The following is an exchange of emails between
board member Marty Esquivel and myself.
They began under a subject line of;
absolutely on the record
Mr. Esquivel,To which he replied;
Would I be writing the truth?,
if I wrote that during the 2(?) hours
Winston Brooks spent being interviewed by you and the board;
the subject of a full scale accountability audit was not discussed?
the subject of administrative standards of conduct was not discussed?
the subject of admiistrative standards of competence was not discussed?
the subject of administrative role modeling was not discussed?
And further,
As my representative,
I would like hear your explanation of the need
to keep the questions and the answers secret from public knowledge.
As always I am on a deadline.
I am trying to get this done before I am completely spent
emotionally and intellectually.
gfytaa
macqI'm on my own deadlines, Ched. Sorry.To which I replied;what does that mean, exactlyTo which he replied;
are you asking for time
or telling me to forget about a response all together.
It means that I'm in the middle of writing a brief and I'll get back to
you when I can.
At this point, I believe that it is fair
to regard this as stonewalling.
And to proceed under the assumption that it is;
in the absence of controverting proof.
Stonewalling violates the standard of that Mr. Esquivel and every other member of the leadership
tells our children is a worthy standard of conduct
at least for students;
even if not for their most senior role models.
cc to Esquivel upon posting.
6 comments:
I love your blog Ched, but I have to say, somewhat in Marty's defense (though I've never met the man)... there's times in Board MEetings and Educational issues when we can't even talk to our spouses about what was discussed in meetings, no matter how much we want to get their input, or vent.
MArty is on the hot seat. I get the feeling, mostly from your past blogs, that he's trying to do the right thing...but as you would say, the wrath of Paula/Modrall can be great.
It could be construed, or interpreted, that Marty cannot ethicazlly, or in some cases legally, dissemenate board information... again, the wrath of Modrall shadows such proceedings, I suppose.
I have been in situations similar to MArty's and I would guess, in order for him to remain effective to any degree, their are times when he can't let loose because it could inhibit fufutre plans and alliances.
I hope that makes sense..I'm just trying to talk from experience.
This comment replaces comment number two; with a greater investment.
In the first place;
What do these people really have to do in secret?
When you consider the damage that is done by secrecy, wouldn't it have to be really worth it, to justify it?
Any public servant who seeks to do anything in secret, must at least justify the secrecy. The process has to be transparent and above board.
I cannot imagine, but I will concede that there are questions and answers which can be asked and answered in secret, ethically.
No other question, and no other answer can be justifiably hidden.
In Las Vegas, gamblers are told that the house will never offer you anything that does not work to the house's advantage.
These folks operate in secret because it works to their advantage.
They operate in secret because they have to. Whatever it is they are doing cannot stand the light of day; or they would not need to hide it.
I don't trust them.
Even if I did, trust is a poor second to transparent accountability, in terms of protecting the public interests in the public schools.
thank you for your kind attention to D6, and for taking the time to write.
Back to you Ched...I wrote the first comment.
I agree that secrecy in government is by it's very nature, not positive, especially when it is commonplace policy.
There are times when documents concerning student and/or parental and/or personnell names should only be released if the identifying person's are ficticiously named, or blacked out.
Or, if secrecy is decided on an issue, the policy should be that the secrecy must have a short time limit, say 2 or 3 weeks.
There are times when a temporary secrech must be placed, but such secrecies must be documented, and the secrecy status should be revoked after the agreed time limit.
Yes, I definitly agree with you that permanent, undocumented or long-term secrets should never be a part of APS...there's virtually no need, unless it's during something like a contract bid season.
YOU ARE CORRECT, the secrets enable the good ole boy network, and should not be used to keep the public in the dark!
So....
He's had enough time now, did he ever get back to you? I too live in his district, and was so excited when he first was on the board making waves.
Beginning to look like Paula unleashed a tsunami on him and he is all washed up now. I hope not, but with his support of Sink, and his behavior lately, it is beginning to look like it. GOB system sucks in another one.
Deja vu all over again.
http://ched-macquigg.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-there-heir-apparent-in-board.html
Post a Comment