who is responsible?

the board or everitt?

a few months ago, it became apparent that there was a real possibility of public corruption in the aps police force administration.

as a public servant and their senior administrative officer, beth everitt had an obligation to investigate the situation and resolve it in the public best interests.

she has not. there are only to possibilities; she either
can not or will not close the case and surrender
the public record.

if she cannot; there must be a justification. if it cannot be demonstrated that circumstances beyond her control have kept her from closing the case; then she is incompetent.

if the case is not closed because everitt will not close it; she is corrupt.

if anyone has a third alternative, they have an obvious obligation to lay it on the table. now.


if everitt is either incompetent or corrupt; the public will expect that she be held accountable.

the public has no direct means what so ever, to hold everitt accountable. there is no venue for a taxpayer complaint over the supt's conduct or competence as a public servant.

the only public recourse is through their school board. and if the public knew, they would contact their representatives on the board expecting them to hold everitt accountable for her failure to protect their trust and treasure.

to be fair; the school board can't just barge into the lovato investigation. the school board has a responsibility not to micromanage everitt's investigation of her praetorian guard commander, gil lovato.

at some point though, it begins to look like the board is complicit in covering up the alleged administrative corruption.

and at some point it becomes a certainty that, they are complicit (choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act with others).

as at some point, are the journal and trib.