Is UNM President David Schmidly a role model?

for whom? and of what?

Is he a role model for students, for staff, for community?

Is he a role model of a higher standard of conduct than the law?

Is he a role model of a standard of conduct which requires telling the truth?

Is he accountable as a role model? to whom? and by what process?

All of these questions are answered unequivocally with one act;
an audit is begun.

Somebody like Moss Adams, is hired to go into the
administration of the public trust and treasure at the UNM.
They are paid to look for practices that promote or enable
corruption and incompetence. They are paid to look for
the corrupt and the incompetent.

And they report to the public record.

Stakeholders have a right to the ethically redacted truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
about the spending of power and resources
that are fundamentally their own.

The person who begins such an audit would be a role model of character and courage.

Instead of having to perpetuate a myth about a man
who had enough character and courage to hold himself
honestly accountable to a meaningful standard of conduct,
we could point to one in real time.


There is no down side of an audit.

Cost? you wonder.

Calculate for yourself a number.
It is the number of pennies in every tax dollar
that you think are wasted by public corruption,
incompetence, and the practices that enable them.

My guess would be that 20 cents in every tax dollar
are wasted or stolen.

For the sake of argument, let's say it is only 1 cent.

I don't know what the UNM's annual budget amounts to,
but let's say a half a billion.

One percent of a half of a billion tax dollars is 5 million dollars.

You could buy yourself a damn fine Moss Adams audit
for a whole lot less than 5 million dollars.

Anything over a few hundred grand would be gravy.

Cost is not the downside. Rather, audits are money makers.
Talk about bang for your tax dollar.

So what is the downside?
In fact, there is no downside.

Unless you are one of the good ol' boys
whose record of public service cannot stand the light of day.

For them, there will be a down side.
Which is as it should be.

Whether university presidents, or district superintendents,
why aren't their salaries, even their continued employment
contingent upon passing yearly audits?

If the idea is to get taxpayers to feel confident
about the spending of their power and resources,
what better way to earn that trust than by clean audits
every year?

Good administrations accept accountability;
great administrations demand it.

That's why great administrators aren't afraid of audits;
they welcome them.