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.
We have all been awaiting the explanation for two months now. Nice try trying to make this about me. Whether or not someone is actually ever charged has nothing to do with their guilt as we all know.
Well not two months. The October meeting was about MRHS campaigning and missing a meeting. Then there was an investigation which cleared her of both charges to the tune of almost $5000.00. We were then told somehow the in investigation revealed double billing supposedly worth $50 or some benign amount. Then two days before Thanksgiving there were alleged trips billed they she supposedly didn't take and they "assume" she was reimbursed for, but still don't know. Not quite two months for an explanation.
According to the law if she is not charged and convicted after an investigation, technically no she is not guilty. Not sure I get your points. Both inaccurate. The other poster was correct. You have already established guilt without the facts. She may be guilty but we have assumptions, no way to know for sure. No point in discussing this with you, your mind is made up. I will wait and hear the real investigation turns up before passing judgement. If I were accused of something I would want to be treated with the same consideration. Wouldn't you?
Feel free to start a new thread if you want to shame your mayor, you can be the OP! To me, it reads like a attempt to change the subject when the facts aren't supporting your narrative. Nothin' but us UC - School board redistricting suporters over here.
No diversion was just stating facts. Politicians get away with way worse than what she is accused of. Drinking and driving are serious offenses. Waxhaw is not my problem, not MY mayor, I don't live there, don't care enough to start a thread. Didn't she also have several issues with purchasing alcohol on the town credit card and filing her expense reports? WaxhawDoc maybe you should care.
We have all been awaiting the explanation for two months now. Nice try trying to make this about me. Whether or not someone is actually ever charged has nothing to do with their guilt as we all know.
My position on this issue is well documented, so with that said...
first of all, the only person making this about you, is you. Every time you come back here and post something "new" you are embarrassing yourself and legitimizing the people that believe "that side" is unable to act in the best interest of the community.
Secondly, charges have nothing to do with guilt? While that may be true from a moral view, it's certainly not true in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the broader public interest which believes in innocence until proven guilty. It's sure hard to prove guilt if you are never charged.
A final comment... Anonymity on this board is a privilege afforded to people that don't themselves reveal their identities, whether that's through actually stating their names or through a series of events/posts that just happen to expose them. Just something to keep in mind.
My position on this issue is well documented, so with that said...
first of all, the only person making this about you, is you. Every time you come back here and post something "new" you are embarrassing yourself and legitimizing the people that believe "that side" is unable to act in the best interest of the community.
Secondly, charges have nothing to do with guilt? While that may be true from a moral view, it's certainly not true in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the broader public interest which believes in innocence until proven guilty. It's sure hard to prove guilt if you are never charged.
A final comment... Anonymity on this board is a privilege afforded to people that don't themselves reveal their identities, whether that's through actually stating their names or through a series of events/posts that just happen to expose them. Just something to keep in mind.
.
A veiled threat now? LOL.
Twist my words as you will. It won't change the facts.
My position on this issue is well documented, so with that said...
first of all, the only person making this about you, is you. Every time you come back here and post something "new" you are embarrassing yourself and legitimizing the people that believe "that side" is unable to act in the best interest of the community.
Secondly, charges have nothing to do with guilt? While that may be true from a moral view, it's certainly not true in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the broader public interest which believes in innocence until proven guilty. It's sure hard to prove guilt if you are never charged.
A final comment... Anonymity on this board is a privilege afforded to people that don't themselves reveal their identities, whether that's through actually stating their names or through a series of events/posts that just happen to expose them. Just something to keep in mind.
I will wait and hear the real investigation turns up before passing judgement. If I were accused of something I would want to be treated with the same consideration. Wouldn't you?
I'm sure Stony and crew will give her the same consideration when budget time comes up once Tucker repeals House Bill 292-Ratified
It mandated that the BoCC fund UCPS...
For the 2014‑2015 fiscal year, at least eighty-seven million ninety-seven thousand eight hundred eighty-four dollars ($87,097,884) for the local current expense fund and at least nineteen million five hundred thirty-one thousand five hundred eighty-two dollars ($19,531,582) for capital outlay.
For the 2015‑2016 fiscal year, at least an amount equal to the local current expense fund appropriation for the 2014‑2015 budget year plus (i) an inflationary increase based on the most recent annual consumer price index for all urban workers (CPI‑U) and (ii) any increase in the average daily membership in the local school administrative unit in the first 20 days of the school year from the prior school year, and at least nineteen million seven hundred eighty-six thousand twenty-four dollars ($19,786,024) for capital outlay.
And for our Idealists out there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxhawMike
Secondly, charges have nothing to do with guilt? While that may be true from a moral view, it's certainly not true in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the broader public interest which believes in innocence until proven guilty. It's sure hard to prove guilt if you are never charged.
Moral view? Legal and broader public interest? Haaaaa! This is Politics.
That's why she resigned from the State BOE. She got a good old fashioned arm around the shoulder, walk around the block talk prior to saying, "I would like to thank you for the opportunity to serve on the State Board of Education. Given the current issue, I do not want to be a distraction to the board and their service to the students of this state. Therefore, I am submitting my resignation."
"I would like to take this time to apologize for what has transpired over the last few meetings. This is not what a board should be doing. We need to be focused on our reason for serving and that is for the children of Union County.
You 7 board members have chosen to censure me even though there is no policy for censure, and you have no legal authority to do so. You have decided to take on state affairs yet you are local board members...
...PLEASE DIRECT ANY INQUIRIES TO MY ATTORNEY, JOSEPH BOCHICCHIO, REGARDING ANY MATTERS INVOLVING ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS."
This has nothing to do with Chick-fil-A by the way but it would be nice to see the expense reports she submitted to them, maybe she triple dipped, and I also wonder if she referred the Governor to her attorney regarding any matters involving his questions in her resignation email. Anxiously waiting on CAPS to get on that email request to the state.
Stony and the rest of the BoCC would never make her the poster child of BOE financial oversight in order to reduce taxes. That would be inconsiderate.
Some of us have been attempting to point out that Marce has been an ineffective board member to the point where she was shunned by the previous BOE prior to the whole censure thing. And now she is toxic with anything involving $$$s. McCrory and Cobey understood the toxic part, but some in the UC still don't get it.
One can only imagine the campaign that would be waged against a bond issue for a new elementary school for Cutty, let alone a new SVHS.
You guys can yuck it up all you want and justify it all in the name of politics... fine by me. Like I said, if there was wrong doing, and there certainly appears to have been, then it will all sort itself out as it should. BUT I'm not sure, and I sincerely mean this, how you sleep at night standing by a bunch of proven liars while condemning someone that at this point is merely an accused.
I stand by all of my comments commending Stewart for standing for his beliefs. As strongly as I feel that he should be commended for that (even though I agree with a small few of his views) I think a lot of people on this board should be ashamed for being so blindly supportive based on relationships (family and otherwise) rather than standing up for what's right for the kids and community at large.
It's mildly amusing to see people opine continually about "poor Ms Savage"... boo flippin hoo - here's a wild news flash... if you can't handle the heat, don't go into politics. Heck, this isn't even really dirty politics and Mike is playing the "sleep at night" card. Now that is hilarious.
Savage has been rendered politically useless - and she gave them the ammo to do it. I'm sure it played out just as others have stated with a quiet "ahem" and whisper in her ear to move on from the State BOE. My personal opinion is that if there really wasn't anything to these accusations she would have fought to the end... but, like usual, where there's smoke - again, my opinion... but something is "off" and she agreed to go quietly.
I have no clue why she stays on the local board at this point or why anyone in district 6 would even want her to stay. Politicians have, and always will be, tried and convicted in the media. Nothing new and certainly won't change... why this surprises anyone is what surprises me.
You guys can yuck it up all you want and justify it all in the name of politics...
.
But we are not yucking it up. You and the rest of the kool-aid crowd don't get that. Go ahead and keep talking about emails and capacity. And Hillegas and crew can keep staring at Stewart from the front row every BOE meeting, but the problem is not the BOE.
A storm is coming and it isn't a good one for any of us.
MikeyKid for District 6 Rep by the way. If not Mikey then cc because she actually stood up to Webb before anyone else and even according to WaxhawMike she got the numbers right.
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.
.
