APS - Who is running for School Board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Hatch Act seems like a mess on the subject of independent candidates in partisan local elections. It's clear that feds in designated high-fed areas like Arlington can be "independent candidates" in local elections that become "partisan" for reasons beyond the candidate's control. But it's less clear what "independent candidate" means, or what activities by a candidate would transform an otherwise "independent" candidacy into a partisan one. There's authority that seeking a party's endorsement could do that, but not that it necessarily would.

There's a big difference between a truly "independent candidate"--who touts their independence from either party, seeks endorsements from partisan and non-partisan groups alike, passively accepts contributions and volunteer assistance from a party without asking, doesn't employ party operatives in their campaign, and never holds themselves out as partisan--and a candidate who is "independent" in name only and campaigns like a party nominee would.

There's a lot of speculation about what the ethics authorities did or didn't tell Symone and vice versa. Much of that speculation is driven by conventional wisdom about the Hatch Act. Without getting into Symone's forthrightness or acceptance of responsibility, I think it's worth asking whether the conventional wisdom is correct.

Signed, NP who doesn't plan to vote for Symone regardless.

If you participate in the ACDC caucus, you aren't independent. Winning the caucus endorsement means that you are on the ACDC (political party) sample ballot, printed using ACDC (political party) funds and handed out using ACDC (political party) volunteers. Your name may be on campaign signs with other Dems. You are not independent in any true sense. Its completely different from being endorsed by, say, the public employees union, which is not a political party.

And Symone is not actually running as an independent, let's be honest. She announced her candidacy at an ACDC meeting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing's for sure... she has succeeded in making this conversation all about her. Can we go back to discussing the Dem Caucus candidates?

Yes, please! Leaning toward Sandy and Sims. Anyone else?

Priddy has shown more drive and engagement in 2 years than Sims has shown in 10. There are only 5 Board members. Please don't waste a slot on yet another person who means well but functions mainly as a seat filler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hatch Act seems like a mess on the subject of independent candidates in partisan local elections. It's clear that feds in designated high-fed areas like Arlington can be "independent candidates" in local elections that become "partisan" for reasons beyond the candidate's control. But it's less clear what "independent candidate" means, or what activities by a candidate would transform an otherwise "independent" candidacy into a partisan one. There's authority that seeking a party's endorsement could do that, but not that it necessarily would.

There's a big difference between a truly "independent candidate"--who touts their independence from either party, seeks endorsements from partisan and non-partisan groups alike, passively accepts contributions and volunteer assistance from a party without asking, doesn't employ party operatives in their campaign, and never holds themselves out as partisan--and a candidate who is "independent" in name only and campaigns like a party nominee would.

There's a lot of speculation about what the ethics authorities did or didn't tell Symone and vice versa. Much of that speculation is driven by conventional wisdom about the Hatch Act. Without getting into Symone's forthrightness or acceptance of responsibility, I think it's worth asking whether the conventional wisdom is correct.

Signed, NP who doesn't plan to vote for Symone regardless.

If you participate in the ACDC caucus, you aren't independent. Winning the caucus endorsement means that you are on the ACDC (political party) sample ballot, printed using ACDC (political party) funds and handed out using ACDC (political party) volunteers. Your name may be on campaign signs with other Dems. You are not independent in any true sense. Its completely different from being endorsed by, say, the public employees union, which is not a political party.

And Symone is not actually running as an independent, let's be honest. She announced her candidacy at an ACDC meeting!

I had been considering Symone but this whole thing is such a turnoff. Starting with her attempt to avoid the law, then pretending to be a victim. She will NOT be getting my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the hate on Symone. She didn't assume it was OK. She asked. And was told yes. And proceeded accordingly. You can say she should have pushed back more and assumed she was given bad advice, but that seems a stretch to me. Why all the vindictiveness about this?

Did she the okay specifically to run in the Democratic caucus, or just to run generally? I haven’t seen a clear statement on that.

Yes, posting the letter or communication with her agency would go a long way toward establishing her credibility here. (And maybe making it clear whether the candidate who "ratted her out" is being unfair or not.)

This. But Symone doesn't want to release it. It must make her look really, really bad. Release the ruling!!!

I also suspect releasing the guidance from her agency and/or the OSC would be pretty darn inconvenient to her narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing's for sure... she has succeeded in making this conversation all about her. Can we go back to discussing the Dem Caucus candidates?

Yes, please! Leaning toward Sandy and Sims. Anyone else?

Priddy has shown more drive and engagement in 2 years than Sims has shown in 10. There are only 5 Board members. Please don't waste a slot on yet another person who means well but functions mainly as a seat filler.

How long has Sims been around? I thought Symone said she was the only candidate who has been advocating for a decade, but isn't 10 years a decade? Anyway, I look forward to hearing from the candidates at the various debates and forums. I didn't really understand why Symone was crying so much about not participating in the ACDC debate. There are others that are not sponsored by a political party that presumably she will be at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hatch Act seems like a mess on the subject of independent candidates in partisan local elections. It's clear that feds in designated high-fed areas like Arlington can be "independent candidates" in local elections that become "partisan" for reasons beyond the candidate's control. But it's less clear what "independent candidate" means, or what activities by a candidate would transform an otherwise "independent" candidacy into a partisan one. There's authority that seeking a party's endorsement could do that, but not that it necessarily would.

There's a big difference between a truly "independent candidate"--who touts their independence from either party, seeks endorsements from partisan and non-partisan groups alike, passively accepts contributions and volunteer assistance from a party without asking, doesn't employ party operatives in their campaign, and never holds themselves out as partisan--and a candidate who is "independent" in name only and campaigns like a party nominee would.

There's a lot of speculation about what the ethics authorities did or didn't tell Symone and vice versa. Much of that speculation is driven by conventional wisdom about the Hatch Act. Without getting into Symone's forthrightness or acceptance of responsibility, I think it's worth asking whether the conventional wisdom is correct.

Signed, NP who doesn't plan to vote for Symone regardless.

If you participate in the ACDC caucus, you aren't independent. Winning the caucus endorsement means that you are on the ACDC (political party) sample ballot, printed using ACDC (political party) funds and handed out using ACDC (political party) volunteers. Your name may be on campaign signs with other Dems. You are not independent in any true sense. Its completely different from being endorsed by, say, the public employees union, which is not a political party.

And Symone is not actually running as an independent, let's be honest. She announced her candidacy at an ACDC meeting!

A candidate's "independence" is judged based on what they do, not what a party does for them. The Campbell case (27 F.3d 1560) illustrates that nicely. There, the court rejected the argument that a candidate for Alexandria city counsel was "independent" because he not only sought the Alexandria Democratic Party's endorsement, but also: 1) successfully urged the party to change its procedures to allow him to participate in the caucus, 2) actually participated in a caucus where an endorsee would be functionally indistinct from a nominee, 3) advertised the party's endorsement and support often, 4) ran his campaign from the Alexandria Democratic Party's headquarters, 5) used the party's phone bank and bulk mail permit, 6) pooled his resources with other Democratic nominees, and 7) distributed posters that did not identify him as independent. It was the candidate's extensive leveraging of party support that prompted an administrative law judge to conclude (and an appellate court to affirm) that he ran has campaign with the intent and effect of persuading voters that he'd follow the party's platform, and therefore wasn't "independent." The case could have come out much differently if he had secured the party's endorsement, but didn't advertise it and kept his campaign separate from party operations.

If OSC did tell Symone that seeking the ACDC endorsement would violate the Hatch Act, then her announcement at an ACDC meeting may have played a big role. It's possible that, in OSC's view, she had already engaged in so many other partisan activities that participating in the caucus would have made it impossible for her candidacy to be "independent." We don't know for sure, and I'd rather not guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hatch Act seems like a mess on the subject of independent candidates in partisan local elections. It's clear that feds in designated high-fed areas like Arlington can be "independent candidates" in local elections that become "partisan" for reasons beyond the candidate's control. But it's less clear what "independent candidate" means, or what activities by a candidate would transform an otherwise "independent" candidacy into a partisan one. There's authority that seeking a party's endorsement could do that, but not that it necessarily would.

There's a big difference between a truly "independent candidate"--who touts their independence from either party, seeks endorsements from partisan and non-partisan groups alike, passively accepts contributions and volunteer assistance from a party without asking, doesn't employ party operatives in their campaign, and never holds themselves out as partisan--and a candidate who is "independent" in name only and campaigns like a party nominee would.

There's a lot of speculation about what the ethics authorities did or didn't tell Symone and vice versa. Much of that speculation is driven by conventional wisdom about the Hatch Act. Without getting into Symone's forthrightness or acceptance of responsibility, I think it's worth asking whether the conventional wisdom is correct.

Signed, NP who doesn't plan to vote for Symone regardless.

If you participate in the ACDC caucus, you aren't independent. Winning the caucus endorsement means that you are on the ACDC (political party) sample ballot, printed using ACDC (political party) funds and handed out using ACDC (political party) volunteers. Your name may be on campaign signs with other Dems. You are not independent in any true sense. Its completely different from being endorsed by, say, the public employees union, which is not a political party.

And Symone is not actually running as an independent, let's be honest. She announced her candidacy at an ACDC meeting!

A candidate's "independence" is judged based on what they do, not what a party does for them. The Campbell case (27 F.3d 1560) illustrates that nicely. There, the court rejected the argument that a candidate for Alexandria city counsel was "independent" because he not only sought the Alexandria Democratic Party's endorsement, but also: 1) successfully urged the party to change its procedures to allow him to participate in the caucus, 2) actually participated in a caucus where an endorsee would be functionally indistinct from a nominee, 3) advertised the party's endorsement and support often, 4) ran his campaign from the Alexandria Democratic Party's headquarters, 5) used the party's phone bank and bulk mail permit, 6) pooled his resources with other Democratic nominees, and 7) distributed posters that did not identify him as independent. It was the candidate's extensive leveraging of party support that prompted an administrative law judge to conclude (and an appellate court to affirm) that he ran has campaign with the intent and effect of persuading voters that he'd follow the party's platform, and therefore wasn't "independent." The case could have come out much differently if he had secured the party's endorsement, but didn't advertise it and kept his campaign separate from party operations.

If OSC did tell Symone that seeking the ACDC endorsement would violate the Hatch Act, then her announcement at an ACDC meeting may have played a big role. It's possible that, in OSC's view, she had already engaged in so many other partisan activities that participating in the caucus would have made it impossible for her candidacy to be "independent." We don't know for sure, and I'd rather not guess.

Why would a person seek the ACDC endorsement if its going to be an issue because you're a Fed? I mean, what's the point of doing it if you're NOT going to use the party apparatus? You can run in the November election either way. It seems like a court would see that you are taking active steps to be partisan by participating in the caucus, because by participating you are proactively involving yourself in party things.

But whatever, it's up to OSC to interpret this stuff, and they have ruled.

[Anonymous]

I find the whole thing fairly bizarre b/c there is no world where participating in a political parties caucus was ever going to comply with the hatch act. I don't know if her agency counsel was incompetent, or she didn't give all the relevant information (e.g. planning to participate in ACDC caucus.)
That being said- I really the idea of a SB candidate who is not beholden too, and is kind of angry with, the ACDC- so I may vote for her in the general election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Priddy has shown more drive and engagement in 2 years than Sims has shown in 10. There are only 5 Board members. Please don't waste a slot on yet another person who means well but functions mainly as a seat filler.

I agree with this. I’m interested in hearing from Sims supporters about why they think he’d make a good school board member. What have they seen that makes them want to vote for him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hatch Act seems like a mess on the subject of independent candidates in partisan local elections. It's clear that feds in designated high-fed areas like Arlington can be "independent candidates" in local elections that become "partisan" for reasons beyond the candidate's control. But it's less clear what "independent candidate" means, or what activities by a candidate would transform an otherwise "independent" candidacy into a partisan one. There's authority that seeking a party's endorsement could do that, but not that it necessarily would.

There's a big difference between a truly "independent candidate"--who touts their independence from either party, seeks endorsements from partisan and non-partisan groups alike, passively accepts contributions and volunteer assistance from a party without asking, doesn't employ party operatives in their campaign, and never holds themselves out as partisan--and a candidate who is "independent" in name only and campaigns like a party nominee would.

There's a lot of speculation about what the ethics authorities did or didn't tell Symone and vice versa. Much of that speculation is driven by conventional wisdom about the Hatch Act. Without getting into Symone's forthrightness or acceptance of responsibility, I think it's worth asking whether the conventional wisdom is correct.

Signed, NP who doesn't plan to vote for Symone regardless.

If you participate in the ACDC caucus, you aren't independent. Winning the caucus endorsement means that you are on the ACDC (political party) sample ballot, printed using ACDC (political party) funds and handed out using ACDC (political party) volunteers. Your name may be on campaign signs with other Dems. You are not independent in any true sense. Its completely different from being endorsed by, say, the public employees union, which is not a political party.

And Symone is not actually running as an independent, let's be honest. She announced her candidacy at an ACDC meeting!

A candidate's "independence" is judged based on what they do, not what a party does for them. The Campbell case (27 F.3d 1560) illustrates that nicely. There, the court rejected the argument that a candidate for Alexandria city counsel was "independent" because he not only sought the Alexandria Democratic Party's endorsement, but also: 1) successfully urged the party to change its procedures to allow him to participate in the caucus, 2) actually participated in a caucus where an endorsee would be functionally indistinct from a nominee, 3) advertised the party's endorsement and support often, 4) ran his campaign from the Alexandria Democratic Party's headquarters, 5) used the party's phone bank and bulk mail permit, 6) pooled his resources with other Democratic nominees, and 7) distributed posters that did not identify him as independent. It was the candidate's extensive leveraging of party support that prompted an administrative law judge to conclude (and an appellate court to affirm) that he ran has campaign with the intent and effect of persuading voters that he'd follow the party's platform, and therefore wasn't "independent." The case could have come out much differently if he had secured the party's endorsement, but didn't advertise it and kept his campaign separate from party operations.

If OSC did tell Symone that seeking the ACDC endorsement would violate the Hatch Act, then her announcement at an ACDC meeting may have played a big role. It's possible that, in OSC's view, she had already engaged in so many other partisan activities that participating in the caucus would have made it impossible for her candidacy to be "independent." We don't know for sure, and I'd rather not guess.

Why would a person seek the ACDC endorsement if its going to be an issue because you're a Fed? I mean, what's the point of doing it if you're NOT going to use the party apparatus? You can run in the November election either way. It seems like a court would see that you are taking active steps to be partisan by participating in the caucus, because by participating you are proactively involving yourself in party things.

But whatever, it's up to OSC to interpret this stuff, and they have ruled.

I think that attending the ACDC school board debate as “an audience member” while tweeting responses to the questions is pretty darn close to the line, too. It’s like she’s deliberately poking the bear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hatch Act seems like a mess on the subject of independent candidates in partisan local elections. It's clear that feds in designated high-fed areas like Arlington can be "independent candidates" in local elections that become "partisan" for reasons beyond the candidate's control. But it's less clear what "independent candidate" means, or what activities by a candidate would transform an otherwise "independent" candidacy into a partisan one. There's authority that seeking a party's endorsement could do that, but not that it necessarily would.

There's a big difference between a truly "independent candidate"--who touts their independence from either party, seeks endorsements from partisan and non-partisan groups alike, passively accepts contributions and volunteer assistance from a party without asking, doesn't employ party operatives in their campaign, and never holds themselves out as partisan--and a candidate who is "independent" in name only and campaigns like a party nominee would.

There's a lot of speculation about what the ethics authorities did or didn't tell Symone and vice versa. Much of that speculation is driven by conventional wisdom about the Hatch Act. Without getting into Symone's forthrightness or acceptance of responsibility, I think it's worth asking whether the conventional wisdom is correct.

Signed, NP who doesn't plan to vote for Symone regardless.

If you participate in the ACDC caucus, you aren't independent. Winning the caucus endorsement means that you are on the ACDC (political party) sample ballot, printed using ACDC (political party) funds and handed out using ACDC (political party) volunteers. Your name may be on campaign signs with other Dems. You are not independent in any true sense. Its completely different from being endorsed by, say, the public employees union, which is not a political party.

And Symone is not actually running as an independent, let's be honest. She announced her candidacy at an ACDC meeting!

A candidate's "independence" is judged based on what they do, not what a party does for them. The Campbell case (27 F.3d 1560) illustrates that nicely. There, the court rejected the argument that a candidate for Alexandria city counsel was "independent" because he not only sought the Alexandria Democratic Party's endorsement, but also: 1) successfully urged the party to change its procedures to allow him to participate in the caucus, 2) actually participated in a caucus where an endorsee would be functionally indistinct from a nominee, 3) advertised the party's endorsement and support often, 4) ran his campaign from the Alexandria Democratic Party's headquarters, 5) used the party's phone bank and bulk mail permit, 6) pooled his resources with other Democratic nominees, and 7) distributed posters that did not identify him as independent. It was the candidate's extensive leveraging of party support that prompted an administrative law judge to conclude (and an appellate court to affirm) that he ran has campaign with the intent and effect of persuading voters that he'd follow the party's platform, and therefore wasn't "independent." The case could have come out much differently if he had secured the party's endorsement, but didn't advertise it and kept his campaign separate from party operations.

If OSC did tell Symone that seeking the ACDC endorsement would violate the Hatch Act, then her announcement at an ACDC meeting may have played a big role. It's possible that, in OSC's view, she had already engaged in so many other partisan activities that participating in the caucus would have made it impossible for her candidacy to be "independent." We don't know for sure, and I'd rather not guess.

Why would a person seek the ACDC endorsement if its going to be an issue because you're a Fed? I mean, what's the point of doing it if you're NOT going to use the party apparatus? You can run in the November election either way. It seems like a court would see that you are taking active steps to be partisan by participating in the caucus, because by participating you are proactively involving yourself in party things.

But whatever, it's up to OSC to interpret this stuff, and they have ruled.

I think that attending the ACDC school board debate as “an audience member” while tweeting responses to the questions is pretty darn close to the line, too. It’s like she’s deliberately poking the bear.

Or posting on AEM about how she spoke to the Yorktown Young Democrats club? come on

[Anonymous]

While I'd love a non-ACDC member of the board, I don't want one who chooses the path to act like a victim and not take any responsibility when she knew she was doing something against the law. That's not who I want in making decisions for schools. We already have one CB member witch obvious ethics issues. We don't need that on the SB, too. Hard Pass!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I'd love a non-ACDC member of the board, I don't want one who chooses the path to act like a victim and not take any responsibility when she knew she was doing something against the law. That's not who I want in making decisions for schools. We already have one CB member witch obvious ethics issues. We don't need that on the SB, too. Hard Pass!

+1

I don't believe anything she says at this point. Advocated for 10 years? I don't believe that either.

[Anonymous]

LOL on calling Sims a "chair filler."

I know him too and it's spot on. He doesn't offend me so I guess that's something but we don't need a chair filler on the Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL on calling Sims a "chair filler."

I know him too and it's spot on. He doesn't offend me so I guess that's something but we don't need a chair filler on the Board.

I'd take a chair filler over at least 2 of the other candidates.