Eager to Place Blame, Journal Editors Blame the Wrong People

In their editorial, (sub req), the editors decided that a new principal and a new APS PD dispatcher will catch the flak for APS' mishandling of a creepy substitute teacher with a video camera.

The system didn't protect these little girls from a creep.

Monica Armenta says she didn't see, and wasn't aware of a previous report that there was a problem with this particular teacher.

Apparently, this was not the first time this gentleman has drawn attention to himself for inappropriate behavior around little girls. The question, why didn't the system act to protect children from further danger?, will go unanswered.

But someone has to bear the brunt of community outrage; so how about a police dispatcher with four months on the job? And an administrator with two weeks experience as a principal?

Sure, a mistake was made in returning evidence to the perpetrator. A fairly glaring mistake. But was it the most important aspect of the case?

The staff at the school called the BCSO for help; why?

Is it because the APS PD (at the administrative level), has a well earned reputation as a Praetorian Guard used in damage control for the district's image.

The annual statistical crime report ...may be inaccurate and possibly misleading. The team was advised that there is a prevailing culture of under-reporting incidents to improve the image of the district and individual schools.

According the recent Council of the Great City Schools Audit, the prevailing culture in the leadership of the APS is one that deliberately and routinely deceives stakeholders.

That would have been worth investigation and report.

Also worthy of investigation and report; why didn't the "system" pick this guy up? The people at the school site picked it up. Why was this guy allowed another opportunity to be alone with kids, after a red flag had already been raised about his conduct?

The record shows that Charlie Moore and the Journal won't investigate and report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

Is it because they are just incompetent beyond belief;
or is it because, as seems increasingly obvious,
they are a party to the cover up?

The certainty is that, the leadership of the APS and the media have one very important thing in common; a privilege that they wish to protect; public attention to which, they do not want.

Neither is accountable to an enforceable
code of ethical conduct.

The community has no choice in the matter with regard to the media; what are we going to do; stop buying newspapers? stop watching local TV news?

But we do have a choice in the matter
when it comes to public servants.

The terms of public in-servitude include
accountability to the public; and to meaningful standards
of conduct and competence.

Some public servants won't accept those terms. They set their own terms of public in-servitude; and they don't include honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence;

except by systems circumstances, over which they have control.


The control of public resources and decision making power,
has been usurped by those to whom it was entrusted.

They do not intend to give it back.


Power and resources belonging fundamentally to the public,
are being used against the public interest;

To protect corrupt and incompetent public servants,
from accountability to meaningful standards
of conduct and competence.


And even in violation of the law.