Public forum debate highlights the difference between standards of conduct

In essence, there are two entirely different standards of conduct in the APS; one applies to students, the other to adults. One is a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct, the other is the law. One embodies the highest standards of conduct, the other, the lowest standards acceptable among civilized human beings.

Were the leadership of the APS accountable to higher standards of conduct than the law, there would be no debate over what can and cannot be commented upon at a public forum. Those who make comments at the public forum would be limited only to subjects within "the jurisdiction and/or authority of the school board". A commenter could for instance, bring up the fact that the leadership has abdicated from their responsibilities and obligations as role models of the standards of conduct they establish and enforce upon students, because the subject falls within the jurisdiction and/or authority of the board.

Ever since they removed the role modeling clause;

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

from their own standards of conduct, they are accountable only to the law. The lowest standard allows them to block comments about their abdication unless they put their abdication on the agenda, something they will never do.

Coward and Policy Committee Chair David Peercy, with the aide and abet of the other cowardly and corrupt board members, has kept open and honest discussion of student standards and role modeling off the table for more than two years, link.

His lack of character and courage is keeping the subject of standards of conduct and role modeling from open and honest public discussion for no reason except to hide their mis, mal and non-feasance. The lowest standards of conduct that apply to administrators and board members enable him to get away with it.

By their own admission; the School Board Code of Ethics is utterly unenforceable.

It has been, ever since they struck the role modeling clause from the standards of conduct that apply to senior administrators and board members.

None of this will ever see the light of day.

Their collective and individual betrayal of the trust placed in them by this community, will go unreported.

Kent Walz sits on the board of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government. He should be outraged that the APS board is intends to put limits on public forums.

Perhaps he is on some level, but his loyalty to school board cronies like Marty Esquivel and Paula Maes, trumps his several and important obligations as a journalist and community member.

The Journal (Kent Walz) has made it abundantly clear they have no intention of investigating and reporting upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS in general, including the scandal of removing from their own code of conduct, language that held them accountable to the same higher standards of conduct as students.

By means of a final illustration; if school board members were accountable to the same standards they enforce upon students, the Pillars of Character Counts!, link, the policy committee meeting tonight would be streamed on the district's website and archived for posterity. Students are taught that, out of respect for others and their right to autonomous decision making based on all the facts, every effort should be made to disseminate the truth.

Because they are accountable only to the law crippled by the legal weaselry of their lawyers at the Modrall, they are accountable only to the law only only as far as its most vulnerable "legal" loophole or technicality; a diametrically opposite concept than the standard they hold up for students.

Students are expected to "model and promote" a standard of conduct that specifically and explicitly compels them to do

"... more than the law requires and
less than the law allows."

or forfeit their good character.




Walz frame grab and photo Mark Bralley