Anonymous wrote:If you’re truly concerned about a hatch act violation, why not leave it to the hundreds of thousands of other residents of Arlington to file a complaint? Do you really need a school board seat so badly?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Symone messed up big time. She knows it, so she's doing damage control by wailing about harassment and blaming "another candidate" for reporting her. The pity party on AEM is making me want to barf.
Frankly I respect Teron for reporting her (assuming he did). No matter who reported it, reporting an ethical violation is not harassment.
I was feeling pretty good about my decision to leave AEM and its negativity, but now I wish I were there to see this all go down. Sorry but I have never been a fan of her or her equally rude AEM friends.
Anonymous wrote:Symone messed up big time. She knows it, so she's doing damage control by wailing about harassment and blaming "another candidate" for reporting her. The pity party on AEM is making me want to barf.
Frankly I respect Teron for reporting her (assuming he did). No matter who reported it, reporting an ethical violation is not harassment.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is the process that a federal worker is SUPPOSED to follow when they have a question about engaging in an activity that *may* implicate the Hatch Act and want an advisory opinion?
I think Symone did the right thing by going to her ethics office and she should have been able to rely on their advice, assuming of course that she provided all of the relevant facts. If she left out the part about running for the Dems endorsement and participating in the Dems caucus, that's a pretty big omission and definitely changes the legal analysis. If I thought it was at all a close call, I would have gone to OSC for an advisory opinion. But then again, there apparently is already an OSC opinion directly on point that says an independent candidate cannot seek the Dems endorsement. Don't know if that was innocently overlooked or willfully ignored.
A lawyer who innocently overlooks a major detail like that is not a good one.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is the process that a federal worker is SUPPOSED to follow when they have a question about engaging in an activity that *may* implicate the Hatch Act and want an advisory opinion?
I think Symone did the right thing by going to her ethics office and she should have been able to rely on their advice, assuming of course that she provided all of the relevant facts. If she left out the part about running for the Dems endorsement and participating in the Dems caucus, that's a pretty big omission and definitely changes the legal analysis. If I thought it was at all a close call, I would have gone to OSC for an advisory opinion. But then again, there apparently is already an OSC opinion directly on point that says an independent candidate cannot seek the Dems endorsement. Don't know if that was innocently overlooked or willfully ignored.
Anonymous wrote:What is the process that a federal worker is SUPPOSED to follow when they have a question about engaging in an activity that *may* implicate the Hatch Act and want an advisory opinion?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Wait, does that mean that if he did it he was trying to get her fired? Or she could be fired? Not on that page if you can share more.
Anonymous wrote:How did Reed get elected isn’t he a government contractor?