Keeping illiteracy at bay This is to Paul Krugman of the NYT. He is as smart as a whip. But he messed up here.
At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in
Mr. Krugman, I always agree with you on economics especially since the the Nobel people knighted you, but I don't always agree on your grammar.
You have a subject-verb agreement error in the above sentence. "Are" should be "is."
lee drury de cesare
Linda says that the redaction was on separate paper with the Board's logo at the top. But that does not change the school's undermining the legitimacy of the Sheriff's investigation. That is dumb diplomacy to cover Tom Gonzalez's lazy ass. lee
Linda C0bbe emailed that I was mistaken in saying the Office of Professional Standards redacted the report of the Sheriff.
I respond: From Gradebook: “On 6/22/09, writer spoke with CPI Auza. He advised that he closed his case with Some Indicators for threatened harm.”
On Friday, Kipley's office released a copy of that document, along with That the district described as a "corrected report": "On 6/22/09, writer spoke with CPI Auza. He advised that he closed his case with No Indicators for threatened harm; however, Some Indicators for unusual behavior."
But spokeswoman Linda Cobbe said the district has not received any further documents from the Sheriff's Office revising its initial report. The district has requested a clarification of its conclusions, she said. Lt. Rick Hernandez, a spokesman for the Child Protective Investigations Division of the Sheriff’s Office, would not discuss the specifics of the case. He said the term "some indicators of abuse" typically means that investigators have found some evidence that suggests the possibility of abuse, but not enough to prove such a charge under state law. (end of Gradebook)
Linda, this recital does not say that the "corrected report" had the School Board's imprimatur at the top. Besides, how can you issue a "corrected report" for an investigative agency? It's equivalent to saying, "We don't accept the investigating agency's conclusion; here's what the conclusion should be."
The SB has no right to reword the report to exonerate Mr. Gonzalez for messing up. It looks like to me he either lied on the podium review or was incompetent in assessing the report's conclusion because he did not scrutinize the Child Protection's original report with the care a lawyer should show.
That's what lawyers are paid to do: bore in on every little eency, weency word. Is this redaction a precedent for Professional Standards? If not, how many "corrected reports" has the Office of Professional Standards issued in the past where it concerns a report from an outside agency such as the Protective Services?
Redacting other agencies' reports by Professional Standards does not sound ethical or professional to me. It sounds like the SB is insulting the Sheriff's child-protective report. ldd