Armenta and Chavez; "communications staffers" or Journal bias?

It has bugged me from the first reading of Hailey Heinz' report on my federal civil rights lawsuit against the school board and a handful of individually identified board members and senior administrators.

Two of the senior administrators and named respondents are APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta and Director of Communications Rigo Chavez.




Chavez is being sued in his capacity as "Records Custodian" and not over his individual conduct or competence.

In her story, Heinz identified them both as "communications staffers".

Armenta is part of the leadership team.  She takes down more than $100K; she sits at the table where decisions are made.

Why did Heinz, or whomever wrote the headline, write that I was suing the "schools", and not that I am suing the school board itself and three senior administrators?

Why did Heinz write,

"A longtime critic of Albuquerque Public Schools is suing "the school district",

when the complaint reads clearly and unequivocally;

plaintiff
v.
the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education ...

The complaint was made against the board, collectively and individually in the cases of Marty Esquivel and David Robbins.
Why is the truth being soft pedaled?

These are a few of the points I would make and questions I would ask when, if, the Journal ever gets around to reporting on both sides; when they finally get around to interviewing the complainant as well as the respondents, as part of the balanced coverage of the suit that they are obligated to provide.

Why was I not interviewed?  Why am I not allowed to refute and rebut the impressions Heinz and the Journal have allowed to be created and enable to be perpetuated?

It's because they're not really accountable to anyone but each other.

There really is a privileged class here in River City, and
they really do cover each others' asses.




photos Mark Bralley