Updates on School Board Training in Houston

After an essay on the secrecy surrounding a school board expedition to Houston link, the APS Communications Department swung into high gear. Not only did Rigo Chavez rush to get something up on the district website link, but they apparently got in touch with Journal reporter Andrea Schoellkopf, who then wrote a piece for this morning's Journal. link

The Journal reports that APS sent ten people to Houston; Rigo Chavez told me yesterday afternoon that eleven people went. The Journal reports that the expedition will cost taxpayers about $17K, but Rigo Chavez told me that that number doesn't include (most) meals.

The final cost will be somewhere around $20K.

Is it a worthwhile investment to send these people to Houston to study accountability when three days after they get back, they will sit at the dais at a board meeting and refuse once again to tell stakeholders the truth about public interests in the APS?

How can they claim to be accountable, and at the same time refuse to discuss a time, a date, and a place where they will stand and answer legitimate questions about the public interests? How can they claim to be accountable while they steadfastly refuse to tell the truth?

Schoellkopf's article raises the same questions about the implied Open Meetings Act violations that I first raised on September 2, 2008 link.

According to Schoellkopf;

Superintendent Winston Brooks said the Houston training "... certainly wasn't intended to circumvent public input and public observation. ..."

Never the less, it did circumvent public input and observation. The article reads;

"The board had been promoting the training for months, ..."

which brings us to what the meaning of the word "is" is, and what the word "promote" means. I would suggest that APS' effort to inform stakeholders about the meeting does not even approach any reasonable definition of the word promote;

To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity:

The simple truth is that the meeting was not "promoted". The truth is that they were aware of OMA issues, decided not to address them directly, and went ahead with the meeting anyway.

Schoellkopf reports, accurately,

The Houston conference is listed on the APS Web site calendar, but there is no accompanying agenda. The Open Meetings Act requires that meeting notices include an agenda, unless the session is an emergency. (emphasis added)

The Journal reports;

"Board member Marty Esquivel, an attorney who specializes in open government, said he raised the question of open meetings before the trip and was assured that the event would be posted publicly."

Now we can argue with the lawyers of APS Modrall about the meaning of the phase "posted publicly", a phrase they will argue does not include posting even the agenda, on the APS website.

Bottom line, the good ol' boys knew there were problems, could have addressed the problems easily, but because they they really don't want people knowing all about the trip to Houston, decided to simply blow off their obligations under the law.

Once again, tax payers and stakeholders are being jacked around by the arrogance of the leadership of the APS and their tax payer paid lawyers.