Hello everyone,

I just deleted a comment because it violated our terms of service. … http://hartland.patch.com/terms … I think there are some strong feelings on this issue that I respect but let's keep it civil please. I invite that commenter to post again. Your perspective is welcome but all we ask is to treat others like you would like to be treated.

If anyone would like to discuss via email or phone, please feel free to contact me. chris.machniak@patch.com or 810-623-1385.

- Chris

Tracey Sahouri is a wonderful Principal. I hope the charges are dropped.

I wish they would just be honest..come on parents..how can you not know know that there were underage kids drinking at YOUR sons graduation party! I am so thankful no one ended up dead that night and it certainly could have happened...I Mrs. Sahouri should be on probation and not released back to the school until this is resolved!! When accepting her job with Hartland Consolidated Schools she signed a contract and it that contract there is a moral and ethical vow that you agree to. The sahour's were very aware of what was going to take place...they just didn"t think they woudl get caught...if you read there sons facebook..it was planned all along!

Wow!!!! I am appalled at latest comment!!!! You reference the son, well if you were ever a teenager (and one in the last few decades) you would know things have unfortunately changed. Kids try these things and while it is up to the parents to enforce the rules and guide them to the right choice, a parent has no control over what another parent's child does, nor can EVERYONE know when another person is under the influence. I suggest you get all the facts and don't cast judgement when the information is not complete. Should all parents check their child's online activities,? Yes, but even that will not divulge all the plans of the minors. Furthermore if you had intelligence that underage drinking was to take place, you are also at fault, as you did not inform the parents of the online activity. Regardless of what we think we ALL play a role of this society's development and should do wahtever we can for the next generations.

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR STUDENTS, ZERO TOLERANCE FOR FACULTY!! enough said!

At the minimum the district needs to place this person on leave. If she had been accused of molesting a child would the district not decide her fate pending more info.
NO, and the point is a law has been broken as evidenced by this individual being ticketed, bonded out, etc., The legal system has thus far done the right thing, now the school district needs to step up and at the minimum place her on administrative leave.

She has been a great principal for our 2 kids who go to Creekside. I also agree there needs to be a clear HR policy in the district on how to handle these situations. Policy's are there for everyone to know up front, before incidents happen, how they will be handled. Does anyone know what/if the Hartland HR policy is that covers issues like this??

I would assume the HR policy would be standard in all school districts; place the person on administrative leave pending the outcome of the criminal investigation and trial. What Hartland school district is choosing to do is almost unheard of. IMO if the superintendent can't do the right thing, then the school board needs to step up. Think about it, you have a person out on bond, for a criminal proceeding, in a building where children are to be educated. Doesn't make any sense.
Also, what kind of a message is this sending to the students of the Hartland district?
There has been a big incentive to curb student drinking. Allowing this principal to continue at work is not only hypocritical but sends a mixed message to the kids.

Stephanie you are my new hero!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Innocent until proven guilty. Isn't this the hallmark of the American judicial system?

2. Graduation parties are getting out of control. I picked up my 16-year-old daughter from one party in June and the only alcohol monitoring being done by the parents was a cooler stocked full of beer with a sign that said "adults only".

I too agree that she needs to be put on administrative leave. I was shocked to read in Janet siffermans message that read "WHEN SOMEONE LOOKS YOU IN THE EYE AND SAYS I'M INNOCENT I DIDN'T DO IT!!" and sifferman based her decision to let her come back to school partly on that statement?? Mrs. Sahouri in under investigation by the police..her word wasn"t good enough for them so there must be more to their investigation?? I believe that there is much proof out there that will be found..you take an Oath of truth when testifying...I hope siffermans job won"t be in question when the evidence comes out...if it proves that the sahouri's are gulity..and based on Mrs. Sahouri's "I"m innocent" statement.. letting her enter back in the creekside building....this may end up being a problem for Mrs. sifferman?? only time will tell...Hoping the best for everyone involved may truth prevail..

I would love to know who they are talking to! I have spoken to many of the kids that where at this party and Mrs. Sahouri was more then aware of what was going on and so did her husband. Our school district needs to step up and take a stand, ZERO TOLORENCE! I truley beleive and agree that a administration leave is the right thing to do pending the out come of the court. These are our children that she is in charge of, we as parents need to take a stand and let the our school know that it is unexceptable behavior and those are not the type of people in charge of our kids. I know that i would not want my child going to a home that the parent is going to let them drink. Also Mrs. Sahouri is probably a good person but she and her husband make a mistake and they need to take responsability for it. This is what we ask our children to do and this is what the school expect our children to do, so staff should needs to follow those same rules. I am sure their has been alot of student who looked her in the eye and said that they where innocent by they feel that they are never wrong, well they have been and are again right now.

While this situation is understandably a hot-button for many and has perhaps alarmed and angered parents and others in the community, I think it's important to take a step back and look at what is known vs. hearsay and conjecture. To make a comparison between this particular situation, in which the principal was ticketed for a misdemeanor charge, and the heinous act of sexually abusing a child shows ignorance and a lack of basic critical thinking skills. I find the lynch-mob mentality often displayed by some in the community in response to such stories to be distasteful and sad. I hold out hope that most concerned parents and other residents in the Hartland district will allow the judicial process to play out before declaring Mrs. Sahouri guilty.

Just wondering if this was a teacher, instead of a principal, that was in trouble for minors drinking at their house if they would have their job? I know some teachers and they all laugh and say they would have been fired immediately!

Tracy Sahouri is an amazing woman that has made a positive impact on my son's life. The comments that have been made by people that have no history with her are inappropriate and unfair. I support her and will defend her. People, do not fool yourselves and think that nothing like this could ever happen to you. Tracy, you have my love and support.

(Note: I deleted this and reposted it because my reply aligned itself under the wrong comment)

If the judgement is up to the legal system, then why the calls for administrative leave? Why should anyone here believe themselves better able to address this situation than the people directly involved? I have my own opinions about this situation, but that's all they are. I don't have the facts other that what's been reported, so I am ill-equipped to judge Mrs. Sahouri's guilt. I'd like to see sources where there is documented factual evidence that a school administrator has not been allowed to continue working pending the outcome of a trial on a misdemeanor charge.

Furthermore, suggesting that the measures a superintendent would take in response to a principal accused of child molestation should be equivalent to the measures of that same superintendent to a principal being ticketed for a misdemeanor is not making an analogy at all. It's the very definition of a false equivalency.

Well maybe they will move Mrs. Sahouri to another school like they did the other teacher from the high school who served alcohol to under age kids!!!

Hmm, seems to me it's up to the prosecuting attornys office to do the investigating in this legal matter, not the school district. And at this point the legal decision has been made to prosecute her and her husband.
The school districts job is to error on the side of the districts students. An administrative leave for Ms. Sahouri is the appropriate thing to do. Or is it possible that she has threatened to sue the district if placed on leave? Or is it possible she is blaming her husband??? There is definitely something behind the scene that isn't being made public.

Could we please just let the legal system handle this matter. Innocent until proven guilty.

The "involved crime" here is a critical element, not a pesky little detail. Repeating something again and again does not make it true. Again, the fact is that it's a ticket for a misdemeanor, not a conviction and the case is being handled by the system as it should be. As is obvious to most people, the crime of child molestation is very different that the crime of providing alcohol to minors at a graduation party. Saying that the district's reaction to both should be the same because they share the common denominators of a legal issue and the resulting defendant being out on bond is quite a stretch. Perhaps such a simplified application of law is attractive to some, but we don't live in that kind of world. The matter is in the hands of the appropriate people. No one external to the situation can know all of the details despite what they believe to the contrary.

Does it make the district appear hypocritical? If Mrs. Sahouri is found guilty and no disciplinary action is taken, then I say absolutely. But that has not happened yet -- she has only been ticketed. And to cut to the chase, I am fairly certain that she poses no danger to the welfare of students of Creekside Elementary, which is what should be the first priority. As a parent of children in the Hartland district I am willing to let the judicial process continue as designed and withhold condemnation until a judgment is reached.

Well i have to say that if i had a child at Creekside if she is found guilty i would not hert her as my child principal. Her judgement is what is in question. I am not sure how i would feel about this if Mrs. Sahouri did not work with children.
I know that a high school level if a child is given a MIP he is suspended for something like 10 days and must go thru a expaltion hearing. Maybe the people of our community should have the vote on what should be done regarding our own children. As a Teacher and a Principal they should be held to a higher standard, just as our sports team are told that you are a represenative of our school. This is another bad negative for our district as a whole, but i can say that if the cops where not involved Hartland would have sweeped it under the rug and ignored it, or played dumb or moved her to another school. I am saddend by our schools now a days and hope that sometime soon we as a communtiy can stand up and take a stand on what is exceptable and what is not.

I would also like to address Amy Kick! The comments that have been made are opinions of people with in this community. And as a Principal YES she should be held to a higher standard. Her job should be on the line for what she knowwingly allowed to happened at her son's graduation party at her home! The drinking problem in our schools is out of hand!! and having someone contributing to it is unexceptable!! It is time we as parents take a stand to help our children to grow to make better choices, THAT IS OUR JOB! The Shahoui's made a mistake and from what i have read MOST people agree that she should be put on leave pending the court's desition. It is not like she got a ticket for driving to fast here, i think that this offense is unexceptable for a Principal in any district!!!
You miss Amy should be ashamed of yourself for even posting.

Hi everyone,

There are sides here where reasonable people can differ on and many of you have made strong arguments for your perspectives — That's a healthy thing and big part of what we're about. But please let's get away from any personal attacks. If necessary, I will shut off comments and/or delete those who take things too far. I'd rather not do that but if the tenor of the conversation continues the way it has, I will.

If anyone has any concerns about how things are moderated feel free to contact me christofer.machniak@patch.com or say what you think should be appropriate right here.

- Chris

OK. I'm just disgusted at some of the posts I'm reading on here and feel that some people are really lacking in the critical thinking skills department.
1) INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!! Would you like to be bashed/berated and degraded without the benefit of the doubt! You don't have all the facts. Nor will you EVER have all the facts. You can talk to 1000 people and get 1000 different stories.
2) Tracey Sahouri has been an excellent administrator and a great leader at Creekside. This is something that is a misdemeanor/ticket that happened at HER HOME, not on school time or property.
3) Like I said in 2: she is extremely smart and I can't see her calling the authorities on herself or inviting them to her home if she was willingly giving alcohol to underaged people. SERIOUSLY think about that point alone please.
4) If you think for one minute that teenagers don't do things behind adults backs, you are seriously delusional. I've seen kids sneek alcohol into pop cans and go stand right next to their parents and drink. The parents are clueless. You can't watch a teenager every single second. They have so many tricks to get alcohol now and get away with drinking it right in front of adults.

Let's remember people what you would feel like if you were being attacked like this. Have some decency.

Jazz,
I believe the administrators have a "moral" clause in their contract. Perhaps someone from the administrators office could address this.
Ms. Shahour should be placed on administrative leave until the legal system
decides her innocence or guilt.
By not doing so Harland administrator's are sending a really bad message to the students. And, it undermines the initiative for non-alcohol use by students.

Thank you so much for addressing me directly. Just answer the question.....Were you at the party????? YES or NO??????? Sorry this is such a difficult question for you!!!

I wonder what MADD would have to say about this situation?

She is not a roll model I would want for my child. How can she teach our children to follow the rules and laws of our schools and state if she can't do it herself. She has tarnished Hartland Schools name.

It's not been proven that Tracy has done anything wrong. That's why we have courts.

Won't some of you just be so proud of yourselves if you get her fired. Won't the community be so much better off.

Tracy is a tremendous asset to this community.

Good for the board for not putting her on a leave in reaction to the lynch mob.

Research has proven that children are less apt to use alchohol and drugs if they have a positive role model. My question remains, what kind of a message does this send the kids if Ms. Sahouri continues on as if nothing happended. This behavior continues to contradict the districts anti-alcohol initiative.
Obviously something occured at that party for her to be ticketed and to be out on bond, AND for the Genesee prosecuting attorney office to be taking over the case.
This case will be decided, once ALL evidence is in, by the legal system. Meanwhile the school administration needs to step up to the plate and place Ms.Sahouri on administrative leave until her fate is decided by the court. It's "shame" on the Hartland administration for not doing the right thing, and being a better role model.
Further, some of the comments by Ms. Sahouri's supporters are nothing but bullying tactics. To name call and label is very unimpressive.
A final tidbit, in the Weds article in the TCT, it's stated Mr. Sahouri was aware that the kids had been drinking all day.

Thanks for providing some more facts about this, Chris. A great deal of these comments highlight the problem of speculation without accurate information. As I've said before, unless one is an active participant in this investigation there is no sure way to know all the details, so drawing conclusions without being able to see the whole picture is dangerous. We've all seen highly publicized cases where people prematurely placed blame because they did not and could not know all the facts.

Chris,
Thanks for the info on why the case was transferred to Dave Leyton's office.

Per a Weds article in The Tri-County Times it states "Raed reported that he had been home all day and that he knew the minors were drinking, however, neither he nor Tracey supplied them with any alcohol." Is the Patch able to publish this as a fact also? The above does support a possible theory (the blame is being placed on the husband) that I had thrown out there earlier as to possibly why the school district hasn't placed Ms. Sahouri on administrative leave. Interesting that BOTH Mr and Mrs Sahouri have pled innoncent.

Hartland Eagle,
I have a book entittled "Playground Politics" which I'd be happy to lend you.
If you were to read it, and then re-read the comments, in support of Ms Sahouri, you would then understand why many of the supporters comments do involve name-calling (one has been deleted by Chris) and bullying.
And to clarify for you, I have never said Ms. Sahouri is "guilty" I've said she needs to be on administrative leave until the legal system makes that determination.
Further, yes, something must have occurred for Ms. Sahouri to be ticketed. Do the police historically, and randomly issue tickets? Not wanting to believe there is grounds for a legal case, despite a ticket being issued, points to the emotional aspect of this case.
Finally, my using an anology (on how a child molester would be treated-criminal act) was what I thought, at the time, would make my position clearer. Nope, all it did was add to the supporters emotional fire. Too bad. Bottom line is there is an inability to be rational about this situation with Ms. Sahouri by her supporters. It's to the point that IF she is found guilty, the supporters won't believe that the legal system correctly did their job.
I'm just grateful that my kids are adults and out of the public school system if this (administrators not on leave and erroring in favor of the students) is what the education system has been reduced to. I wish you all the best, and trust the legal system will do it's job; guilt or innocence.

"Too bad. Bottom line is there is an inability to be rational about this situation with Ms. Sahouri by her supporters. It's to the point that IF she is found guilty, the supporters won't believe that the legal system correctly did their job."--S. Pytlowanyj

These kinds of assumptions without facts are growing tiresome. To accuse those on the other side of one's argument of being irrational, and then making a baseless assumption about the future opinions and behavior of that same group, is the height of irony. Not everyone who has commented on this story has pledged undying support to Tracey Sahouri but instead they've stated a desire to allow the system to do its job -- and that also means the system that oversees this person's position of employment, which is the Hartland School District. It's fine to have an opinion that the school is not doing all it should, but that's immaterial, as it's not for us to decide. They have more details than anyone reading here and they are participating in the investigation.

Patch is doing what it can to report on the story with the facts that are provided. Repeated implications of the guilt of a party based on hearsay and supposition (suggestions of lawsuits, that something is being covered up) based on opinion -- and sometimes the grinding of a personal axe -- is nothing but rumor-mongering. People often joke about small-towns being rife with gossip, and this is exactly what is being mocked.

" Why shouldn't she "lose" if she is found guilty? This is not the example I want for my children!!"

I'm not sure that many people are arguing against that point. I haven't seen a lot of people saying she shouldn't face disciplinary action IF she's found guilty. What is being said is that all the facts of this case have not been made public. A ticket is not the equivalent of a declaration of guilt.

In my opinion, declaring guilt based upon the issuance of a ticket shows a disconnect with reality and a dangerous disregard for our legal system, which is designed to consider the accused innocent until proven otherwise.

(In response to Christofer's well-made point)

Personally, I don't think students should be punished by the school system until after guilt has been proven. I don't believe students should be "assumed guilty" by schools simply for being charged with a crime.

As such, I want employees (teachers, principals, etc) to be given that same treatment.

Although after writing my last two paragraphs, it occurs to me you may be referring to in-school punishment for students as a result of in-school activity. In that situation, where the police are not involved (if the infraction does not warrant such), then there is no court procedure to prove guilt, yet the student could still be punished. But, as you point out, the punishment is usually minor (detention, suspension, etc).

I find that acceptable because during school hours, or on school property, everyone has to abide by the school's rules. But during personal time, outside of school property, it is a different matter altogether and the legal system should be what determines guilt or innocence. The schools can act in response to what the legal system determines, but they should wait for that system to play out first.

hartland eagle,
the obviously something that occured is underaged drinking, in particular a passed out 16 year old who required medical treatment.
Further, my OP of the analogy of a child molester is still on this site--not deleted as you have posted.

Jordan,
It appears many posting here, including myself, believe innoncent until proven guilty.
The is the golden standard in our legal system. However, that doesn't mean the school district shouldn't put Ms. Sahouri on administrative leave until the legal system does its job. Their position needs to be to error on the side of the students
AND to support their anti-alcohol initiative. Most school districts would have placed Sahouri on leave; why Heartland hasn't is beyond me.
Look at the known facts: underage drinking occured at the party. A 16 year required medical treatment. The Sahouri's have been ticketed. The Sahouri's are out of jail on a $1,000 bond.
In the legal system there is a different burden of proof in a criminal vs civil action. The criminal system has the higher burden. Heartland school administration, once again, needs to error on the side of the kids and function as if a civil action (analogy).

Linda Bowen,
LOL, it's not an assumption, it's been posted here that even if Sahouri is found guilty she still would be supported. You are correct though, in that not all have pledge undying support.
Regarding your statement "Repeated implications of the guilt of a party based on hearsay and supposition (suggestions of lawsuits, that something is being covered up) based on opinion", the known facts, once again are: underage drinking did occur at the party, a 16 year old required medical treatment (how can all of you continue to ignore that fact?) the Sahouri's have been ticketed and are out on bond. AND it has been reported in the news "Raed reported that he had been home all day and that he knew the minors were drinking, however, neither he nor Tracey supplied them with any alcohol." The preceding supports my earlier thoughts that perhaps blame was going to be placed purely on Raed.
Further your assumption "the grinding of a personal axe" is both false and illogical; please refer to the above know facts. Also, how can you presume to know me and as to what axe I am grinding? My matra is and has been to error on the side of the kids and put Sahouri on administrative leave.
Regarding your statements such as, "People often joke about small-towns being rife with gossip, and this is exactly what is being mocked." this is nothing but a tactic to to shame those that have beliefs different than yours into silence. Perhaps you need to read "Playground Politics".

Christofer Machniak,
Regarding your most recent post, I can't compare a students misdoings to those of a teacher/administrator. The teachers/administrators need to be held to a higher standard, after all they are the kids examples while away from their parents, eight hours a day in an educational setting. Also, and no one seems to be addressing this, isn't there a moral clause in the contracts that the administrators sign? If so this moral clause would legally put them at a different standard then a kid (and rightfully so).

Stephanie,

Your position makes perfect sense, if you think that Ms. Sahouri is guilty. If she did what she is accused of doing, then it would be preferable for her to be on leave.

But can't you concede that IF Ms. Sahouri is completely innocent, for the school to take action against her right now would be an injustice?

If you can't concede that last point, then there is no middle ground to be found. But if you can, then I hope you understand how those of us defending the school's non-action are reaching that position from following the presumption of innocence so important to our society.

Jordan,
I define the school district "taking action" against Ms. Sahouri as terminating her. I have never stated that should occur. What I repeatedly have stated is she should be placed on administrative leave until the LEGAL system sorts it all out. Most school districts would have done so...Hartland doesn't fall in the category of the norm, apparently.

Hartland Eagle,
regarding your post below, I share your sarcastic sense of humor. LOL
Thanks much also for correcting my spelling :)

hartland eagle
12:35pm on Sunday, August 28, 2011
Whose moral standard would you suppose Sahouri should be held to? Oh, right. Yours. How silly of me.

Kim Schemansky
I never wrote the Sahouri's were in jail. What I've stated is they have a $1,000 bond.
My understanding of a bond is you post the amount and if you can't you are jailed.
Hope this clarifies.

Hi Chris!
I have spoken to those that are in the educational field and their consensus is Ms. Sahouri should be terminated. I advocate administrative leave until the legal system reaches a decision. I believe this for two reasons: it's better to error on the side of safety for the kids. Second, it sends a consistent and clear message to the student body that alcohol use is a serious matter and not tolerated by anyone!
As a side note, another problem within schools is bullying. A tremendous amount of work has been done to prevent it. If you go through a anti-bullying session and then re-read some of the posts above, you will better understand my perspective, or perhaps not.
At days end, we will just have to agree to disagree on this particular subject.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the legal system and within the school district.

Stephanie, I object to your characterization of the comments made here as bullying. Yes, there was one in particular, but it was deleted. There have been far more reasoned, thoughtful and respectful comments made and, really, continued claims to the contrary are disrepectful to those who have debated in good faith.

Hi Chris,
my sentiment of agree to disagree wasn't directed toward you; it's my thoughts on this entire thread.
Further, those I know in the school district would not be willing to speak on the record. There is a history in that particular educational building.
Thanks for your thoughts.

We all know that Hartland Schools is going to do what ever they want to do so it does not matter what any of us think. I have very strong beliefs that she should be put on administrative live, mostly because alcohol was involved, and this is a subject that a very strong one in this district. I know their are several kids in this district that have been in rehab and have received MIP's & DUI's at young ages. We need to send a message that it is not exceptable and make a stand. No one is immune to alcohol and our children we do our best as parents and hope that our school can help us out with this.
Their are a lot of different opinions on this subject but am afraid of what it may look like to our children. They have heard about what is going on and if we are not careful they we may be sending the wrong message. I have listend to several of the older kids talk about it and their impression of what is going on with Mrs. Sahouri, they have been reading the patch and all the comments, alot of these kids where their and know first hand what was going on. I do hope that the school has thought about all of the consequences no matter what the courts decide.

Jazz,
that is the most disheartening aspect of this situation; the lack of concern for the kids and also the bad example that has been made by not putting Sahouri out on Administrative leave. I have heard that will never happen though b/c of her close relationship with the superintendent of Hartland schools. And the waters get murkier!

There's been a couple comments about what kind of message it sends to the kids that she hasn't been put on leave. I would say "a good one".

Because look at the contrary- What message does it send to our children if we punish someone simply for being accused of a crime? Wouldn't it be a better lesson to teach them to not pre-judge others before all of the facts are known? Isn't it better to teach them that the justice system will determine whether or not the accused is guilty, rather than a public that may be misinformed?

I think the message we should be sending to the students is that if they ever find themselves in a situation where they are accused of doing something, that they can trust our society to wait on the legal system to run its course before judging them.

Our kids (although I say that, while not actually being a parent myself) need to know that innocence is the best protection from being punished for a crime they did not commit. If some commenters here got their way, and Ms. Sahouri is later found to be innocent in court, the kids would be learning a completely different message.

Putting her on administrative leave doesn't have to send a message that she is guilty. I was reading an article about a teacher being put on administrative leave at a middle school in California. It was in regards to a fight that broke out between students. A teacher broke it up but is being accused of screaming racial slurs. She is saying she didn't do such a thing. She was put on administrative leave. This is how the district responded: The district said teachers are removed so "an investigation can proceed without possible allegations of attempted intimidation of witnesses by the accused employee, and in some cases to protect the accused employee from possible acts of retribution" by accusers.
Policies say employees temporarily removed will be "presumed innocent pending the outcome of the investigation and will have all appropriate due process rights."

"Linda,
you didn't read the book...bummer."

And the assumptions continue.

Stephanie writes: "I have heard that will never happen though b/c of her close relationship with the superintendent of Hartland schools. And the waters get murkier!"

And my earlier comment that small towns are often mocked for being rife with gossip was unfounded and purely a shaming tactic on my part? Just trying to be sure I have a clear understanding. The goalposts are being continually moved in this discussion.

I think, like Ms. Schemansky, it's time for me to end my participation in this conversation. I don't think there's anything further that I can add to a productive discussion, as the goalposts are being continually moved. I appreciate everyone's input and thought-provoking debate. Thank you, Chris, for raising some interesting questions and for your professionalism.

Ms. Bowen,
yes I did assume you never read "Playground Politics". I assumed that vs your having read it and opting not to apply it. The first is kinder then the latter.

Stephanie,
Your passion isn't going unnoticed. I appreciate reading all of your posts! A poor message is being sent and I can only hope that the powers to be are reading all our comments! The double standards are overwhelming......

I think that their are a few fact that some people in this communtity are unaware of!
If your child is given a MIP in livingston county the school is notified of the ticket and the school also issues a punishment and a expulsion hearing!! BUTonly if you are in a sport!! If you child plays in a sport they lose 25% of their season, PERIOD no matter what the court decideds. Now if you don't play a sport then BONUS you do not receive any additional punishment at school.
Now if you take that same concept and put it at a administration level where would that leave you????
Our kids are very impressionable at this time in their lives and alcohol is something that is out their and being used but kids at young ages. Let us make our decition as a communtiy based on what is the best for our kids and not about who Mrs. Sahouri is as a person or a principal. I am sure she is a caring individual who chose her position by her love of children. But lets take out our personal feeling for her and put the children first. Maybe you feeling will be the same and you will look at it from a different angle.

I totally agree again with Jazz. Everybody is making this personal and it's not.

theres some angry elves up in here...