Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe she originally didn't vote against redistricting, she walked off. So I guess she also deserves to lose. What would a woman lose under Sharia law for double dipping?
What you conveniently have left out is how she did in the election….did she lose? oh no, that's right, she crushed her competition, swept every precinct….the voters of District 6 were heard loud and clear….so lets spend $5K on a $35 oversight. I find it a bit humorous that they want to investigate her for breaking a law, yet UCPS has no policy on mileage reimbursement….i guess i would ask, if you don't have a rule about it, how can it be broken? But hell, lets go ahead and throw 5 grand at it anyway, maybe something will stick. Could it be that it is politically motivated???? Nahhhhhh, Dick and Stewie never do have an alternate agenda
I believe she originally didn't vote against redistricting, she walked off. So I guess she also deserves to lose. What would a woman lose under Sharia law for double dipping?
Hold on... Let me check my worksheets.
Who is responsible for writing and interpreting school policies anyhow? You can't expect her to know all those rules. Campaign rules, attendance rules, financial rules - too many to remember!
Due to all the previous Union County politics threads that resulted in outing or attacking people characters as some of those mention in prior threads are also members of this forum too. Lets keep this thread civil.
Any posts that do not deem fit within those terms that is also outlined in the terms of service a possible infraction or ban or thread closure could be result with out warning.
I hate thread closures as I feel everyone has a right to an opinion whether agree or disagree with what is discussed
Everyone is welcome to discuss topics but we all need to respect posts and not be rude ( rude is also worthy of infraction) or in reputation and direct message.
If anyone feels a post crosses those lines please dont discuss it but privately report it by clicking icon in the upper right corner and it will be investigated.
Politics is an option that Ill allow in small segments but is not required or deem worthy of this forum as stated in the terms of service. Keep in mind this is a relocation forum so try to keep posts useful to those who desire to relocate.
Please dont discuss this post either, it would be off topic and can be done in direct message.
Thanks
I really appreciate the tone of this thread, 110 posts since this thread began. I would like all new members and seasoned members to refresh on points made in my quote above. Also lets continue civil discussion without attacking or being rude (an infractable offense) to members and people in society as they could also be members.
Please keep thread useful to those who plan or are in the Union County school district . thanks
Last edited by SunnyKayak; 11-20-2014 at 07:19 PM..
For what reason would she have to resign???? She did nothing illegal
Actually, the states policy is stated on the expense form itself. If you read the Charlotte observer story from the previous post and click the word investigation (blue highlighted) and scroll down to page 23 of the pdf, right above where Marce signed it, it clearly states the following: Under penalties of perjury I certify this is a true and accurate statement of expenses and allowances incurred in the service of the state and none of these expenses will or have been reimbursed to me from any other source. I have examined this reimbursement request and certify that it is just and reasonable. That's pretty much black and white, no exceptions are noted. I'll post the link to the report if you don't want to pull the story back up. Perjury is a pretty big nono in my book. Anyway, that's where the law is coming into it I think. Here's the link:
Both sides are wrong, however neither will give an inch and admit it.
She was wrong for double dipping, even though it was only $35. Her supporters will find some type of excuse to say "its not illegal", however anyone in business (or especially a public official) knows what she did was morally wrong and should ask for forgiveness to move on.
The board members have an axe to grind w/her however and are going to push this to unreasonable limits (ie spend $5K on the investigation). That is wrong IMO also.
If people (ON BOTH SIDES) acted mature and reasonable and put aside their egos even for ONE MINUTE, there would be a resolution w/o needing to spew hatred on facebook and all other forms of social media like this.
I'm sure people will respond and try to justify a spin on a response, but there is no excuse for either side on this matter.
lets keep this civil and move on to what actually matters...the kids.
Both sides are wrong, however neither will give an inch and admit it.
She was wrong for double dipping, even though it was only $35. Her supporters will find some type of excuse to say "its not illegal", however anyone in business (or especially a public official) knows what she did was morally wrong and should ask for forgiveness to move on.
The board members have an axe to grind w/her however and are going to push this to unreasonable limits (ie spend $5K on the investigation). That is wrong IMO also.
If people (ON BOTH SIDES) acted mature and reasonable and put aside their egos even for ONE MINUTE, there would be a resolution w/o needing to spew hatred on facebook and all other forms of social media like this.
I'm sure people will respond and try to justify a spin on a response, but there is no excuse for either side on this matter.
lets keep this civil and move on to what actually matters...the kids.
Coupon….great post, i liked it….Didnt Ms Savage admit fault? didn't she say it was a mistake and apologized for it? So instead of moving on, the other BOE members (exception of Bention), pushed forward to have it formally investigated to the tune of $5K….but this isn't a personal axe, is it….lol
Could it be they were annoyed that she didn't jump on the redistricting train, and actually fought out against it? Maybe they were a bit annoyed that when they backed her competitor and she destroyed him in the election….Could it be that the sitting members of the BOE are now looking around, after this election, and saying to themselves "Rut Roh Shaggy". 4 new members and 2016 right around the corner. No where to hide then
Coupon….great post, i liked it….Didnt Ms Savage admit fault? didn't she say it was a mistake and apologized for it? So instead of moving on, the other BOE members (exception of Bention), pushed forward to have it formally investigated to the tune of $5K….but this isn't a personal axe, is it….lol
Could it be they were annoyed that she didn't jump on the redistricting train, and actually fought out against it? Maybe they were a bit annoyed that when they backed her competitor and she destroyed him in the election….Could it be that the sitting members of the BOE are now looking around, after this election, and saying to themselves "Rut Roh Shaggy". 4 new members and 2016 right around the corner. No where to hide then
In principle I agree with a lot of what you have said in this thread, but you don't really believe that Savage fought out against redistricting do you? She was against it, but I saw no evidence of any fight.
In principle I agree with a lot of what you have said in this thread, but you don't really believe that Savage fought out against redistricting do you? She was against it, but I saw no evidence of any fight.
.
i guess we are splitting hairs Mike….she was against it and spoke out against it….asking the other BOE members to stop going forward and to consider other options, puts her in my mind, firmly against it….I guess we can debate the level of "fight" but i think we are on the same page in general
For what reason would she have to resign???? She did nothing illegal
I'm no attorney, but I question that claim.
N.C.G.S. § 14-100. Obtaining property by false pretenses.
(a) If any person shall knowingly and designedly by means of any kind of false pretense whatsoever, whether the false pretense is of a past or subsisting fact or of a future fulfillment or event, obtain or attempt to obtain from any person within this State any money, goods, property, services, chose in action, or other thing of value with intent to cheat or defraud any person of such money, goods, property, services, chose in action or other thing of value, such person shall be guilty of a felony: Provided, that if, on the trial of anyone indicted for such crime, it shall be proved that he obtained the property in such manner as to amount to larceny or embezzlement, the jury shall have submitted to them such other felony proved; and no person tried for such felony shall be liable to be afterwards prosecuted for larceny or embezzlement upon the same facts: Provided, further, that it shall be sufficient in any indictment for obtaining or attempting to obtain any such money, goods, property, services, chose in action, or other thing of value by false pretenses to allege that the party accused did the act with intent to defraud, without alleging an intent to defraud any particular person, and without alleging any ownership of the money, goods, property, services, chose in action or other thing of value; and upon the trial of any such indictment, it shall not be necessary to prove either an intent to defraud any particular person or that the person to whom the false pretense was made was the person defrauded, but it shall be sufficient to allege and prove that the party accused made the false pretense charged with an intent to defraud. If the value of the money, goods, property, services, chose in action, or other thing of value is one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more, a violation of this section is a Class C felony. If the value of the money, goods, property, services, chose in action, or other thing of value is less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), a violation of this section is a Class H felony.
(b) Evidence of nonfulfillment of a contract obligation standing alone shall not establish the essential element of intent to defraud.
(c) For purposes of this section, "person" means person, association, consortium, corporation, body politic, partnership, or other group, entity, or organization. (33 Hen. VIII, c. 1, ss. 1, 2; 30 Geo. II, c. 24, s. 1; 1811, c. 814, s. 2, P.R.; R.C., c. 34, s. 67; Code, s. 1025; Rev., s. 3432; C.S., s. 4277; 1975, c. 783; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1; c. 179, s. 14; 1997-443, s. 19.25(l).)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
