Prince George’s school board member moved out of her district in June (Baltimore: foreclosed, home)

[UrbanScholar]

On the fence about this one. Although I get that she moved to care for a sick family member. However, rules are rules and if we want to be seriously shouldn't we be consistent with our school policies. I don't know, it just doesn't seem that her reasons were justified considering she had full knowledge that what she was doing was wrong. She could have just stepped down to take care of family. That would have been totally justified.

Prince George’s school board member moved out of her district in June - The Washington Post

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

On the fence about this one. Although I get that she moved to care for a sick family member. However, rules are rules and if we want to be seriously shouldn't we be consistent with our school policies. I don't know, it just doesn't seem that her reasons were justified considering she had full knowledge that what she was doing was wrong. She could have just stepped down to take care of family. That would have been totally justified.

Prince George’s school board member moved out of her district in June - The Washington Post

The issue really is with how she handled this. She should have disclosed this situation to the board and made this known before it came out. Who's to say that if the Washington Post didn't investigate this if it would have ever come out. With that said, it seems as though she knew what she was doing by evading the law and she should step down immediately. I certainly understand that she has some difficult circumstances, but those situations cannot get in the way of her being a responsible adult. I believe her decision to stay on is a bit selfish and is another black eye to a group with plenty of them.

EDIT: She should also pay back her salary for that time. I know that is harsh, but she break a law. There are no conditions, wrong is wrong. If she had any other reason beside her mother being ill, this wouldn't even be a question as a consequence.

[North Beach Person]

She doesn't have any problem according to how residence laws are interpreted in the State. Her residence (where she lives) may be New Carrollton but her domicile (where she claims or wants to live) is Laurel, which is her district. This has been fought over and over in the State and claimed domicile always wins. She was stupid for even mentioning it without understanding how the residence laws have been interpreted time after time.

I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation, by the way. I've seen residence interpreted so someone can vote somewhere even if they've never lived in a place just because the person "wanted" to live there.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

She doesn't have any problem according to how residence laws are interpreted in the State. Her residence (where she lives) may be New Carrollton but her domicile (where she claims or wants to live) is Laurel, which is her district. This has been fought over and over in the State and claimed domicile always wins. She was stupid for even mentioning it without understanding how the residence laws have been interpreted time after time.

I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation, by the way. I've seen residence interpreted so someone can vote somewhere even if they've never lived in a place just because the person "wanted" to live there.

That makes no sense whatsoever. So you're telling me, that even though she may have records stating that she no longer resides in that home in Laurel, she can still claim that to be "her home"? What is purpose of having this law then?

[bowian]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

She doesn't have any problem according to how residence laws are interpreted in the State. Her residence (where she lives) may be New Carrollton but her domicile (where she claims or wants to live) is Laurel, which is her district. This has been fought over and over in the State and claimed domicile always wins. She was stupid for even mentioning it without understanding how the residence laws have been interpreted time after time.

I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation, by the way. I've seen residence interpreted so someone can vote somewhere even if they've never lived in a place just because the person "wanted" to live there.

Well, how can she make such a claim if her "domicile" has been foreclosed upon?

Her comments about her potential replacement and its timing not being "guaranteed," and her "skill set" being needed, limit my sympathy for her viewpoint. People go through things, I get that. But, perhaps her personal issues were (and given the publicity, still are) a distraction from her BOE post. For these reasons, she needs to step down. Now.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

That makes no sense whatsoever. So you're telling me, that even though she may have records stating that she no longer resides in that home in Laurel, she can still claim that to be "her home"? What is purpose of having this law then?

Originally Posted by bowian

Well, how can she make such a claim if her "domicile" has been foreclosed upon?

Her comments about her potential replacement and its timing not being "guaranteed," and her "skill set" being needed, limit my sympathy for her viewpoint. People go through things, I get that. But, perhaps her personal issues were (and given the publicity, still are) a distraction from her BOE post. For these reasons, she needs to step down. Now.

I agree it doesn't make sense. I'm just relating my experiences with the "resident" and "domicile" definitions as they have been interpreted by both Election Boards and Courts. My experience was in suspected voter fraud (you know, that never happens) when the defendants tried to vote in an election where they didn't live. Their defense was that they wanted to live there and just didn't. The decision to allow them to vote was upheld by both the Calvert County Election Board (which didn't actually have jurisdiction, but I digress) and upon appeal by the Calvert County Circuit Court. Thew "right to vote" being sacrosanct and all, you know.

You then had the case about 12 years ago of the Delegate from Baltimore City who actually lived outside his District in Baltimore County. The Court held that since he had once lived in his District he was still eligible to be the Delegate even though he had moved and sold his City residence. That decision turned on the definitions of residence and domicile.

[bowian]

Rosalind Johnson resigns from Prince George’s school board - The Washington Post

She did the right thing.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by bowian

Rosalind Johnson resigns from Prince George’s school board - The Washington Post

She did the right thing.

I agree

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by bowian

Rosalind Johnson resigns from Prince George’s school board - The Washington Post

She did the right thing.

Yes, but she was a little too late in doing it. The damage is done. This is yet another situation where someone in leadership of our school system, has made a selfish decision. I'm glad she at least made this decision but it should have never came out like it did.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

I agree it doesn't make sense. I'm just relating my experiences with the "resident" and "domicile" definitions as they have been interpreted by both Election Boards and Courts. My experience was in suspected voter fraud (you know, that never happens) when the defendants tried to vote in an election where they didn't live. Their defense was that they wanted to live there and just didn't. The decision to allow them to vote was upheld by both the Calvert County Election Board (which didn't actually have jurisdiction, but I digress) and upon appeal by the Calvert County Circuit Court. Thew "right to vote" being sacrosanct and all, you know.

You then had the case about 12 years ago of the Delegate from Baltimore City who actually lived outside his District in Baltimore County. The Court held that since he had once lived in his District he was still eligible to be the Delegate even though he had moved and sold his City residence. That decision turned on the definitions of residence and domicile.

This country is going in a very bad direction, and this state is leading the way. What an incredibly stupid, stupid ruling.