Questions Raised Over Atrisco Incident

In one of the first reports on the substitute teacher who apparently placed a video camera in a position to record views under little girls skirts; it was mentioned that a school counselor had previously complained that the same substitute had been observed in questionable circumstances with another little girl after school; and had been reported for same.

That article quoted Armenta as saying she had not seen that complaint and was unaware of it. That was several days ago.

This morning's Journal reports;

"Armenta said the substitute has worked in the district since August 2005. He went through all the routine background checks, and no problems involving students had been reported to APS."

How can Ms. Armenta still claim to be unaware of the previous complaint; the one whose existence she acknowledged when she said she hadn't seen it? There is an appearance that Armenta is not being candid and forthright with stakeholders.

Was there, or was there not a previous complaint about this sub?

Was that complaint handled appropriately? Should this gentleman have been allowed to continue to substitute teach around little girls? Did someone drop the ball? Who?

Will the inconsistency in Armenta's statements be investigated?

Apparently; No, No, Yes, ?, and No.