Thursday, May 14, 2015

SF schools chief doubles down on conflict of interests

There is a story in the Journal this morning about the Superintendent of Santa Fe Schools and his support of a principal who has been charged with a felony

“for exercising his best judgment 
in resolving a serious classroom matter.”
At the time I published this post, I could not provide a link to this story.  For reasons known only to them, this is one of the stories to which the Journal won't link.  You can read it in a paper, you can read the eJournal, but you can't read it from a link.  Coincidentally, it means no comments from readers will be posted.  The previous report link, generated more than the usual number of comments.
The story here is about a conflict of interests.
Role modeling of obedience to the law;
getting promoted in an oligarchy.
In order to get promoted in public school administration,
you have to be a team player.  What that means is;
you have to make decisions based on what's good for the team, as opposed to, for example, obeying the law.

Case in point;
Felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of APS' publicly funded private police force, link.  No one has ever denied that senior APS administrators were involved in state and federal felony criminal misconduct.

The law (at least an ethical reading of the law) required the leadership of the APS to allow criminal investigations and evidence to be turned over to the DA in order that she could decide whether to prosecute the crimes.

"The team"; various school boards, superintendents and newspaper editors, had conflicting interests.  Their interests lay in covering it all up.  The players left with a bunch of cash they hadn't earned and or retirement with honors, and the DA never saw a shred of evidence.

When it came to following the law or protecting the team, the team's interests prevailed.
Acts are either against the law or not.  At some point, someone somewhere, has to make two decisions;
  1. whether any particular act is against the law or not, and
  2. whether there is any point in prosecution
It is not in the best interests of anyone, to allow the decisions to be made by people who are manifestly conflicted.  Principals are manifestly conflicted.

It requires "authority" to make decisions.
Police officers have the authority to decide whether a particular crime should be prosecuted.  That authority is given them in the law.

Where is the law that reads;
manifestly conflicted principals have the authority
to decide which crimes will and will not be prosecuted.
A recent audit of the APS found; principals routinely falsifying crime statistics at their schools in order to protect the school's (and their own) reputation.

It happens.

No comments: