If, in the opinion of Marty Esquivel and the APS School Board

the "good" Marty Esquivel
APS' award winning website

Marty Esquivel et al., are writing some rules, link, to govern how you will behave and, what you will say when you have the floor at one of their meetings.  Having the floor means it is legitimately your turn to speak.

Esquivel et al., are concerned that you might disrupt "their" meeting while you have the floor.  Unclear still, how you can disrupt your own two minutes of the meeting.

What disrupts meetings is arrogant politicians and public servants disrupting speakers' two minutes, to tell them what they can or cannot say during their two minutes.

The laws on slander adequately protects politicians and public servants from slander.  If they doesn't, they need to change the laws.  They don't get to make up their own. Calling restrictions on liberty "rules of decorum" does not legitimize them.

Police officers have no call to enforce rules of decorum.

Rules of decorum do not legitimately empower or authorize Esquivel et al., to order police to enforce their rules of decorum as though they were laws.  Police are required to enforce the law not "rules of decorum".

the real Esquivel, photo Mark Bralley

Nevertheless, Esquivel et al., are prepared to order their publicly funded private police force to arrest you (the power of the law will be used to restrict your liberty) for "disrupting" "their" meeting even though you have broken no law.  Being arrested and being "charged" with a crime, are entirely different matters.

Esquivel argues; a speaker's refusal to obey, to kow tow to their will, is itself "disruptive".

Denying that you have been disruptive is "disruptive".
Questioning arbitrary and capricious enforcement of unjustifiable rules of decorum is "disruptive", 

regardless of whether the meeting is "disrupted" in any honest interpretation of that concept.

Esquivel et al., insist, on pain of arrest and ejection;
if you speak during the public comment period,
you must;

respect that (your) views and opinions 
may not be shared by all present.

What does that even mean?

Take for example my views and opinions that;

• Esquivel et al., are role models of APS Student Standards of Conduct, and are therefore, accountable to those standards of conduct.
• They are accountable as role models whether they like it or not.  
• They are role models even if they refuse to admit that they are.
• The obligations are immutable; inescapable except by abusing the power they have been entrusted.
• Role models who will not hold themselves honestly accountable to the standards of conduct they role model, do so out of their own cowardice or corruption.

I get that Esquivel et al., disagree with my views and opinions, though audience members have on occasion indicated their agreement those views and opinions.

But how do I prove that I respect that Esquivel et al., disagree?  More importantly, how do I prove it to Esquivel's personal satisfaction?

Which brings up another point.  Esquivel et al. insist that speakers cannot repeat themselves.  They cite a court ruling supporting this restriction.

That only makes it "legal"; it doesn't make it right.

It serves well though, as an illustrative example of the contrast between "the law" and standards of conduct that require doing more than the law requires and less than the law allows; a fundamental precept of APS' student standards of conduct.

Esquivel et al., in addition to prohibiting repetition, would prohibit asking questions.  Woe unto them who ask questions repeatedly.

I have on a number of occasions repeated my question to board members;

Is there even one of you with the character and the courage to step up as an honest to God role model of accountability to the standards of conduct you establish and enforce upon students?

Because the answer is no, and they don't want to admit it, they need rules of decorum to prohibit my asking that question, again.  Because they can't just prohibit that question, and my other questions;

• why will they not produce a candid, forthright and honest accounting of spending at 6400 Uptown Blvd? and,
• why are they hiding the findings of investigations into allegations of felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators? and,
• why will they not suffer an immediate examination and review of administrative and executive standards and accountability? 

they need a policy that prohibits all questions.

Not only do I disrupt their serenity by asking inconvenient questions, I compound it, apparently, but by asking them more than once.  How many times, exactly, can you ask a legitimate question about the public interests or about their public service, before you have asked the question one too many times?  Do we really want to put Esquivel et al., in the position of getting to make that call?

Will rhetorical questions be prohibited?
What if I wondered rhetorically and aloud;

Is there even one of you with the character and the courage
to step up as an honest to God role model of the standards
you establish and enforce upon students?

Because they don't allow questions, they pretend an alternative; people can submit questions in writing. The truth is, I have proved beyond doubt they don't answer written questions either, link.

If you want to make a point that takes longer than two minutes (or one minute in some cases) they tell you, you can write it down and they will read it.  Dig deep enough, you'll find their weasel clause;

The Board of Education Services Office (read "clerk") reserves the right to summarize information, correspondence and comments received prior to providing the information to the board members.

So, they really won't read what you right after-all.

To top it all off, rather than just using the videotape of public comments as the official record;

(Esquivel et al.) ... reserve(s) the right to summarize public comment in the official Board of Education Meeting minutes.

Next Wednesday, Esquivel et al, will approve their PPPMP during their regular meeting.

Next Thursday, will be a day too late
to anything at all to stop them.