If only Zsombor Peter could be convinced

that the refusal by the leadership of the APS, to respond
candidly, forthrightly, and honestly to any questions
about;

• administrative role modeling of the student standard of conduct, or about
• administrative standards of conduct and competence, or about
• administrative accountability to any standards of conduct and competence

is newsworthy.


Any refusal by a public servant,
to answer any legitimate question about their public service
is newsworthy.

It is in fact the major justification for the very existence of
the Fourth Estate. wikilink

And still, no answer to the question.

Of late, I have been the subject of a great deal of personal
abuse in public forums, and in comments on this blog.

Yet in all of that abuse,
no one has ever advanced any reasoned argument that
controverts any of mine.

No one in the APS;
no senior administrator, no board member, no member of
their million dollar a year Communications Department.

No one will answer the questions except by trying to belittle me for asking them.

I cannot make sense of it.


The leadership of the APS steadfastly refuses to offer any
candid, forthright and honest response to any question about;

• administrative role modeling of the student standard of conduct
• administrative standards of conduct and competence, or
• administrative accountability to those standards.

and somehow I am the bad guy.

How can their refusal be interpreted as anything but a vindication of everything that I have ever written about role modeling, or standards, or accountability?


How are they able always to keep attention on the messenger, and off of the message?


Except in the interests of those

• who would escape the obligations of role modeling,
• who would maintain meaningless standards of conduct and competence, and
• who would escape accountability to those standards,

... no matter what?



Perhaps if I were not standing alone;
I would not appear to be so "crazy".

"Darren White broke the law."

If you read Mark Bralley's latest essay;
"Trouble in Lobo Land. It's "NOT" irrelevant." link
you can come to no other conclusion.

So now what?

The local media is done with it. They got their one or two
news cycles out of the scandal; and now they're off to other
stories.

So who is going to follow up on the fact that Darren White,
a Congressional Candidate, who is also the senior law
enforcement officer in the Rio Grande Valley,
and a couple of senior political appointees to the University
of New Mexico, broke the law?

The law, State Statute 10-16, has been in effect since at
least 1978. It is called the Governmental Conduct Act.

When I asked a clerk in the records office of the
Second Judicial District Court, how many complaints
have been filed under the law; she replied;

"None.
Apparently it has never been necessary."

I would beg to differ. It has been, and is necessary.

So who will do anything?

According to the statute; the burden seems to fall upon the
State's Attorney General's Office.

10-16-14- A. The secretary of state may refer suspected violations of the Governmental Conduct Act to the attorney general, district attorney or appropriate state agency or legislative body for enforcement. If a suspected violation involves the office of the secretary of state, the attorney general may enforce that act. If a suspected violation involves the office of the attorney general, a district attorney may enforce that act.

10-16-14-E. Subject to the provisions of this section, the Governmental Conduct Act may be enforced by the attorney general. Except as regards legislators or statewide elected officials, a district attorney in the county where a person resides or where a violation occurred may also enforce that act. Enforcement actions may include seeking civil injunctive or other appropriate orders.

We'll see if Gary King will do anything at all.
Being a cynic that I have become, I think not.

Should public servants have private lives?

The right to privacy is a constitutionally protected human right.

It is a right that cannot be abrogated except by a warrant.

Public service does not create a warrant to invade another human being's privacy.

The only "legitimate" reason to even want to try to invade a public servants privacy, is an interest in determining whether or not, based on their private lives, public servants are worthy of our trust.

If their public lives were not secret; if there were honest transparency in public service; trustworthiness would not play; it would make no difference.

Accountability is 100% fatal to corruption and incompetence.
If there were accountability there would be no need to trust.

Trustworthiness is a distant second place to accountability
in holding public servants to any standard of conduct or competence.

We have no legitimate interest in even one second of a public servants private life.

We have every interest, and every right to know about,
every single second of their public service.

The very worst thing that any public servant can do,
is anything that they do in secret.

Shine the light of day into their offices;
not into their bedrooms.

Submitted in the hope of a vigorous, yet courteous, debate.

The "principled resolution" of a complaint.

If one person files a complaint against another, that complaint sees a "principled resolution" if the complaint is adjudicated fairly and impartially, without even the "appearance" that the complainant or accused has any undue influence on the adjudication.

The least powerful can file a complaint against the most powerful, and justice will be done.

There is no "culture of fear of retribution or retaliation".

Students in the APS are taught that their very character depends on their willingness to pursue a principled resolution of a complaint made against them.

With the removal from the APS Employee Code of Conduct of the phrase;

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

the leadership of the APS can no longer be compelled to promise a principled resolution of a complaint that is made against them.

And they do not. They do not provide a principled resolution of any complaint made against them.

They like it that way.

That is why they removed from 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.

And that is why every effort must be made to reinstate in the code of conduct for the leadership of the APS the phrase and the expectation that;

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

This is not just about role modeling.

Although that reason alone, ... is reason enough.

Winston Brooks "power goals"

The quotation marks are not mine - I assume that
Winston Brooks has added them.

The story has shown up on KRQE link, but in less I missed
it, not in the Journal.

It is obvious that they will be the next set of goals for the
APS simply because Winston Brooks has the power to say
that they are; as opposed to being the next set of goals
because the best interests of students and taxpayers
influence APS goal setting.

At the risk on being accused of not giving Winston Brooks
"a chance", there are a least a few issues that are on the
table by Brooks choice and are therefore, fair game.

According to KRQE the goals are;

1. Three-year academic plan - Brooks wants to develop the plan with measurable targets by the end of the 2010-11 school year. He wants to focus on improving student achievement, narrowing achievement gaps, increasing graduation rates and improving attendance. Administrators will work out the plan and present it by the end of September.

2. Build confidence in APS - Brooks wants the administration to improve relations between the school district and the community, media, other organizations, business and government. The plan for that is due by mid-October.

3 (tie). Create a communication plan - Brooks wants the administration to develop a communication and evaluation plan between the district and the community, media, school board and others. The plan for that is due by mid-October.

3 (tie). Schedule board training workshops - Brooks wants to train the school board on the role and responsibilities of a school board, creating a more student-focused organization. The first workshop is due for mid-November.

5. Review and enhance facility upgrades - Brooks wants plans for facility upgrades to be completed and publicized by mid-October.

6. Improve the district's money management - Brooks wants a "transparent, sound and effective financial stewardship plan" with well-documented processes in place, with reports due every quarter starting with the 2008-09 school year.

7. Transition APS from site-based management to district-based management - Brooks wants the plan to include fair distribution of resources. The plan is due in the spring.

8. Enhance school crisis plans - Brooks wants a template for crisis management provided to all school and non-school sites, and wants those sites' administrators to create and file a crisis plan based on that to the district offices.

I am compelled to take issue with at least three;

1. build confidence in the APS.
2. create a communication plan
3. transition from site based management to Uptown based management.

The goal to build confidence in the APS, and to create a communication and evaluation plan between the District and stakeholders; has not, does not, and will not include a "no holds barred" town hall meeting. Monica Armenta's million dollar a year, Communications Department, will continue to spin the focus away from "inconvenient truths". The bottom line is that they never have, will not, and will never answer "certain questions"; questions like; how much did taxpayers pay for Brad Winter's new board room.

Is your confidence built? Do you feel that there is real
communication with the people who spend a billion of your
tax dollars every year, about how they are being spent?

The transition from management by among others,
more than 6,000 teachers, who between them have 70,000
years of teaching current experience, expertise, and education;

to decision making by a handful of administrators with no
current teaching experience, no objective justification for
their promotions to the positions they hold, who bear the
manifest mistrust of employees and stakeholders; and
who refuse to answer any legitimate questions about their
public service, and

who are exactly the same people that were driving the train
when it left the track in the first place.

No public input will be sought on any of the goals.

Because Winston Brooks has the "power" to ignore stakeholders.

But hey, let's give the poor guy a chance? ??

Think of APS as an auto repair shop

People who take their cars in to be repaired are dissatisfied
with the service they receive. There are manifest indications
of serious problems;

• As many as 60% of the cars that are taken in for service simply disappear before they are fixed.

• When the government administers their No Car Left Behind tests; there are significant indications that satisfactory repairs are not being made.
  

• A recent audit by the Council of the Great City Auto Repair Shops revealed that the top mechanics were evaluated by a system that was "subjective and unrelated to their promotions"; that they did not have to demonstrate by any objective means, that they had even minimal competence for their positions as top mechanic.

• A recent audit by the Meyners Auditors of Auto Repair, found that there were very few adequate written rules than governed their business. And, that top mechanics could ignore the rules at will, and that adequate records of the financial side of the APS Auto Repair, were not being kept.
• There are no meaningful standards of conduct and competence for the top mechanics
• and they are only accountable to such standards as there are, by other top mechanics.
• If you are upset with the care given your car, you can only complain to another of the mechanics.
• Auto repairs, despite the deficient quality, are charged to you at top dollar.
  

Realize that no matter how well your car runs when you
take it into the shop for service;
it will come out out of the shop, running less well.

Realize that if somehow; mechanics were honestly accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and competence,

then every car that went into the shop
would come out of the shop running better.


Realize that all you have to do to change the rules in the
APS Auto Repair, is to stand up to them and demand;

Honest accountability to meaningful standards of
conduct and competence.

Meaningful standards and honest accountability.

Insofar as public service is concerned;

Meaningful standards of conduct and competence;

The standards of conduct and competence are the prerogative of the public, not the public servant.

Yet as simple a term of public service as transparency, does not exist.

It does not exist because the terms of public service have been determined by the servant and not the master.

Honest accountability;

A system that is impartial, beyond the undue influence of even the most powerful public servant. Adjudicated according to an agreed upon set of principles.

It was not the public which included among the terms of public service; legal weaselry as a readily available means of escape from accountability, for public servants.

Where;

If one has the strategic luxury of overwhelming numbers and resources, one reasonably attacks everywhere at once; shock and awe. link

If one is attacking alone; it is prudent to attack at Achilles heel. Considering federal government, state government, county government, city government, and the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education,

which is Achilles heel?

When?

I watched a movie last night called the Great Debaters. It is the true story of young Negroes on a debate team, that ultimately became national champions.

At one point in the movie, the team is debating whether or not Negroes should be allowed to attend state colleges.

The heroine wonders; when is the right time to do the right thing?

And concludes;

"The right time for justice, is right now."

... always.

If one believes that the public interest is served by holding
public servants honestly accountable to meaningful
standards of conduct and competence;

and is inclined to do something about it;

the place; is the leadership of the APS, and

the time; is right now.

You are probably the butt of a lot of jokes in APS.

You are a crazy old fart. Go get some Prozac or something.
Your claims are ambiguous you old bag.
Give it up old man.
I know some of Ched's old students. Trust me, they were
not very impressed.
Ched did not follow all the pillars of his stupid
character counts program either.
Nobody seems to care what you have to say anyways.
You got what 10 votes when you ran for school board?
You act like you know so much but yet you are not even
part of the system.
You are so full of it.
You are just a crazy old man. You really need a shrink.

A few of the things that Scottishman (sic) had to say about
me on a pair of Topix Forum threads I had begun. link link

I am encouraged by the fact that neither he, nor anyone
in the APS, can substantially refute anything that I have
ever written, and have nothing to bring to the discussion in
the way of a substantive rebuttal.

And by the fact that I occasionally run into former students
and they make a deliberate effort to come talk to me and
tell me how much they enjoyed my classes.

Still, it hurts a little.

And I have to wonder, why am I standing up alone at the
public forum, at school board meetings.

Scottishman (sic) cannot understand;

there needs to be meaningful standards of conduct and
competence for public servants within
their public service;

and honest accountability to those standards by an
impartial system powerful enough to hold them
accountable even against their will.

And that the school board is a reasonable place to
start because they are comparatively powerless and
the stakes are so high.

Scottishman (sic) cannot, or will not, understand.


Does no one else understand either?

If you buy; that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

How can you buy that taking him there more times, sooner
will make him drink?

The leadership of the APS has extended the school year for
disadvantaged students. link

The solution, however good it feels, is specious.

Any gain shown by those students by means of "testing"
will disappear over the next three years; they will be
indistinguishable from the rest of the kids in their class.


More time in school is not the answer, because the problem
is not that students do not spend enough time in school;

it is that while there,
they do not want to learn.

We should be paying attention to the fact that students
are not willing and excited participants in their education.

Too often, they are not even cooperative in their education.

And when that problem is finally laid on the table for public discussion,

we just might find a way to get kids excited about school again.


In the mean time we will do things that look good
in order to keep stakeholders happy.

We will create the impression that "test scores" will improve
if we just keep doing the same thing, more times, sooner.

Another day, another Darren White scandal

The latest scandal has to do with UNM basketball coach,
Steve Alford selling himself to help fill Darren White's
campaign war chest. Alb Journal link sub req.

You know that there is meat on the bone in a scandal,
when the subject of the scandal, Darren White,
cannot defend his position except by deflecting attention
from it.

Darren White's response to the allegation that Steve Alford
has prostituted himself inappropriately on behalf of White's
campaign was;

"... the controversy over the fund raiser is the work
of Democratic "political bosses".

He offers no defense of the conduct itself.


And, they say that you can tell a great deal about a man,
by the company he keeps.

If there ever were a "political boss" to be ashamed of; it is
Darren's boss, Allen "my way or the high" Whe.

If there were any defense of any allegation made against
him, why will Darren White not offer the defense?
Instead he can only stonewall the allegations.

Consider the questions that Darren White will not answer;
positions that can be defended only by hiding them;

• the threats made against Joe Carraro, Mark Boitano and Janice Arnold-Jones. link
• the actions of Allen Whe and the disenfranchisement of republicans at their state convention. link
  
• the credible allegations of election fraud. link
  
• his continuing failure to address candidly, forthrightly and honestly, his vote of no-confidence by his subordinates in the NMSP.
  
• his refusal to clear up once and for all, any issues of subordinate confidence in Darren White as a leader of wo/men, by submitting to another vote of confidence.
  
• the continuing failure to respond candidly, forthrightly and honestly, to allegations about vote buying. link
• his steadfast refusal to surrender an ethically redacted version of the truth about the illegal use of his sophisticated and "secure" criminal data base, by senior APS administrators.
  
• his refusal to participate in a debate in front of voters
• and his refusal to participate in a town hall meeting, there to answer legitimate questions about his public service, candidly, forthrightly and honestly.
  

Martin Heinrich and I do not share a political philosophy.
I can work with that.

Darren White will always be the subject of one scandal or
another, because he will always be for sale to the highest
bidder; anyone who can help him remain the center of
attention, anyone who can help him keep his seat in
congress.

I can not work with that.

"It is a public document ... but it is our policy not to give it to you."

The editors of the Journal are much exercised, link sub req

that a public servant told APS school board member
Robert Lucero that he would not be given a copy of a
public record; that he was told by a public servant;

"It is a public document,
but it is our policy not to give it to you"

On the other hand;

The editors of the Journal are not much exercised over
the fact that if they asked Robert Lucero for the public
record of the spending of tax dollars at 6400 Uptown Blvd

Robert Lucero would say;

"It is a public document,
but it is our policy not to give it to you"

... and why is that do you suppose?

Who decides; who decides?

Someone else first posited;

The most important decision that a group will make is
when they decide how decisions will be made.

It should also be their first.

Who decides what book a teacher will use to teach reading?

The answer to that question is now, very uncertain.

Winston Brooks' headlong rush into consolidating power and
resources under his direct control; has cast a huge shadow
over the rights of stakeholders to participate meaningfully in
decision making that affects their interests.

There is a need for a statement from Winston Brooks.

Who decides; who decides?

I suspect that Winston Brooks will not offer any answer
at all, to that very fundamental question.

Because it is the nature of people like Winston Brooks
to never draw a line anywhere; never concede that anyone
else has any power, or rights, in any situation.


Because in every situation, people like Winston Brooks
must maintain the option of exerting their will, over the will
of any other stakeholder. He needs the final decision
to be his and his alone.

He will not share control over power and resources,
if he has any other choice at all.

We will see if I am right or wrong.

We will see if Winston Brooks will offer any candid, forthright
and honest response to the question; who decides; who decides?

My money is on; no, he will not.

Winston Brooks has not taught in a public school classroom since 1977

There are between 6,000 and 7,000 teachers in the APS.
Between them they have

• 70,000 years of current teaching experience,
• the education, experience and expertise to make sound decisions, and
  
• intimate knowledge of their students, their schools, and their communities.
  

Winston Brooks' plan is;
cut teachers out of the decision making process entirely;

along with every other APS stakeholder,

in favor of a decision making process that includes
only himself and a handful of other senior administrators,

none of whom have any current teaching experience at all.

This plan makes sense where, exactly?

except in the leadership of the APS
and on the Planet Crack?

Robert Lucero "Someone we can count on."

So reads Robert Lucero's re-election flyer.

The post office's failure to deliver the flyer before the
election has now earned Mr. Lucero what he loves most;
three articles about Robert Lucero in two days of coverage
in the Journal; link and link and link and sub req.

Robert Lucero;

"someone we can count on."

Count on for what, exactly?

When a motion was put before the board several years ago,
a motion that if passed, would have required the creation of
a policy requiring APS administrators and board members
to "tell the truth", Robert Lucero tabled the motion.

He claimed at the time, that he wanted to do research in
other school districts; to see how other school systems were
handling the issue of responding to legitimate questions with
candid, forthright and honest answers.

He, after these several years, has still not completed his
research. The motion is still tabled.

So can we count on Robert Lucero to tell the truth?

We cannot.

Robert Lucero steadfastly refuses to explain, defend, or
even acknowledge his decision to remove language from
his own code of conduct which read;

in no case shall the standard of conduct for adults be
lower than the standard of conduct for students.

Can we count on Robert Lucero to stand up as a role model
for students?

We cannot.

When the public corruption and criminal conspiracy in the
leadership of the APS (police department) first became
public knowledge, Robert Lucero made his way onto TV news
to proclaim that his buddy Gil Lovato, was the victim of
groundless claims by a disgruntled former employee;
a claim we now know to be itself, groundless and untrue.

Can we count on Robert Lucero to stand aside when one of
his cronies is under investigation for even criminal
misconduct?

We cannot.

Robert Lucero will not explain,defend or even acknowledge
his opposition to a full scale forensic audit of the entire
leadership of the APS.

Can we count on Robert Lucero to protect the public
interests in the public schools from public corruption and
incompetence?

We cannot.

Can we count on Robert Lucero to show up at a town hall
meeting and to provide candid, forthright and honest
responses to legitimate questions?

We cannot.

All of which begs the question; for what exactly can we
count on Robert Lucero?

Apparently nothing; except running full speed in the
direction of a news camera or reporter, for more news
coverage of Robert Lucero; and if he is really lucky,
his picture in the news.

my pleasure.
Photo by Mark Bralley


cc Robert Lucero upon posting

"You can't just tell the truth; you never know how someone might want to use it."

Former APS Superintendent, and West Point graduate,
Peter Horoscak.

In response to my argument that teachers (and by extension,
all stakeholders) have a right to know the truth about what
is going on in their schools.

By the same logic, in today's APS,

Brad Winter does not have to tell stakeholders the truth
about spending at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

because you never know how someone might want to use it.




Why would APS Superintendent Peter Horoscak speak so
forthrightly about such an indefensible position?

Because that is what happens when these people find
themselves in a position where they cannot get away with
a lie, and they cannot avoid having to respond to
a legitimate question.

They get all flustered and sometimes actually give a candid,
forthright and honest answer.

Offered in support of my argument that APS stakeholders
deserve a town hall meeting.

How can senior public servants simply refuse to show up at
a place where senior APS administrators and board members
cannot get away with a lie, and they cannot avoid having to
answer legitimate questions about their public service?


What does KOB TV have to gain by keeping the issue of a
APS town hall meeting secret from their viewers?

and KRQE?

and KOAT?

and KKOB?

and of course, Zsombor Peter and the Journal?



cc upon posting to all named; except Zsombor Peter who has indicated that he has no interest in reading even another of my "silly" posts.

The squandering of public trust and treasure

is newsworthy.

And I can think of only two reasons that Zsombor Peter
will not investigate and report upon the unjustifiable and
indefensible spending at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

Photo; Mark Bralley

He is a coward; unwilling to accept the consequences that
will accompany his expose;

or he is corrupt; willing for some reason to continue the
cover up of spending at the Uptown Administrative Complex.


cc Zsombor Peter upon posting; except that he
has indicated that he has no interest in reading
even another of my "silly" posts.

No money for raises for Educational Assistants

Negotiations will begin soon, between the APS and groups of
employees.

One group in particular has been in the news; the EAs.

They are looking for what looks like a much deserved one
dollar per hour raise.

They will be told by Bob Woody, APS' Director of Human,and Director of Labor Relations that there will be no dollar raise.

He will tell them that there is no money for their raise.

Which simply isn't true.

APS started with a billion dollars; more than enough for
decent raises for the EAs.

The truth is that there is no money left for their raise.

Bob Woody will come to his conclusion in his office,
a walnut paneled office; and not Lowe's or Home Depot
paneling. Not the kind of paneling EAs or Teachers can afford;
but rather, much more expensive custom paneling with
ornate molding to dress it all up.

This is not about Bob Woody.

In my only interaction with Mr. Woody; he could not have
been more professional, more courteous, or more helpful.
He may in fact, be one of the best faces of the
administration of the APS.

It is about funding priorities.

It is about the fact that while students are sitting under
leaky roofs, and money is being saved by eliminating fire
safety inspections, the leadership of the APS is able to
find money for sprucing up senior administrative offices.

It is about priorities.

And in a different school district,
EAs would be getting well deserved raises, and
the Director of Human Resources and Labor Relations,
would have to deal with the fact that there is no money left
for fancy wood paneling for his office.

There never has been a more important funding priority
than renovating 6400 Uptown Blvd. They have never
stopped adding on.

They have spent so much money there, that they will not
tell taxpayers, how much money they have spent there.

Not even is response to a request for public records under
the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act.

cc Bob Woody upon posting

What goes around, comes around

The Journal has a lengthy article this morning about APS
board member Robert Lucero's treatment by the USPS.
link sub req.

It seems he spent thousands of dollars on a political flyer,
and then paid the post office hundreds of dollars in postage.

It was delivered days after the election.

His treatment, for which he wants our sympathy,
is exactly the treatment he (the leadership of the APS)
offers anyone who files a complaint against one of them;

he got the runaround and no satisfaction of his complaint.


Perhaps there is justice after all.

And where in the hell is the Albuquerque Teachers Federation

as Winston Brooks rolls back decades of growth in empowering teachers to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their interests?

All resistance stems from people's inability to deal with change

If anyone opposes Winston Brooks' efforts to take a giant
step backwards in empowering teachers to participate
meaningfully in directing their efforts and profession;

it will not be because their education, experience
and expertise leads them to a different conclusion.

It will be because they are simply unable to deal with change
of any kind.

" “You can't do anything without getting some
pushback from some place,” Brooks said."

Never mind the fact that Winston Brooks has involved no one in his decision to return to the good ol' days, when the good ol' boys called the shots.

According to Zsombor Peter's report in the Journal. link sub req

Winston Brooks blindly leading APS into the dark ages

Zsombor Peter and the Journal shine some light on
Winston Brooks plan to return to the good ol' days;
when the good ol' boys made all of the decisions.
link sub req

Zsombor Peter follows Winston Brooks lead in proclaiming
that there has been "site based management" in the APS
and that it has not worked.

That declaration is simply untrue.

If Zsombor Peter took the time to interview even one
teacher instead of dutifully regurgitating the administrative
line; he would know better.

APS teachers have never, ever, had any real say in what
goes on in the APS.

Teachers have never been in a position to do anything but
try to change an administrator's mind about what he
intends to do anyway.

The telling quote comes from good ol' by Tim Whalen, the
former principal of Manzano High School;

“What it did was place responsibility on the principal
to allocate funds appropriately as recommended by
members of the staff and the community,”
said Tim Whalen, ..." (emphasis added)

The leadership of the APS has never strayed far from, and
will never stray far from, their conviction that any problem
can be solved by the application of (more) administration.

The premise is flawed, if for no other reason than that there
is no reason at all to believe that administrators are in any
way qualified for their jobs. In a recent audit of the APS,
the Council of the Great City Schools reported that

administrative evaluations in the APS are
"... subjective and unrelated to promotion or
step placement..."

There is no effective evaluation of administrators at any
level in the APS; school staffs are not even allowed to
participate in meaningful subordinate evaluations of site
administrators.

A clue for Zsombor Peter, who once indicated to me that he
thought the Peter Principle wikilink had something to do
with "... Peter, Paul, and Mary?"

Site based management does not mean
"managed by a site administrator".

It means that all of the stakeholders at a site, have a seat
at the table where decisions are made; not just the principal.

Zsombor Peter reports that

"Winston Brooks notes with some exasperation that
schools are using different curricula to teach reading.
The trouble with that, he said, is that students who
move from school to school have to switch learning
methods."

and that "..., those students lose momentum."

It does not occur to Brooks or Peter that;
if students really cannot transfer their learning from
one setting to another; that the problem is far greater
than different paths to the same goal.

The most telling quote of all; comes from Winston Brooks;

"Some teachers may object that a uniform curriculum
will limit classroom creativity, but Brooks disagrees."

and if Winston Brooks disagrees, who gives a rat's ass what
a bunch of "dumb ass" teachers think?

Winston Brooks has not taught in a public school classroom

since 1977.

Winston Brooks' arrogance forebodes APS dark ages

The very first thing Winston Brooks did, even before he was
officially in charge, was to let us know that decision making
power was going to be re-consolidated in the Uptown Offices.

There has always been a tension in the APS. It's roots lie
in the fact that teachers have a wealth of experience,
expertise, education, enthusiasm, and the sole responsibility
for what happens or doesn't in their classrooms;

and no power to allocate resources or make decisions that
would change the outcome of their interaction with students.

When the teachers union feels like it, they advocate for
teachers and argue that they should be integral in the
decision making process.

They are opposed by administrators who want to maintain
control over power and resources.

So far in the APS; the model is this; a great deal of power
and resources that belong fundamentally to the people,
is entrusted to the APS in order to educate the children in
our community.

The power and resources go first to the school board.

They hold onto as much power and resources as they are
able, and pass what is left to a superintendent.

The superintendent holds onto as much power and resources
as s/he is able and passes what is left to the next layer of
administrators. Power and resources are passed from one
level of administration to another, each retaining control
over as much power and resources as they are able, until
whatever is left is finally turned over to teachers.

And, there is not much left. There is not enough left to make
a real difference.

Site base management is a model in diametric opposition.

Power and resources are allocated directly to the
educational interface, the place where students and the
system come face to face; classrooms.

Those at the educational interface decide how much
administration they need; and commit the necessary
resources and power. The bulk of power and resources
stay where they are needed.

Obviously, administrators who want to wield power and
resources fight site based management tooth and nail.

There has never been site based management in the APS.
At best there has been site based (administrative)
management; teachers, staff, students, and the community
have only an opportunity to change their principal's mind.

According to former Labor Secretary William Brock, who
leads the New Commission of the Skills of the American
Workforce (created to report on the state of U.S. education)

"We recruit new teachers largely from the bottom 30%
of entering college students, train them, and then
assign them to the toughest jobs in the most
challenging schools with very low pay.
When the results fall short, we tell them,
"You just have to work harder"
Most feel that they have no voice in their schools.
This is no way to treat professionals." (emphasis added)

It is demoralizing to be shown such disrespect for one's
expertise and experience. It burns out teachers. It creates
teachers who after a few years of treatment as second class
citizens, to join those who admit;

"I work the like I get paid; a little, every two weeks."

Teachers in the APS have among them over 70,000 years of
teaching experience, all have bachelors degrees, many have
masters degrees, and not a few have doctorates.

None of them has any voice in decision making;
not one of them has a seat at the table where decisions are made.

It was not teachers who came up with No Child Left Behind,
is was an administrative type who believes that students and
teachers can be threatened and intimidated into success.

The threats and intimidation stifle innovation and risk
taking. Administrators will just run the same play over
and over; because it is safe.

Because there are administrators like Winston Brooks,
who reject the conventional wisdom;

"There is no one of us, smarter than all of us."

The leadership of the APS looks always for the magic bullet.

They cling to the belief that there are individuals with the
intellect and the skill set to reform entire school districts
single handedly.

The simple truth is that they do not exist. If they did,
we could point to even one school district that is
experiencing unqualified success.

We can't because there isn't.

Charter schools are enjoying successes that public schools
do not; in no small part because the staffs work as teams
with a common purpose and goal.

The least successful charter schools are run by arrogant
administrators who think they know it all, and who treat
their staffs with disrespect.

Winston Brooks' heavy handed, club fisted return to the
old ways is not going to play well with teachers who already
feel powerless in directing their own professions.

A dark ages in the APS; is the inevitable outcome.

Mesa del Sol Seeks Own K-8 School

The Journal reports that Mesa Del Sol wants to build
their own schools; link sub req
rather that send their kids to an elementary, middle and high
school about which the Journal reports;

About 60 percent of the ninth-graders at Albuquerque High aren’t proficient in reading and 65 percent aren’t proficient in math, according to the state.

The figures are worse for sixth-graders at Washington Middle — where 82 percent aren’t proficient in reading and 93 percent aren’t proficient in math.

At Lowell Elementary, 61 percent of third-graders aren’t proficient in reading and 78 percent aren’t in math.

You really can't argue with the sense of their decision.

"The Law" is the lowest standard of conduct

When people gather into communities, they find it necessary
to write down a list of rules; to draw a line between
the conduct that they will tolerate in the interests
of freedom and liberty, and

the conduct that they cannot tolerate in the interests of
community well being.

There is a constant pressure to push the line lower and
lower. The pressure is applied by those who wish to escape
accountability even to the lowest standard of conduct.

The effort to push the standard even lower than it
already is, is enabled by Juris Mustelidae, (legal weaselry);

the skillful use of legal loopholes and technicalities
to except the privileged class from accountability
even to the lowest acceptable standard of conduct.

One does not have to be much of a student of human history
or of current events to come to the realization that the law
is not a high enough standard of conduct to protect us from
a corrupt state treasurer, a senator who stole millions from
a courthouse construction, or from a governor who rewards
his political cronies with cushy jobs at state universities.

It is obvious that because public servants are given control
over enormous amounts of power and resources, that they
must be held honestly accountable to a higher standard of
conduct than the law.

And the public servants who are entrusted with the most
precious resource of all, our children; should be held honestly
accountable to the highest standard of all.

The leadership of the APS should be held honestly
accountable to the highest standards of conduct and competence.

Yet the leadership of the APS cannot show stakeholders a
record of accountability even to the law.

They are in fact, damned by their record.

That is why their record is not available for public scrutiny.
It is not available, even under requests for public records
under the law.

The leadership of the APS pays the lawyers of the Modrall
law firm to litigate for them, exception even to the law.

They have spent so much of the public trust and treasure
litigating exception to the law, that they will not provide,
even under a request for public records, a candid, forthright
and honest accounting of the money funneled to Paula Maes'
husband's law firm; Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk.

The truth is being hidden.

There is only one reason to hide the truth.

This isn't just about role modeling; it is about;

honest accountability to meaningful standards of
conduct and competence for public servants,
under an impartial system
powerful enough to hold them accountable
even against their will.

And that system simply must be put in place;

.. even against their will.

Two boys almost burn down their house; and their parents have reason to be proud of them.

As I understand it;

Two boys were playing with fireworks; after their mother
had told them not to.

They hid the evidence of their disobedience in a trash can;
which caught fire, which ignited the carport, which ignited
their house.

They fought the fire themselves for awhile, and then called 911.

Then they stood there and faced the consequences of the
choices they had made.

Most parents tell their children the story about
George Washington and the cherry tree.

Some parents illustrate the story with their personal example.

I suspect that these boys had parents like that.
And I hope that whatever consequences befall them,
that among them is some recognition of the courage
they demonstrated in facing the consequences of their mistakes.

A lot of children don't have parents that model accountability
to a higher standard of conduct.

Which is why it is so critically important that schools do
something to fill the void.

Which is why it is so disappointing that,
when I reminded the leadership of the APS about how
important it is that they stand up as role models of
accountability to a higher standard of conduct;

... they just sat there.

There is not a legitimate agenda in the entire APS
that doesn't move forward on the day that character counts
in the Albuquerque Public Schools.

It has to begin at the top; the leadership of the APS must
stand up as role models of the student standard of conduct.

If there is a reason that they have not;
except that they lack the character and the courage
required of role models of accountability
to meaningful standards of conduct and competence;

I cannot imagine it.

And no one in the leadership of the APS can articulate it.

Not Winston Brooks, not school board head honcho
Paula Maes; not Linda Sink, not Brad Winter;

... no one.

If "anyone" cared

maybe one person can make a difference after all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JeSG4-jg3Q

thank you "La Maestra" for the most moving video
I have seen in a long, long time.

Steve Pearce wants a public debate, Tom Udall sez no.

Reason enough to throw your support behind Steve Pearce.

Ya gotta go with the guy who will face the public.

Millions of tax dollars stolen, do you care?

A recent audit of the APS Financial Division revealed that with hundreds of millions of dollars on the table;
there were inadequate rules
little following of the rules
and inadequate record keeping.

All of which leaves only two possibilities;

1. a whole bunch of tax dollars have been lost or stolen, or
2. a miracle has taken place.

Neither APS, nor the Meyners Co, who did the audit,will answer the question;

Have millions of dollars been lost or stolen,
or has a miracle taken place?

Neither, APS nor Meyners Co. will answer the question;

Did the audit reveal criminal misconduct,
and what has been done with the evidence?

Depending on whether or not you care if a whole bunch of
tax dollars have been stolen or not;

you can either go to a board meeting and ask either question;
or you can do nothing.

Your choice.

You can actually vote on the question on a poll here link
... or not.

Winston Brooks should not be given a chance

I've taken a lot of heat recently from people who think that
I am not giving the new superintendent a chance to show us
what he has got to offer,
that I am not giving him a chance to succeed before arguing
that he is not going to succeed.

And I am prepared to defend my position.

As always I welcome any divergent opinion, although I am
getting a bit sick of being called names, and having my
motivation being questioned; my motivation doesn't play;
it isn't part of the argument.

My first contention is that APS is run by a good ol' boys club.

No one has ever contested that allegation.

One simply can't ignore the fact that not even the members
of the good ol' boys club will deny the allegation.

Nor will anyone in the good ol' boys club offer any evidence
that would tend to controvert the allegation.

It is supported by a recent audit of the APS by the
Council of the Great City Schools, who wrote;

"Administrative evaluations are subjective and
unrelated to promotion or step placement."

It is obvious that Winston Brooks intends not to address the
issue. He will ignore it. He will pretend
that it does not exist.

Two good ol' boys have both been promoted into even more
senior leadership, Brad Winter, and Linda Sink.

Together, they are senior administrators who have failed
to mitigate the problems previously, and will now be paid
hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to work their same
old "magic"; magic that has not worked before,
is not working now, and will not work in the future.

There are those who maintain that a definition of crazy is;
doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different
result.

Two administrators who were intimately involved in the
chaos in the APS Financial Division, and did not blow the
whistle on incompetence and corruption, have been
promoted to even more senior positions.

Concede please,
that the good ol' boys are still running the APS,
or offer some evidence to the contrary,
some controverting argument. Anything at all.

Why does that make any difference?

One of the key privileges of membership in any good ol' boys
club, is that one is not held accountable for their mistakes.

No one ever loses their job, no one is demoted,
no one suffers any really negative consequence.

Consider Gina Hickman and Michael Kimbrell,
both of them knew, or should have known for years,
that the APS Financial Division did not have financially sound
policies and procedures, that purchasing guidelines were not
being followed, and inadequate records were being kept.

Neither said a word,
neither has been held accountable for not saying a word,
and both have been promoted precisely for not saying a word.
(Both were given an opportunity to challenge these
allegations, and chose not to.)

What do you think that this means for the future stewardship
of a billion of your tax dollars a year?

Wouldn't you feel more confident, if Winston Brooks
had placed someone else in the positions of
Chief Financial Officer, and Director of Internal Audits?

And you know, that the same thing has gone on, and
the same thing is going on, in every division of the APS.

Most importantly, you must concede that there simply has to
be some reason that good ol' boys don't answer questions.

Winston Brooks joins the rest of the leadership in their
steadfast refusal to enter any venue where they could be
compelled to provide candid, forthright and honest responses
to legitimate questions.

Not one of them will stand up and respond to as simple and
as legitimate a question as;

How much money did you spend
on the new board room?

My proposal; that they all simply face stakeholders and
answer their questions, a town hall meeting, has been
roundly criticized by my detractors, as chaos in the making.

It needn't be, It is possible to appoint or hire a competent
facilitator who will keep the train on track.

The point is not that a town hall meeting could end up in
chaos, but that a town hall meeting could end up with them
in a position of having to admit damning truths, lying, or
stonewalling; none of which they want to engage in.

There is no good and ethical justification for not telling
the truth; for not allowing legitimate questions to be
asked in any venue, and then being expected to respond
candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

There is no reason to expect that the same organizational
structure that has not gotten it right in over a hundred years
will now get it right,
with all of the same players, under all of the same rules and
under the very same conditions
(the most damning of which is continued secrecy).

Winston Brooks should not be given a chance to fix the
good ol' boys club from the inside, and in secret.

There is no good and ethical justification for either.

This is an illustration of the metaphor of
an ostrich sticking his head in the sand;

and it will do us exactly as much good,
as it does the ostrich.

"You pick a side, when you don't pick a side"

Show them that your are interested enough,
that you are engaged enough, that you care enough,
to at least show up to a board meeting.

They can do anything they want
only for as long as no one is paying any attention to them.

Today,
5pm, in Brad Winter's ridiculously expensive and
completely unjustifiable new board room at

6400 Uptown Blvd.

If you had to trust someone, and you do have to trust someone; you have no other choice.

In the absence of any real accountability to any meaningful
standards of conduct or competence as public servants;

you have no choice but; to "trust" them.

You can rely only, upon their personal trustworthiness
as protection against the squandering of your trust and
your treasure.

Which begs at least one question.

Who would you rather have to trust?
the public servants who run a school district that makes it
impossibly hard to "inspect and or copy" the public records
of their administration of the public trust and treasure, link

or would you rather trust the public servants who respond
by placing the request, and all of the requested records
on the internet within two working days? link

Would you rather trust a public servant who
will stand on their record, and who will answer legitimate
questions about their public service,

or would you rather trust Winston Brooks?

and Paula Maes Modrall?


This isn't just about role modeling.

KOB TV decides that there will be no public outrage

Beyond any reasonable doubt;

If the management of KOB TV did not already know that
the leadership of the APS has

• abdicated their obligations as role models, and that
• they are not accountable to any meaningful standards of conduct or competence, and that
• they refuse to entertain legitimate questions on these or on any other legitimate issue

they found out about them Sunday last. link

It also stands to reason;

the issues are newsworthy by any reasonable definition
of that concept, and that

stakeholders would want to know the truth, and therefore,

KOB TV had an obligation to something, other than nothing.

This story didn't require any elaborate investigation;
it required only a phone call to their Monica Armenta.

She would respond with one of three answers;

1. true,
2. not true,
3. no comment.

Any one of which is a newsworthy response.

Two of the three, if reported upon by KOB TV,
would have resulted in a least a few more outraged citizens
asking questions tonight,
at their "we don't take questions" public forum.

KOB TV made a deliberate decision
to keep the issue from stakeholders.

And every time I point out that it looks like a duck,
and it walks like a duck,
and it quacks like a duck/conspiracy;

I am branded a "conspiracy nut".

If this is not a conspiracy to hide the truth from stakeholders, what is it.

... a coincidence?

Winston Brooks is no fan of FOIA or IPRA

FOIA; Freedom of Information Act
IPRA; Inspection of Public Records Act

Citizen stakeholders have a right to know the truth; and
they have a right to see the public records of that truth.

I asked APS for the fewest sheets of paper possible, to paint
a candid, forthright, and honest picture of the relationship
between the Albuquerque Public Schools and the Modrall
Law Firm; which is run by the husband of APS School Board
head honcha, Paula Maes.

I was told that I could have that record, at a minimum cost
of at least, $1,000.00.

When Winston Brooks, as the superintendent of the Wichita
public schools was asked for the public record that would
show the ratio of administrators to classroom teachers;
the reply was, those records exist,
and you can have them for $1,016,20. link

When asked, how many classrooms and portables are there...?
Winston Brooks offered to sell the truth for a mere $860.00
link

Winston Brooks also owns the rule which prevents citizens
of Wichita from taking a picture of Wichita's equivalent of the
Uptown Administrative Retirement Complex,
at 6400 Uptown Blvd. link

In stark contrast, when a request for public records is filed
in Chicago's District 300, the request, and
all of the documents legitimately covered by the request,
are posted on the district's website within 2 days. Link

.. for everybody to see.

There is only one reason to hide the truth,
or to make the truth prohibitively expensive;
it is neither a good reason, nor an ethical reason.

It's not just about role modeling;
it is about honest accountability
to any standard of conduct at all.

No taxation without representation

No taxation without regular town hall meetings.

What would happen if we decided not to tax ourselves
even one more dime, to support any endeavor of our
government, which is not subject to accountability to us
by means of town hall meetings;

the opportunity to ask any legitimate question, and
to expect expect in response;

a candid, forthright and honest answer?

Winston Brooks is not the only one.

The new superintendent of the APS is not the only powerful
public servant who will not show up at a town hall meeting.

He is not the only powerful public servant who will not stand
for legitimate questions, and then provide candid, forthright
and honest responses.

Chief of Police Ray Schultz will not.

Mayor Marty Chavez will not.

Governor Bill Richardson will not.

Congressional candidate Darren White will not.

District Attorney Kari Brandenburg will not.

Right off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single
head of any agency of government with the character and
the courage to simply answer legitimate questions.

They all escape town hall meetings by abusing power.

I don't know that any of these people are powerful in their own right. They are powerful because they are in temporary control of a great deal of power; power that belongs fundamentally to the people.

They are able to escape town hall meetings,
they are able to avoid legitimate questions
about their use of our power and resources,
by abusing that power and those resources.

There is no good and ethical reason to avoid legitimate questions.

The only compelling reason is to avoid accountability.

I am dumbfounded that people are elected, and entrusted
with control over enormous amounts of power and resources,
and are able to simply decline to respond to legitimate
questions about their public service.

It was not voters, who decided that there will not be candid, forthright and honest accountability in public service. That decision was made by corrupt and incompetent public servants who need(ed) to be able to cover up their corruption and incompetence.

Voters are letting them get away with it.

They say you get the government you deserve.

I would argue that we deserve better government than we have,

even those among us who are unwilling to do anything to ensure that government is good.


At the very least, we should never elect another public servant who will not stand and deliver candid, forthright and honest responses to legitimate questions about their public service, and about our power and resources.

At the very least, we can deny them even another dime of our money, for so long as they are unwilling to answer legitimate questions about how it has been, is being, and will be, used.

Those who have an interest in doing
more than the very least
have an opportunity;

turn every appearance of a public servant into
a town hall meeting; whether they like it or not.

Start asking the questions, in public and on the record,
whether they want to answer them or not.

Show up at the public forum of the next school board meeting,
and ask the leadership of the APS to respond candidly,
forthrightly and honestly, to the legitimate question;

Why will you not hold regular town hall meetings,
there to respond candidly, forthrightly and honestly,
to all legitimate questions?

The "appearance of impropriety" IN YOUR FACE!

What greater appearance of impropriety can there be,
than public servants who refuse to answer questions about
the use of public power and resources by public servants,
and about their public service?

Town hall meetings expose issues to daylight.

There is no reason to oppose a town hall meeting
other than to keep daylight from shining on a truth that
they must keep hidden.

If there were, any good and ethical reason at all,
the leadership of the APS would be able to fill in the blank;

We will not be conducting a town hall meeting, ever,
because _____________________________ .

The appearance of impropriety

The Journal editors get something right on occasion; this
morning being one. link sub req

They point out that Bernalillo County Commission candidate
Micheal Wiener created the appearance of impropriety when he emailed future subordinates and asked them to retire his campaign debt.

They have previously pointed out the leadership of the UNM regularly creates the impression of impropriety in their spending and hiring practices.

And the impression of impropriety in no bid contracts for Bill Richardson's cronies at the state fair grounds. link sub req

But they don't seem to be able to pull it all together.

Also in the editorials this morning, in a discussion of voters
supporting taxes for public transit connections to the
Rail Runner, they wrote;

"The Rail Runner has faced an uphill funding climb,
with government officials less than open or accurate
on its construction costs. (emphasis added)
Putting operational funding to the voters is a good way
to get a promising mass-transit project back on track."
link

The editors are so out of touch with the great unwashed,
that they don't hear the people saying; "vote no"
on any more taxes to be spent by public servants who are
"less than open or accurate", who are not candid, forthright,
and honest with voters about how their hard earned money
has been, and will be spent.

The appearance of impropriety is an impropriety.

And voters will put an end to endless impropriety by
cutting off the funding, no matter what the consequence.

And, you can't really blame them.

For example; it will be a cold day in hell before voters give
another dime to the leadership of the APS, because of
the endless stream of "appearances of impropriety".

They no longer trust the leadership of the APS;
and will not give them even one more dime to spend
on their Uptown digs; rather than on
fire safety inspections in schools, textbooks, and
needed renovation and repairs in schools and classrooms.

It will be at least a chilly day in hell, before voters tax
themselves even one more dime for the Rail Runner.

The new mantra for voters should be, and is likely to be;

No accountability?
No new taxes.