Comment on "About last night"

Someone has left an anonymous comment on my post About last night.

S/he expects me apparently, post a largely ad hominem attack.  I have neither an obligation nor any intention to post it in its entirety.  I will defend my position on a couple of points hidden in the attack.

S/he claims I don't understand FUE; that;

FUE is a group of people who are not interested in power.

The argument is self-evident nonsense.  How can someone who suffers because they haven't enough power to successfully defend their interests, have no interest in power?

It would be like a football team with no interest in having the ball.  It doesn't make sense.

"FUE has tirelessly fought for a seat at the table in a professional and constructive manner and our success can be measured by the APS K.01 Family and Community Engagement Policy."

However tirelessly they have fought, APS K.01 Family and Community Engagement Policy, link, does not actually provide any seat, at any table, any where.

Albuquerque Public Schools affirms that the involvement of family and community partners is critical to student success. To better engage our families and community partners, Albuquerque Public Schools shall strive to utilize the histories and cultures of our families, community and students as the foundation of an educational program that ensures every student is eager to be a world-class citizen. Collaborative decision-making processes shall be incorporated in appropriate district actions to improve student outcomes.

Albuquerque Public Schools shall strive to actively build partnerships with families and the community by:

Fostering safe and welcoming environments
Strengthening relationships and capacity with families, teachers, school and district administrators and community partners
Expanding communication between families, community partners and schools
Cultivating equitable and effective systems

Point to the place where it creates an honest to God seat at any table any where.  Claiming, "Collaborative decision-making process shall be incorporated in appropriate district actions" did not create an actual venue.  If it had, FUE and other marginalized stake and interest holders would not still feel left out of the decision making process.  It would not still be an issue in the election.

The revised policy that the commenter claims she helped write and which "improved" the situation, actual struck down more powerful language than it provided.  The policy used to read;

The Board of Education recognizes that constructive study, discussion, and active participation by citizens is necessary to promote the best program of education in the community. To encourage this participation, the Board enacts the following policies.

Citizens Advisory Councils will exist to provide for greater community involvement in the educational planning process.The parents/citizens selected as members of committees should collectively be representative of the entire community and its varying viewpoints.

Tell me anonymous, when and where those Advisory Councils met and played host to open and honest two-way communication between the leadership of the APS and the community members they serve.

Other than raising two points; anonymous had nothing to contribute to the civil discussion of this important issue.

Not to mention; the board recently passed a new policy on public participation in "their" meetings. The policy, link, and the Procedural Directive it promulgated, link, subject any objective reading, further restrict participant's free exercise of Constitutionally protected human rights to free speech and to petition their government.

I suspect the anonymous commenter is actually a school board member with a history of unfiltered commenting in social media.  A member who if asked, will not stand in support of roundtable discussions as an integral part of District and Community Relations committee meetings.

She's not alone.  Not one of them will.

Do have a date on your calendar, on which you plan to sit down and begin open and honest public
discussion of your important issues, with the leadership of the APS?  Could you set one?

If you don't, if you can't, and unless you have no issues at all with the leadership of the APS,
you have no seat at the table.

If you have to ask permission to sit at the table
you have no seat at the table.

When the question is,

do you and yours have seats at the  table?

Any answer except yes, means no.

Other candidates have choices;

1. they can endorse monthly roundtable communication between the leadership of the APS and the communities and community members they serve. or
2. they can explain why regular, open and honest two-way communication is not in the best interests of students, or
3. they can chose to not respond, or
4. they can not respond for some other reason that I cannot imagine and has yet to be articulated.

It's their choice, whether to engage in two-way communication with the communities and community members they serve, or not.

You need to make them declare their intention.
Don't vote for them if they won't.

They pick a side,
when they don't pick a side.