The Debate Over Arming APS Police Was Energetic

There weren't any surprises. Those in favor of the arming argued that it made sense from the standpoint of safety; the safety of students and staff and of police officers.

The opposing argument was a little more convoluted and specious. I gleaned a couple of common threads; arming cops does not mitigate the need to arm cops, and the "west side" doesn't trust people in uniform in general, and more specifically armed uniforms.

I heard "them" argue that arming police officers will not lower the drop out rate, nor will it raise test scores. I heard young people expressing fear of, and antagonism for, for police officers.

Delores Griego is the spokesperson apparent, for the mistrust that the west side has for the rest of the community.

She has an obligation to articulate that issue before the board (and community). To get it on the table with all of its warts exposed.

Or stop bringing it up.

She needs to walk her talk;
or let someone else speak in her stead.

The first step in addressing any problem is to define it;
candidly, forthrightly, honestly.

It begins with kind of communication that the leadership of the APS advocates; but fails to enable.

I hear all the time from people who have emailed their board member, and been ignored.

By what logic can board members refuse to answer questions about their public service?

The public forum needs to be restored to the public record; and then used as a forum where stakeholders can ask questions, and expect to receive a good faith response.

There are ethical and acceptable limitations on the questions which can be asked; and upon the responses that can be expected. That line is not reasonable drawn at;

there will be no questions, and there will be no answers.