by the kids and teachers, even if it means shaking up the status quo.

They need to get their sh** together. Between this and Dorsey, the ACDC looks terrible.

[Anonymous]

ACDC is horrible. I vote D on the national level, but I can't stand the folks around here. I would love it if this brings an end to the BS caucus that decides the November winner of the SB months in advance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ACDC is horrible. I vote D on the national level, but I can't stand the folks around here. I would love it if this brings an end to the BS caucus that decides the November winner of the SB months in advance.

Arlington County voters vote D by a significant margin. The winners of all local races are effectively decided months before November - it's the primaries and caucuses that matter. This is not limited to the school board race.

[Anonymous]

I mostly agree with this, except I think the issue is all Feds, previously, have known not to even ask. They just don’t run in the first place. That’s been the interpretation, by everyone, for forever. I was surprised that her ethics counsel interpreted the issue the way they did.

While I don’t like how this went down, perhaps this is what will lead to an actually apolitical School Board? The ACDC should have no business in this whatsoever. Their caucus system for endorsement in an “apolitical” race is and always has been a bunch of BS. It has kept out both Feds and other qualified candidates who haven’t kissed the right rings or fundraised for the right people, despite being good and faithful D voters. I don’t want professional politicians on the SB. I want the people who will do right by the kids and teachers, even if it means shaking up the status quo.

+1

ACDC needs to get out of the SB race altogether.

That said, I am a fed govt attorney who sometimes advises on ethics matters. If an employee disclosed ALL of the facts of this situation to me, I never would have said it was ok to run in the Dem caucus. I would definitely have said it was ok to run as an independent. So, I think I question how much was actually disclosed to agency counsel when the original permission was given. But, if I were in Symone's shoes, I would be happy that someone kept this at my employer's level and didn't elevate it to the Office of Special Counsel. That's when the sh*t gets real. They don't play over there and, from my experience, they have very little tolerance for Hatch Act violations, especially very obvious ones like this one. There is an OSC opinion out there from the early 2000s that speaks directly to what it means to be an independent candidate and it says you can't seek the endorsement of a political party and still be considered an independent candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mostly agree with this, except I think the issue is all Feds, previously, have known not to even ask. They just don’t run in the first place. That’s been the interpretation, by everyone, for forever. I was surprised that her ethics counsel interpreted the issue the way they did.

While I don’t like how this went down, perhaps this is what will lead to an actually apolitical School Board? The ACDC should have no business in this whatsoever. Their caucus system for endorsement in an “apolitical” race is and always has been a bunch of BS. It has kept out both Feds and other qualified candidates who haven’t kissed the right rings or fundraised for the right people, despite being good and faithful D voters. I don’t want professional politicians on the SB. I want the people who will do right by the kids and teachers, even if it means shaking up the status quo.

+1

ACDC needs to get out of the SB race altogether.

That said, I am a fed govt attorney who sometimes advises on ethics matters. If an employee disclosed ALL of the facts of this situation to me, I never would have said it was ok to run in the Dem caucus. I would definitely have said it was ok to run as an independent. So, I think I question how much was actually disclosed to agency counsel when the original permission was given. But, if I were in Symone's shoes, I would be happy that someone kept this at my employer's level and didn't elevate it to the Office of Special Counsel. That's when the sh*t gets real. They don't play over there and, from my experience, they have very little tolerance for Hatch Act violations, especially very obvious ones like this one. There is an OSC opinion out there from the early 2000s that speaks directly to what it means to be an independent candidate and it says you can't seek the endorsement of a political party and still be considered an independent candidate.



Thank you for this perspective. As an outsider observer, it seems obvious to me too. Which is why I'm wondering what explains it...

The options are:
A. Symone is not too smart and doesn't understand an obvious H Act violation
B. Symone intentionally tried to get around the H Act by not disclosing all the facts to her agency counsel
C. Symone knew this was a likely violation of the H Act and ran anyways
D. Symone is terribly sloppy and didn't do due diligence on what the H Act requires (which for a lawyer should not be hard - someone on DCUM found an on point opinion)

I mean, she's a LAWYER people! She should know better.

I can't think of a scenario where she looks good here.

[Anonymous]

I just love the drama. Funny how the ACDC faithful who read everything on AEM are not chiming in to defend the integrity and importance of the caucus. They know it's dirty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just love the drama. Funny how the ACDC faithful who read everything on AEM are not chiming in to defend the integrity and importance of the caucus. They know it's dirty.

It’s never been a problem to them until now. And even now they’re all blaming the candidate that squealed on her more than the system itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just love the drama. Funny how the ACDC faithful who read everything on AEM are not chiming in to defend the integrity and importance of the caucus. They know it's dirty.

It’s never been a problem to them until now. And even now they’re all blaming the candidate that squealed on her more than the system itself.

or HER

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I asked my ethics counsel and they said OK, I would not feel entitled. And then if someone else in the race perputally called my employer until they changed their mind, I would feel harassed.

I'm sympathetic to her position on this.

One, we don’t know any info on what actually happened and whether it constitutes harassment. Two, I would be more sympathetic if the law was on her side here. No one in this SB race has enough pull to cause a federal agency to overturn or overlook federal law. But the Hatch Act and its related guidance is pretty clear that a fed employee can run as an independent but can’t seek the endorsement of a political party. So are we more concerned that someone tattled on her rather than the fact that she was skirting the law?

Don’t you think it’s weird that no other Fed runs for SB? It’s bc feds know they can’t, at least not in the Dem caucus.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I asked my ethics counsel and they said OK, I would not feel entitled. And then if someone else in the race perputally called my employer until they changed their mind, I would feel harassed.

I'm sympathetic to her position on this.

One, we don’t know any info on what actually happened and whether it constitutes harassment. Two, I would be more sympathetic if the law was on her side here. No one in this SB race has enough pull to cause a federal agency to overturn or overlook federal law. But the Hatch Act and its related guidance is pretty clear that a fed employee can run as an independent but can’t seek the endorsement of a political party. So are we more concerned that someone tattled on her rather than the fact that she was skirting the law?

Don’t you think it’s weird that no other Fed runs for SB? It’s bc feds know they can’t, at least not in the Dem caucus.

+1000

I wish the upshot of these events was for everyone to see the bigger picture:

The Arlington county democratic committee is intruding into a non partisan contest for the most local of offices, controlling the outcome by crowning a winner months in advance of the actual election, and worst of all, discouraging a large number of qualified candidates from running. Don’t go to the caucus, and don’t vote for whoever they crown. Why do they intrude? To contain and deny our schools Growing need for resources, which is clearly butting up against the party’s subsidized housing and density priorities. Whoever they nominate will just be a puppet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mostly agree with this, except I think the issue is all Feds, previously, have known not to even ask. They just don’t run in the first place. That’s been the interpretation, by everyone, for forever. I was surprised that her ethics counsel interpreted the issue the way they did.

While I don’t like how this went down, perhaps this is what will lead to an actually apolitical School Board? The ACDC should have no business in this whatsoever. Their caucus system for endorsement in an “apolitical” race is and always has been a bunch of BS. It has kept out both Feds and other qualified candidates who haven’t kissed the right rings or fundraised for the right people, despite being good and faithful D voters. I don’t want professional politicians on the SB. I want the people who will do right by the kids and teachers, even if it means shaking up the status quo.

+1

ACDC needs to get out of the SB race altogether.

That said, I am a fed govt attorney who sometimes advises on ethics matters. If an employee disclosed ALL of the facts of this situation to me, I never would have said it was ok to run in the Dem caucus. I would definitely have said it was ok to run as an independent. So, I think I question how much was actually disclosed to agency counsel when the original permission was given. But, if I were in Symone's shoes, I would be happy that someone kept this at my employer's level and didn't elevate it to the Office of Special Counsel. That's when the sh*t gets real. They don't play over there and, from my experience, they have very little tolerance for Hatch Act violations, especially very obvious ones like this one. There is an OSC opinion out there from the early 2000s that speaks directly to what it means to be an independent candidate and it says you can't seek the endorsement of a political party and still be considered an independent candidate.



According to a comment on the Arlington Dems FB page, Terron did elevate it to the Office of Special Counsel. SO... it looking like sh*t did get real.