APS meeting in violation of the OMA

The Journal knew and did not report that the meeting last night was not properly noticed, nor is the meeting tonight, link.

In fairness to the Journal, they operate under different rules; it would be irresponsible of them to make an allegation that the meetings were not adequately noticed, without proof.  And as we know, it takes time to pry the proof loose from APS fingers.

Somewhere, there is a record of the time and day that the agendas for the meetings were actually posted.  The record will substantiate the allegation or refute it.

I have filed a public records request for that record. 

The request has been "ignored" now for two days by APS Director of Communications Rigo Chavez, the Custodian of Public Records for the APS.

I say "ignored".  A fair number of my emails vanish mysteriously before arriving at his computer.

The ones that do arrive will generate a response "within the three days allowed by the law".

That specific interpretation is a perfect illustration of their impression of the law.  The law requires immediately available records to be produced immediately but no later than three days.

If the records are particularly defamatory, they will not be produced until the 15 days "allowed" by the law, have expired.

If the records are really, really defamatory, the board will meet in secret to hire lawyers, to pay them unlimited amounts of operational dollars, under no real oversight, and to engage in all manner of legal weaselry to forestall the production of the records for as long as they can.

Take for example, these records;

the ethically redacted findings of several investigations of allegations of felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of APS' publicly funded private police force.

The law, the standards of conduct that every higher standard is higher than, allow APS School Board Member Marty Esquivel et al, to hide these records from public knowledge.

The law allows him to spend however many dollars it takes to keep secret, the names of administrators who betrayed the public trust, who negligently allowed or knowingly permitted the betrayal, who covered up the scandal, and who are covering it up still.

In stark contrast; the standards of conduct of which he
and the board are the very senior-most role models,
require them to tell the ethically redacted truth.

That there are two standards of conduct in the APS is reprehensible.  Almost as reprehensible as the relentless refusal to investigate and report upon the scandal, by the Journal, NM Broadcasters Assoc affiliates and the Duke City Fix.




photo Mark Bralley