Monday, March 30, 2015

Meetings begin in earnest and in secret

The APS School Board will meet this coming Thursday morning, link.  The meeting has to do with hiring the next superintendent.  It will be conducted in secret from stake and interest holders.

The board is required by law, to tell us what it is they intend to discuss and act upon in secret.

The words used in the law are "reasonably specific."
The board is supposed to be reasonably specific with regard to describing their intentions.  Instead, the board and their million dollar a year "communications" effort comes with this;
We are meeting in secret...

for the Purpose of Discussion of a Limited Personnel Matter regarding the Superintendent Search (Discussion/Action)
What does that mean?  We would know about as much
if they had just offered;
We're going to close the doors and
"do some "school board" stuff".
How are board members supposed to be held accountable (at election) for their part in this process if the most of the process takes place in secret?

The worst thing any politician or public servant can do,
is anything they do in unnecessary secret from the people
who must "trust them" with control of their power and resources.

There will be no recording made of Thursday's meeting, nor of
any other of their meetings in secret.  They would have you believe that law prevents them from making an incontrovertible record; a recording the meeting.  It doesn't; it only ""allows" them that option.

It is their deliberate choice, and only possible because they are not actually accountable to any standards of conduct that prohibit unethical conduct. The standards they establish and enforce upon students, in stark contrast, require students, on a daily basis;
"to model and promote" personal accountability to  ethical standards of conduct; standards which require from them;
a willingness to do "more than the law requires and less than the law allows".
Were school board members and superintendents actually accountable as role models of student standards of conduct; they could be compelled to be more candid, forthright and honest in their communication with stake and interest holders.

But the truth is; they cannot be held accountable as role models; not since they voted unanimously to remove the role modeling clause from their own standards of conduct.  It used to read;
In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adults
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.
Now, according to them and their lawyers, they are accountable only to the law; the standards of conduct that every higher standard of conduct, is higher than.

And not just the law,  but the law as practiced by unscrupulous lawyers who are making a fortune off cost is no object litigation against the public interests in a relentless effort to enable school board members and senior administrators to escape accountability for breaking the law.

I asked the Journal to investigate and report upon their abuse of the secret aspects of the superintendent hiring process, and the Journal did not respond.

The Journal is in apparent agreement still, with the leadership of the APS with regard to how little of the truth, the people really can handle.

Or for that manner, have a right to know.

No comments: