Pluto is a planet, New Mexico is a State, and other feckless Memorials.

One would think that legislators have enough to do with the budget problem, without "wasting" time discussing and debating feckless Memorials.

The list of Memorials that will be occupying legislators time today, instead of fixing budget and ethics problems, can be found at the state's legislative website, link.

I have oft wondered, if the Memorials were left until the last day of the legislature, rather than among the first, would legislators stay in the Roundhouse until the wee hours on the last day, trying to get them all done. I think not, and that speaks to their real merit.

No wonder they don't want permanent recordings made.

Hispanic Education Act on the House Floor today.

Crazy, they say, is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

Despite the fact that no government bureaucracy has ever solved the problems in education, law makers in the Roundhouse are going to give it just one more shot, by creating yet another government bureaucracy with no reasonable expectation of success.

The fundamental problem in education is the belief that students can be educated in groups of thirty, moving lockstep for 12 years. That problem is not relieved by grouping students according to ethnicity, any more than it was solved by grouping them according to their chronological age, sex, or any other commonality unrelated to teaching and learning.

Good news for those who believe in more jobs through bigger government.

I wouldn't be surprised to find Public Education Secretary Veronica Garcia, who will be out of a job as Education Secretary in the new administration, bouncing laterally to years of employment security as the new Hispanic Education Liason.

Curious silence on archiving.

One would be hard pressed to find a political reporter in New Mexico who has not lamented at one time or another, on the unavailability of public records. Yet the move to ban archiving of legislative webcasts amounts to nothing more than making public records unavailable, and no one is writing anything about it, save an occasion mention of the facts without comment on the implications.

I find that curious.

Who is the screwer, who is the screwee?

According to Gov Bill Richardson,
(according to KRQE's Larry Barker),
he's the screwee.









According to Barker,
taxpayers are the screwees, and
Richardson has been doing the screwing.

You be the judge.

Watch Barker' s report on exempt positions and the supposed hiring freeze in state government, link.




photos Mark Bralley

Arnold-Jones on the ballot

.




Rep Janice Arnold-Jones, released the following statement today:

Today was Filing Day for statewide candidates and I was pleased to file papers with the secretary of state’s office this morning, officially stating that I am a candidate for governor of the state of New Mexico.

Through the tireless efforts of hundreds of volunteer hours, we collected 2,390 signatures - far above the 1,062 required.

I am very proud that this was a purely volunteer effort, and that we did not simply rely on paid workers to obtain these signatures.

This demonstrates the kind of volunteer spirit and determination I’ve seen from New Mexicans as I’ve campaigned throughout the state these past few months. These volunteers are hard-working, dedicated and committed to making our state better.

I’m looking forward to meeting many more voters who agree with me that New Mexico can be so much more, and are ready to join our Cause to make it happen!”




photo Mark Bralley

Denish; on archiving. not.

Diane Denish is at once two people; a Lt Governor and,
a Gubernatorial Candidate.


As Lt Governor,
she has no standing
in the archiving debate.









As a Gubernatorial Candidate, she is claiming to be the leader in transparency and open government. She has an obligation to pick a side on honest, robust and useful webcasting, and then stand up for what she believes in.

Or is that too much to ask, from a would be Governor?

I am given to believe
Rep Janice Arnold-Jones
stood in favor of archiving
on the record, and on the House floor.

I missed it, and of course,
there is no archive to retrieve it from.





Doug Turner stepped up.

He said the only reason to not archive, is to hide the truth from voters in the next elections.

Still waiting to weigh in; Allen Weh, Pete Domenici, and
Susana Martinez.



photos Mark Bralley

Martinez' anti-archiving argument is nonsense.

When Rep Jeff Steinborn's HJM15 came to the table, Rep Ken Martinez stripped archiving from the bill. This may not have been the first time he has stripped Steinborn legislation of archiving.

He is on the House Rules Committee, where archiving was stripped from Steinborn's HR2.

I don't know that he was personally responsible for the stripping in House Rules, and there isn't anyway to check up on it because, there is no archive of the Rules Committee meeting to check.

He has offered up an argument of sorts. According to Blogger Haussamen, link;

Martinez has consistently argued against archiving. New Mexico isn’t a state whose courts considers legislative intent in addition to the actual wording of legislation, so he has said it’s important to not create permanent records other than the actual legislation.

Assuming one actually understood this argument, and further that, one even bought the argument; so what?

There are a number of reasons to begin archiving. At least one of those arguments is an overriding consideration, taking precedence over all other considerations. That argument is, the people have a right to watch committee meetings and floor sessions. And that right extends to being able to find and watch those meetings after the fact.

I have argued previously that incremental reform is dangerous because it has a mollifying effect. It might well have been easier to pass a decent bill, than it will be to improve a bad one.

Already, people are arguing that they have gone far enough. House Minority Whip Keith Gardner said, of the decision to kill archiving;

"... it is possible for constituents to record webcasts on their own using inexpensive software."

The people should not have to go out and buy special software to watch their government, even if it is "inexpensive".

There is no software, of which I am aware, that could record simultaneous committee meetings from different streams, making them both available for review. It is conceivable that more than two Committee Meetings might be going on simultaneously, further compounding the problem.

Gubernatorial Candidate Doug Turner argues; the only reason to not archive is to hide the truth from voters during the next election.

He is right. There is no overriding argument to not archive. There is an overriding argument to archive. It is as simple as that, and anyone who argues against archiving is arguing against creating a record of their service that can be shown to voters at the next election.

Every webcasting bill contains a statement to the effect of;

"... any political use is prohibited."

Sez who? If I were a candidate and the incumbent had performed poorly in Committee and/or on the floor, why in the world would I not be allowed to use a public record in my campaign against the incumbent? The resistance clearly comes from incumbents doing everything they can to cover their asses come election time. They know their performance in the Roundhouse is not going to help their candidacies, so they are simply trying to hide the truth. If they were at all proud of their work in the Roundhouse, they would welcome a permanent record of it, and they would want to use it in their campaigns.

There are some would be candidates who cannot summon the character and the courage to hold themselves honestly accountable to voters. These men and women will come up with one specious argument after another, to not archive; none of them powerful enough to make a real case.




photos Mark Bralley

Archiving dead of apathy.

I asked House Minority Whip Keith Gardner for a statement on the record. Why isn't any stink being made over stripping archiving from legislative webcasting?

He replied;

“The overwhelming constituent interest in webcasting does not appear to extend to webcast archiving. So far your request is the only one that we have received.


Also, it is possible for constituents to record webcasts on their own using inexpensive software.

The deadline for introducing new bills has passed, though it is worth looking into this possibility for next year.”

And there you have it, archiving died because good men did nothing.

All that is necessary for evil to prevail in the world,
is for good men to do nothing. Burke.

photo Mark Bralley

Heath Haussamen (NMI-H): Debate on archiving will be back.

Well, sure enough, an amendment was added to HJM 15 stripping it of an archive.

The fact that I cannot find out easily, who made the motion to castrate the Resolution, who seconded the motion, or who voted for or against the amendment, points to the need for the archives.

Heath Haussamen, a respected political writer, commenting on NMI' Live Blog, wrote;

"Debate on archiving will be back".

Too late, for this session of the legislature and for every single interim committee meeting between now and the next elections.

Legislative disconnect on archiving of webcasts

There are at least four, maybe more, webcasting bills; HR1, HR2, HJM15, and SR1. Three specifically ban archiving, HJM 15 calls for archiving.

HR2 was amended in House Rules, SR1 was introduced with the ban in place. I am unsure how the language got into HR1, whether it came that way, or was amended. The language in HR1 that prohibits webcasting is underlined, indicating that it was probably changed by amendment.

If HJM 15 passes without an amendment, if it does provide for the archiving of interim meetings, it would seem particularly silly to not then archive everything.

Rep Jeff Steinborn's support of archiving seems resolute. This particularly interesting since it seems like most Democrats are opposing webcasting and archiving.

Good work, sir.

Sanchez goes down on Haussamen's poll

Senate Majority Leader
Michael Sanchez was the subject of Heath Haussamen's latest non-scientific poll, link.

My vote was among those against Sanchez; holding him accountable for his obstruction of meaningful ethics reform. He is even sponsoring legislation that would ban the archiving of Senate webcasts.

How even 94 people would vote in support of this kind of leadership astounds me.




photo Mark Bralley

ACVHS; proof that splitting school districts doesn't work

Albuquerque's Charter Vocational High School, offers an example of district splitting. ACVHS split into its own "district". They bought their own buildings, they hired their own superintendent, and then they started cooking the books.

ACVHS Superintendent Danny Moon's trial started today, link.

Why did things get so out of hand at ACVHS?

They got out of hand, because APS is a bunch of good ol' boys covering each others asses. Watch Larry Barker's video. Watch the (APS) administrators, Bruce Smith and Bettina Ekland, not step up to legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service.

Watch them refuse to answer legitimate questions.

There is not one single administrator in the entire APS accountable to any standard of conduct that requires them to respond to legitimate questions about their conduct or competence.

It isn't about the size of the districts, it is about unequivocal standards and inescapable accountability.

Without honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence, school districts will continue to squander our power, our trust and our treasure; without consequence.

And it doesn't make a bit of difference whether it is one room school house,

or 1,200,000,000 tax dollars annually.

Endbar; The gentleman who blew the whistle on the corruption at ACVHS was a security guard. He was severely beaten in the parking lot of the school one day; he believes in retaliation for pointing to the corruption.

Also, in apparent retaliation, a criminal background check was done on him. The checking constituted a fourth degree felony as there was no good and ethical reason to criminally invade his privacy.

Another victim of the illegal background checks was the fiancee of a senior APS Administrator Tom Savage.

He is the gentlemen that School Board Member Paula Maes mentioned when she revealed, she "would never agree to any audit" that individually identified corrupt or incompetent administrators, like for example; Tom Savage.

At any rate, none of these illegal background checks could have been done without the aid and abet of the APS Police Department, link. Three years later, the APS PD is "still investigating" criminal misconduct in the APS PD; long after statutes of limitation have expired on felony criminal misconduct.





photo Mark Bralley

What is Denish going to do about archiving?

Lt Governor Diane Denish claims to be a leader in ethics reform and in open and transparent government. Serendipitously, she will be holding the gavel when webcasting (and archiving) comes up for a vote on the Senate Floor.

There will be those who will argue that, within in her constitutional rights and duties ... yada yada and blah blah blah; Denish cannot step up on the issue of archiving legislative webcasting.

I would argue that anytime any one of them wants to ignore the rules, they do so without hesitation.

If she wants to, she can. If she wants to, she will.


It is too late for Denish to be the first candidate to step up on archiving, link.

She is already among the last.

Though not yet, dead last.




photo Mark Bralley

Turner steps up on archiving.

Gubernatorial Candidate Doug Turner became the first candidate in either party to step up on archiving legislative webcasting.

On the Terrie Q. Sayre show on KKOB this morning,
I asked him to step up. He did.


The only reason to not archive
is to hide the truth from voters
in the next election.







I couldn't have said it better myself.




photo Mark Bralley

Searchable archives of legislative webcasts, why not? except to hide the truth?

There are currently three resolutions that address legislative webcasting; HR1, HR2, and SR1.

Rep Keith Gardner is carrying House Resolution 1 which reads, pg2 line 14-15;

The live stream shall not be archived.

Rep Jeff Steinborn is carrying House Resolution 2 (substitute), link, which reads, pg 2, line 22;

The streams shall not be archived.

Senator Michael Sanchez is carrying Senate Resolution 1, link, which reads pg2, line15 ;

(c) the live stream shall not be archived;

Without an archive, the access to the legislative process that webcasting is supposed to provide, does not exist. It limits viewing to only those willing to watch all day, either live or if they make their own recordings. If two webcast meetings take place at the same time; committees all meet at the same time, it would be impossible, without multiple recorders, to catch more than one meeting.

I am disturbed at the number of people who are buying the new openness and transparency myth. Do they not know that archiving is being denied, or do they not understand the implications of the denial?

There is no good and ethical reason to not archive;
it is not technologically difficult, and it is not too expensive
- a few tens of thousands of dollars at most.

There is only one reason I can think of to eschew archives and that is, an unwillingness, born of a lack of character or courage, to be held honestly accountable for what is done and said in committee meetings and on the floor of the legislature.

If there were another reason, someone should be able to articulate it.

There is no reason, that I can think of, that political writers in any medium, should accept the denial of archives without a fight, as archives are central to documenting the process and sharing it with reader and viewer stakeholders.

There remains only one hope to create searchable archives; an upwelling of public support. That upwelling will not take place unless and until, political writers and reporters urge their readers to take up the cause and demand real access to the process.

The Darren White Show

There are those who think Public Safety Director aka "Sheriff", Darren White, link, is a publicity hound.

There is a running joke about
the most dangerous place in
Albuquerque right now,
being the ground between
Darren White and a TV camera.


Apparently, or a microphone either; he has a radio talk show on KKOB.

For an hour or so every Saturday, he has the floor.

Today, he shared the floor with Police Chief Ray Schultz, and former crime writer now PIO,
TJ Wilhelm.

They were basking in the glow of the solving of an eight year old murder. The cops who actually did the work, from locating the body to actually digging the hole, where not among today's guests on the show.


These men could not be more pleased with each other's performance. White says Schultz was the right person for him to have hired, and Wilhelm said Schultz is the best Chief of Police he has ever known.

I called in just a minute too late to ask a question on the air.

I was going to ask, so what's up with the Eye on Albuquerque?

If what you read on the Eye, link, is any indication of the truth about morale in the APD, these three have a problem.

If any of what we read about administrative incompetence is to be believed, these three have a problem.

The simplest path to clearing their name is to prove it; conduct an independent review of morale and other concerns of the rank and file.

To hear them tell it, they'd come out smelling like roses.

Prove it.




photos Mark Bralley

Ethics Commission will not review APS contribution to Denish Campaign.

The State Ethics Commission will not examine a contribution to the Denish campaign by an APS lobbyist, link, in order to determine if tax payer support of education is being funneled into a political campaign.

Because, there is no State Ethics Commission.

How many emails did Sanchez really receive?

During the confirmation hearing for UNM Regent Jamie Koch, Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez announced that it was his intention to vote in favor of all of the confirmations, even before hearing the testimony of those who had traveled to the Roundhouse to testify at the hearing.

When I called him on his willful disregard for stakeholder input, he got all pissy with me, and announced that his pre-decision was based on more than two hundred emails he had received in favor of the confirmation. Note that he did not deny coming to the hearing with his mind made up, but rather, he attempted to justify his prejudice by pointing to supposed email support of Koch's ordination.

I doubt the veracity of his claim, I don't believe him.

If he had indeed received emails, there would be some correlation between the sentiments expressed in those emails and the sentiments expressed in other venues; UNM Faculty held a vote of confidence on Koch; he went down by a margin of 70 to 1, (482 to 7) and the sign-in to speak at the confirmation hearing itself, was 8 to 1, against the confirmation.

If Sanchez told the truth, that he got more than 200 emails urging him to vote in favor of Koch's confirmation, he must have also received at least some emails urging him to vote no. It is reasonable to assume that those emails would out number the emails in support, by a margin of several to one, to tens to one; the margin reflected in other measures.

All of which begs at least two questions; if emails against outweighed emails in support, how is his vote in support justified, even if he did actually receive 200 emails in support?

If he did actually receive 200 emails in support, he must have received well over 200 emails in total. Do we really believe he received 300 or 400 emails on a Regent's confirmation, when there are so many more, more pressing concerns?

I, for one, do not. I think he made them up.

Endnotes; I cannot provide readers a link to his Sanchez's comment, in no small part because Sanchez doesn't want a searchable archive by means of which, he could be held accountable for his conduct and competence, link. Nor can I file a complaint with the Ethics Commission, because there isn't one, again, in no small part, because Sanchez doesn't want one of those either.



photo Mark Bralley

Demand for independent investigation at UNM falls on deaf ears.

The editors at the Journal, link, have concluded that the most recent demand for an independent investigation of the Locksley Gate fiasco, will be ignored by the leadership of the UNM;

"Like a previous request of UNM regents (for an independent investigation), this one appears to again have fallen on deaf ears.

Certainly, if UNM President David Schmidly or any of the Regents had any intention to follow up on the demand, they would have said something by now, one way or the other.

It is clear, why the demand is being ignored. If Schmidly or any of the Regents gets involved in a discussion of the demand, it will become immediately clear that their position; no review, is philosophically indefensible. After all, if Schmidly et al, are telling the truth; that they have told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, an independent review would substantiate their claims and their tarnished reputation will be rehabilitated. There is no reason to not conduct the review, except that the review will reveal, they haven't told the truth after all.

The cost of the review is inconsequential.

It is clear that the cover up of Locksley Gate will continue.

It will continue, unless the Graduate and Professional Student Association, who picked this fight, is willing to take the fight to the next level. What that level is, is uncertain.

At the very least there will need to be a demonstration of some kind; hundreds of stakeholders standing outside someone's office, demanding that the investigation begin.

Else, the good ol' boys will win again, like they always do, simply by ignoring anyone who challenges their power and privilege.

APS lobbyist gives money to Denish; raises questions.

According to a Larry Behrens, NMI link,
Art Melendrez, APS' lawyer, and a
registered lobbyist for the APS,
has given $1,000 to Lt Diane Denish.

Which begs a question or three; if the money came from APS, did it first come from taxpayers? In which case, doesn't that mean that tax dollars have made their way into Denish's campaign war chest?

Both the APS and the Modrall Law Firm, for which Melendrez works, have refused to supply public records of the amount of money APS pays Modrall for its services.

Until recently, the President of the Modrall, was the husband of School Board Head Honcha Paula Maes, along with all of the conflict of interests therein. (He is still her husband, I suppose, he is no longer the President of the Modrall.)




Wouldn't it be nice if there were somewhere, anywhere, where legitimate questions could be asked and answered, candidly, forthrightly, and honestly?




photos Mark Bralley

Weakened webcasting back on the table.

House Joint Memorial 15, link, comes up Thursday in the House Appropriations and Finance Committee. (the link does not include the amendments added in the Rules Committee Meeting)

The HJM is being carried by Rep Jeff Steinborn.

It was castrated in House Rules where an anti-archiving amendment was added that makes webcasting essentially worthless in terms of actually holding someone accountable for what they're doing.

What ever it is that webcasting is supposed to do in the way of transparency and open government is rendered meaningless if there is no searchable archive.

A searchable archive is the whole point. How can anyone be held honestly accountable if there is no archive? It makes accountability a joke.

There was a time when the Republicans were reported to be too afraid of losing webcasting altogether, to push the archiving issue. Since webcasting is a done deal, no longer hostage to a decision on archiving; it would appear, now is the right time to pick a fight over the principle.

For some reason, link, the webcasting with integrity battle appears to be Democrats fighting against Republicans.

What a great opportunity for Republicans;
talk about being on the right side of history.

UPDATE; I didn't realize Steinborn had two pieces of legislation, HR2 and HJM 15, one applies to committee meetings, the other to interim committee meetings. HR2 was the one castrated in House Rules.

Michael Sanchez misses the point, again.

The point is; any state employee who is pointing to corruption or incompetence should be protected, by the state, from retribution and retaliation for blowing the whistle on public corruption and incompetence.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez voted against it. He is concerned about its cost.

What ever it costs, it must be done.
It must be done, no matter what it costs.
Cost is no object.

Similarly, cost is no object with respect to webcasting to a searchable archive. It simply must be done. There is no good and ethical reason to postpone it for even one more day.

He claims worry over the cost of legislative webcasting with a searchable archive.

Again, cost is no object.

It is too important to do, to not do it.
No matter what it costs.

Which is, as far as I can tell, negligible.



He doesn't want real webcasting and archiving. He doesn't want to protect whistle-blowers; leaving them liable to retribution and retaliation for trying to hold politicians and public servants honestly accountable for their conduct and competence.

Who is this man protecting?



What is it, this man doesn't want us to find out about?




photo Mark Bralley

Staff and Students lack "standing" at UNM.

During the "debate" over whether UNM Regent Jamie Koch would be re-crowned, a Senator reminded staff and students that they don't run the UNM.

I wasn't attending closely enough to see who said it. Were there a searchable archive of quality recordings of Senate Committee Meetings and Floor Sessions, I could enable you to watch and listen to him.

(Update; I have it on good authority,
it was Senator Tim Jennings
who schooled students and staff on
their standing in the process.)

He reminded students and staff, they can hold all of the silly little elections and confidence votes they want, and it won't make any difference.

To underscore the point, he and the rest of the Senate went ahead and extended Koch's reign for six years, nearly unanimously.




photo Mark Bralley

Domenici is not the leading Republican Candidate.

People loyal to St Pete, the Younger, are writing that he is "leading" Republican Candidates for Governor.

If he were "leading"" Republicans, he would be in the Roundhouse, "leading" Republicans.

Has he been to even one Committee Meeting?

In truth there is only one Republican Gubernatorial Candidate actually leading Republicans through personal example, and that is Rep Janice Arnold-Jones.

imho




photo Mark Bralley

Lt Governor's Office ignores legitimate request.

James Hallinan works for the Office of the Lt. Governor.

I got his name off the top of an official "Media advisory".

I have sent him three emails now, reading;

I am in hope that you will add me to your media advisory mailing list.
(my email address)

I am grateful for your time and attention

ched macquigg

He is apparently ignoring me.

I would suppose he is ignoring me in retaliation for my exercise of First Amendment rights to criticize his boss in writing.

That government can do this to you,
and yes, if they can do it to me, they can do it to you,
is unacceptable. Government is our servant.


Until I am convinced otherwise,
I hold Lt Governor Diane Denish,

here seen promising New Mexicans
a Sunshine Portal on state government,

personally responsible for the hiding of
Media Advisories from "opposition" media.



And I see no reason to suppose that a Denish Roundhouse would behave any differently.




photo Mark Bralley