Winston Brooks obligations

In the strictest sense, the superintendent is accountable only to the school board.

School board members are accountable for their selection of the superintendent, at election.

In order for voters to hold school board members accountable for their conduct and competence with respect to the employment of a superintendent, they have to know of the conduct and competence of their superintendent.

If the details of the conduct and competence of a Superintendent are kept secret from stakeholders, how are they to hold anyone accountable for anything?

Winston Brooks owes stakeholders a candid, forthright, and honest appraisal of his successes and his failures. He owes stakeholders a response to a legitimate question;

What have you done since taking administrative control over the APS, that speaks to your conduct and competence as the Superintendent of the APS?

The School Board as well, owes stakeholders candid, forthright, and honest responses to a few legitimate questions;

How has the Superintendent that you have hired, performed.?
Are you satisfied or unsatisfied?
What do you intend to do about your (dis)satisfaction?

A useful tool in evaluating the conduct and competence of a chief administrative officer, is an independent audit of their administration; a full scale standards and accountability audit.

It is an useful enough tool that a Superintendent's contract should should contain provisions for firing a superintendent who cannot manage to create the circumstances that lead to a clean audit.

Yet, neither the Board nor the Superintendent will answer
questions about the first Annual APS Administrative
Standards and Accountability Audit.

They will neither explain, defend, deny, nor even acknowledge their decision to prevent an audit.

And the Journal will allow the board elections to begin without writing a word about it.


Paula Maes constituents deserve to know the Paula Maes stood on the record and said that she would never allow any audit that named the corrupt and incompetent by name.

Mary Lee Martin's constituents deserve to know that Mary Lee Martin refuses to be held honestly accountable as a role model of the student standard of conduct, a standard that she herself, voted to adopt.

And what about their opponents? What if they wanted to tell voters that they would behave differently? How can the Journal justify keep this information secret from them?


How can the Journal's steadfast refusal to investigate and report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS

through another board election, through more school bond elections, and through more mill levy elections

except in an effort to cover up the systemic lack of standards and accountability in the leadership of the APS?