The SilentWhistle complaint against Winston Brooks

I am still trying to afford myself of due process regarding
a complaint filed against Winston Brooks by means of APS'
SilentWhistle whistle blower program.

The complaint was closed without a principled resolution
by the person against whom it was filed.

There is an obvious appearance of a conflict of interest.

Creating the appearance of a conflict of interest is expressly
and specifically prohibited under the School Board's own
Code of Ethics link, which reads;

(rule) "7. Avoid conflicts of interest or
the appearance thereof ..."

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

You tell me. The complaint is that;

"Winston Brooks refuses to hold himself honestly
accountable to (the Student Standards of Conduct).

Winston Brooks refuses to make the overt gesture of holding
himself honestly accountable to the same standard of conduct
that he enforces upon students. The student standards of
conduct, are ethical standards of conduct.

Role modeling is only role modeling if it is overt.
There is no such thing as an inconspicuous role model.

In order for Winston Brooks to claim that he is a role
model of the Student Standards of Conduct,
he must at some point, point to the place where he has
subjected himself to honest accountability
to those clearly written standards. link

He cannot because, there is no place; he is not honestly
accountable to the Student Standards of Conduct.

The fact that he can close a complaint against himself and
get away with it, is proof on its face, that he is not honestly
accountable to any ethical standards of conduct at all;
which is unethical.

At the time the complaints were filed; APS promised the
principled resolution of complaints of unethical conduct.
link The word "unethical" has since been removed from
the list of complaints that can be made to SilentWhistle.
The word was removed by the leadership of the APS because
they are not accountable to any standards of ethical conduct
and because they have no intention of ever being held
accountable to ethical standards of conduct.

At this very moment, they are plotting some way of preventing
a role modeling clause from being added to their own standards
of conduct. link

So is this a nuisance complaint? Is it frivolous?

This question warrants discussion.
It deserves due process.

The only reason to deny the complaints their due process,
is to avoid the public embarrassment that the truth will precipitate.

Which is not an ethical reason to deny due process.
It is unethical conduct.