there are two kinds of communication:

ethical and unethical.

for some, immediately there is a problem.

some would argue that there is no adequate definition of the word "ethical"; and it is therefore unacceptable as a standard of communication,
or of conduct.

any transparently enforceable standard of conduct is likely to be “ethical”; and the dispute over the quality of the standard is simply misdirection and a red herring.

the only confusion over the "meaning" of "ethical conduct" is the confusion introduced by modrall lawyers in efforts to dodge accountability through legal weaselry.

if an ethical standard of conduct is not an acceptable standard of conduct; shouldn't we reexamine our conscientious and deliberate effort to convince 98,000 of our sons and daughters that it is?

should students no longer be required to model and promote the pillars of character counts a widely recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethics?

"ethical" is a worthy and practical standard of conduct; including communication.

it does no good to promote communication,
if unethical communication is still on the table.

and, unethical communication is still on the table if there is even one truth which will not be told; such as;

1. how is it that the leadership of the aps is no longer accountable as role models of the student standard of conduct?

or

1. what is the history of the aps' leadership in the administration of public interests and resources at the uptown administrative complex?

the leadership of the aps deliberated on a motion that would have required administrative truth telling, and they decided against it. robert lucero personally disposed of the motion that would have required administrative truth telling.

before there can be communication with the leadership of the aps; first it must be established that they will tell the truth; as a matter of policy. otherwise, the best that can be hoped for is unethical communication.

which is not communication at all.