Sunday, November 14, 2010

Another APS senior administrator put on paid leave.

Hidden deep in the Journal, link; APS Associate Superintendent Ruby Etheridge, link, has been placed on paid leave; the details of which are none of your business.

At some point in an investigation, secrecy is likely appropriate, for a number of good and ethical reasons.

But, the truth is, stakeholders will never know the truth about why one of their most highly paid servants sits at home drawing full salary and no longer contributing to the education of APS students. This despite an assurance given a few years ago, when Asst Supt Michael Vigil was placed on paid leave after an arrest for aggravated drunk driving, that APS employees who are placed on paid leave would be required to work in at least some capacity rather than just staying home doing nothing.

If the leadership of the APS follows their past practice, Etheridge will sit at home, at full pay, until her contract expires or she retires. APS will argue that, it is cheaper to just keep them on full salary until their contract expires, than to give them their day in court.

APS pays people a lot of money to keep them from having their day in court. When APS Chief of Police Gil Lovato found himself involved in allegations of felony criminal misconduct, link, he was placed on paid leave for months until his contract expired. Again, APS argued, the $60K he collected while cooling his heels at home, was cheaper than taking him to court.

Cheaper how? Lovato claimed he was unjustly accused and that, if he ever did get his day in court,

"... there wouldn't be a single APS senior administrator left standing."

APS Supt Winston Brooks, 3 1/2 years later, even as statutes of limitation on felony criminal misconduct expire, is still hiding the truth; the final report on an independent investigation of the corruption and incompetence in the APS Police Dept.

Most recently, APS' Chief Financial Officer Dupay Bateman was sent home with full pay to await the end of his contract and career in the APS. Again, whatever scandal there was, is still secret from stakeholders. Not just until the dust settled, but for ever.

Albuquerque Journal Editor Kent Walz must be proud that the Journal was awarded a General Excellence Award and that his "education reporter" Hailey Heinz received a first place award for "news writing", link.

With that kind of expertise and talent on board, one would think his readers would know the truth about the corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS.

The truth is, they have no idea at all.

It is almost like Walz is covering up the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS. More specifically, the corruption and incompetence of his buddies School Board President Marty Esquivel and Winston Brooks;

  • their abdication as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct, and
  • the corruption and incompetence in the APS Police Department, and
  • their denial of due process to more than 300 whistleblowers and their complaints against APS administrators.

I can see where Brooks and Esquivel would rate Walz' cover up skills as "Generally Excellent". I cannot see why anyone else would.

Should Walz recuse himself and the Journal, from being the "newspaper of record" where APS, Brooks and Esquivel are concerned? That at least, would be honest.

photos and frame grab (Walz) Mark Bralley


Anonymous said...

I'm actually kind of shocked about this. Ruby is a barbie-doll type that is a fairly popular figure in APS, and has many,many high-level connections in ABQ.
I guess I'm trying to say whatever was done must have either pissed Winston Brookes off, or so horrific that all her connections couldn't get her free.

Anonymous said...

The public has a right to the general ideas of allegations in case other victim need to step up and speak out.
For example, when a teacher molests a kid, it's all kept quite. Doesn't the district have an obligation to be transparent enough to allow other possible victims to come forth? Otherwise, they are impeding investigations, which is probably illegal.
I understand the accused have rights, and I am not asking for full disclosure. However, when a public figure, homeless person, or public servant has done something bad enough to remove them from their work society, I think we should know the general idea.
And if the person is truly innocent, don;t they want character witnesses to step forth and vouch for them?
It's quite possible that Ruby made Brookes look bad somehow by disclosing something to someone important. Ans you know Nazi-style Brookes takes out whoever ruffles his precious feathers.

ched macquigg said...

I have met Asst Supt Etheridge a number of times and have always had a good impression.

It isn't all peaches and cream for the person on leave.

APS will use this time to discredit her while she is in no position to fight back.

Gil Lovato said he wanted his day in court.

Perhaps Etheridge feels the same way.

There is a reason that whistleblower complaints are being denied due process.

Anonymous said...

I have never heard anything bad about Ruby E.
She was a little too peppy for my taste, but she seems competent, fair and well-liked.
I think you are right-on.. Brooks will make his case by ruining her credibility.