The editors' take on school closings

The Journal Editors have opined, link, on the action taken in an APS Policy Committee meeting the other night.

They and I are in agreement that closing eight year round schools may not be the best idea, even if it "saves" a few ten thousands of dollars.

Other than that, the editors and I could not agree less.

They are apparently unconcerned that the leadership of the APS made a decision (that affects the interests of thousands of community members) without open and honest public discussion. They made the decision in effective secret from stakeholders.

I, in contrast, could not be more concerned that the leadership of the APS, despite their endless claims of communication with stakeholders, would make such a momentous decision oblivious to stakeholder rights to participate in that decision.

The issue will come up one more time; they have to put the closings on the agenda of a public meeting. They will not solicit nor will they accept, any effort to engage in open and honest two-way communication on the closings or on their decision making process. Asking questions of board members is strictly verboten by their own deliberate decision.

Under their rules; any opportunity for interest holders to engage in two-way communication with the leadership of the APS has passed.

The terms of public service are the prerogative of the people, not of their servants. They don't get to make rules against the public interests.

Just because they don't allow people to ask them questions, doesn't mean questions can't be asked. Find comfort in the Constitutional protection of your human right to do so.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people,
requires people who are ready, willing and able to define and
defend their right to participate meaningfully in decisions
that affect their interests.

All that is required is for enough people to show up at the board meeting willing to fight for their right to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their interests.

The Journal, editorially and in the news they report, has expressed no objection to the process which deliberately dis-includes stakeholders. The time for an honest newspaper to stand up for the interests of its community by defending their right to sit at that table has passed. They have given their tacit approval.

Just at they have given their approval of the School Board's denial of due process for a Petition for standing for the Citizens Advisory Council on Communication.

If, silence gives consent, then the editors are in consent with the leadership of the APS.

And stand with them, against the people's interests in their public schools.