APS' Claim to "Commitment to Community Involvement" is a Deliberate Deception

To hear them tell it, the leadership of the APS is quite committed to community involvement by means of "communication";

• they spend a half million dollars a year on Monica Armenta's Communications Department and website, link


• APS' 8 Goals, link, require

  "... implementation of a comprehensive internal and external communication plan with an evaluation component that involves the community.



• APS School Board Policy, link,

  "... recognizes that constructive study, discussion, and active participation by citizens is necessary to promote the best program of education in the community. To encourage this participation, the Board enacts the following policies.

  Citizens Advisory Councils will exist to provide for greater community involvement in the educational planning process.



• APS Procedural Directives, link, read; "Area Citizens Advisory Councils will exist to provide for greater community involvement in the educational planning process."
  
  Read a just a few lines into the Directives and you will find that an administrator (site or district) has the "final approval" of members of "citizen committees".
  
  Read a few lines further and you will find that you are unlikely to be "approved" if you have an "individual" point of view. Administrators will be looking for;

  "Those who can represent a viewpoint other than their own -- those with global perspective".

the School Board's own Code of Ethics, link, requires them to

"Establish an open, two-way communication process with students, staff, families and all segments of the community.

Despite what they would have you believe, if you search APS'
website for "citizens advisory council",
link, you will find no evidence of any
meeting of a citizens advisory
council since 2006; the year
Paula Maes' et al disbanded them,
and promised to replace them with
something "even better".

If memory serves, that was also the year that she and her board removed the role modeling clause from their own code of conduct. It used to read;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult,
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

The utterly shameless move effectively lowered standards of conduct for board members and administrators from a nationally recognized, accepted and respected Code of Ethical Conduct, link, to instead, what amounts to the lowest standards of acceptable conduct among civilized human beings; the law (replete with all the legal weaselry that the leadership of the APS and their lawyers at Modrall, can conjure.)

Maes, recently unanimously elected by the School Board as their President, is a named respondent in a Federal lawsuit alleging abuse of power by her and by APS Supt Winston Brooks, link.

The most direct avenue of communication with the leadership of the APS is the public forum at school board meetings. It represents the manifest exercise of constitutionally protected rights to speak freely and to petition one's government. Yet, if you go to a school board public forum, you will be told that asking questions is prohibited.

If you insist upon asking questions anyway, you will be
arrested and removed from the forum, link.

Get illegally arrested a dozen times for asking questions, and
you will be served with an illegal restraining order, link,
revoking your "privilege" to attend board meetings at all.
The illegal restraining order will be enforced by APS'
Praetorian Guard; a public funded private police force.

The board pretends a commitment to answer questions if
they are submitted in writing, link:

"You also may submit your comments to the board in writing ..."

Their use of the words "comments" as opposed to "questions" is not accidental.

The truth is; they won't answer written questions either.
There is ample and incontrovertible proof that "inconvenient"
questions will not be answered, link, even if they are submitted in writing.

The leadership of the APS has no record of, nor do they have any intention to, actually respond to legitimate questions about the public interests in the APS, or about their public service, candidly, forthrightly and honestly (according the standards they abandoned).

The failure of the leadership of the APS to be open and honest with stakeholders is surpassed only by Kent Walz' and the Journal's steadfast refusal to investigate and report upon it.

Not that Maes' cronies at KRQE, KOAT and KOB TV aren't
every bit as guilty.

Can anyone say, cover up?




photo Mark Bralley