Thursday, September 26, 2013

The Journal and Walz, complicit or complacent?

Hint; it's not complacent.

The success of any endeavor, the APS for example, depends on two things;

  1. standards and
  2. accountability
Are APS standards high enough; is accountability honest?

The standards that apply to APS senior administrators and board members are either
  • adequately high, or

  • they are not.  
That is a statement of fact.

It is my repeatedly expressed opinion that;
The standards of conduct to which the leaders of the APS are held begrudgingly accountable are not high enough to protect the public interests in the APS.  They are not high enough to protect our power, our trust and our treasure from abuse.

Their record shows; the standards to which they actually, honestly accountable, are the very standards that every other higher standard, is higher than; the law.

The law and an unlimited budget for litigation and
no oversight except from underlings.

Unless you wade in APS, you, a Journal reader, don't know anything at all about the actual, honest to God standards to which the leadership of the APS will pledge their allegiance.  You have no idea whether complaints see due process, or whether whistleblowers are routinely subject to retaliation over their complaint.

Why not?

Why won't the Journal investigate and report upon APS' administrative and executive standards of conduct and competence?  If the standards are a high as they would like interest holders to believe they are, wouldn't Journal readers be comforted by that knowledge.  It would be newsworthy.

Wouldn't readers be more likely to vote in favor of bond issues and mill levies if they knew there is honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence in the leadership of the APS?

So why won't Journal Managing Editor Kent Walz stand up and assure the parents of nearly 90,000 of this community's sons and daughters in the APS that; the standards of conduct to which the leadership of the APS are willing to hold themselves honestly accountable are even in any way, adequate to the need?

Hint; it is because the standards of conduct to which they are accountable, and only after whatever cost is no object, win at all cost legal defense they need, are manifestly, ridiculously inadequate.

OK, so let's say that Walz knows the standards of conduct are inadequate, and further that he knows that there is no due process for complaints filed against senior administrators and board members.  That would be newsworthy too, right?

So why won't he report on that either?

Kent Walz cannot report credibly on the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS unless and until, he reports credibly on his relentless refusal to report on credible evidence and testimony regarding the cover up of felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators, for the last six years.

The truth is in their depositions, sprinkled amongst the slander and libel; defamation by the pound; not one bit of it supported by one second of videotape, nor one bite of audio, and not by one photograph in six years.

For the record and as an aside;

I emailed the news departments at KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV.  I asked for the name of the person at that station who is deciding to not investigate and report upon credible evidence and testimony regarding a cover up of felony criminal misconduct.

Not one of them would tell me the name of the person whose hand slapped the table and said,
we are not going to investigate this,
we are not even going to read the depositions, and
we are sure as hell not going to report upon it!

Now get back to work.

photo Mark Bralley 

No comments: