Surrender to due process.

In the end, there is only one kind of accountability;
complete surrender, without reservation, to due process.

If there is a standard, and you are held accountable to that standard by an impartial system, powerful enough to hold you accountable even against your will, you are accountable to that standard.

If at any point, you can influence the process, or skirt the process all together, you cannot claim you are honestly accountable.

The redaction of public records is not done by due process.

Some may argue that the legal process represents due process;
it does not.

An honest Ethics Commission constitutes due process. And
that is precisely why politicians and public servants oppose one.

Surrendering to due process constitutes the burning of a bridge;
once you create it, there is no going back.

Even the politicians and public servants with the most character and courage, seem unwilling to take the step that will hold them honestly accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and competence within their public service, without reservation.

Apparently, they have not character and courage enough.

If there is any other explanation, now would be a good time
to lay in on the table for criticism.

How many more examples of waste and abuse do we need?

Every audit done on governmental agencies reveals waste and
abuse. It is a regular as clockwork. It is as inevitable as the
rising sun.

Steve Terrel, link, points to some auditing done by the
Legislative Finance Committee. Not surprisingly, they found
problems. Terrel writes;

One LFC staffer said these audits "barely scratch the surface" of waste and abuse in some school districts.

The fundamental problem is a lack of oversight; period.

There are agencies of government whose task is to oversee
the spending of public resources and power. There is not one
with the power and resources it needs to do actually do the
job it has been assigned.

As but one example; if the Office of the State Auditor was
funded according to need, State Auditor Balderas says he
can put an end to the culture of incompetence and corruption.

As another example; the Attorney General's Office.

The decision to keep these agencies underfunded and under
staffed correlates directly with the amount of corruption and
incompetence that goes undiscovered and un-ended.

Public records reform a must.

In the Journal this morning, link, the editors point to the decision by the New Mexico Environment Department, to stop wasting tax dollars obstructing the release of public records.

The records in question are a consultant's report on potential groundwater contamination risks at a landfill operated by Sandia National Laboratories. They wrote;

This week the department abandoned its position that the public might be “confused” if the report recommends one thing and the agency does something else.

The report, paid for by taxpayers, clearly was in the public's health and safety interests. But the New Mexico Environment Department has spent thousands in taxpayer dollars for legal fees to try to keep it under wraps on the ridiculous claim that it fell under “executive privilege,” even though the state Attorney General's Office and a district court judge said it was public record. (emphasis added)

There is an obvious and unavoidable "appearance of a conflict of interest" in allowing politicians and public servants to do their own redaction of the public records they are required to surrender under the NM Inspection of Public Records Act.

All records of the spending of public resources and power are public records. Not all public records should be made public; there are good and ethical reasons to keep some records from public knowledge. The NMIPRA recognizes them, and provides exceptions from surrender.

Whether a record is subject to surrender or not, it is still a public record. It belongs to the public, not to the individual, department, office, or agency that created it.

There is no reason that the redaction of public records is the sole responsibility of the person who happens to have that record in their possession. In fact, there is no reason that that person should be able to redact the record in the first place; it creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. It provides that opportunity to redact records unnecessarily in order to protect personal or departmental interests.

In this particular case, the records were redacted for no reason except that the NMED did not want to deal with the "confusion" created by their decision to ignore the findings of their consultant.

A simple and effective reform;
all requests for public records go to one office. That office would
retrieve the record, redact it appropriately, and then surrender
it immediately.

If there is going to be a fight over the surrender of records,
the fight should be between this office and those holding the
records, not between a powerless requester and a powerful
politician or public servant underwritten by the power and
resources of their office.

The redaction process must be "due process". The record holder
and the record seeker must have equal standing in questioning
any redaction. The final decision must be principled and impartial.

No one in the NMED is going to be held accountable for wasting tax dollars in the pointless litigation of this case; there is no penalty for politicians and public servants playing games with public records.

I suspect that self-redaction of public records may be the current process, not because it is the best process, not because anyone made a deliberate decision to do it that way, but simply because that is the way it has "always been done".

Well, it needs to be done differently, starting now.

Candidates for Governor, are invited to reveal their plan to
end the unnecessary redaction and delay, part and parcel to
the current process.

Walls of silence.

"Walls of silence", as in, the "blue wall of silence", behind which
it is "alleged" that police officers protect each other from honest
accountability for each others misconduct.

There is a similar "wall of silence" behind which good ol' boys
protect each other from honest accountability for each others'
corruption and/or incompetence.

Which begs a question; what color is their wall?

Brown makes sense; so does green; and yellow does too.

Ink hardly dry; Schultz' character in question.

The ink is barely dry on the paperwork Mayor-elect Richard Berry signed making Ray Schultz his Chief of Police.

Yet today, the Journal reports, link, on disturbing admissions by Schultz relative to a lawsuit being litigated in US District Court.

Stemming from the BCSO arrest of one of the Unsers, APD Officer Sam Costales testified against the sheriff's deputies who made the arrest. His lawsuit is over the retaliation he suffered for breaking the "blue wall of silence"; the very existence of which, Schultz apparently denied. According to the Journal report

The phrase "blue wall of silence" refers to a monolithic showing of solidarity by police officers that is at the heart of Costales' case and the very existence of which is disputed by Schultz and Lt. Brian Carr. (emphasis added)

How can anyone deny the existence of the "blue wall of silence".

The Journal reports that a previous Journal story related that Schultz was

"launching an investigation into whether Costales violated
department policy by failing to report perceived misconduct
of other officers through his chain of command."

Grilled by Costales' attorney Randi McGinn, Schultz
acknowledged that his comments to the reporter
were made before he had looked into the matter.

Schultz said that, even after he learned Costales had told
Carr, his lieutenant, right after Unser's arrest that
"it didn't have to happen that way," he had not made
efforts to set the record straight.
(emphasis added)

Now if you were an APD cop, how would you feel about being hung out to dry for telling the truth about the misconduct of other officers.

It would appear that a lot of what is written about the Chief on the backside of the Eye on Albuquerque may be based in fact.

It is a shame if Berry didn't talk to any of the rank and file, before deciding to keep Schultz on as Chief.




photo Mark Bralley

Why does Ed Adams get a bye?

Ed Adams ran the Department of Municipal Development at a time when taxpayers were getting ripped off big time, link. They got ripped off due to incompetence at the very least, by corruption in all likelihood.

There is no reason at all to suppose there was only this example of corruption and incompetence in the management of development contracts.

On the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose that if it were truly an isolated incident, they would be saying so instead of saying nothing.

Not only does Ed Adams not have to explain, defend, or deny that he knowingly permitted or negligently allowed corruption and incompetence, he doesn't even have to acknowledge its existence.

And now we have to wonder about Berry's competence and character. If he "knows nothing" about the Mountain West Golfscapes scandal, you have to wonder about his competence. How thoroughly did was Adams vetted, if no one knows about a colossal rip off of tax dollars on his watch?

If Berry knows about the Mountain West Golfscapes scandal, and he puts Adams in a position of power and influence anyway, why is Berry's character not is question?

He is either ignoring incompetence and corruption, or
he is enabling them.

He is either compliant or complicit.




photos Mark Bralley

The power and the resources belong to the people, the control over them does not.

We have no choice but to hand over control over power and
resources that are fundamentally our own.

We have no choice but to trust public servants and politicians
to wield our power and spend our resources in our best interests.

Yet, if you ask them if they will promise to tell you the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
about how they are spending your power and resources,
they will not answer the question.

When the question is;

Do you promise to tell the truth?

any answer except yes, means no.

And yet, we go right ahead and hand over the control over
our power and resources.

We go right ahead and trust them.

I don't get it. How can you trust someone
who won't promise to tell you the truth?

Why would you?

Truthtelling is the foundational ethic.

Ethics reform to date, amounts to selecting the most ethically indefensible things that a politician or public servant could do, and then prohibit them individually.

I have not yet seen ethics reform that rests on the foundation of truth telling.

If the truth is not on the table, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
what difference is made, by any other ethic?

No one will ever be held accountable for misconduct they can hide.

Any "ethics reform" that does not rest on a foundation of truth telling, is a failure on its face.

How can you talk about ethics and not talk about telling the truth?

Why is it unreasonable to expect a candidate for public service or political office, to raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about the public interests and about their public service?

How can you run for public service or political office,
without ever having to promise to tell the truth
when you get there?

Every legitimate question about the public interests or about their public service deserves a candid, forthright, and honest response, and rather immediately.

It is not alright for a public servant or politician to say;

I am not going to answer any more questions.

Doug Turner sprints into the lead, then falls down.

Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Doug Turner has set himself apart from the pack. He offers the most powerful endorsement of any candidate of any party, in support of the Inspection of Public Records Act;

New Mexico needs to elect a governor who will strengthen our Inspection of Public Records Act. The current version lacks the teeth of serious enforcement when a bureaucrat or politician defies it. Willfully withholding public documents from the public, media or other inquiring stakeholders should be a fourth-degree felony, and we need a governor who will fight for such consequences, link.

As powerful as that statement is, Turner still falls short of the need.

There are only two kinds of public records;

1. those which belong in the hands of the public, and


2. those which do not (for good and ethical reasons).

They are separated currently, by the people who create them, and who might have the greatest need to keep them secret for as long as possible.

They need to be separated by due process instead.

Any public record that needs redaction, should be redacted
according to a process that provides ethical redaction.
The difference between "legal" redaction and "ethical"
redaction is readily apparent.

Legal redaction surrenders "every record that the law requires".

Ethical redaction surrenders "every record that the law allows".

The difference is considerable.

As much as we need a Governor "who will fight for ... consequences" for those who interfere with legal redaction,
we need more.

We need a Governor who will make ethically redacted
public records immediately available upon request.

We need a Governor who will promise to tell us the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about the public
interests, and about their public service.

We need a Governor who will promise,
requests for public records will result in an ethically redacted
copy of the record being posted on the internet within a very few days, at the very most.

It is not technologically impossible.

It takes only character and courage.




photo Mark Bralley

The "Eye on Albuquerque", all seeing or just a bunch of crap?

If you read a local blog called the Eye on Albuquerque, you are invited to buy into at least two assumptions;

1. the blogger and many of those who comment on his posts are "in the know" about what is going on in City Hall, and in particular, about what is going on in the Albuquerque Police Department. and


2. there are things going on there that amount to serious incompetence and outright corruption.

They are seriously upset that Mayor-elect Berry is keeping so many of the old hacks from the last administration, as players in the new.

They are really upset that APD's new chief is the same as the old chief.

The concerns are either founded or unfounded.

If they are unfounded, the reputation of Chief Ray Schultz and his department could be easily rehabilitated through impartial fact finding.


If that same impartial fact finding determines the concerns are founded in fact, there are serious, serious problems in the police department that negatively impact its ability to serve and protect.

In either case, there is a need for impartial fact finding. In either case, there is no good and ethical reason to not find the facts. (Cost is utterly inconsequential).

On the other hand, if the concerns are in deed, founded in fact, there are a million "good" reasons to avoid the fact finding. There are as many "good" reasons as there are asses that need to be covered.

Refusing to do independent fact finding creates the appearance of impropriety. It provides fodder for those who believe there is something to hide; a cover up.

Look at the damage done to the reputations of UNM's Sanchez, Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales, over their refusal to allow an independent review of the handling of Locksley Gate. You would be hard pressed to find a single person who does not believe that there was a cover up.

The old mayor said, "I don't pay any attention to blogs."

The new mayor might well reconsider that stance.
Maybe if he pulls his head out of that hole in the ground,
he might find, the chief really does have no clothes.


He might find Ed Adams has no clothes, either.




photos Mark Bralley

Investigative reporters a dying breed, PIOs breeding like rabbits.

There are those would would gather and tell the truth, and
there are those who would spin the truth.

One is a dying breed, not from lack of need, but rather from
lack of resources.

The other is breeding like rabbits, not from a need, but from
virtually unlimited funding by means of unwitting taxpayer
support.

We should not lose sight of the fact, spinning the truth
amounts to lying.

If we cannot increase the numbers of investigative reporters,
perhaps we can at least limit the number of "spinners" and
the amount of spin they are allowed to impart.

No worries; there will be an "internal investigation".

The Public Regulation Commission, might turn out to be the most corrupt and incompetent agency in state government.

Never the less, PRC Chairman Sandy Jones intends to get out "in front of the problem" by means of an "internal investigation".

Heads will roll; trust him.

You have no choice but to trust him, because the results of their
little "internal investigation" will be kept secret.

They will claim they have to do with "personnel issues" and
are therefore excepted from public records law.

If this has a familiar ring to it, think of Locksley Gate.

Or think about the "internal investigation" that followed the
Meyners Audit revelations about APS' Finance Division;

• inadequate policies, and
• inadequate accountability, and
• inadequate record keeping.

They did their own" internal investigation" and will not answer
questions about any criminal misconduct they might have found.

They did an "internal investigation" of felony criminal misconduct
by APS senior administrators, link, three years ago. He records
are still secret because they are still "investigating", long after
statutes of limitation have expired.

The N.M. Educational Retirement Board investigated internally.
The State Investment Council investigated internally.
We're out millions and the whole truth is still hidden.

And now. the PRC will investigate itself.

And this is alright with everybody?


Only bad can come from allowing the people who negligently
allowed and/or knowingly permitted corruption and incompetence, to conduct "internal investigations" of the corruption and incompetence they enabled.

It is rather like allowing a bank robber to investigate the robbery.

The number of banks being robbed increases exponentially.



It is at times like these, I find myself wondering wtf?

Krebs headed for confidence vote.

According the Journal this morning, link, UNM Athletics Director Paul Krebs is headed for a confidence vote by UNM students. The vote will be entirely symbolic as students have no actual seat at any table where decisions are made.

According to the Journal;

Graduate student leaders at the University of New Mexico are laying the groundwork for a no-confidence vote in Athletics Vice President Paul Krebs over his handling of the Mike Locksley altercation.

No mention of;
UNM Regents President Raymond Sanchez' handling of,
UNM President David Schmidly's handling of,
Paul Krebs handling of,
Locksley Gate.

Apparently Krebs is to be the scapegoat for mishandling of the situation from top to bottom.

Journal reporter Martin Salazar wrote;

"The recent coverup of the Locksley-Gerald incident coupled with the egregious lack of sportsmanship displayed by Lambert exemplifies a lack of leadership within the UNM Athletics Department. ..." association President Lissa Knudsen said in the release. "It's time for the students to weigh in on this."

Students should be allowed the opportunity to weigh in at every level, not just at the level of the UNM A D.

Students should reconsider the scope of their proposed voting, and weigh in on the refusal by the leadership of the UNM to begin an cleansing audit of the whole chain of command.

Berry's support of Ed Adams is disappointing.

When Ed Adams was the head of the Department of Municipal Development, he demonstrated his inability to deal with egregious incompetence and corruption among his subordinates, link, and link.

Now, he just seems to get promotion after promotion.

wtf?

Is there really no one else on the face of the planet,
who Mayor-elect Richard Berry could have tapped for
his new Chief Operating Officer?




photo Mark Bralley

Senator Dede Feldman spoke at a Bernalillo County Commission public meeting last night.

Bernalillo County Commissioner Maggie Hart Stebbins is fronting an effort to rewrite the Bernalillo County Ethics Ordinance.

It is time. The existing ordinance was written in the last century and has not been reviewed since.

The attendance at the meeting was disappointingly small.

State Senator Dede Feldman introduced herself to me before the meeting began. I told her my name and identified myself as the writer of Diogenes' six.

It didn't seem to ring a bell;
it was crushed I was.

We discussed briefly, ethics reform in state government. She has a long record of efforts to pass ethics reform legislation.

I expressed my hope that this would be the year that meaningful ethics reform would take place.

I offered that what we really needed to do in that regard,
was to elect Rep Janice Arnold-Jones as governor.

Oops.

Senator Feldman is apparently a Denish supporter,
a fact that would not have been lost on me,
had I thought it through a little further.

Commissioner Hart Stebbins listened attentively to those
who chose to speak at the forum. You can tell that her heart is in reform.

She, like others carrying ethics reform legislation, will find
it a hard row to hoe. And, a rather lonely one as well.

Sometimes I wonder at the lack of public involvement and
support for ethics reform.

I think that most people have given up the cause as hopeless,

... a self fulfilling prophecy.




photo Mark Bralley

So far behind, they're actually far out ahead.

The 39th most corrupt state government in the United States, link, has a poster child agency; the Public Regulation Commission.

A recent survey of PRC employees revealed an agency in big trouble, Terrel, link and link, and Nash, link, are way ahead in the coverage.

Employees paint the agency as a roosting place for a bunch of "incompetent political flunkies". The most damning statistic is the number of employees who believe that they cannot even report unethical behavior without becoming victims of retribution and retaliation.

Public Regulation Commission Chairman, Sandy Jones, reports, KOB TV link, that the surveys are the "starting point" to turn things around. He goes on to say, he wants to be on the "front end" of the problem not the tail end.

News flash Sparky, is too late to get on the front end of this scandal.

Jones promises an "internal investigation".

Should anyone be delusional enough to suppose that this means "heads will roll" as the mess gets cleaned up, I would remind them that the parts of the survey that named the names of the corrupt and the incompetent are still blacked out.

Stakeholder interests would be protected by an independent review; an investigation by an impartial third party who will go in and do a formal investigation, and then report the findings to the public record.

But, as we all know, there will be no independent review.

The good ol' boys at the UNM have just proved that they can
and will ignore any calls for any independent fact finding of
their individual character and competence.

It's just not the way they roll.

APS School Board heavy hitter, Paula Maes
called a spade a bloody shovel, wikilink, when she boasted
in a public meeting and on the record;

I will never agree to any audit that individually identifies
any corrupt or incompetent good ol' boys in the leadership of the APS.

None of them will. Ever.

And there you have it, in a nutshell.
We didn't get to "39th most corrupt" by accident.

We will never rise in that ranking for as long as the people who
get to decide whether there will be independent reviews are the
ones with the most to lose, if the reviews ever get done.

Locksley to get mentoring.

According to KOB TV, link, UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley has a mentor.

No word yet on whether mentors are being sought for Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales, who are every bit in need of mentoring as their coach.

The upset over the UNM leadership's decision to not allow
an independent review of their handling of the Locksley Gate
has died down. They made it through the news cycle unscathed.

They will get away with their incompetence and likely corruption, scot free, wikilink.

APS Board Meeting minutes not posted, again.

The APS Board of Education is meeting tonight. They will approve the minutes of the last meeting. The minutes are supposed to be posted, on the district's website for public viewing, for 24 hours before they are voted upon. They are not. This is a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

Also being approved tonight, the minutes for the October 21st meeting. By law, they were required to have been approved at the November 4th meeting, but were not.

So here you have it, not one, but two blatant violations of the law.

Don't like it? So what?
What are you going to do, sue them?

... good luck on that one.

"Redaction" rears its ugly head again.

Corey Pein, SFReeper points to some questionable redaction of public records, link.

The stink of it is; a government agency did a self survey.

Some of the survey answers are difficult to deal with, so
they decided to redact them all.

There in lies the problem; allowing people to redact their own
records, rather than submitting all public records to an impartial
process of ethical redaction.

It creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, and
the appearance of impropriety.

All public records belong to the public.

Some public records are excepted from surrender to public knowledge for good and ethical reasons.

Some are excepted for ass covering reasons.

We ought not to allow that.

Esquivel resents personal attacks.

In a recent letter to me,
APS School Board President
Marty Esquivel wrote that
I have "unfairly questioned
his integrity".

I will let readers be the judge.

The leadership of the APS, Esquivel being foremost, refuses to discuss executive and administrative role modeling of the student standards of conduct, in public, openly and honestly.

I have argued there are only two reasons that explain their ongoing refusal;

1. a lack of personal courage and/or
2. a lack of character.

Neither Esquivel, nor anyone else in the leadership of the APS has been able to offer any alternative explanation. In short, because there really is none.

Two weeks ago, Esquivel was asked to tell the truth about who it was that ordered my arrest at the last public forum, link.

He offered one response which did not address the question
at all. Now he is ignoring the question entirely.

That refusal, to step up and admit the truth and then accept
the consequences, speaks to his (lack of) integrity
far more loudly than I ever have.


"All wounds to honor are self inflicted." Andrew Carnegie

"A man is not dishonored, except by himself." unk




photo Mark Bralley

The APS AVID boondoggle.

I can report that my previous post, link, has been read in
APS' City Center, and in AVID headquarters in San Diego.

Not one of them apparently, could post a comment that would
controvert the argument that AVID is a boondoggle; the same
funding could have gone directly to students with real needs
and not to good ol' boys who need to travel on the tax payers'
dime.

There has been only one comment so far, from someone who
is apparently "in the know";

Follow the money trail....
There's funding from feds for these programs, there's local funding, mainly from CNM for this program, CNM gets state funding for this program, the kids only have to go to APS 1/2 day, but APS gets full payment for them in the per capita.
The program does have some good things for high-achieving students, but I believe the money that comes in legal kickbacks are the main driver for this program.

Any money spent on students who want to succeed and
who are willing to work hard in order to do so, is well spent.

Any money spent trying to prove that point, is wasted.

The best reason for opposing any tax hikes at all;

the number of tax dollars wasted or stolen, link.

Most people, I assume, would support taxes that actually do
some good, individually or collectively.

But how does one support those and that which really need
support, without as the same time funding waste and corruption?

The short answer is, one can't.
And that is why even worthwhile taxes are mightily resisted.

Somehow,
we need to end the culture of corruption and incompetence.

Clearly, it cannot be ended by those who will not even admit
that it exists; people like Candidate Diane Denish.

Scour her website, link. I defy you to find anywhere on her site,
any admission at all, of the existence of the culture of corruption
and incompetence in state government.

It would appear her intention is not to derail the gravy train,
but rather, just a change of engineer and riders.

Unacceptable; without qualification, exception or condition,
clearly, patently, categorically, absolutely unacceptable.

File under "C", for clueless.

Terri Cole, President and CEO of the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, told a task force Monday that food tax breaks haven't helped the very poor, link.

Perhaps "very poor" provides her some cover. If someone is so poor that they can't afford even to buy food or medical care, then yes, lower taxes on food and medical care won't affect them. Although, food has to be bought somewhere, even if it is later given away. Less food can be bought if seven cents out of every dollar is lost to taxes.

What about the "ordinary" poor, the ones who spend their entire income on food, shelter, and if they have anything left over, medical care?

Is AVID just another APS boondoggle?

Journal editors are on board the APS AVID train, link.
APS is spending a lot of money and intends to spend a whole
lot more, on a program called AVID, link, and link.

They are spending so much money, in these hard times, that
they haven't told us how much they've spent, or intend to spend
in implementing the program in the APS.

AVID, Advancement Via Individual Determination, has proved pretty conclusively that, if you can identify students who are willing to work really hard and make a number of other important sacrifices in order to graduate high school and go to college, and then give them a whole bunch of resources and individual attention, they will succeed.

It is roughly the same kind to straightforward approach that APS used to raise its graduation rate; they took those least likely to graduate (students who had already failed the first year of high school) and dropped them out of their sample.

The good news, a lot of folks from AVID get to travel all over the country at taxpayer expense, and lot of APS administrators (and some teachers, I suppose) also get to travel on the taxpayer's dime, to "trainings" in different fun to visit locales.

Don't get me wrong. If you can identify students who really want to succeed, and who are willing to work hard in order to do so, by all means spend some money on them.

Just don't spend a bunch of money trying to make it look like
rocket science.

"... announced crowd of 24,344 - many dressed as empty benches ..."

Journal reporter Greg Archuleta, link, seems to not believe
UNM about the number of people who attended the UNM/BYU
football game last Saturday.

Not surprising, nobody believes UNM about anything anymore.

Attendance at Lobo football games is down. Again, not surprising in so far as they have yet to win a game. Though, also at play, Schmidly, Krebs, Gonzales, Locksley Gate.

A number of fans have spoken out in on-line forums, saying that they were boycotting Lobo games in protest over the incompetence and apparent corruption brought to light in the Locksley Gate scandal.

The refusal to begin an immediate independent investigation of Locksley Gate by Richardson good ol' boy, Raymond Sanchez, President of the UNM Board of Regents, brought things to a head.

My dad would say, if there isn't a cover-up here, I'm a
Chinese sea cook.

The independent review, the one which UNM President Schmidly assures us would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Schmidly, Krebs, Gonzales, and Locksley, are not part of a cover up, won't be done. The only explanation; "no new information has surfaced" which would compel the review. Never mind that, the "old" information was more than enough to justify the review.

It's a shame, because the independent review would likely have saved taxpayers a whole lot of money.

The review results would likely have provided evidence enough to fire some of these people for cause. Now, if they are going to be tossed off the train in order to restore confidence and get fans back in the bleachers, (real ones, not the ones dressed like empty bleachers), they will get huge buyouts of their contracts, as is the custom when good ol' boys in New Mexico, are finally given the boot.

No. We would not.

Would care to explain to us, why you will not
swear that you will tell us the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth about the public interests
and about your public service?

No. I would not.


No. I would not.

No. I would not.


No. I would not.


No. I would not.

No. I would not.

photos
Mark Bralley

It's really too bad that UNM President David Schmidly isn't answering any more questions.

I would like to ask him at least one more.

Would you care to explain the exact circumstances under which important evidence remained "inadvertently un-copied" only to be "advertently copied", long after the original was supposedly destroyed?

What else could he say but,

No. I would not.

photo Mark Bralley

Doing the math on missing records in Locksley Gate.

From the editorial in the Journal this morning, link.

A new piece of evidence has turned up in the Locksley Gate investigation.

The "new" evidence points to a pattern of (implied) violence in the relationship between UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley and his Assistant Coach JP Gerald.

(UNM Regents President) Sanchez, meanwhile, says no new information has surfaced to warrant an outside probe — that despite the emergence of new notes from an interview with an assistant coach who said Locksley had threatened Gerald with physical violence in an earlier incident and that players felt responsible for Gerald being mistreated.

"The new information turned up around 5 p.m. Friday after UNM officials said they had inadvertently failed to turn over the back side of one of the witness accounts. They blamed it on a copying error."

Do the math;

"The new information turned up around 5 p.m. Friday ..."

A coincidence as unlikely as it is convenient; the evidence turned up at 5 pm on a Friday; a time and day widely recognized as the single best time to make bad news available to the press.

The "just found" document is the one they would most want to hide; proving not only a previous record of (implied) violence, but also that students had been folded into the scandal.

The missing evidence was on the back side of a sheet of paper that Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales, claim was destroyed long since. How could they now be able to surrender a copy of an "inadvertently not copied" sheet of paper that they claim doesn't exist? Or did Shannon Garbiso make back to back copies of her notes? this one backside somehow separated from the stack and remaining conveniently undiscovered by everyone until 5 pm last Friday?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

It is well past time to begin the independent fact finding that reports to the public record.

It is well past time to tell the truth.

It is well past time to hold Raymond Sanchez, David Schmidly, Paul Krebs, Helen Gonzales, and Michael Locksley, honestly accountable for their conduct and for their competence, even if they are good ol' boys.

... especially if they are good ol' boys.

Locksley, Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales "got to the result that they were looking for."

Everyday, I watch the furor over the Locksley Gate subside.
My fear is, like every other "gate", UNM leadership will simply
wait out the upset until no one cares anymore and then,
back to business as usual.

The Journal editors this morning, link, note;

(Schmidly and Krebs) seem to think silence will make it go away. Not likely.

The first point is on point, the second remains to be seen.

Good ol' boy logic is, everyday you don't lose, you win.
And the good ol' boys are winning; their silence likely will
make it go away. It has always worked before.

At the very least, it is unbelievably optimistic to suppose
it might play out differently this time.

The good ol' boys haven't lost. They will not lose until the
moment they knuckle under and begin an independent review
of their handling of the investigation of the "alleged" assault
by their Head Football Coach Micheal Locksley on a subordinate employee.

They will fight the first ever independent review of good ol' boy competence and character, tooth and nail.

There is no reason at all, to not begin the independent review,
one that reports to the public record, immediately, except to
protect the corrupt and the incompetent.

The reputation of the leadership of the UNM is in the toilet
according to any reasonable measure. That reputation, the
part where the community believes there is a cover-up afoot,
would be rehabilitated completely if the independent review
reveals what UNM President Schmidly has promised it would;
no cover-up.

If I were Schmidly, and I were telling the truth when I made
that promise, I would be fighting for the review that would
validate my claim.

It's fair to ask then, why is he obstructing the investigation
he would have us believe would clear his name,

except that it would not?

Teachers way behind in teacher evaluation.

In a Journal report this morning, the topic of evaluating teachers is broached, link. The report quotes a local teachers union president.

Albuquerque Teachers Federation President Ellen Bernstein said the union would be willing to tie evaluations to student performance if the policy is carefully written and if teachers are involved in writing it.

Why haven't they written a fair and honest evaluation plan already?

Isn't at least part of the idea of any professional organization; to police your profession?

And since I have the floor; why not think of every possible measure of teacher performance, not just student performance? Why aren't student evaluations of their teachers on the table?

Right away I suppose, someone is going to write; you're an idiot. How could you tie a teacher's career to the opinions of a bunch of kids?

I am not suggesting it as the only measure. Again, I would suggest measuring in every way possible, reflecting on every measure, balancing them appropriately, and then coming to a conclusion.

If a majority of a teacher's students have any complaint about a teacher, someone should look at that complaint and do something about it, even if that means negating that complaint for some good and ethical reason.

The teachers union should have figured this one out long ago.

If they had, perhaps they would not be perceived, inaccurately imho, as "protecting bad teachers" from the consequences of their "badness".

APS creates "new" past practice.

The APS BoE is having a meeting this morning.

Again, the minutes from the last meeting, will be voted upon
in order to approve them.

Again, the minutes are not posted on line. If there is any good
and ethical reason they are not posted, I cannot imagine it, and
nobody in the leadership of the APS has offered it.

Which begs at least one question;

How many times can you ignore past practice, before
ignoring past practice becomes a new past practice?

On a more practical level,

Why won't the leadership of the APS, post their agendas
and minutes on the internet, their former past practice,
where everyone can see them before they vote on them?

"Bystander effect" protecting UNM Regents

I googled; "bystanders do nothing".
I got 225,000 hits.

I was trying to find this story;

A famous case occurred in the early 1960, where Kitty Genovese was attacked and eventually murdered over a 45 minute period during which 38 people witnessed the attack and did not lift a finger to help in any way.

I wanted to use the story to illustrate my point about the number of people who are doing nothing about the rape of the public trust by the leadership of the UNM.

From one of those hits, link, I picked this;

When there is an emergency, the more bystanders there are, the less likely it is that any of them will actually help.

Pluralistic ignorance is where they assume nothing is wrong because nobody else looks concerned.

Bystanders go through a five-step process, during each of which they can decide to do nothing.

• Notice the event (or in a hurry and not notice).
• Realize the emergency (or assume that as others are not acting, it is not an emergency).
• Assume responsibility (or assume that others will do this).
• Know what to do (or not)
• Act (or worry about danger, legislation, embarrassment, etc.)

The Regents were asked to tell the truth.

They said, no.

If you google; "bystanders do nothing, you will now get
225,001 hits, because now we're up there too.

Who are you going to believe, the Regents or your lyin' eyes?

The emperors have no character.

Epic incompetence and likely corruption are right in front of your
eyes. The incompetence is admitted, the corruption is not, yet.

Yet the Regents say you now know, all you will ever know.
There will be no independent review of their competence and
their character. You will simply have to take their word on both.

The Regents just decided to not tell the truth about the Locksley affair.

It isn't just about whether this particular independent review
will get done, it is about whether any independent review,
of any affair, will be done ever, link.

This review will set a precedent. From this review on,
politicians and public servants will find themselves transparently
accountable to the people.

Which is precisely why the good ol' boys are dead set against it.

They insist, we "trust them" instead.

Monahan steps up, with a vengeance.

I, like many, have been reading
Joe Monahan's blog for years.

It has been my constant frustration that he, like so many other "reporters" was unwilling to bite that hands that feed him.

I reasoned that reporters who write pieces that hit politicians and public servants hard, paid for their brass by finding further interviews that much harder to find.

This morning, link, Monahan chimed in on the outrage that is the "investigation" of the Locksley dust up. He used words like; cronyism, and blatant politicization. He even called for resignations.

He pointed to Governor Bill Richardson's personal and political failure to step up.

He pointed to the failure of Lt Governor Diane Denish, self proclaimed "leader in ethics reform" to step up on the issue.

The only thing Monahan didn't mention, that I wish he had, was the need for an "independent investigation", and the on going refusal of any of the good ol' boys to get one going, link.

The independent investigation is the only proof that things have changed, that politicians and public servants actually are accountable to the people.

The absence of an independent investigation is instead,
proof positive that nothing has really changed at all.

Politicians and public servants are not accountable to the people for as long as we can ask legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service, and they can respond to those questions by saying;"I am not going to answer any questions."

What more proof could you possibly need that you have lost control over power and resources that are fundamentally your own, than that those who spend them can refuse to answer questions about how they are spending them,
and then get away with it?




photo Mark Bralley