New Standards for Employees, Same Disregard for Stakeholder Input

It was announced at the policy committee meeting this afternoon; that the administrative leadership of the APS would like to hold teachers and other employees accountable for their conduct outside of school and away from students.

The five other jaws dropped as one when Board Member
Marty Esquivel said, OK, but if we're going to do this
thing for employees; it should be for board members too.

Robert Lucero was so stunned that he didn't inform Mr. Esquivel that the board is not accountable to the employee code of conduct because they are not really "employees". Lawyer Melendrez from Modrall has offered his expert legal opinion that in fact, board members are not covered by the employee code of conduct because they are not really "employees".

Lucero did ask Superintendent Everitt if the board could hold principals accountable outside of their work and contact with students.

Everitt said that there was no "final agreement" with the principals; hoping people would assume that, that meant an agreement was near. Then she described the conversation as "very preliminary". That's APS spin-speak for, they haven't talked about it at all; an allegation easily verified by asking any principal.


APS Executive Director of Human Resources Trybus was there to run a few ideas for changes in the employee code of conduct, by the board;

• The Administration would like to hold teachers and other employees accountable for misconduct outside of school and away from students.
• They would like to do random background checks on employees.
• They would like to require employees to inform supervisors if they have been arrested, and not yet convicted of a crime.
• When asked, lawyer Melendrez informed the board that they could get away with it "legally".

All of this will be news to the employee unions.

When (I think it was Mr. Esquivel who) asked what the employee unions thought about all of this; Trybus informed the board that union representatives have not participated in the policy development so far.

I think it was Robert Lucero who offered that teachers and other employees could have input into the policies after they were implemented and during contract negotiations.

You see, it's not really about whether or not employees should be accountable to their employer for what they do when they are not at work;

it is about the leadership of the APS saying that they intend change with regard to communication and stakeholder participation, only to betray the trust of stakeholders, over and over again.

Fool me once, shame on you;
fool me twice, shame on me.


How can anyone possibly believe APS leadership?

How many times will they look us in the eye,
promise to improve communication,
and then betray our trust;

before we finally concede that they can not be trusted?

And that there is a reason that they have
excepted themselves from accountability to any
standard of conduct that prohibits a betrayal of trust?