I went to APS' award winning website to see if I could find the
name of the person to whom APS senior administrator
Sheryl Williams Stapleton reports. It is that person who is most
responsible for the fact that Williams Stapleton was paid as an
administrator while she was serving in the legislature; contrary to the law.
I couldn't find Stapleton Williams; much less her "supervisor";
a person to whom she referred when she was closing the door
in Larry Barker's face, rather than answer his questions.
I suspect it will be Asst Supt of Human Resources Andrea Trybus.
Supt Winston Brooks showed up in an interview for KRQE (which is finally posted on KRQE's website, link), but he isn't the person most responsible for their latest brush with the law. He will stand up sometime and say, the buck stops here on the snafu, but it's only because he will feel no actual consequence for doing so, and in so doing, will cover for whomever is actually responsible, and most importantly, for his unjustified confidence in their character and/or competence, and subsequent lack of effective oversight.
No head will actually roll.
Stapleton Williams will not have to reimburse APS and taxpayers, and the "supervisor" who enabled her to do bilk taxpayers, won't be held accountable either.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Williams Stapleton "vanished" from APS website?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't think Winston Brooke's is legally allowed to "forgive and forget"felony theft of tax monies nder NM State laws.
By doing so, he might be making himself an accomplice to Stapleton's misuse and thievery, or at least, conspiring to allow it to happen.
Will the state of NM actually let Winston Brookes flaunt his disregard for NM mConstituition and state laws?
I hope they fry him and kick his sorry ass back to Wicita.
It would send a message to the Good ole bys f APS that they need to end their Wilde West mentality.
What I find most troublesome is that a legislator (Stapleton) works for an entity (APS) that she might vote policy on in the legislator, thereby creating several forms of conflict of interest.
IT should be examined if: 1) She ever votes on factors (educational funding) that would affect whether or not her pay or benefits would be increased and 2) if there's a possibility she votes on things that would be beneficial to her CEO (Brooks), her boss, thereby earning her reward or favor and 3) does she ever provide Brooks/APS any "ïnsider" [confidential] legislator information that would unfairly benefit APS over other districts?
Despite Brooks'"magnamious"(tongue in cheek) forgive and forget, she is an important resource to him and APS, being a legislator.
There's is something fishy and devious in all this... I think we all feel it.
Post a Comment