Smaller parachute not "a vote of no confidence" according to Esquivel

APS Supt Winston Brooks' golden parachute is a little less golden after the APS School Board decided to not give him his usual; a three year extension worth $750K.

If last year, APS School Board President Marty Esquivel had been asked why he and the board voted to give Brooks a three year extension on his contract, he would have lead you to believe it was because the school board has confidence in him.

And now, Esquivel would have interest holders believe that the school board's confidence in their superintendent is undiminished, despite everything that Brooks has done lately and over the years to diminish it.

What is a golden parachute after all, except a vote of confidence?

And what is a smaller golden parachute after all,
except a vote of lesser confidence?

Why did Marty Esquivel deny an allegation that hadn't yet been made? Why did he then try to make it all about better relations with the NM PED, as opposed to Brooks' record of misconduct?

Because Winston Brooks' evaluation took place in meetings in secret, interest holders have no idea what actually happened or what exactly, was considered in his evaluation.

For example; were the lawsuits in which Brooks is and was a named respondent considered?

The Board is supposed to have reviewed the facts in those lawsuits in order to protect their constituents' interests.  It is likely that they were not reviewed as part of the evaluation.  It is likely in fact, that the board has never reviewed the case analyses of any those cases, this though they have that oversight obligation on behalf of their constituents over administrative spending on litigation.

They didn't allow public input during the evaluation.
Was any input from anybody considered, or was the
discussion only about what to do to save face?

Was student discipline under the Brooks superintendency evaluated?  What data did they consider?

Were teacher and employee morale considered? What data did they review?

There are good and ethical reasons for politicians and public servants to discuss and act on some issues in executive session; meetings in secret from interest holders.  The law allows politicians to redact records and discuss issues in private in order to accommodate legitimate public interests.

The APS School Board has gone way beyond ethical redaction of this very important process.  They have hidden more truth than the law requires.  They have told far less truth the law will allow.

They are hiding the record of Winston Brooks' public service from the people whose power and resources are entrusted to him and his public service.

• They didn't fire Brooks because it would mean they had picked the wrong guy in the first place and, then over-compensated him afterward.

• They didn't let Brooks go because it would cost $100K and a year to find his replacement.  And because they would have to buy out whatever is left in his current contract extensions.

Maybe Brooks told them the same thing Gil Lovato's lawyer told APS when they wanted to fire him; go ahead, try to fire me.  When I get my day in court, there won't be a single APS senior administrator left standing.  It worked for Lovato, who's to say it didn't work for Brooks just as well?

The people have no idea how their power and resources were spend in these meetings in secret.  No records have been produced, no record was made, no data has been shared.  Why hide everything?  What hide any thing if there is nothing to hide?

Esquivel would have you believe the Superintendent still has their full confidence and by logical extension is worthy of their full confidence - and ours.


Esquivel can hide the public records of Brooks' evaluation because he has full confidence in the Journal; that they never ask him to produce the records that were considered as part of Winston Brooks evaluation.

Journal Editor Kent Walz

Where does one go to
vote no confidence in
the Journal and Kent Walz?




Esquivel photo Mark Bralley
Walz; ched macquigg