Email exchanges between APS School Board President, Marty Esquivel and me.

Esquivel and I have been exchanging emails with the
understanding that the exchange was off of the record.
I asked Esquivel for permission to quote freely.
He agreed, based on a scurrilous and ethically indefensible
stipulation, a stipulation which I have, never the less, met. link




From: Charles MacQuigg
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:47 AM

Mr. Esquivel,

1. Last evening during the board meeting, Paula Maes made reference to me personally, and then addressed me personally. I responded to her, and you told me to shut up or leave the room.

I am not sure how you can justify your response; it seems completely inappropriate.

2. I have asked you three times now, about whether or not my Whistleblower complaints fall under board policy which reads;

D. The Audit Committee reviews and recommends approval of ...any whistleblower complaints.

You have ignored the question, and I am not sure why.
Your choice to ignore the question makes me believe that
I do in fact have the right to defend my complaints, and
that you are denying me the opportunity to exercise that right for reasons, which without any explanation or justification for your decision; look dishonorable.

I am entitled to a hearing, a justification for the denial of a
hearing, or at least some good faith response to the question.
Your continued insistence on ignoring the question is inexcusable.

Marty Esquivel responded;

What she said was not out of line. You did not have a right to pop off.
To my knowledge, the Audit Committee will not hear your this claim you consider a complaint.
It seems to me that there are probably more productive things to do with your life.

From: Charles MacQuigg
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:39 AM

1. pop off? It was out of line for her to call on me, and offer no opportunity to respond to her remarks.
All I did was express my resentment that she was talking about me and to me, and offering no opportunity to respond.
You didn't even listen to what I was saying; you interjected before I finished the one sentence response.

2. "Will not hear", is not what I am asking. What does the language mean if it does not mean that the committee has an obligation to review and recommend approval?

How can the committee legally refuse to do something that board policy obviously requires?

If you were representing me as a lawyer in a suit for a writ of mandamus; to order the board to do what board policy requires it to do, would you argue that I have a right to an audit committee review and approval.

3. While I will concede that I have not been "productive" in my efforts to get the leadership of the APS to step up as role models; that doesn't mean that I am doing something wrong, or doing the wrong thing.

There is less "wrong" with what I am doing, than with what you are doing.

• your denial my right to a hearing of my complaints,
• your refusal to engage in a candid, forthright and honest discussion of administrative and executive role modeling of the student standard of conduct, and
• your refusal to put standards and accountability on the table for an honest discussion.

none of which is even remotely defensible, or you would offer one.

You have called me a nut on several occasions. Each time, I asked you to point to the nutty part, and you steadfastly refuse to defend your libel.
If I am a nut, why can't you point to something "nutty" that I have done?
save standing up for what I believe in, even if I am standing alone.

Do you have any objection to my quoting freely from our email exchanges regarding role modeling, standards and accountability, and the denial of my right to a principled resolution of legitimate complaints?

Marty Esquivel wrote:

Not much more I can tell you, Ched. Jon and I did our best in trying to talk to you.

If you want to quote from today’s email conversation, then all I ask is that you disclose 1) the allegations made against you leading up to your termination with APS, and 2) the amount of your settlement with APS and the terms of what you agreed to, and 3) that you were represented by counsel when you entered into that agreement. In fact, I suggested you post it on your blog and allow people to draw their own conclusions regarding your potential bias and motives. The settlement agreement, after all, is a public record.

If you can’t agree to that, then no deal

From: Charles MacQuigg
Sent: Thursday,3/5/2009 4:24 PM

What an unconscionable demand.

This is about the message, it is not about the messenger.

Assume for the sake of your argument; that I am egregiously biased and operating under the most foul of motives, so what?
What difference does it make?

My credibility is not an issue. I have not asked any body to trust me, or even believe me.

I don't require trust or belief. The question stands independent of who asks it.
And I have a constitutionally protected human right to ask it.

I have a right to ask a question without having my character assassinated for no reason except retaliation for having asked a legitimate question.

I want the whole public record be looked at. It has been my consistent demand for years. I stand proudly on my record. I have nothing to hide.

The question of whether or not you will stand on the record and answer legitimate questions about administrative and executive role modeling of the Student Standard of Conduct, candidly, forthrightly, and honestly, has nothing at all, do with who asks the question.

The immediate conclusion that I draw from your scurrilous demand, is that you are threatening to embarrass me by revisiting old lies, if I threaten to embarrass you by asking you questions about role modeling of the student standard of conduct.


Further, I suspect that you know full well the details of my termination.

And, you know full well, that there was, there is, and there never will be any real evidence that I have ever done anything more wrong than trying to hold a corrupt and incompetent asshole of a principal accountable for his corruption and his incompetence.

And then, the administrators, the board members, and the system that covered his ass.

And, you know that photographs of the principals standing, literally, with their arms crossed while permitting prohibited behavior; sagging, were twisted in the most perverted of ways to discredit the messenger,

instead of dealing with the issue of incontrovertible photographic evidence of incompetent and corrupt site administrators.

Former State Supreme Court Chief Justice William Riordan reversed my termination in arbitration.
He wrote that the two men pushing the termination; the principal and the assistant principal,

"lacked credibility in the face of controverting testimony from anyone at all."

I will not drag my father's good name through the mud for any reason, much less for no reason.


I can't believe that you are piling on to that disgusting heap of shit.

From: Charles MacQuigg
Sent: Thursday, 3/5/2009 10:04 AM

Mr. Esquivel,

That you wrote; " ... this claim you consider a complaint.", leads me to believe that you have not even taken the time to acquaint yourself with the evidence, before making your determination.
This is exactly what I am talking about when I insist that I have been denied a principled resolution;
you are making decisions without having considered any testimony, evidence, or arguments.
How can you defend this?

I filed two complaints with APS SilentWhistle.
It is of these complaints, that I seek review and approval.

By what process do bonafide complaints morph into "claims"?