The School Board will meet in Secret Tomorrow.

Note; this post is rewritten under the same title.

I have been called to task by a reader; for the title.

The school board will meet tomorrow, in a "closed" meeting,
not a "secret" meeting.

There is a difference between a secret meeting;

a meeting that takes place without stakeholders
knowing that the meeting took place.

and a closed meeting;

where the stakeholders know the meeting will take
place; but are not invited to attend.

The secret part;
the actual public service performed by public servants
being paid for their public service during the meeting.

Although I am not entirely convinced that
I have used the word incorrectly in the title,

I am happy to accept accountability and the responsibility
to acknowledge the complaint, and offer clarification.


The meeting is a "closed" meeting, not a "secret" meeting.

NOTICE OF MEETING
BOARD OF EDUCATION
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Education,
City of Albuquerque will hold a Closed Meeting
pursuant to Section 10-15-1 (H) (2) NMSA
1978 (limited personnel matters)
on Saturday, March 22, at 9:00 AM in
the DeLayo-Martin Community Room.
The purpose of the meeting is to
discuss the contract for the new Superintendent
of the Albuquerque Public Schools. (my emphasis added)

Public servants will gather together
within their public service;
to discuss the contract of another public servant;
an expression of the terms of public service.

Paula Maes/Modrall will conduct the entire discussion of the
terms of Winston Brooks' public service in secret from
stakeholders.

Stakeholders have nothing to say about a contract that
does not require the senior administrative role model
of the student standards of conduct and competence;

to be actually accountable as a role model at all.


The very worst thing any public servant can do
is anything they do in secret.


She and they, are not required by the law
to conduct the entire meeting in secret.

I would be surprised if the law actually required any of it
to be conducted in secret.

At most, the law allows the secrecy.

The code of ethics that would apply to this meeting,

had not Paula Maes and the good ol' boys
excepted themselves from accountability to it,

would be the student standard of conduct.
Students are required to model and promote
a standard of conduct that requires from them;

"... more than the law requires, and less than
the law allows."

The student code of conduct,

were they still accountable to it,

would require them to be candid, forthright and honest
about the terms of public service of
the senior most administrative public servant in the APS.

They will not show you a contract that requires
Winston Brooks to be honestly accountable as a role model
of the student standard of conduct.

(not even for the eight measly hours a day that he is
the senior most administrative public servant in the APS.

If the secrecy was ethically justifiable;
they would justify it.


APS' Executive Director of Communications
(and poster nazi link), Monica Armenta

could come up with a way of communicating
that justification to stakeholders.

Couldn't she?


And yes,
there are circumstances that ethically justify secrecy;

these simply are not them.