Randy and spouse are but the latest members of Key West's Hall of Shame. That their misconduct was not swept under the carpet promotes, at long last (and likely temporarily), the notion that words like decency, honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness have meaning, even for public officials in Monroe County. The Citizen should be highly commended for their salutary coverage of this latest debacle in Key West's sordid history.

In a business or corporation when there is a situation like this the person at the top goes ... plain and simple. Randy is at the top, the buck stops with him and he should go. Add that he was told about the misuse of policy and did nothing, handed a fraudulent letter to a social service agency covering up the misuse and is uncooperative to both the school board and state attorney is more reason to go. Bottom line, in any corporation, and the school district should be run as a business, the guy on top is fired.

Ward's "investigation" is just giving the bubba system time to shuffle the deck chairs on the Vandenboondoggle

The stranglehold of the inbreeds will not be loosened on his current course

Not schocking at all. In fact, if you audit some contract invoices you'll discover some charges that are diversionary; tactics that are useful to cover a kick-back. I would not offer immunity to any of these people because they deserve to be humiliated in public, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and then rehabilitated.

I am an attorney, but for the life of me I really can't understand why on earth Monique is requesting a jury trial. It doesn't make any sense. Does she really believe that the jury trial would be conducted in Monroe County (or more specifically, Key West), and that she and her family are so well-liked that she will prevail?!?! Setting aside the almost obvious fact that the trial would be removed to someplace else (likely to a more rural district where $180K spending sprees are perceived as even more outrageous than they would be perceived in South Florida), but her alleged crimes and the facts surrounding them would deeply offend almost anyone. Let's see -- who would be offended even more than the average Joe by her alleged crimes: (1) tax payers; (2) teachers; (3) parents; (4) anyone who has worked with, parented or is related to a disabled person; (5) immigrants and speakers of english as a second language; (6) anyone who has turned to adult education courses to advance themselves; and (7) recent high school students who vividly remember fundraising. On top of this, because of the economic struggles that have been going on, her alleged crimes will also more deeply offend: (1) anyone who lost a job due to budget cuts (particularly in the public sector); (2) anyone struggling with credit card collection issues; and (3) anyone who has suffered financially due to the spending habits of a spouse. Between all of these categories, I can't think of anyone who would not fall into at least one. Does Monique honestly think that the old notion of women getting treated more softly will help her get out of this mess? I think that is true when the crime is a more traditional "male" crime, so that the woman strikes the jury as some sort of fish out of water who obviously has a story (like the case of a female bank robber). But these alleged crimes are 100% woman. Nobody is going to scratch their heads wondering what sort of deeper problems would force a woman to run out and start buying furniture and clothing. The behavior is completely predictable, and the fact that it was such a large amount and that it is not her money simply provides the elements of the crime. Case closed. There is nothing here to ponder with regards to her gender, her age, her socioeconomic status, etc. The ONLY chance she would have is if she is judged by people who are so far above her in socioeconomic status that they perceive her alleged crimes as less severe. With a jury, the chances are slim to none that this will occur, as the jury would likely represent the average cross-section, and to them her income/position/marital status/etc., would paint the picture of a wealthy woman, and the magnitude of the spending would be astronomical to people who probably think of a "spending spree" as a few hundred dollars. If she had a bench trial, then the chances would be stronger that the one person making the decision is in fact of higher socioeconomic status and may not be blinded by number shock. Also, how is she affording her lawyer? A jury trial will drown his entire practice. And if the trial is removed to another part of Florida, paying his travel expenses will drown the Acevedos'. Their careers are both over -- are they honestly this selfish that they would spend their remaining familial assets on a lawyer in order to avoid the inevitable??? What about the 3 kids?