gil lovato's paid "vacation"

enters its forty fifth day tomorrow.

the obvious question is; will he ever be held accountable to any meaningful standard of conduct?

a more important question is; will those who are responsible for protecting the public interests in their public schools; the leadership of the aps, ever be held accountable for failing to hold senior administrators accountable for their conduct and competence as public servants?

the answer is most probably no.

in the aps powerful public servants clearly enjoy a privilege; they are excepted from accountability.

the truth about that exception in the leadership of the aps, and about gil lovato's conduct and competence as a public servant, exists on public records.

yet they will not surrender those public records to the public. rigo chavez will tell you that it is none of your business.

which is of course, nonsense.

the new mexico inspection of public records act provides no exception for the leadership of the aps. the only exception that the board, administration and modrall enjoy from the act,
is the exception they provide for themselves by using public funds, legal loopholes, technicalities, and legal weaselry to dodge accountability even to the law.

they are powerful enough, apparently, that they cannot be held accountable for their conduct or competence as public servants.

the power they wield against transparency and accountability in their public service is not even their power. it is ours. they have usurped control over our power and they are using it to dodge accountability.

the public has no control what so ever, over their power and resources in the aps.

i submit as proof:

• the terms of public service are written by the public, and not by the public servant

• and public servants are accountable to the public,

• and they are accountable to a meaningful standard of conduct,

• by an absolutely transparent system over which they have no control,

• and even against their will;

if those were the terms of public service in the aps,
those public records would be public. and they are not.

if those were the terms of beth everitt's public service,
she could be required to justify expenditures on the extravagant new boardroom, or her failure to prevent them. and she can not.