"The screeners decided which questions would be answered ..."

This from the a letter to the editor about a Rep Martin Heinrich town hall meeting.

It happened this time to be a Heinrich meeting; it could have been most any meeting, for most any candidate or sitting public servant.

It would be the same if Governor Bill Richardson had a town hall meeting.

It would be the same if Mayor Marty Chavez had a town hall meeting.

It would be the same if APS School Board President Marty Esquivel had a town hall meeting.

It would be the same if APS Superintendent Winston Brooks had a town hall meeting.

At the "town hall" meeting where APS stakeholders were supposed to be allowed to ask questions of the candidates for superintendent, they were invited instead to submit their questions to "screeners" who decided that even one question about administrative role modeling of the APS student standards of conduct, would be one question too many.

"Screeners" will decide which questions will be answered.
Which is to say, politicians decide which questions they will
and will not answer.

They decide whether or not they will answer or not,
legitimate questions about the public interests.

And they have decided to not answer hard questions.

There is not one of them who will point to a time, a day and
a place where they will stand on the record and answer
legitimate questions about their public service, and
about their spending of the public trust and treasure.

It is nonsensical.

How is it that a government of the people, by the people, and
for the people, does not have to answer questions from the people?

Even small questions? yes.

Winston Churchill said; in matters of principle,

"Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing
great or small, large or petty, never give in except to
convictions of honour and good sense."

This is not an unimportant principle. I would argue that
it may be the most important principle of all;

we are entitled to know the truth about the spending of
our power and our resources.

Our constitutionally protected human right to petition our government, includes the opportunity to look them in the face, and ask them legitimate questions about our interests.

It is their every obligation to acknowledge legitimate questions with candid, forthright, and honest responses.

Their failure to step up to legitimate questions is a manifestation of their lack of character and courage, and nothing else.

It is as unacceptable as it is, indefensible.