APS School Board Member Robbins succumbs.

When David Robbins was running for the District 7 seat on the APS Board of Education, he offered stakeholders the promise of two notable reforms; 1. restoration of the Role Modeling Clause to administrative and executive standards of conduct and, 2. an honest and impartial audit of the administration of the public trust and treasure in the administration of the APS.

He now fights for neither.

Students in the APS are accountable to a nationally recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethical conduct. As role models, the leadership of the APS is accountable to the same standards of conduct.

Yet that accountability cannot be enforced, because the leadership of the APS removed from their own standards of conduct the phrase which read;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

While their moral obligations as role models are unaffected by the existence or not of words in their standards of conduct, the enforcement of those obligations is affected. Removing the clause provided the opportunity to use their legal weaselry to except themselves from any real accountability to any standards of conduct at all.

David Robbins placed a motion on the table in a Policy Committee Meeting, that would have restored the clause to the employee standards of conduct. And that was it. When I asked him if he had ever done anything more than that, he told me that he had

"... raised the issue in committee meetings." and

"I believe the intent and results of regarding standards of conduct and role modeling are what is important and not the specific wording requested by any single individual."

When I asked, "which meetings and, with what response and, from whom?" and, "What other wording would possibly serve the same intent with the same results? or In what other way besides restoring the role modeling clause, could the same intent be served, and the same results had?" he responded;

"I have answered these questions previously. I believe my answers have been clear and suscinct.
I don't see the point of the endless questioning, other than you are trying to trip me up."
(Note; there were 12 questions in total, with 7 follow-ups made necessary only the the lack of candor, forthrightness, and honesty in his initial responses; hardly "endless" questioning.)

I asked him if he had ever promised voters a standards and accountability audit. He responded;

"I do not remember every promising such and audit ..."

Sensing that he was hiding behind semantics, I asked the question again in more general terms; "Would you agree that, you promised voters an "independent audit"?"

His response;

I have answered these questions previously. I believe my answers have been clear and suscinct.
I don't see the point of the endless questioning, other than you are trying to trip me up.

On the issue of his denying my request for the simple review and approval of my whistleblower complaints by the Audit Committee that he chairs; review and approval that is called for, rather specifically, in board policy, he replied;

"The Audit Committee was provided information consistent with Federal Law ..."

Clearly not the candid, forthright, and honest response that is called for by the standards of conduct that he is supposed to be role modeling for students, I pressed the point;

Can you provide any good and ethical reason not to provide individual review and approval of my complaints in particular?

To which he responded;

I have answered these questions previously. I believe my answers have been clear and suscinct.
I don't see the point of the endless questioning, other than you are trying to trip me up.

I once posited to Robbins that the only reason that any member of the leadership of the APS would refuse to hold them self honestly accountable to the same standards of conduct that they establish and enforce upon students was, a lack of courage and a lack of character, he agreed.

That was before his own lack of character and courage manifest itself.

I'm a sure that he, and they, would like us to believe that there is a third reason; a less despicable one. There isn't.

If there were, either he or they, would be able to point to it. Neither he, nor they, can.

The leadership of the APS, individually and collectively, are not now honestly accountable to the APS Student Standards of Conduct, because they, individually and collectively, cannot summon the character and the courage to make it so.

cc. David Robbins upon posting. He will have an unfettered opportunity to explain, defend, deny, or even acknowledge these several charges.




photo Mark Bralley



Update; Mr. Robbins has responded in a comment on this post.

"I have stopped responding to Mr. MacQuigg's endless questions. I have answered most of his questions at least twice over the past four months. He does care what Federal or State laws require or limit regarding Board actions, he wants his way, period. What he has posted is a very narrow selection of my responses and he should be ashamed for presenting my responses in such a biased and shaded fashion. The Board of Education is reviewing all of its policies and I have informed Mr. MacQuigg, but he is note satisfied because I haven't demanded his words be included immediately in policy. He wants me to force his words into the policies regardless. That is not how the APS Board of Education functions; not in this democratic country.
Mr. MacQuigg apparently has an axe to grind and I will no longer be part it. I will continue to ask for and expect high standards for all APS staff, including the Administration."

He will not however, ask for or expect APS staff (administrators and board members) to be held accountable to as high a standard as the Pillars of Character Counts! which are the APS Student Standards of Conduct.


He has accused me of posting;

"... a very narrow selection of my responses and he should be ashamed for presenting my responses in such a biased and shaded fashion."

At the end of this post, please find the entire exchange, and that I have not presented his answers in "a shaded and biased fashion" at all.

He also wrote the following;

"He does care what Federal or State laws require or limit regarding Board actions, he wants his way, period."

There is nothing that I have requested that is limited by Federal or State Law. The truth is while neither State nor Federal law "require" what I have requested, neither do they limit or prohibit the actions that I have requested. It is simply a a legal loophole through which Robbins will slither, rather than step up to honest accountability as a role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

Note that, Robbins can not point to a single request of mine, compliance with which, is actually prohibited by law. For example, I want an Audit Committee hearing of my complaints as is required by board policy. Neither State nor Federal law require those hearings, but neither do they prohibit them as Robbins would have readers mistakenly believe. It is a deliberate deception on his part. It is typical of the lack of candor, forthrightness and simple honesty that Robbins brings to the table.

This is his response to the first letter, his responses are mixed into my letter to him. I will highlight his responses with boldface italics.

Ched - below are my responses.
David L. Robbins
(I have deleted Robbins phone numbers from this space)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles MacQuigg"
To: (Robbins email address)
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 11:01:01 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: facts check

Mr. Robbins,

I am preparing a post and I would like to verify some facts before I post.
I would like to know if each of the following points are, in fact, true;

On the subject of a standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the aps;

1. you promised voter/constituents an impartial standards and accountability audit of the entire leadership of the APS

If I have misclassified the type of audit, or the nature of your promise, please elaborate.

I do not remember every promising such and audit but that independent financial audits must be performed in a timely manner and available to the public. APS has caught up on all previous financial audits, and is on track to completing and submitting to PED the audit for the 2008/2009 school year.

2. You have not brought up the subject of such an audit, on the record, since your election.

APS' Internal Audit group does conduct audits on schools and administrative areas regarding following policies, procedures and providing requested information. Federal Law must be followed regarding all audits. APS Policies are being reviewed for consistency and adherence to current law and some will likely be need to be updated. I hope this process will be completed in the next couple of months, but I don't have a completion date.

3. There is no such audit in planning, even in light of the upcoming $650M bond issue election in Feb.

I'm not clear what this statement means.

4. You do not intend to bring up the subject of any such audit, in time for the bond issue election.

See answers to # 1 and 2 above.

On the subject of audit committee review and approval of whistleblower complaints;

5. The audit committee is charged by board policy with "review and approval" of whistleblower complaints.
6. There has never been even one such approval, and
7. You are now more than a hundred complaints in arrears.
8. You have no intention of putting the review and approval of whistleblower complaints on the agenda of any audit committee meeting,
9. for no other reason than to deny that review and approval to my two complaints.

The Audit Committee was provided information consistent with Federal Law regarding confidentiality. In May were were provided a summary of the status of complaints and the total number open was fewer than 2 dozen.
Your two complaints have been closed.

On the subject of executive and administrative role modeling of the student standards
of conduct by means of restoration of the role modeling clause, to the employee standards of conduct.

10. you promised voter/constituents that you would fight for the restoration of the role modeling clause to the employee standards of conduct.

The inclusion of such a clause has been proposed. The Policies are under review and I will continue to work in a constructive manner to ensure role modeling is addressed in APS Policies and Procedures.

As I have no recording of your promise, please feel free to furnish the exact wording, which I will publish it uncensored.
11. You have done nothing about that promise, except that you put it on the table in a policy committee meeting.
12. You have no intention to do anything, except that you put it on the table.

I have raised the issue in committee meetings and will continue to work with the Board and Administration. I cannot force the other six members of the Board to agree to a specific wording. I believe the intent and results of regarding standards of conduct and role modeling are what is important and not the specific wording requested by any single individual. I would like progress to come quicker, but in any large organization, progress is slower than what many would like. I will continue to work to ensure that honesty and transparency are practiced within APS. I can not nor will I guarantee the results will satisfy everyone. Sincerely,David L. Robbins

The courtesy of a response will be appreciated.

In the absence of any controverting arguments from you, I will assume that my understanding of the situation is substantially correct.

Grateful for your time and attention

ched macquigg

And the second letter and his response.

I have answered these questions previously. I believe my answers have been clear and suscinct.

I don't see the point of the endless questioning, other than you are trying to trip me up.

David L. Robbins

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles MacQuigg"
To: (Robbins email address)
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:22:10 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: follow up questions

Mr Robbins,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. Your responses have raised a few new questions.

1. Did you promise to respond to questions candidly, forthrightly and honestly, (according to the following logic, if there is a problem, please be specific about the point at which the logic breaks down. or where you specifically disagree.)

1. You promised to hold yourself honestly accountable to the APS Student Standards of Conduct
2. which are the Pillars of Character Counts!
3. which require truth telling- responding to questions candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

2. If you will not agree that you promised a "standards and accountability audit, Would you agree that, you promised voters an "independent audit"? An audit performed by someone outside the APS

2. My impression is that regardless of whether “Federal Law” was followed, board policy stating that the audit committee is charged with “review and approval of whistleblower complaints”, obviously requires review and approval of individual complaints, and not review and approval of the “process” or of a statistical “summary” of the complaints.
Do you agree that, regardless of "Federal Law", board policy requires review of individual whistleblower complaints?

3. Do you agree that the audit committee has not reviewed and approved a single individual complaint?

4. Do you intend ever, to place on an audit committee agenda the individual review and approval of whistle blower complaints?

5. You wrote "Your two complaints have been closed." which does not answer the question that I asked which was; Why will you not provide the review and approval of those complaints according with board policy?. Can you provide any good and ethical reason not to provide individual review and approval of my complaints in particular?

6. You wrote that you “… have raised the (role modeling) issue in committee meetings …”

6a. At what committee meetings, beside the Policy Committee meeting where you first placed the issue on the table, did you revisit the issue?

6b. With what response, and from whom?

7. You wrote that “I believe the intent and results of regarding standards of conduct and role modeling are what is important.”

Considering the phrase;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

7a,What other wording would possibly serve the same intent with the same results? or
7b. In what other way besides restoring the role modeling clause, could the same intent be served, and the same results had?


Again, I am grateful for your responses, and I apologize for intruding in your life at a difficult time.
Were the issues not so important, I would happily just let them drop.

ched macquigg

Please note that nowhere in his response to my "endless" questioning, does he offer any explanation for his unwillingness to hold himself honestly accountable as a role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct, the Pillars of Character Counts!, except his personal lack of courage and character.