A perfectly legitimate request for information

When Gil Lovato "retired" from his position as the Chief of the APS Police Department, he complained that the leadership of the APS was using private investigators to investigate allegations of their misconduct or incompetence, instead of letting him and his Praetorian Guard conduct the investigations.

So what we have here is that, when someone gets wind of an administrator or board member doing something wrong. So the leadership of the APS hires a private investigator to gather evidence and testimony, and then to turn both over to the leadership who will decide what will be done with both.

A case in point. A private investigator was hired to investigate Peanut Butter Gate. The scandal was huge and included significant criminal misconduct, including felony criminal misconduct by at least one very senior APS administrator.

The testimony and evidence that were gathered by the private investigator are now in the possession of the leadership of APS and Modrall. And no one else.

APS Custodian of Public Records Rigo Chavez relates that the testimony and evidence has not been turned over to the DA's Office, because the investigation is still "underway."

The "investigation is still under way" two years after the scandal made headlines. link

The investigation will not be completed until after statutes of limitation expire, and good ol' boys except themselves from accountability to the law. The expiration of statutes of limitation are weeks, maybe days, away.



It is fair to assume that many of the private investigations of executive and administrative misconduct have revealed criminal misconduct. How many of those were referred to law enforcement? How many were not?

Beth Everitt alluded to this possibility when she suggested that Lovato would retaliate against her by revealing something about her and drunk driving. She did not elaborate.

At the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest is created when the leadership of the APS investigates itself and then keeps the results secret from public knowledge.

The leadership of the APS "claims" accountability to standards of conduct which prohibit creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.



So my perfectly legitimate request for information is this;

Will the leadership of the APS surrender an ethically redacted version of every one of those investigations to public knowledge?

Yes or no?

cc Winston Brooks, Monica Armenta, Jon Barela, Marty Esquivel, Delores Griego, Berna Facio, Robert Lucero, and Paula Maes upon posting.

I will also shoot a copy to KOB, KOAT, KRQE and the Journal
for whatever good that will do.

photo courtesy of Mark Bralley link