Brooks covering for Armenta; Walz covering for Brooks

It has been more than a month since APS Supt Winston Brooks acknowledged that he had received my complaint against APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta.

The allegation is straightforward; Armenta has been asked legitimate questions* and refuses to answer them candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

APS has 8 stated goals; the third is communication. Brooks has a fiduciary responsibility to compel Armenta to do the job she is paid $107K a year to do, which is to "communicate".

In response to the complaint, Brooks' options include finding that Armenta really is incompetent and/or corrupt in her ongoing refusal to communicate about the public interests or, he can find that she is living up to her responsibilities and obligations as a highly paid public servant.

He will not find Armenta corrupt or incompetent. Not because she is not, but because that's just not the ways things roll in the leadership of the APS. Name the last senior administrator whose name was attached to their incompetence or corruption. Mostly they just leave with a boot load of cash and paid administrative leave.

Nor can he find that she is doing her job; because she obviously is not. That finding would fly in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

So he will continue to stonewall; a blatant violation of the standards of conduct to which APS students are held accountable.

The only confusing part is, knowing he had no intention of giving the complaint its due process, why did Brooks acknowledge receiving it?

As for Kent Walz and the Journal, they will steadfastly refuse to investigate and report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS. They will continue covering up the cover up of a scandal, the tip of which, they first exposed, link.

*

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

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?

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?

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?

photo Mark Bralley