KOAT TV has managed to secure a copy of the email exchange that led to the Brooks blow up. Neither they, nor their news partner; the Albuquerque Journal has released an ethically redacted version of the public records they hold. Interesting how the whole "hiding public records" thing works.
The Journal did publish some excepts from Brooks' side.
Among them, this, link;
"I have little time for this kind of behavior andSo far as we know; the "type of allegation" in this case,
certainly do not want to place my complete trust
and confidence in a person who (has) made these
types of allegations."
is a credible allegation of a "hostile" work environment.
How much more hostile can a work place be, than a place
where people who file legitimate and credible complaints,
are branded "untrustworthy" and "no longer worthy of
confidence."?
How trustworthy is Winston Brooks?
Ask him to point to the time, the day, and the place where he will stand and answer legitimate questions about the public interests and about his public service.
Ask him if he willing to hold himself honestly accountable
as a role model of the Pillar of Trustworthiness;
the current APS student standard of conduct in situations
such as these.
Ask him to point to the time, the day, and the place where he will stand and explain why he is not accountable as the senior most, administrative role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts.
Ask him to point to the time, the day and the place where he will explain why evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators, has not been turned over to the District Attorney, and why the independent investigation into the corruption in the APS Police Department has not been surrendered to the public record.
Ask him to point to the time, the day and the place where he will explain why more than 300 whistle blower complaints, some complaints against him personally, are being denied due process.
When the question is;do you promise
to tell the truth;
any answer except yes,
means no.
Stonewalling means no.
And while we're at it,could we also ask for the time,
the day, and the place where
Kent Walz will stand and explain;
why none of this is newsworthy.
photo and frame grab Mark Bralley
1 comment:
I had come to the same conclusion as you when I saw that news report and read the pieces of the emails. Brooks basically outed himself as creating a hostile work environment.
Why wasn't the 1st thing out of his poison pen: "Ruby, how can we make things better? Obviously you feel things aren't smooth or comfortable, what would you suggest to make it better for everyone involved?"
That's how a professional human being would handle it. Proves that Der fuhrer Brooks is just showing his colors.
And when the board doesn't censure their "employee", then they are just as liable and incompetent.
If there becomes a Ruby Ethridge legal fund established...count me in! A win for Ruby against this B^&&l S$%$^t is a win for all of us!!
Post a Comment