In the Journal this morning, link, the editors come with decades late umbrage over the fact that APS administrators are kept in positions of responsibility and authority despite their irresponsibility; that the district wrongly protects them from the consequences of their incompetence and or corruption.
The editors feign outrage upon learning that though there is a legitimate need to not comment on incidents until the facts are known,
"As is often the case at APS, mum’s the word."
for far beyond what can be ethically justified. They hide the truth for as long as they can, even by means of expensive legal weaselry and litigation against the public interests.
The wheat buried in the editorial chaff is this; because the leadership of the APS
- "... retaliates against employees who try to report unacceptable conduct ..."
- "... students and staff at multiple schools can now deal with drama that simply should not have been allowed to drag on."
- if the allegations are true and
- if APS considers a principal showing up drunk to be inappropriate.
"... that is something taxpayers should be blowing the whistle on."on their own.
Thanks editors; for doing your part in informing the democracy.