h1. tt post sep 19 2015 - a

What about providing some insight to sensible questions?

* If the serious allegations levied against Hickey were false, then why was he reprimanded? 
* If the serious allegations levied against Hickey were false, then why didn't the school board reprimand the person or people who lied?
* Were the serious allegations levied against Hickey true, but the school board's hands were tied?


The letter:

* The "Toledo Blade PDF version":http://www.toledoblade.com/attachment/2015/09/17/Washington-Local-Schools-letter-to-Superintendent-Hickey-Sept17-2015.pdf that contains images of the scanned paper
* "The HTML version":http://toledotalk.com/cgi-bin/tt.pl/article/195318/Washington_Local_School_board_letter_of_reprimand_to_Superintendent_Patrick_Hickey

On three occasions within the letter, the phrase _"even the appearance"_ was emphasized. Why?

* ... you must make every effort to avoid _even the appearance_ of impropriety in your interactions with all staff members.
* You are to avoid _even the appearance_ of retaliation. 
* ... your future conduct and interactions must avoid _even the appearance_ of impropriety. 

Hickey was banned from school property, but he was not suspended,  he was not on paid leave, and he was not on vacation. He was on "vacation." Double quotes.

How can that not be viewed as strange?

How often are school district superintendents banned from their own schools' property?