Brooks is back, and back in the Journal

I read APS Supt Winston Brooks' monthly public relations piece in the Journal, link, looking for spin that might be need of un-spinning, and found this gem, he wrote;
"Who in their right mind could oppose holding ... superintendents accountable? I’m certainly not (opposed to holding superintendents accountable), and my record, both here and elsewhere, indicates that."

Actually, it does not.

And his record will grow even worse today. He won't be blowing about it in the Journal. It won't come up there at all.

Today is the last day, according to the rules we play by in the Ethical Advocate administrative accountability drill, for Brooks as Chief Administrative Officer, to respond to complaint that the APS Acting Chief of Police Steve Gallegos violated my civil rights when he kept me from completing personal business in the Employee Benefits Office. He is aware, or should be, of every Ethical Advocate filed against APS senior administrators, and he is aware of the ones filed against him personally.

Brooks is also aware of the Ethical Advocate complaint filed against APS COO Brad Winter, and that it is being denied due process by means of a timely resolution.

The complaint alleges APS COO Brad Winter is violating the law in his ongoing efforts to hide a candid, forthright and honest accounting of spending on the boardroom and accoutrements at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

I would argue that Brooks is aware, or should be aware of the effort to hide evidence of felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of the APS police force.

If Brooks does not oppose holding Superintendents accountable, then he should not oppose the expectation that Superintendents tell the truth; truthtelling being fundamental to accountability.

If he doesn't oppose telling the truth about spending at 6400 Uptown Blvd, the why won't he tell it? Why won't he tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the ethically redacted truth?

If Brooks does not oppose being held accountable for the hiding of the truth about felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of the APS and their publicly funded, private police force, why won't he produce an ethically redacted copy of the Caswell Report, and of all of the other public records of investigations of public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS?

If Brooks doesn't oppose being held accountable for his abdication from his responsibilities as the senior-most role model of student standards of conduct, why won't he look students in the eye and explain to them, in words they can understand, why they are expected to model and promote ethical standards of conduct, the Pillars of Character Counts!, and he is not?

If Kent Walz and the Journal don't oppose doing a story about Brooks instead of by him,
why won't they investigate and report upon credible allegations and evidence of an ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS?




photo and Walz frame grab Mark Bralley