Sunday, October 19, 2014

APS misleads KOAT; KOAT misleads viewers re: lawsuits against Brooks

I stumbled upon an MSN report, link, to a KOAT report on the most recent settlements of lawsuits against APS and former Supt Winston Brooks.  I cannot find a link to the report on KOAT's own site.

At the end of the report, about two minutes in, the reporter said;

"APS says there is at least one other ongoing lawsuit involving Brooks."
I am aware of at least three.

If the reporter, Megan Cruz, is telling truth about what "APS" said, then " APS" misled her in order that she would mislead KOAT viewers.

Who knows, who "APS" is.  It could have been APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta.  It could be APS Director of Communications Rigo Chavez.

It is important to know who, because whomever it was, was being less than candid, forthright and honest with KOAT and by extension, with all stake and interest holders.

I will forward a link of this post to KOAT.  I will challenge them to follow up on this issue;
  1. report on the exact number of outstanding law suits (and complaints in other venues) there are involving Winston Brooks and have yet to be settled, and,
  2. report on the number of dollars still on the table; dollars that will not be used to educate nearly 90,000 of this community's sons and daughters.
We will see what we will see.

It would be nice to know in time for the school board member elections and the hiring of the new superintendent.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

APS settles a quarter of a million dollars on two complainants

The leadership of the APS has leaked to their Journal friends, link, the amounts of both settlements in case brought by two administrators against then APS Supt Winston Brooks; $245,000.  The figure represents a $70K settlement on one complainant and a $175K settlement on the other.

The Journal headline;

Total to settle two APS claims is $245,000
is misleading at best.

The money paid to the plaintiffs, is the smallest part of the cost to APS' operational fund and to taxpayers trying keep the fund solvent.  Still secret, the amount APS spent on lawyers in these cases, in Brooks' effort to escape the consequences of retaliating against people who filed complaints against him.

The plaintiff's lawyers' fees are also part of the cost to the district and taxpayers, of settlement and is not part of Journal coverage.  An honest headline would read;
Total to settle two APS claims is more than $500,000.
More settlements to come.
But then we know better than to expect candor, forthrightness and honesty from the Journal in their coverage of their cronies in the leadership of the APS; don't we.

Friday, October 17, 2014

The truth about the fourth camera and a broken promise

I have dug for awhile, into the mystery of the fourth(?) camera being used to record school board meetings.  I far as I can tell there is a camera on the speakers podium, on the board and on the superintendents desk.  The new camera is most distant from the action.

The story I'm getting is that the new footage is going to be folded into the streamed recording.

Editing four streams at once should be a snap in a room full of equipment purchased at a time when the administrators who were signing the purchase orders were (according to the Meyners & Co audit) spending up to $50K at a whack "... without involving purchasing."  This during a time when the same auditors found;

  1. inadequate financial standards and
  2. inadequate accountability to such standards as there were, and
  3. inadequate record keeping
the trifecta of public corruption and embezzlement.

The board promised stake and interest holders who cannot attend the meetings, they can download the video the Friday after the meeting.

This is not the first time the video has not been posted by the deadline.  A quick check on their award winning website, link, will give you an idea of the number of regular meeting video records still to be posted.

Videotaping of regular meetings is the only videotaping they do of meetings;  They don't videotape any of their committee meetings.  They don't post the audio tapes; if you want one, you have to make a public records request and buy a disc for $5 or $10 that might be unreadable or copied in a format nobody ever heard of.

These are the same people who, when I asked them for a copy of the videotape of the meeting where then School Board President Paula Maes announced that she would never agree to any audit that named the names of incompetent and corrupt administrators, apparently played their record on a TV and videotaped the TV to make my copy.  You can imagine the quality of the image and audio.  They to the same thing with public records they don't want you to read; a copy of a copy of a copy ... until it's unreadable.

Despite three guys and all this equipment, the video of Wednesday's meeting,
 which was supposed to be posted on their award winning website today is still
 not posted.

APS Exec Director of Communications
Monica Armenta
APS' million dollar a year public relations and calendar publishing effort has yet to explain why it takes two days for three technicians sitting in a digital electronic toy chest, to post a video that has already been streamed

If I had the software and the inclination, I could have a video record up on YouTube or somewhere, before the echo of "meeting adjourned" died.

In the 8 years that I have been speaking at public forums at school board meetings, an opportunity to watch videotapes of meetings has been a commitment by the board to the community members they serve.

It has been my personal experience that the record broadcast to the community has been manipulated by APS.  In particular, if I stood up at public forum and asked;
As the senior most role models in the entire APS, is there a single one of you; school board member or senior administrator, who is willing to hold yourself honestly accountable to the same standards of conduct you establish and enforce upon students?

Is there one of you who will role model honest and actual accountability to APS student standards of conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!, link, a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct?
They would not answer, they were embarrassed, and they removed that part of public forum from the broadcast record.

When I asked APS Director of Communications Rigo Chavez about the fact that the broadcast record was being altered, he assured me it was alright because the broadcast videotapes are not the actual "minutes" of the meeting.

The actual "minutes" are notes taken by a specialist and then approved by the board.  An incident like the one I described, if it was noted in the minutes at all, would read, a man talked about Character Counts!

At one point, they actually moved public forum off their meeting agendas in order that it would not show up on a broadcast record.

When I asked a senior APS administrator for an answer to a simple question, as one of the senior most administrative role models of student standards of conduct, he was obliged to respond candidly, forthrightly and honestly.  See for yourself;
I wrote;
I am wondering, what is the purpose of the APS camera in the "meeting administration" alcove in the far west end of the John Milne Community Board Room?
He responded
The camera is used to film the APS Board of Education meeting.
I asked
What is the intended use of the public record it creates?
Why is a different camera necessary?
He responded
Not sure what you mean by your first question. If you want to call me and explain, I'll try to answer.
With regard to your second question, the camera provides a different recording angle from the other cameras in the room.

I responded;
... With respect to my first question;

What is the intended use of the public record it creates?
I mean; what does the person who decided to make the recording intend to do with the recording?
Who is that person, by the way? Who asked to have it set up?
He responded;
Like I said before the camera you are talking about provides a different angle than the other cameras in the room. The video from the different cameras is edited into a video of the meeting.
As for who decided to locate the camera there, I assume it was the folks in Information Technology who put together the video. The change was made when the room was reconfigured and the podium moved from the center to the side.
I asked;
Please identify "the folks" in IT in order that I might ask questions of them directly.
Who ordered the room to be reconfigured?
Why does any of this make any difference?

It makes a difference because somebody re-purposed the alcove and in so doing moved "the media" to a place where they can no longer photograph the faces of speakers at the podium.  And, they created a genuine trip and safety hazard as demonstrated when Chavez himself moved in to replace videographer and his tripod.

There should have at least some justification for doing it.

I am afraid what they're really about to do, is to use one camera with a Google Earth view of the room every time they want to make something, or someone, really hard to see in the video record.

School board enforcer and defendant Marty Esquivel says this isn't about Character Counts!  He says he didn't try to ban me for life because I keep pointing to the lack of character and courage manifest in their abandonment of their obligations as the senior most role models of student standards of conduct.

But it is.  If it wasn't about role modeling of student standards of conduct, Esquivel wouldn't be afraid to talk about it.  Nor would board members Analee Maestas, David Peercy, Steven Michael Quezada, Kathy Korte, Donald Duran and, Lorenzo Garcia.  Nor would interim Supt Brad Winter.

If it is important to us that students grow into adults who
embrace character and courage and honor,
someone is going to have to show them what they look like.

Character is taught by example.
Example has more followers than reason.  Bovee
Character is taught only by personal example.

If Esquivel and board aren't up to honest accountability to higher standards of conduct than the law, maybe they shouldn't be role models; maybe they shouldn't be board members or senior administrators.

photo Mark Bralley

$175K APS Brooks settlement a tenth of taxpayer liability

In the Journal this morning, link, the settlement with the other of two administrators in a federal lawsuit against former APS Supt Winston Brooks.

The amount of the other settlement is still secret from the people whose money it used to be.

I am willing to guess; if we knew the number of dollars at stake in yet to be settled lawsuits against the Brooks administration, it will be ten times or more, the number settled on these two.

And, the settlement number the Journal published, I am willing to guess; does not include inordinate numbers of dollars funneled to law firms friendly to the leadership of the APS.

All of these dollars are "operational dollars".  Operational dollars are dollars that could be spent in classrooms instead of being spent on cost is no object legal defenses for school board members and superintendents.

Some, may be covered by insurance.  Taxpayers premiums for that insurance have already been raised at least once (that I know of personally) as a direct result of the amount of money APS board members and superintendents spend on litigation.  It is worth noting; they spent without any real oversight.  Self oversight and subordinate oversight are not oversight.  They are oxymora.

"I am willing to guess" because without any data, what else can you do?

Why do stake and interest holders not know, and why cannot they find out, how public funds are being spent?  Why the big secret?

Obviously they have something to hide.

Obviously, the Journal is ready, willing and able to help them hide it.  Journal reporter Jon Swedien writes once again, link;

In (the) other cases involving Brooks, a judge in 2013 dismissed a suit made by three APS principals who claimed they were unfairly demoted.

There is also an ongoing case involving Ruby Ethridge, a former APS associate superintendent. Ethridge filed a civil rights suit against APS and Brooks, arguing she was demoted after complaining that Brooks “treated woman with disdain.”
I added the (the) obviously.  If Swedien had written it, it would be an outright lie.  Without it, the statement is simply misleading.  If it were first time he had done it, it might be inadvertent.  At this point it is a pattern.

If the intention of those paragraphs is not to mislead readers into thinking those are the only ongoing lawsuits against Winston Brooks and taxpayers,  then I,
(as my father used to say) am a Chinese sea cook.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

APS Audit Committee gives whistleblower report short shrift

APS Audit committee paid little attention to and gave little consideration of the presentation of the Director, Internal Audit Peg Koshmider's data on APS' whistleblower protection program; Ethical Advocate.

Of particular consternation; the discussion of a graph of SilentWhistle data.  But before you link to the graph; keep in mind that their conclusion based on the graph was; complaints are "all over the map" and no one misbehavior stands out as needing attention, link.

There is no more grave symptom of oligarchical malignancy than retaliation against whistleblowers.  As you saw; complaints of retaliation led all others for four years in a row.  Council of the Great City School auditors found in the APS; a culture of fear of retaliation against whistleblowers and other complainants.

Their conclusion; nothing to see here, let's move along.

Audit Committee Chair Dr Donald Duran does not allow public input in Audit Committee meetings. 

I considered raising my hand during the presentation in order to ask for permission to take the floor long enough to ask one question.  As the committee chair, he has the authority to allow a question if he wants to.

I reasoned that I would be accused of "disrupting" the meeting, so I decided instead to write a short note to Dr Duran;

Dr Duran,
I would appreciate it if you would ask for the percentage of whistleblowers who were satisfied with the process.
or words to that effect.

It is an important question.  If 90% of whistleblowers think the system failed them; it is a problem that should be addressed.  Considering that all the investigation and adjudication is done in house and in secret, I would not be surprised to find that a number of whistleblowers feel doubly victimized by the process.

I felt the least disruptive manner to deliver the note would be to hand it to a "board specialist" who would pass it along in Duran's direction.  It stopped, I think, when it got to Constituent Services Specialist Christy Albright.

And there you have it - the board has happily signed off on some really bad news, is reticent to answer any questions about any thing, and the problem of a culture of fear of retaliation will be hidden, not solved.

In cases like these, some communities have press who take their obligation to inform the democracy seriously.  They would follow up on stories like these and;
  • find out whether whistleblowers feel like their complaints saw due process and
  • find out how many administrative respondents suffered any consequences at all, over their attempts to retaliate against whistleblowers and other complainants. and
  • find out whether APS employees still feel that if they expose administrative incompetence or corruption, they will be retaliated against.
There is a school board election coming up.

They are about to hire another $250-300K a year superintendent with a golden parachute worth $500K.

The Journal in particular, relentlessly refuses to investigate and report upon credible testimony and evidence of a standards, ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

... to hell with voters and their need to know.

photos Mark Bralley

APS "Ethical Advocate" stats to be presented

APS' Audit Committee meets today.  The agenda, link, here quoted in significant part with added links, includes;

Ethical Advocate Statistics (Discussion)
Presenter: Peg Koshmider
Ethical Advocate Statistics link
9-30-14 Ethical Advocate Statistics link
SilentWhistle Graph link
Ethical Advocate is the "public relations" face of the treatment whistleblowers get from the leadership of the APS.

The hidden face of APS treatment of whistleblowers was described in the findings of a recent audit by the Council of the Great City Schools.  Their auditors found that whistleblowers are confronted by a culture of fear of retaliation in response to their complainants.

Part of the felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators that they're trying to cover up, is the federal felony criminal abuse of the NCIC database in an effort to harass whistleblowers.

If you examine the SilentWhistle Graph, you will see that
consistently ranks among the highest subjects of whistleblower complaints (against administrators).

Note that the statistics of three entirely different behaviors are conflated for no good reason.  When APS reported bullying statistics, they conflated them with vandalism; again for no good reason.

They conflate data to order to diminish the usefulness of the data in holding school board members and senior administrators actually accountable for their conduct and competence.

If data is too embarrassing, shaming or indicting to diminish even through conflation, they simply gather no data at all.  Where is
  • the historical data on student discipline problems in the APS? and or,
  • the current data, and or
  • the current plan to deal with student discipline problems including chronically disruptive students, and most importantly,
  • where is their plan for the future, link?
The non-existence of any of real, useful data leads one to suspect that the data is being not collected for a reason.

That reason is not;
because there are no problems to report.

Wait til you hear this ...

I went to the APS School Board Meeting yesterday.  Upon entering the John Milne Community Board Room, I noticed that the alcove in the far back of the room had been re-purposed.  The alcove's previous purpose had been to allow people with tripod mounted recording devices to place their equipment out of the way.

The purpose now; to accommodate a single tripod mounted video camera, small desk and APS Computer Technician Salvador Gonzales.

Another person whom I believe to be Technician Russell Reid, but definitely the nearer of the two technicians in the photo below, was standing in the raised alcove and at what amounted to a rope barrier between them and the great unwashed.

Hard to imagine - all this equipent to record a school board meeting?

I asked him what "it" was.  The question was accompanied by hand gestures indicating the space in which he stood; the alcove.

Misunderstanding, thinking I was talking about the rope line itself and concluding that I had never seen a crowd control device before, Reid told me; it's a crowd control device.

Either that, or he was just being a wise ass.

Finally understanding my question, he said he "didn't know".
Taxpayers pay Russell Reid $21 an hour during our exchange.

He decided to refer me to APS Police Chief Steve Gallegos.
You pay him $51 an hour.  We established that Gallegos had
already told me that he wasn't going to answer my questions
and if I asked him any more questions it would be harassment, link.

Next in line, the person who appeared to be in charge in alcove, Computer Tech Sal Gonzales.  He finally offered that the alcove was now for "meeting administration".   You paid him  $24 an hour for his begrudging service.

I asked a few questions of a $17 an hour board service specialist, about the movement of the media from the alcove, the previous "designated area", and was told, I needed to talk to recently raised; $53 an hour, APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta.  I declined any assistance involving her.

Armenta's decision to move the media to the SW corner of the room had created a genuine trip and safety hazard.  The always alert Chief Gallegos was oblivious to the problem.  With the arrival of the KOAT videographer the situation became so bad, APS Director of Communications Rigo Chavez came over to tell KOAT they had to move to the other side of the room.  Apparently, there are now two "designated areas" for the media.

On my way out of the meeting, I stopped to ask Sal Gonzales, what was the purpose of their new camera - I mean they already have at least three cameras covering the meeting.

He decided that the best interests of students were would be served by refusing to answer the simple question, and insisting I ask Rigo Chavez who makes $35 an hour.

Chavez's response will be cc'd to Armenta, (probably) Brad Winter, making $96 an hour, and a few lawyers making $130 an hour.

And then, maybe, we will find out what they need a fourth camera for.

photo Mark Bralley

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

If APS principals are really so great ...

APS interim Supt Brad Winter wrote an opinion piece for the Journal this morning, link.

His opinion is; Principals are key to success at APS.

The headline illustrates the  unswerving belief that no matter what the problem is; no matter how bad the problem is, the solution is simply finding the right administrator.

There are schools in the APS whose principals are deservedly beloved and respected by their communities.  There are schools whose principals' efforts and energy played decisive roles in creating the only thing that has ever has really "fixed" a failing school; a saving synergy.

This post is not about principals with character and competence.  It is about a system that disrespects those men and women by enabling incompetence and corruption in some of their colleagues.

There were times when APS teachers regularly evaluated their site administrators.  The evaluations were meaningless; the evaluation forms were collected by the site administrator and then disappeared, but at least there was the pretense of subordinate evaluation of administrators.  No more.

Which begs a question; are teachers qualified to evaluate their principals?  Does their nearly 100,000 years of combined, ongoing teaching experience as APS teachers qualify them to tell good administration from bad?

It seems pretty clear that teachers would welcome the opportunity to evaluate administrators.

It seems just as clear that administrators (and school board members) would rather not be evaluated by teachers.

So why don't administrators (in general) want to be evaluated by teachers?

Any evaluation of administration, from vice-principals to superintendent, would include questions about their administration of district and site discipline policies.  Any evaluation that allowed teachers to comment candidly, forthrightly and honestly without fear of retaliation, would register their overwhelming dissatisfaction with the administration of APS and site discipline policies.

APS spinmeister Monica Armenta
If the truth were otherwise, the leadership of the APS would commission the survey and publish the results.

If the truth were otherwise, the Journal would run a story on it.

A great deal of energy and resources are being spent to identify teachers who cannot or will not do their jobs.  What about principals; the "keys to success"?

Why isn't more emphasis placed on identifying principals who cannot or will not do their jobs?

Why is no emphasis placed on identifying school board members who cannot or will not do their jobs?

The answer is that powerful people do not hold each other accountable to the same standards they establish and enforce upon everyone else.  And the powerless, by definition, haven't the power to evaluate and hold accountable, their principals and superintendents.

The simplest way to evade accountability over incompetence and corruption, is to gather no data.  The calamity that is student discipline in the APS, is manifest in the complete lack of data on student discipline, link.

The complicity of the Journal, KRQE, KOAT, KOB TV, and APS' million dollar a year public relations effort, is intended to effect the outcome of the school board election and their selection of the next half million dollar golden parachute recipient.  It is intolerable.

Somebody should do something.

photos Mark Bralley

Monday, October 13, 2014

APS Board walking back secrecy position?

The agenda for the APS School Board Meeting Wednesday, link,suggests the board might be revisiting their decision to keep settlements secret from the people who pay for them.

Consideration for Approval to Convene in Executive Session (secret)... for the Purpose of Attorney-Client Privilege Regarding Discussion of Threatened Litigation: Review of Brooks Matter (Action)
God only knows what that actually means, but the "threatened litigation" might be complaints filed over their efforts to keep secret; pertinent details of the Brooks settlement.

With respect to the language the board used on the agenda, the Open Meetings Act is pretty clear in the insistence that meetings in secret from the people, must be described with "reasonable specificity".

The question is not;
have they been as specific as the law requires?  
The question is;
have they been as specific as the law allows?
The distinction is important for at least two reasons
1.  The standards of conduct for which school board members are the senior-most role models; APS' student standards of conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!, require them to be as specific as the law will allow in contrast to as specific as the law requires.
2.  Their deliberate refusal to be as candid, forthright and honest about their intentions as the law allows, creates the appearance of impropriety; if they are doing nothing wrong, why won't they tell the truth (candid, forthright, honest) about what they are doing?

There is no reason to be non-specific except to avoid the consequences of being specific.

Another APS Brooks settlement in the works?

According to their agenda, link, the APS school board intends to meet in secret this morning to discuss

"... Pending Litigation: Michael Bachicha, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. Board of Education of the Albuquerque Public Schools ...
They have already settled with the other complainant in the case, link.  The settlement in that case, and the settlement in this case, are likely to remain secret for as long as open government expert and APS School Board Member Marty Esquivel and the rest of board are allowed to keep them secret.

They are allowed, not required, by the law to keep the settlements secret.  The distinction is important.

What they need to keep secret, is the amount of money they spend on litigation and settlements.

You have to figure the costs of litigation are at least two or three times the amount of the settlement; a $250K settlement actually costs taxpayers $750K.  The money comes from operational funds; tax dollars appropriated for the education of children.  It is money that literally, could be spent in classrooms instead.

APS' record cannot bear scrutiny without repercussion.
It is a record of spending inordinate amounts of money on litigation; litigation in the interests of board members and superintendents, not in the interests of students; litigation against the public interests.
APS' record will not bear scrutiny.
For reasons they have yet to acknowledge, much less defend, the Journal and the rest of the establishment credentialed press have decided to not investigate and report upon the squandering of the people's trust and treasure in cost is no object litigation in efforts to allow school board members and superintendents to escape the consequences of their corruption and or incompetence.
Their record is there to be examined; all the embarrassing, shaming and indicting record. The public record of the involvement of senior APS administrators in felony criminal misconduct is there.  All you have to do is pry it loose.

The findings of as many as three separate investigations of allegations of public corruption and in competence in the leadership of the APS Police force (and by logical extension, the leadership of the APS in general) name the names of the corrupt and the incompetent.

The findings name the names of people whom misappropriated cash from an evidence locker (a state felony) and criminally abused the NCIC criminal database, (a federal felony).  Names which were never turned over to the District Attorney for criminal prosecution.

Ethically redacted copies of those findings are being hidden from public knowledge by the school board, the superintendent, and their unlimited budgets for litigation even in their own self interests and without any real oversight*.

*the meetings where the board decides how to spend operational funds on their own legal defenses, are held in secret.  By their own deliberate decision, they do not record their meetings in secret.

Even if the NM IPRA allowed secreting the findings, the school board and superintendent owe interest and stakeholders an explanation about why they need to secret them.
Why are they spending so much money to keep ethically redacted copies of the findings secret?
The law does not require this level of secrecy; it only allows it by means of legal weaselry; using weakness in the law to thwart justice.

The amount of money spent defending school board members and senior administrators is newsworthy.  How operational dollars are being spent is newsworthy.  Why dollars that could be spend in classrooms are being spent in courtrooms instead, is newsworthy.

There is a school board election coming up.
A new superintendent is going to be hired.

I am witness personally, to the Journal's steadfast refusal to investigate and report upon APS' litigation record.

The proof that I have insisted that they do, lies in the pages of Diogenes' six.  The proof that they have turned a deaf ear, even through many school board elections, mill levies and bond issues, lies in the pages of the Journal these many years.

It lies as well, in the records of NM Broadcasters Association affiliate stations KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV.

How much money does the APS spend every year,
obfuscating the production of public records?

Why won't  Journal Editor-in-Chief Kent Walz and the news directors assign reporters to investigate and report upon the truth about what the school board and superintendent are spending on litigation?

... except that they are complacent or complicit in a
cover up of the ethics, standards, and accountability crisis and scandal in the leadership of the APS?

Friday, October 10, 2014

Federal court dismisses two counts against APS, taxpayers will suffer

A federal court judge has dismissed without prejudice, link, two counts in a complaint alleging that APS is hiding public records in violation of the NM Inspection of Public Records Act.

The records in question, are public records of the findings of investigations into allegations of (state and federal) felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators.  APS has been hiding them since 2007, link.

The dispute the court did not resolve; whether the records enjoy legitimate exception under the law.

The dispute will continue and funds appropriated to educate children will be gobbled up at the rate of about $300 an hour until it is settled.  Taxpayers are paying for APS' lawyers, they are paying for my lawyers, and they will pay whatever fine is levied by the court against APS.

The person or persons in the leadership of the APS who have decided to spend operational funds in an effort to keep the ethically redacted truth secret, will not pay any part of the fine.  They will suffer no consequence at all for diverting classroom bound dollars into cost is no object litigation in order to keep the truth hidden.

Never in this process, will that person or those people, have to explain why the truth needs to remain hidden.  Note; the question is not how they can do it.  The do it by spending operational dollars on legal weaselry.

The question is why do they need to hide the ethically redacted record of their own public service?

I can think of three reasons why they need to hide the ethically redacted truth about public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS and their publicly funded private police force;

1.  the truth is embarrassing, and or

2.  the truth is shaming, and or

3.  the truth is indicting.
  • the leadership of the APS
  • the Journal editors, and
  • the news directors of KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV
    could post the reason I missed; the good and ethical reason to spend educational funds to hide the truth - if there was one.  There is not.  If there was, someone would have mentioned it by now - the litigation has been going on for years.

    Their only defense is; you can't make us!

    The APS school board and senior administration are squandering the public trust and treasure in an effort only to not be embarrassed, shamed, or criminally charged subsequent to their public record becoming public knowledge.

    Taxpayers and other stake and interest holders are being betrayed by the (establishment credentialed) press their democracy depends upon.

    Their betrayal flows from one of two founts; corruption or the lack of courage.  They are willing participants in the cover up or, they are too afraid of the consequences of finally telling the truth.  The establishment's media you see, are in a bind with respect to telling the truth about their friends in the leadership of the APS.  They are betwixt a rock and hard place;
    • they cannot report credibly on the ongoing ethics, standards and accountability crisis in the leadership of the APS
    • without they first reporting credibly on their failure to investigate and report upon credible evidence and testimony regarding on that crisis, heretofore.
    photo by ched macquigg
    As far as the the Journal goes, it's fair I believe, to blame Journal editor-in-chief Kent Walz.

    In all these years, he has never offered up the name of anyone more responsible and blameworthy than he, for the Journal's relentless refusal to investigate and report upon the ethics, standards and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.