Martinez Brooks confab to be webcast

If the Journal is to be believed, link, the long awaited meeting between Governor Susana Martinez and APS Supt Winston Brooks is in the offing.

If the meeting were subject to the Open Meetings Act, there would be nothing they are going to discuss that would qualify for exception under the Act. If on the contrary, they insist that their discussion would qualify for exception, they have an obligation to relate candidly, forthrightly, honesty, and with "reasonable specificity" what they will be discussing that we mustn't hear.

The meeting does not fall under the auspices of the Open Meetings Act for legal and technical reasons. Though, by any reasonable definition of "open government", the meeting qualifies and the Open Meetings Act applies, they will meet in secret from interest holders.

The $1.2B tax dollars on the table are ours.
The 98K children whose futures are being planned, are ours.
The truth about what they are doing with our power, our
resources and our children is ours.


Winston Brooks is supposed
to be a hero of transparency;
a winner of the formerly
prestigious Dixon Award.









Susana Martinez would have you
believe she is a bit of a hero as well,
carrying cameras into committee
meetings, albeit only when it suits
her own interests.








Our heroes of transparency will meet in secret. What they intend to do with our money, our power and our children is none of our business.

Politicians and public servants, who won't discuss in public,
the public interests and their public service, candidly,
forthrightly and honestly, do not, because they cannot.

They cannot summon the character and the courage to
to hold themselves personally and honestly accountable
to the people the truth.

As you may have imagined,
I made up the "webcasting of the meeting". I had to.
It's the only circumstance under which it will ever happen.




photos Mark Bralley

Brooks should be held accountable for the APS Fleet Management scandal, but he won't be

A recent internal audit of APS' Fleet Management Department revealed procedural flaws that leave it open to theft. The audit followed the arrest of a department manager last summer for stealing parts to sell online.

The audit revealed inadequate standards and accountability in the department; the public interests were not protected.

There have been at least four audits of as many departments in recent years; one following a scandal in the Maintenance and Operations Department, one following a scandal in the APS Police Department, one in the Finance Department, and now the latest, in the Fleet Maintenance Department. Each audit reveals the same thing;

• inadequate standards
• inadequate accountability and
• poor record keeping

APS Supt Winston Brooks is APS' Chief Administrative Officer. He is responsible for APS' administrative standards and accountability. The buck stops on his desk.

He has had three years to root out corruption, incompetence, and the practices that enable them in the leadership of the APS, yet according to KRQE; "the door is still wide open for thieves ..."

Why? Why after three years of Brooks' leadership, are there departments in the APS "wide open for thieves"?

There are two possibilities;

1. Winston Brooks can not create honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence (because he is incompetent or, the task is impossible).
2. Winston Brooks will not create honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence.

In truth, it is the second. When the Meyners Auditors pointed to the lack of standards, accountability and adequate record keeping in the Finance Division, they revealed that APS has never had adequate standards, accountability and record keeping. The leadership of the APS has been a good ol' boys club since day one.

When the Council of the Great City Schools audited APS' Police Department, they found that the leadership of the APS has consistently failed to correct findings from previous audits; nothing ever changes.

It is so bad at this point;

• they are hiding evidence of felony criminal misconduct by senior APS administrators in their police department,
• they are denying due process to whistle blower complaints against administrators and school board members, and
• they have all abdicated their responsibilities as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

By any reasonable definition of the concept, there is an ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

It is unknown to the community and interest holders
because the establishment media steadfastly refuses to
investigate and report upon the scandal.

By establishment media, I mean;
Editor Kent Walz and the Journal,
News Director Sue Stephens and KOAT TV,
News Director Julie Szulczewski and KOB TV, and
News Director Iain Munro and KRQE TV.

They are in cahoots with the corrupt and the incompetent
in the leadership of the APS. They can no longer be trusted
to report on the truth.

This is why we need an immediate independent standards and accountability audit of the entire leadership of the APS. The ethically redacted results of the audit need to be surrendered to the public record. The audit will reveal a system wide lack of standards, accountability, and record keeping.

The audit is opposed by the leadership of the APS.

APS Board Member Paula Maes spoke for the entire
leadership of the APS when she said,(we)

"... will never agree to any audit that individually identifies ..." corrupt or incompetent administrators or board members.

For as long as the scandal is keep secret by the establishment media, the leadership of the APS will continue to insulate each other from the consequences of their corruption and incompetence.

APS will continue to foster public corruption and
incompetence instead of efficiency and effectiveness.

Door slammed on webcasting

The question is fairly straightforward, does the truth about the spending of our power and resources belong to us, or to politicians and public servants?

If it belongs to us, then politicians and public servants must
ask for our permission to hide any of it from us.

If it belongs to the pols and public servants,
then we must ask for their permission to watch.

I submit that the truth belongs to the people and it is the people whose call it is; what truth will be told and to whom.

The terms of public service are the prerogative of the people,
and not of public servants and politicians.

Senator Tim Jennings, is of the opinion that, if you want to watch your power and resources being spent, you must first ask for permission.

He will get away with it because too few of the people are willing to pick up their torches and pitchforks and march on the Roundhouse.




Tyranny persists only for as long as it is allowed.




photo Mark Bralley

Armenta responds, but not candidly, forthrightly and honestly

I asked for the truth about four topics;

1. the denial of due process to hundreds of whistle blower complaints,
2. the abdication of the entire leadership of the APS as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct,
3. the contents of the Caswell Report on an independent investigation of public corruption in the leadership of the APS and their Police Department, and
   
4. an independent administrative audit.
   

At least APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta, seen here telling the APS Praetorian Guard to remove me from the Gubernatorial Debate, responded to my questions. Most questions enjoy no response at all.



The entire exchange is pasted below.

In response to the first question, Armenta suggested that I have the burden of proving the final hearings never took place, as opposed the burden being on them prove that they have. She also suggested that I could file a complaint with the people, about whom, I am complaining.

In response to the second question, Armenta suggested that she does not communicate for the board and that I will have to ask my questions of them. Unfortunately, the board does not have a PIO or a Communications Department, and wouldn't answer the questions even if they did.

I have asked for clarification of the policy that has Armenta communicating for the board on her website, but not in the real world.

In response to the third question, Armenta offered no information, not one word, on what is in the report they are hiding, and why. State law allows certain aspects of the report to be hidden (maybe). The same law requires that they explain with "reasonable specificity" what is in the report they are hiding. For example, if the report points to felony criminal misconduct by senior APS administrators, they are required to admit that, though they may be able to redact the administrators' names.

Monica Armenta writes;

"If you have evidence (of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators) to present to the DA regarding criminal misconduct, you should present it to her."

She writes that, knowing full well that the evidence,

• the Caswell Report,
• the Internal Personnel Investigation, and
• the APS Police Department's own investigation of their corruption

are all being suppressed by the leadership of the APS and
their lawyers. They are spending operational funds to do it;
funds that would otherwise be going to classrooms.

In response the fourth question, Armenta dragged the usual red herring across the trail; APS does under go an annual audit (of a completely different nature). Because they don't take follow up questions, they never have to admit to their deception about an accountability audit and own up to the fact that they will never agree to any audit that individually identifies corrupt or incompetent administrators or the practices that enable their corruption and incompetence.

How can it be justified, that almost three teacher salaries are being paid to one person whose job it is, to hide the ethically redacted truth from stakeholders?

So far, no response from the establishment media, to the questions or to Monica Armenta's responses.

Mr MacQuigg,
My responses to your questions are listed below.
Monica Armenta

1.Why have hundreds of APS whistle blower complaints been denied the final hearing promised in school board policy?

Mr. MacQuigg, I don’t know that there have been “hundreds of whistle blower complaints denied final hearings.” If you have evidence of such, you should provide it to the Internal Audit Department, which is in charge of the whistle blower system.

2. Why was the APS Role Modeling clause (In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult be lower than the standards of conduct for students.) removed from the adult code of conduct? Why will it not be restored? Why won’t the school board discuss the issue openly and honestly and in public?

These are questions for the APS Board of Education as they are the ones that set policy. I believe that they had addressed this for you on a number of occasions.

3. What is in the Caswell Report (APSPD circa 2007)? Does it point to evidence of the felony criminal misconduct of senior APS administrators? Why has the evidence been withheld from the District Attorney for more than four years? Why are operational funds (otherwise classroom bound dollars) being spent to litigate against the surrender of an ethically redacted version to public knowledge?

As has been relayed to you before the report is a work product of the law firm that represented the Albuquerque Public Schools and is therefore not subject to public disclosure. If you have evidence to present to the DA regarding criminal misconduct, you should present it to her. As, far as I know, there has been no litigation involving the disclosure of this report.

4. Why does the leadership of the APS oppose an independent audit of administrative and executive effectiveness and efficiency, standards and accountability, the ethically redacted results of which, would be surrendered to the public record?

The Albuquerque Public Schools are required to and do have an independent audit every year. As for other audits, the Board of Education has chosen not to pursue them.

Brooks on the Bob Clark Show

APS Supt Winston Brooks was on KKOB radio Thursday morning. He and Bob Clark played softball for an hour.

The disturbing aspect is that Brooks will get credit for "getting himself out there and answering questions". He did not place himself in a position where he had to take follow up questions about his responses, except from Clark who wasn't asking any.

The leadership of the APS makes a big deal about "communications". It is the subject of one of their 8 goals, link;

3. The district has developed and is beginning implementation of a comprehensive internal and external communication plan with an evaluation component that involves the community.

Brooks, on the Clark Show, began a re-framing of the public perception of the APS Communications Department. He is now calling it the "marketing" department.

I can understand why he is de-emphasizing "communications" in light of the heat his spin masters and the Communications Department are taking in the media and in the Roundhouse.

But why pick "marketing"? Why does a virtual monopoly in a market, need a marketing department?

In any event, he spoke about how far graduation rates have risen in late. Because they were playing softball, Brooks did not have to explain the mathematical smoke and mirrors he uses to pad the score; 9th graders who have failed the 9th grade, are no longer in the cohort; raises the rate, but not performance. A fifth year has been added to formerly four year high school; raising the graduation rate but not performance.

In the face of any criticism over administrative bloat or compensation, Brooks likes to point to "comparable" districts. His premise is that all districts are effective and efficient, so if we're comparable to them, we are effective and efficient. It negates completely, the possibility, the probability, that comparable districts are comparably bloated and over compensated.

I thought his characterization of Public Education Secretary Designate Hanna Skandera as a "young lady" was unnecessarily dismissive and characteristic of his reputed attitude toward women.

Because they were playing soft ball, Brooks never had to defend

• spending classroom dollars to keep the Caswell Report hidden from public knowledge in order to insulate senior APS administrators from the consequences of felony criminal misconduct.
• his complicity or complacency regarding the denial of due process to hundreds of whistle blower complaints,
  
• his obfuscation of an independent administrative accountability audit of the entire leadership of the APS, or
• his abdication from senior most role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!.

The establishment media in Albuquerque has abandoned its responsibility as a watchdog over government; they now sleep together, they are in cahoots. They are covering up an ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.




photo Mark Bralley

Robbins won't answer

I suspect that the APS Audit Committee withdrew into executive session (behind closed doors) to discuss problems with APS' Whistleblower program in violation of the law, link. The law limits the topics which can be discussed behind closed doors, and I believe the discussion they had did not qualify for the exception.

I tried to get a candid, forthright, and honest statement from APS Audit Committee Chair David Robbins, about what was read for the "closing statement" before they closed the meeting. I asked him personally for a copy of the closing statement he read, and he won't send me one.

Which begs a question;

What is David Robbins trying to hide?

Update; 16:10, I have found out through another channel that the discussion of whistle blower complaints was removed from the agenda of the executive session and all of the whistle blower information was discussed in open session.

Which begs a question; then why was it on the agenda to be discussed in secret?




photo Mark Bralley

APS Fleet Management "wide open to theft"

In report by KRQE, link, we find that APS' Fleet Management Department doesn't even know how many vehicles it is responsible for "because a complete inventory has never been done."

"A new report from APS auditors suggests the door is still wide open for thieves at the department."

• The facility is not secure.
• People who were fired from the district years ago still have access.
• Unauthorized people... were also given the freedom to wander the facility.
• ... high dollar items are not locked up ... a $14,000 dollar precision wood saw was left outside ...
• Work on the APS fleet is not properly documented ...
• Fleet maintenance has no way of knowing if parts ordered actually went into APS vehicles ...
• There are not adequate controls to make sure employees are not filling up their own cars at district gas pumps.
• A $1,400 dollar generator vanished, and the theft was never reported to the APS Police Department.
• Fleet drivers have racked up $1,500 dollars in fines and late fees for tickets issued.

APS Board Member Paula Maes spoke in defense of the board's failure to provide adequate standards and accountability for the administration of the public's trust and treasure by the leadership of the APS;

"We are being more proactive in trying to find these."
"Any big organization is going to have these problems."

Not true. Any organization of any size, which has adequate standards of conduct and competence and which has honest accountability to those standards, does not have these problems.

According to KRQE,

Maes said something needs to be done and fast. "We need to find out what the problem is, and we need to fix the problem so that it doesn't happen again."

These problems could be addressed overnight if APS commissioned a district wide standards and accountability audit and then addressed the findings.

There never will be such an audit because Maes, and the rest of the leadership of the APS "... will never agree to any audit that individually identifies ..." corrupt and incompetent administrators or board members.

One cannot end corruption and incompetence without exposing the corrupt and the incompetent. Because Maes et al, are unwilling to allow heads to roll even for the most egregious corruption and incompetence, the corruption and incompetence will never be exposed and they will never end. Their continuing suppression of evidence of felony criminal misconduct by senior APS administrators and board members in the APS Police Department, sends a pretty clear message that covering people's asses takes precedence over holding anyone honestly accountable for their conduct and competence.




photo Mark Bralley

Spotlight on Monica Armenta and the establishment press

APS' Executive Director of Communications/Crisis Manager
Monica Armenta has been under attack lately. Though not
mentioned by name, Armenta's salary has attracted the
attention of no less than Governor Susana Martinez.

Joe Monahan has comment from a former PIO, link.
According to his source, being a PIO was

once at least a semi-honorable profession.

PIOs serve the people they work under, not the people
they work for.

A test; By her response, APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta will declare her allegiance to Winston Brooks and Marty Esquivel, or to the people who pay her exorbitant salary.




photo Mark Bralley

APS Executive Director of Communications
Monica Armena,

I am in search of some communication from the District on a number of issues. If this request is not properly addressed to you, would you please acknowledge that you have delegated the responsibility and to whom.
I am grateful for your time and attention
Charles MacQuigg

I have four questions. I am asking to be told the truth; candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

1. Why have hundreds of APS whistle blower complaints been denied the final hearing promised in school board policy?

2. Why was the APS Role Modeling clause (In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult be lower than the standards of conduct for students.) removed from the adult code of conduct? Why will it not be restored? Why won’t the school board discuss the issue openly and honestly and in public?

3. What is in the Caswell Report? Does it point to evidence of the felony criminal misconduct of senior APS administrators? Why has the evidence been withheld from the District Attorney for more than four years? Why are operational funds (otherwise classroom bound dollars) being spent to litigate against the surrender of an ethically redacted version to public knowledge?

4. Why does the leadership of the APS oppose an independent audit of administrative and executive effectiveness and efficiency, standards and accountability, the ethically redacted results of which, would be surrendered to the public record?

cc Armenta upon posting.
I will copy the news directors of the establishment media as well.

Skandera's qualifications as an educator are unimportant

There is a tiff, link, over whether Public Education Secretary
Designate Hanna Skandera has the required qualifications
to be the PED Secretary.

The State Constitution requires the Secretary to be a
“qualified, experienced educator.” Since Skandera has no
experience, to speak of, as a classroom teacher, there are
those who argue she is not a "qualified, experienced educator".

The qualifications are specious. Though intuitively it seems
reasonable that a Secretary of Education be a qualified and
experienced educator, one would be hard pressed to produce
any empirical evidence that "qualified and experienced
educators" have had any success at all. And certainly not very
much more success than is had by less qualified and less
experienced educators.

The facts are, the job has always been filled with candidates
who met the "qualified and experienced" test, and yet,
not one of them has actually succeeded in fixing what is wrong
with public education in New Mexico.

The foundation for the premise that we are looking for a
top educator to run the PED, is the belief that there is a such
thing in the first place, as a top educator, a top university president, a top superintendent, or a top anything.

Imagine the education, expertise, intellect and experience of a "top educator". You will find them on the right end of a bell curve. If you compared above run of the mill top educators with top top educators, you would find them very close together on the curve in their education, expertise, intellect and experience.

There really aren't people who can see problems
no one else can see.

There really aren't people who can think of solutions
that no one else can think of.

Wait until Skandera's out of state consultants write their
reports (they are going to write reports, right?).
Examine them for

• never before seen problems and
• never before thought of solutions.

You won't find any, because there aren't any.

If Skandera fixes public education, it will not be because of her skill set as a teacher, it will because of her skill set in taking full advantage of resources; applying them effectively and efficiently.

Her decision to send scarce resources out of state, rather than take full advantage of top educators right under her nose, was bad management for so many reasons.

In the absence of a real commitment to engage New Mexico
educators in the decision making process,
Skandara is disqualified by her manifest unqualified-ness,
not by her credentials.

Journal stance on public records litigation confusing

The Journal has won a court battle with the government over the surrender of some public records the Journal wanted to lay eyes on, link.

The "fight" according to a Journal staff writer, will cost "the state" $250K. "The state" will pay both ends of the costs of litigation.

Perhaps the Journal staff writer does not understand that
the litigation cost taxpayers, $250K.

The lawyer who earned a substantial portion of the $250K said; "In their (DOT's) unsuccessful effort to keep these documents from the public, they have spent an estimated quarter of a million dollars that never should have been spent, at a time when the money could have been better spent elsewhere."

Journal Editor Kent Walz weighed in;

"... the cost of the litigation is unfortunate."

APS and Modrall will spend a quarter million dollars in a heartbeat, to keep the Caswell Report from surrender under the NM Inspection of Public Records Act. Modrall will do it because most of the money will end up in their pockets and because, they have no apparent scruples.

APS will do it because it's not their money.

The money they will use comes from operational funds; funds that if not spent somewhere else instead, would end up in a classroom.

Their litigation budget is literally unlimited. APS' insurance premiums were raised recently (more operational funds) as the direct consequence of the amount of money flowing through the leadership of the APS to law firms like Modrall, for win at the greatest cost litigation.

Where is Walz' outrage at the leadership of the APS for their willingness to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the Caswell Report secret from public knowledge?

His apparent outrage is limited to getting together with APS School Board President Marty Esquivel, and finagling a transparency award to the guy most responsible for hiding the Caswell Report, APS Supt Winston Brooks, while he was sitting on the results an independent investigation into felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators, link.

In other places the newspaper of record would be investigating and reporting upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the public school system. In other cities the newspaper would be suing to see an ethically redacted version of the Caswell Report.

School Board Member Paula Maes, speaking for the board,
said (we)... will never agree to any audit that individually identifies any corrupt or incompetent senior administrator or board member.

Nor, will they ever agree to releasing the results of an independent investigation that individually identifies senior administrators (and board members) involved in felony criminal misconduct.

Most newspaper editors would be all over a story like this.
But not the Journal, and not Kent Walz.

You have to wonder, why not?




frame grab and photo Mark Bralley

Ending social promotion will not help

When one is drowning, one grasps at straws.

Governor Martinez, PED Secretary Designate Hanna Skandera, and public education in general, are drowning in declining performance. They have clutched a straw; ending social promotion. They are buoyed by the "fact" that education reforms in Florida, including ending social promotion, are being credited with success. The supposed success is not universally agreed upon. Seizing upon one aspect of a complex dynamic and assigning weight to it, is skating on thin ice.

The "social promotion" they're talking about looks like this;
a child who has not mastered grade level skills is passed on to
the next grade level for reasons that seem politically correct.
A third grader without third grade skills is passed to the forth
grade to avoid that "damage" done by retention.

On a theoretical level, it makes sense to retain students who
have not acquired prerequisite skills. Mastery learning, wikilink,
makes sense; students who master one level are better prepared to acquire the next.

In practice, a student who is behind in one discipline (typically reading) is held back in all. A student who could be growing in other areas (non-readers can continue to learn by means other than textbooks) is held back in every subject.

This points to the fundamental flaw in the model; not only are students of the same age expected to perform on the same level in all subjects, but even a single student is expected to be at the same grade level in all subjects. A third grade non-reader who could easily be doing eighth grade math is denied that opportunity by requiring them to fit into the obsolete group think model for education; every student on the same page in the same book on the same day, for twelve years. "Cemetery seating" in classrooms and the standardization it implies and requires needs to be questioned.

The ultimate goal of education is to create independent learners.

If that is goal, how can it not be an objective?
Why is it not the primary objective?

How long will we continue to beat a dead horse;
the effort to try to standardize the performance of students
who could hardly be more different from each other
in the way they learn best, for no real good reason?

No confidence in Darren White

In the Journal, link, we find that a vote of (no) confidence in Public Safety Director Darren White has passed overwhelmingly.

Voting no confidence in White, were 84% of "more than half" of the police officer's union.





It is the second vote of no-confidence in White's career in leadership in law enforcement.

It should make a difference, but it won't.

Instead of humility or chagrin, instead of a promise to take the results to heart, White simply refused to comment.

Mayor Richard Berry, a White supporter, immediately sought to recast the impetus for the no-confidence vote, taking issue with the union president over why the vote was taken.

The President of the union said
the vote was over"... general
dissatisfaction with White ...",
who has "... caused low morale
among officers."

Berry said the vote was over "... some unpopular decisions ..." that he and White had made "... in the best interest of taxpayers ..."

Mayor Richard Berry said he still has confidence in White;
the no-confidence vote will not have an effect on White's job.

Which begs a question; why not?
Why does a no-confidence vote have no effect?

Is is because there are two classes of people;
the privileged class and the great unwashed, and the
privileged class doesn't give a wit about what the great
unwashed think about their conduct or competence.

Subordinate evaluation is a useful tool and should not be
discounted simply because the higher ups don't think they
should be accountable to the rank and file.




photos Mark Bralley

Robbins sez to hell with candid, forthright and honest.

He didn't really say that. He won't say anything at all.

He is calling the APS Audit Committee into a meeting behind closed doors tonight, link. One of the items on their agenda is the whistleblower problem.

The "problem" is that the board is individually and collectively responsible for the fact that more than 300 whistleblower complaints have been denied a final hearing by the board as part of their due process. The final hearing is the only guarantee complainants have, that administrators have ethically adjudicated complaints against fellow and superordinate administrators. The final hearing is fundamental to the due process; without the hearing there is no due process.

The board has an obligation to give every single whistleblower complaint its day in court.

The reason they won't is because in such a hearing, they would be compelled to tell the truth, and it would be on the record.

In that hearing, they will have to admit that they are not accountable to any standard of conduct higher than the law.

For years, they have been pretending they are accountable, as role models, to higher standards of conduct than the law. They have been pretending accountability to the Pillars of Character Counts!, a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct.

In order to avoid my hearings and the public exposure of the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS, they are denying all complainants their final hearings.

Tonight, they are going to meet behind closed doors to try to figure out a way out. Their lawyers and your tax dollars will be there, advising them of the ways in which they can escape accountability to the law.

If that is not their reason for meeting, what is?

The need to hide a violation of the law is self evident. The legitimate reason for them to meet in secret is not at all evident. "Whistleblower Detailed Review" is not candid, forthright and honest. It is not even "reasonably specific" under the law.

I have asked the AG's Office to intervene, they courteously reminded me of my right to be a citizen attorney general and do my own enforcement of the law; I am allowed to sue APS and Modrall with their pipeline to classroom dollars, over the issue, if I so choose.

It was also pointed out that they are not in the business of preventing violations of the Open Meetings Act; get back to them after the law is broken.

There are only two reasons to meet behind closed doors;
to hide the truth in accordance with the law or,
to hide the truth in violation of the law.

If they were going to meet for any good and ethical reason,
they would tell you what that reason is.

If what they are doing is in accordance with the law,
they can tell the truth about what they are doing.
They can be candid, forthright and honest.

David Robbins, seen here violating
my civil rights at an Audit Committee
meeting, can be candid, forthright
and honest about his intentions.

But, he isn't.

What is he hiding?

If what they are doing is in accordance with the law, why hide it? If what they're doing is not in accordance with the law, perhaps they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

KOAT TV knows that hundreds of whistle blowers are being denied final hearings and due process. News Director Sue Stephens has some explaining to do, about why she is letting it slide.

Kent Walz and the Journal know also, and
they have some explaining to do as well.

Armenta's "everyone else is doing it" logic specious

In the Journal this morning, they and APS' Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta built their defense for APS' PR effort and Armenta's salary, link. They wrote;

"... a survey done in 2006 by the Council of the Great City Schools, which represents large urban school districts nationwide, showing that the size of APS's staff is not out of line with those of other districts.
According to that survey, 66 percent of districts had communications staffs of between five and 20 people, and 69 percent had communications budgets of more than $750,000.

The argument, if you are spending the same as "everybody else" you are spending an appropriate amount of money is specious; it sounds good but doesn't stand to reason.

School districts determine salaries by looking at other districts and then raising the ante to encourage interest. In meantime the other district is looking at the average, and upping the ante. You end up trapped in an upward spiral no longer based on market values.

The only way to determine for certain, whether APS' PR effort is necessary, efficient and effective, is to have independent experts conduct an impartial review and then report their results to the public record.

There is a reason the leadership of the APS is fighting an independent audit, and it isn't because the auditors will find efficiency and effectiveness.

Monica Armenta "crisis manager"

It wasn't that long ago, that Monica Armenta admitted her
most important responsibility was publishing the district's
calendar, link.

It would appear she has come up in the world. Now she and
her "communications specialists" are "crisis managers".

Armenta is seen here "managing a crisis" at the gubernatorial debate at Eldorado High School. She is ordering the APS Police Department to remove a dissident, me, though I had a ticket and every right to be there. Since her actions amount to violation of my civil rights, it would appear she created a crisis, more than managed one.

Armenta comes to APS from being a talking head on KOB TV,
APS Board Member Paula Maes' old stomping grounds.

I would suppose that being a "crisis manager" would require
knowledge and a skill set far different from being a talking
head on local TV station.

When and where did Armenta and her "specialists" take crisis management training?

Can Armenta, or any of her crisis management team point to an illustrative crisis they managed? Did she, they, for example, manage the crisis at Rio Grande High School?

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that Armenta is really APS' top crisis manager. Who is in charge of crisis management when Armenta is busy working on her world class calendar?

The bottom line is that these people are being paid to spin the truth. It is their job to make Supt Winston Brooks look good, despite the truth. Their first loyalty is to those they work under (administrators and board members) and not to those they work for (taxpayers).

KOAT reports that when they asked Armenta about her salary, it took her more than a week to respond. Perhaps she was busy managing crises somewhere.

While it is commendable that KOAT shined some much needed light on the APS Communications Department, it is really low hanging fruit, News director Sue Stephens still will not investigate and report upon

• the denial of due process to hundreds of whistle blower complaints against administrators and board members, or upon
• the cover up of corruption in the APS Police Department, or upon
• the wholesale abdication of the entire leadership of the APS as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

for reasons she is keeping to herself.

The Journal also reported this morning on APS Communications Dept, link, defending Armenta and the leadership of the APS.

Kent Walz and the Journal, like KOAT, have no apparent intention to investigate and report upon the other aspects of the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS. They will content themselves with the low hanging fruit as well.




photo ched macquigg

APS Audit Committee planning to violate the law.

APS Audit Committee meetings are subject to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act, link. They cannot meet behind closed doors except under very specific circumstances.

David Robbins and the APS Audit Committee would like to meet behind closed doors to discuss; "Whistleblower Detailed Review", link.

A detailed review of the APS Whistleblower program is very much in order. The only questions are,do they get to "review" their own misconduct and, behind closed doors?

They are going to take some step behind closed doors that provides another layer of immunity for them, from being held honestly accountable for denying due process to hundreds of whistle blowers' complaints.

This is the scandal that KOAT TV filmed my interview for,
and then Sue Stephens steadfastly refused to investigate and
report upon; hundreds of APS whistleblowers being denied
due process. And they're going to cover it up in a closed door meeting.

They want to get something done before two new board members take their seats in two weeks. Just like the extension of Brooks' contract, it will be done in another meeting behind closed doors.

The bad ones on the board, Esquivel, Maes, Lucero, Percy and Robbins, have an advantage over the weak ones; Garcia and Griego, when the meetings are held behind closed doors.

They're going to get pushed into aiding and abetting the cover ups.

The Open Meetings Act allows and requires various activities behind closed doors.

Someone went to the trouble of making a list of them;

1. Licensing
2. Limited Personnel Matters
3. Administrative Adjudicatory Deliberations
4. Personally Identifiable Student Information
5. Collective Bargaining
6. Certain Purchases
7. Litigation
8. Real Property and Water Rights
9. Certain Public Hospital Board Discussions
10. Certain Meetings of the Gaming Control Board.

APS/Modrall likes to argue that everything is a "personnel matter" and therefore exempt from surrender under any law, ever. Modrall makes so much money off litigating exceptions to the law for senior administrators and board members, if you ask how much, they won't say. These are dollars which if spent otherwise, would have been spent in classrooms; they are "operational" dollars.

According to "legal" weaselry, "limited personnel matters" means unlimited litigation creating unlimited exception, in support of corrupt and incompetent administrators and board members.

According to the law, “limited personnel matters” means;

... the discussion of hiring, promotion, demotion, dismissal, assignment or resignation of or the investigation or consideration of complaints or charges against any individual public employee; provided further that this Subsection is not to be construed as to exempt final actions on personnel from being taken at open public meetings; nor does it preclude an aggrieved public employee from demanding a public hearing ...

Are we to believe that they are finally beginning their review and approval of every single whistle blower complaint? I am a complainant twice over, why haven't I been informed of my hearing date?

There are at least two violations of the law on their agenda.
The first is their invention of a non-existent exception.

The second is that they have not described what they intend
to do behind closed doors with "reasonable specificity".

According to the Open Meetings Act;

If any meeting is closed ... the authority for the
closure and the subject to be discussed shall be
stated with reasonable specificity in the motion
calling for the vote on a closed meeting..."

Committee Chair David Robbins has not provided "reasonable specificity" about what will be discussed. He isn't being candid, forthright and honest with interest holders.

Just like he isn't being candid, forthright, and honest about his role modeling of accountability to the student standards of conduct.




photo Mark Bralley

Brooks "practicing" education

In the Journal this morning, link, APS Supt Winston Brooks is upset that he has not been offered a seat at the table where decisions will be made. Instead, Secretary of Public Education Hanna Skandera, will give his seat to an out-of-stater.

"As someone who's practiced education for 38 years, I disagree that this group brings a wealth of education experience to the state, when in fact I don't think any of them have actually practiced education," Brooks said. "They've been education consultants to governors and legislators and they've been policymakers, but I don't know that any of them have ever practiced education."

What do you suppose "practicing education" means?

When was the last time Winston Brooks taught a class?

One of the first things Brooks did when he took over control of the APS, was to return decision making power to 6400 Uptown Blvd. Whatever seats teachers and other interest holders had, were pulled out from under them.

It would appear that what went around, has come around
for Brooks. Now he knows what it feels like to be dissed by arrogance.

No wonder NM Public Education is a failure

In the entire state, Secretary of Education Designate Hanna Skandera cannot find even one person worthy of a seat at her table.

Nowhere in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years of teaching experience in New Mexico Schools is there even one person who could earn their share of the $152K that Skandera is going to pay some out-of-staters to cast a "fresh" eye on our problems.

The need to import expertise cannot be justified, in particular when there is overwhelming and underutilized expertise and education, intellect and experience immediately at hand.

The need to import a plan rests on prejudice. A plan cannot be crafted locally because there is not enough education and experience, intellect and expertise in the room to get it done.

They are in the room, they've just never had a seat at the table.

Nobody has ever asked them what they think is wrong.

The freshest eyes of all are the eyes of teachers and others who work everyday at the educational interface; the place where the system meets the student, where the rubber meets the road; classrooms.

NM educators need a Secretary of Education who can facilitate their involvement in educational decision making.

Skandera's manifest disrespect for New Mexico teachers disqualifies her from further consideration for the post.

When should we pass a webcasting bill, before they start deciding, or after they have decided?

Heath Haussamen asked a few days ago, link, if it isn't time to revisit the limits on the webcasting of deliberative meetings in the Roundhouse.

Since, an awkward silence.

I would suggest that the silence is not the result of fiscal incapacity, nor of technological incapacity, nor a lack of time, or work, or patience.

It is a lack of will. It is the lack of a champion.

Where is the legislator who will write the bill that reads,

the Legislative Service Council is charged with providing for the citizens of New Mexico, world class webcasting of deliberative meetings in the Roundhouse and, here's a very few hundred thousand dollars to do it right.

With a few hundred thousand more, the Legislative Council service could expedite the surrender of ethically redacted public records to its practical limit.

It isn't about whether it can be done,
it is about the will to get it done.

Public corruption and incompetence are enabled by the sanction we give them. They are out of control because we are complicit in our complacency.

There has to be a bill to fight over. No bill means no fight.
You cannot win a fight if there is no fight.

We are about to loose the fight over webcasting by forfeit.

Esquivel Gessing pissing contest heats up

Current score;

• Paul Gessing.......................... bone dry
• Marty Esquivel.......soaked to the bone

Their disagreement is over how much it costs APS to educate one of our sons or daughters.

By Gessing's estimate, link, it costs $14,525.

Esquivel is representing that $3,000 is closer to the truth.

Gessing bases his estimate on a logical calculation, total cost divided by total number of students. It is elegant in its simplicity.

Esquivel's response to the calculation is that it was done by a "right-winger with an agenda, an ax to grind and no credibility".

Esquivel chooses to not disclose the basis for his calculation.

According to the standards of conduct that apply to students but not to Esquivel, when you tell someone something, when you are done with the telling, the other person and you should understand the truth in exactly the same way.

All of this begs a question;

Who is being more honest?
Paul Gessing or Marty Esquivel

Marty Esquivel cannot find the character and the courage to hold himself honestly accountable as a role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!

He cannot summon the character and the courage to hold himself honestly accountable to any standard of conduct that requires truthtelling. His preferred standard; "legal" weaselry, the Modrall law firm and a pipeline to classroom bound dollars.

He gets away with it because of Kent Walz and the Journal,
Sue Stephens and KOAT, and the news directors at KRQE and KOB TV.




photo Mark Bralley

Does the Open Meeting Act apply to NM FOG Directors?

School Board President Marty Esquivel sits on the board of Directors of the NM Foundation for Open Government. He is a former recipient of the FOG's Dixon Award for heroes of transparency.

He also wrote an illegal restraining order revoking my "privilege" to freely exercise my constitutionally protected human rights to free speech and to petition my government.

In the illegal order, Esquivel wrote;"... we are revoking your privilege to attend meetings of the Board of Education."

Unless Esquivel is using the royal "we", he means,
the school board decided to revoke the privilege.
He signed the illegal order as "President" of the board.

In order for the board to have "decided" anything, they are required to comply with the Open Meetings Act. According to the Act, all meetings, including meetings that will be held in secret from interest holders, must first announce their intention by way of publishing an agenda that identifies the decision as being on the table.

Minutes of the meeting must reflect the decision making.

APS' Custodian of Public Records Rigo Chavez was asked to surrender any record that reflected consideration of the revocation of my privileges. He did not surrender even one. There is no public record that the decision making took place.

If the decision was made in violation of the law, there are consequences, albeit meaningless; they have to take the vote again, but this time on the record. No heads roll. No matter how many times they do it.

Either Esquivel acted alone, with the aid and abet of the current Praetorian Guard leader, Steve Tellez,

in which case he has broken the law that forbids him to act except as a member of a board, or

he acted in concert with the board, who engaged in decision making in violation of clear, explicit and unequivocal law.

Nothing will happen to them as a consequence of their lack of character and courage; Modrall lawyers will see to that.

Classroom dollars will be piped to Modrall lawyers in order to litigate exception to the law for corrupt and incompetent APS administrators and board members; to insulate them from the consequences of their public corruption. They will prevail; they always do.

Modrall is making so much money off litigating against the public interests and in creating exception to the law for corrupt administrators and board members, they won't tell you how much they make.

They will prevail in no small part because the establishment media is willing to cover up the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

That would be up to another FOG Board Member, Kent Walz.

New Mexico Broadcasters Assoc (Paula Maes) affiliate KOAT
and news director Sue Stephens are on record letting it slide.

Woe unto the news directors at KOB and KRQE when
I can tie them individually to the cover up as well.

I mean there's got to be some reason why Larry Barker
isn't all over this, or KOB's Jeremy Jojola.




photos Mark Bralley

KOAT lets Esquivel bash Gessing and invent numbers

KOAT aired a report on APS' spending per pupil, link.

The Rio Grande Foundation and their head, Paul Gessing published a report on per pupil spending, link, pointing to the fact that it has risen faster than inflation. And, despite the increased spending, results have not approved.

KOAT's lopsided coverage allowed School Board President Marty Esquivel to bash Gessing and the Rio Grande Foundation rather than expecting him to respond to even one specific allegation.

In response to inconvenient statistics, all Esquivel was able to do was call names and drag red herrings through the discussion. He called the Rio Grande Foundation a right wing organization with an agenda and an ax to grind, neither of which reflects on the accuracy of the data Gessing cites. Esquivel claimed RGF's numbers had no basis in fact, to which Gessing responded, they came from US Census Data.

Esquivel claimed RGF has no credibility. An interesting claim for a guy who is comfortable telling a bald faced lie, link.

That KOAT would air the one sided piece is not too surprising.

KOAT news director Sue Stephens has shown no interest in exposing Esquivel for his ongoing denial of due process rights to hundreds of APS whistle blowers.

Nor is she interested in investigating and reporting upon Esquivel's evasion of any real accountability as senior role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

Nor will she have investigated and reported upon, the effort by Esquivel, Supt Winston Brooks, and Journal editor Kent Walz cover up of the Caswell Report (2007) on public corruption in the APS Police Department.




photo Mark Bralley

Esquivel disappears

School Board President Marty Esquivel and APS Police Chief Steve Tellez wrote an illegal restraining order that "revoked my privilege to attend board meetings".

The order denies me free exercise of several of my constitutionally protected human rights.

I complained about the order during the election. Though the Journal ignored the complaints in their election coverage, I did notice that Esquivel's name had disappeared from prominence in the paperwork passing back and forth between lawyers. Apparently he didn't want to have to defend his conduct and competence during the election, and Kent Walz went along with him.

Perhaps that is why Esquivel lied to Johnny Mango' link, telling him he hadn't written an illegal restraining order banning me from board meetings.

He has managed to vanish himself from the paper trail;
he is invisible and therefore no longer accountable.

Paula Maes, who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell
of being re-elected in two years anyway,
has put her name on Esquivel's sin.

It's interesting how language just disappears if it conflicts
with their practice.

Esquivel et al, have been denying due process to whistleblower complaints. To absolve themselves of their sin, they simply struck the language from board policy that required due process.

Esquivel et al, have no intention of ever holding themselves honestly accountable as role models of the student standards of conduct, so they, before Esquivel got there, struck the language that required them to step up as role models;

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

And suddenly, no one can be held accountable for
their wanton violations of their former standards of conduct.



If you can just erase a rule,
it's like your never broke it.

Yeah, that's it.




photo Mark Bralley

The Egolf has no clothes

Rep Brian Egolf is a committee chairman. With that assignment comes power and responsibilities.

Among his responsibilities; fairness. Committee members should have co-equal opportunity to exercise their right to participate, even by asking (inconvenient) questions.

Egolf didn't like having his "expert" witness' credentials being examined. So he ruled the examination out of order.

It wasn't "out of order" at all; not even close.

Republicans were given a choice;

• legitimize Egolf's supposed authority to rule legitimate but inconvenient questions "out of order", or
• de-legitimize it by denying him and his meeting a quorum.

They made the right call.

Egolf was out of order.

Which begs a question; Will Egolf take responsibility for his decision? Will he defend it?

My guess, having dealt with a number of people who think they have the authority to deny people an opportunity to ask legitimate questions, is that he will not.

He will not defend his misuse of rules of procedure to deny
another member's constitutionally protected human right
to ask a legitimate question.

How can he? His action is indefensible.

The only defense for an indefensible position is to hide it.

The next best defense, pretend that it is invisible and hope
everyone else goes along with it.

The emperor has no clothes folks.




photo Mark Bralley

Why won't they deny the allegation?

The allegation; a conspiracy to cover up felony criminal misconduct by senior APS administrators, even through a school board election.

At its heart, the Caswell Report.

Robert Caswell, or someone who worked for him, investigated public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS (Police Department) link. His report to the school board individually identifies APS senior administrators and their felony criminal misconduct. If it does not, Robert Caswell Investigations should be hired to conduct another "impartial" investigation, ever again.

If the Caswell Report doesn't point to corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS, why aren't they using it to exonerate themselves? If they could produce even a single audit without substantial findings, why won't they? What would restore public confidence in the leadership of the APS more effectively than an independent standards and accountability audit, with no significant findings?

Why would they hide one if they had one?

Kent Walz, Marty Esquivel and Winston Brooks are tight.

Kent and Marty just managed
to get Winston the a NM FOG's
Dixon Award even while
they're all sitting on the Caswell
Report. Even while their own
Foundation is on record
denying their exception to the law.






Kent Walz steadfastly refuses
to investigate and report upon
the ethics and accountability
scandal in the leadership of the APS.

Note that I write; investigate
and report upon. I have never
asked him to believe a word I say.

Incontrovertible evidence is right under his nose.

He labels me a gadfly and a bomb thrower, rather than respond candidly, forthrightly and honestly to legitimate questions about his journalistic ethics.


Marty Esquivel is the
senior most role model for students, of their standards of conduct. The student standards are high. They are a nationally recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethical conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!.

Esquivel's effective standards are the lowest standards of conduct accepted by civilized people; the law. Those and the brand of legal weaselry that allows taking money away from students and teachers, and giving it instead to Modrall lawyers to litigate the Caswell Report into oblivion.

There are actually a total of three investigations of the corruption in the leadership of the APS Police Department. The final reports of all three are being hidden by Walz, Esquivel and Brooks. They are hiding incontrovertible evidence of felony criminal from the District Attorney.

Not that Kari Brandenburg cares.

She hasn't said a word about the fact that the APS Police Department has been investigating its own corruption for four years, long past the expiration of statutes of limitation, and they still have not finished "investigating".




She has allowed the leadership of the APS to decide who and who will not be prosecuted for felony criminal misconduct.

And isn't that her job?

The only defense of an indefensible position is, hide it.

Rather than hiding theirs, Walz, Esquivel and Brooks
are simply pretending to be invisible.

They aren't of course.

Nevertheless, it seems to be working for them.

This kind of public corruption and incompetence is made
possible only by the sanction we give it. Ayn Rand derived




photos and frame grab Mark Bralley

Tripartisan support will unseal Richardson's records.

Read about it on Green Chile Chatter, link, and on Capital Report New Mexico, link, w/video interview of Rep Nate Gentry, one of the bill's sponsors.


Boy, is he gonna be pissed!




photo Mark Bralley

Back room dealing, do we really need it?

I have to admit a little astonishment that there are
manifestly intelligent people who argue;
back room deal making is in the people's best interests.

The evidence to the contrary being so overwhelming.

If you ask one of these people to articulate a real or
hypothetical backroom conversation where our interests are
being bartered and where it is not in our best interests to watch,
they stonewall.

A more fundamental problem than blind faith in back room
decision making is, even if it were a good thing, the wrong
people are deciding which decisions the people have a right to participate in.

It is the same as allowing a politician or public servant to self-redact the truth in public records. Seriously, how stupid is it, to give those with the most to hide, the authority to redact their own public record?

And then the government backs them when you have to
litigate to see the truth about the spending of your power
and resources.

How stupid is it, to allow politicians and public servants
to decide what truth about the public interests, they have to
surrender?

The terms of public service are the prerogative of the people,
not of politicians and public servants.

Who decides, who decides?

When it is our power and our resources being spent,
the people will decide where the line is, on transparency.

The people will determine the standards of conduct and competence for politicians and public servants.

And the people will have transparent and inescapable accountability to those standards for politicians and public servants within their public service.

But only if the people are willing to insist upon it rather
vehemently.

"Public corruption and incompetence are made possible

only by the sanction people give them." Ayn Rand (derived)

KOAT survey; no extension for Brooks

KOAT TV is running a survey, link, asking viewers whether
APS Supt Winston Brooks' contract should (have been) extended.

Though the poll is unscientific, the results are staggering,
85% of nearly 700 respondents would not have extended
his contract.

Board President Marty Esquivel said, after his re-election,
that APS needed to pay more attention to public opinion.
And then he went ahead, behind the people's back, and
extended Brooks' contract anyway. The contract is extended
even beyond the election of a majority of board seats in 2013.

KOAT TV's news director Sue Stephens is part of a cover up
of corruption in the leadership of the APS. She is responsible
for the fact that an expose of Esquivel's denial of due process
to hundreds of whistle blower complaints never aired.

Had she run the story, Esquivel would never have been
re-elected and the board likely would not have given Brooks
an extension he has not earned and did not deserve.

The same can be said for Kent Walz and his Journal.
Had he and they told the truth about the corruption and
incompetence in the leadership of the APS, Esquivel would
not have been re-elected, the contract would not have been
extended, and he and the other editors would not have had
to write an editorial complaining about the extension.

Good job Sue Stephens. Good job Kent Walz, Ellen Marks
and D'Val Westphal.

APS Board betrays public trust, again

The APS Board of Education met in secret yesterday to "evaluate" Winston Brooks' service. They broke out of the secret meeting into an "open" meeting where no public comment was allowed, and then extended Winston Brooks' contract by yet another year, link.

The Journal editors, willing participants in Winston Brooks' cover up of felony criminal misconduct by senior APS administrators, link, feigned upset, (no) link, in their editorial this morning.

The sitting board had a responsibility to evaluate the Superintendent. Extending his contract three years into the future not only ignored the input of recently elected board members, but extends further into the future than the election two years from now, when a majority of the board will stand for election. In effect, they have extended Brooks' contract in advance of the re-election of the entire school board.

There is no objective evidence that Winston Brooks deserves any extension at all. School Board President Marty Esquivel tried to defend their treachery by pointing out that graduation rates have improved under Brooks' tenure. The truth is, the greatest part of any improvement in graduation rates comes from mathematical smoke and mirrors; the "new math" includes fifth year graduates and drops from the calculation, any students who fail the 9th grade on their first attempt.

The supposed increase in graduation rates is categorically dishonest. Of course graduation rates improve when you drop from the calculation those least likely to graduate. Of course graduation rates improve when you add another year to expectation. Those are not real increases in graduation rates.

We shouldn't be surprised by Brooks lack of candor, forthrightness and honesty on the subject of graduation rates.

• He is the same man who is taking money out of classrooms to pay unscrupulous lawyers from Modrall, to hide the Caswell Report from public knowledge. The Caswell Report (2007) names the names of APS senior administrators who committed felonies. He is yet to turn evidence over to the DA, even after four years have elapsed and statutes of limitation have expired.
• He is the same man who cannot summon the character and the courage to step up as a role model of honest accountability to the same standards of conduct he establishes and enforces upon students; the Pillars of Character Counts!.
• He is the same man who administers a whistle blower program that routinely closes complaints against him, without due process.

The APS school board is truly a den of jackals

people who perform dishonest or base deeds as the follower or accomplice of another.

The jackal Paula Maes spoke for the board when she declared, (they) will never agree to any audit that individually identifies corrupt or incompetent administrators or board members.







The jackal David Robbins is immediately responsible for the fact that the Audit Committee is yet to review and approve of the handling of a single whistle blower complaint, though school board policy specifically and explicitly promises individual review and approval of every single complaint.






The jackal David Peercy is immediately responsible for the fact that the Policy Committee has tabled discussion of standards of conduct for adults and for students, and the responsibilities of role models of the student standards of conduct.






The jackal Robert Lucero is responsible for tabling a motion that would require administrators and board members to respond to legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service, by answering candidly, forthrightly and honestly.


















Twin jackals Delores Griego and Lorenzo Garcia have sat mutely, watching and doing nothing, and voting their acquiescence.


The biggest jackal of them all of course, is Marty Esquivel who wrote an illegal restraining order banning me from standing at the podium and pointing to their lack of character and courage, and then denied having written it.

Marty Esquivel is responsible for the fact that hundreds of whistle blower complaints, including complaints against Winston Brooks, are being denied the due process guaranteed by school board policy.


The treachery would not be possible except with the aid and abet of Journal editor Kent Walz. It was he and Esquivel who bamboozled the NM Foundation for Open Government into giving Winston Brooks a hero's award for transparency even while he is hiding the Caswell Report from public knowledge in violation of the NM Inspection of Public Records Act; FOG's pride and joy.

Any one of these jackals could deny these allegations, under their name or anonymously. There is no reason that they would not, except that the allegations are true.

Among the victims, APS students, who are being denied character education for no reason except that there is not one person in the entire leadership of the APS who will stand up as a role model of honest accountability to a higher standard of conduct than the law; the lowest standard of them all.

The community depends on journalists like Walz, Ellen Marks, and D'Val Westphal from the Journal, and Sue Stephens, news director at KOAT TV to tell them the truth in order that they can vote based on truth rather than the smoke and mirrors of PIOs. Their trust has been betrayed by so called journalists who put the well being of jackals before the well being of students.

Shame on them; shame on them all!




photos and frame grab Mark Bralley

My thanks to all who helped.

I would like to thank everyone who voted in the school board election, and in particular, those who cast their vote for me.

My deepest gratitude is extended to everyone who helped with
the campaign, from those who contributed monetarily to those
who helped pass out fliers.

It appears we had insurmountable obstacles. Nevertheless
I am proud to have run and humbled by the support I did
receive.

Bless you all.