The very most fundamental standard of conduct

If you were looking for a number one rule, mustn't it be

1. You have to obey the rules.

We tell students, they must obey the rules.*

We go on to explain to them;

if they would be people of character and courage and honor,
when they break a rule,
they are expected to be honest about it.

The standard we hold up for them is;
hold yourself honestly accountable for the choices you make.

How does one show students what that looks like, except by
showing students what that looks like?

Show them what honest accountability to meaningful standards
of conduct and competence looks like.

Or,
stop telling students that their good character depends upon it.


*There are ethical exceptions such as civil disobedience.

Which is better for the kids; now, or never?

APS Board Members are fond of saying that their decisions
are made in the best interests of students.

In fact,
the very first rule in their own newly adopted, and completely
unenforceable Code of Ethics reads;

Make the education and well-being of students
the basis for all decision making.

OK then,
considering the education and well-being of 89,000 of
our sons and daughters in the APS; and
using those criteria as the basis for the decision making;

which is better for the education and well-being of APS students;

board members and administrators honestly accountable
as role models of the Student Standards of Conduct;
a nationally recognized, accepted, and
respected Code of Ethical Conduct link,
or,
the status quo?

Character counts,
or,
character doesn't count?


You pick a side when you don't pick a side.
Your silence gives consent.

Friday, April 17, 7:30 am
APS Uptown Administrative Complex
DeLayo-Martin Community Room.


Those who are waiting for
the perfect circumstances to do something
have found the perfect excuse to do nothing at all.

There is this time, this place, these people
and it absolutely could not be more

now, or never.

The SilentWhistle complaint against Winston Brooks

I am still trying to afford myself of due process regarding
a complaint filed against Winston Brooks by means of APS'
SilentWhistle whistle blower program.

The complaint was closed without a principled resolution
by the person against whom it was filed.

There is an obvious appearance of a conflict of interest.

Creating the appearance of a conflict of interest is expressly
and specifically prohibited under the School Board's own
Code of Ethics link, which reads;

(rule) "7. Avoid conflicts of interest or
the appearance thereof ..."

Winston Brooks closed the complaint against himself,
claiming it was a "nuisance complaint".

You tell me. The complaint is that;

"Winston Brooks refuses to hold himself honestly
accountable to (the Student Standards of Conduct).

Winston Brooks refuses to make the overt gesture of holding
himself honestly accountable to the same standard of conduct
that he enforces upon students. The student standards of
conduct, are ethical standards of conduct.

Role modeling is only role modeling if it is overt.
There is no such thing as an inconspicuous role model.

In order for Winston Brooks to claim that he is a role
model of the Student Standards of Conduct,
he must at some point, point to the place where he has
subjected himself to honest accountability
to those clearly written standards. link

He cannot because, there is no place; he is not honestly
accountable to the Student Standards of Conduct.

The fact that he can close a complaint against himself and
get away with it, is proof on its face, that he is not honestly
accountable to any ethical standards of conduct at all;
which is unethical.

At the time the complaints were filed; APS promised the
principled resolution of complaints of unethical conduct.
link The word "unethical" has since been removed from
the list of complaints that can be made to SilentWhistle.
The word was removed by the leadership of the APS because
they are not accountable to any standards of ethical conduct
and because they have no intention of ever being held
accountable to ethical standards of conduct.

At this very moment, they are plotting some way of preventing
a role modeling clause from being added to their own standards
of conduct. link

So is this a nuisance complaint? Is it frivolous?

This question warrants discussion.
It deserves due process.

The only reason to deny the complaints their due process,
is to avoid the public embarrassment that the truth will precipitate.

Which is not an ethical reason to deny due process.
It is unethical conduct.

Silence gives consent.

According to an online legal dictionary; link

Pure and simple, silence cannot be considered as consent
to a contract, except in cases where the silent person
is bound in good faith to explain himself; in which case
silence gives consent.

When a person is accused of a crime or charged with any fact,
and he does not deny it, in general, the presumption is very strong
that the charge is correct.

Are school board members bound in good faith, to explain
why due process is being denied to two whistleblower complaints?

Board policy link, requires the board to;

"... review and recommend approval or action(s)
associated with ... any whistleblower complaints."

I have repeatedly alleged that the complaints have been
denied due process for no reason except to excuse
Winston Brooks from circumstances where he will have to
admit on the record, that administrative and executive
role modeling of the Student Standards of Conduct is
a fairy tale.

The language is specific and unequivocal, the complaints
have been denied due process, and the school board
will not go on the record with a justification for their denial
of due process for those complaints.

Where is the teachers union on role modeling?

The Albuquerque Teachers Federation has made no effort
to involve their members, or anyone else, in the debate over
whether there will be administrative and executive role modeling
of the Student Standards of Conduct.

The impact of the decision on teachers, is significant. link

Yet the teachers union is curiously silent.

Being a cynic, I am wondering if the union would rather that
their members not be held accountable as role models of
the Student Standards of Conduct either.

Richardson waffles on open conference committee meetings.

Governor Bill Richardson is suffering a boggle;
he can't decide whether or not, to sign into law, the opening
of conference committee meetings, to the public.

He can't decide whether,

• to allow the public to watch the process by which their trust and treasure are spent, or
• to kowtow to powerful politicos who don't want public scrutiny, and who might be able to scratch his back in return some day.

Odd man out? As usual, John Q Public. wikilink

link to Haussamen's well written summary.

Alb Journal; two full pages on "schools", not one word on rolemodeling scandal in the leaderhip of the APS.

The leadership of the APS is "struggling" with a decision;
Are we role models, or are we not?

When the decision is finally made, the leadership of the APS
will find itself either;

• quasi accountable to the lowest standard of acceptable conduct; the law,
• or honestly accountable to a nationally recognized, accepted and respect code of ethical conduct.

The APS is at a fork in the road; the stakes could not be higher.

And rather than telling its readers about the upcoming decision,
the Journal prints lunch schedules and feel good stories about
the APS.

It is almost as if the Journal is in the pocket of one of its largest
advertisers.

The Journal makes so much money off taxpayers/the APS,
that the APS will not divulge the amount, even as required
according to the NM Inspection of Public Records Act.*



* Public Records request dated September 6, 2006

To: Custodian of Public Records, Albuquerque Public Schools
From: Charles MacQuigg

This constitutes a request for all documents, papers, letters, books, maps, tapes, photographs, recordings and other materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that are used, created, received, maintained or held by or on behalf of any APS and relate to public business, whether or not the records are required by law to be created or maintained and excluding any records whose request is prohibited by any agreement between myself and APS.

All records reflecting compensation or payments to the Albuquerque Journal and Albuquerque Tribune.

The request was ignored, in blatant violation of the law.
The only remedy; sue APS/Modrall.

Been there, done that.

If teachers only knew.

When, if, the leadership of the APS finds itself honestly
accountable to the Student Standards of Conduct, there
will be a dramatic change in the way teachers, and other APS
employees will be treated.

For once, they will be entitled to know the truth,
the whole truth, about district resources and their allocation.

For once, they will be entitled to participate meaningfully
in decisions that affect their interests; they will have a seat
at the table where decisions are made.

For once, they will have a venue where they can file legitimate
complaints against administrators, see a principled resolution
of their complaint, and be free of fear of retribution and
retaliation for making their complaint.

For once, the administrators who make or break the effort
to educate children will be honestly accountable for their
conduct and competence as administrators.

For once, administrators will have to carry their share of the
burden of enforcing school discipline policies, and of dealing
with chronically disruptive students.

If only teachers knew that the issue is on the table.

If only the public knew that the issue is on the table.

Request for public records.

To: Custodian of Public Records, Albuquerque Public Schools

From: Charles MacQuigg,

This constitutes a request for public records.

I request the opportunity to inspect and or copy all
public records that are related to the two whistleblower
complaints that I filed with APS' SilentWhistle in
December of last year.

The request includes, but is not limited to,
1. all communications between APS and SilentWhistle,
2. all communication between APS and myself regarding the complaints,
3. all communications between District Administrators regarding the complaints,
the filing of the complaints, the handling of the complaints and the resolution of the complaints.
4. all communications about me or about the complaints, that have taken place since the complaints were filed;
5. all communications regarding any Audit Committee review and approval of the complaints.



Please let me know if this request is in any way lacking.

APS School Board Member David Peercy is fond of the existing language.

The existing Employee Standards of Conduct read as follows;

G.14 EMPLOYEE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

Employees of the Albuquerque Public Schools shall serve as positive role models for students and set good examples in conduct, manners, dress and grooming. APS expects each employee to maintain the highest standards of conduct and act in a mature and responsible manner at all times. Employees must not engage in activities which violate federal, state or local laws or which, in any way, diminish the integrity, efficiency or discipline of the District.

The part of that language that he is most fond of, is;

"APS expects each employee to maintain the highest standards of conduct ..."

He thinks that language is better than;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult,
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

because, he would have you believe,
there are higher standards of conduct than
the Student Standards of Conduct, and
he would rather be accountable to them instead.

The Standards of Conduct for students are
the Pillars of Character Counts!; a nationally recognized,
accepted and respected code of ethics.

David Peercy cannot expect to hold employees accountable
to a higher standard of conduct than the Pillars of Character
Counts! for one simple reason; there is no such thing.

There are no higher standards of conduct than ethical standards of conduct.

There are "legal" standards, which represent the lowest
standards of acceptable conduct. And then there are "ethical"
standards, which represent the highest standards of conduct.
There are no standards of conduct that are higher than ethical
standards.

David Peercy would have you believe that he is rejecting
accountability as a role model of the Pillars of Character
Counts!, simply because he is in favor of "higher standards
of conduct" than the Student Standards of Conduct.
And, that he would actually be held accountable to those
higher standards, by language which reads;

"APS expects each employee to maintain the highest standards of conduct ..."

There is a world of difference between "maintaining"
standards, and actually being accountable to them.

His rejection of accountability as a role model of the
Student Standards of Conduct, is on its face,
rejection of accountability to "the highest standards of conduct".

This whole exercise is about David Peercy,
trying to except himself from accountability
as a role model of he Student Standards of Conduct;
the highest possible standards of conduct.

This whole exercise is about
David Peercy, refusing to;

in no case, hold himself accountable
to lower standards of conduct than
students.

It is in fact, precisely what he is doing.



There is a simple test;
I would invite anyone, but especially David Peercy or
any other member of the leadership of the APS,
to point to even one single example anywhere in APS Policies,
Procedures, Procedural Directives, Rules or Regulations
that references a higher standard of conduct than the
Student Standards of Conduct.

I would invite them to point even one single example anywhere
in APS Policies, Procedures, Procedural Directives,
Rules or Regulations that references a standard of conduct
that is even equal to the Pillars of Character Counts!

Further, I would invite any of the aforementioned to point to
anywhere in the entire APS, where there is honest
accountability to any standard of conduct higher than the law.

The School Board's own recently adopted Code of Ethics,
does not even use the word "ethical" anywhere but in the title.

Their own Code of Ethics is; by their own free admission,
absolutely unenforceable.

Not because it can't be made enforceable, but because
they don't want it to be enforceable.

cc Peercy upon posting



photo Mark Bralley

Standards and accountability in the APS.

Standards and accountability share a symbiotic relationship;
one without the other, amounts to nothing.

The highest standard that can be imagined, is no different
from the lowest, if neither is enforced.

Even honest accountability is of no use, if it is to standards
that are inadequate to the need.

APS has standards and accountability.

In fact, they have on the books, one of the highest standards of
conduct that is possible in a public school setting;
the Pillars of Character Counts!.

But, there is no honest accountability to those standards.

There is nowhere in the entire APS where a stakeholder
can file a complaint that ethical standards of conduct
have been violated, without that complaint being dismissed
as a "nuisance".

There is nowhere in the entire APS where a complaint
made against an administrator, will not be heard by a
colleague of that administrator.

I don't believe for one minute, that personal and professional
relationships between administrators don't play in
the adjudication of complaints against each other, and
neither should you.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that every APS
administrator that adjudicates a complaint against a fellow
administrator, does so impartially.

The appearance of a conflict of interest is still
omnipresent. There is no getting around it. And it casts a
shadow of doubt on the entire process.

That doubt, and its negative effects, is the basis for writing
policies that prohibit creating even the "appearance" of
a conflict of interest.

There is no need for the process to stay "in house".

The appearance of a conflict of interest is entirely eliminated
be simply outsourcing the adjudication. Instead of spending
money on "in house" resolution, that same money could be used
to enable independent resolution that doesn't create an
appearance of a conflict of interest.

APS is big on "in house" resolution. Even allegations of
felony criminal misconduct are investigated by colleagues
of the accused.

With an absolutely predictable result.

More than two years ago, there was a scandal in the APS
Police Department. The leadership of the APS investigated
itself, found evidence of felony criminal misconduct,
waited until the statutes of limitation expired, and still to this
day, has not surrendered evidence to any real branch of
law enforcement. They have yet to even release an
ethically redacted version of the truth to stakeholders.

The APS cannot help but to improve when there is honest
accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and
competence; a situation which is being opposed as vigorously
as is possible, by the leadership of the APS, and,
for no good and ethical reason.

Without explanation, defense, denial, or even an
acknowledgment that, that is what they are doing.

Where are the Character Counts! advocates?

I know that there are literally hundreds of people in the APS
who have attended Character Counts! training.

I know that for the most, the people that come out of those
trainings, come out changed people. Those that take the
training back to their schools, take it with more enthusiasm
than I have seen for any other trainings for educators.

Character Counts! is the character education model for the APS,
by a unanimous vote of the school board.

APS pays two senior administrators, Carole Smith and
Dee Dee Stroud, in whole or in part, to advocate on behalf of
Character Counts!

Character Counts! is tight. It was written by fifty of the most
capable people that could be assembled for three days in 1992,
in Aspen Colorado.

Please take the time to read the Aspen Declaration and the
names and qualifications of the men and women who wrote it.
link

United States Senator Pete Domenici is a Founding Father
of Character Counts! He was there in Aspen Colorado.

Mayor Martin Chavez has claimed to be
a Founding Father of Character Counts!

Teachers Union President Don Whatley is
a Founding Father of Character Counts!

President of the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce,
Teri Cole claimed at one time, to advocate Character Counts!

There are a lot of people who could and should be standing up
in support of the Pillars of Character Counts! as the standard
of conduct for students, and for their adult role models.

And still, I am the only one.

I cannot do it alone.

If some body else doesn't stand up, and soon,
David Peercy, and the rest of the leadership of the APS
will eliminate administrative and executive accountability
as role models of the Pillars of Character Counts!

The leadership of the APS is buried in a cloud of hypocrisy.

They refuse to step up as role models of the student standards
of conduct. The Pillars of Character Counts! are a higher
standard of conduct than one to which they are willing to be
held honestly accountable.

There are only two ways to disperse the cloud of hypocrisy;

1. raise their own standards of conduct, or
2. lower the student standards of conduct;

• by eliminating the Pillars of Character Counts! altogether, or
• by redefining the meaning of the Pillars in terms low enough to suit their interests.

If there is such a thing as a battle between good and evil,
surely this is it.

The meeting where the Pillars of Character Counts!
will endorsed or renounced, was not scheduled during
spring break when stakeholders could attend.

It will not be held in the evening,
when stakeholders could attend.

It will not accommodate a public forum where stakeholders
would have the opportunity to exercise their right
to petition their government.

It will be held at 7:30 in the morning, Friday, April 17th
with minimal attendance.

In the balance;

• Honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence according to the Pillars of Character Counts! or
• the same old, same old; good ol' boy accountability to good ol' boy standards of conduct and competence.

A decision is about to be made.

According to the Student Standards of Conduct,
stakeholders have a right to meaningful participation in
decisions that affect their interests.

Those rights are being
ignored because
David Peercy wants
to do something really,
really bad.

And he can't do it,
if stakeholders are in
the room.

Acquaint yourself please,
with the standards of
conduct which Peercy
and the rest,
(tacitly or overtly)
would eschew
as their own. link

There are no standards more appropriate than these;
neither for students, nor for David Peercy and the
rest of the leadership of the APS.




photo Mark Bralley

The agenda for the upcoming Special Session of the NM State Legislature.

It is time for a Special Session of the Legislature.

The agenda;

Making every aspect of state government
transparently accountable to the people.

The agenda must include;

• robust webcasting,
• a searchable public records archive.
• the Open Meetings Act,
• the Inspection of Public Records Act,
• the Governmental Conduct Act, and
  
• the creation of an Ethics Commission.

It is unlikely that this particular special session
will ever take place.

It is precisely as unlikely as, the likelihood of thousands of
New Mexicans showing up in Santa Fe to demand it.

When they say you get the government you deserve,
this is what they're talking about.

"Legally" dishonest

The Albuquerque Journal's Colleen Heild has a report
in the paper this morning, link .


The gist is that ,
Speaker of the House
Ben Lujan, has been
getting special treatment
from the NMDoT.





Anyone who has been paying any attention at all,
will not be surprised to learn that a powerful NM politician
is getting preferential treatment from state government.

Anyone who has ever tried to do anything about that scandal,
will have found that part of the special treatment is the
suppression of public records by officials in state government.

At its heart, New Mexico taxpayers pay lawyers to game
the law, against the public interests, to protect the interests
of the privileged class.

There is hardly a law that legal weaselry cannot find a way
to skirt. Particularly if the weasels are on state payroll,
enjoying virtually unlimited budgets to underwrite their
weaselry.

The Inspection of Public Records Act provides;
if requested public records are legitimately excepted from
surrender to the public record, the records which have been
excepted are supposed to be

• fully identified, and
  
• the specific reasons for the exception listed, and
• the individual who denied the request, fully identified.

None of this happens of course, it's just not the way they roll.

If you are the Journal, you can afford the lawyers fees and
court costs (which can be later reimbursed under the law),
and you can sue in court for the release of the records.

If you are a run of the mill citizen however, you are screwed.

Theoretically, there are penalties for violating the law.
Heild writes;

"Less clear is what happens if a government agency
simply withholds records but does not disclose it is doing so.

New Mexico has a statute that says deliberately
concealing public records is a fourth-degree felony,
but open government advocates could not recall it
being used in connection with an IPRA request"

The same is true of the Governmental Conduct Act, link,
which requires public servants to

"discharge ethically, the high responsibilities
of public service."

When I asked the clerk of the Second Judicial District Court,
how many prosecutions there have been under that law, circa
1978, she said;

"None. I guess it has never been necessary."

Having a law on the books does not mean the law is,
or ever will be enforced. Because the under lying fact is,
people like Speaker of the House, Ben Lujan,
are excepted from accountability to the law,
by the very folks we pay to enforce that law.

Because they're special.

Lujan and his wife Carmen
are co-owners of the
billboard.

Here seen reciting
the pledge of allegiance.


... with Liberty and
Justice for all.


Just that some get more than others.



photos Mark Bralley

Robust webcasting of the Special Session

Or not.


It's up to us.

It is up to us to decide whether or not there will be robust
webcasting of our business in our house.

and

It is up to us to compel our servants to bend to our will.

Or not.

Google "arrogance"; you will find Jamie Koch's picture.

Will anything change at the UNM after the faculty uprising?

If there ever was a doubt about what the future looks like,
the doubt has been erased.

According to the Journal, link, when asked about
the overwhelming vote of no confidence in his leadership,
Koch said;

"... he didn't care one bit about the vote —
that it had slid off him like water off a duck's back."

That statement alone should cost him his job.

But it won't.



There is a lesson to be learned;

If you ever do pick up a torch or pitchfork,

you don't put it down again unless the tyrant is actually
out of the castle.

Standards and accountability

In this context, standards and accountability are inseparable.
One without the other, is meaningless.

There is not a wit of difference between the highest standard
of conduct and the lowest, if there is accountability to neither.

By the same token, honest accountability to inadequate
standards serves no useful purpose either.

Therefore, if the problems of inadequate standards and
accountability are to be ended, they are ended only by the
combination of ;

• high standards and
• honest accountability.

APS has "high standards" on the books. In fact, the Employee
Standards of Conduct read in significant part;

"APS expects each employee to maintain
the highest standards of conduct ... at all times."

There are obvious problems with the the ambiguity of a
statement like "the highest standards". The lack of specificity
is an open invitation to escape accountability through legal
weaselry; there isn't a lawyer in the world who couldn't twist
the meaning to suit his client's interests.

Assume for the sake of argument that, the phrase
"the highest standards of conduct" had an unequivocal meaning.

It is still meaningless with out accountability to those standards.

Accountability is where the leadership of the APS falls flat on
its face. There is no "honest" accountability in the APS to any
standard of conduct at all.

Consider my SilentWhistle complaint against Winston Brooks.
The resolution of the complaint was provided by the subject of
the complaint and his subordinates.
The "appearance of a conflict of interest" could not be more
blatant.

Aside from the fact that "creating the appearance of a conflict
of interest" is explicitly and specifically prohibited by school
board policy, the appearance of a conflict of interest taints
the entire process.

Is it possible to resolve complaints without the appearance
of a conflict of interest? Of course it is. I can offer a least
one alternative; hire an independent private investigator
and arbitrator; someone who is not beholden to the district
or any of its employees.

Why not hire independent investigators and arbitrators?

The simple answer is because then the leadership of the
APS will loose their control over the truth.

It is their need to control the truth, beyond what is provided
by the spirit of the law, is what betrays the true intentions of
the leadership of the APS; their interest is not in a principled
resolution of a complaint, but rather, in being able to spin
the truth.

How can you trust someone whose first interest and top
priority is spinning the truth?

It is possible to have honest accountability to higher standards
of conduct; the leadership of the APS is just not interested in
doing so.

It has occurred to me, that Winston Brooks and I have something in common.

Winston Brooks wants the circumstances of my termination
from the APS to be investigated, and so do I.

The difference between us is;

I want the ethically redacted truth to be made public,
and he wants to make public, all of the rest.

APS Policy Committee Chair David Peercy is obfuscating the issue.

On the table; the Role Modeling clause;

In no case shall the standard of conduct for an adult,
be lower than the standard of conduct for students.

David Peercy would like to discuss
that issue and a whole bunch of other
issues all at once.

He wants to discuss all policies and
all related procedural directives
at the same time.

It makes a modicum of sense;
you can't change one policy or
procedure without considering
the affect that change might have
on other polices and directives.

But

Whether there will be a Role Modeling clause in the standards
of conduct for adults, is not really an issue at all. It is a given.
It is a fundamental premise.

And if there is any confusion at all, about that fundamental
premise, then let's iron out that confusion in a meeting
that focuses solely on the most important issue in education.

There is no reason to clutter that discussion with discussion
of any other issue at all.
Except to obfuscate that discussion.

And when Peercy's boggle about role modeling is resolved,
if he finds he needs to discuss lowering the student standards
of conduct, to accommodate any lack of character and courage
in the leadership of the APS,

I would suggest that, that meeting too,
be a meeting to debate a single issue.




photo Mark Bralley

I am, apparently, a "nuisance".

I filed a complaint against Winston Brooks by means of
APS' SilentWhistle.

The complaint was closed without a principled resolution.

Winston Brooks closed the complaint against himself,
claiming it was "a nuisance".

This will probably be the same excuse that will be used to
deny the complaint its due process; "review and approval"
the audit committee; review and approval that is required
according to school board policy.

The audit committee will not review and approve the handling
of the complaint, because they don't want to have to argue
the wrong side of the argument in public.

The complaint; Winston Brooks deliberate choice to avoid
honest accountability to an ethical code of conduct, is manifest
unethical conduct.

Whether one agrees with the argument or not; one cannot
reasonably argue that the complaint is frivolous.

Neither can one argue that the audit committee is excused
from its obligation to review and approve of the handling of
the complaint, simply because the subject of the complaint,
regards the complaint as a nuisance.

And this is exactly what I mean when I write that,
Winston Brooks is not honestly accountable to any standard
of ethical conduct, and therefore cannot claim to be
a role model of ethical conduct.

My allegation that, an APS senior administrator fraudulently
misrepresented the efficacy of SilentWhistle to Moss Adams
auditors, and to the school board, is apparently also
a "nuisance" and therefore, will never see the light of day.

I've been waiting15 years, I guess I can wait another month.

It was in 1994, that the APS School Board unanimously
adopted the Pillars of Character Counts! as
the student standard of conduct.

Very shortly thereafter, the District paid Character Counts!
founding father Michael Josephson to come to Albuquerque
to train the first group of "trainers".

I was among those first 30 teachers who were trained to train
school staffs and community groups on the principles of
Character Counts!. Over the next decade or so, I trained
literally thousands of students about Character Counts!.
I led more than three dozen trainings of school staffs and
community groups. Among audience members, a sitting APS
Superintendent and a sitting state Governor.

I know Character Counts! forwards and backwards.
I doubt that there is anyone in the entire APS who is very much
more qualified than I, to speak about the principles and tenets
of Character Counts!.

It became apparent to me, very early in the game,
that these were going to be standards that applied to students,
but not to adults. And they were therefore, doomed to fail.
Students simply reject double standards as a matter of course.

In particular it was not going to apply to administrators or board
members. The proof of that particular allegation, lies in the fact
that the board voted to remove the role modeling clause
from their own standards of conduct, rather than be held
honestly accountable as role models of
the Pillars of Character Counts!.

Over the next dozen years, my efforts to get administrators and
board members to step up as role models (by submitting to
honest accountability to the Pillars of Character Counts!)
led to all manner of retribution and retaliation, including an
unjust termination, the defamation of my character, and
multiple illegal arrests for trying to bring up the subject at
board meetings. The evidence that these allegations could
easily be true, comes from an audit of the leadership of the APS,
by the Council of the Great City Schools.
Their auditors wrote that;

APS has a culture of fear of retribution and retaliation.

I was neither the first, nor the last, to fall victim to that culture.

I vowed that what had happened to me,
would not happen to another teacher in my circumstances.

15 years later, I am still waiting for the leadership of the APS
to tell the truth about their actual accountability to any
standards of conduct at all. I have often argued, and the record
substantiates the fact that, the leadership of the APS cannot
claim honest accountability even to the law.

It looks now, like the discussion will finally take place.

Thanks in no small part to the character and courage of men
like board members David Robbins and Lorenzo Garcia,
it looks like an on the record discussion will finally take place.

I have always believed, and still do, that if the discussion takes
place on the record, the leadership of the APS will have no
justification to continue their abdication as role models of the
student standard of conduct. On the record, and with people
paying attention, they simply cannot argue against the need,
and the undeniable propriety, of restoring to their own code
of conduct, the phrase;

In no case shall the standard of conduct for an adult,
be lower than the standard of conduct for students.

It has been a long time coming, but stakeholders will find
that it has been worth the wait.

Journal covers APS Role Modeling clause debate, kind of.

Journal education reporter
Andrea Schoellkopf covered
the Policy Committee meeting
yesterday, kind of. link

Her report begins;

"Should school employees be held
to the same behavioral standards
as students?"


and that is a close as she comes to reporting the controversy
over the Role Modeling clause itself, which is absolutely central
to the whole debate.

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult
be lower than the standard for students.

In so far as, one should not look a gift horse in the mouth,
I will settle for the fact that the story is being written at all,
which represents a huge leap forward for the Journal.

The next meeting of the Policy Committee, which was
scheduled for April 6, has been postponed to April 17.

It is again scheduled for 7:30 am, effectively eliminating
the possibility that the meeting might be attended by students,
their parents, or their teachers.



photo Mark Bralley

APS Board member David Peercy wanted to know;

How does the new language improve the old?

It is a fair question. There is no reason to replace a policy,
if the replacement amounts to no gain.

The new policy statement reads;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult,
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

The policy language that would be replaced reads;

G.14 EMPLOYEE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

Employees of the Albuquerque Public Schools shall serve as positive role models for students and set good examples in conduct, manners, dress and grooming. APS expects each employee to maintain the highest standards of conduct and act in a mature and responsible manner at all times. Employees must not engage in activities which violate federal, state or local laws or which, in any way, diminish the integrity, efficiency or discipline of the District.

The difference;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult,
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

points to a specific standards of conduct; the student standards
of conduct.

The student standards are written down, concrete standards
with agreed upon meaning. The principles are recognized,
accepted, and respected, standards of ethical conduct.

Current policy cites no reference document.

Where do you go to find an enforceable definition of "positive",
"good examples", "mature", or "diminish"?


The new policy statement points to unequivocal standards.
The old policy points to standards ripe for equivocation.

The new language points to the heart of the issue; the meaning
of "role modeling", which is; adults must be accountable
to exactly the same standards of conduct and competence
that they enforce upon students.

The old language does not.

No purpose is served by having two different codes of conduct,
even if it can be argued that they are equivalent, which
they most certainly are not.

Trying to hold students accountable to a higher standards
of conduct than adults, reeks of hypocrisy. Students see it.

Upton Sinclair first wrote;

We should not be so worried that our children
never listen to us, as we should be worried
that they are always watching us.

If the Pillars of Character Counts! are reasonable standards
of conduct for students, they they are reasonable standards of
conduct for their adult role models.

Role Modeling the Student Standards of Conduct

What does that phrase mean?

There are written Student Standards of Conduct.
The standards to which students are accountable
are the Pillars of Character Counts!.

Students are accountable to that standard,
according to the Student Behavior Handbook
which is itself, an extension of School Board Policy.

Role modeling of the Student Standards of Conduct
means; holding oneself accountable to the same standards
to which students are accountable.

What does accountable mean?

It's easy for Winston Brooks to say, I am accountable
as a role model. But it's just talk.

He can't be a role model if all he has is talk.

APS distributes a handout to students, parents, and community
members. It is called Character is the Heart of New Mexico.
Requirement number two for a Character Counts! program;

"Students need to see adults "walk the talk"."

To be a role model, students must see him walk the talk.

Where is Winston Brooks walking the talk?

Can he show us a system where a legitimate complaint against
him will receive a "principled resolution", in an impartial system
powerful enough to hold him accountable even against his will?

Can he show us a system under which the least powerful
person in the APS, can hold the most powerful person,
honestly accountable for his conduct and competence, and
without fear of retribution and retaliation?

Winston Brooks cannot show us an impartial system
of any kind, much less one powerful enough to hold him
accountable even against his will.

There is such a thing as honest accountability.
It is as simple as a truly impartial investigation of complaints,
that reports to the public record.
(consistent with the spirit of the law).


Winston Brooks has not provided for a principled resolution
of legitimate complaints.

Ergo, Winston Brooks is not role modeling the student
standards of conduct, standards which require
respect for others' right to a principled resolution of
legitimate complaints.

Winston Brooks is not honestly accountable to the
APS Student Standards of Conduct,
by his own deliberate choice.

That choice is on its face, unethical.

He cannot honestly claim to be a positive role model of
any standard of ethical conduct.

At most, he is accountable only to the law; the lowest standard
of conduct acceptable among civilized human beings.

A glance at the record of litigation by APS Modrall,
will show that he cannot even claim honest accountability
even to the law. The record is of litigation whose purpose is
to except administrators and board members from accountability
to the law.

And the law is a far lower standard of conduct than
the standard to which he holds students accountable.

If we really want students to grow up to embrace character,
and courage, and honor,
someone has to show them what they look like.

What are students seeing instead?

To: APS Students

From: The senior most, administrative role model
of the student standards of conduct,
APS Superintendent Winston Brooks.

Dear Students,

You will do as I say, not as I do, or else.

Thank you.

signed,
Winston Brooks

Winston Brooks threatened me!

It happened after the Policy and Instruction Committee
meeting.

During the course of the meeting,
Board member David Robbins had said that there was
an issue with complaints filed by employees against
administrators, which did not see principled resolution,
and had been the impetus for retaliation.

Brooks said that if anyone had any information of any failure
of the administration to follow up on complaints appropriately,
they were to inform him and he would take care if it.

On his way out of the meeting, I asked if I might have a moment
of his time, and he agreed. I took that moment to point out that
my complaints against him and Margret Koshmider, link,
were examples of complaints which were being denied due process.

He told me that my complaints were "nuisance" complaints.

I reminded him that it was not his place to label a complaint
against himself, as a nuisance complaint. The appearance of a
conflict of interest is created by his adjudication of a complaint
that was filed against him.

He said he could do what ever he wanted because he is APS'
CEO.

He accused me of being unethical for suggesting that he was,
and then walked off in mid conversation.

I reminded him that he cannot accuse me of unethical conduct
and then just walk off.

And then he threatened me. The threat was witnessed by at
least two APS police officers.

He said,

We should just follow Marty Esquivel's suggestion
that the circumstances of your termination be examined
and made public.

I told him that I had already published them on the internet.


More importantly, my circumstances have nothing to do with
the question.

There is nothing that I could ever have done, which in the least
diminishes the legitimacy of the question;

Will you hold yourself honestly accountable to
the Pillars of Character Counts! ?(by an impartial system that is powerful enough to
hold you accountable even against your will)

Because he cannot summon the character and courage to
step up as a role model of the Pillars of Character Counts!
he threatens to humiliate me if I don't stop asking him
the question.


I will tell Winston Brooks the same thing I told
Marty Esquivel when he tried to shut me up with the same
reprehensible and ethically indefensible tactic; link

Bring it on asshole.

This conduct speaks directly to Winston Brooks' character,
and it does not speak well.

No wonder he is afraid of honest accountability to
the Pillars of Character Counts!

What are the odds?

Tomorrow morning, the APS Policy Committee will meet
to discuss restoring the Role Modeling clause to their own
standards of conduct.

I write that advisedly, as there appears to be some real push
back against having a public discussion of the issue.

Committee Chair David Peercy has

• scheduled the meeting when stakeholders can't participate,
• placed the issue at the very end of a very long agenda, and
• chosen not to mention the subject of role modeling, choosing instead to call the discussion; Employee Standards of Conduct".

Assuming that the subject will come up,
what are the odds that the role modeling clause
will be restored to the employee standards of conduct?

In my estimation; there are two solid votes against;
Paula Maes and Robert Lucero.



Maes has a need to hide the record
of the APS Modrall relationship
from the public record, a task that
becomes impossible if she ever finds
herself honestly accountable to any
standard of conduct that requires
telling the truth.





Lucero will vote against, simply
because he is arrogant and will not
be held accountable for any thing
by any one.

He is personally responsible for
tabling a previous motion before
the board, which would have required
administrators and board members
to answer legitimate questions,
candidly forthrightly and honestly.



Likely siding with them, David Peercy.

In the entire time that I have been paying
attention to him, I have yet to see him do
anything that would indicate that he has
the character and the courage to stand up
as a role model.

When asked, he equivocates, avoiding
straight out answers; a practice which
normally indicates a "no" when it comes
time to vote.


Solidly in support;



Board member David Robbins
put the issue on the table for discussion.
He has shown extraordinary courage in
doing so. He has repeatedly stated that
he would have no problem being held
honestly accountable as a role model
of the student standards of conduct.




Board member Lorenzo Garcia
has also indicated that he is
prepared to stand up as a role
model for students.

Obviously an honorable man;
I would be stunned if he did not vote
in support of administrative and
executive role modeling of the
student standards of conduct.




Board member Delores Griego
did not respond to questions about
her personal involvement in the
Gradegate scandal.

Other than that, I have seen her
do nothing that would indicate
that she is not willing to stand up
as a role model for students.


Which leaves; Board member Marty Esquivel.

If the board splits 3-3, Esquivel
is the swing vote.

There was a time when I believed
in his character and courage.

He is the only APS leader who has
ever stood on the record and asked
for an independent audit of the
leadership of the APS.


His audit was shut down by Paula Maes, who said that
she would never allow any audit that named the names
of the corrupt and incompetent in the leadership of the APS.

Since then, he has done a number of things that give me great
pause in hoping that he will be able to summon the character
and the courage to step up as a role model of the Student
Standards of Conduct. link and link

It is fair to say that the issue of administrative and executive role modeling of the student standard of conduct by means of restoring the Role Modeling clause to their own standards of conduct, which reads;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult,
be lower than the standards of conduct for students

is very much up in the air.



photos Mark Bralley

Shame on the Albuquerque Journal

for refusing to investigate and report upon the fight over
robust ethics reform in the APS.

Shame on the Albuquerque Journal
for refusing to investigate and report upon
the Ethics and Accountability Scandal
in the leadership of the Albuquerque Public Schools.

Why is it even up to the likes of Sanchez, Lopez, and Peercy?

Each of these three has simply decided that robust ethics reform will not be discussed.

Senator Michael Sanchez has decided that robust ethics reform
will not be discussed in the State Senate.

Senator Linda Lopez has decided that robust ethics reform
will not be discussed in the state Senate Rules Committee, and
by extension, anywhere else in the people's house.

APS Board Member David Peercy has decided that
robust ethics reform will not be heard in the APS Policy Committee, and by extension, anywhere else in the APS.


The terms of public in-servitude are the prerogative
of the public, and not of the public servant.

When it was decided that a republican form of government was
better than a pure democracy, the founding fathers had no idea
what kind of people would come to represent
the peoples interests in their government.

They were men of character, and courage, and honor,
in a time that placed a premium on character, and on courage,
and on honor.

It did not occur to them that their beloved republic would
grow into a good ol' boy oligarchy,
beholden to the public interest, only when it suits their interests.

Had they been able to look into the future,
they would have built in protection against it.

They would have provided the people with some manner of
holding public servants honestly accountable for their conduct
and competence as public servants.

It was not their intention to create what they have created.

We will have to go outside the envelope of protection
that the founding fathers provided for us.

This cannot be fixed from within the system.

It can be fixed by torches and pitchforks,
and by nothing else. It is the only manner by which
tyrants have ever been overthrown,
and it is the only manner by which they ever will.

You can't beat them in their yard.

Policy Committee Meeting agenda set.

APS has posted the agenda for the Policy Committee meeting.
link

Despite several requests to move it to the evening when
stakeholders might be able to attend, it will be conducted
at 7:30 am to minimize public participation.


The meat of the meeting; whether to restore the Role Modeling
clause, has been placed at the end of an extraordinarily long
agenda. link

At the last Policy Committee meeting, the restoration of the
Role Modeling clause was the only item for the next agenda.
Therefore one would expect that it would be the first item on
the agenda, in the absence of a compelling reason to move it
to the bottom.

Note also that, the Role Modeling clause issue is listed
as discussion only, and not discussion/action, thereby
preventing any action on the motion, and forestalling an
actual vote on the issue for at least another two weeks.

(By good ol' boy logic, any day you don't lose, you win.)






Policy Committee Chair David Peercy
is solely responsible for the agenda,
and for this effort to avert discussion of
the restoration of the Role Modeling
clause to the Employee Standards of Conduct.


cc Peercy upon posting.




photo Mark Bralley

APS Policy Committee meeting minutes falsified.

As I previously reported, during the last Policy Committee
meeting, there was an error committed regarding the vote
to change the calendar at Washington Middle School. link
During the debate, Robert Lucero called the question and
a vote was taken.

According to Robert's Rules, when the "question is called",
a vote is taken immediately and without further debate.
If a majority agree to "call the question", then the question is
"called" and another vote is taken on the question itself;
(the motion on the table).

The Committee took only one vote. The question was called,
but not voted upon. The Committee did not approve the motion
to change Washington Middle School's calendar.

Rather that just admit a minor, common, and inadvertent
mistake, the leadership of the APS has chosen to rewrite
history;

Mr. Lucero called the question. Dr. Peercy asked for any
further discussion and none was offered.
Dr. Peercy called for a vote on the original motion.
All unanimously voiced their approval. link

Peercy did not call for a vote on "the original question".
Even if he thought he did, he had no parliamentary
authority to do so. He can't just change Robert's Rules
to suit his interests.





Peercy, and the leadership of the APS
have turned an innocent mistake into
a deliberate effort to mislead stakeholders.





Is this really the example we want to set for children?

Instead of simply admitting that you made a mistake,
and then rectifying the mistake, you cover it up with a lie.

So much for the example of George Washington and the
cherry tree.

cc Peercy upon posting.



photo Mark Bralley

APS' double dippers.

How many senior administrators in the Uptown Retirement
Complex are double dippers? And, did they follow the rules
that apply to dipping doubly?

I asked the Journal if they would check on that for us.

Their response means

No. We will not.

APS folding in stakeholders, not!

APS Superintendent Winston Brooks would have
stakeholders to believe that their participation in the decision
making process is meaningful.

Yet, the leadership of the APS will decide Tuesday morning,
whether to restore the Role Modeling clause to their own
standards of conduct, not only without public input, but
without public knowledge.

The effects of the restoration would be far reaching. If nothing
else, honest accountability to the Student Standards
of Conduct, would guarantee all stakeholders meaningful
participation in decision making that affects their interests.

Never the less, Brooks and the rest of the leadership of the
APS would rather keep this meeting secret from stakeholders.
They will do every thing that they can, to keep the meeting secret.

The decision to put the Role Modeling clause on the agenda
for the Policy Committee meeting was made almost two
weeks ago. Yet the agenda for the meeting is still not posted
on the district's website. It will be posted at the last possible
moment.

In what can only be described as journalistic malpractice,
the Journal refuses pre-coverage of this monumental decision.
The Journal will ignore its responsibilities and obligations
to fully inform its readers, about the meeting and the
decision that is about to be made.

The Journal did not report it, when the leadership of the
APS removed the Role Modeling clause in 2005, from the
Employee Standards of Conduct. And, they will not report
upon it, when the leadership of the APS decides not to put
it back in. They will not even report that the decision is
being made. link and link

They would have us believe that the question of whether
the leadership of the APS will find themselves accountable
as role models of the Student Standard of Conduct,
is not "newsworthy".

I for one, don't believe them. What I do believe is that the
Journal is acting in the selfish best interests of one of its
largest advertisers.

Shame on the Journal.

Senator Linda Lopez, on ethics reform.

Clearly New Mexico has a telling compendium of the "sayings"
of State Senator Linda Lopez, one of ethics reform's worst
enemies. link

Senator Michael Sanchez on "ethics".

Thanks to Democracy for New Mexico for the link to this
press release from the Senate Majority Leader.

Conference committees open; or are they?

The Senate voted 33-8 to open conference committees.

The vote ends of years work by Senator Dede Feldman.
Blogger Haussamen reports, link;

"It is the secrecy that breeds suspicion, and that is
something that we can very easily end by sending this
vote that we want to end these closed conference
committees,” Feldman said in arguing for Cervantes’ bill."

The Governor is expected to sign off on the bill.

But will the real conference committees actually be open.
At least two state Senators are on the record stating that the
law makes no difference; that if conference committee members
want to, they will just have their meeting off campus and off of
the public record.

According to blogger Monahan, link;

"An opponent of the legislation, Senator John Arthur
Smith, argued that the holes in the new law are
"phenomenal" and that future Legislatures will find a way
around it."

Senator Stuart Ingle has said basically the same thing, link;

"A chief concern is that opening up conference committee
meetings would drive the Legislature's decision-making
process underground."

Talk about "breeding suspicion". Two influential Senators
freely admit that the spirit of law will be ignored.

The really scary part; they are so unafraid of the consequences
of ignoring the law, and the will of the people,
that they have announced their intention to skirt the law,
in advance!

Raise your hand, if you really believe that the people of
New Mexico are actually going to see their sausage being made.

Seeing no hands, ...

Open letter to the APS Board of Education, re; the Audit Committee Meeting

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Before the Audit Committee adjourns to its session in secret,
it must convene on the record.

While the meeting is still on the public record,
there are two issues which should be discussed;

1. the formal complaint of fraud attached to this audit.
A complaint filed with the Office of the State Auditor,
on February 8, 2009.

2. the review and approval of whistleblower complaints.

APS Board Policy reads;

"The Audit Committee reviews and recommends
approval of ...any whistleblower complaints."

I filed two legitimate whistle blower complaints.
Neither has been reviewed or approved by the
Audit Committee.
They are being denied their due process.

For the record then;

1. Was the complaint alleging fraud attached to this audit,
considered by the Office of the State Auditor before
writing their final opinion?

2a. Why are whistle blower complaints being denied
review and approval despite School Board Policy
which clearly guarantees that review and approval?

2b. Who on the Audit Committee is denying those
complaints, their due process?

There is no good and ethical reason
that these questions will not be asked and answered,
on the public record, before the Audit Committee
moves into secret.


If there is,
I cannot imagine it, and so far
neither can anyone else.

“The new Senate webcasting sucks.”

According to Clearly New Mexico, link.

Finally,
a heavy hitter in the NM political blogosphere, breaks from
the apologists, and stands up to tell it like it really is.

hear, hear

Conference committee opening logic disappointing and scary.

There is a proposal to open conference committee meetings
to the public.

At least two arguments have been advanced in support of
keeping the meetings secret.

Senator Stuart Ingle is on the record link, saying that if the
committee meetings are opened to the public, the intention
of that law will be ignored by committee members who will
skirt the law by meeting in secret anyway.

That is the disappointing argument.

The scary argument, a la Kate Nash, link, was articulated by
Senator Tim Jennings.

"Jennings said he is against the bill because he doesn't
like the fact that members of the executive branch could
find out who made motions to nix a project the governor
wanted, for example.

"They would make those motions and he would come
back and get even with them for those motions,"
Jennings said.

"If anyone can't see that they are blind.""

And then there are the just plain stupid arguments;

1. There is no reason to open the conference committees, Senator Michael Sanchez, link

2. Nobody else is. (No other branches of government) have to open their meetings, Senator Tim Jennings, link.

Do you mind if I ask; why?

According to Kate Nash, link, these are the legislators who
voted against a bill that would have put the records of the
spending of your tax dollars, on the internet for you to inspect.

Rep. Edward Sandoval ............... Rep. Jim Trujillo

Rep. Ernest Chavez ................... Rep. Nathan Cote
















Rep. Roberto Gonzales .............. Rep. Sandra Jeff















Rep. Ben Lujan ............... Rep. Rodolpho Martinez


I will contact each of them and invite them to post a comment
on this post, taking the opportunity to explain, defend, deny,
or even acknowledge their vote;

a vote which on its face,
appears to be a vote against the public interests.




note; Jeff does not have an email address listed on the NM Legislative website.