So what is the Alvero outrage all about? Is the outrage that his negative experiences couldn’t possibly be as high as 80%? Or is the outrage that it couldn’t possibly be that low? Or is it that he dare to state his experience at all?
You’re arguing the math because Alvero's message is indefensible. Everyone else is debating the character of a person who would say this. Steering it from "leadership fitness” to “accuracy of a personal statistic", nice Steve! What's your %?
"When appointees seek power over elected officials, it's often less about accountability and more about circumventing local voters."
I pretty familiar with corporate governance myself, and if our appointed C-suite or elected board member said "80% of our [insert race] workforce is nasty, rude and problematic", any defense of it would look laughable at best.
I agree we shouldn’t give appointees broad power over elected officials. But when behavior reaches a point that would disqualify any leader in any other context, the absence of a lawful accountability mechanism exposes a gap in the system (see: current State of the Union).
It's understandable why even DeSantis can not remove a locally elected official, and only suspend them. But to defend Alvero's comment as the spoken "will of the people" and try to imply this is government overreach? This is nothing from the State except acknowledging "oh man, he went too racist; never go too racist!"
Sabatini is known to be “way out there”, on the fringe, but strange things sometimes happen.
So what is the Alvero outrage all about? Is the outrage that his negative experiences couldn’t possibly be as high as 80%? Or is the outrage that it couldn’t possibly be that low? Or is it that he dare to state his experience at all?
You’re arguing the math because Alvero's message is indefensible. Everyone else is debating the character of a person who would say this. Steering it from "leadership fitness” to “accuracy of a personal statistic", nice Steve! What's your %?
Ok so you say the outrage is that he dare state what his experience has been.
"When appointees seek power over elected officials, it's often less about accountability and more about circumventing local voters."
I pretty familiar with corporate governance myself, and if our appointed C-suite or elected board member said "80% of our [insert race] workforce is nasty, rude and problematic", any defense of it would look laughable at best.
I agree we shouldn’t give appointees broad power over elected officials. But when behavior reaches a point that would disqualify any leader in any other context, the absence of a lawful accountability mechanism exposes a gap in the system (see: current State of the Union).
It's understandable why even DeSantis can not remove a locally elected official, and only suspend them. But to defend Alvero's comment as the spoken "will of the people" and try to imply this is government overreach? This is nothing from the State except acknowledging "oh man, he went too racist; never go too racist!"