"Sounds exactly like the community input for choosing the new superintendent!"

This comment was left on a post about APS' decision making
model.

It deserves some attention.

APS' decision making model is; lead stakeholders into believing
that their part in the decision making process is meaningful,
despite the fact that;

• final decisions are the prerogative of "leadership" and
• are not subject to review.

I understand at least part of their argument.
There is a reason why we pay Winston Brooks hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year; it is to make final decisions.

The parts that don't fly are the parts where stakeholders have
no meaningful part in the decision making process, and the part
where his decisions are "not subject to review".

His decisions cannot be held against any standard for
measurement. There is no place where a complaint can be
filed that he has failed to meet any standard.

There is no good and
ethical reason why
Winston Brooks is not
honestly accountable to
meaningful standards of
conduct and competence;
standards like the APS
student standards of conduct.

He is not accountable because

• you can't make him, and because
• he is unable to resist that temptation.

Winston Brooks cannot summon the character and the courage to hold himself honestly accountable as a role model of the student standards of conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!

And you can't make him.


It is not power that corrupts;

it is the opportunity to abuse power without consequence that
corrupts. Absolutely.

The reasons that the leadership of the APS will not hold
themselves honestly accountable to meaningful standards
of conduct and competence are unethical.

All of them.




photo Mark Bralley