Mistakes are part of the human condition. Some are honest mistakes while others are stupid errors in judgment, bad decisions based on arrogance, or inappropriate actions rooted in an attitude of self-importance.

Residents of the Mars School District will embrace differing views — and possibly changing views — regarding the trouble with the law in which Anna Saker, Mars High School principal, finds herself. That is to be expected.

Saker is charged with four counts of disorderly conduct and obstructing a police officer in connection with a traffic stop at about 5:30 p.m. May 8 involving a car driven by her husband, Nazih Saker.

Nazih Saker also faces charges beyond the speeding violation, including felony counts.

Anna Saker allegedly acted in what police described as a "threatening manner" after the principal reportedly tried to use her job position and her acquaintance with Mars Police Chief Kevin Radford to persuade or intimidate the Mars officer who made the traffic stop — Patrolman Daniel Tressler — not to issue her husband a ticket. She allegedly became belligerent when the police officer made it clear that her job and acquaintance with the chief had no bearing on his responsibility to uphold the law.

According to information contained in the police report, the incident became increasingly ugly when Tressler was writing the ticket.

Anna Saker, like any other defendant, including her husband, must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Whether or not the May 8 incident impacts her school district position — by way of school board action or in terms of her ability to command the respect of district residents, Mars employees and students — will become known in the weeks ahead.

For now, the district is emphasizing that the incident occurred while she was not functioning in her school district capacity. That reaction can be deemed understandable so soon after the incident. District officials want to make sure their grasp of the facts of the case is accurate, and they are waiting to see how the charges against the principal play out.

A hearing for Anna Saker is scheduled for June 4 at the office of District Judge Wayne Seibel of Evans City.

All of that said, a comment by Mars district Superintendent William Pettigrew at Tuesday evening's school board meeting is nonetheless grounds for reflection in the context of the district's zero-tolerance policy.

"Mrs. Saker's private situation has nothing to do with the school district, and she will remain in her current position," Pettigrew said.

In fact the situation does have something to do with the district. Although the incident occurred after school hours, her conduct both on and off the job reflects on the district — one of the burdens of a high-profile position.

The school system is part of the foundation for children to embark on successful, productive, law-abiding lives. The children's principal being in trouble with the law runs counter to goals at the core of education.

Some district residents might also be pondering whether Pettigrew — and the school board — would so easily embrace his stated opinion if a teacher or other district employee were facing criminal charges not directly related to his or her district employment.

Meanwhile, some parents whose children might have faced stiff consequences for minor, no-tolerance offenses might be wondering whether Pettigrew's attitude projects a double standard in how the district addresses issues.

Whether Pettigrew and the school board like it or not, they owe the Mars School District community an explanation within the parameters of respecting Anna Saker's privacy. They need to assure the community that, contrary to what's already been said, they are not regarding Saker's problem lightly and will keep watching the situation closely.

Unfortunately, neither Pettigrew nor the board felt obligated to provide such assurances at Tuesday's board meeting. When the board holds its next meeting, they should step forward to acknowledge genuine, deep concern over what has occurred.

Saker's troubles are rooted in something more than an honest mistake, and the administration and board's reaction should not project such a misunderstanding of the full breadth of her problem.