Accusation against SOMA School Board member

Or Ambien, maybe it was that.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

It can be argued that ethics violations are binary, you either commit one or you don't -- any perceived scale is irrelevant.  

 but that would be a fairly ridiculous argument.  Would you recommend the same penalty for a BOE member running a kickback scheme for a decade as you would for a someone who asked a cop to let them off with a warning at a traffic stop?  

 I don't think it's a fairly ridiculous argument. 

It's a slippery slope when you're willing to overlook what can be perceived as minor ethical violations on the part of public officials. Just recently I had a debate with my cousin who's a MAGA guy. I said Scott Pruitt has shown himself to be unethical and should resign or be removed; my cousin dismissed his ethical transgressions as "small potatoes". 

Going back to your 1.5 rating on S L-M incident. By context that implies 1.5 can be overlooked. I assume 10 would be unacceptable. Where in between is the acceptable/unacceptable line?  3? 5? 6? Say it's 3. Wouldn't that mean all public officials can commit ethical violations up to and including 2.5 in severity? Then all public officials would be motivated to do so, because after all why not squeeze out a little personal gain from their public position, without penalty -- as long as they don't overdo it.     

I do think your question is fairly ridiculous, but I'll still answer it. No. 

You raise some interesting points.  If a elected official is found to be in violation of written policy or laws, then disciplinary action should be taken whether that person walks on water or is a reprehensible character.

The bigger problem is that the debate really ought to be about Pruitt's policies, to use your example, and not his ethics.  His denial of global warming, his celebration of ignorance and anti-science, etc. are all really dangerous and will impact our future negatively.

Smedley said:

 I don't think it's a fairly ridiculous argument. 
It's a slippery slope when you're willing to overlook what can be perceived as minor ethical violations on the part of public officials. Just recently I had a debate with my cousin who's a MAGA guy. I said Scott Pruitt has shown himself to be unethical and should resign or be removed; my cousin dismissed his ethical transgressions as "small potatoes". 
Going back to your 1.5 rating on S L-M incident. By context that implies 1.5 can be overlooked. I assume 10 would be unacceptable. Where in between is the acceptable/unacceptable line?  3? 5? 6? Say it's 3. Wouldn't that mean all public officials can commit ethical violations up to and including 2.5 in severity? Then all public officials would be motivated to do so, because after all why not squeeze out a little personal gain from their private position, without penalty -- as long as they don't overdo it.     
I do think your question is fairly ridiculous, but I'll still answer it. No. 

 slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy.

And the entire penal code is filled with different gradations of crimes and penalties.  We don't treat criminally negligent homicide the same way we treat premeditated murder.

The notion that every violation is equally heinous is absurd on its face.

Strawman arguments are logical fallacies too.  Nobody said that all violations are equally heinous.

kmt said:
Strawman arguments are logical fallacies too.  Nobody said that all violations are equally heinous.

 that's what it seemed like to me. A description of zero tolerance 

"The notion that every violation is equally heinous is absurd on its face." 

Agreed. And I didn't make that notion.

And I don't know exactly what you mean by  "slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy," but I guess that's your way of saying you decline to address my questions. 

tjohn -- 100% agree on Pruitt but that's another discussion. 

ml1 said:

kmt said:
Strawman arguments are logical fallacies too.  Nobody said that all violations are equally heinous.

 that's what it seemed like to me. A description of zero tolerance 

Zero tolerance doesn’t mean that all violations are equally heinous.

The ethics committee has a range of punishments that can be applied, from censure to removal.  They’re not going to “lock her up” or put her in stocks or whatever else has been suggested in the extreme exaggerations here.

In the best case, IMHO, she’s removed and then has less stress in her life to cause her to abuse her power and insult people’s appearance.

Smedley said:
And I don't know exactly what you mean by  "slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy," but I guess that's your way of saying you decline to address my questions. 

the answer to your question is that each instance should be looked at individually.  There's no slippery slope that means that if something minor isn't pursued in a complaint, that eventually we'll be having people taking bribes with impunity.

in this instance my interpretation is that Walter Fields is pursuing what is essentially a nuisance complaint, perhaps out of some sort of vindictiveness.  It's going to be a big waste of time and result in most likely a reprimand of some sort, and nothing more.  Because yes, in the grand scheme of potential ethical violations by a BOE member, this one is small potatoes.

Robert_Casotto said:
Sadly, it appears the fallout from this is:  she won't resign.  we won't recall her, and they'll probably re-elect her.  And if you don't like it, it's your problem, not hers.

 "We" won't recall her and "they" will probably re-elect her.

Interesting choice of words.  

tjohn said:

Red_Barchetta said:
I keep seeing variations of 'she was having a bad day'.  Do we really know that or is that just a convenient excuse we all give when we get busted.  Let's recall that it was 8am when this happened, I wonder how much could have really gone awry that early in the day.   

My experience has been that when you have kids, quite a lot can happen by 8 AM to put you into a state of stress.

 No kidding!

It’s almost as bad as taking Ambien.

Oh, please!  You don't need help with an apology if you're sincerely sorry about something.

tjohn said:
I don't understand what ethics violation Lawson-Muhammad is guilty off.  As far as I can tell, she is guilty of:
1.  Driving while stressed and then making things much, much worse by giving the cop a hard time.
2.  Failing to have a team of lawyers, PR people and language experts review her apology to ensure that it sounded sufficiently contrite.

tjohn said:
I don't understand what ethics violation Lawson-Muhammad is guilty off.  As far as I can tell, she is guilty of:
1.  Driving while stressed and then making things much, much worse by giving the cop a hard time.
2.  Failing to have a team of lawyers, PR people and language experts review her apology to ensure that it sounded sufficiently contrite.

 https://www.state.nj.us/education/ethics/coe.htm

See “F” 

By using her position for personal gain she is in violation of the school ethics act. The village pres conveniently said that she never received a call seeking favors... the question for the ethics commission to decide whether the obvious intent to use her elected position for personal gain is enough to be an ethics violation. 

As far as “guilty of” .. she didn’t commit a crime. I don’t recall seeing anyone saying that. But she is unfit to be a BoE member due to her obvious racial bias - regardless of the situation it’s unreasonable to use the “morning rush” as an excuse to say the things she said. People ordinarily don’t call chiefs of police “skinheads” and say “cops hurt black people” (really.. how could you ever say that during a traffic stop is impossible to reconcile)..

It’s her racial bias that eliminates her capability to be fair equitable to all students, regardless of race. 

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

It can be argued that ethics violations are binary, you either commit one or you don't -- any perceived scale is irrelevant.  

 but that would be a fairly ridiculous argument.  Would you recommend the same penalty for a BOE member running a kickback scheme for a decade as you would for a someone who asked a cop to let them off with a warning at a traffic stop?  

 I don't think it's a fairly ridiculous argument. 
It's a slippery slope when you're willing to overlook what can be perceived as minor ethical violations on the part of public officials. Just recently I had a debate with my cousin who's a MAGA guy. I said Scott Pruitt has shown himself to be unethical and should resign or be removed; my cousin dismissed his ethical transgressions as "small potatoes". 
Going back to your 1.5 rating on S L-M incident. By context that implies 1.5 can be overlooked. I assume 10 would be unacceptable. Where in between is the acceptable/unacceptable line?  3? 5? 6? Say it's 3. Wouldn't that mean all public officials can commit ethical violations up to and including 2.5 in severity? Then all public officials would be motivated to do so, because after all why not squeeze out a little personal gain from their public position, without penalty -- as long as they don't overdo it.     
I do think your question is fairly ridiculous, but I'll still answer it. No. 

The “kickback scheme” is worse by orders of magnitude - it’s unethical and against the law. It’s literally illegal.

Other than speeding, SLM didn’t do anything illegal even from a BoE perspective. What she said was unethical, and that is why she needs to be removed from the BoE.

Njartist1979 said:

The “kickback scheme” is worse by orders of magnitude - it’s unethical and against the law. It’s literally illegal.


Other than speeding, SLM didn’t do anything illegal even from a BoE perspective. What she said was unethical, and that is why she needs to be removed from the BoE.
 

 what about if she had asked one of the school principals to give her neighbor's kid a summer job?  Clearly a violation of the letter of the law regarding personal gain.  Would anyone be filing an ethics complaint if they found out about it though?

the notion that all technical violations of clause F of the ethics code would be worthy of a complaint is pretty dubious.

The notion that she'll be removed from office is also pretty shaky.  I'll predict right now that the outcome will be a censure that essentially says "don't do that again."  And we'll see a fresh round of outrage from the people who are now calling for resignation.

tjohn said:

Red_Barchetta said:
I keep seeing variations of 'she was having a bad day'.  Do we really know that or is that just a convenient excuse we all give when we get busted.  Let's recall that it was 8am when this happened, I wonder how much could have really gone awry that early in the day.   

My experience has been that when you have kids, quite a lot can happen by 8 AM to put you into a state of stress.

You’re suggesting that it’s ok to name drop, use an elected position for personal gain, call the police chief a skinhead, say cops hurt black people, disclaim fault for not carrying a driver license AND an insurance card, then trying to make it seem like it’s the cop’s fault for asking... stress? Or is stress an excuse for bad behavior by a public official that elevated herself to a higher status and trying to get above the law?

Like it or not she knows that BoE members are held to a higher standard. There isn’t even a need to refer to a code of ethics because it’s just common sense (obviously lacking) ->  Read the code of ethics BoE members are supposedly sworn to:  https://www.state.nj.us/education/ethics/coe.htm

The behavior and language used in this incident wouldn’t be excusable for a non-elected official let a lone an elected official in charge of making decisions related to schools and kids.

This will be decided at the polls in November 2019.

ml1 said:

Njartist1979 said:

The “kickback scheme” is worse by orders of magnitude - it’s unethical and against the law. It’s literally illegal.


Other than speeding, SLM didn’t do anything illegal even from a BoE perspective. What she said was unethical, and that is why she needs to be removed from the BoE.
 

 what about if she had asked one of the school principals to give her neighbor's kid a summer job?  Clearly a violation of the letter of the law regarding personal gain.  Would anyone be filing an ethics complaint if they found out about it though?
the notion that all technical violations of clause F of the ethics code would be worthy of a complaint is pretty dubious.
The notion that she'll be removed from office is also pretty shaky.  I'll predict right now that the outcome will be a censure that essentially says "don't do that again."  And we'll see a fresh round of outrage from the people who are now calling for resignation.

ml1 said:

Njartist1979 said:

The “kickback scheme” is worse by orders of magnitude - it’s unethical and against the law. It’s literally illegal.


Other than speeding, SLM didn’t do anything illegal even from a BoE perspective. What she said was unethical, and that is why she needs to be removed from the BoE.
 

 what about if she had asked one of the school principals to give her neighbor's kid a summer job?  Clearly a violation of the letter of the law regarding personal gain.  Would anyone be filing an ethics complaint if they found out about it though?
the notion that all technical violations of clause F of the ethics code would be worthy of a complaint is pretty dubious.
The notion that she'll be removed from office is also pretty shaky.  I'll predict right now that the outcome will be a censure that essentially says "don't do that again."  And we'll see a fresh round of outrage from the people who are now calling for resignation.

That is absolutely an ethics violation. She’s not allowed to do that as a board member. As a non-board member parent it doesn’t matter.  As a board member she is different when it comes to interacting with district employees. 

You may view your example as some scofflaw that shouldn’t be taken seriously ...but consider a situation where 9 school board members regularly interact with school employees and ask for favors such as the one in your example... it would be impossible for the board to act independently.

It’s not a “letter of the law issue”. It’s an issue of breaking an oath she made when she was sworn in. It’s not a crime. No one is going to jail. But she is unfit to serve the public in a position of equity for kids is required. 

All this won’t make it easier for find a new superintendent. No accountability by SLM staying on BoE and not resigning ...and the international coverage of this event ... is an undeserved blemish on the district... 

They first have to agree on a search firm.. then find someone that wants to work in the distinct with all this chaos and negative attention.

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/soma/articles/initial-superintendent-search-firm-proposals-reje

If she had not mentioned being a member of the Bd. of Ed. or mentioned the Village President but had said everything else she said wouldn't her conduct still be such as to question whether she should continue to be a member of the Board?  

Solomon said:
If she had not mentioned being a member of the Bd. of Ed. or mentioned the Village President but had said everything else she said wouldn't her conduct still be such as to question whether she should continue to be a member of the Board?  

 No. Saying what she said makes it unethical and takes the situation to a higher level. 

Chief Kroll's hair looks perfectly normal to me:

So  Member  of the Board of Education who engages in an argument with an Officer, makes a racial comment and attacks the Police Chief but does not mention her membership on the Board or acquaintanceship with the Village President is the kind of person who should be on the Board of Education? 

Solomon said:
So  Member  of the Board of Education who engages in an argument with an Officer, makes a racial comment and attacks the Police Chief but does not mention her membership on the Board or acquaintanceship with the Village President is the kind of person who should be on the Board of Education? 

 No. I meant no in both scenarios.

OK

Njartist1979 said:
All this won’t make it easier for find a new superintendent. No accountability by SLM staying on BoE and not resigning ...and the international coverage of this event ... is an undeserved blemish on the district... 


They first have to agree on a search firm.. then find someone that wants to work in the distinct with all this chaos and negative attention.


https://www.tapinto.net/towns/soma/articles/initial-superintendent-search-firm-proposals-reje

It's almost like they want the capital plan get approved before a new superintendent is hired.

Hmmmmm........

They do want to finalize quickly so that work can start June 2019. If you want to discuss the plans, should probably start a new thread. There was a meeting last night where Ficarra presented on it.

If the local dog catcher who; as a parent of a student of the district, was having a dispute with a school principal told that principal that they were going to call the mayor and the xxxxxx BOE member, how would SLM react to that?  

Red_Barchetta said:
If the local dog catcher who; as a parent of a student of the district, was having a dispute with a school principal told that principal that they were going to call the mayor and the xxxxxx BOE member, how would SLM react to that?  

If I were her, I’d first want to know how often principals killed or otherwise assaulted the parents they pulled aside.