Saturday, January 31, 2009

In defense of NM Representative Ray Begaye

At her Saturday office hours this morning, NM Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones rose in defense of Rep. Ray Begaye.

She
believes, Begaye is being treated unfairly in the media.









Begaye has recently become the poster child for the resistance to webcasting in Santa Fe.



This after voicing a concern that he might be caught sleeping.


Arnold-Jones
suggested that Begaye may not have been
thinking of himself, but of senior legislators, men far more
likely to be caught sleeping than he, and who have earned
more respect than to have a camera searching for their
vulnerable moments.

No one has earned the right to have the camera turned away
at moments like these.

Some have earned more than others,
an expectation that the camera will not be turned toward them
at moments like these, and especially, for that reason alone.


Additionally, Arnold Jones and others,

wish the public understood how absolutely reasonable it is
for hard working legislators to catch a little sleep
any chance they get.

A catnapping legislator can be a good sign;

one that indicates that s/he is working very, very hard.



Never the less,
I would remind those legislators who are worried that
even a well earned catnap might end up on YouTube;

try really, really hard not to drool.



photos Mark Bralley

New Mexico legislators not through wasting time on the bolo tie issue.

The Journal reports that the utterly pointless debate over
the wearing of bolo ties is not finished yet. link

I am all for having a little fun, but come on boys and girls,
state government is a half a billion dollars in debt, and
circling the drain;

could you please try to keep your eyes on the ball
for just 55 more days?

UNM faculty mad as hell, not gonna take it anymore.

The Journal reports that UNM faculty members are rising
up against the rape and plunder of their school. link

Yet another wave in the rising tide of down trodden who
have finally had enough, and are ready to leave their spheres
of comfort and safety, to storm the castle.

Hear, hear. wikilink

Friday, January 30, 2009

The proudest moment of your life.

Is it behind you or ahead?

The opportunity to create the proudest moment of your life,
the occasion to make sacrifices of which you can be proud,
may last only a moment.

And then the moment has passed.

There may not be another.

It would be a shame to miss the proudest moment of your life,
while waiting for a better one.

Comfortable telling the truth.

New Mexico State Representative Janice E. Arnold Jones
telling the truth.

She is in the middle of a telephone interview on talk radio
with Jim Scarantino.

How many legislators do you know, this comfortable
telling the truth,
about how the sausage is made in Santa Fe?



great photo Mark Bralley

There is no way to tell the truth

except as best you can.

NM blogosphere needs a point wo/man.

I think that its fair to say that, the ultimate success
of webcasting the NM State Legislature in Santa Fe,

has more to do with the NM political blogosphere,

than it has to do with anything the NM mainstream has done,
or will do.



If political blogging in New Mexico had a point person,

and a shared mission, like;

government;
free of institutional, and individual corruption
and incompetence,
mountains could be moved.

Mountains would be moved.



Any volunteers? any draftees?


cue the music;
Tina Turner "We don't need another hero"
extended version link,
and read along lyrics link

substitute for "love and compassion"
honest accountability to
meaningful standards of conduct and competence
or maybe
just telling the truth

Webcasting Schmebcasting

Implicit in webcasting the legislature,
there should be a user friendly archive.

Senators Boitano and Smith

It would appear that Senator Mark Boitano wants to see the truth
webcast.















It would appear that
Senator John Arthur Smith
thinks webcasting is not the priority.















I am disappointed that Senator Mark Boitano
did not take that opportunity to point to
the hundreds of millions of tax dollars that will be saved
in the coming few weeks, if everyone can see
what public servants are doing with tax dollars,

real time.




photos Mark Bralley

The answer to the question; will you tell the truth?

The answer to the question;

do you promise to tell the truth?
is not a climb up a hill.

It is a step off of a cliff.

It is a leap of faith.

It is faith that
your fall will be broken according to your faith.


Once you answer the question, yes,
there is no going back.

Legislators in Santa Fe want to cast webcasting;

read; telling the truth about what they are doing with
our power and with our resources,

as rolling a bolder up a hill.

It is not.

It is as simple as their standing up, raising their right hand,

and promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth,

about our power, about our resources, and about their public service,

(so help them God)



Someone in Santa Fe was the first to step off that cliff,
and I could not admire any more than I do,
the courage she modeled.

Every one else in Santa Fe will be among the last.

Pity the fool who is dead last.


So help me God.

Why will no one deny fraud?

It appears to me that a fraud is attached to the Moss Adams APS audit.

It appears that the leadership of the APS has passed off
SilentWhistle as something beside a sham.

Did they? Yes or no?

If they did not, why won't anyone deny that they did?

Why won't someone say, either;

  • the subject of whistleblower protection is not part of the Moss Adams APS audit or,
  • the subject of whistleblower protection is part of the Moss Adams APS audit.

And if it is part of the audit,
how can a credible allegation of fraud, be simply ignored?

Especially by Moss Adams.

OK, but where can I file a complaint?

Winston Brooks seems to be backing off on his my way or
the highway problem solving approach to the problems at
Rio Grande High School and Ernie Pyle Middle School.

He was on the news last night. I can't find a link.

He was listening to parents and community members from
the two schools.

APS is great at listening. The leadership of the APS has
discovered that if they make a big deal out of listening to folks,
they can be mollified to the point where a solution is no longer
a specific demand.

The parents at RGHS and EPMS were listened to.
Many left the meeting believing that they were heard.
Nothing will change.


On the other hand, if the leadership of the APS provided a venue
where a complaint could be lodged, and then guaranteed a
principled resolution, real progress would be made.

School board candidates fielded questions the other night,
about what they would do with many specific problems
in the APS; problems like ongoing racism in the APS.

They all offered to listen to the complainants.

None offered them a place where they could lodge a complaint
alleging racism, where the complaint would be guaranteed a
principled resolution; fair, impartial, and consistent with
agreed upon principles.

In fact, there is no such place in the APS.

They pretend; their Public Forum is such a place.
They pretend; their Employee Grievance Process is such a place.
They pretend; their APS Police Department is such a place.
They pretend; their Equal Employment Opportunity Office
is such a place.
They pretend; their SilentWhistle is such a place.


They lie.

Retribution and retaliation

The Santa Fe New Mexican has a report on those who have
contributed to Bill Richardson's treasure chest and who
now enjoy cushy and high paying state government jobs. link

It is going to be difficult to get specific information on the depth
and breadth of the problem, or upon the effect on government
overall, because people are afraid to speak up,
they are afraid of retribution and retaliation.

From the story by Anne Constable;

Numerous people interviewed about the situation told The New Mexican that they didn't want to be identified because they feared for their jobs if they spoke openly. But all said gov-ex employees have had an impact on operations of the department.
The road to exposure and ultimately to the solution of problems like these are whistle blower systems that both protect the whistle blower, and also, engage a mechanism with the power and authority to act on the complaint.

Without real protection, and without engaging a system of real investigation and meaningful responses to the allegations; the good ol' boys will continue to plunder the system under a cloak of secrecy.

APS is a case in point. It's SilentWhistle, whistle blowing system, is supposed to allow anonymous complaints, and then pretends that the complaints will receive a principled resolution.

I have proved, beyond contradiction, that SilentWhistle is nothing more than a forwarding mailbox, that sees the complaint delivered to the desk of the person against whom the complaint is filed, who can then deny a principled resolution of the complaint, in secret.

I have no need for anonymity.
I do have a need for a principled resolution of my complaints.
And there is apparently, nothing that I can do to get the issue
out of the closet, and into the light of day.

I have made credible allegations that SilentWhistle is a scam,
and that if it has been accepted by Moss Adams auditors,
they have accepted a fraud.

And no one is talking. APS won't talk about whether or not
SilentWhistle was offered to Moss Adams auditors as an
honest whistle blower program, and Moss Adams won't talk
about whether or not they bought what APS was selling.

It is all a big secret.

My efforts to get SilentWhistle on the table for an honest discussion, are being blocked by the same people who refused to put anything to do with administrative standards and accountability on the table for honest discussion. link

No problem is ever solved in secret.

And no problem is going to be exposed to the light,
for as long as the person who shines lights on the problem,

does so by exposing themselves to unacceptable risk.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Paula Maes audio!

I was going to begin by apologizing for the quality of the audio.

On second thought though,
it is Rigo Chavez, APS Custodian of Public Records,
who owes you an apology.

Instead of just making a copy, disc to disc,
he or someone else has instead, played the original on a TV set
and used a camera to film the TV. Trust me, audio and video
suffer.

I am not sure that that camera was even focused on the screen
The audio and video of a surrendered public record are nearly
unintelligible.

I consider this yet another failure to tell the truth,
by the leadership of the APS.

Never the less, Paula Maes can be heard saying,

"I will never agree to an audit
that will come and address personnel.

I do not want an audit that would say,
(and I am not picking on you Tom Savage),
Tom Savage is a horrible administrator"

and not one that would say that Linda Sink
is the best person you ever hired.
Which means; she will never allow any audit that identifies
corrupt and incompetent APS administrators or board members
by name.

You can hear her say that,
she would never allow any audit that would say that
"Linda Sink is the best person you ever hired."

The truth is she would, and in a heartbeat.

What she really doesn't want is an audit that shows that
there are incompetent and corrupt administrators.

What she really doesn't want is an audit that shows how many
tax dollars have gone through APS to her husband's law firm,
Modrall, and what exactly, those tax dollars bought.


Council of the Great City Schools auditors wrote that
administrative evaluations in the APS are;
subjective and unrelated to promotion or step placement;

in effect; that the leadership of the APS is a good ol' boys club.

Paula Maes will never allow any audit that would show that
things have not changed since the CotGCS audit.

Paula Maes will never allow any audit that names a corrupt
or incompetent administrator by name.

If her remark does not mean that
she will cover the good ol' boys asses, what does it mean?

And we want someone like that on the school board,
why, exactly?

Why would the Journal editors endorse this kind of behavior?


UPDATE
It is Saturday, January 31. I have been trying to get a clip to
post here, but I am having problems.

The DVDs that I have were produced by APS Custodian of Public Records, Rigo Chavez.

This is the third batch;
  1. the first had no audio or video,
  2. the second set, video but no audio.
  3. This set has barely intelligible audio and video.
APS prepared it by playing their discs on a TV, and then
using a camera to record the TV screen and audio speaker.

And now, after taking it to computer specialists, I am told
that it is recorded in some format that they cannot process
without special software, and they are unable to lift the
clip, so I can post it here.

Final update, June 1, 2009. I was never able to get the
audio clip up on the internet. Rigo Chavez would be the
person to contact to get your own recording of this meeting.

This is the meeting that I have been trying to get for fifteen years.

In 1994, I was trained on Character Counts!
by its founding father, Michael Josephson.

Ever since, I have been trying to get the leadership of the APS
to tell the truth about administrative role modeling
of the student standard of conduct.

My argument is that the leadership of the APS has not stood up
as role models of the student standard of conduct, and that,
it makes a difference.


The leadership of the APS has over the last fifteen years,
spent a great deal of energy and resources in an effort to avoid
ever having to sit down at a table and answer legitimate
questions about their role modeling of the student standard of conduct.

And now, it looks like the leadership of the APS has misled
Moss Adams about the existence of whistle blower protection
in the administration of the APS.

I cannot say that for certain, because
no one will say whether or not, the verbal representation
that I heard at the audit committee meeting, was actually
written down somewhere in the Moss Adams audit.

If it is, I am prepared to prove that SilentWhistle is a fraud.

And I am prepared to demonstrate that,that fraud is one and
the same with their refusal to stand up as role models of
the student standard of conduct.

Before the full board signs off on the audit,
they have an obligation to address this issue.
They cannot simply pretend that the allegation has not been made.
They cannot simply stonewall it again, because now
Moss Adams name is on the bottom line.
It is their name and reputation attached to the truth in this audit.


Surely Moss Adams would like to hear
APS Chief Financial
Officer, Gina Hickman
explain any discrepancy between her representation of
SilentWhistle
to Moss Adams auditors, and
the truth.


The leadership of the APS is finally going to have to sit down
at a table and either, admit that they are only pretending to be
accountable as role models of a higher standard of conduct,

or,

they will have to explain why conduct which is incontrovertibly
unethical on its face, is knowingly permitted and/or negligently
allowed, by a system that the leadership of the APS, is telling
Moss Adams auditors, is a system that guarantees
accountability for ethical misconduct.


In the first case, my long standing allegation is proven.


In the second, their explanation will be justification for an
immediate, impartial standards and accountability audit
of the entire leadership of the APS.

... and an end to the good ol' boy organizational structure
that is the leadership of the APS.

I'm a winner either way.


The down side is; I have just been informed by someone
who should know;
that it is "ridiculous" for me to even imagine that this meeting
will ever take place.

Journal endorses Paula Maes

The Journal has endorsed Paula Maes for APS School
Board District 5.

I will begin by pointing out that the Journal has endorsed
school board candidates without discussing student discipline,
administrative role modeling, or the need for an
immediate
independent audit.

Worse still, is their endorsement of Paula Maes.

Paula Maes service on the board is already under a cloud;
her husband's law firm is making so much money off of
taxpayers and the APS, that they won't even respond to
requests for the public records of how much they have been paid, and for doing what, exactly.

The Journal editors have no problem apparently,
with the fact that when there was a discussion of a full scale
standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the APS,
at a Policy Committee Meeting on August 16, 2007,

Paula Maes said that she would never allow any audit
that would individually identify incompetent and/or corrupt
APS administrators and board members.*

And so far, she has kept her word.

There have been two audits of the APS Finance Division
since she declared protection for individual incompetence and
corruption. Neither, although reporting significant problems,
has mentioned the name of a single senior administrator who
was responsible for the problems.

We do not know for example, who should be held accountable
for the fact that the APS Finance Division was spending a
billion tax dollars a year;

  • without adequate financially sound policies, and
  • without adequate accountability, and
  • without adequate record keeping.
And since we don't know who that good ol' boy was,
we don't know whether the good ol' boy that supervised him
was held accountable for their failure, or the person above
them for theirs.

And so on, right up to the highest levels of the administration
of the APS, and finally to the school board.

The Albuquerque Journal editors have really fumbled the
ball on this one.


*I have this on videotape and I am struggling trying to find
a way to put it online. When I figure it out, you will be able
to watch and hear her say exactly what I have been alleging
all along, that she said. The video I have, is of relatively poor
quality, because that is the kind of records that APS makes
and then surrenders under NMIPRA requests.

But it is legible and you will see the truth.

You just will never hear it from the Journal editors.


I have sent a letter to the Journal editors offering them an
opportunity to view the recording and then modify their
endorsement. I expect the letter to be ignored.




photo Mark Bralley

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Command decision making and webcasting

The compromise on the table in Santa Fe, is that legislating
will be subject to webcasting except according to the wishes
of the committee chair.

I am told that it represents a reasonable compromise because
there are times when committees might nee to meet in secret
legitimately.

The problem with giving the committee chair the right to close
meetings unilaterally, is that is allows abuse of the privilege.

The answer lies in allowing command decision making,
but making it subject to review.

Allow command decision making, but provide a complaint
process that offers a principled resolution of complaints
of the abuse of that power.

Provide consequences for those who abuse the power.

Moss Adams; resetting the piece.

I attended an Audit Committee meeting, during which
APS Chief Financial Officer, Gina Hickman answered
board member questions about the Moss Adams audit
of the APS Finance Division.

During her testimony, she indicated that APS had met some
federal requirement for whistle blower protection,
because of the APS SilentWhistle program.

I have proved that APS' SilentWhistle is no more than
a forwarding mail box. link

Complaints are not guaranteed a principled resolution.

Complaints are forwarded to the very people against whom
they are made.

If the Moss Adams audit indicates that the leadership of
the APS has represented that they have an honest whistle
blower protection program, the audit contains a fraud.

I have contacted Moss Adams to allege that the leadership
of the APS, if they have deliberately misrepresented
SilentWhistle, have materially misled Moss Adams auditors.

Moss Adams apparently, does not want to respond to my
allegation on the record. They are yet to acknowledge
in writing, that they have even received it.

The Audit Committee, according to School Board Policy
has some responsibility with respect to oversight over the audit
and over APS' whistle blower protection program.

APS school board policy, here quoted in significant part;

"An Audit Committee to review and recommend
approval or action(s) ... any employee whistleblower
complaints ..."
It seems to me that the Audit Committee has to sign off on
the handling of my complaints.

If the Audit Committee signs off on a fraud, do they not
become complicit in an effort to materially mislead the
Moss Adams auditors?

The Audit Committee has every obligation to insist that
APS' Chief Financial Officer defend her representation
of the truth about SilentWhistle to Moss Adams auditors.

In an open meeting.

And why in the world, would I not be given the opportunity
during that meeting, to defend my complaints?


It is a simple enough question,
Does the audit represent that,
APS protects whistle blowers and offers principled
resolution of complaints by means of SilentWhistle?
If it does, it contains a fraud.

It seems fitting

A number of New Mexico bloggers have picked a side
on the issue of legislative webcasting.

They may not own it, but it is in the way they write.

The work of public servants is going to be public knowledge.

It will be on the internet, and it will because of the internet.

Heath Haussamen's; "Webcasting would change Santa Fe's culture"

Is a really good essay on legislative webcasting.
link

self discovery of a gadfly







www.carolmoore.net
(who wrote me that she came upon it twenty years ago; signed "Park" and was not able to contact him or her)

This is a re-posting of a piece I did in August 2007.

How can the Albuquerque Journal possibly justify its coverage?

In their entire coverage of the school board elections,
the Albuquerque Journal deliberately refuses to

ask the senior most role models of the student standard of conduct


how seriously they take that obligation.

S'up with Moss Adams?

I have been trying for a couple of days to engage either Moss
or Adams on the record, with respect to my allegation
that a fraud is attached to their recent audit of the APS.

So far, no one at Moss Adams has responded except
to offer to engage in a phone conversation.

I have made it clear that
I would rather that our communication not be verbal.

My experience with verbal communication with good ol' boys
is that we remember the conversation differently in court.

In fairness, Diogenes was, a cynic.

Why would Moss Adams not want to communicate on the record
except that they want to protect the possibility that
it might be remembered differently in court?



If there were another reason
that we are not now exchanging emails, and scheduling
a public discussion,

what is it?

The Journal covers the School Board Election, finally.

It is unfortunate that the Journal waited until after all of the
candidate forums before covering the election. There is now
no opportunity for voters to question candidates on their
stances on various issues.

I object to the limited scope of the questions that
the Journal put to candidates. link

And further, to the characterize of the "biggest" issues.

For example;
Journal education reporter, Andrea Schoellkopf
writes at one point;

Declining revenues, budget cuts and threats of a district
breakup are among the biggest issues facing a new
Albuquerque board of education.
link
Which on its face is true; these are "among" the biggest issues;
they are not the biggest.

I would suggest that if you asked teachers and the others
who work face to face with students, to name their three
biggest issues, these three would not be among them.

I would suggest that teachers are far more concerned about
APS' third rail; student discipline and chronically disruptive students.

Further, I would suggest that teachers are far more concerned
about the negative effects of the exclusive focus on NCLB testing.

Taxpayers, I think, are far more concerned about tax dollars
being wasted by a system that enables administrative
corruption and incompetence. And they are, or would be,
if they knew about it, far more concerned that the leadership
of the APS is refusing to conduct an impartial standards and
accountability audit of the leadership of the APS.

Stakeholders would be very upset to learn that the leadership of
the APS steadfastly refuses to be held accountable as role
models of the student standard of conduct, and cannot even
summon the character and the courage to talk about the issue
in public and on the record.

Stakeholders would be more upset to learn that the leadership
of the APS will not tell the truth; they will not name a time,
a day, and a place where they will respond to legitimate
questions about the public interests, candidly, forthrightly and
honestly.


I am still not satisfied that the Journal has lived up to
its obligations to fully inform stakeholders about pertinent issues
in the APS school board elections.

In the brouhaha over the webcasting of the NM State Legislature

Too much credit cannot be given to Republican legislator
Representative Janice Arnold-Jones.

This is a lady of tremendous personal courage and dedication
to her service in the NM State Legislature.

Webcasting is only the first step in her plan to shine light
on some huge problems in state government.

There is going to be abundant change; change that would
not be happening were it not for Rep. Arnold-Jones.

I, for one, would have the whole webcasting system named
after NM State Representative Janice Arnold-Jones.

Truth and power.

It is hard to sum up the issue in fewer words than were used
by House Minority Leader Tom Taylor, R-Farmington,
who according to Trip Jennings at the New Mexico Independent said;

"The fact of the matter is any transparency that you do in a process like this dilutes the power of leadership to some degree.”
Secrecy is essential to escaping accountability for the
abuse of power.

There is no stopping an idea whose time has come.

And, transparency in government is an idea
whose time has come.

The other truth is that the NM Legislature has plenty to hide.

Were I them, I would want to hide the fact that,
with all of the problems that the legislature has to deal with,

the House Rules Committee spent 45 minutes debating
whether or not Bolo ties were acceptable attire on the
House floor.

Worth noting; I would suppose that many of these same
legislators previously voted in favor of
adopting the Bolo as the State Necktie.

Give me a break.

KRQE is doing an outstanding job covering the issue; link

Monday, January 26, 2009

Smells fishy to me.

The APS Audit Committee has an external component.
The external component exists
to mitigate the appearance of a conflict of interest;

good ol' boys evaluating the good ol' boys , while
simultaneously evaluating their own performance.


Half of the external component of the APS Audit Committee is vacant, and the good ol' boys are getting ready to accept an audit whose findings are in dispute.


Smells fishy to me.

APS Director of Internal Audit refuses to tell the truth

I am trying to find out the identity of the external member
of the APS Audit Committee.

I asked at the board office and was told that I could get that
information from the Director of Internal Audit.

I emailed Margret Koshmider and asked her for the identity
of, and contact information for, that member.

In response she "did not lie".

Mr. MacQuigg -

The structure of the audit committee is in the policies that were
approved on 9-3-08. Any release of information must go through
Rigo Chavez, and I believe you are aware of that.
I chose to release information on my e-mail and contact information to you, but cannot do that for others.
Also, one of the public positions is currently vacant and the committee
will discuss possible candidates at their next meeting.

I am sorry I cannot be of more help.

Peg Koshmider


Nor,

did she "tell the truth".



I refuse to go to Rigo, I mean puhleeeeease;
been there, done that.

The external member's name and email address will come out at some point.


It would be a shame if it were after the school board elections.

APS' SilentWhistle is a fraud.

Apparently, as part of the Moss Adams audit of the APS,
they have agreed that APS has met federal guidelines
for whistleblower protection.

When the school board approved APS' Whistleblower Policy
they specifically and deliberately denied protection to anyone
who blew a whistle on ethical misconduct by administrators or
board members.

I have published proof that complaints of ethical misconduct
do not receive a principled resolution through SilentWhistle.

The public record of the school board is of;

  • tabling a motion that would have created a policy requiring candid, forthright and honest responses to legitimate questions, and
  • tabling a motion that would have created honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence for administrators and board members, and
  • ongoing refusal to set a time, a day, and a place where they will promise to tell the truth about the public interests and about their public service.

Yet APS claims its SilentWhistle, not only meets
the requirements of the federal government,
but it also provides a principled response
to claims of ethical misconduct.



Moss Adams auditors apparently agree.



I have emailed Moss Adams, and await their response.

How can they get away with this in plain site?

The leadership of the APS used the phrase "for a few years"
when they were supposedly telling stakeholders the truth
about the lack of standards and accountability
in the APS Finance Division, and of course,
in the entire leadership of the APS.

Technically, in a loop holey, legal weaselry kind of a way,
they have not "told a lie."

In a role model of the student standard of conduct kind of a way;

they did not tell the truth.


They did not role model for students and staff,
what it looks like to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, even against personal interests.

They did not walk the talk.

They did not show students what character and courage and
honor look like.

They did not prove to students that, character counts!



Why am I the only one who finds this outrageous?

Why am I the only one who wants to stand up and
scream wtf? ??



The hardest part of standing up alone has got to be
the wondering why.

I hold in my hands, two documents

There is no convenient way to post them. If you want to see
them, you will have to ask APS Custodian of Public Records,
Rigo Chavez to send them to you. It could take months.
Even after months, Chavez still has not surrendered an
original, clean copy, of one of the two surveys.

We are playing the, "here is a xerox copy, of a copy, of a copy", game.

One is called the APS/UNM Teacher Survey. It has only been
administered twice, the last time in 2002.

The other is called, the Evaluation of Supervisor by Staff,
a survey that is taken yearly. Teachers and others on school
staffs are supposedly enabled to evaluate their principals.

"Enabled to evaluate" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

For example; one of the biggest problems in schools, is the
student discipline out of control.

The biggest gripe among teachers and among those who work
face to face with students, is that
they are not being "backed up" by administrators
when they are dealing with chronically disruptive, and even
dangerous
students.

Yet neither survey instrument gathers any data on these issues.

The closest either survey comes is, in the APS/UNM survey,
respondents are allowed varying levels of agreement with three
statements;

  • Most students are well mannered or respectful to the school staff,
  • Most students are helpful and cooperative with teachers, and
  • Students in this school are well behaved.
The Evaluation of Supervisor by Staff,
does not ask a single question that allows input on student
behavior issues, or upon a principals efforts to support teachers
who are dealing with those problems on a daily basis.

When I asked Thomas Genne, APS' Director of
Research, Development and
Accountability,

if his department had ever asked teachers
for input on the problems that they confront
on a daily basis;

he admitted that for as long as he had been there,
the RDA had never surveyed teachers for their opinions
about what they need to succeed.

More than 70,000 years of teaching experience in the APS,
and the leadership of the APS has never asked them for their
opinions about what is wrong, or about how to fix it.

They have not been asked, as part of a deliberate effort
to cover up problems instead of laying them on the table
for people to see,

even as the first step in actually fixing them.

One week until election day, still nothing from the Journal

Early voting in the school board elections has been going on
for three weeks. Election day is next Tuesday.

And unless they went to a candidate forum,
voters have no idea what the issues are,
or what the candidates positions are, on those issues.

This represents a major failure on the part of the Journal
to meet their obligation to fully inform voters in anticipation
of an election.

It is Journalistic malpractice.

Shame on the Journal.

Journal reports on audit

Well, actually, the leadership of the APS reported on the audit,
the Journal printed a cut and paste, from APS' report. link

The Journal did pass along an excuse for the tardiness of the audit report;"

— filed nearly a year late due to personnel issues and
an upheaval in leadership —"
The upheaval in leadership included
  • putting their only CPA on administrative leave for blowing the whistle on irregularities in the division,
  • "firing" a senior administrator who was the subject of sexual harassment complaints, and
  • the firing of the Director of Internal Audit, for spending half days at a casino and a porn shop.

I think it would be fairer to say that the report was filed a year
late because of a lack of standards and accountability
which has existed for as long as there has been an
APS Finance Division.

The Journal did not report on the fact that the leadership of the
APS made a deliberate effort to mislead stakeholders about
the problem. The leadership of the APS wrote;
“The APS Finance Department, under the leadership of
Chief Financial Officer Gina Hickman,

recognizes that for a few years the district wasn’t always
following acceptable accounting practices."
when the truth is, and they know that the truth is; to say
"for a few years" is a deliberate misleading.

The district has never had, and therefore has never followed
acceptable accounting practices.

If they did, they could point to them.
And they could point to, and justify or defend,
the removal of those acceptable accounting practices from
APS policy handbooks.

They can't.

Adequate, written, "acceptable accounting practices"
have never existed in the APS.

They are not telling the truth;

neither the Journal, nor the leadership of the APS.

APS Policy Committee will meet this morning.

Policy and Instruction Committee Meeting
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
7:30 AM
DeLayo-Martin Community Room


On the agenda, link,

Clarification of Board Committee Policy (B.07)
Specifically,
D. The Audit Committee reviews and recommends approval of action(s) associated with the District’s Annual Audit, any internal audit(s), audits associated with the Capital Outlay and Technology Committee and any whistleblower complaints. The Audit Committee will also include two non-Board/non-APS employees. The Finance Committee Chair will chair the committee. The non-Board/non-APS members, one of whom shall be a CPA, will be selected by the Audit Committee and approved by the Board. The non¬Board/non-APS Committee members shall serve two-year terms.
It would appear that I have an opportunity to appeal the abuses of APS' SilentWhistle by APS Director of Internal Audit, who mishandled two complaints; one made against Winston Brooks, and the other made against her. link

I have been waiting for, and fighting for, this hearing
for about fifteen years.

The thick, plottens.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Albuquerque Public Schools; Student Discipline

Where to begin?

Are there problems?
If so, what are they? and says who?

How bad are the problems?

What is being done about them?

Who is responsible for getting it done?

Who will answer these questions?

candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.





I can tell you who won't;

... anybody at all, in the leadership of the APS.


A time, a day, a place

where the leadership of the APS will sit still and
answer legitimate questions about
student discipline in the Albuquerque Public Schools.

A time, a day, a place

where the leadership of the APS will tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth


so help me God.

Imagine a six year old kid who wants to be a firefighter.

Imagine that the student learns to read
by reading about firefighting.

And s/he learns math, by doing firefighting math,
and learns about science,
by studying the science of firefighting.

All the while practicing learning.
All the while developing learning skills and resources.

And, the very next day,
when that dream has been replaced by another,

s/he will learn how to learn, by learning about policing,
or about nursing, or about flying, or about
any other goal that a child's mind can imagine.

And when the kid gets to middle school
and dreams about being "a marine biologist",

(for some reason, all middle schoolers want to be marine biologists)

they pretty much know how to learn on their own.

They pretty much know how to learn about anything at all
on the web and on their own.


Imagine teachers with enough time to devote to students
in need of individual attention.

And enough time to help to grow children into adults
who are decent human beings;

good citizens, caring and fair, respectful and responsible,
and trustworthy.


And when they graduate high school, they are as prepared
as they can be, to learn and do anything at all.

Compare that to the likelihood of a student in an NCLB
bureaucracy high school, graduating,
prepared to learn and do anything,

... at all.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Journal stays on top of APS

In the Journal this morning; everything you need to know
to participate meaningfully in the great cheese sandwich debate.
link

Nothing, of course, that you need to know to participate
meaningfully in the school board elections.

Nothing for example, on the Moss Adams audit report.

The Moss Adams audit found,
and now the leadership of the APS is finally admitting;

"... for a few years, (during which the APS Finance
Division spent
BILLIONS of tax dollars) the district
wasn’t always following acceptable accounting practices."
During those past few years,
APS Deputy Superintendent Tom Savage oversaw the
APS Finance Division.


He also had oversight over the APS Police Department
whose problems were/are so bad, that the leadership of the
APS is stilling hiding the evidence (the Access Investigations
Report).


Upon his retirement, APS Board Members Paula Maes and
Mary Lee Martin were falling over themselves gushing about
what a wonderful job Tom Savage had done.

The buck for both problems stopped on the desk of then
APS Superintendent Beth Everitt.

Upon her retirement, Paula Maes and Mary Lee Martin
were falling over themselves gushing about what a wonderful
job that Everitt had done as APS Superintendent.




Now Maes and Martin are running for reelection to the school board. The implied promise, that they will be looking after taxpayer interests; a task at which, both are demonstrable failures.

Voters won't take that into account when they cast their ballots,
because the Journal won't report upon the Moss Adams audit,
nor upon any other problems in the APS for which Maes and
Martin bear oversight responsibility.


They will be re-elected, against the public interests,
because the Journal won't live up to its obligations
to fully inform voters in preparation for an election.

Journal readers though, will be kept fully informed on the
cheese sandwich debate.


Shame on the Journal.



photos Mark Bralley

Friday, January 23, 2009

Robert Lucero would like every one to know;

the Moss Adams auditors (supposedly)
found no criminal misconduct; no blatant corruption.

I would argue that it IS corrupt
to witness a century of incompetence;

  • policies inadequate to protect the public interests,
  • accountability inadequate to enforce the policies they had, and
  • records so inaccurate and incomplete, that criminal misconduct could not be proven, no matter how egregious,
and do nothing about it.

APS not telling the truth.

In response to a demand for a candid, forthright and honest
accounting of the Moss Adams Audit, the leadership of the
APS posted this; link.

They offer the following statement;

The APS Finance Department, under the leadership of
Chief Financial Officer Gina Hickman,
recognizes that for a few years the district wasn’t always
following acceptable accounting practices."
(emphasis added)

The truth is that the District has never followed
acceptable accounting procedures.

The proof of the allegation is simple logic.

If there ever were acceptable accounting practices, where are
they now? Where is the record that they ever existed?

If there ever were acceptable accounting practices,
the leadership of the APS could point to the record and say,
Here is the evidence that proper accounting procedures
were once being followed.

And then they would be able to point to the place where
the proper accounting procedures were replaced with
improper accounting procedures.

They can't of course, because it is simply stupid to believe that
proper accounting procedures would allow for the dissolution of
themselves, to be replaced by
  • inadequate policies,
  • inadequate accountability, and
  • inadequate record keeping.

You be the judge;

which is a candid, forthright, and honest portrayal of the facts;
  • implying that there were only "a few years" of problems, or
  • admitting that the problems have been there all along?
Their candid, forthright, and honest response,
was not so candid, forthright, and honest, after all.

They have made a deliberate effort to mislead stakeholders.

They have been dishonest according to the standard of
conduct that they enforce upon students.


And yet, their lawyers will argue;
their clients haven't been caught "telling a lie".

OK, so what am I to do with this?

I have it on good authority that;

A student brought a knife to Jimmy Carter Middle School.

He had brought the knife to school with the intention of using it.

He was caught, APSPD wanted to arrest him and press charges,
and then administration intervened.

His parents made a stink, and now he is back at school.

Many staff and teachers at the school are outraged.


Is all or any of this, true?

I guess the point is that
there is no reason to believe that, it is not true.

Teachers and staffs are outraged across the district.
The data would show that, if the data were collected.

The last audit by the Council of the Great City Schools
revealed that principals routinely falsified crime statistics
in order to make their schools look good.

The cleanest way to falsify data, is to not create it;
no paper trail;
what kid? what knife?


There is a document called
the Student Behavior Handbook.
Technically, it is an extension of school board policy.

There is a part of that document called
Minimum Mandatory Consequences.
It represents the district's promise that students
who willfully misbehave, will suffer some mandatory consequence.

The promise is diametric to the truth, which is that
principals take advantage of language in the Handbook,
that teachers call the "weasel clause".

In effect, the clause says that
administrators can do anything that they want to do,
and then justify it by saying that they used their "best judgment".

An administrator's best judgment is not subject to question
or review.

The leadership of the APS doesn't want to talk about student
discipline.

They don't want to talk about student discipline because;
  • it is a powerful influence on success in schools,
  • it is in the toilet, and
  • it is an administrative responsibility.

So they just won't talk about it.

And teachers
who see their sacrifices made pointless in out of control schools,
find other lines of work.

The teacher shortage is not because the colleges of education
are not turning out enough graduates.

It is because half of new teachers quit teaching in the first few
years, and half of the remaining teachers, quit in the next.

Student discipline is not on the table for honest and open
public discussion.

It should be.

So what am I supposed to do about it?

The system has no place where the issue of student discipline
can be addressed, and no place to complain about the fact that
there is no place to address the issue.

Submitted as only one of many subjects about which,

the leadership of the APS will not tell the truth.


Superintendent Winston Brooks, tell us the truth!

Moss Adams, Certified Public Accountants
has submitted their Independent Auditor's Report.

I think that there are issues; past, present, and future.

I think questions about "criminal misconduct" were answered with odd non verbal communication among those who answered. It felt to me like the answers;

"... depend upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
I think APS Chief Financial Officer, Gina Hickman materially misled the committee, and apparently the federal government, by representing any efficacy at all of the APS SilentWhistle whistle blower program.

If at any place in the audit, I can find some evidence that
Moss Adams has signed off on APS' SilentWhistle,
then they have been materially misled as well.

I think that there is a lot of inconvenient truth about the Moss Adams Audit in APS' bucket of truth.


It is not my obligation to try to pry out the truth.



It is Winston Brooks' obligation
to tell the truth;
candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.


And it is not completely unreasonable
to ask to see his signature above
a line that reads;



and I promise to tell the truth,
the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth.

(so help me God)

photos Mark Bralley




Update;
The leadership of the APS has responded; link
Nothing in the response, to the allegation that
APS' SilentWhistle whistle blower hotline is a scam.

A complaint made against APS' Director of Internal Audit,
would go to SilentWhistle,
who would then return it to APS' Director of Internal Audit.

Who can then close the complaint, and refuse to identify who closed the complaint, and even refuse to answer a legitimate question about who her supervisor is.

APS Audit Committee Meeting Thursday, January 22, 2009

The agenda read;

Presentation/Discussion/Action of Financial Statements
and the External Audit for Year Ending June 30, 2007
In short, I am concerned about some of the things I heard,
not the least of which is a $36M "accounting error" brought
about in no small part by a still inadequate accounting system.

An external auditor, whose name I do not know, asked with
incredulity;
You're still using Excel Spreadsheets?


I will post again, on the audit itself, but first I would like
to offer an apology to Board Member Marty Esquivel.

Mr. Esquivel had to point out to me, because I had missed
the significance,




that this particular meeting was the first Audit Committee Meeting including the presentation of an audit, that was open to the public.

This was the first time the public saw the sausage before it was
packaged for retail.

I remember now, the discussion about whether or not
the audit committee meetings would ever be open to the
public. I remember Robert Lucero arguing vehemently
to keep them secret, and now I remember Marty Esquivel
refusing to take no for an answer.

This open audit committee meeting, warts and all, would not
have happened except for Marty Esquivel's efforts.

Mr. Esquivel is also working on legislative changes in the
Governmental Conduct Act, which would bring school boards
like APS', under the purview of the Act. Oddly, there is on
the books, an exception to that law, for school boards.

Marty Esquivel and I have gone round and round on the idea
of administrative role modeling of the Student Standard of
Conduct. We will continue to go round and round until I am
satisfied that there are administrative role models of the
Student Standard of Conduct.

In the meantime, I will try my best, to not let that interfere with
my giving credit, where credit is due.

Yesterday was Marty Esquivel Day in the Martin DeLayo
room.


Kudos as well,
to Board Member Delores Griego, who

when the bean counters were arguing that a $36M accounting
error was relatively small potatoes, considering the overall
amount of capital assets,


argued on behalf of stakeholders, that;
$36,000,000.00 error
was not inconsequential at all.


Perhaps there is some hope for stakeholder interests before
the school board, after all.



photos Mark Bralley

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Are School Board Members Role Models?

Of course they are.

Are they accountable as role models?

Clearly not. Not if we can't get them to even admit that they are
role models.

Yet they are running for the school board, with some success.


Apparently, no one cares.

So when we give the little kid a Character Counts! tee-shirt,
that on its front and back reads;

Stand up for what you believe in,
even if you are standing alone.
basically,
they are.



They deserve better.

They deserve an adult role model behind them
offering encouragement.

And an adult role model beside them
sharing the burden.

And an adult role model in front of them
leading by their example.

Refusal to take an oath or affirmation

According to NM State Statutes, anyone who refuses to take
oath or affirmation is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

In theory, when the APS Board of Education refuses
to take the following oath, they are breaking the law.

As a senior role model of the student standard of conduct,
a standard of conduct which requires telling the truth,

I promise to tell the truth

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
about the public interests and about my public service
(so help me God)

The only reason they aren't breaking the law, by refusing,
is that I don't have "standing" to insist that they do.

After all, I am only a citizen, a tax payer, and a stakeholder.

"Pay to play" in the APS?

The Journal has reported on campaign contributions in the
APS School Board Elections. link
Oddly, I cannot find the story in my home editio of the Journal;
I only stumbled across it on their website.


There are some out of state contributions, which seem just a
little weird.

There is a contribution from Brad Winter's wife, whose
law firm does business with the APS.

There is a contribution from Doug Baker, whose law firm
Modrall, does millions of dollars worth of business with the
APS, in part for litigating exception to the law for APS
administrators and board members.

There are contributions from sitting APS administrators.
APS doesn't have a searchable data base. where I can confirm
my suspicions. I could be wrong on this one, but
I think that I recognize their names.


And of course nobody will answer questions about anything,
it's just not the way they roll.


According to the Journal,

District 3 candidate Jeffrey Rich said
he was refusing to disclose his fund raising because
he wants to "show how corrupt the election process is at APS."
He said he instead supports mandatory disclosure,
with legal penalties attached.


The Journal saw no need to elaborate on the issue,
or upon any other issue in the school board races,
less than two weeks from election day, and
more than two weeks into early voting.

More Journal reporting on anything but ...

Journal education reporter Andrea Schoellkopf has reported
on campaign contributions in the APS school board races. link

Don't get me wrong; this is great information to know.
But as an adjunct, not instead of some solid reporting on
the real issues in the race.

Four candidates have said that they will step up as role models
of the student standard of conduct.
And their opponents are stonewalling the question.

Four candidates have said that they will tell the truth about
public interests and public resources in the APS.
And their opponents are stonewalling the question.

Four candidates have said that they are in favor of an immediate
impartial standards and accountability audit of the leadership
of the APS.
And their opponents are stonewalling the question.

Four candidates are willing to stand on the record and swear
to tell the truth about the public interests in the public schools;
subject to, and only to, exception according to the law.

Four candidates are willing to look into the eyes of stakeholders,
including 87,000 of this community's sons and daughters,
raise their right hand and say;

I promise to tell the truth.
And their opponents are stonewalling the question.

And their opponents are stonewalling all of these questions.


And all Journal readers have to go on,
when they elect the people that they must trust with control
over their power, and with the administration of their treasure,

is relatively meaningless list of campaign contributions.


Instead of reporting on solid and important issues,
voters are given instead, campaign finance reports.

Good information for voters to have certainly, but


not instead of the truth.

This can't be!

Rio Grande High School and Ernie Pyle Middle School
are to be "reconstituted".

Because they have "failed" to make adequate yearly progress
on the NCLB testing, the schools are subject to "reconstitution".

In its extreme, the entire teaching staff is given their walking papers, and if they want to continue to work at the school, they must reapply for their jobs.

APS Superintendent Winston Brooks, according to an article
in the Journal, link, defends wholesale staff changes at
"failing" schools, saying it, "... has made a difference" across
the country.

Andrea Schoellkopf, Journal education reporter, writes;

"Brooks said one idea is that employees
who don't want to stay at the school or don't agree with
its mission be guaranteed three priority interviews at
other schools.

But Bernstein said the union doesn't want those teachers
in a classroom anywhere."
If RGHS and EPMS teachers don't buy into a plan that
they have had no part in creating, and don't agree with,

they shouldn't have a teaching job anywhere?

you have got to be kidding!


Update; turns out I was right at "this can't be".
The Journal admits an error, and I published a correction.

The line comes from a response from Bernstein in a response
to what the union would have done, with bad teachers.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

APS to fight for police force during legislature

KOB TV reports that APS is trying to get the legislature to
make the APS Police Department a "stand alone" police force.
link

There are upsides; not the least of which is state and federal
grants that are made to actual police departments, and
immediate access to the NCIC Criminal Data Base.

The part I don't understand;

the felony criminal abuse of the BCSO NCIC involving APS
senior administrators,

  • Tom Savage's fiancee was the victim of an illegal criminal background search,
  • as was at least one whistle blower whose background was searched illegally and in retaliation for blowing the whistle,
  • and I think, five other victims of illegal searches involving APSPD and the BCSO,
is still being hidden by APS, from the District Attorney's Office.


How does that wash, exactly,
in the decision to upgrade the APSPD to a stand alone police force?

The answer is; it doesn't.

Peanut Butter Off Menus at APS

Five column inches in the Journal this morning link
on APS' apparently unnecessary pulling of peanut butter from
school menus.

The Journal reports;

APS Director of Communications, Rigo Chavez said;
that the only thing APS now serves with peanut butter is a Smuckers Uncrustable peanut butter and jelly pocket sandwich, which, according to a company news release, is not part of the national recall.
"They decided to pull everything for now," he said.
The Journal reports nothing, still,
on anything to do with the school board elections,
and which would be useful to voters
in making this very important decision.
The Albuquerque Journal; keeping it relevant.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Journal endorses school board candidates

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

They have endorsed candidates before. In fact,
they usually endorse school board candidates.

The problem is that this year,
they are pretending that there isn't an election.
They are running the second stealth election in as many
board elections. link

So it would be difficult to endorse a candidate
in an election that isn't happening.

The election is half over, and
they still haven't given voters anything that would help them
to vote for the right person.

Why, you ask, does it make any difference?

Why does in make any difference if the leadership of the APS
starts telling the truth, as opposed to not telling lies?

Every significant problem in the APS
has roots in the still secret, inconvenient truth.

You can't solve problems and
keep them secret at the same time.


If hiding problems is more important than solving them
they will never be solved at all.

It doesn't seem fair.

The people who passed the law that requires everyone else
to promise to tell the truth before they testify,

never saw the need to pass a law requiring the same of them,

even when they are asked legitimate questions,
about the public interest, or about their public service.

When our character is being tested,

we call it

a moment of truth.




How ironic.

Public Forum available to aps school board candidates.

During the APS School Board meeting Wednesday evening,
there will be an opportunity for stakeholders to petition their
government.
The opportunity comes by way of the scheduled public forum.

Anyone can stand up and ask the sitting board to;

1)promise to tell the truth, and then
2)to sit still and respond to some legitimate questions,
candidly, forthrightly and honestly;

according to the standard of conduct that
they enforce upon students.

Questions like;
Why are you not honestly accountable as role models
of the Student Standard of Conduct,
and in particular, why are you not accountable
to any standard of conduct at all,
that requires you to tell the truth?

Honesty manifest in truth telling, is the foundation
of the Pillar of Trustworthiness.


How can anyone be worthy of trust,
who can not promise to tell the truth?

Revisiting the "bucket of truth" analogy.

Imagine a bucket. And in that bucket, the truth about the APS;
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The truth in the bucket, if it "belongs" to anyone at all,
belongs to stakeholders.

Except.

The law allows some of the truth to remain secret from public knowledge. A portion of the whole truth falls under honest interpretation of the law.

Another portion is reasonably removed according to any
legitimate higher standard of conduct than the law,
for any good and ethical reason.

The truth left in the bucket belongs to stakeholders.

Stakeholders own all of the truth
except in accord with any good and ethical reason.

Our share of the truth can be sorted into two buckets;
the convenient truth, and the inconvenient truth.

The leadership of the APS spends hundreds of thousands of tax dollars every year, to "communicate" the convenient truth to stakeholders; to deliberately mislead and deceive them.

They spend an equal amount of tax dollars, on litigation
to keep the inconvenient truth in the bucket.

We try to teach students to care about their good character.
We tell them that it is important in their lives, and in the lives
of those around them.

We teach them what it means to tell the truth, and we tell them
why "telling the truth" is different from, and better than,
"not telling a lie".

We try very hard to get students to come to believe that
if the bucket of truth were in their hands,
their immediate obligation is to spill the entire bucket out
for everyone to see.

We teach them: if they do not empty the bucket entirely,
they make that choice, at the forfeit of their good character.

So when I ask administrators, school board members, and
school board member candidates,
if they are going to "tell the truth" I mean;

  • Are you going to spill the whole bucket?
  • Are you going to tell all of the truth except, for a good and ethical exception?

Now how do I explain all of that,
in about five seconds
before some moderator tells me to get to my question,

which is;
Do you promise to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
about the public interests, and about your public service

(so help you God)


Someone on the A P S Board of Education
is going to be the first to stand up, raise their right hand,
look into the eyes of stakeholders,

and answer, yes.


All of the rest, will be among the last.



I pity the fool, who is dead last.

It's a toss up, in my humble opinion,
between Paula Maes and Robert Lucero.

Two weeks to election, full page on "Schools", and still nothing in the Journal,about the school board elections.

Voting has been going on for two weeks, the election will
be over in two more,
and still, the Journal has not printed
a single article of substance, to guide voters in their selection.

Shame on the Journal.


In District 5, you have one of the good ol' boys,
Paula Maes, who, during the APS Gradegate scandal, said in defense of Teresa Cordova's efforts to get her son's grade changed, that
... it's alright for a parent to "get in a teachers face once in awhile", and who once boasted that she would never allow any audit that named corrupt or incompetent good ol' boys by name; like "for example; Tom Savage."



Running against her, a fresh face; Renee Louise Rosales, a candidate who did not hesitate one second before pledging accountability to the Student Standard of Conduct, a nationally recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethical conduct, and
a code of conduct which demands accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence; including truth telling.





Over in District 6, we have incumbent Mary Lee Martin who has been on the board for decades; decades that saw one scandal after another with no attention paid to the underlying corruption and incompetence.

Mary Lee Martin was on the school board when Character Counts! was unanimously adopted as the student standard of conduct. Now, if you ask her if she will stand up as a role model of the same standard of conduct, she responds by stonewalling the question.



Her opponent is David Robbins.
Robbins
as well, did not hesitate even one second before answering the question about his willingness to stand up as a role model of the student standard of conduct, and his willingness to tell the truth to stakeholders.

Robbins supports an immediate standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the APS.





In District 7,
newcomer Patrick J Marron,
who says that he is ready and willing to step up as a role model of the Student Standard of Conduct, including telling the truth.

Marron is one of the most vocal of the candidates, in his support of an immediate full scale standards and accountability audit of the entire leadership of the APS.







His opponent in District 7,
David Eugene Peercy,
who when asked if he was willing to step up as a role model of the Student Standard of Conduct, muttered something about how I was preaching to him, and turned around and walked away in the middle of our conversation.

Which I take to mean no,
no, he is not willing to be held honestly accountable to a standard of conduct that requires him to tell the truth to stakeholders.






And last, but not least, in District 3,
we have Jeffery C. Rich.

Mr. Rich,
says that he will step up as a role model of the Student Standard of Conduct,
and he will tell stakeholders the truth.

Jeffery Rich also has expressed his support of an immediate full scale standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the APS.





Running against Rich, in District 3, are Lorenzo Garcia, Agatha Lopez, and Anna Armijo.

In truth, I have not found the opportunity to ask these candidates face to face, if they are actually willing to step up as role models of a standard of conduct; a standard which requires telling the truth as opposed to the current standard of conduct which requires only, not getting caught telling a lie.

I will ask them, and I will report upon their response.

But the Journal will not ask the questions, nor will they
report upon the responses.


Shame on the Journal.



photos; Mark Bralley