The Journal editors like the idea of APS' new west side stadium, link.
They began their editorial in support of the stadium project, by accusing an opponent of the sports complex, Bernalillo County Sheriff Dan Houston of malfeasance. They don't come right out and say it, but their message is clear; Houston is abusing his power in a vendetta against the leadership of the APS, and in an effort to halt the construction.
It the Journal's accusation is true; Houston has violated the law; the Governmental Conduct Act. Why isn't the Journal investigating blatant malfeasance by a sitting Sheriff?
Houston's real concern is that APS Police Officers, who carry a commission from the his Office, are going to (continue to) do things that will create liability for the Sheriff's Office; an APS cop will do something like an unlawful arrest of a citizen at a board meeting, and the resulting law suit will name the BCSO as a co-defendant.
His concern is warranted; if for no other reason than the APS PD's part in the cover up of felony criminal misconduct of APS senior administrators in the illegal use of the BSCO's access to a federal criminal database, the NCIC, to harass APS whistleblowers and to do a background check on a senior administrators fiancee.
The leadership of the APS has not defended their own position over creating a memorandum of understanding about the liability issue. Perhaps because the Journal will do it for them at no cost.
The editorial begins;
Albuquerque Public Schools should not let threats deter it from moving forward with its new West Side sports center.No evidence has been cited that anybody has "threatened" APS leaders over the stadium. The connection between Houston's need for a MoU and his personal objection to the sports complex has not be proven, or even suggested except by School Board Member Kathy Korte and the Journal. If the suggestion is true, it represents criminal malfeasance by Houston. Why is the Journal not investigating that, if they think it's really true?
Bernalillo County Sheriff Dan Houston, who lives near the project’s 98th Street site, denies his threat to revoke APS police officers’ arrest powers has anything to do with his opposition to the siting of the complex. But the timing of the statement by the man whose office commissions APS officers certainly is questionable as the “APS Recreation Center” moves through its final hoops.
The same editors who will not investigate credible allegations and evidence of a cover up of felony criminal misconduct in the APS Police Department leadership, argue that the only reason Houston is bringing the issue up, is in retaliation over the sports complex.
Imagine for the sake of argument that Houston really is raising the issue only to create problems for an APS leadership he doesn't like; let's say the messenger has a grudge. How does that affect the message? The question over the BCSO's legal liability is a legitimate question and its legitimacy is unaffected by who asks it.
It is telling that the Journal has not covered the actual story; what Houston's concerns are and why he feels the BCSO need a MoU to protect itself from lawsuits stemming from APS police officers abusing power he gives them.
Do we pretend there is no issue of fallout on the BCSO because of APS' unlawful use of officers commissioned by the BCSO because the guy who raised the question has an ax to grind?
We do, if we follow the lead of APS' cronies on the Journal's editorial board.
photo Mark Bralley
No comments:
Post a Comment