Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the article on Christian Dorsey in the Wash Post and think about if you want to support anyone that ACDC supports, or any of their caucuses. Not only did he declare bankruptcy and take campaign donations from unions that he is making contact decisions about, he apparently didn't file state or federal taxes for years--yet not a peep about him stepping down. What an embarrassment.

there isn't need to file tax returns every year if you don't owe taxes

Anonymous wrote:Read the article on Christian Dorsey in the Wash Post and think about if you want to support anyone that ACDC supports, or any of their caucuses. Not only did he declare bankruptcy and take campaign donations from unions that he is making contact decisions about, he apparently didn't file state or federal taxes for years--yet not a peep about him stepping down. What an embarrassment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the debacle in Iowa is there anyone who doesn't believe that a caucus is a mess. What a caucus really is, is undemocratic. Iowa has a population of over 3 million and the turn out for the caucus was around 170,000. Those 170K people are deciding for everyone which candidate gets a boost.

The same is true for the ACDC caucus for School Board. Only 2000 people (give or take a few) will show up on May 9 to vote in a county of 225,000 people. Those 2000 people are the "reliable" Dem voters. They turn out more reliably than parents. So if one doesn't vote on May 7 & 9, then no gripping about who goes through to win automatically in November.

Maybe Barbara K has an opinion. She and her husband have been in Iowa door knocking for Joe Biden. Add her to the list of SB members that are just doing this as a stepping stone or a way to participate in ACDC. When she was campaigning she told me that the school age population was a bubble. That because the birth count dropped from 2009 to 2010 it will plateau and she said she knew that because she was an economist. She said my children born in 2009, 2011 and 2014 would not be in overcrowded schools. Then once elected, she said they would grow Arlington Tech to 800 students within 4-5 years. Ummm...

Anonymous wrote:Given the debacle in Iowa is there anyone who doesn't believe that a caucus is a mess. What a caucus really is, is undemocratic. Iowa has a population of over 3 million and the turn out for the caucus was around 170,000. Those 170K people are deciding for everyone which candidate gets a boost.

The same is true for the ACDC caucus for School Board. Only 2000 people (give or take a few) will show up on May 9 to vote in a county of 225,000 people. Those 2000 people are the "reliable" Dem voters. They turn out more reliably than parents. So if one doesn't vote on May 7 & 9, then no gripping about who goes through to win automatically in November.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why doesn't someone on here notify her employer and find out?

Because most of us aren't narcs?

And just prefer to complain and criticize from the sidelines rather than make sure laws and ethics and things are being followed.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why doesn't someone on here notify her employer and find out?

Because most of us aren't narcs?

Anonymous wrote:Given the debacle in Iowa is there anyone who doesn't believe that a caucus is a mess. What a caucus really is, is undemocratic. Iowa has a population of over 3 million and the turn out for the caucus was around 170,000. Those 170K people are deciding for everyone which candidate gets a boost.

The same is true for the ACDC caucus for School Board. Only 2000 people (give or take a few) will show up on May 9 to vote in a county of 225,000 people. Those 2000 people are the "reliable" Dem voters. They turn out more reliably than parents. So if one doesn't vote on May 7 & 9, then no gripping about who goes through to win automatically in November.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why doesn't someone on here notify her employer and find out?

Because most of us aren't narcs?

I don't view it as being a narc. I think it's only fair that everyone is playing by the same set of rules--there are probably a lot of qualified feds who don't run because they (correctly, IMO) don't believe they can. I thought her explanation of her eligibility to run was inaccurate and I would have expected more from someone who has been a fed attorney for more than 20 years. I think it's fair and appropriate to expect SB members to play by the well-established rules, and it's equally fair and appropriate to hold a candidate accountable when he or she is not following them. But if I were agency counsel, I would leave it to an individual candidate to determine whether he or she is truly running as an independent and would advise any complaining party to go to OSC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why doesn't someone on here notify her employer and find out?

Because most of us aren't narcs?

Anonymous wrote:
Why doesn't someone on here notify her employer and find out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Symone can run under the Hatch Act under some technicality - and I really don't see how - what she's doing is so against the spirit of the Hatch Act, I can't support her in good conscience. What she's doing seems so entitled and opportunistic. All those other government employees couldn't run but I can because I'm special!

I mean, she showed up and gave a speech at that Democratic meeting last week. How is this ok?

She asked the people at her office who decide these things. They're the ones who said it was OK. How does that make her entitled or opportunistic, and how is she saying she's special? She didn't make the call.

Maybe this will lead other government employees to run, which would be nice. The pool of qualified candidates gets thinned out too much because of the stupid SB caucus. (One more reason the ACDC infuriates me)

It smells very fishy to me. I wonder if she gave them all the information. Do they know for example that she is showing up at Arl Dems events to speak and that she's in a caucus? I wonder....

They probably gave her permission to run as an independent. Not sure they know she's giving out the dates of the Dem caucus and is listed as a Dem candidate on ACDC's website. Under OSC's advisory opinions (which, to an earlier poster, OSC is really the office who decides if it's allowed), a bunch of things could turn a non-partisan race into a partisan one including participation in a political party's caucus or seeking a political party's endorsement. The state law declaring an election as nonpartisan only creates a rebuttable presumption that it's nonpartisan. If Walker or any other candidate seeks the endorsement of a political party, the race could be deemed to be a partisan one and feds would not be allowed to participate. Really not sure how she's getting around this issue, but I'm not the Hatch Act police.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Symone can run under the Hatch Act under some technicality - and I really don't see how - what she's doing is so against the spirit of the Hatch Act, I can't support her in good conscience. What she's doing seems so entitled and opportunistic. All those other government employees couldn't run but I can because I'm special!

I mean, she showed up and gave a speech at that Democratic meeting last week. How is this ok?

She asked the people at her office who decide these things. They're the ones who said it was OK. How does that make her entitled or opportunistic, and how is she saying she's special? She didn't make the call.

Maybe this will lead other government employees to run, which would be nice. The pool of qualified candidates gets thinned out too much because of the stupid SB caucus. (One more reason the ACDC infuriates me)

It smells very fishy to me. I wonder if she gave them all the information. Do they know for example that she is showing up at Arl Dems events to speak and that she's in a caucus? I wonder....