Friday, July 12, 2013

APS and Esquivel, spending against the public interests and without oversight

APS School Board President Marty Esquivel continues to spend in his own interests, and without oversight.


At the end of the document we find;
cc wi encls.:

Patrick D. Allen, Esq.
Martin Esquivel, Esq.
Mike Wilson, Risk Management Director
Janet Gabriel, Claim Analyst
I don't know Risk Management Director Mike Wilson, nor do I know Claim Analyst Janet Gabriel, but I would bet they are subordinate to Marty Esquivel and Co-defendant APS Supt Winston Brooks.

The only oversight over Esquivel's spending on his own defense, comes from subordinates.  It isn't oversight at all, it's under-sight.

This is particularly problematic because there are indications that the lawyers are having client control issues with Esquivel and others.  The lawyers realize their case is hopeless, but their clients hate me so much, they're willing to spend whatever they can just to keep me from vindication.

The very first rule in their manifestly unenforceable  Code of Ethics requires them to spend in the interests of students; not in their own interests, like trying to litigate their own exceptions to the law.

Subordinate evaluation of senior administrators and board members creates the appearance of a conflict of interests between the subordinate's need to do their job properly, and their need to keep their job ( in what Council of the Great City Schools auditors called a "... culture of fear of retribution and retaliation" in the administration of the APS.   A culture!)

The appearance of a conflict of interests in the oversight over spending classroom dollars unjustifiably is the subject of a school board policy requiring a candid, forthright and honest case analysis to be presented to the entire board by the attorneys who have been engaged to defend senior administrators and board members, albeit in a meeting in secret from taxpayers and other interest holders.

The entire board is yet to hear the case analyses in the litigation of my complaints against Esquivel, Brooks, Armenta, Tellez and Chavez.  No case analysis has been provided by any attorney in this case.

I am given to understand that based on the district's response to a request for public records, there are no signed contracts between Esquivel and Brooks' lawyers and the district, despite their several months of expensive representation - how exactly can that be?  How much have they already spent, how much more do they intend to spend?

The only people who know about the unjustifiable spending are the people who are doing the spending, and their subordinates.  Neither is going to blow the whistle.

Nor is Journal Managing Editor Kent Walz, nor any is any one of the news directors in the rest of the establishment's media.

I would like folks to not lose sight of that.

photo ched macquigg

No comments: