Marty Esquivel shows his cowardice and his lack of character

I am one of School Board Member Marty Esquivel's constituents.

I have standing to ask him legitimate questions about the public interests in the APS and about his public service on the School Board.

In the past, he has had me arrested for asking legitimate questions, link.

I am the subject of a completely unlawful restraining order,
written by Esquivel, signed off on by Paula Maes, and
enforced by APS' Praetorian Guard Commander Steve Tellez, link.

Never the less, I took the opportunity to ask him a question.

I asked Esquivel to respond to a legitimate question about due process for whistle blower complaints. According to school board policy, the Audit Committee has an obligation to provide a final review of whistle blower complaints;

"School Board Policy B.07D; The Audit Committee
reviews and recommends approval of ... any
whistleblower complaints ..."

School board policy requires the review and approval of every whistle blower complaint and to date, they have not reviewed even one; and certainly neither of mine.

So my question to Esquivel was legitimate;

Now that you are the Chair of the Audit Committee,
will you respond candidly, forthrightly and honestly
about the Audit Committee's ongoing failure to provide
due process to more than 300 whistle blower complaints
already filed; not one of which has seen the audit
committee's review and approval of any whistle
blower complaints, as promised in school board policy?

If not why not?

His responses came to a total of 265 words. Though I have only pointed to Esquivel's public service, his response amounted to nothing more than an abusive personal attack. He called me;

• A personal and professional failure,
• obsessed,
• a crybaby,
• unhealthy,
• unproductive,
• a gadfly,
• a critic,
• a liar,
  
• gutless,
• lacking integrity, and
• misleading

In the past, he has labeled me a "nut case".

Let's assume for the sake of discussion, that I am; a personal and professional failure, obsessed, a crybaby, unhealthy, unproductive, a gadfly, a critic, a liar, gutless, lacking integrity, misleading, and a nut case. So what?

Does that make the question any less legitimate?

Does it make his obligation to respond candidly, forthrightly, and honestly to any legitimate question about the public interests or about his public service, any less binding?

Questions are either legitimate or not on their face.
It makes no difference who asks them or why.

Esquivel has an obligation to respond to any legitimate
question, no matter who asks it or why.

If you as him to point to a time, a day, and a place where he will stand and deliver candid, forthright and honest responses to legitimate questions about the public interests and/or his public service, he will not.

He cannot summon the character and the courage.



He is a punk, if ever there was one.

He prevails in no small part because Kent Walz and the
Journal, Sue Stephens and KOAT, Julie Szulczewski and KOB TV, and Iain Munro and KRQE TV will not investigate and report upon an ongoing conspiracy to deny due process to more than three hundred whistle blower complaints filed against the leadership of the APS.

They steadfastly refuse to investigate and report upon ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.




photo Mark Bralley


I updated this post at 12:26 pm. I will remind old readers and inform new, I regard all of my posts as works in progress, and if ever I have an opportunity to improve a post, I do. I hold myself accountable of course, for every version I have ever published.