Any answer except yes, is no.

APS Superintendent,
Winston Brooks,

Are you just another good ol' boy, come to
Albuquerque for a few years in the sunny southwest?

signed,
a concerned stakeholder.

There are four possible responses.

1. He could answer yes.

And there would be nothing that even the media
could do to save his job in the APS.

2. He could suggest an ethical challenge to the question;

the expectation that it be answered yes or no only
may ethically indefensible. Wording or what ever,
made it unfair to pose the question as asked.

In which case the wording is negotiated.

The rub here, in order to negotiate
the wording of the question; you kind of have to admit
that you heard the question.

At which point the corrupt and the incompetent
in the leadership of the APS are pretty much screwed.

Their continued exception to accountability depends
on their keeping the truth from stakeholders.

Once Pandora's Box is opened, by admitting that
they heard the question, there is no turning back.

Sooner or later they are going to have to come up with
a good and ethical reason not to have an audit.

And since there simply isn't one,
they are at that point going to be audited and held
accountable and there is no way that even

Thomas Lang, Mary Lynn Roper,
and Michelle Donaldson

are ever going to be able to put Humpty
back together again.

3. He could say no.

The rub here, you can't just say you aren't
a good ol' boy; you have to prove it.

It can be easily proved, simply
by pulling the plug on the other good ol' boys;

It can be easily proved, beyond any reasonable doubt,

by beginning an impartial accountability audit.

4. He will offer no response at all...

Stonewalling is exactly the same thing as
answering the question yes;

but without the loosing your job part.