Perhaps the blogosphere is coming around on ethics reform.

I could be wrong, but I think
Heath Haussamen is the
first heavy hitter in the NM
political blogosphere to lay out
his own specific plan for ethics
reform, link.

This is a good thing, because
the solution lies in mobilization,
mobilization depends on
exposure, and so far, none of
the heavy hitters has laid a
specific "demand" on the table.

It is the first step in mobilizing the thousands of New Mexicans
that are necessary to force real change on a recalcitrant
legislature and governor.

There is an inherent problem. Haussamen and I do not agree
on what on what "ethical reform" means. Nobody does.
I cannot think of a concept that means more things to more
people than the concept of "ethical reform".

The problem can be solved if we could all agree on even one
thing that ethical reform means to everyone, and then push it
instead of pushing "ethical reform".

Can we agree that ethical reform means transparent
accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and
competence?

Can we insist that the next step is transparent accountability?

If we can agree, we can successfully demand it. If we cannot
agree, we can demand all we want, and nothing will change ever.

There is no legitimate agenda that does not move forward on
the day that government is transparently accountable to the
people, and to meaningful standards of conduct and competence.

All boats rise on the tide of transparent accountability.

Transparent accountability in government is within our grasp
if we can just get enough people to grasp for the same thing
together.




photo Mark Bralley

Flash; Our government does nothing well.

Given; two organizations side by side and with the same goal.

One is run by the government, and is populated by politicians
and public servants .

The other is run by the private sector.

Which do you suppose would reach the goal first?

Which do you suppose would do it cheaper, faster, or better?

There are many differences between the private sector and
and public service, that play in varying degrees.

The biggest factor, far and away, is accountability to meaningful
standards of conduct and competence.

The more unequivocal the standards, the more inescapable
the accountability; the more effective the organization.

The most effective organization in government is the military.
If I wanted to be sure that something or another was going to
get done right, I would delegate it to the military.

The difference between the military and any other agency of
the government is; honest accountability to meaningful
standards of conduct and competence.


We would be far better off if all politicians and public servants
were honestly accountable to meaningful standards of
conduct and competence, as well.

We would be far better off if politicians and public servants
had to tell the truth about our government, our power, and
our resources.

If politicians and public servants had any intention at all to
hold themselves honestly accountable to meaningful
standards of conduct and competence, they would now be,
honestly accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and
competence, they would now be, telling the truth
about our government, our power and our resources.

The terms of public service are the prerogative of the public,
not of the public servant. It is in defiance, that they will not
end the culture of corruption.


New Mexico is a national laughing stock. Our culture of
corruption and incompetence, is a model for the free world.
We are last in everything but scandals.

It is up to us to demand an end to the culture of corruption,
right now and for ever.

Do not vote for anyone who is not on the record with a plan
to end the culture of corruption.

Do not vote for anyone who will not look you in the eye,
raise their right hand, and promise to tell you the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
(so help them God).


The truth about our government, our power, and our resources
can be separated into two bags; one bag to be handed to over
to stakeholders; rather immediately and without a lot of fuss and bother.

The other bag to be handed over to honest due process for
sorting; rather immediately and without a lot of fuss and bother.

Your ombudsman makes $45K.

He is the point on your spear when you are fighting against
"improper government activity".

The people whose job it is to keep you from finding out about
"improper government activity", earn three times as much.

There is one ombudsman. There are God only, knows
how many Public Information Officers.

Do the math.

We would be a whole lot better off with a hundred ombudsmen
with subpoena power and, earning a hundred grand a year and,
one PIO.

After all, how many people does it take to tell the truth
as opposed to spinning it?

Diane Denish has an ombudsman!

According to the Wikipedia, link;

In general, an "ombudsman" refers to a state official
appointed to provide a check on government activity
in the interests of the citizen, and to oversee the
investigation of complaints of improper government
activity against the citizen.

Making a complaint to an ombudsman is usually
free of charge.

I need some help investigating two complaints of
"improper government activity ...".

I will contact our ombudsman and we will see what happens.
My request will read;

1. A complaint was filed with the Office of the State
Auditor in February of this year. The complaint alleged
that there was a fraud attached to the audit of the
Albuquerque Public Schools.

2. A complaint was filed with the Office of the
Attorney General in February of this year.
The complaint alleged that the leadership of the APS has
suppressed evidence of felony criminal misconduct
in order to allow statutes of limitation to expire on criminal
activity involving senior APS administrators.

I would appreciate it very much if you would investigate
and report upon any progress that has been made in
resolving either of these complaints.

The request was emailed to the Office of the Lt Governor, upon posting.

"Sensible Salaries Summit" suggested, soon.

In the first place, anyone who works for the government, works
for taxpayers.

And since it is our money that is being spent, we have a seat
at the table where decisions are made about how our money
will be spent.

I am having a hard time making sense out of paying a
basketball coach, ten times as much as a Governor makes
(above the table).

What does a "Special Director" do for a Governor,
and he worth three times as much as a public school teacher?
twice as much as the best public school teacher who ever lived?

Why does the Governor's maid make more than a teacher?

Why are Chief Information Officers, whose job it is to
deliberately mislead people about what their power and
resources are being used for, paid at all?



All of these salaries are arrived at independently of each other,
and apparently not all that related to education, training,
experience, skill set, or any other objective measure of bang
for our buck.

I say, let's revisit the salary schedule for politicians and public
servants; soon.

"Second gentleman" rakes in $2.08 a year.

According to a state salary data sheet kept by the Journal link,
taxpayers are paying Herb Denish $2.08 a year to be
"second gentleman".

Barbara Richardson is paid $2.08 to be "first lady".

Slightly more outrageous would be the salary of
the "First Lady's Assistant" who makes $108K, or
the Governor's Chef, who makes $94K, both of whom are
paid more than the State Auditor, who makes a measly $85K.

In comparison, Bill Richardson makes $110K (above the table)
to be governor; $33K less than his Chief of Staff.

I wonder if it is time to review the salaries of everyone whose
salary is paid by taxpayers, to see if their salaries make sense
and are even remotely justifiable.

Taxpayer rape at UNM continues unabated.

In the Sunday Journal, link, we read that the good ol' boys at
the UNM have figured out a way to boost good ol' boy salaries
even more, and at the same time, defer taxes on their
outrageous salaries.

On top of that, they are being dishonest about what they are
doing. According to the Journal report;

A longstanding tradition at UNM has been to keep a
salary book in Zimmerman library listing pay for all UNM
employees.

The book, which is available to anyone who asks, lists
only base salaries.

It lists Schmidly's pay at $387,600, for example.
His total compensation package, however — which
includes the $120,000 in deferred compensation
plus housing and auto allowances — is $594,600.

There is only one reason to hide the truth; they know that
what they are doing is "wrong" and, they don't want taxpayers
to learn the truth.

The very worst thing that any public servant can do, is
everything they do in (unwarranted) secrecy. Public servants
should not be doing things that they have to hide from public
knowledge.

The time for full disclosure is long overdue.

It is time that the honest version of the salary book be created,
along with the honest version on all spending of tax dollars.

And then put it online, don't hide it in some dusty, dark corner
in Zimmerman Library.

Another government agency; more missing millions.

NMI's Trip Jennings filed this story, link.

The gist of it is that another government agency has lost track
of millions of dollars worth of equipment; lost or stolen.

Of all the emotions that one feels when reading about more
missing millions, surprise is not one of them.

Can anyone really say they are surprised anymore when they
find out that taxpayers have been cheated again?

Corruption and incompetence are common place. They are the
rule, not the exception.

The people who have allowed these losses, whether they
allowed them deliberately or inadvertently, are not going to fix
the system that allows their corruption and incompetence.

If it is going to be fixed at all, it is going to be from the outside.
Thousands of people standing outside the roundhouse,
demanding the end of the culture of corruption and incompetence.

Grandfathering in corruption and incompetence.

If there were a way to end the culture of corruption, but only
from now on, it would probably be ended.

The problem is that the solution; shining light on everything,
is going to burn a bunch of good ol' boys who have records
of politics and public service, that cannot stand scrutiny.

Many police officers allow each other exception to the law,
in deference to their brotherhood. They don't hold each other
strictly accountable even to the law, because in doing so they
cross over a thin blue line, into a supposed betrayal of trust.
wikilink

Good ol' boys do the same thing. They allow each other to
except themselves from accountability for their corruption and
incompetence.

They will not end the culture of corruption, not so much because
the don't want to end corruption in politics and public service,
but rather because, they need to cover their friends' asses.

They need to keep them from losing their reputations, their jobs,
and likely for some, their personal freedom.

Good legislators cover the asses of evil legislators, because
they all belong to the same brotherhood; good ol' boys.

They will not hold each other honestly accountable to
meaningful standards of conduct and competence, because
there is a line, a line they will not cross, even to protect the
public interests.


I have no idea what color that line would be.
But I would bet that, you can't see it in daylight.

No word yet from Diane Denish.

I asked her two days ago, via the contact form on her website,

What is her plan specifically,
to end the culture of corruption in Santa Fe?

Apparently the plan is not readily available.

And that is really a shame.

How can anyone run for Governor of New Mexico, and not have
a plan to end the culture of corruption in politics and public service?

The problem isn't the lack of a plan, The plan is obvious.

All you have to do is make it impossibly difficult to hide
corruption and incompetence.

End the culture of corruption decisively, and immediately,
by giving it no place to hide.

All you have to do is shine the light of day on everything.

The problem isn't that no one can think of a plan.
The problem is that nobody really wants to execute the plan;
shine the light of day on everything.

They don't want to shine the light of day on everything,
because it would mean the end of the good ol' boys.

Good ol' boys are like vampires, they can't stand the light of day.

"Restoring Ethical Leadership and Accountability to the State New Mexico"

You will find that commitment made in a banner headline on
the new NMGOP website, link.

What do they mean by "ethical" leadership?

What do they mean by "Accountability" to the State of New Mexico?

I say; talk is cheap.

Show us the plan. Specifically, how will the NMGOP
put an end to the culture of corruption in Santa Fe?

And please don't say; elect republicans.

New Mexico will always be a "pay to play" state.

According to Michael Swickard, a regular contributor on
Heath Haussamen's site, link.

This morning he writes about the current deluge of pay for play
scandals and concludes;

"So there will be a big who-ha in the media about cleaning
up state government and then it will be back to things as
they were, where, as far as the people in Santa Fe see it,
if you do not donate to the right party and the right
people you may as well be living on the moon or in
southern New Mexico."

He is right of course, unless we stand up and demand an end
to the culture of corruption.

It is going to take someone who casts a bigger shadow than I

to ask gubernatorial and mayoral candidates the question;

What is your plan to end the culture of corruption?

and expect to get an answer.

The culture of corruption is going to end with the election of the next governor.

We are done with corruption and incompetence in government.

We will elect the candidate with the best plan, to finally put an
end to the squandering of the public trust and treasure.

Either Diane Denish, or Greg Zanetti, will be the first to lay
a plan on the table for consideration by voters.

The other, won't.


And while we're at it; corruption and incompetence in city
government will end with the election the next mayor.

Either Richard Romero, or Richard Berry, or Marty Chavez,
will be the first to put a plan on the table,
of the transparent accountability that they will provide,
in order to end the squandering of the public trust and treasure
by city hall.

The others, won't.

The requirements of open and honest government.

The first legitimate responsibility of power is to ensure that
the power cannot be abused.

Webcasting of government will be a model for the free world;
limited only by technology and common sense.

There will be a searchable data base of government spending,
and of the use of the people's power.

Records requests will be honored rather immediately.
Public records will be redacted according to the spirit of the law,
and by someone whose impartiality is beyond question.

There will be unequivocal standards of conduct and competence
for every public office. The standards will be impartially and
transparently enforced by an agency powerful enough to hold
even the most powerful public servant accountable, even against
their will.

A homeless person should be able to file a legitimate complaint
against a Governor, and then see that complaint handled fairly
and honestly.

That would be my plan to end the culture of corruption

Every candidate for public office must show us their their plan
for open and honest government, or expect us not to vote for them.

No plan, no vote.

Pass it on.

Diane Denish's plan for "An open and honest state government" falls short.

Lt Governor Diane Denish has a new centerpiece website for
her run for Governor. On that website, is her plan for open and
honest government. link

She offers;

"New Mexicans deserve a state government as open and
honest as they are. Diane has long been a leader in the
effort to increase transparency in government. Most of all,
she is leading by example. For instance, she has
voluntarily reported her campaign contributions quarterly
(beyond what is required by current law). And she has
championed laws requiring stringent new reporting
requirements. Denish also recently led the fight to pass a
law requiring the state to post all contracts on the state's
web site so that every taxpayer can know exactly where
the state's tax dollars are going - to what companies,
for what purposes, and in what amounts."

Sounds good, but falls short. We need some specifics.
It's easy to say you're for open and honest government, but
the proof is in the pudding.

So far, her pudding doesn't include her plans for making public
records public; or for webcasting the legislature, or for an ethics
commission, or for a searchable data base, or ...

Most importantly, her plan for open and honest government
does not include a systemic overhaul of standards and
accountability, without which open and honest government is
an impossibility.

As wanting as her plan is, it offers more than most. Most of the
good ol' boys won't even mouth the words "open and honest
government".

Every candidate for a state office, should furnish voters with a
comprehensive plan for open and honest government. And
if we don't like their plan, or if they don't offer any plan at all,
we should deny them our vote.

No plan, no vote.

Pass it on.

Accountability is fatal to corruption and incompetence.

Absolute accountability is absolutely fatal.

Corruption and incompetence thrive in the dark.
Once exposed to the light of day, they are done.
(At least in theory.)

It is possible to make it impossibly difficult to hide corruption
and incompetence.

Transparent accountability to meaningful standards of conduct
and competence, will end the culture of corruption.

If Mayor Marty Chavez uttered out loud, the phrase
"transparent accountability", he would be struck by lighting.

Candidate Richard Berry could, I assume, but has not.

Candidate Richard Romero has uttered the phrase
transparent accountability. In exchange for their vote,
he promises voters transparent accountability in city government.

Richard Romero has promised to end the culture of corruption.

Maybe he can; maybe he can't. It's a tough row to hoe.

But at least he put transparent accountability on the table.

No one else has.

Why are voters not entitled to ask candidates about their
intentions with regard to making their administration
transparently accountable to the public,
and to meaningful standards of conduct and competence?

Richard Romero will answer that question.
He will lay out a plan for transparent accountability.


Will Richard Berry?


Will the Founding Father of Character Counts! Marty Chavez?





This photo was taken by Mark Bralley, at an Ethics Hearing,
and is one of the reasons Marty Chavez routinely uses city cops
to deny Mark's constitutionally protected, human right to be a member
of a free press. link

Journal coverage biased.

I don't know what other word to use.

Journal education reporter Andrea Schoellkopf heard
Mayoral Candidate Richard Romero, promise to hold
himself honestly accountable to a higher standard of conduct
than the law.

He promised to forego the luxury of the law, which only
prohibits "telling lies", in favor of a higher standard of conduct
which requires "telling the truth".

More importantly, Richard Romero is the first politically
powerful person in my knowledge, to stand up as a role model
for APS students, of the APS Student Standard of Conduct;
the Pillars of Character Counts!.

APS students, in the fifteen years that they have been expected
to "model and promote" accountability to a recognized code of
ethical conduct, have never had a role model to show them
what it looks like to hold one's self honestly accountable to a
higher standard of conduct than the law, a standard of conduct
which requires telling the truth to stakeholders.

Yet in the Journal's coverage of the news conference, not one
word was written about what is nothing less than a paradigm
shift between the old ways and the culture of corruption, and
a new order; one where transparent accountability spells doom
for the culture of corruption.

How is this not "newsworthy"?

Does the Journal really not understand the difference between
"not telling lies" and, "telling the truth" about the public interests?

Marty Chavez pulls the plug on city funding of after school programs.

APS is set to receive stimulus funding that can be used to
bolster after school programs for kids.

If my experience as an educator for a quarter of a century
entitles me to an opinion, it is this, I cannot think of a better
place to spend money on kids, than on offering them something
to do outside of school. "Idle hands are the devils workshop."

For years, I opened my shop, to students who wanted a place
to hang out after school. Whatever they did or did not achieve
as a result, I am sure that no kid in my program starting using
drugs, joined a gang, or spray painted on a wall, while they
were in my classroom.

Mayor Marty Chavez has found
a way to take the stimulus funds
away from the APS, to spend instead
on his priorities; like buying the votes
of city workers.

Chavez reasons that if the federal
government is going to give the APS
funds for after school programs, then
the city can reduce its support by an
equivalent amount.

APS ends up with no gain or loss, and the city pockets the
stimulus funding intended for students. KKOB TV link

"APS' after-school programs are in limbo as the mayor tries to pull the plug on city funding. But the district's superintendent is trying to work out a deal that would give students a bonus in return.

Dealing with a massive budget crisis, Mayor Martin Chavez wants to make a one time cut, slashing $500,000 out of the money the city normally gives APS to pay for after-school programs. And he's asking APS to use federal stimulus money to keep the programs going."

In contrast, Mayoral Candidate
Richard Romero, plans to find
even more ways that the city and
the APS to work together for the
benefit of the 90,000 of our sons
and daughters in the APS.

This whole story was missed by the
Journal and its coverage of Romero's
press conference on education.


The Journal offered only that Romero's plan "differs little
from that of opponent Mayor Martin Chavez."


Yeah, about $500,000 little.




photos Mark Bralley

Bill Richardson, pushing "executive privilege" to the limit.

Trip Jennings, New Mexico Independent, link, is working
hard to find out if Governor Bill Richardson met with Marc
Correa personally before Correa became a beneficiary of
millions of dollars worth of sweet deals involving state investment funds.


Richardson refuses to answer
a simple question; did you, or
did you not meet with Correa,
before he became the beneficiary
of millions of dollars in finders
fees on state investments?

Logic tells us that, if Richardson
did not meet with Correa, he
would say so; it would clear away
the cloud of suspicion that hangs
over the Governor's Office.

But Richardson won't answer the question, no matter how
many times it is asked. It would seem that he did meet with
Marc Correa, and now he is trying to cover it up by hiding
the inconvenient truth from stakeholders. The cover up is
enabled by the abuse of mechanism called "executive privilege".

Executive privilege has its legitimate uses. The privilege is
not unlimited, and it is the limits which Jennings is pushing.
Richardson is pushing the same limits, but in the other
direction.

So Richardson will continue to duel with Jennings and others
over the public's right to know the truth about the spending of
their power and resources. Richardson will win. In New Mexico,
the politically powerful always do. We're playing on their court.

That is why New Mexico is a national laughingstock, last in
everything, and well known for its culture of corruption.

It is time for a paradigm shift. Out with the old, and in with
the new; transparent accountability in the spending of
the public trust and treasure.




photo Mark Bralley

Richard Romero stepped up today.

For fifteen years, the Pillars of Character Counts! have been
standards without a role model.



Richard Romero just stepped up.

At a news conference today at Wilson Middle School,
I asked the Senator if he was willing to hold himself honestly
accountable to a higher standard of conduct than the law,
specifically; the Pillars of Character Counts!

The Pillars are a nationally recognized, accepted, and
respected code of ethical conduct. link

They also happen to be
the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

He said yes.

He assumed a mantle that even the senior most role models
in leadership of the APS will not bear.


So what? What difference does it make?

Every other politician and public servant is accountable only
to the law; the lowest acceptable standard of conduct.

The standard for truth telling under the law is; don't tell lies.

According to the Pillars of Character Counts!,
the standard for truth telling is; tell the truth.

"Not lying" has perpetuated a culture of corruption that
has lasted for centuries.

"Telling the truth" will end it, once and for all.

And finally, the students in the APS will have a role model
to look up to, someone who will show them what it looks
like to

"model and promote the Pillars of Character Counts!"




photo Mark Bralley

"Budget Hike for APS Web Site Is Poor PR" alb journal

I would have sworn that the budget that the board passed
the other night, did not still include the website funding,
but apparently it did, and Monica Armenta's increased
budget doesn't sit well with Journal editors this morning,
link.

Monahan underestimates Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones.

Blogger Monahan sees problems if Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones
seriously considers a gubernatorial run.

He argues that even the consideration, invites a challenger in
her own House District come the next election.


Monahan underestimates
I think, the appeal to voters
of a candidate with a record
of heads up work on the
behalf of all of the citizens
of New Mexico.



I pity the fool that decides to run against a remarkably capable
legislator with a record of standing up for transparency,
in a particularly courageous fashion.

The democrat that runs against her will be running because
he drew the short straw, and not because he has a snowball's
chance in hell of unseating her, even if she does take a look
at being the next and best Governor in history.




photo Mark Bralley

NMPED report points to blatant corruption and/or incompetence in the leadership of the APS.

New Mexico Public Education
Secretary Veronica Garcia


signed off on an eleven page report,
link,

that concluded;

"1.The district failed to comply with federal regulations providing for the prompt notice to parents of students of a school that has been identified for restructuring.

2.The district failed to comply with federal regulations requiring meaningful parental involvement in development of a restructuring plan."

There are two reasons to deny stakeholders a seat at the table
where decisions are made;

1. Incompetence, they simply did not know that stakeholders are entitled to a seat at the table where decisions are made, and that, that right was enforceable under the law. Or,

2. Corruption, they knew about the rights and the law, and made a deliberate decision to ignore both.

They get away with it because they are not actually accountable
to any standard of conduct that prohibits incompetence and
corruption.

Or am I missing something?


sidebar: the Journal is yet to report upon the more than week
old admonition. This would be consistent with what appears
to be an agreement between the paper and the leadership of
the APS, providing for "more positive" coverage of the APS
in anticipation of an upcoming $650M bond issue election.
link




photo Mark Bralley

People who live in glass houses, can't throw stones.

wikilink,
and yes I know the original quote argues; "shouldn't" throw
stones; but it goes deeper than that.

A politician who threw the stone called character, would have
to have character of his own, more substantial than glass.

I am dumbfounded that there is not a single candidate for
any office, who "can" make character an issue in election.

Is there no one who will hold themselves honestly accountable
to a standard of conduct that requires telling the truth?

Even for the measly few hours a day that we trust them with
control over our power and resources.

Someone is going to be the first to stand up and promise to
tell the truth. Everyone else will be among the last.
As to the one who is dead last,

"I pity the fool". Mr T. wikilink

Character education.

School Board Policy speaks to character education in the APS;

It demands a commitment to;

... creating models of ethical behavior among all adults
who serve students and schools.

And that;

... the core curriculum should continue to give explicit
attention to character development as an ongoing art
of school instruction.

... materials, teaching methods, partnerships, and services
to support school programs shall be selected, in part,
for their capacity to support the development of character
among youth.

... all schools examine school curriculum and practices to
identify and extend opportunities for developing
character, especially through the utilization of violence-
prevention programs, mediation training, community
service programs, fair rules which are fairly enforced,
democratic practices in classrooms and organizations,
and extracurricular activities which help students learn
and model caring and ethical behavior.

You can't teach character once a day, for an hour.
You have to teach it once a day, all day long.

Sez who? a man's character is not an election issue?

.

.

"Absolutely!" he said, without a moment's hesitation.

The question that I had asked Mayor Marty Chavez was,

Can we offer the fully one half of students in the APS
who will drop out, something beside a curriculum
driven by the NCLB?

Because education is incredibly expensive, and because there
is not money enough to fund even one model, funding a second
model, for all practical intents and purposes, is "absolutely"
impossible.

It is not so much that Chavez gave an untruthful answer, as it is
that, he did it with such facility and so glibly.

"When plunder becomes a way of life ..."

One of Mario Burgos' readers left this little pearl recently,
on Burgos' post on Manny Aragon's "going to jail" party;

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of
men living together in society, they create for
themselves in the course of time a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it"

Frederic Bastiat - The Law

If ever there was a system that authorizes public corruption,
it is in Santa Fe. If anywhere there is a moral code the glorifies
public corruption, it is in Santa Fe.

... party on.

Marty Chavez' red herring.

According to the Wikipedia, link; a red herring is

"... a device which intends to divert the audience from
the truth or an item of significance.

The truth is that Marty Chavez took money out of capital funds
to protect city workers' salaries. Some say he did it to buy their
votes.

Marjorie Childress laid it out for NMI, link.

"The issue Chavez’s critics are raising is his use of
property tax funds — which typically go to the capital
program to maintain and build city infrastructure —
for plugging holes in the operating budget.
... three times in recent years — in the 2004, 2009, and
2010 budgets."

Candidates Berry and Romero both think this is bad practice
that will come back to haunt us.

Chavez didn't respond to the charge personally because he is
"not running for mayor".

Childress wrote;

"Chavez seems content to let his top brass fight back for
him, in this case the city’s Chief Administrative Officer,
Ed Adams, and Chief Public Information Officer,
Deborah James.

Their responses to the economic argument presented by
Romero and Berry, again according to Childress, were;

“Their allegations are laughable,”

“We’re in an election season, and they have to say
something. But if they told you the truth, it would be
nothing short of an endorsement for Mayor Chavez
for mayor.”

“Because of our prudent fiscal management, we get to
build 24 to 25 million dollars worth of more stuff — parks,
libraries, fire stations,” he said. “That is extremely
important, and its laughable how they want to minimize
that.”

James pointed to the city’s Triple A Standard & Poor bond
rating, which is the highest the city has ever received.

Adams defended the size of the city’s administrative staff,
which he said is about 33 people in all, saying it was small
compared to what they have to administer. “It’s less than
half a percent of the entire combined budget,” he said.

“We’re managing a city with more than 500,000 residents,
with 6,000 employees, and a billion-dollar budget.

Find any company that administers a billion-dollar budget
on a half a percent. I think that’s pretty darn sporty.”

Adams said that the administration is committed to moving
recovers.

Notice please, no controverting argument to the actual issue.
Instead, a whole school of red herrings.

They might have just as well responded to the issue on the
table by saying;

Marty Chavez has built great bike trails.

Like their statement about the bond ratings, it is true.

Like their statement about the bond ratings, it gives voters a
warm fuzzy feeling that the mayor has done some good.

Like their statement about the bond ratings, it has nothing
to do with the question on the table;

Is it prudent to use capital funds for operating expenses?

Rather than be honest with voters,
Chavez offers red herrings.

They say you get the government
you deserve.

If voters vote for a man who will not
be honest with them before he is
elected, they deserve a man who will
not be honest with them after the election.


At the very least, they should not be surprised.




photo Mark Bralley

It's too bad that mayoral candidates cannot be compelled to answer a question or two before the voting begins.

Think how much more capably we could cast our votes,
if only we knew the answer to the following questions;

To what standard of conduct will you be held
"honestly accountable? and, how?

Will you even hold yourself honestly accountable to the law,
the lowest standard of conduct acceptable to civilized people?

Will you, on your honor, renounce and reject the use of
technicalities, loopholes, and legal weaselry to except
yourself from accountability to the law?

Will you hold yourself honestly accountable to any higher
standard of conduct than the law? Which one? And, how?

How will you guarantee that a legitimate complaint filed against
you, by the least powerful stakeholder, will see due process?


If I were running for mayor, these questions and my answers
would be my homepage.

It's too bad that mayoral candidates cannot be compelled to
answer a question or two, before we have to entrust to them,
the control over our power and our resources.

Mayor Marty "it's all perfectly legal" Chavez contributes to the perception of a culture of corruption.

Many believe that there is a culture of corruption that pollutes
local politics and public service.

The belief is not based on public corruption convictions, there
aren't many, because all of this crap is "perfectly legal".

The Journal reports this morning, link, that

The city awarded about $49,000 in contracts last year
to the mayor's former campaign spokeswoman
without bidding or a request for proposals.

While it's all "perfectly legal", any more (>$50K) would have
been illegal, the perception is created and reinforced that there
is "pay to play" afoot. Or cronyism. Or any one of many
"perfectly legal" strategies that allow these folks to scratch each
others' backs, at taxpayer expense.

The report continues;

City Council President Isaac Benton summed up the
contract awards this way:
"The perception, of course, is often as important as reality.

News flash, perception is reality in the eyes of the perceiver.

The perception/reality that good ol' boys will take care of each
other before they take care of taxpayers, causes damage,
even if it is all "perfectly legal". There are people who, having
heard this story, who will have less faith in the Office of the Mayor,
as a result. Damage is done by the perception of impropriety.
Damage is done by the perception of a conflict of interest.

"Legal" is not a high enough standard of conduct for public
servants. It is important that citizens have faith in politicians,
public servants, and in the process.

For as long as public servants and politicians continue to do
anything "the law" allows, they will be doing things that
undermine the confidence of the people, in their government.

Much of the success of government rests on the willing sacrifices
that people make, to make the whole thing work.
The willing sacrifices end, when the perception is that the
benefits of the sacrifice will not be shared by the people,
but shared instead among corrupt politicians and public servants.

Marty Chavez is aware of higher standards of conduct than
the law. He once expressed his support of those higher
standards of conduct. And he has done nothing in a decade and
a half, to advance those higher standards, except to paint them
on the sides of city vehicles.

United States Senator Pete Domenici, from the
Congressional Record, Thursday, July 14, 1994, link

"In the city of Albuquerque, my hometown, I was joined
by the mayor of our city, Mayor Martin Chavez, and a
large, diverse task force from our city, in declaring that
the city will be known as "Albuquerque:
A Character Counts Community.''
As part of that, the entire community will begin to
incorporate in its daily lives these six principles of character."

Mayor Marty Chavez is a
Founding Father of
Character Counts!

But you wouldn't know it
from watching him,
listening to him, or from
looking at his record.




photo Mark Bralley

School board training scheduled.

The school board has scheduled another training; link.

The training is being given by the Cuddy McCarty Law Firm.

You might recognize their name from a previous post,
about a school board training they ran, link
that included a breakout session called;

The Open Meetings Act, your greatest threat.

In the School Law Conference Draft Agenda, we find;

"R. Open Meetings Act and the Inspection of Public Records Act

These two statutes are frequently used by school district critics to challenge school board actions or to embarrass school officials. ..." (emphasis added)

The law specifically and explicitly prohibits the introduction
of the "reason" for the request, in the consideration of a
public records request.

The New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act reads;

14-2-8 No person requesting records shall be required to
state the reason for inspecting the records.

The "reason" for the request doesn't play, even if the reason is
"to challenge board actions", or to "embarrass school officials".

You have to ask your self, what kind of person feels threatened
by the Inspection of Public Records Act, and by
the Open Meetings Act?

A person with something embarrassing or illegal to hide.

What kind of person asks, why are you asking?

A person trying justify their refusal to tell the truth according
to the law.

Does it occur to these people that only illegal board actions can
be challenged, or the school officials have reason to
be embarrassed, only if they have done something embarrassing?

Apparently not.

Either that or, it has occurred to them, and that is precisely
why they feel threatened by the truth "getting out".

If not you, then who; if not now, then when?

a man named, Philip Vera Cruz once wondered. wikilink

Sometimes you have to stand your ground.

If not about transparent accountability in government,
then about what?

If not now, then when?

If not you, then who?

You pick a side when you don't pick a side. unk

The meaning of "good ol' boy" in New Mexico

There are parts of the country where, if someone refers to you
as a good ol' boy, you take it as a compliment.

In New Mexico, or any other state with a culture of corruption,
it means;

a powerful person who abuses his power by excepting
himself from any honest accountability to meaningful
standards of conduct and competence, and

in the process betrays the public trust; deliberately, and
with malice and fore thought,

and it is not a compliment.

For example;




Governor Bill Richardson, or







Mayor Marty Chavez, or





UNM President David Schmidly, or








APS Superintendent,
Winston Brooks,






to name just a few right off the top of my head.




photos Mark Bralley

Either the APS is a good ol' boy oligarchy, or it is not.

A few tens of thousands of dollars will pay for a
special procedures examination of standards and
accountability in the leadership of the APS.

The audit would show considerable recent improvement in
written standards, and no improvement at all in actual and
honest accountability to those standards.

The audit would reveal that the chief executive officer can
take a legitimate complaint lodged against him, label it
a nuisance, and then shit can it.

There are three schools of thought;

1. good ol' boy oligarchy is in the public interests
2. good ol' boy oligarchy doesn't affect the public interests one way or the other, and
3. good ol' boy oligarchies are better replaced with honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence; in the public best interest.
   

Members of the first two schools of thought are
unlikely to stand up and demand a special procedures
examination of standards and accountability in the
leadership of APS.

Members of the school of thought that,
there should be a special procedures examination with
the ultimate goal of replacing good ol' boys with
public servants accountable honestly accountable to the public,

will not stand up either.

... go figure.

.

Open letter to APS School Board President Marty Esquivel

In so far as you represent
my interests in the decision
making process;

I would like three issues
to be placed on the table for an
open and honest discussion;





1. The offering a state of the art web design class at the APS Career Enrichment Center. It would provide training in a stable and well paying career. And, the APS could have a state of the art website, virtually free.

2. The offering a state of the art computer repair class at the APS Career Enrichment Center. It would provide training in a stable and well paying career. And, the APS could have as many computers as there are places to put them, virtually free.

3. The revisiting of the 1994 unanimous resolution of the APS School Board, adopting the Pillars of Character Counts! as the APS Student Standard of Conduct. It has been fifteen years since the adoption and it is time to either reaffirm or renounce it.

You can't just ignore away, a unanimous school board resolution.

Update; a brief exchange of emails, and Mr. Esquivel wrote
that he would forward the first two ideas to the principal of
the CEC.




photo Mark Bralley

APS Board asked to lower expectations for students.

Members of the APS Board of Education are role models.
Whether they like it or not, whether they will admit it or not,
they are role models of the Student Standards of Conduct.

Yet when asked to hold themselves honestly accountable as
role models, they refuse to even discuss the issue on the record.
There is not one of them who will stand on the record and deny
their obligations as a role model. Yet there is not one who will
stand on the record and accept their obligations as a role model.

It is clear that the APS Student Standards of Conduct;
the Pillars of Character Counts!, a nationally recognized,
accepted and respected code of ethical conduct,
is too high a standard of conduct for the leadership of the APS.

Since the leadership of the APS will not raise their own
standards of conduct to reflect the level of expectation that
they establish and enforce upon students, they cannot be role
models of the student standards of conduct.

Yet, there needs to be a role modeling expectation. There
needs to be a role modeling clause in the adult standards of
conduct. Somewhere, sometime, someone has to be able to
tell students that our expectations for them are no different
than our expectations for adults.

The only way that the leadership of the APS will ever step
up as role models, is if the standards are lowered to the point
that they are comfortable being held honestly accountable to
them.

The leadership of the APS was asked, last night at the public
forum, to find a standard of conduct low enough that they
could, would, hold themselves honestly accountable as role
models, by holding themselves honestly accountable to the
standards of conduct they require of students.

The only remaining question is; is there a standard of conduct
low enough that they will hold themselves honestly accountable
to it?

Their record* shows that they are not willing to hold themselves
honestly accountable even to the law; the lowest recognized
standard of conduct.

How can these people be role models, if there is no standard
low enough for them to hold themselves accountable to?

*The leadership of the APS has a record of litigating for themselves, exception to the law. I can bear personal witness to a settlement agreement that included trading tax dollars for a promise not to turn over incontrovertible evidence of felony perjury by a senior APS administrator, former APS Director of Risk Management, Richard Cangiolosi, to any agency of law enforcement.

When APS Modrall was asked to surrender public records
indicative of the character of their litigation on behalf of
administrators and board members, they refused to surrender
even a single record. Which indicates that their record is one
of litigation against the public interests and on the public dime.

APS, $2,000,000,000, zero oversight.

The leadership of the APS just signed off on a $1.3B budget.
Early next year, they will ask taxpayers for an additional nearly
$1.7B, bringing the total very close to $2B.

How can tax payers protect their investment, ensuring that it
is spent in the best interests of students?

How do taxpayers know that a bunch of that money is not
going to be wasted through incompetence and corruption?

The short answer is that they do not.

The coyotes are guarding the hen house.
Taxpayers questions are answered by the coyotes.
Every audit they do has a confidentiality clause that
guarantees that audit results go to the coyotes, and
only to the coyotes.

The only assurance that the leadership of the APS is willing
to offer is; trust us.

Every audit of the APS that looked at standards and
accountability in the leadership of the APS found a significant
lack of standards and accountability.

The Meyners Audit of the APS Finance Division,
the folks who will be spending this $2B, revealed;

• a lack of financially sound policies, and
• a lack of enforcement of such policies, and
• a lack of record keeping, accurate and complete enough to send anyone to prison.

A recent audit of the APS Police Department, in the wake
of the Peanut Butter Gate scandal, revealed that the
leadership of the APS has a history of ignoring audit findings,
and failing to address issues cited in previous audits.

Taxpayers rely on the APS Board of Education, to provide
oversight over the administration of the public trust and
treasure by the administrative leadership of the APS.
Yet when the board is asked to provide an impartial (forensic)
audit of the entire leadership of the APS, they will not even
talk about it in public.

School Board honcho, Paula Maes said she would never
allow any audit that named the names of the corrupt and
the incompetent in the leadership of the APS, a boast that
so far, she has been able to make good.

There needs to be an impartial audit of standards and
accountability in the leadership of the APS. Taxpayers
need to know if the leadership of the APS has finally created
the standards and accountability that are necessary to protect
the public interests in the public schools.

There will never be such an audit, because such an audit
would name the names of the corrupt and the incompetent
in the leadership of the APS. And the good ol' boys who run
the APS would rather see millions of tax dollars lost or stolen,
than see even one of their own, held honestly accountable for
their conduct and competence as public servants.

Tax payers have no recourse on the issue of an audit that
represents their interests. There is nothing they can do to
compel the leadership of the APS to hold itself honestly
accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and competence.

There is nothing stakeholders can do, except to deny them any
more trust and treasure to squander.

Vote no on any bond issue or mill levy until the leadership
of the APS is honestly accountable to meaningful standards of
conduct and competence, by a system over which they have
no undo influence, and powerful enough to hold them
accountable even against their will.

Vote no on any money that is not subject to independent,
impartial auditing; audits that report directly to the public record.

Same old, same old, at the UNM.

No matter how you slice it, a vote of no confidence is of some
real significance. An overwhelming vote of no confidence, is
overwhelmingly significant.

Yet, if the Journal is to be believed, link,
the good ol' boy regents just gave the good ol' boy who recently
lost a vote of confidence overwhelmingly,
a good ol' slap on the back, and an atta boy!

He did after all "... resolve" to do something about the problems,
sometime, somehow.

Regent President and good ol' boy Raymond Sanchez said,

We don't give a rat's ass about the faculty vote of
no confidence.

Which is basically the same thing that Paul Krebs had to say
about it, link,

"... like water off a duck's back."

When asked why faculty stakeholders had no part in the
evaluation, Sanchez said,

"We did it the way we've always done it."

The upper crust does not submit to evaluation by members of
the great unwashed. It's just not the way they roll.

The faculty at the UNM do not have standing
in the eyes of the good ol' boys.

And just in case there was any confusion about it,
they came right out and told them so.



The UNM faculty have a simple choice;

• continue to tolerate the arrogance, or


• don't continue to tolerate the arrogance.

.

Sure to irk.

The budget that goes before the board for approval tonight
is sure to irk some. Most irksome, is likely to be the
unwillingness of the leadership of the APS share in the belt
tightening. According to Schoellkopf's report in the Journal,
link;

"Overall, administration spending is down 1.8 percent,
though Superintendent Winston Brooks had ordered
(other) departments to cut 10 percent for next year."

Many believe that the APS is top heavy with administrators.
That impression seems to be corroborated by the leadership's
steadfast refusal to allow an impartial audit of the entire
leadership of the APS.

The irk will be blunted by APS Community Relations
Department. The department of spin, is set to see a 54%
increase in spending, and points to APS' real priority;
spinning the truth.

The brunt of the increase is supposed to be spent fixing
APS' world class crappy website.

"APS Communications Director Monica Armenta said
the $300,000 increase in her budget will pay for a new
$180,000 district Web site and three employees to
manage, design and write it.

"We have an antiquated Web site that does not allow us
to make access to changes as it currently is," Armenta
said, adding it "should've been overhauled about 10 years ago.""

APS has not, and will not, name the name of the senior
administrator most responsible for the decade long website
debacle, including a website that "does not allow us to make
access to changes ...", whatever in the hell that means.

I assume that because she will be supervising three more
employees, Monica Armenta will be getting a raise;
while everyone else tightens their belt another notch,

I would not be surprised to find that she has already gotten her raise.


The assumption is based on
the fact that when she was asked
her current salary, a matter of
public record, she refused to
answer the question;

usually a bad sign when is comes
to the administration of the APS,
and the squandering of our trust
and treasure.




photo Mark Bralley

"Low income schools face cuts."

reads the Journal's headline over Andrea Schoellkopf's story.
link

When all schools are treated equally, schools with greater need
suffer disproportionately.

Obviously, some schools have greater needs than others.
Larger schools have greater needs than smaller schools.
Superficially, it makes sense to consider only size in dividing
resources. The reality is different.

Every child in Albuquerque is entitled to a neighborhood
school where there is the same potential to succeed as there
is at every other school. This demands that resources be
allocated on need, not on numbers of students.

Again it seems that the poor will experience a disproportionate
amount of the suffering.

Accountability is fatal to corruption.

Socrates, among others, is credited with first writing;

Power corrupts; absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

I would argue that,
it is the opportunity to abuse power without consequence,
that corrupts, absolutely.

If there is no opportunity to abuse power without being held
accountable for that abuse, there is no abuse.

Submitted then, as a corollary to the original old saw;

Accountability is fatal to corruption.
Inescapable accountability is absolutely fatal to corruption.

It can be made impossibly difficult to hide public corruption.

The culture of corruption can be ended, as simply as
institutionalizing transparent accountability to meaningful
standards of conduct and competence for politicians and public
servants, within their public service.

The power and resources belong to us. So does the truth.

All of the power and resources that are spent in Santa Fe,
belong to the people. We have no choice but to entrust our
power and our resources to politicians and public servants,
for them to spend in our stead.

We have a right to the truth about how both are being spent.

All of it.

All of it; except for a very small amount of it that meets
specific criteria. In order for any truth to be kept from us;

• the exception must subject to due process.
  
  Hiding the truth is not an acceptable mechanism for
  keeping any truth secret from stakeholders. And
  
  
• There must be a process under which disputes over redaction are settled impartially, consistent with agreed upon principles, and, rather immediately.

Any truth that subject to due process, can be withheld from
stakeholders until the process determines otherwise.

The rest of the truth belongs to us; all of it.

Politicians and public servants are prohibited from telling lies.

What they need to be is, expected to tell the truth.

Transparent accountability in government, how much is too much?

It is hard to imagine government that is transparent enough,
much less, too transparent.

Government "secrets" are defined and protected according to
open government laws; the Inspection of Public Records Act,
and the Open Meetings Act.

Government should be transparent, open, and accountable to
the people, limited only by the law, technology, and common
sense.

Any more secrecy than that, serves only one purpose;
it allows politicians and public servants to escape consequences
for their corruption and incompetence.

There is only one reason to hide the truth.

The very worst thing that a politician or public servant can do,
is anything they do in (unwarranted) secret.

Michael Sanchez for Governor. Let's just say no.

Transparent accountability
in government is an idea
whose time has come.
There is no turning back.

When it comes to transparent
accountability in NM state
government,
Senate Majority Leader,
Michael Sanchez is
an obstructionist.

He is a closet obstructionist; they all are. No one is going to
stand on a stump, and argue to continue the secrecy in state
government that enables the culture of corruption.

So how do you separate the closet obstructionists from those
who simply lack the character and the courage to tell the people
the truth about how their power and resources are being spent?

You don't. It is a distinction without a difference. Who cares if
their obstruction is deliberate or coincidental, the effect is the
same.

You vote instead, for the folks who are on the record in favor of
open government. You vote for people who have stood up for
transparency. You vote for people with the character and the
courage to pick a side, and then show up for the rumble;

people like Representative
Janice Arnold-Jones.

You know where she stands on
the issue of transparent
accountability. She stood up to
the good ol' boys and brought a
webcam onto their playing field.
link and link



Given a choice between a candidate who will illuminate the
spending of public power and resources, or a candidate
with a record of obstructing transparency, why would voters
give Sanchez and the same old, same old, a second thought?

What has Michael Sanchez done since the legislature
adjourned, to make sure that the next session, the special
session that will decide how hundreds of millions of stimulus
dollars will be spent, is transparent; as transparent as
technology and common sense will allow?

The bottom line is; Michael Sanchez trusts himself, and
demands that citizens do the same. He has no right. He has
no right to demand that we trust him, and he has no right to
demand that the entire legislative process be "trusted" in lieu of
transparent accountability.

When it comes to protecting the public interests from corruption
and incompetence, trust runs a far, far distant second to
transparent accountability.

For that matter, what has Lt. Governor Diane Denish
done to end the culture of corruption in Santa Fe?




photos Mark Bralley

David Peercy says no way, on proposed APS website funding.

Winston Brooks proposal for
spending the $16M that they just
discovered, included $300K to fix
the APS website.

David Peercy said, no way.

For one of two reasons,
I would suppose.

Either he has no idea how bad
APS' website really is.

Or he does know how bad APS' website really is, and would like
to keep it that way; no searchable database, user unfriendly,
and essentially useless.




photo Mark Bralley

Even if you could trust the leadership of the APS, why would you?

APS' annual budget is well over a billion dollars.

Every audit that has ever been done, on the leadership of the
APS, has revealed significant standards and accountability
issues. Every audit has pointed to a lack of standards and to
a lack of accountability to the standards there were.

The Meyners audit of the APS Financial Division,
the stewards of that billion dollars,
revealed that after a century of "fine tuning", they still were;

• without adequate policies and procedures, and
• without adequate accountability to such policies as there were, and
• without records accurate enough to send anyone to prison.

There are likely millions of dollars that have been wasted
through the incompetence and corruption that are enabled
by a standards and accountability vacuum.

It would cost somewhere around $100,000 to have an
independent auditor come into the administration of the APS.
The auditor would look for standards and accountability enough
to protect the public interests and more than a billion tax dollars
a year.

There is a bond issue election coming up. Voters will be asked
to trust the leadership of the APS with another $600M.
While at the same time, the leadership of the APS is busy
hiding the fact that they refuse to allow an impartial audit.
They refuse to explain, defend, deny, or even acknowledge
their decision not to protect the public interests by means
of an independent audit that reports to the public record.

That refusal is all the proof you need, not to trust them.
What more proof could you possibly need?

If it would help to pass the bond issue, they would be buying
full page ads in the Journal, pointing to a "clean audit" of the
administration of the APS.

There is only one reason to hide the truth.

The audit will not come back clean, and that is why it will
never be done.

Paula Maes stated on the record,
that she would never agree to
any audit that named the names
of the corrupt and the incompetent
in the leadership of the APS. link







Why in the world, would voters trust her and her cronies with
another $600,000,000?

If the bond issue passes, it will only be because,
the Albuquerque Journal continues its betrayal of the public
trust by refusing to investigate and report upon the ethics
and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.




photo Mark Bralley