Saturday, April 25, 2009

School board non-feasance

There is a sub committee of the APS Board of Education
called the Audit Committee. According to board policy, link,
the Audit Committee is obligated to;

... review and recommend approval or action(s)
associated with the District’s Annual Audit, any internal
audit(s), audits associated with the Capital Outlay and
Technology, and any whistleblower complaints.
As I have written, Audit Committee
Chair David Robbins
has refused
to place on an audit committee
agenda, the "review and approval"
of the two complaints that I filed
with APS' SilentWhistle
whistleblower program.

The complaints will not see "review
and approval" because somewhere
during the process of review and
approval, Winston Brooks,
who has been accused of acting
unethically, will have to argue that
he is not really accountable to any
standards of conduct in the first place.

Rather than admit to the inconvenient truth, the complaints
were denied due process.

Interestingly, APS Director of Internal Audit, reported to the
board, that APS' SilentWhistle program had handled about
80 whistleblower complaints since it was instituted.

Not one of those complaints has been reviewed or approved
by the Audit Committee; not one.

So how can the Audit Committee simply refuse to fulfill the
obligations so clearly stated in board policy? It is simple,
where are you going to file a complaint that they have not?
With them?

Failing to do one's job is nonfeasance;
the failure or omission to do something that should be done or esp. something that one is under a duty or obligation to do.
Refusing to do one's job to deliberately, in order to deny
due process for complaints, in order to hide the truth is
the commission (as by a public official) of a wrongful or unlawful act involving or affecting the performance of one's duties.
Policy Committee Chair David Peercy says he wants to see
the district involved in less litigation. So is the audit committee
going to have the hearings that are required by their own
policy, or will they pay Modrall lawyers to litigate against the
public interests, and against a Writ of Mandamus, link,
from the State Court, made necessary only by their refusal
to follow their own policies?

cc David Robbins upon posting.

photo Mark Bralley

No comments: