APS Superintendent Candidates Will Evade Question

The candidates for the next superintendent of the APS
have no choice but to evade the question.

Will you be accountable as a role model?

Consider their choices, there are four; answer yes,
answer no, refuse to answer, or evade the question
(stonewall).

Easiest to hardest;

Stonewall.

It is the easiest because they can do it in secret.

The media would not ask the last superintendent
to answer the question.

They will not ask the current superintendent
to answer the question.

They will not ask the next superintendent
to answer the question;

as a matter of privilege.

Answer no.

Harder, because the candidate would eliminate themselves from serious consideration as the next superintendent.

The public would never stand for the school board
hiring a candidate that admits on the record that
they have no intention of being held accountable
as a role model for students.

Refuse to answer.

Again, this choice would end the candidate's chance of being hired.

The public would never stand for a candidate who refused, on the record,
to answer the question;

because they know what refusing to answer the question really means.

Answer yes.

This represents an impossibly difficult answer to extract from any candidate. They cannot answer yes.

There is in fact, not a single senior administrator or
board member in the entire APS
who will answer the question, yes.

The problem is that in order to be able to answer yes,
in order to actually be a role model for students,
one would have to hold themselves honestly
accountable to the student standard of conduct.

Whatever else role model means,
it means if you hold students accountable to a standard,
you hold yourself accountable to that same standard;
as an example, as a role model.

If the new superintendent were actually accountable
to the student standard of conduct,
s/he would have to hold subordinates accountable
to that same standard as well;

a widely recognized, accepted and respected
code of ethical conduct.



Which means they would all be subject to an immediate full scale accountability audit.

Which means the end to incompetence, corruption, and
the practices that enable them, in the leadership of the APS.

Which means public humiliation and disgrace, firings,
and if there is justice, civil and criminal prosecutions.

The good ole boys club would be wiped out entirely.



And since no superintendent is really going to do that;



No one is going to answer yes.
They can't answer no.
And, they can't refuse to answer.

They have no choice; they must evade the question,

Just like Paula Maes,
and every single member of the school board is doing.

Just like Linda Sink,
and every single member of the senior administration of the APS is doing.


Nobody will know about it because
the media in Albuquerque are as corrupt as
the leadership of the APS.


Thomas J Lang, publisher
Kent Walz, editor
Phill Casaus, editor
Sue Stephens, channel 7
Michelle Donaldson, channel 13, and
Thomas Pearl, channel 4.

Shame on you for not asking the question yourself
these many years.


Shame on you more
for not asking it now.