COMMUNITY COMMENTARY -- Scott D. Smith

I have not yet come to a decision in my mind whether or not trustee

Jim Ferryman should resign his position as a member of the Newport-Mesa

Unified School District Board of Trustees if he pleads guilty to or is

convicted of a DUI (“Trustee: Ferryman should resign if guilty,� Friday).

As it stands now, I lean toward it being the right thing to do, but

honestly that is not settled.

What honestly disturbs me more is the comments of trustee Martha

Fluor. Based on her comments that appeared in the Daily Pilot, it appears

that Fluor’s position is that his personal life should not affect his

performance as a trustee and questioned making a DUI conviction a litmus

test for resignation.

My question to Fluor is: Could you please explain the difference to me

between Ferryman being convicted of a DUI and not needing to resign as a

trustee and the 17-year-old high school student who goes out drinking on

a Saturday night and gets busted and then is subjected to the penalties

of the zero-tolerance policy?

If, as you say, Ferryman’s potential conviction, as part of his

personal life, has no effect on his performance as a trustee, then how

can you support a district zero-tolerance policy that would immediately

punish this 17-year-old high school student?

Can’t the same claim be made that a 17-year-old student busted for

drinking in his “personal life� doesn’t affect his performance as a high

school student?

It seems to me that you’re more than willing to make amends for

Ferryman’s possible indiscretion. I don’t believe that you’d take the

same position when the parents of the 17-year-old addressed the school

board on an appeal of the penalty of the zero-tolerance policy.

Please, let’s have some consistency. Either both are guilty or both

are not. The district cannot have it two different ways.

* SCOTT D. SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident.