Journal editorial deeply, deeply disappointing

Give them credit at least, for writing link about the issue of T or C's City Commission requiring speakers at their public forum to first submit their remarks for approval and censorship. To my knowledge, no one else has expressed even misguided outrage over the blatant abrogation of first amendment rights.

I know of this situation, what I read in the Journal, link. If the editors know more, they've not cited their source.

According to their article, one of the City Commissioners is upset that a regular speaker at T or C's public forum has called him a liar and a thief.

"Commissioner Freddie Torres said he did not appreciate being called a "thief and a liar," and that a small group of relentless critics have "screwed this up.""

Commissioner Torres, as far as the Journal reports, does not challenge the truth in the characterizations, only that they have been repeated over and over. It is not reported that he has asked for a restraining order, or filed any suit over the defamation of his character.

Nor has any argument be offered that "relentless" criticism isn't absolutely appropriate. If Torres is a liar and a thief, why should this brave soul be limited to pointing to it, only once?

Never the less, the editors have concluded;

"It appears some commission meetings have devolved into name-calling by a few self-appointed gadflies. That may entertain some, but consider the real cost — the waste of public time and money while truly important work goes undone."

If there is a City Commissioner who is a liar and a thief, the truly important work is indeed undone. The effort to get that business done, is not done for "entertainment", it is done in defense of government of the people, and for the people, and by the people.

And it isn't going to get done while the Journal attacks the messenger and ignores the message. "Name calling is a red herring. It is done to draw attention from the, as far as we know, credible allegations; liar, thief.

I take this all rather personally because I too am a gadfly, link.

I didn't "appoint myself."

It is a name I am called in order to diminish my credibility
without having to actually address my credible allegations.
It is attacking the messenger and not the message.

I am a "gadfly" for the same reason I am called "a disgruntled
former employee"; to draw attention to me, and away from
their ongoing refusal to answer legitimate questions about
administrative and executive role modeling of the
APS Student Standards of Conduct.

I assume, "Editorials" are written by a group of people, among whom is the one that will not investigate and report upon the credible allegation that the leadership of the APS is suppressing evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators, link, for more than two and a half years.

I assume, "Editorials" are written by a group of people, among whom is the one that will not have their "education" reporter, investigate and report upon the ongoing refusal of the leadership of the APS to hold themselves actually accountable as the seniormost role models of the standards of conduct they establish and enforce upon students.

Journal editors are giving what looks like their tacit approval
of the leadership of the APS excepting themselves from
accountability as role models of a nationally recognized,
accepted and respected code of ethics.

When in fact their approval is overt, overt and absolutely deliberate.

In light of an upcoming $650M bond issue election,
it is also an utter and deliberate betrayal of voters' trust.