Socrates is credited with having noted that;

Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I disagree. I would argue that;

Immunity from accountability for the abuse of power; corrupts absolutely.

It is the opportunity to abuse power without consequence, that proves to be a temptation too great for mere mortals to endure.

The administration of the APS enables corruption and incompetence. They cannot provide evidence of any adjudicative system under which they are accountable to any meaningful standard of conduct.

none. If they could show you one, they would.

In a culture that enables corruption and incompetence,
corruption and incompetence will dominate.

The public corruption and criminal conspiracy
that is now coming to light is just the tip of the iceberg.

If the leadership of the APS could stand an impartial (forensic) audit; they would commission one just to clear the air. A successful audit would repair their reputation; now in shambles.

There is no ethically justifiable reason to resist an audit.

They don't want to commission an audit because they are damned by their record.

The editors of the Tribune would rather that you not ponder the ethics and accountability crisis in the leadership of the APS.

They don't want you to contemplate the fact that you were paying Tom Savage $500 a day to protect your interests; and he was unable to identify or stop the public corruption and criminal conspiracy in the administration of the APS police dept.

They don't want you to think about the fact that you were paying Beth Everitt $700 a day to make sure that the Tom Savage knew how to supervise subordinate administrators.

For your $1,200 dollars a day, you got exactly squat in the way of protection.

And the editors of the Trib don't want you to contemplate that fact for very long.

The editors would like you to focus instead upon Everitt's bold move to shuffle principals.

There is no correlation between bold and educational success. It would be a bold move to burn the schools in need of improvement to the ground. It would not be an educationally successful one.

In this context, bold means;

• complete disenfranchisement of stakeholders.
• implementing a plan with no established community support.
• implementing a plan without philosophical foundation.
• implementing a plan without any evidence that "principals" are an essential and transferable element of student success.
• destroying a number of very successful school communities.
• reckless.
  

There is no justification for denying stakeholders meaningful participation in a decision that affects them.

The editors are endorsing the validity of an educational approach with no personal experience or expertise. They are writing out of their asses. So far as I know, no Trib editor has any teaching experience; not even for one day as a substitute teacher. I will bow to controverting fact.

Or, they are writing deliberately in the hope of distracting attention from Beth Everitt's "bold" move to deny the surrender of public records of public corruption and criminal conspiracy in the leadership of the APS; even in violation of the law.