Anonymous wrote:Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

Go Honora! Hopefully this will put this issue to bed once and for all. And hopefully folks will see that Symone must have had her head in the sand if she really thought participating in the caucus didn't violate the Hatch Act. I'm still guessing that she did know, but was arrogant enough to think no one would call her on it because she's a POC and a woman. And WTF is with her agency's ethics office that they didn't know this either, unless Symone gave them an inaccurate description of the actual caucus process. Anyway too many issues to stay stuck on this one.

I'm not sure prose vomit with zero paragraphs (Honora, not either of the PPs) is the best way to convince people your a deep and rational thinker, but I also can't imagine that anyone doesn't have an opinion on Symone yet, either.

I wasn't going to vote for Terron, but every time his supporters pipe up, I feel so much [that German word for feeling embarrassed on someone else's behalf]. His wife, especially, isn't doing him any favors. It's like your mom thinking you're great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

Go Honora! Hopefully this will put this issue to bed once and for all. And hopefully folks will see that Symone must have had her head in the sand if she really thought participating in the caucus didn't violate the Hatch Act. I'm still guessing that she did know, but was arrogant enough to think no one would call her on it because she's a POC and a woman. And WTF is with her agency's ethics office that they didn't know this either, unless Symone gave them an inaccurate description of the actual caucus process. Anyway too many issues to stay stuck on this one.

I'm not sure prose vomit with zero paragraphs (Honora, not either of the PPs) is the best way to convince people your a deep and rational thinker, but I also can't imagine that anyone doesn't have an opinion on Symone yet, either.

I wasn't going to vote for Terron, but every time his supporters pipe up, I feel so much [that German word for feeling embarrassed on someone else's behalf]. His wife, especially, isn't doing him any favors. It's like your mom thinking you're great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

Go Honora! Hopefully this will put this issue to bed once and for all. And hopefully folks will see that Symone must have had her head in the sand if she really thought participating in the caucus didn't violate the Hatch Act. I'm still guessing that she did know, but was arrogant enough to think no one would call her on it because she's a POC and a woman. And WTF is with her agency's ethics office that they didn't know this either, unless Symone gave them an inaccurate description of the actual caucus process. Anyway too many issues to stay stuck on this one.

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow! Someone on AEM just threw it down on the whole "poor Symone" narrative. It's kind of classic, actually. It really takes down the whole argument, quoting an Office of Special Counsel opinion from 2009 pretty much describing this situation and how it's not permissible. How can Symone's campaign really claim that this is a newfound and more conservative interpretation of the Hatch Act? As if THIS administration takes a more conservative view of any ethics law!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I’m going with Dave and Sandy (on the fence with Cristina).

Similarly, I'm going with Cristina and David (on the fence with Sandy). I appreciate that Sandy has lived and worked in Arlington for a long time but I don't know that she is the best person for APS right now. I might be biased. I am 30 years younger than she is (I don't know her exact age). I only ever hear her talking about reading. Literacy should be more a priority in APS than it is. Poor reading skills means years of struggle for students and people generally. And I want every student to read as well as my kids. But I'm concerned this is all she has to say and that she doesn't understand how complicated and technical the world has become.

I might choose Steven as my third choice. I don't like all of his ideas (or how he emails them to me) but at least he has new ideas.

You have learn to sit up before you can crawl. Without that fundamental building block, kids have no real options. Coding is great and another necessary skill, one that isn’t being taught that competently across the system either, but if you can’t read or write at a proficient level, you’re far more likely to end up in jail rather than becoming a wildly successful techie.

Anyone know, did Sandy come up before this misguided turn toward “balanced literacy?” If yes, she has my vote.

I'm sure everyone agrees with you. I'm glad Sandy emphasizes literacy. It's not a controversial topic. All of the candidates support expanding or improving literacy in APS, especially for the demographics of students that are routinely falling behind. I worry that she doesn't have much more to say.

I haven't received my ballot yet. I might reach out to her campaign to ask about her other priorities. I've visited her website and have heard her say on multiple occasions that all of the candidates are running on the same platform, but she doesn't talk much about those other priorities. David has a four-point plan for equity. Cristina has a framework for addressing inequity. Both candidates describe specific plans for leading APS.

They seem the most prepared to me.

David has been running longer than any of the candidates. He should be more knowledgable by now. Sandy's old-school. Some people might like that. Others don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I’m going with Dave and Sandy (on the fence with Cristina).

Similarly, I'm going with Cristina and David (on the fence with Sandy). I appreciate that Sandy has lived and worked in Arlington for a long time but I don't know that she is the best person for APS right now. I might be biased. I am 30 years younger than she is (I don't know her exact age). I only ever hear her talking about reading. Literacy should be more a priority in APS than it is. Poor reading skills means years of struggle for students and people generally. And I want every student to read as well as my kids. But I'm concerned this is all she has to say and that she doesn't understand how complicated and technical the world has become.

I might choose Steven as my third choice. I don't like all of his ideas (or how he emails them to me) but at least he has new ideas.

You have learn to sit up before you can crawl. Without that fundamental building block, kids have no real options. Coding is great and another necessary skill, one that isn’t being taught that competently across the system either, but if you can’t read or write at a proficient level, you’re far more likely to end up in jail rather than becoming a wildly successful techie.

Anyone know, did Sandy come up before this misguided turn toward “balanced literacy?” If yes, she has my vote.

I'm sure everyone agrees with you. I'm glad Sandy emphasizes literacy. It's not a controversial topic. All of the candidates support expanding or improving literacy in APS, especially for the demographics of students that are routinely falling behind. I worry that she doesn't have much more to say.

I haven't received my ballot yet. I might reach out to her campaign to ask about her other priorities. I've visited her website and have heard her say on multiple occasions that all of the candidates are running on the same platform, but she doesn't talk much about those other priorities. David has a four-point plan for equity. Cristina has a framework for addressing inequity. Both candidates describe specific plans for leading APS.

They seem the most prepared to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I’m going with Dave and Sandy (on the fence with Cristina).

Similarly, I'm going with Cristina and David (on the fence with Sandy). I appreciate that Sandy has lived and worked in Arlington for a long time but I don't know that she is the best person for APS right now. I might be biased. I am 30 years younger than she is (I don't know her exact age). I only ever hear her talking about reading. Literacy should be more a priority in APS than it is. Poor reading skills means years of struggle for students and people generally. And I want every student to read as well as my kids. But I'm concerned this is all she has to say and that she doesn't understand how complicated and technical the world has become.

I might choose Steven as my third choice. I don't like all of his ideas (or how he emails them to me) but at least he has new ideas.

You have learn to sit up before you can crawl. Without that fundamental building block, kids have no real options. Coding is great and another necessary skill, one that isn’t being taught that competently across the system either, but if you can’t read or write at a proficient level, you’re far more likely to end up in jail rather than becoming a wildly successful techie.

Anyone know, did Sandy come up before this misguided turn toward “balanced literacy?” If yes, she has my vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day, another unsolicited Krieger email. This time on the super important topic of essentially moving from a majority to supermajority vote of the SB to renew the Superintendent's contract. In the middle of a global pandemic, facing still unknown budget shortfalls, I definitely have been kept awake at night by worrying whether it should be 3 of 5 or 4 of 5 SB members that approve the (an as not yet named) Superintendent's contract.

You certainly have your finger on the pulse, Steven.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever heard that as an issue or as a question in any campaign debate. A supermajority would make more sense if it were a larger board. Increasing the size of the board would be much more worthwhile.

I like this idea. How could we adapt higher-ed like system where some voters are elected and others are appointed and skills-based?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I’m going with Dave and Sandy (on the fence with Cristina).

Similarly, I'm going with Cristina and David (on the fence with Sandy). I appreciate that Sandy has lived and worked in Arlington for a long time but I don't know that she is the best person for APS right now. I might be biased. I am 30 years younger than she is (I don't know her exact age). I only ever hear her talking about reading. Literacy should be more a priority in APS than it is. Poor reading skills means years of struggle for students and people generally. And I want every student to read as well as my kids. But I'm concerned this is all she has to say and that she doesn't understand how complicated and technical the world has become.

I might choose Steven as my third choice. I don't like all of his ideas (or how he emails them to me) but at least he has new ideas.

Anonymous wrote:Have people been receiving their ballots yet?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL.

But if that had been in effect the last time The superintendent's contract was voted on, it wouldn't have been renewed. We'd already have a replacement. But who could see the future and plan for this...

Eh, I kind of feel like certain votes are all about the optics. If they'd needed a supermajority to renew Coach Murphy's contract, they'd have gotten one, plus a token vote against, just to demonstrate that They Hear Out Concerns.

Ditto to the person who doesn't take endorsements from current SB members (or other elected Arlington officials) as particularly valuable.