Media coverage of Esquivel and Brooks' lack of oversight

I believe it is fair to say; the Journal, KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV
all know or remain willingly ignorant of the following facts;

1. APS School Board President Marty Esquivel,  APS Supt Winston Brooks, APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta,  APS Chief of Police Steve Tellez, and APS Director of Communications Rigo Chavez (in his capacity as public records custodian) are being sued in federal court over their several violations of my civil rights.
2. They have hired attorneys in their defense.  They have yet to produce the signed contracts under which those attorneys are being paid.
3. Their spending does not conform with school board policy insofar as, there has been no case analysis presented to the whole school board.  The board cannot provide oversight if they're not told the truth; candid, forthrightly and honestly (albeit in a meeting held in secret from the public).
4. Esquivel and Brooks are accountable only to two subordinates; APS' Director of Risk Management and a "claim analyst".  "Subordinate oversight" is a contradiction in terms, it is oxymoronic.
5. Both "overseers" are conflicted.  A recent audit of the leadership of the APS found a "... culture of fear of retribution and retaliation ...".  (emphasis added) (And in particular, retribution and retaliation against whistleblowers.)

Esquivel and Brooks are conflicted;

• their duties to make students' well being the basis of their decision making v, 
• their own self interest in escaping the consequences of their public corruption and incompetence.

The people are entitled (by means of their elected) to a case analysis.

How else are they going to protect their legitimate interests in the spending of the power and resources belonging fundamentally to them?

Do the Journal, KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV have any obligation at all to investigate and report upon this abuse of public resources?

I would argue, of course they do.

The establishment's media is conflicted;

• their obligation to the people v,
• their obligations (some professional, most personal) to their friends and cronies in the leadership of the APS.

So far, they have resolved the conflict in the interests of the leadership of the APS and in blatant disregard for the well being of students.

They are in a very awkward position, how can they report credibly on the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS, without first reporting credibly on their relentless failure to do so, heretofore?

Poor them.




photo Mark Bralley