25 years ago, US Sen Pete Domenici became a Founding Father in Character Counts!. He brought the character education model and $30K in federal grant money to the APS school board.
It became a flagship program and in the few years it flourished in the APS, Domenici must have been quite proud.
Last week, the APS School Board voted unanimously to lower APS standards of conduct by removing from them; the Pillars of Character Counts! and, worse still, to close the door on character education in general in the APS.
Currently, there is no district-wide effort whatsoever, to help students develop and maintain their good character.
Because, and only because, the APS Board of education cannot summon individually or collectively, the character and the courage to show students what honest to God accountability to higher standards of conduct looks like.
If we want students to grow into adults who embrace character and courage and honor, someone is going to have to show them what those look like.
They're called role models.
Still, even in the face of hiring the senior-most administrative role model, none of this is “newsworthy”
Monday, February 24, 2020
Pete Domenici must be spinning in his grave
New APS School Board Sees Things Differently
25 years ago, School Board Member standards of conduct had a role modeling clause. It read;
in no case shall the standards of conduct for an adultToday’s school board’s new standards of conduct do not. Nor will the board consider replacing it.
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.
25 years ago, the APS School Board was concerned about students making bad choices. They passed a resolution that addressed students making better choices in their lives by beginning character education in earnest.
The current school board is concerned about students making bad choice. Their solution is to abandon the still binding resolution and the character education if began.
Though it is still binding, having been neither amended nor rescinded, the current board will not even acknowledge its existence, abandoning character education and their duties and obligations as the senior-most role models in the district.
25 years ago, the board expected their superintendent to be a role model of honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct.
The current board made a deliberate decision to not include the words “role model” among the desirable characteristics of their next superintendent.
What has changed over 25 years?
Except the character and courage of school board members
25 years ago, the board recognized;
• the need to join with other community groups to actively engage in the development and demonstration of ethical behavior among youth, adults, and
• the need to provide learners of all ages the skills and knowledge needed to become successful and productive members of a dynamic society, and
• and that students in our schools are more likely now than in the past to experience family disintegration, homicide, drug use, teen age pregnancy, dishonesty, suicide, and strong messages from media and society that undermine home teaching of ethical values, and
• that no single community institution can instill ethical behavior in youth and adults if it is acting without the support of other institutions and groups, and
• important role played by teachers and other adults in school settings in modeling good character for young people
Their solution 25 years ago was to;
• endorse the Aspen Declaration on Character Education as well as the Character Counts! Program as ways to develop character based on six core ethical values; trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship and to
• enter into community-wide discussions with other institutions and groups to reach agreements about the role of each in promoting ethical behavior among young people, and adults in various aspects of life; and commitment to creating models of ethical behavior among all adults who serve students and schools; and to promise that
• the core curriculum should continue to give explicit attention to character development as an ongoing part of school instruction; and that
• materials, teaching methods, partnerships, and services to support school programs shall be selected, in part, for their capacity to support the development of character among youth and adults; and that
• all schools examine school curriculum and practices to identify and extend opportunities for developing character, especially through the utilization of violence-prevention programs, mediation training, community service programs. fair rules which are fairy enforced, democratic practices in classrooms and organizations, and extracurricular activities which help students learn and model caring and ethical behavior.
What has changed over 25 years?
Except the character and courage of school board members
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Why did APS school board members lower student standards of conduct?
Given;
• Student standards of conduct have been lowered .
• School board member standards of conduct have been lowered
• The next superintendent’s standards of conduct have been lowered
• School board members and senior administrators want not to be held accountable as “role models”
• School board members will not respond candidly, forthrightly and honestly to legitimate questions about the public interests and their public service, whether asked in person or in writing.
Why would the board want to lower their own standards of conduct?
• School board members and senior administrators are now, arguably unaccountable even to the law ; the lowest standards of conduct acceptable to civilized human beings.A 927-word definition of the Pillar of Trustworthiness has been removed from student and school board standards of conduct. The new definition will be determined by school board lawyers in the interests of school board members
• Higher standards of conduct include trustworthiness.
Representative samples of those 927 words read;
• Honesty in communications is expressing the truth as best we know it and not conveying it in a way likely to mislead or deceive
• Truthfulness is presenting the facts to the best of our knowledge.
• Sincerity is genuineness, being without trickery or duplicity. It precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading.
• In relationships involving legitimate expectations of trust, honesty may also require candor, forthrightness and frankness, imposing the obligation to volunteer information that another person needs to know.
If the motive of the school board in lowering standards of conduct is not their lack of character and or their lack of courage, then what is it?
APS Superintendent Search; future cover up?
If the Alb Journal, KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV, at the managerial level. are willing to cover up the APS School Board’s lowering of student standards of conduct,
what will they be willing to cover up for the board, in the search for the next superintendent? You know, the one who won’t be a “role model”.
Food for thought
Any answer except yes, means no
When the question is;
will you tell the truth?
Any answer except yes, means no.
KOB, KOAT, KRQE TV and the Alb Journal have been contacted and asked straight out if they will report on the lowering of APS student standards of conduct. yes or no
A letter was sent to the news departments at each news outlet which reads;
I write to you wondering if you are willing to report, given sufficient incontrovertible proof, that
the APS Board of Education has reneged on a still binding school board resolution by
lowering student standards of conduct, and because they are the district’s senior-most role models of student standards of conduct,
lowering their own standards of conduct.
Further that they accomplished this by deleting from the existing standards of conduct, the enabling document and definitions; a 2021 word long nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct called “the Pillars of Character Counts!”
Yes or no, please
Expect to be stonewalled.
Stonewalling the question, means no.
Saturday, February 22, 2020
New APS Superintendent Will Have Much Lower Standards of Conduct
School Board President David Peercy and the Board have drastically lowered student standards of conduct. They have voted unanimously to remove the enabling document and the foundation of student standards of conduct.
The document they deleted is a 2,021 word long nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct.
Because Peercy and the Board are the senior-most role models in the district, when they lowered student standards of conduct, they lowered their own.
When they removed the 927 words from the Pillar of Trustworthiness in student standards of conduct, they removed every one of those words from their own.
Peercy and the Board voted unanimously to delete the enabling definition for the groundwork of student standards of conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!.
Peercy’s new lowered standard of conduct is;
the President of the School Board is expected to model and promote “trustworthiness” (without definition).
If pressed to define “trustworthiness” in response to a complaint filed in State District Court against Peercy and the Board alleging their lack of trustworthiness, the board’s eloquence of lawyers and the Operational Fund will be used to define trustworthiness in a way the will allow Peercy and Board to admit “no guilt” in the settlement.
Unfortunately for Peercy and the Board, they have failed to remove the double standards of conduct in the APS.
Students are still accountable to higher standards of conduct than their senior-most adult role models.
For example, and with respect to “trustworthiness”;
Peercy and the board are expected to
“… model and promote trustworthiness (undefined) ... “
Students are expected to
",,, model and model and promote trustworthiness …
(also undefined but only since the board deleted the 927 word enabling definition)
The standards of conduct appear identical. That is the illusion that Peercy and the Board want stake and interest holders to buy.
There is a huge difference; the student standard of conduct is enforceable because the standard is written in their standards of conduct.
In stark contrast, APS executive and administrative standards of conduct do not include in writing anywhere;
School board members and senior administrators are expected to model and promote trustworthiness (subject to definition).
No one in the entire leadership of the APS is actually, honest to God accountable as a role model of accountability to the same standards of conduct that they establish and enforce upon APS students.
They are not accountable as role models of anything. They are striking the words "role model" from whatever standards they can.
They made a deliberate decision that the next superintendent will not be expected to be;
a "role model" of honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence within his or her public service.
Local media investigative teams, the Journal's in particular; are still apparently disinterested in any investigation and report.
APS School board voted unanimously to lower their own standards of conduct.
Incontrovertible evidence; irrefutable logic
Below please find, "the Pillars of Character Counts" . This reference was removed from student standards of conduct in order to remove them from school board members standards of conduct.
School Board President David Peercy claims removing them makes no difference; nobody's standards of conduct have been lowered.
see for yourself
The Pillars of Character Counts! (2021 words)
1. TRUSTWORTHINESS
When others trust us, they give us greater leeway because they feel we don’t need monitoring to assure that we’ll meet our obligations. They believe in us and hold us in higher esteem. That’s satisfying. At the same time, we must constantly live up to the expectations of others and refrain from even small lies or self-serving behavior that can quickly destroy our relationships.
Simply refraining from deception is not enough. Trustworthiness is the most complicated of the six core ethical values and concerns a variety of qualities like honesty, integrity, reliability and loyalty.
Honesty
There is no more fundamental ethical value than honesty. We associate honesty with people of honor, and we admire and rely on those who are honest. But honesty is a broader concept than many may realize. It involves both communications and conduct.
Honesty in communications is expressing the truth as best we know it and not conveying it in a way likely to mislead or deceive. There are three dimensions:
Truthfulness. Truthfulness is presenting the facts to the best of our knowledge. Intent is the crucial distinction between truthfulness and truth itself. Being wrong is not the same thing as lying, although honest mistakes can still damage trust insofar as they may show sloppy judgment.
Sincerity. Sincerity is genuineness, being without trickery or duplicity. It precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading.
Candor. In relationships involving legitimate expectations of trust, honesty may also require candor, forthrightness and frankness, imposing the obligation to volunteer information that another person needs to know.
Honesty in conduct is playing by the rules, without stealing, cheating, fraud, subterfuge and other trickery. Cheating is a particularly foul form of dishonesty because one not only seeks to deceive but to take advantage of those who are not cheating. It’s a two-fer: a violation of both trust and fairness.
Not all lies are unethical, even though all lies are dishonest. Huh? That’s right, honesty is not an inviolate principle. Occasionally, dishonesty is ethically justifiable, as when the police lie in undercover operations or when one lies to criminals or terrorists to save lives. But don’t kid yourself: occasions for ethically sanctioned lying are rare and require serving a very high purpose indeed, such as saving a life — not hitting a management-pleasing sales target or winning a game or avoiding a confrontation.
Integrity
The word integrity comes from the same Latin root as “integer,” or whole number. Like a whole number, a person of integrity is undivided and complete. This means that the ethical person acts according to her beliefs, not according to expediency. She is also consistent. There is no difference in the way she makes decisions from situation to situation, her principles don’t vary at work or at home, in public or alone.
Because she must know who she is and what she values, the person of integrity takes time for self-reflection, so that the events, crises and seeming necessities of the day do not determine the course of her moral life. She stays in control. She may be courteous, even charming, but she is never duplicitous. She never demeans herself with obsequious behavior toward those she thinks might do her some good. She is trusted because you know who she is: what you see is what you get.
People without integrity are called “hypocrites” or “two-faced.”
Reliability (Promise-Keeping)
When we make promises or other commitments that create a legitimate basis for another person to rely upon us, we undertake special moral duties. We accept the responsibility of making all reasonable efforts to fulfill our commitments. Because promise-keeping is such an important aspect of trustworthiness, it is important to:
Avoid bad-faith excuses. Interpret your promises fairly and honestly. Don’t try to rationalize noncompliance.
Avoid unwise commitments. Before making a promise consider carefully whether you are willing and likely to keep it. Think about unknown or future events that could make it difficult, undesirable or impossible. Sometimes, all we can promise is to do our best.
Avoid unclear commitments. Be sure that when you make a promise, the other person understands what you are committing to do.
Loyalty
Some relationships — husband-wife, employer-employee, citizen-country — create an expectation of allegiance, fidelity and devotion. Loyalty is a responsibility to promote the interests of certain people, organizations or affiliations. This duty goes beyond the normal obligation we all share to care for others.
Limitations to loyalty. Loyalty is a tricky thing. Friends, employers, co-workers and others may demand that we rank their interests above ethical considerations. But no one has the right to ask another to sacrifice ethical principles in the name of a special relationship. Indeed, one forfeits a claim of loyalty when he or she asks so high a price for maintaining the relationship.
Prioritizing loyalties. So many individuals and groups make loyalty claims on us that we must rank our loyalty obligations in some rational fashion. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable, and ethical, to look out for the interests of our children, parents and spouses even if we have to subordinate our obligations to other children, neighbors or co-workers in doing so.
Safeguarding confidential information. Loyalty requires us to keep some information confidential. When keeping a secret breaks the law or threatens others, however, we may have a responsibility to “blow the whistle.”
Avoiding conflicting interests. Employees and public servants have a duty to make all professional decisions on merit, unimpeded by conflicting personal interests. They owe ultimate loyalty to the public.
2. RESPECT
People are not things, and everyone has a right to be treated with dignity. We certainly have no ethical duty to hold all people in high esteem, but we should treat everyone with respect, regardless of who they are and what they have done. We have a responsibility to be the best we can be in all situations, even when dealing with unpleasant people.
The Golden Rule — do unto others as you would have them do unto you — nicely illustrates the Pillar of respect. Respect prohibits violence, humiliation, manipulation and exploitation. It reflects notions such as civility, courtesy, decency, dignity, autonomy, tolerance and acceptance.
Civility, Courtesy and Decency
A respectful person is an attentive listener, although his patience with the boorish need not be endless (respect works both ways). Nevertheless, the respectful person treats others with consideration, and doesn’t resort to intimidation, coercion or violence except in extraordinary and limited situations to defend others, teach discipline, maintain order or achieve social justice. Punishment is used in moderation and only to advance important social goals and purposes.
Dignity and Autonomy
People need to make informed decisions about their own lives. Don’t withhold the information they need to do so. Allow all individuals, including maturing children, to have a say in the decisions that affect them.
Tolerance and Acceptance
Accept individual differences and beliefs without prejudice. Judge others only on their character, abilities and conduct.
3. RESPONSIBILITY
Life is full of choices. Being responsible means being in charge of our choices and, thus, our lives. It means being accountable for what we do and who we are. It also means recognizing that our actions matter and we are morally on the hook for the consequences. Our capacity to reason and our freedom to choose make us morally autonomous and, therefore, answerable for whether we honor or degrade the ethical principles that give life meaning and purpose.
Ethical people show responsibility by being accountable, pursuing excellence and exercising self-restraint. They exhibit the ability to respond to expectations.
Accountability
An accountable person is not a victim and doesn’t shift blame or claim credit for the work of others. He considers the likely consequences of his behavior and associations. He recognizes the common complicity in the triumph of evil when nothing is done to stop it. He leads by example.
Pursuit of Excellence
The pursuit of excellence has an ethical dimension when others rely upon our knowledge, ability or willingness to perform tasks safely and effectively.
Diligence. It is hardly unethical to make mistakes or to be less than “excellent,” but there is a moral obligation to do one’s best, to be diligent, reliable, careful, prepared and informed.
Perseverance. Responsible people finish what they start, overcoming rather than surrendering to obstacles. They avoid excuses such as, “That’s just the way I am,” or “It’s not my job,” or “It was legal.”
Continuous Improvement. Responsible people always look for ways to do their work better.
Self-Restraint
Responsible people exercise self-control, restraining passions and appetites (such as lust, hatred, gluttony, greed and fear) for the sake of longer-term vision and better judgment. They delay gratification if necessary and never feel it’s necessary to “win at any cost.” They realize they are as they choose to be, every day.
4. FAIRNESS
What is fairness? Most would agree it involves issues of equality, impartiality, proportionality, openness and due process. Most would agree that it is unfair to handle similar matters inconsistently. Most would agree that it is unfair to impose punishment that is not commensurate with the offense. The basic concept seems simple, even intuitive, yet applying it in daily life can be surprisingly difficult. Fairness is another tricky concept, probably more subject to legitimate debate and interpretation than any other ethical value. Disagreeing parties tend to maintain that there is only one fair position (their own, naturally). But essentially fairness implies adherence to a balanced standard of justice without relevance to one’s own feelings or inclinations.
Process
Process is crucial in settling disputes, both to reach the fairest results and to minimize complaints. A fair person scrupulously employs open and impartial processes for gathering and evaluating information necessary to make decisions. Fair people do not wait for the truth to come to them; they seek out relevant information and conflicting perspectives before making important judgments.
Impartiality
Decisions should be made without favoritism or prejudice.
Equity
An individual, company or society should correct mistakes, promptly and voluntarily. It is improper to take advantage of the weakness or ignorance of others.
5. CARING
If you existed alone in the universe, there would be no need for ethics and your heart could be a cold, hard stone. Caring is the heart of ethics, and ethical decision-making. It is scarcely possible to be truly ethical and yet unconcerned with the welfare of others. That is because ethics is ultimately about good relations with other people.
It is easier to love “humanity” than to love people. People who consider themselves ethical and yet lack a caring attitude toward individuals tend to treat others as instruments of their will. They rarely feel an obligation to be honest, loyal, fair or respectful except insofar as it is prudent for them to do so, a disposition which itself hints at duplicity and a lack of integrity. A person who really cares feels an emotional response to both the pain and pleasure of others.
Of course, sometimes we must hurt those we truly care for, and some decisions while quite ethical, do cause pain. But one should consciously cause no more harm than is reasonably necessary to perform one’s duties.
The highest form of caring is the honest expression of benevolence, or altruism. This is not to be confused with strategic charity. Gifts to charities to advance personal interests are a fraud. That is, they aren’t gifts at all. They’re investments or tax write-offs.
6. CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship includes civic virtues and duties that prescribe how we ought to behave as part of a community. The good citizen knows the laws and obeys them, yes, but that’s not all. She volunteers and stays informed on the issues of the day, the better to execute her duties and privileges as a member of a self-governing democratic society. She does more than her “fair” share to make society work, now and for future generations. Such a commitment to the public sphere can have many expressions, such as conserving resources, recycling, using public transportation and cleaning up litter. The good citizen gives more than she takes.
Friday, February 21, 2020
APS Accountability is smoke and mirrors
APS and the NMIPRA
Before the board lowered its standards of conduct, they included this principle;
Ethical people often do less than is permitted by the law and more than is required.
In other words, with respect to public records, the board should be producing every public record that the law will allow.
Quite the opposite.
When it comes to public records like evidence of felony public corruption in the leadership of the APS and their publicly funded private police force, the board will produce only what the law absolutely requires “and only after an order from a court of the highest competent jurisdiction”.
More importantly; after squandering the public trust and treasure by draining the operational fund on litigation and legal weaselry.
That is one of the many reasons that the APS Board of Education and their next Superintendent want not to be held accountable to higher standards of conduct than the law; the lowest standards of conduct acceptable to civilized human; lowered still further by their exploitation of legal loopholes, technicalities and weaknesses in the law.
Nowhere in executive and administrative standards of conduct will you find due processes under which complaints can be filed against school board members and administrators and where a principled resolution of the complaint can be expected.
Ethics and accountability in the leadership of the APS is smoke and mirrors.
Not unlike the media, the Journal in particular, and their purported dedication to draining the swamp.
Double Standards of Conduct Persist in the APS
In 2005, the APS Board of Education voted unanimously to remove a role modeling clause from their own standards of conduct. It had read;
In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult be lower than the standards of conduct for students.
Since, there have been double standards of conduct in the APS; the “law” for board members and senior administrators and for students, a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct; higher standards of conduct than the law.
School Board President David Peercy and the Board think they eliminated the double standards by lowering student standards of conduct by removing from them, the only mention of the actual code of ethics in question; the Pillars of Character Counts!.
Peercy has led the board astray. There are still double standards of conduct in the APS.
The new student standard reads in significant part;
“students are expected to model and promote Trustworthiness”
Nowhere in the standards of conduct that apply to the school board and to their next superintendent will you find;
“School Board Members and Superintendents are expected to model and promote trustworthiness.”
Even if there were, there is no place to file a complaint. Where would a complaint be filed over David Peercy’s manifest failure to model and promote trustworthiness?
Assume a complaint could be filed; let's say, in State Disrict Court; perhaps a Writ of Mandamus.
A controversy would develop over the meaning of the word "trustworthy".
The Board’s eloquence of lawyers will argue in favor of what ever definition allows school board members and superintendents to admit “no guilt” in any settlement of a lawsuit against them.
Those opposing will argue;
the standards of conduct that the board removed when the deleted the Pillar of Trustworthiness from student standards of conduct, suffice as the definition.
Student standards on Trustworthiness had read;
• “Honesty in communications is expressing the truth as best we know it and not conveying it in a way likely to mislead or deceive.”
• “Truthfulness is presenting the facts to the best of our knowledge.”
• “In relationships involving legitimate expectations of trust, honesty may also require candor, forthrightness and frankness, imposing the obligation to “
• Sincerity is genuineness, being without trickery or duplicity. It precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading.
Peercy’s lowering of student standards of conduct in order to lower his own, was bungled; the double standards of conduct still exist.
On the bright side for Peercy and the board, their effort to keep the media from reporting on their lowering of students standards is working as well as they could possibly hope.
APS School Board Will Take no Questions
Not any time, nor in any venue, not by any means; in person or in writing, will the APS school board answer legitimate questions about the public interests and their public service.
In particular, they are taking no questions on school board ethics, standards, accountability or, board member’s obligations as the senior-most role models in the APS.
They will not engage in an open and honest public, two-way discussion about their own standards of conduct.
Will the superintendent they select in their meetings in secret, stand for questions about their ethics, standards and accountability?
Will they stand up as a role model?
What do you think?
The board’s unanimous decision to not include “role model” among the desirable characteristics of their next superintendent should end any boggle.
The board steadfastly refuses to
1. Point to the ethics, and standards of conduct to which they claim accountability; specifically; in print, page, paragraph and line.
2. Point to the due processes by which stake and interest holders can hold school board members and senior administrator accountable to those standards.
3. Produce public records of investigations of public corruption; state and federal felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of APS publicly funded private police force (2007)
4. Produce public records of expenditures on what has been described as cost-is-no-object legal defenses for school board members, senior administrators and public records requests.
5. Produce public records of communications between APS and its insurers regarding increased premiums related to excessive spending on litigation (and legal weaselry).
What will it take do you suppose, to get any one of KOB, KOAT, KRQE or the Journal to investigate and report upon ethics, standards, accountability and role modeling in the leadership of the APS?
Thursday, February 20, 2020
APS Board Begins Role Modeling of Student Standards of conduct
APS School Board Member Armijo Role Models New Student Standards of Conduct re; Caring and Fairness
The APS School Board was discussing student misbehavior and how they might avoid having to punish students for misbehaving by keeping students from making bad choices in the first place.
The discussion immediately followed their unanimous vote to lower student standards of conduct; abandoning at once and for all, any premise of a district wide effort to build good character in students.
The irony hits like a club, doesn’t it?
Board Member Armijo feels she has stepped up as a role model of accountability to the same standards of conduct that she establishes and has enforced upon students.
It’s a low bar; the new standard reads;
students are expected to model and promote caring and fairness.
The old higher standard of conduct, the one Armijo voted to removed, was a little more robust. 424 words more robust.
Please find among them;
“A fair person scrupulously employs open and impartial processes for gathering and evaluating information necessary to make decisions.”
The board ignored this ethic in the process they employed to lower student standards of conduct.
One cannot be a role model of honest accountability to standards of conduct they can and have ignored at will.
Before Armijo and the board lowered student standards, student were expected to
model and promote (honest accountability to) "the Pillars of Fairness and Caring."
4. FAIRNESS
What is fairness? Most would agree it involves issues of equality, impartiality, proportionality, openness and due process. Most would agree that it is unfair to handle similar matters inconsistently. Most would agree that it is unfair to impose punishment that is not commensurate with the offense. The basic concept seems simple, even intuitive, yet applying it in daily life can be surprisingly difficult. Fairness is another tricky concept, probably more subject to legitimate debate and interpretation than any other ethical value. Disagreeing parties tend to maintain that there is only one fair position (their own, naturally). But essentially fairness implies adherence to a balanced standard of justice without relevance to one’s own feelings or inclinations.
Process
Process is crucial in settling disputes, both to reach the fairest results and to minimize complaints. A fair person scrupulously employs open and impartial processes for gathering and evaluating information necessary to make decisions. Fair people do not wait for the truth to come to them; they seek out relevant information and conflicting perspectives before making important judgments.
Impartiality
Decisions should be made without favoritism or prejudice.
Equity
An individual, company or society should correct mistakes, promptly and voluntarily. It is improper to take advantage of the weakness or ignorance of others.
5. CARING
If you existed alone in the universe, there would be no need for ethics and your heart could be a cold, hard stone. Caring is the heart of ethics, and ethical decision-making. It is scarcely possible to be truly ethical and yet unconcerned with the welfare of others. That is because ethics is ultimately about good relations with other people.
It is easier to love “humanity” than to love people. People who consider themselves ethical and yet lack a caring attitude toward individuals tend to treat others as instruments of their will. They rarely feel an obligation to be honest, loyal, fair or respectful except insofar as it is prudent for them to do so, a disposition which itself hints at duplicity and a lack of integrity. A person who really cares feels an emotional response to both the pain and pleasure of others.
Of course, sometimes we must hurt those we truly care for, and some decisions while quite ethical, do cause pain. But one should consciously cause no more harm than is reasonably necessary to perform one’s duties.
The highest form of caring is the honest expression of benevolence, or altruism. This is not to be confused with strategic charity. Gifts to charities to advance personal interests are a fraud. That is, they aren’t gifts at all. They’re investments or tax write-offs.
Have APS Student Standards of Conduct Been Lowered, or Not?
Students will model and promote trustworthiness …
Because she must know who she is and what she values, the person of integrity takes time for self-reflection, so that the events, crises and seeming necessities of the day do not determine the course of her moral life. She stays in control. She may be courteous, even charming, but she is never duplicitous. She never demeans herself with obsequious behavior toward those she thinks might do her some good. She is trusted because you know who she is: what you see is what you get.
People without integrity are called “hypocrites” or “two-faced.”
- Avoid bad-faith excuses. Interpret your promises fairly and honestly. Don’t try to rationalize noncompliance.
- Avoid unwise commitments. Before making a promise consider carefully whether you are willing and likely to keep it. Think about unknown or future events that could make it difficult, undesirable or impossible. Sometimes, all we can promise is to do our best.
- Avoid unclear commitments. Be sure that when you make a promise, the other person understands what you are committing to do.
Limitations to loyalty. Loyalty is a tricky thing. Friends, employers, co-workers and others may demand that we rank their interests above ethical considerations. But no one has the right to ask another to sacrifice ethical principles in the name of a special relationship. Indeed, one forfeits a claim of loyalty when he or she asks so high a price for maintaining the relationship.
Prioritizing loyalties. So many individuals and groups make loyalty claims on us that we must rank our loyalty obligations in some rational fashion. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable, and ethical, to look out for the interests of our children, parents and spouses even if we have to subordinate our obligations to other children, neighbors or co-workers in doing so.
Safeguarding confidential information. Loyalty requires us to keep some information confidential. When keeping a secret breaks the law or threatens others, however, we may have a responsibility to “blow the whistle.”
Avoiding conflicting interests. Employees and public servants have a duty to make all professional decisions on merit, unimpeded by conflicting personal interests. They owe ultimate loyalty to the public.
APS "Leadership" in Hiding
“1. Make the education and well-being of students the basis for all decision making; …”… reads the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education’s utterly unenforceable Code of Ethics.
• How does lowering student standards of conduct enable the education of students; how does it enhance student well-being? and
• How does not having a role modeling clause in school board and senior administrative standards of conduct enable the education of students and enhance student well-being? and
• How does spending millions of operational fund dollars on cost-is-no-object legal defenses for school board members and senior administrators enable the education of students and enhance student well-being? and
• How does refusing to reconsider in an open and honest public meeting, an old school board resolution that created high standards of conduct for students and promised adult role models of honest accountability to those standards enable the education of students and enhance student well-being?
Neither APS School Board President David Peercy nor any other senior role model in the entire APS will respond to any question in any venue where the are subject to follow up questions.
The senior-most role models in the entire APS are in hiding over role modeling.
I cannot imagine, nor has anyone suggested any reason to interpret the media’s refusal to investigate and report upon the ethics, standards, accountability crisis in the leadership of the APS as anything but their complicity;
their aid and abet in the cover up of that crisis.
David Peercy; role model?
APS School Board President David Peercy is arguably the senior-most role model in the entire APS.
Role model in this context means; Showing students what it looks like to hold oneself honestly accountable to the same standards of conduct that he and the board establish and enforce upon students.
It behooves David Peercy to lower student standards of conduct, in so much as lowering them simultaneously lowers his own.
Peercy and the board want not to be held accountable to one standard in particular among those they deleted last night.
They want not to model that standard of conduct would require Peercy to respond to legitimate questions candidly, forthrightly and honestly.
Peercy and the board will not respond to legitimate questions about the public interests and their public service, honestly or otherwise.
It is in fact, against their “rules” to question them in any venue where they might be expected to respond.
Not only can David Peercy and the board not find the character and the courage to be role models of ethical standards of conduct, they cannot summon the character and courage discuss their abdication in a open and honest public meeting.
By definition, a role model takes questions about what it is they are role models of. It’s what they do.
Real role models anyway
APS School Board Shirks Accountability Still
In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult
be lower than the standards of conduct of students.
The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education removed this role modeling clause from their own standards of conduct. They refuse to discuss that removal and its replacement in an open and honest public meeting.
Last night, the board removed from student standards of conduct, reference to a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct.
For no other reason than avoiding, as the senior-most role models in the APS, their own accountability to ethical standards of conduct.
The media KRQE, KOAT, and KOB have been convinced to help the leadership of the APS cover up this abomination by not reporting on it.
The ethics, standards, accountability and role modeling crisis in the leadership of the APS will remain secret to stake and interest holders, Even through the hiring of the next superintendent.
That's wrong, right?
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
The Albuquerque Public School Board of Education Made a Solemn Promise …
… twenty five years ago when they, by unanimous school board resolution, adopted for students, a specific standards of conduct. Those were and are called the Pillars of Character Counts! and can be viewed here; link
The board intends to change student standards of conduct, to lower student standards, by removing any reference to them in new standards for students.
Additionally, more importantly, their still binding 1994 resolution included their promise to provide adult role models who would show students what it looks like to hold oneself actually, honestly accountable to those standards of conduct.
The board’s Standards of Conduct at the time, included a role modeling clause that read;
in no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult be lower than the standards of conduct for students.
They later removed that clause when they discovered what they had inadvertently promised; and in an effort to escape legal accountability as role models, in State District Court.
The board fully intends to renege on the promises they made in that resolution.
They intend to ignore them. They refuse to discuss the, neither rescinded nor amended, resolution in an open and honest public meeting; a meeting wherein they will take and respond to questions.
They fully intend to strike higher student standards of conduct from the next Student Handbook.
Their first tenet in the APS School Board Code of Ethics reads:
“1. Make the education and well-being of students the basis for all decision making; …”
Can any one of them explain, in words that any student can understand, how lowering expectations regarding their conduct enables either their education or their well-being?
No, they cannot.
That’s why they’re going to do it in a meeting that most people can’t attend and that’s why they’re not going to take questions or allow real public input.
The media and the Journal have been invited to the meeting
… over and over and over again
“Honesty” to be deleted from APS student standards of conduct
The Albuquerque Public Schools will meet tomorrow. They intend to delete “the Pillars of Character Counts!” from student standards of conduct.
Whatever standards they remove from student standards of conduct, they remove from their own.
They are after all, the senior-most role models in the entire school district; at least for the time being.
They recently refused to add “role model” to the desirable characteristics of their next superintendent. They refuse to discuss in public and on the record, their ongoing unanimous refusal to replace a role modeling clause in their own standards of conduct;
in no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult be lower than the standards of conduct for students.
The specific language they intend to remove from students and their own standards of conduct reads in significant part;
Honesty
There is no more fundamental ethical value than honesty. We associate honesty with people of honor, and we admire and rely on those who are honest. But honesty is a broader concept than many may realize. It involves both communications and conduct.
Honesty in communications is expressing the truth as best we know it and not conveying it in a way likely to mislead or deceive. There are three dimensions:
Truthfulness. Truthfulness is presenting the facts to the best of our knowledge. Intent is the crucial distinction between truthfulness and truth itself. Being wrong is not the same thing as lying, although honest mistakes can still damage trust insofar as they may show sloppy judgment.
Sincerity. Sincerity is genuineness, being without trickery or duplicity. It precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading.
Candor. In relationships involving legitimate expectations of trust, honesty may also require candor, forthrightness and frankness, imposing the obligation to volunteer information that another person needs to know.
It is impossible to read those words and not comprehend that removing them from student standards of conduct, lowers student standards of conduct.
Lowering student standards of conduct lowers by logical extension, the standards of conduct of their adult role models.
School Board President David Peercy’s claim that he and other board members are accountable to “even higher standards” than the ones he intends to remove is a bald-faced lie.
Were there any such standards, he could, would and should point to them. And then to the due processes by which he and other school board members can be held honestly accountable to them.
David Peercy has deliberately, with malice and forethought, keep public discussion of the role modeling clause off of school board meeting agendas for as long as he has been on the board.
Monday, February 17, 2020
APS' Armenta to Earn Her Keep
APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta will earn her $10K a month salary this week.
She will be expected to keep KOB, KRQE, KRQE and the Journal from reporting on the board of education this week as they try to
• lower student standards of conduct,
• keep a role modeling clause out of their and the next superintendent’s standards of conduct,
• do it all without being held accountable.
If Armenta can convince the media to continue to ignore the ethics, standards, accountability and role modeling crisis in the leadership of the APS, she will earn the $500 a day they pay her to keep stake and interest holders in the dark.
The student standard of conduct that the “leadership” of the APS intends to remove;
“… precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading.”
The APS board of education seeks to escape responsibility as role models of honest to God accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence within their public service.
That they can, right under your nose, use three teacher salaries to create beliefs and leave impressions that are untrue or misleading is proof on its face of an ethics, standards, accountability and role modeling scandal in the leadership.
That it is not already the subject of investigations and reports by and from local news other than KOB TV, is proof on its face that Monica Armenta is getting her job done.
Sunday, February 16, 2020
Alb Journal Cannot Report Credibly on APS Scandal
The Journal cannot report credibly on the ethics, standards, accountability and role modeling crisis in the leadership of the APS without first reporting credibly on their relentless refusal heretofore to investigate and report upon convincing evidence and testimony of corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS.
The Journal reported (2007) upon state and federal felony criminal misconduct involving the leadership of APS and its publicly funded private police force. link
They refused to investigate and report upon APS’ cover up; no evidence or testimony was ever turned over to the DA for prosecution.
The Journal knew (2005-06) when the school board voted unanimously to delete a role modeling clause from their own standards of conduct that read;
in no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult be lower than the standards of conduct for students.The Journal knows that the board refuses to discuss whether to replace the role modeling in an open and honest public meeting.
The Journal knows that the board recently refused to add “role model” to the desirable characteristics in their next superintendent.
The Journal knows that the board is prepared (Wednesday next) to lower student standards of conduct in order to evade accountability as role models, to higher standards of conduct than the law; the lowest standards of conduct acceptable to civilized human beings.
The Journal knows that consequent to the board’s squandering of the public trust and treasure on cost-is-no-object legal defenses, they are arguably unaccountable even to the law.
And the Journal will neither investigate nor report upon any of this; even through a number of school board member election, bond issue and mill levy elections.
The Journal is a “newspaper of record” that will not investigate and report upon the largest scandal in the history of the leadership of the APS.
When KOB TV reports upon the lowering of student standards of conduct and what that means, KRQE and KOAT TV will likely follow suit.
The Journal may as well, but how can you believe a word they finally print?
cc Journal upon posting
Saturday, February 15, 2020
The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education has a Code of Ethics
In one of their first acts since refusing to include “role model” in the list of characteristics required of the next superintendent, the board decided in a committee meeting wherein no public input was allowed, to lower student standards of conduct by removing their basis; the Pillars of Character Counts!
The APS School Board has a Code of Ethics
Their first tenet reads:
“1. Make the education and well-being of students the basis for all decision making; …”
How exactly, how are the education and well-being of students served by lowering their standards of conduct?
The answer is as obvious as it is inexorable.
The well-being of students is not served in the least by lowering their standards of conduct. Quite the opposite; lowering standards of conduct flies
in the face of their best interests.
We will never know the board’s response to that question because they don’t allow questions.
How exactly, how are the education and well-being served by lowering their standards of conduct?
The Albuquerque Public School Board of Education will not respond to that question.
The current student standards of conduct; the ones they intend to delete, read in significant part;
Sincerity is genuineness, being without trickery or duplicity. It precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading.And
In relationships involving legitimate expectations of trust, honesty may also require candor, forthrightness and frankness, imposing the obligation to volunteer information that another person needs to know.
The Board of Education’s Code of Ethics is unfortunately, and by their own free admission, completely unenforceable.
Thursday next, will be exactly one day too late to stop the school board from lowering student standards of conduct.
Your silence gives consent
and enables a cover up of an ethics, standards, accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.
