First of all, why should the ethics commission waste time on a 26 page, 8900 word "opinion" on this?  Second, when did teachers become so greedy that they mock "lowly" gifts, especially in this economy? Crapple? Isn't it suppose to be about the thought, not the gift? Do the teachers send home a "banned list" so that children who want to buy something nice, don't? I remember my teachers ooohing and aaahing over every gift, no matter how small and most were ones we children picked out ourselves. You know, things like tacky Christmas brooches from the dime store, lol.  I love the first story.


In 1973, back when Janice Spencer taught at a poor Montgomery school, a student brought her a Christmas present in a wrinkled brown paper sack.

It was the oddest gift she got in 38 years of teaching.

And maybe the most precious.

"The child wanted to give me something," said Spencer, who retired from teaching at Jefferson County Schools last year. "He took one of his mother's hand towels and wrapped it in a paper bag. It was still dirty."

Spencer cried over that gift. She washed it and quietly returned it to the boy's mother.

But she never forgot it.

The Alabama Ethics Commission, in this week's 26-page opinion on what gifts teachers and other public employees can take under Alabama's still-new ethics law, didn't specifically address dirty dish rags. Such a gift, though, would likely be acceptable.

Because about the only fast rule you can take from the 8,900-word opinion -- it's 2½ times longer than the bill that created the law -- is that teachers can accept only what they wouldn't want, anyway.

They can't take turkeys or hams or gift cards for personal use. They can have homemade cookies baked by God knows who, pretzels hand-dipped by runny-nosed 7-year-olds, ceramic apples, apple knickknacks, apple-adorned coffee cups or ... apples.

Which is what they usually get anyway. Teachers have a name for the stuff:

Crapple.

The rule, as the ethics law states and the Ethics Commission tried to interpret, is that public employees can take only those things with "de minimis" value. In English -- which you'd think our English-only lawmakers would have used -- de minimis means something worth practically nothing on the open market.

Like crapple.

Concord Elementary School Principal David Foster was particularly interested in the part of the opinion that said teachers can take scarves of nominal value. He wondered if it applies to ties.

Because ties of nominal value -- nominal fashion value, anyway -- are a bigger part of his Christmas than any ham.

He's been given so many holiday ties -- with flashing Rudolph noses or buttons that play holiday songs -- that he could wear a different one every day of the month, he said.

In fact, he wore a gifted Grinch tie Thursday as he learned of the ethics ruling.

Which he thought appropriate.

Which I thought made that dish rag look better.

But he loves his ties of nominal value, just as Spencer appreciates all the crapple she's accumulated over the years. Teachers, they say, don't become teachers for perks.

"When you go into education, it's a calling," Spencer said.

And that is why so many people -- parents and PTAs, mostly -- are upset with the ruling and the law itself. It was supposed to clean up Montgomery, to sweep away the taint of corruption and the odor of influence. But, like so many Alabama laws, it missed its mark and landed with unintended consequences.

Lawmakers, after all, made sure they can still be wined and dined -- up the $150 a year by lobbyists and $250 a year by companies who hire them. They can take paid trips for "educational" purposes. They can still buy Alabama and Auburn tickets at face value.

But teachers can't get a $20 gift card from Applebees.

That's not de minimis.

It is only small.

http://blog.al.com/archib...s_another_crapple_c.html

I've been thinking about this. A school or the commission could always tell the kids that instead of buying for the teacher, they can put together a fun basket for a family homeless shelter. Lord knows there are a lot of children homeless now. It could be filled with inexpensive, yet fun things. Crayons, coloring books or puzzle books, colored pencils, brightly colored construction paper, books and those kinds of things. The kids would learn about giving and about helping those less fortunate. With a class of 30 children, it would be filled up!  I wonder if the ethics commission would limit the type of gifts for that project? I also wonder if the teachers would feel slighted to receive nothing for themselves?

A dumbass law by dumbass legislators.
Is there anyone with any brains in the Alabama legislature?

This is going to sound nasty to all of you, but public school teachers start at $45K.   After three years they are tenured.  Their jobs are as secure (more) than most in today's society.  They have important and difficult jobs, which no one will dispute.   However, crapple?    Isn't that insulting?  

Some kids would be able to buy diamond watches and maybe others a bag of cookies.  SWers aren't allowed to accept gifts from their clients either no matter what.   Dual relationships are against their code of ethics, too.  

I am not anti this law and it seems to be arrogant and insulting to call nominal gifts crapple to me.  

Thank you! Someone gets one of my main points about the article. I do remember going to the "Five and Dime" store to buy gifts for my teachers. They weren't expensive and were probably thrown away at some point. However, I beamed in pride when he/she opened it and was appreciative of the gesture. 

I still say it's the thought, NOT the gift, or it's suppose to be, in any circumstances, right?  For instance, we were given a fruit cake by one of our tenants last year. I was pleased that she thought of us and took the time to come by the office to give it to us, since she never comes to the office for anything. I was, in no way, thinking "what a crappy gift"! 

"The Gift of the Magi"



  

Just another Repugnant law targeting imaginary wrongs.

I think the real lesson here is: the higher up the political food chain you go, the greater the value of the gratuity you can reward yourself from other people's "largesse".

Ah, so it's the bigger the job title the bigger the bribe?

Yes... of course.

lol gramps. I surely hope not!  It's the perception of the lawmakers that teachers are ingrates or can be somehow corrupted by a $20 gift card from Staples. They need to look in the mirror as they slide those generous perks tips gifts bribes into their pockets while screwing over the citizens who elected them. Methinks they are projecting.

Alabama lawmakers are f'n idiots. I am ashamed of my home state on a monthly, if not weekly, basis.

roseanne... it's looking like a long, cold winter, isn't it?

Yeah, but at least it's in Canuckistan.
The Harpercrytes haven't had time to completely bugger it up.

At least Ontario still has McGuinty standing at the breach. It's going to be an interesting four years in Ontario in a "may you live in interesting times" kind of way.