Open letter to the editors

I have submitted a letter to the editor in response to APS Supt Winston Brooks' op-ed regarding real transparency in the leadership of the APS.

APS Supt Winston Brooks, in his monthly Journal column, argued that APS' administration is transparent. It is award winningly transparent, he wrote.

Ask Winston Brooks for a commitment. Ask him if he will promise to response to any legitimate question by answering candidly, forthrightly and honestly.
Ask the same of APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta.
Ask APS' Director of Communications Rigo Chavez.
Ask School Board President Paula Maes.

Not one of them will agree to just sit still somewhere and respond to legitimate questions and follow ups.

Not one of them will agree. Instead, you are expected to submit your questions in writing. The response will range from ignoring the question entirely, to responding on the record. The manifest pattern is; inconvenient questions are ignored. Take these for example;

1. Why are more than 300 whistle blower complaints being denied the final hearing guaranteed them by school board policy.

2. Why are administrators and board members not accountable as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

3. Why are operational funds (classroom dollars) being spent to hide an ethically redacted version of the Caswell Report (on an investigation of felony criminal misconduct by APS senior administrators)?

4. Why will the administration not allow an independent administrative accountability audit be conducted? an audit similar to the recent audits of the M&O Division, the Finance Division, the APS Police Department, and the Fleet Maintenance Division, all of which revealed an abject lack of standards, accountability, and record keeping?

If no one in the entire leadership of the APS will respond to those questions candidly, forthrightly and honestly, how can any one of them claim transparency?

And why does the Journal allow Winston Brooks to tout his supposed transparency, without anyone at all to challenge his self serving spin?

Readers can decide for themselves whether this letter is worthy of publication.

I would advise against holding your breath,
while you wait to see it published.

Update; the letter, albeit redacted, was published in the Journal on Tuesday, 3/22/11.