Friday, October 17, 2014

$175K APS Brooks settlement a tenth of taxpayer liability

In the Journal this morning, link, the settlement with the other of two administrators in a federal lawsuit against former APS Supt Winston Brooks.

The amount of the other settlement is still secret from the people whose money it used to be.

I am willing to guess; if we knew the number of dollars at stake in yet to be settled lawsuits against the Brooks administration, it will be ten times or more, the number settled on these two.

And, the settlement number the Journal published, I am willing to guess; does not include inordinate numbers of dollars funneled to law firms friendly to the leadership of the APS.

All of these dollars are "operational dollars".  Operational dollars are dollars that could be spent in classrooms instead of being spent on cost is no object legal defenses for school board members and superintendents.

Some, may be covered by insurance.  Taxpayers premiums for that insurance have already been raised at least once (that I know of personally) as a direct result of the amount of money APS board members and superintendents spend on litigation.  It is worth noting; they spent without any real oversight.  Self oversight and subordinate oversight are not oversight.  They are oxymora.

"I am willing to guess" because without any data, what else can you do?

Why do stake and interest holders not know, and why cannot they find out, how public funds are being spent?  Why the big secret?

Obviously they have something to hide.

Obviously, the Journal is ready, willing and able to help them hide it.  Journal reporter Jon Swedien writes once again, link;

In (the) other cases involving Brooks, a judge in 2013 dismissed a suit made by three APS principals who claimed they were unfairly demoted.

There is also an ongoing case involving Ruby Ethridge, a former APS associate superintendent. Ethridge filed a civil rights suit against APS and Brooks, arguing she was demoted after complaining that Brooks “treated woman with disdain.”
I added the (the) obviously.  If Swedien had written it, it would be an outright lie.  Without it, the statement is simply misleading.  If it were first time he had done it, it might be inadvertent.  At this point it is a pattern.

If the intention of those paragraphs is not to mislead readers into thinking those are the only ongoing lawsuits against Winston Brooks and taxpayers,  then I,
(as my father used to say) am a Chinese sea cook.

No comments: