Speaking truth to power brings out the worst in the powerful,
in particular if the truth is at all inconvenient; discrediting,
embarrassing or incriminating.
The Journal reports, link; speaking truth to power at a school
board meeting in Santa Fe unleashes the same fury as it does
at an APS school board meeting. The only real difference; the
leadership of the Santa Fe Public Schools doesn't command
their own publicly funded private police force. Otherwise,
there would have been an arrest.
One of Santa Fe Superintendent Bobbie Gutierrez' critics,
suggested, in public and on the record, that the Supt had
"... “manipulated” statistics about Santa Fe publicShe made the suggestion, apparently during the public forum
school students to make the district look better."
at the board meeting. She reasoned;
"... that people often stand up at school board meetingsThe School Board President used the gavel to try to silence
to praise the superintendent. It stands to reason that
they may also stand up in public to criticize her.
the critic. The Board's lawyer reportedly cautioned the board
to shut down the criticism because "... negative remarks might veer into slander."
Never mind that slander statutes apply and there is no need
for the board to be creating its own protection for their minion
under legitimate "attack" by a stakeholder.
Even if the speakers remarks were slanderous, it isn't the board's
responsibility to do anything about it. It's between the alleged
slanderer, the allegedly slandered, and the court.
The board ultimately decided to audit the disputed numbers;
conceding apparently that the district stats might be misleading,
and maybe there was some "spin control" going on.
Is it me, or does any of this have a familiar ring to it? If I
stood up at a public forum and pointed to fact that APS
routinely falsified crime statistics to make schools look better,
the School Board President would have me arrested. It would
make no difference that the allegation was true and was one of
the findings in a recent independent audit of the APS.
The reporter wondered;
"... why try to shut up someone ... who raises questionsAssume the question was rhetorical. Otherwise would be to
about something as important as student performance?"
imply s/he didn't understand why powerful and corrupt people
might want to stifle someone who is pointing in public, to their
corruption and incompetence. Or, why they might want to
stifle discussion of "important" issues more than any other.
It is fair to say the Journal does not wonder, why the APS
School Board would try to shut me up for raising questions about
- executive and administrative role modeling of the student standards of conduct, or
- the Caswell Report and evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators, or
- their denial of due process for whistle blower complaints; the executive "review and approval" of administrative self-adjudication of complaints by complaint respondents, their colleagues, and even their subordinates, or
- School Board President Paula Maes' assurance that she would "never agree to any audit of APS leadership that individually identifies" corrupt and incompetent APS administrators or board members, or
- Marty Esquivel and Paula Maes' illegal restraining order banning me from school board meetings, or
- the critical need for an impartial audit of APS administrative and executive standards of conduct and competence, and of their honest accountability.
to investigate and report upon any of it.
I guess it pays to know someone.Santa Fe School Board President
Barbara Gudwin, Supt Bobbie
Gutierrez and their lawyer don't
know someone at the Journal
I guess, who might be inclined to
help them cover up their dirt by
keeping it out of the Journal.
Perhaps they don't know Kent
Walz as well as Paula Maes,
Marty Esquivel and Winston Brooks know him.
To the Journal's credit, they did publish something germane in
school board meetings in Santa Fe or at 6400 Uptown Blvd;
" ... the School Board is "obligated to listen to commentsThough the board's record is one of ignoring it when they don't
from the public in a public meeting" according to
"the First Amendment."
listen to comments or even when they arrest people over and
over for trying to get them to listen.
Mark Bralley's framegrab is of Journal Editor Kent Walz . He is
caught giving APS Supt Winston Brooks, an award from him and their
friend Marty Esquivel. The award was the formerly prestigious NM FOG
Dixon Award for being a "hero of transparency" and is now not worth
the frame they put it in. Brooks is after all, the one hiding the Caswell
Report and the inconvenient truth it contains, and in violation of the
letter and spirit of the Inspection of Public Records Act.
3 comments:
Every school board I've ever dealt with is underhanded, snubs the people, gets revenge on the student and/or family making the complaints and uses lawyers up the ying-yang to stall and discourage any reasonable changes.
APS is worst than most, but the average schoolboard in the USA is filled with weasels and snakes!
APS is worse than most because it is bigger than most. Departments and their 'heads' are powerful in proportion to their ability to bring in money and by connection to the bigger powers and have become virtually automonous. No one wants to upset the apple cart if it is their apples that will be upset.
The root of all evil is, after all, the abuse of power. and so... who is taking care of the kids? Some good teachers and administrators try but those efforts are too often negated and thwarted by those who are only there for power and money. I wish those same power hungry folks would just join the Koch brothers and go after money like real entreprenuers,*(spelling?) instead of making their bones on the lives of children, our world's future. Cowards and hypocrites.
Terrible violation of the freedom of the press, and the public has a right to know what the true condition of our schools are. Keep up the good work!
Post a Comment