I am, apparently, a "nuisance".

I filed a complaint against Winston Brooks by means of
APS' SilentWhistle.

The complaint was closed without a principled resolution.

Winston Brooks closed the complaint against himself,
claiming it was "a nuisance".

This will probably be the same excuse that will be used to
deny the complaint its due process; "review and approval"
the audit committee; review and approval that is required
according to school board policy.

The audit committee will not review and approve the handling
of the complaint, because they don't want to have to argue
the wrong side of the argument in public.

The complaint; Winston Brooks deliberate choice to avoid
honest accountability to an ethical code of conduct, is manifest
unethical conduct.

Whether one agrees with the argument or not; one cannot
reasonably argue that the complaint is frivolous.

Neither can one argue that the audit committee is excused
from its obligation to review and approve of the handling of
the complaint, simply because the subject of the complaint,
regards the complaint as a nuisance.

And this is exactly what I mean when I write that,
Winston Brooks is not honestly accountable to any standard
of ethical conduct, and therefore cannot claim to be
a role model of ethical conduct.

My allegation that, an APS senior administrator fraudulently
misrepresented the efficacy of SilentWhistle to Moss Adams
auditors, and to the school board, is apparently also
a "nuisance" and therefore, will never see the light of day.