Tuesday, December 23, 2008

In response to my several objections, Koshmider writes;

Mr. MacQuig (sic)

Your accusations are vague and of your opinion. A facial expression is a facial expression; not proof of anything. I cannot “track a case” without specific facts. I do not base anything on opinions. You placed the issues on the table as the basis of the complaint and cannot support it. If you have specifics I will investigate your complaint. Nothing is self evident and if that is what you have we are done. You will need to find another avenue to register this complaint.

Peg Koshmider
The tangential issues Koshmider would like to focus on instead of the real issue, were not placed on the table as the basis of the complaint. The only thing that I have ever laid on the table as the basis of the complaint, is Winston Brooks ongoing refusal to respond to the call to step up as a role model of the student standard of conduct, the real issue, and an issue that Koshmider is yet to acknowledge in any manner what so ever.

By "facial expression", she is apparently referring to the videotape of Winston Brooks refusing to answer the call to step up as a role model. The call was made last, during the public forum of the December 3, board meeting.

This is an interesting argument, and worthy of some elucidation.

If I had accused Winston Brooks of being a bank robber, and then I argued that, he has never denied it, and therefore it is proven that he is a bank robber, the argument would be nonsensical. Someone accused of bank robbery has no obligation to deny the charge. However, someone accused of not standing up as a role model, is obliged to stand up as a role model, as an integral and essential aspect of role modeling.

If someone is singing, and they can't be heard,
they must sing louder.
If someone is role modeling and they can't be seen,
they need to role model more conspicuously.
It requires an overt act. There is no such thing as inconspicuous role modeling, the concept is oxymoronic.

I have accused Winston Brooks of lacking the character and the courage to step up as a role model. His refusal to step up when asked, does prove the allegation. A role model of the Pillars of Character Counts! would step up as a role model when asked.

My allegation that Winston Brooks is unethical because he refuses to step up as a role model is proven by his failure to step up.

No matter what the latest in a long line of incompetent and corrupt Directors of Internal Audit has to say to the contrary.

cc Koshmider and Brooks upon posting.

3 comments:

Joseph said...

Wouldn't an appropriate avenue be a complaint to the Public Education Department, since they do have standards in the NM statutes that indicate that school administrators who are licensed must adhere to certain ethical waypoints?

It may go no where, but there should be at least another indicator that you tried to address an issure in government with those who act as licensers of our educators.

ched macquigg said...

I have filed a complaint with the NMPED's Educator Ethics Bureau.

The complaint was against Beth Everitt. I alleged that her refusal to hold herself honestly accountable to an ethical standard of conduct, was itself manifestly unethical.

Educator Ethics Bureau Director Paul Calderon wrote; APS has lawyers, I'm sure that they are doing nothing wrong.

He kept the case open for years and did nothing.

The NMPED Educator Ethics Bureau is every bit as corrupt as the NMPED and the APS.

ched macquigg said...

please see
http://ched-macquigg.blogspot.com/2006/10/new-mexico-educator-ethics-shmethics.html and
http://ched-macquigg.blogspot.com/2007/06/nmped-investigation-corrupt-incompetent.html