Armenta responds, but not candidly, forthrightly and honestly

I asked for the truth about four topics;

1. the denial of due process to hundreds of whistle blower complaints,
2. the abdication of the entire leadership of the APS as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct,
3. the contents of the Caswell Report on an independent investigation of public corruption in the leadership of the APS and their Police Department, and
   
4. an independent administrative audit.
   

At least APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta, seen here telling the APS Praetorian Guard to remove me from the Gubernatorial Debate, responded to my questions. Most questions enjoy no response at all.



The entire exchange is pasted below.

In response to the first question, Armenta suggested that I have the burden of proving the final hearings never took place, as opposed the burden being on them prove that they have. She also suggested that I could file a complaint with the people, about whom, I am complaining.

In response to the second question, Armenta suggested that she does not communicate for the board and that I will have to ask my questions of them. Unfortunately, the board does not have a PIO or a Communications Department, and wouldn't answer the questions even if they did.

I have asked for clarification of the policy that has Armenta communicating for the board on her website, but not in the real world.

In response to the third question, Armenta offered no information, not one word, on what is in the report they are hiding, and why. State law allows certain aspects of the report to be hidden (maybe). The same law requires that they explain with "reasonable specificity" what is in the report they are hiding. For example, if the report points to felony criminal misconduct by senior APS administrators, they are required to admit that, though they may be able to redact the administrators' names.

Monica Armenta writes;

"If you have evidence (of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators) to present to the DA regarding criminal misconduct, you should present it to her."

She writes that, knowing full well that the evidence,

• the Caswell Report,
• the Internal Personnel Investigation, and
• the APS Police Department's own investigation of their corruption

are all being suppressed by the leadership of the APS and
their lawyers. They are spending operational funds to do it;
funds that would otherwise be going to classrooms.

In response the fourth question, Armenta dragged the usual red herring across the trail; APS does under go an annual audit (of a completely different nature). Because they don't take follow up questions, they never have to admit to their deception about an accountability audit and own up to the fact that they will never agree to any audit that individually identifies corrupt or incompetent administrators or the practices that enable their corruption and incompetence.

How can it be justified, that almost three teacher salaries are being paid to one person whose job it is, to hide the ethically redacted truth from stakeholders?

So far, no response from the establishment media, to the questions or to Monica Armenta's responses.

Mr MacQuigg,
My responses to your questions are listed below.
Monica Armenta

1.Why have hundreds of APS whistle blower complaints been denied the final hearing promised in school board policy?

Mr. MacQuigg, I don’t know that there have been “hundreds of whistle blower complaints denied final hearings.” If you have evidence of such, you should provide it to the Internal Audit Department, which is in charge of the whistle blower system.

2. Why was the APS Role Modeling clause (In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult be lower than the standards of conduct for students.) removed from the adult code of conduct? Why will it not be restored? Why won’t the school board discuss the issue openly and honestly and in public?

These are questions for the APS Board of Education as they are the ones that set policy. I believe that they had addressed this for you on a number of occasions.

3. What is in the Caswell Report (APSPD circa 2007)? Does it point to evidence of the felony criminal misconduct of senior APS administrators? Why has the evidence been withheld from the District Attorney for more than four years? Why are operational funds (otherwise classroom bound dollars) being spent to litigate against the surrender of an ethically redacted version to public knowledge?

As has been relayed to you before the report is a work product of the law firm that represented the Albuquerque Public Schools and is therefore not subject to public disclosure. If you have evidence to present to the DA regarding criminal misconduct, you should present it to her. As, far as I know, there has been no litigation involving the disclosure of this report.

4. Why does the leadership of the APS oppose an independent audit of administrative and executive effectiveness and efficiency, standards and accountability, the ethically redacted results of which, would be surrendered to the public record?

The Albuquerque Public Schools are required to and do have an independent audit every year. As for other audits, the Board of Education has chosen not to pursue them.