Getting a handle on the scope of the scandal

Suppose that an honest APS administrative accountability audit is done.

It will reveal that the administration of the APS has weak and/or non-existent standards of conduct and competence for administrators or board members.

It will reveal that there is no system under which complaints against administrators or board members will receive a fair and impartial adjudication.

It will reveal that as a result of lax standards and weak accountability, that there are a number of administrators who are unqualified for their positions by virtue of their incompetence and/or their lack of character.

How many? That is the really tough question. It depends of course, on exactly how incompetence and corruption are defined for the purpose of the audit.

There are enough that their removal and/or remediation will be felt; a significant, appreciable, and positive change will take place in the leadership of the APS.


An indication of how widespread the corruption and incompetence is, is the fact that there is not a single APS administrator advocating for an immediate and impartial audit; despite the fact that such an audit is not a threat except to the corrupt and the incompetent.

Another indicator, is the effort that is being made to keep the subject of an audit from public knowledge. The local media would not have forfeited their credibility and reputations were there not a lot powerful people using their influence over the media to cover up the scandal;

powerful people who's record of public service will not survive an audit.