Standards and accountability

In this context, standards and accountability are inseparable.
One without the other, is meaningless.

There is not a wit of difference between the highest standard
of conduct and the lowest, if there is accountability to neither.

By the same token, honest accountability to inadequate
standards serves no useful purpose either.

Therefore, if the problems of inadequate standards and
accountability are to be ended, they are ended only by the
combination of ;

• high standards and
• honest accountability.

APS has "high standards" on the books. In fact, the Employee
Standards of Conduct read in significant part;

"APS expects each employee to maintain
the highest standards of conduct ... at all times."

There are obvious problems with the the ambiguity of a
statement like "the highest standards". The lack of specificity
is an open invitation to escape accountability through legal
weaselry; there isn't a lawyer in the world who couldn't twist
the meaning to suit his client's interests.

Assume for the sake of argument that, the phrase
"the highest standards of conduct" had an unequivocal meaning.

It is still meaningless with out accountability to those standards.

Accountability is where the leadership of the APS falls flat on
its face. There is no "honest" accountability in the APS to any
standard of conduct at all.

Consider my SilentWhistle complaint against Winston Brooks.
The resolution of the complaint was provided by the subject of
the complaint and his subordinates.
The "appearance of a conflict of interest" could not be more
blatant.

Aside from the fact that "creating the appearance of a conflict
of interest" is explicitly and specifically prohibited by school
board policy, the appearance of a conflict of interest taints
the entire process.

Is it possible to resolve complaints without the appearance
of a conflict of interest? Of course it is. I can offer a least
one alternative; hire an independent private investigator
and arbitrator; someone who is not beholden to the district
or any of its employees.

Why not hire independent investigators and arbitrators?

The simple answer is because then the leadership of the
APS will loose their control over the truth.

It is their need to control the truth, beyond what is provided
by the spirit of the law, is what betrays the true intentions of
the leadership of the APS; their interest is not in a principled
resolution of a complaint, but rather, in being able to spin
the truth.

How can you trust someone whose first interest and top
priority is spinning the truth?

It is possible to have honest accountability to higher standards
of conduct; the leadership of the APS is just not interested in
doing so.