Tuesday, April 10, 2007

aps' everitt stresses aps police review is "not an audit"

according to wikipedia, as reasonable a source of definitions as any;

an audit is an evaluation of an organization, system, process, project or product. Audits are performed to ascertain the validity and reliability of information, and also provide an assessment of a system's internal control. Auditing is therefore a part of some quality control certifications; the goal is to minimise any error, hence making information valid and reliable.

It is performed by competent, independent and objective person or persons, known as auditors or accountants, who then issue a report on the results of the audit.

Such systems must adhere to generally accepted standards set by governing bodies that regulate businesses. It simply provides assurance for third parties or external users that such statements present 'fairly' a company's financial condition and results of operations.
further, everitt is quoted as saying the audit will not review her highly suspect handling of gil lovato's suspension. that investigation is now in its fourth month and has not offered even one shred of truth to stakeholders.

it should not go unnoticed, that the district has not offered an opportunity for any stakeholders to have any input on the scope and range of the police audit. the district will control contact with "disgruntled" employees. if you can control the questions, the "answers" are less problematic.

all of which begs the question; why not? why is this not an audit of the operations of the aps police department? why is this not an audit of the performance or the senior administration of the aps?

the obvious answer is that she, and unidentified administrators, board members, and lawyers, don't want the review to reveal any inconvenient truths.

lovato's attorney is quoted by the trib as saying; the (district's own?) school police audit in 2001 was a "glowing review". gee, ya think? the head of the praetorian guard gets a glowing review from those most responsible for his "alleged" misconduct in that capacity.

again, according to the trib, everitt said that the council of great city schools has in the past, reviewed various district departments; special education, maintenance and operations, technology and legal services. the truth is that the results of those audits are still still secret. neither the district nor the cgcs has made the results public.

"everitt said the district took advice from each of these reviews to improve operations."

I beg to disagree. the cgcs audit of the m&o revealed that in the aps; "there is a culture of fear of retaliation and retribution." that same audit revealed that in the aps, "administrative evaluations are subjective and unrelated to promotions or step placement."
in response to a request for public records that reflected any policy changes as a result of either audit, the district offered nothing. even when required by law, they can produce no evidence that they changed anything as a result of the audit.

ms. everitt, I challenge you to IMMEDIATELY post all of the cgcs audits on the district's website accompanied by documented policy changes in response to the audits. if you have told the truth, you have nothing to hide; post the audits and policy changes.

if you cannot do that, then I suggest that you cannot be taken at your word. just like when you promised voters on live talk radio, before the school tax election, that you would support any kind of audit; a promise upon which you seem to have repeated reneged. where is the administrative accountability audit you promised to support? you won't even talk about it on the record.

I defy you to prove that you ever made any of the audit results public; if they were made public; it should be easy to prove that the audit results were not in fact, kept from the public scrutiny.

I defy you or paula maes/modral to prove that you have publicized or acted upon any of the complaints raised by the cgsc audit of the district's relationship with the modral law firm.

I suspect that one of the reasons that aps stays a member of the cgcs is not for "information on best practices" as you claim, but to get audits done that neither the district nor the cgcs will release, and upon which you are required to take no action.

I suspect that you maintain a relationship with the cgcs to insure audits that will not see you held accountable for your corruption and your incompetence.

the trib, which mentioned none of this, was told about all of it.
on my honor; and verifiable by polygraph; without reservation.

No comments: