APS spending millions without oversight

The leadership of the APS gets sued a lot; both individually and collectively. They spend millions of dollars annually on their defense.  They spend so much money on litigation, compared to comparable districts, that their insurer, United Educators, raised our premiums to cover their losses.  The premium payments come from operational funds; tax dollars would otherwise be spent in classrooms.

Some of the complaints against them are unwarranted.

Many more of the complaints are legitimate complaints of administrative and executive incompetence and or corruption. Rather than own up to the consequences of their incompetence and corruption, the standard to which they hold students accountable, the leadership of the APS will instead use an unlimited budget to pay teams of lawyers to litigate their exception to the law; the lowest standards of conduct there are; the standards that every higher standard is higher than.

The litigation is conducted in the interests of senior administrators, board members and the district, and against the public interests.

The only thing that might keep senior administrators and board members from spending tax dollars in the own interests is oversight.  Oversight in this case is by underling; APS Director of Risk Management Mike Wilson, himself subordinate to them all. The appearance of a conflict of interests is created when subordinates are asked to make decisions that affect the interests of their superordinates.

As far as public oversight over the administration of public resources, it is supposed to be provided by the school board.  It is not.  The board is supposed oversee litigation by listening to candid, forthright and honest "case analyses" presented by their lawyers.  If the lawyer's analysis is that the administrators and or board members are guilty as sin, should settle and decide instead to delay the inevitable through protracted and unjustifiably expensive litigation; the board is supposed to say hell no.  Instead, they have decided to enjoy the plausible deniability that accompanies "knowing nothing".

If at the end of protracted litigation, it looks like they're going to lose, APS and their lawyers will "settle".  Settle means; pay complainants enough money to get them to drop their complaints and sign an agreement that allows the guilty to exonerate themselves of all allegations.  The agreement will read; the respondents admit to no wrong doing.   As further cover over the underlying incompetence or corruption, the local media will then report that the settlement was only made in order to avoid more expensive litigation during which their innocence would have been established.

No administrator or board member is ever held individually accountable for their misconduct and the consequent cost to taxpayers.

That's wrong, right?

The establishment media's relentless refusal to investigate and report upon the spending of millions of operational dollars under conflicted or non-existent oversight is wrong, right?




photo Mark Bralley