There is a manifest conflict of interests;
- their obligation to conduct an impartial evaluation of the superintendent and
- their own personal public relations needs.
Interest holders in APS Supt Winston Brooks' evaluation, haven't one shred of truth to examine. They are supposed to hold board members accountable at election for their selection and evaluations of superintendents, and they haven't a shred of truth on which to base their vote.
Stakeholders have a need to know how their power has been used and how their resources have been spent in and by, the administration of the APS.
More importantly, they have a right to know.
Late Wednesday afternoon, a regular school board meeting will begin. It will include a public forum. In order to sign up, you have to get there before 5pm, even though the forum itself begins much later. Immediately, people are disenfranchised by needless regulation benefiting only those with an interest in limiting the opportunity for people to avail themselves of a public forum.
There are two schools of thought on the truth in government.
1. The prevailing thought among politicians and public servants is that the truth about their public service belongs to them, and the people need to prove their right to know it.When the board adjourns from an open meeting into a meeting in secret, they make a public statement about what it is they intend to decide in secret. When the meeting reconvenes, another public statement is made about what it was, that they decided in secret.
2. The truth about public service belongs to the people; those whose power and resources are being spent, and the government needs to prove its need to secret any of it.
There is a phrase which applies to these statements, they must be "reasonably specific". There are two schools of thought on "reasonably specific" truth telling;
1. tell as little truth as is required by the law, orIn the face of no truth telling at all, it would appear that APS School Board President Marty Esquivel and the APS School Board have decided to tell as little of the truth as the law absolutely, positively requires.
2. tell as much truth as the law will allow.
Is Esquivel telling as much
of the truth as he can or,
is he hiding as much truth
as he can?
Have Esquivel and the Board been candid, forthright and honest with stakeholders?
It is pretty clear that they have not.
It is as clear that Esquivel and board will feel no pressure from the Journal or the rest of the establishment media, to be more truthful. Esquivel, by the way, is apparently still KRQE's lawyer. Now there's a conflict of interests for you;
- KRQE's obligation to expose Esquivel and
- the fact that Esquivel is giving them legal advice.
The first step in regaining control over the administration of our power and resources is to demand truth telling; candid, forthright, honest. Truth telling unlimited except by the law.
It is hard to beat Edmund Burke for hitting a nail on its head. All that is necessary for Marty Esquivel and the board to pull this off, is for good people to do nothing.
If you don't think the School Board is being candid, forthright and honest about their evaluation of Winston Brooks, the School Board would like to hear from you. You have an opportunity to stand up during the public forum and insist upon more truth telling; truth telling limited only by the law.
The essential element in government of, by and for the people is the people. There are times when there is no other solution to a problem than for the people to stand up. They have to leave their spheres of comfort and safety; they have step up and take back control over power and resources belonging fundamentally to them.
photo Mark Bralley
No comments:
Post a Comment