Two Steps Forward; One Step Back

On the agenda; the scope of the administrative audit (and other less important considerations).

Will the audit, audit the conduct and competence of public servants within their public service?

Marty Esquivel asks; how can you audit a department and not coincidently audit the person who runs the department?

Paula Maes says she will not allow Tom Savage, for example, to have his conduct and competence as a public servant be objectively and impartially measured and reported to the public.

She will not allow the senior administrator most responsible for the public corruption and criminal conspiracy in the leadership of the APS Police Department to be audited. She will not allow any corrupt or incompetent administrator to be audited. No record will be created that will allow any senior administrator or board member to be held accountable for their conduct or competence as a public servant.

No vote was taken on the scope; a step backwards. A clear win for APS/Modrall. Paula Maes and her husband's law firm have escaped the scope of an audit.

Two steps forward; Marty Esquivel will chair a subcommittee that will gather public input on the scope of the audit (and other less important considerations). He needs public support to take on Paula Maes, Modrall, et al. If there are public meetings on the scope of the audit, there is a greater likelihood of wide spread public awareness. The Journal and the Trib would at some point have no other choice except to tell their readers the truth about the controversy over the audit.

A step back; Robert Lucero, administrative apologist and representative of the corrupt and incompetent in the leadership of the APS, has insinuated himself into the position of co-chair of that committee. It will be no different than if Paula Maes was co-chair.

Robert Lucero who has never turned his back on the opportunity to say something public; will say nothing on the record about the scope of the audit.

Just as he will say nothing about his personal responsibility for killing a motion before the board that would have required administrators and board members to tell the truth, as an enforceable matter of policy.

Just as he will say nothing about his vote to remove the following from his own standard of conduct as a public servant, as the steward of a billion tax dollars a year, and as a senior role model for students;

In no case shall the standard of conduct for an adult be lower than the standard of conduct for students.


He and four other sitting board members voted to remove that phrase from their code of conduct. Now, students are accountable to a higher standard of conduct than the most senior role models in the district.

Now he and the leadership of the APS can not be held accountable to any meaningful standard of conduct, except under a system which they control, and never against their will.

Now there will be no principled resolution of allegations of ethical and criminal misconduct, including felony criminal misconduct by senior APS administrators and board members.