Bisbee 1000

Rest and Relaxation wrote:

I, of course, knew much of the story. But certainly not all of it. The management team wouldn't say a damned thing about it no matter how much anyone tried - and they certainly didn't want to give her any grounds to take legal action, by violating the agreement.
But she didn't go willingly, either. Months and months went by with investigators investigating and interviewing people, all while she was paid leave. None of use were allowed to talk to her, and she was advised not to talk to us or come on any agency property for the duration.
The first time I saw her after that was the day she... retired. She was very loud in the hallway, and said something (to me and anyone else within earshot) about "watch out for management, they are crooks and they will stab you in the back" or somesuch.
And the next time I ran into her, in 2006, she made some smalltalk and comment about 'retiring early" and I rolled my eyes and said, "yeah, retired early..." and she then ranted about how "if they told you anything it's a LIE."
So, if she's really running for mayor, I think the circumstances of her "early retirement" would be fair game.

Judged:

1

1

Dance With Ms Brownstone wrote:

The Canons of Judicial Ethics that apply to all AZ judges also apply to probation officers.
She allegedly violated at least two of them.
CANON 1 JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
A. Independence. Judicial employees shall maintain high stand- ards of conduct so the independence of the judiciary is preserved.
B. Integrity. Judicial employees shall maintain and observe the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and truthfulness in their pro- fessional and personal dealings.
(The fundamental attitudes and work habits of individual judicial employees reflect on the integrity and independence of the judiciary and are of vital importance in maintaining the confidence of the public in the judiciary. Honesty and truthfulness are paramount.)
CANON 2 JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL THEIR ACTIVITIES
A. Compliance with Law. Judicial employees shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that pro- motes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(As public servants, judicial employees should not act in any way that would violate specific laws or the provisions of this code. Public confidence in the judiciary is maintained by the willingness of each employee to live up to this standard. When faced with conflicting loyalties, judicial employees should seek first to maintain public trust.)

Judged:

1

Fault Line wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know what was finally substantiated and what wasn't. Therefore, I'm reluctant to repeat specifics I heard that may have turned out to be untrue.
I DO know what I personally observed, and what I said to the investigators who questioned me. It is my opinion that the woman is a menace.
Suffice to say, she was allowed to retire - she wasn't fired. She herself says she retired. But she wasn't happy about retiring early. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Judged:

1

1

Cow Patti wrote:

<quoted text>
Key word is allegedly. Allegations do not constitute much more than that. Has she been convicted of anything? Is she a felon?

Judged:

1

GulchGeek wrote:

<quoted text>
Please provide the time-frame during which these events transpired.

Dance With Ms Brownstone wrote:

<quoted text>
It wasn't a criminal investigation.

Dance With Ms Brownstone wrote:

<quoted text>
It wasn't a criminal investigation.

Judged:

1

GulchGeek wrote:

<quoted text>
....because there was no basis (evidence of drug-dealing)to warrant a criminal investigation, right? Unless, of course, other government employes were involved in a criminal cover-up and suppression of justice...
I'd sure like to know when all of this was to have happened. Let's hear more from the one who claims to have been questioned about the matter.

GulchGeek wrote:

So, we've gotten to time-frame issue settled...maybe. Now, what's the described incident have to do with drug-dealing?

Judged:

1

1

1

GulchGeek wrote:

So where did this allegation about drug-dealing get started, if not just by some irresponsible, anonymous dip in an online forum?

Dance With Ms Brownstone wrote:

<quoted text>
That would be the Bisbee person posting as Coca, a few pages back.
Mind you, I don't really have much of an opinion either way on the drug allegation. I just figured she was a raving loon with high energy levels. I've known people like that, and they were clean as a whistle.

Dance With Ms Brownstone wrote:

<quoted text>Weed ain't the only drug drug dealers can deal.

Fault Line wrote:

<quoted text>That was one of allegations we heard about, yes.

GulchGeek wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me remind you of your post #72:
<quoted text>
and your post #59 (as 'Fault Line') in response to the post by 'Coca' alledging drug dealing:
<quoted text>

Dance With Ms Brownstone wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I've heard about that allegation over the years.
I'm not sure what to believe, other than what I observed directly, myself.

GulchGeek wrote:

So where did this allegation about drug-dealing get started, if not

hats off to Cynthia wrote:

I think this entire thread is mean spirited. You can look up any information about the Bisbee 1000, i.e., "Save Our Stairs, Inc.". It really doesn't matter what you think of her, she is doing it--are you?