I hope all your holidays are Magical!
Beautiful Fioretta has tagged me to play letter game! Here are my letters -
A: Attached or Single?Attached
B: Best Friend? I have a couple. Sara, we spend our childhood together pretty much. Cristina- the most beautiful person I know. Fazil-- He is the very best friend I could ever hope for.
C: Cake or Pie? I go with cake! A piece of delicious cheesecake they make here is a definite winner:)
D: Day of Choice? Friday! The end of the week. The only day of the week when I dont have anything "scheduled" after 5pm.
E: Essential Item?
F: Favorite Color? RED! Even if you´d ask me in thousand years, it still would be RED:)
G: Gummy bears or worms? I`m not a big fan of these but if I have to I would choose gummy bears.
H: Hometown? Washington DC.
I: Indulgence? Cheesecake. Don't Ask.
J: January or July? January. New Year. New enthusiasm.
K: Kids? Not yet.
L: Life isn't complete without? Love.
M: Marriage date? Should be some time in 2010 :-)
N: Number of brothers and sisters? I have a younger sister. She is the most adorable kid in the whole wide world :)
O: Oranges or apples? Oranges. Apples give me migraines.
P: Phobias and fears? Definitely Fears.
Q: Quote?
R: Reason to smile? I don't usually need a specific reason to smile.
S: Season of choice? Fall
T: Tag three people? I'm going to tag MeeaBee, Missficklemedia and Sarah.
U: Unknown fact about me?
V: Vegetable? Corn
W: Worst habit? I have no idea......embroidering???LOL!
X: X-ray or Ultrasound? If I really have to choose - ultrasound.
Y: Your favorite food? Cheese sandwiches with black bread.
Z: Zodiac sign? Scorpio
A: Attached or Single?Attached
B: Best Friend? I have a couple. Sara, we spend our childhood together pretty much. Cristina- the most beautiful person I know. Fazil-- He is the very best friend I could ever hope for.
C: Cake or Pie? I go with cake! A piece of delicious cheesecake they make here is a definite winner:)
D: Day of Choice? Friday! The end of the week. The only day of the week when I dont have anything "scheduled" after 5pm.
E: Essential Item?
F: Favorite Color? RED! Even if you´d ask me in thousand years, it still would be RED:)
G: Gummy bears or worms? I`m not a big fan of these but if I have to I would choose gummy bears.
H: Hometown? Washington DC.
I: Indulgence? Cheesecake. Don't Ask.
J: January or July? January. New Year. New enthusiasm.
K: Kids? Not yet.
L: Life isn't complete without? Love.
M: Marriage date? Should be some time in 2010 :-)
N: Number of brothers and sisters? I have a younger sister. She is the most adorable kid in the whole wide world :)
O: Oranges or apples? Oranges. Apples give me migraines.
P: Phobias and fears? Definitely Fears.
Q: Quote?
R: Reason to smile? I don't usually need a specific reason to smile.
S: Season of choice? Fall
T: Tag three people? I'm going to tag MeeaBee, Missficklemedia and Sarah.
U: Unknown fact about me?
V: Vegetable? Corn
W: Worst habit? I have no idea......embroidering???LOL!
X: X-ray or Ultrasound? If I really have to choose - ultrasound.
Y: Your favorite food? Cheese sandwiches with black bread.
Z: Zodiac sign? Scorpio
“Baby, I Love You”These words echoed in my head over and over again as I made my way through the snow in order to get to class. A smile lingered on my face for the entirety of that time—a beautiful pretentious smile—as I remembered the smile you had on your face when you had said these words. There is always an elegant spark in your eyes, a beam on your face and a seriousness in your expression whenever you confess your love.
Oh, how so much I like to think about you!
It is true what they say… we can never forget our firsts. First school, first award, first car, first kiss, and first love…
First love wants something else, something different, something more. Passion and romance, perhaps, or maybe quiet conversations in candlelit rooms, or perhaps something as simple as not being second.
There is something special, almost mystical about the immature, young love. It has the ability to make us blush at the oddest of moments.
… and those first kisses. The curious kisses… the affectionate kisses…. the passionate kisses. I didn’t know there were so many types! :-)
There's this place in me where your fingerprints still rest, your kisses still linger, and your whispers softly echo. It's the place where a part of you will forever be a part of me.
First love is dangerous especially when it is also the last.
Poets often describe love as an emotion that we can’t control, one that overcomes logic and common sense. That’s what it was like for me. I didn’t plan on falling in love with you, and I doubt if you planned on falling in love with me. But once we met, it was clear that neither of us could control what was happening to us. We fell in love, despite our differences, and once we did, something rare and beautiful was created. For me, love like that has happened only once, and that’s why every moment we spend together has been seared in my memory. I’ll never forget a single moment of it.
“Baby, I Locve You!”
Horosko v. School District of Mount Pleasant Tp. Et al.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 19, 1939
A teacher is always expected to exhibit the best morals and etiquette. A teacher should always command the respect and goodwill of the community. However, the school district of Mount Pleasant had trouble with a teacher who was married to a man who owned a restaurant. Beer was sold in the restaurant; a pin-ball and slot machine were also maintained. The restaurant was across the road from the school and the teacher worked there in the nights and during summer vacations as a bartender. The teacher showed the costumers to play the pin-ball machine, in the presence of the students whom she taught in the school. Furthermore, she was rated by the superintendent, under the rating card approved by the Department of Education, as 43% competent, a rating of 50% being average rating.
As teachers are supposed to depict the best morals and are considered to be ideal for their students, the community and the school district were troubled by the fact that she was working in that restaurant. This did not leave a good impression on the students and the school district was afraid that the students might follow her foot steps and stray from good ethics.
Thus, the school district fired the teacher on the basis of “immortality” and “incompetence”. The case was brought to the court of common pleas, which sided with the school and said that the school district was justified in dismissing the teacher based on not being able to maintain a good reputation in the community and with her students.
The case was then brought to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which reversed the decision. The court focused its attention on the meaning of the word “Immorality” as used in common and approved language, which means “Lack of ability or fitness to discharge the required duty.” Even though the community generally regarded gambling as immoral, this did not mean that the teacher was incompetent in the subjects that she taught in school or with her students. She was a responsible teacher in the school environment and she must be given a chance to continue teaching in the school.
When the case was brought to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, it reversed the decision of the Superior Court, ordered that the teacher should not be able to maintain her job as a teacher of the school as she would be setting a bad example to the students. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then defined the terms “immoral” and “incompetence” “according to their common and approved usage” (citation). So, “immorality” is defined as “conduct inconsistent with moral rectitude” and “incompetence” is defined as “Lack of ability or fitness to discharge a required duty” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. p. 945).
According to these definitions Horosko lacked the ability of the special qualities required to be a teacher. She should have been able to maintain a good reputation and respect in the community, even if it means a deprivation of one vocation.
Nancy J. Zelno
V.
Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 12 Board of Directors.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Nancy J. Zelno was a tenured professional employee in the Lincoln School District. She was assigned to teach in the alternative education program. She taught in a rehabilitation center for students who were undergoing rehabilitation and treatment for alcohol and treatment for drug use and abuse.
In the Month of May 1999, she was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), which was a misdemeanor II level of offense. This was the second time she was found of DUI offence that led to confiscation of her driving license. Prior to this, she was also caught driving twice while her license was suspended. She has also been to the jail two consecutive weekends in the school year.
During the summer of 2000, her employer found out about her offences and immediately started dismissal proceedings on the basis that her conduct violated the Section 1122 of the Public School Code of 1949 regarding immorality and intemperance.
The school board held a hearing and listened to the witnesses of the community within the jurisdiction of the school district who all testified that Zalno’s behavior offended the morals of the community and set a bad example for the students. After the hearing the board unanimously terminated Zelno on the basis of immorality under the School Code. Zelno then appealed to the Secretary of Education but the Secretary also affirmed the board’s decision.
Zelno then brought the case to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania arguing that her dismissal was not justified as the witnesses could not identify any particular person whose morals has been corrupted or that her crimes interfered with her ability to teach.
The court looked back at the cases, which has set precedent. In Horosko v. Mt Pleasant Township School District, 335 Pa. 369, 6 A.2d 866 (Pa. 1939), immorality was defined as a “course of conduct as offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and elevate.”
Clearly, Zelno’s three offenses represented misconduct and immorality. It indicated not a single act of irresponsibility but a pattern of actions that not only damaged her but also posed a threat to the community. This was an example of immoral conduct. The nature of her job required that she set a good example for the students who are already getting treatment for alcoholic-related problems. However, she proved herself to be immoral and incompetent for the job because she abused alcohol and was convicted of DUI. The Court affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 19, 1939
A teacher is always expected to exhibit the best morals and etiquette. A teacher should always command the respect and goodwill of the community. However, the school district of Mount Pleasant had trouble with a teacher who was married to a man who owned a restaurant. Beer was sold in the restaurant; a pin-ball and slot machine were also maintained. The restaurant was across the road from the school and the teacher worked there in the nights and during summer vacations as a bartender. The teacher showed the costumers to play the pin-ball machine, in the presence of the students whom she taught in the school. Furthermore, she was rated by the superintendent, under the rating card approved by the Department of Education, as 43% competent, a rating of 50% being average rating.
As teachers are supposed to depict the best morals and are considered to be ideal for their students, the community and the school district were troubled by the fact that she was working in that restaurant. This did not leave a good impression on the students and the school district was afraid that the students might follow her foot steps and stray from good ethics.
Thus, the school district fired the teacher on the basis of “immortality” and “incompetence”. The case was brought to the court of common pleas, which sided with the school and said that the school district was justified in dismissing the teacher based on not being able to maintain a good reputation in the community and with her students.
The case was then brought to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which reversed the decision. The court focused its attention on the meaning of the word “Immorality” as used in common and approved language, which means “Lack of ability or fitness to discharge the required duty.” Even though the community generally regarded gambling as immoral, this did not mean that the teacher was incompetent in the subjects that she taught in school or with her students. She was a responsible teacher in the school environment and she must be given a chance to continue teaching in the school.
When the case was brought to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, it reversed the decision of the Superior Court, ordered that the teacher should not be able to maintain her job as a teacher of the school as she would be setting a bad example to the students. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then defined the terms “immoral” and “incompetence” “according to their common and approved usage” (citation). So, “immorality” is defined as “conduct inconsistent with moral rectitude” and “incompetence” is defined as “Lack of ability or fitness to discharge a required duty” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. p. 945).
According to these definitions Horosko lacked the ability of the special qualities required to be a teacher. She should have been able to maintain a good reputation and respect in the community, even if it means a deprivation of one vocation.
Nancy J. Zelno
V.
Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 12 Board of Directors.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Nancy J. Zelno was a tenured professional employee in the Lincoln School District. She was assigned to teach in the alternative education program. She taught in a rehabilitation center for students who were undergoing rehabilitation and treatment for alcohol and treatment for drug use and abuse.
In the Month of May 1999, she was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), which was a misdemeanor II level of offense. This was the second time she was found of DUI offence that led to confiscation of her driving license. Prior to this, she was also caught driving twice while her license was suspended. She has also been to the jail two consecutive weekends in the school year.
During the summer of 2000, her employer found out about her offences and immediately started dismissal proceedings on the basis that her conduct violated the Section 1122 of the Public School Code of 1949 regarding immorality and intemperance.
The school board held a hearing and listened to the witnesses of the community within the jurisdiction of the school district who all testified that Zalno’s behavior offended the morals of the community and set a bad example for the students. After the hearing the board unanimously terminated Zelno on the basis of immorality under the School Code. Zelno then appealed to the Secretary of Education but the Secretary also affirmed the board’s decision.
Zelno then brought the case to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania arguing that her dismissal was not justified as the witnesses could not identify any particular person whose morals has been corrupted or that her crimes interfered with her ability to teach.
The court looked back at the cases, which has set precedent. In Horosko v. Mt Pleasant Township School District, 335 Pa. 369, 6 A.2d 866 (Pa. 1939), immorality was defined as a “course of conduct as offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and elevate.”
Clearly, Zelno’s three offenses represented misconduct and immorality. It indicated not a single act of irresponsibility but a pattern of actions that not only damaged her but also posed a threat to the community. This was an example of immoral conduct. The nature of her job required that she set a good example for the students who are already getting treatment for alcoholic-related problems. However, she proved herself to be immoral and incompetent for the job because she abused alcohol and was convicted of DUI. The Court affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
