NM Common Cause, link, had their annual luncheon Saturday.
The topic was ethics reform in NM State Government.
The "panel" who made some opening and closing remarks,
mostly fielded questions from the audience.
Senator Peter Wirth, link, Senator Sander Rue, link, and Representative Eleanor Chavez, link, sit on the legislative sub-committee working on a bill to create an ethics commission, link.
There appeared to be consensus that whatever they do,
it is not going to be "incremental" change; it will be one of substance.
What will they come up with?
Will it be more of the same old, same old? Or will it be a model
worthy of emulation by every other state?
There really is no reason New Mexico cannot set the standard for ethics commissions. Do we not have the vision, the intellect, and the energy to do it right? The only thing stopping us is the will to do it right.
Truth telling is a fundamental ethic. Whatever ethics is, whatever ethics are, truth telling is fundamental. Truth telling is the most fundamental ethic of all. There is no code of ethics that does not include truth telling.
Our Ethics Commission will provide truth telling in government,
or it will provide nothing at all worthwhile.
The only reason there is even a question about what the ethics commission will look like, is because we are sitting around waiting to see what "they" will do; hoping this is the year that politicians and public servants, of their own volition, will finally hold themselves honestly and transparently accountable for their own conduct and competence.
New Mexicans are stakeholders in this decision. We have a right to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect our interests. We have a right to a seat at the table where decisions are made.
The terms of public service are the prerogative of the people,
not of the public servants. We should not be waiting for them
to tell us what are the terms of their in-servitude.
We need to fill our seat at the table where the ethics commission will be created.
If our Ethics Commission is not a model for the free world,
if it is yet another failed attempt to protect the public interests,
it will be because we sat back and did nothing; trusting them
to do it right, and without our guidance.
photo Mark Bralley
Monday, October 12, 2009
There is going to be an Ethics Commission, it is a certainty.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The ethical redaction of public records.
There are bits of information floating around called public records. They are the evidence of the spending of your power, resources, trust and treasure by politicians and public servants.
Imagine that they are all in one bag.
The obvious next question is, who gets to hold the bag?
It is an important question, because whoever holds the bag, holds the truth. Whoever holds the bag decides what becomes public knowledge and what stays in the bag.
Right now politicians and public servants hold the bag. And they are very particular about what gets surrendered to the public record and what stays in the bag. Even records which enjoy no exception to the NMIPRA can be kept in the bag for years, according to the whim of politicians and public servants.
That model is fundamentally flawed. It makes no sense to put those who may need to hide the truth, in charge of deciding what truth gets told.
All records belong to the people. Some records are reasonably keep secret from the people; not their existence, but their content. And even then, it is usually only a small part of any document that needs to be kept secret. Normally, a line can be drawn through a name for example, and then the rest of the record can be surrendered to public knowledge.
A decision needs to be made regarding every public record as to whether redaction in whole or in part, is justified. The power to make that decision, currently lies with those who might have the most to gain from hiding public records unjustifiably.
The first fundamental fix in government, is to make the redaction of public records an impartial process. And the subsequent surrender to public knowledge, as immediately as is possible. Arguably, most could be posted online in a searchable data base.
Governmental transparency is manifest in the availability of public records. The availability of public records is an important measure of transparency. It may even be the most important measure.
Redaction of public records must be the product of transparent due process without unjustifiable delay. The surrender of public records delayed, is the surrender of public records denied.
Every public record belongs to the public.
They are called public records for a reason.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Can we afford to enforce the law?
It costs money to enforce the law. Some actual number of dollars must be spent in order to make accountability to the law, inescapable, even for the most powerful.
A certain amount of money would be saved if the law were enforced. For example, if all of the laws that govern the spending of public funds were strictly enforced; if it was made impossibly difficult to embezzle public money without getting caught, some amount of money would be saved. Some actual number of dollars would be saved.
I would argue that if state spending were subject to continuous forensic auditing (at some real cost), the bookkeeper in the Jemez Mountain School District would not have stolen millions of dollars. Logically, she would not have even tried. If even the threat of certain exposure were not a deterrent, she still would have been caught stealing the first dollar instead of the three million more.
Manny Aragon would not have even tried to steal our money.
And even if he did, he would have been caught stealing the first dollar, and not the millions and millions more.
If the cost of enforcement is smaller than the savings, the investment is prudent.
Even in the face of a 700 million dollar shortfall, it would make sense to spend what few dollars we have, to save many times more.
No legitimate agenda does not move forward on the day that politicians and public servants are transparently accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and competence within their public service.
First, before we take even one other step,
let's end the culture of corruption and incompetence in state government, at once, and for all.
At whatever cost we must pay.
Do we need an ethics commission?
In her interview with Heath
Haussamen, link, gubernatorial
candidate Janice Arnold-Jones
raised interesting arguments against
creating an ethics commission.
While not proposing a final "no"to the
idea of an ethics commission, she raised
a two prong argument to that end.
- "Creating an ethics commission, she said, would construct “yet another bureaucracy” with “its own internal issues with ethics.”"
- And, "... she noted that there are already other checks on ethical conduct in New Mexico, such as the attorney general and state auditor. Then she noted that those agencies are limited by budget constraints.
The second argument bears more examination.
"There are other checks on ethical conduct in New Mexico, such as the attorney general and the state auditor."I would have to contest that the state auditor and attorney general represent checks on ethical misconduct. I would argue that they are barely checks on legal misconduct.
Our next governor, Janice Arnold-Jones rightly pointed to correlation between the underfunding of the SAO and AGO, and their lack of effect.
As far as I know, there is only one New Mexico State Statute that specifically and explicitly requires accountability to any standard of conduct higher than the law. It reads, public servants must discharge the duties of their office, ethically.
The law is completely and utterly unenforceable. There is not even an agreed upon definition of what the word ethical even means.
Whatever else it means, it means telling the truth.
Ethical means telling the truth. Legal means telling no lies.
The one, being a higher standard of conduct than the other.
While we spend forever debating whatever else the word ethical means, let's begin at least, by agreeing that it means telling the truth.
If for no other reason, I would like their to be an ethics commission just to see what we could come up with if we put our minds to it.
photo Mark Bralley
Friday, October 09, 2009
Raising the level of the discourse.
Most people would agree that partisan politics does not serve the public well.
Imagine a continuum has been drawn on every important political issue. They are laid out side by side, liberal to the left and conservative to the right. On every continuum, every stakeholder has placed their mark according to their feelings on each issue.
Concepts would become apparent.
- On each continuum, there are stakeholders spread over the entire continuum.
- Likely, they are distributed along a sign curve; few on the far ends, most clumped around a single position.
- A line drawn through the peaks will not be a straight line. People are more conservative than liberal on some issues, and more liberal than conservative on others.
We are not reading clear statement of the problems, and an accurate statements of each individual's solution.
Voters should establish their own set of continua, draw a line through candidates' positions on each issue, and then vote for the person who line is closest to their own.
What would happen if nobody used names to talk politics for a while?
What would happen if we looked at individuals and their individual approaches to solving real problems?
Wouldn't the level of the discourse climb a notch or two?
Three separate incidents point to discipline issues in the APS.
There are three incidents reported in the Journal this morning;
one at Rio Grande High School, one at Volcano Vista High School, and one at Atrisco Heritage. That the three incidents happened in valley and west side schools is inconsequential; it could happen as easily at any APS high school.
Stakeholders have very little idea what the truth is about student discipline in APS schools. A recent Journal article pointed to the fact that APS crime statistics were no longer being reported.
Previously, an audit by the Council of the Great City Schools reported that APS administrators routinely falsified data in order to make their schools look good.
Former APS senior administrator Tom Savage once stated in a meeting;
"If I told the truth about what is going on in my school,The leadership of the APS steadfastly refuses to formally gather data on student discipline. Their Director of Research, Development and Accountability, Tom Genne, admitted to me, the district has never formally surveyed teachers, asking them what problems they face, and what they need to succeed.
the realtors in my neighborhood would have my neck."
Teachers have never been asked to qualify or quantify the problem posed my chronically disruptive students and student misconduct in general.
The need to hide the truth stems from the fact, these problems fall squarely on the shoulders of the leadership of the APS. They have the power, the resources, the authority, and the responsibility to address the issues surrounding student discipline and chronically disruptive students; teachers do not.
The record of the leadership of the APS in addressing discipline issues, is one of abject failure, and is why they do so little data gathering; they simply do not want to document their failure.
If they were actually accountable to the same standards of conduct as students, they would be required to tell the truth to stakeholders, about student discipline problems; their depth, their breadth, and their effect on students and staff, and their opportunities to succeed.
Their steadfast refusal to even discuss these issues openly and honestly, should serve as proof of their unwillingness to tell stakeholders the truth about anything, especially those things that make them look like they're not doing their jobs; chronic disruption, bullying, tardiness, truancy, school violence, drugs and drug use on campus, and on, and on, and on.
There is no legitimate agenda in the APS that does not move forward when student discipline issues are discussed openly and honestly with stakeholders.
If you ask someone if they will tell you the truth, and
they will not answer, it means no.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Lorenzo Garcia, Character Counts! politicized.
School Board Member Lorenzo Garcia expressed what I felt was a reservation about the "politicization" of Character Counts! Apparently he sees that politicization as a barrier to stepping up to honest accountability as a role model of the Pillars of Character Counts!
The issue is a red herring. There is no correlation between Character Counts! on a political level, and whether there will be honest accountability for administrators and board members, as role models of a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct, link.
Nor is the argument about the personal character of any member of the leadership of the APS. It isn't about how one leads their own life.
It is about, it is only about:
Are they willing to hold themselves honestly accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and competence, under an impartial system, powerful enough to hold them accountable, even against their will?
That's the question they won't answer.
They won't answer because the answer is no.
Any answer except yes means no.
When the question is, will you tell the truth?
any answer except yes means, no.
Winston Brooks labeled as a nuisance and then closed, a complaint that his refusal to model and promote the Pillars of Character Counts! was manifest ethical misconduct.What ever the standards of conduct and competence in the leadership of the APS are , there is no honest accountability to them.
Truth be told, the real reason that the leadership of the APS does not want to be held honestly accountable as role models of the Pillars of Character Counts! is, the pillars require the truth be told.
As but one example; more than two years ago, there were senior APS leadership involved in felony criminal misconduct during the scandal in the APS Police Department, Journal link. In the interim, statutes of limitation have expired on criminal misconduct. The leadership of the APS still, has not surrendered the evidence to the District Attorney's Office. Nor will they surrender the (ethically redacted) truth to public knowledge, to stakeholders.
You can talk as much as you want to about whether
Character Counts! has been politicized, but it would serve
only to hide the fact that character doesn't count at all,
not in the leadership of the APS.
photos Mark Bralley
Open and honest discussion of role modeling of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.
Please watch my presentation during the public forum at the October 7th APS School Board Meeting. Link to the board meeting; I speak from 33:09 until 34:42.
I pointed to the fact that Board Member Robbins had mislead stakeholders when he assured them that the "district supports Character Counts! emphatically."
I pointed out to him that, when
APS Director of Communications
Rigo Chavez was asked to point to even
one single overt act of support from the
administration for Character Counts!,
he could not point to one; not one.
Robbins chose not to retract, explain, defend, or even acknowledge that he had mislead stakeholders on the district's support for Character Counts!.
I suggested that the ongoing refusal of the leadership of the APS to discuss openly and honestly, the APS Student Standards of Conduct and administrative and executive role modeling of those standards, is a manifest lack of character and courage.
The only reasons that the leadership of the APS will not discuss these issues candidly, forthrightly and honestly, is their lack of character, and/or their lack of courage. If there is a third reason, I cannot imagine it, nor can anyone in the leadership of the APS.
Board Member Lorenzo Garcia took personal umbrage. He insisted that I had insulted him personally, that I had assailed his personal character and courage. See him, 48:15 to 50:20.
His tack is a familiar one; change the subject.
The issue is not his personal character and courage overall. The truth is, as far as his personal character is concerned, I believe he has more than most on the board. Maybe more than all the rest combined.
He will rely on my alleged assault on that character, to divert attention from the fact that I have made it very clear that we are talking about one specific topic; administrative and executive role modeling of the APS Student Standards of Conduct. I know nothing of the rest of his life, nor have I made any allusions to it, ever.
No where in his attack on me, did he agree to actually participate in an open and honest discussion. He did allow that we could talk "privately". While I have no objection to a private conversation, I made it clear to him that a public discussion is called for.
I emailed him and suggested that he could settle the issue of whether he has the character and courage to discuss these subjects openly and honestly, by simply putting the subjects on the agenda for his District Relations Committee. The subject was placed on the table at the district's Policy Committee, and was immediately tabled, link. Garcia has the authority to put the subjects on the table in the committee he chairs, for open and honest discussion.
Whether he will or not, I maintain, is an issue of character and courage, not in his life, but on these issues specifically. I have invited him, as I have invited every member of the leadership of the APS, over and over again, to suggest a third reason that justifies the ongoing refusal to discuss important issues, openly and honestly.
There is not one.
cc Lorenzo Garcia upon posting.
photos Mark Bralley
Report; APS Board Meeting
There was a regular meeting of the APS Board of Education yesterday afternoon. Hot topics, Junior ROTC programs in the APS, and role modeling of the student standards of conduct.
There are people who believe there is "recruiting" going on in APS high schools, and maybe even in middle schools. Recruiting per se, is not a recognized goal of JROTC programs. What constitutes "recruiting", and whether it goes on informally, is the point of contention. My research indicates that about 10% of program participants actually enlist in any of the armed forces.
If there is recruiting going on, they are apparently not very good at it.
Several board members are in favor of the existence of JROTC programs. My own experience with them is, I saw kids in middle school who were "at risk" and went on to high school and joined the JROTC. The transformation was truly remarkable. For a significant number of students, it is a life saver.
Board member Robert Lucero is a staunch supporter. He suggested that those who had spoken against the JROTC, like those who speak out during the public forum against anything he supports, are speaking "without knowing the facts". His arrogance is appalling.
A number of board members spoke about upcoming cuts in funding for education. Most insisted that no cuts be made, others can read the tea leaves and see no way out. Interestingly, when they start talking about the cuts that will take place, they talk always of the cuts in the classroom and never of cuts in administration. Ironically, they address the issue of cuts from their seats in a board room that was so expensive, they still won't admit how much it cost. My estimate would be on the order of one million dollars spent on a board room whose very existence has not been justified by anyone in the leadership of the APS.
I am certain, if you asked Winston Brooks if there is fat to be cut in the administration of the APS, he would say, no. If you asked, why should you believe that, he would say "trust me". If instead, you asked for an impartial audit of the leadership of the APS, and independent evaluation of the fat in the administration, if he answered at all (he won't), he would say, there will be no audit. If you ask why, he will not answer.
Board President Marty Esquivel spoke briefly about the controversy over who screwed up the calculations of drop out rates; NMPED says APS didn't turn in statistics on time/in time to update the calculations. APS claims to have submitted them on time, but NMPED failed to incorporate them.
Esquivel suggests "moving on". In good ol' boy speak, that means the problem lies with the APS and they don't want any names named.
For the record, there is no choice that must be made between "moving on" and, holding accountable those who have dropped the ball. Both can be done, but are not usually done in any organization so dedicated to covering up the inadequacies and mistakes made by their leadership.
The board meeting can be viewed by linking.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
"Informed management decisions"
Mayor Elect Richard Berry is being asked over and over,
to tell us what he intends to do, who he intends to keep, and
who he intends to fire.
His answer is always the same, it's too early to tell.
There is too much that he does not yet know, to support
final decision making.
Wait until someone orders all the senior administrators
to tell him the truth about what's going really going on.
Then and only then will he have enough information
to make informed management decisions.
There are no more important questions that Berry can put to his managers than;
- What are your standards of conduct and competence?
- How do you hold yourself honestly accountable to them?
He will find many high standards are written, and
very few of them are actually enforced. In particular,
he will find very few of them actually enforced upon
any of the good ol' boys.
He will either share what he finds with us,
candidly, forthrightly and honestly,
or he will not.
In government and public service, the people have
"management" authority over the spending of their power and resources.
How are the people to make "informed management decisions",
if government and public service are not completely, utterly,
and absolutely transparent?
Will Mayor Richard J Berry create transparent accountability
to meaningful standards of conduct and competence,
for politicians and public servants in City Hall?
Whether there will be transparently accountable government
is a management decision. It is a decision that requires no
data gathering, explanation or defense.
Will Mayor Richard J Berry promise to tell us the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So far, he has not.
He could, if he chose to, share his vision with us,
make his promise to us, at the public forum tonight at
the City Council. He could speak in defense of the
transparency bill Rey Garduno has on the table, and
in defense of transparently accountable government
in general.
He could ask the Council to resurrect the
Ethical Public Service Act, link.
He won't of course, but wouldn't it be cool if he did?
Sitting down for lunch.
Lame duck Mayor Marty Chavez will be sitting down with
Mayor Elect Richard Berry
at noon today.
I am wondering, why?
According to Trip Jennings, NMI, link, Chavez said;
“...R.J. Berry will be the next mayor of Albuquerque ...
I’ve congratulated him on a great campaign.
He and I will be meeting tomorrow at noon.”
A "great" campaign?
Chavez deliberately, maliciously,and repeatedly, spread the most
mean spirited lies about
Richard Berry.
He said awful things about him.
He called him awful things.
And now, according to
good ol' boy protocol,
they will shake hands and congratulate each other on a "great" campaign.
It could be argued that a less gracious winner might say,
don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
But then that's just me.
photos Mark Bralley
Transparency on two agendas tonight.
Transparency is on the City Council meeting agenda,
link, click on agenda, item "12-L". It is a bill submitted by
Councilor Rey Garduno.
R-09-319. Calling For Transparency In The City of Albuquerque's Use of Public Funds In The Areas of Purchasing, Economic Development, Accounting, and Hiring of
Retired Employees.
The bill has been shot down twice already, link; reportedly, according to the wishes of former mayor, Marty Chavez. It has been shot down by nonsense and procedural delays.
If you believe in transparency in government, there is an opportunity to stand up for what you believe in, during the public forum.
I cannot link to the agenda for the school board meeting.
In an apparent violation of the Open Meetings Act,
the agenda is not posted on the district's website.
"Transparency" is not actually on the agenda for the APS School Board Meeting, nor likely, will it ever be. The leadership of the APS is trying desperately to avoid an open and honest discussion of student standards of conduct and of, executive and administrative role modeling of those standards, link.
During the last board meeting, Board Member David Robbins told stakeholders;
"...in regards to Character Counts! ... the school district is emphatic that we support it."
That statement is categorically untrue.
APS Director of Communications, Rigo Chavez will admit to me verbally, the administration offers no district wide support for Character Counts!. He steadfastly refuses to put anything in writing.When asked, repeatedly, what is the APS student standard of conduct, he will not answer.
Robbins will be asked to defend or retract his proclamation that there is any support for Character Counts!, emphatic or otherwise.
Again, the opportunity to stand up for what you believe in (high standards of conduct and competence for students, and requiring administrators and board members to step up as role models of those standards) at a public forum.
Both meetings start at 5pm.
Pick a side, pick a meeting, and step up.
photos Mark Bralley
Only now, is there really hope for a change.
"Change", the universal hope of everyone but the incumbent,
is in the future for City Hall.
With the election of RJ Berry,
we have changed only one
position; mayor.
Change in City Hall is still just a promise. Whether or not it becomes a reality has to do with our continued attention to, and engagement in, the process.
There is an entrenchment of politicos in city government.
They will not go quietly.
Surely this is a great step forward, but in truth it is only the first step of many.
photo Mark Bralley
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Should politicians and public servants have to tell the truth?
If you go into any courtroom, even over a ten dollar parking ticket, the first thing that happens is you have to promise to tell the truth.
Why is it that politicians and public servants don't have to promise to tell the truth about what they are doing with our power and our resources?
There are only two kinds of truth; the truth we have a right to know, and the truth we have no right to know.
Right now, those with the greatest need to hide the truth, are the ones who decide what truth gets told.
In fact, the truth would be better served by an impartial, transparent, and binding process.
If there is such a thing as a higher standard of conduct and competence in politics and public service, that standard includes telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Marty Chavez caught ripping off a "Bralley."
Disclosure to the bone numbingly oblivious; Mark Bralley
posts his photographs on this site often.
Marty Chavez has stolen one of Bralley's photographs.
It was stolen from a story on Bralley's own website, link.
The photo was taken at an AFSCME forum; the forum that Chavez "no showed", and then received the AFSCME endorsement anyway.
It turns out that the endorsement didn't actually reflect the will of the rank and file, link.
The ripped off photograph showed up next on Joe Monahan's site, link.
Did Chavez steal it personally? I'm sure that he will argue that those who stole the photograph did so without his knowledge or permission. Just like he will argue that the two of his minions that shook down a local businessman, on videotape, link, did so without his knowledge or permission also.
It doesn't make any difference. You have heard the disclaimer at the end of every ad;
my name is so and so, and I am responsible for this message.
Well this time the "so and so" took responsibility for felony theft.
He may argue that this isn't stealing. It is instead, a kind of "finders keepers". Except that just because you find something on the internet doesn't make it free.
Mark Bralley lives by number of rules, two of which are;
he doesn't use, or allow the use of, his photographs for the
purpose of negative campaigning, and
you don't get to use his stuff without asking.
To him it is simple; there are two kinds of "stuff" in the world;
the stuff that belongs to you, and the stuff that doesn't. And,
if it doesn't belong to you, don't mess with it.
Mark Bralley is a professional photographer; he takes his
photographs as seriously as his livelihood.
Every picture he takes is copyrighted. What that means
is that you can't take one of his photographs and put it in
one of your campaign fliers.
Compare Bralley's picture with Chavez's flier. Is it the same
photograph?
Bralley reports that is common practice for those who rip him off to think they can get away with using it if they simply flip the photo, a mirror image.
I suspect that Marty Chavez is about to find out that that's not the way it works.
photos Mark Bralley
everybody lies
For the purposes of the discussion, lying is;
- thinking about what you are saying or writing,
- admitting that the words and/or their order would cause someone to believe as truth, something that isn't true at all and then
- writing or saying it anyway.
Richard Romero, looked into our eyes and said, he would step up as a role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.Nobody else has.
N
ot on the School Board, and
not in the senior administration.Every generation expects the next generation to be the first generation to step up to honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence.
Standards of conduct, higher than the law. Standards of conduct that specifically and explicitly require honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence.
Impartial accountability, principled and powerful enough to hold even the most powerful accountable, even against their will.
Standards of conduct that require the telling of the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Richard Romero should be running away with this election.
He stepped up as a role model and now he is keeping it secret.
I don't get it.
No one wants to pick a side on the issue of the APS student standards of conduct.
No one wants to say or write or stand, on the words or the principles of the Pillars of Character Counts.
Talk about an elephant in the room.
Why even bother with it?
Why don't we just stop telling our kids about
George Washington and the cherry tree?
The truth is, the best thing young George could have done was
to hire Sam Bregman.
You pick a side when you don't pick a side.
Worse, you teach a child what it looks like
to not pick a side.
“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality” Dante Alighieri
Walk your talk at the School board meeting. Next Wednesday,
5 pm,
photos Mark Bralley
Special Session, same old, same old.
One would suppose, I suppose, that given the circumstances
surrounding webcasting the legislature; the fights, the victories,
the promises, etc, the Special Session of the Legislature would
be webcast to stakeholders.
The truth; in the interim between the last session and this,
nothing has been done to bring the webcasting of the people's
business any closer to fruition. We will still have the same
crappy one camera, google earth view of the Senate, and who
knows what in the House, and in committee meetings in both
houses.
There is no reason that the New Mexico Legislature cannot
set the standard for the free world for open and transparent
deliberation of our interests, except that the "powers that be",
like doing business in secret from stakeholders, and really
have no intention of doing anything except being dragged
kicking and screaming into the future.
Even our self professed "leader" in ethics reform and open
government, Lt Gov Diane Denish, can point to nothing
she has done in the interim to move legislative webcasting
toward the state of the art, and she is the President of the
Senate.
The fight is not over; not by a long shot.
Speaker of the House takes issue with Jennings and Smith.
Speaker of the House Ben Lujan has written a letter that has been published on Haussamen, link, NMI, link, and other political blogs statewide.
The letter is written in rebuttal to a letter written by Senate President Pro Tem Tim Jennings, link, and to remarks previously make by Senator John Arthur Smith. Jennings and Smith both expressed the concern for the need for deep budget cuts including cuts to education.
In his letter, Lujan spanked the two senators, whose names he would not mention, for sharing their concerns with the people before he and others had had the opportunity to massage them.
I am deeply disappointed that two high ranking members of the Senate independently and prematurely communicated information pertaining to budget cuts that does not represent the position or the views of the legislature as a collective body.Lujan would have preferred;
The work group representing the House, the Senate and the Executive are making strong efforts to develop recommendations for our collective consideration. They are still negotiating strategies to address these matters. Once the parameters are defined, these considerations will be thoroughly discussed in our respective caucuses before moving forward to a special session.I see smoky (figuratively speaking) back room conversations about the public interests that do not include the meaningful participation of stakeholders. Lujan claims in his letter, "stakeholders will be a significant part of the discourse".
I am not sure how that can be, if those who share their feeling and opinions with stakeholders are then spanked in public.
"Therefore, the information communicated by the two senators creating the perception that this is the collective position of the Legislature is unfair and disrespectful to all members of the Legislature."Lujan's standing and credibility in attacking Jennings' and Smith's ethics and integrity, is shaky at best, link.
photo Mark Bralley
APS graduation rate skyrockets.
The Journal reports, link, APS' graduation rate has risen 17%
due to the NMPED's recalculation of graduation rates statewide.
Secretary of Education Veronica Garcia said in a written statement Friday the new rates were calculated after districts submitted 15,834 changes to their graduation data after the reporting deadline — a contention disputed by some districts including APS and Las Cruces that say their information was submitted on time.One of the "corrections" that raised APS' rate, was based on the decision to leave ninth graders, who had flunked the ninth grade already, out of calculations. This fact had been reported in an earlier edition of the Journal, and has since been dropped from the Journal coverage.
"...Rose-Ann McKernan, Executive Director of Instruction and Accountability at APS said,I cannot imagine the defense for the illogical dropping of students least likely to graduate, from the statistical calculations. Nobody has offered any explanation or defense of the move, which serves only to falsely raise the apparent graduation rate.
The change in the graduation rate does not reflect a significant difference in the number of graduating students, but rather in the overall number of students tracked.
... many students should not have been counted because they were not first-time ninth-graders.
Denish's plea for even more money, makes no sense.
Lt Governor Diane Denish says she can stop negative campaigning in the race for the governor's office. All you have to do is to send her more money.
According to blogger Burgos, link, the Journal ran the following for Denish in their Friday online Journal;
"Stand with me against the screaming and the insults," said Denish, who added that a contribution of $25, $50 or $100 would help her "put her foot down and say 'enough is enough!'"How exactly, is Denish going to put an end to "the screaming and insults"? The only scenario I can imagine, if Denish managed to accumulate enough money; ten, twenty, thirty million dollars, at some point all of her opposition would see the futility of trying to compete against her and simply drop out of the race, ending the screaming and the insults.
Short of that, how does piling more money into Denish's already overflowing war chest have any effect at all on the tone of the campaign?
I have an idea. Send me some money; $25, $50, or $100. Stand with me in ending cold winters. Any contribution will help me put my foot down on cold winters; not just here in New Mexico, but around the world.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Marty Chavez, Richard Berry, tax records
Marty Chavez argues, Richard Berry will not show us his tax returns, therefore we should believe that Berry is hiding something untoward.
The exercise of a constitutionally protected right does not require explanation or defense. The exercise of a constitutionally protected right does not require proving one's innocence in the exercise.
Chavez argues that Berry's exercise of his right to privacy, constitutes failure to disclose sources of income. Yet, as Chavez knows, all candidates had to disclose all sources of income early in the process.
Berry declared his sources of income, according to the law
long ago.
If you google; Chavez, Berry, and character assassination,
you will hit upon The pot calling the kettle black, wikilink.
Marty Chavez is a bully, and he has not ended the culture of corruption in City Hall.
I am sitting here listening to Bob Clark interviewing Marty Chavez.
Disclosure; I am sitting here wanting him to screw up.
Clark's job; ask the best questions.
Chavez' job; answer them candidly, forthrightly and honestly.
Clark is pushing back. Chavez is ahead on points;
- a lot of his arguments make a lot of sense, and
- his accomplishments are spectacular.
I am not the only one to call Marty Chavez a bully.
So the question becomes, if you have the opportunity to
elect a bully, just because he gets things done, do you?
Even though? that means at some later time he can do something to you, you don't want done;
something that a majority of stakeholders don't want done.
Chavez intends t grow Albuquerque from Isleta to Sandia,
and the mountains to the Rio Puerco. Has he asked you if
you want to live in the middle of a city of 10 million people?
Or if you want your kids to live there?
He intends to do it regardless.
In general, bullies get their way. Why else do they bully?
Do we want to elect a successful bully?
And then there is the issue of public corruption.
If you concede that it exists; then you concede two possibilities;
- it can be ended, or
- it can not be ended.
transparent accountability to meaningful standards ofthen you concede two more possibilities;
conduct and competence for politicians and public servants,
- it has not ended because it is impossible to end it, or
- it has not ended because those with the power, authority, and responsibility to end it have not done so.
- deliberately, or
- inadvertently.
(it just never occurred to them, our power and resourcesthen all they have to do is provide transparent accountability.
could be protected by transparent accountability.)
ASAP
If they have made, if they are making, a deliberate decision
to except themselves from transparent accountability to
meaningful standards of conduct and competence, you have
two choices;
- tolerate it,
- or end it.
if anyone can thinks of any other way, now would be the time.
Else; it is torches and pitchforks.
If enough torches and pitchforks are carried to the same place
at the same time, tyrants can be deposed. Bullies can be
rebuffed.
There are castles to storm.
If inclined to torches and pitchforks there two upcoming
opportunities;
- the public forum at a regular meeting of the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education or
- the public forum at a City Council Meeting.
There is a time, a day, and a place.
1700 hours, Wednesday, October 7,
the public forum at the next regular meeting of the
Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education.
If your inclination is toward an honest and open discussion of standards and accountability in city government, there is another castle to storm.
There is a time, a day, and a place.
1700 hours, Wednesday October 7,
the public forum at the next regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Albuquerque,
Vincent E. Griego Chambers
Bernalillo County Government Center
One Civic Plaza Albuquerque
photos Mark Bralley
Villanucci and Chavez play hardball. Not!
Mayor Marty Chavez was on the Jim Villanucci Show yesterday.
Villanucci began by reporting that he had done hours of research on the Mayor in preparation for the interview. He reported finding a great deal of worthy accomplishment. The rest of the interview consisted of one slow-pitch softball question after another.
At one point, Villanucci gave Chavez the choice of three
controversial subjects to address.
I may have missed it, I was moving back and forth between
online and on air, which don't run simultaneously, but I
didn't hear Villanucci ask the Mayor a single question about
the culture of corruption and incompetence in City Hall.
Not one question about the Bode tapes, the landscaping audit and the apparent corruption and/or incompetence in Chavez' Department of Municipal Development, a Balloon Museum that cost taxpayers $1,000 per square foot, cost overruns on the Airport Observation Deck, corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the Albuquerque Police Department, etc, etc, etc.
He didn't even challenge Chavez on the blatantly, egregiously dishonest campaign commercials that Chavez is currently running on KKOB.
I am not suggesting that Villanucci is a Chavez lackey, but
if he was, things would not have gone better for Chavez.
Movement toward an Ethics Commission.
An effort to write legislation creating an Ethics Commission is underway. A small group of legislators from both houses, met Wednesday, Sept. 30, in an effort to begin crafting a bill that might actually pass both houses. Heath Haussamen supplies comprehensive coverage and the quotables, link.
Under debate, the size of the commission, the make-up, the appointment process, and the power the commission will wield.
There is apparent agreement on the size, 11 members; four appointed by Democratic legislative leadership, four by Republicans, and three by the governor. A compromise was struck between those who wanted one gubernatorial appointment and those who wanted as many as four. Diane Denish was represented in the discussion by Eric Vasquez, her senior policy analyst. He is reported to have lobbied for a larger number of gubernatorial appointments.
“It seems like the governor should have more stake in the game than just one member,” said Vasquez, whose boss is currently running for governor.All of the struggle to stack the commission with "our guys" concerns me. It makes sense only if they are planning, or expect, that battles will be fought along party lines rather than according to ethical principles. In other words, the whole thing is a shame.
If the commission does not end up powerful and independent, it will serve no purpose. Citizens weary of the relentless corruption in state government will find it hard to place faith in any commission not beyond reproach, beyond the appearance of a conflict of interest, beholden to any one but the people and agreed upon ethical principles.
One of the key indicators of the trustworthiness of the commission and the process, is transparency. All else equal, the greater the transparency, the greater the trustworthiness. Any effort to unnecessarily limit transparency is real cause for doubt.
One of the bones of contention is, when will violations be made public? I would argue that more damage than good would be created if violations were made public before they are substantiated. However, at the very moment that an allegation is determined to be credible, the allegation should be made public. The right of stakeholders to know the whole (ethically redacted) truth through out the entire process is key to stakeholder confidence in the process.
It appears that a number of lawmakers are arguing that secrets be kept until after "legislative committees take "action'". Being the cynic, I read that as, keep everything secret until the good ol' boys have had the opportunity to cover as much ass as possible.
Interestingly, State Senator Linda Lopez, reportedly argued that violations of ethical codes should be made public as soon as the violation is determined by the commission.“The public has a right to know who this person is,” Lopez said.I regard this as a change in the position of the Senator. She has on previous occasions has been wishy-washy on ethics reform, "allowed" much needed ethics reform to die in the Senate Rules Committee she chairs ("the place ethics reform bill go to die"), and worried aloud about a commission being "too powerful", link.
According to Haussamen;
"King - The state’s top law-enforcement officer told legislators on Thursday that, while he supports giving such a commission subpoena power and some level of “enforcement authority,” he suspects that the bill that emerges may instead have the authority only to serve as an advisory committee."In which case, all bets are off.
One of the sticking points, I predict, will be defining the word ethical. I have researched the subject fairly thoroughly, and have not found any "legal" definition at all.
I have suggested an approach to defining ethical. Concede that we will never create a comprehensive list of every possible meaning of ethical, and instead agree that any credible list of meanings would include; telling the truth.
The absence of any widely accepted "legal" definition of the word ethical, is perplexing since there is state law requiring "ethical" conduct;
A legislator, public officer or employee shall conduct himself in a manner that justifies the confidence placed in him by the people, at all times maintaining the integrity and discharging ethically the high responsibilities of public service.Currently, that law applies only to state offices and not to local entities like the APS Board of Education, which cannot be held accountable for their ethical misconduct in any recognized venue.
Transparency remains key.
“The best government is open government,”While there seems to be widespread agreement among
(NM Attorney General) King said.
stakeholders, on that sentiment, the devil they say,
is in the details.
photo Mark Bralley
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Jennings sez, the people don't know the truth.
Heath Haussamen has posted a message from Senate President Pro Tem Tim Jennings, link. Jennings wrote;
"Recent revelation that the executive still does not have a clear understanding of what New Mexico’s prior fiscal year tax collections are leads me to believe that the Legislature is not receiving accurate information from the executive."By logical extension and premise, he has said that the citizens of the State of New Mexico have not been told the truth about resources belonging, fundamentally, to them.
I replied to Jenning's post. I invited him to step up as the champion of transparently accountable politics and public service, at his very next opportunity.
This is Jennings in the Senate Rules Committee;
"the place where ethics bills went to die."
photo Mark Bralley
"All that is necessary for evil to prevail in the world, is for good men to do nothing."
All that is necessary for Marty Chavez to prevail in election
is for good men to do nothing. Eddy Burke, derived
Nine of ten eligible voters will not.
Early voting ends tomorrow; vote.
Stand up for what you believe in; vote.
Honor those who sacrifices enable your ballot
by fulfilling your civic responsibility; vote.
Vote against public corruption and incompetence.
Vote against Marty Chavez.
KKOB's Bob Clark interviewed Richard Berry.
I will begin by saying that I think Richard Berry scored big time; sincere, articulate, knowledgeable, and humble enough to repeatedly point out that he needed to meet with the rank and file before deciding how problems will best be addressed.
Bob Clark's job was to ask the best possible questions.
Among the questions not among the best questions;
Please ask Rep Berry;I get it. I am among a very, very few who think that question is the most important question of all.
Is it possible to end corruption in city government - and how will you do it.
thanks
But is it really among the least important of questions?
How can they be planning to end public corruption and incompetence, with no plan to end public corruption and incompetence.?
Bob Clark has one more chance to ask the question.
Mayor Marty Chavez could be asked to answer it tomorrow.
The only way you or I could ask him to answer the question
would be if we sprang out of a bush and before his
"body" guards, link, could spring into action.
Perhaps he might be able to ask as well, how is it that Chavez' crony's nephew's landscaping company sold crappy concrete to taxpayers, link, and still, no heads have rolled.
Or, about why his Ethics in Public Service Act is teats up, link.
Or, about why Rey Garduno's transparency bill is being held up, link.
Or, about the Bode tapes, link, and the numerous allegations of shakedowns on his behalf.
Or, about ABQPAC and howhe hasn't changed one bit.
photo Mark Bralley
Is there corruption in every police force?
I would suppose that if you were willing to dig deep enough,
you would be able to find "corruption" in every police force.
But, you would not find it in the depth, breadth, and apparent frequency that you find it in the Chavez Schultz police dept, link.
Leadership begins at the top.
So do corruption and incompetence.
photos Mark Bralley
Is Richard Berry impeccably honest?
Richard Berry avers that he is regarded as impeccably honest.
"faultless; flawless; irreproachable, unassailable, unexceptionable"I have in my hand a campaign mailer. In it, it is represented that Marty Chavez supports a $300M "trolley". Never mind that Chavez is not "currently" endorsing the trolley, let's look at the math.
Berry says that the "trolley" estimated to cost $300M will actually cost three times that amount.The repeated message through out the flier is that Marty Chavez wants to spend a billion dollars on a "trolley". Three times 300M is not 1B. If the initial number, 300M, cannot be fudged up to $333.33333333 1/3M, then the product of multiplying by 3, cannot be fudged up to $1B, simply because $1B has a more pejorative ring to it. Not, and at the same time, claiming to be impeccably honest.
Does this put him in the same class as Marty Chavez? Technically it does, they both, are on the same side of the line between honesty and dishonesty.But, in this election, as in every election before, we are left with choosing the lesser, or in this case, the least of the evils.
And, imho, Richard Berry is far, far less dishonest than Marty Chavez.
Further, I would argue, we don't need "vision", promises or plans, nearly as much as we need honest.
photos Mark Bralley
Open letter to APS Executive Director of Communications Rigo Chavez
I have emailed Rigo Chavez in an effort to get some straight answers to legitimate questions about the public interests and about his public service. Here to fore, no answers have been provided.
Mr Chavez,
There are three questions on the table;
1. What is the APS Student Standard of Conduct?
2. What is the entire administrative commitment to Character Counts?
3. Who is the district's Custodian of public records? (You have lead me to believe that you are, yet board policy clearly states otherwise.)
These questions have been on your desk for a very long time; so long in fact, that it appears that you have no intention of answering them at all.
Why are you not responding to these legitimate questions about the public interests and about your public service?
macq
photo Mark Bralley
APS twin towers not in budget cuts.
School districts statewide are being threatened with budget
cuts ranging as high as ten percent, link. In the same report
APS Superintendent Winston Brooks is quoted regarding
where the cuts will fall. There is even a report on the Journal's
sports page, outlining the effect on high school sports program.
Nowhere in either report, is it suggested that there will be any
consideration at all of staffing cuts in the administration at
6400 Uptown Blvd.
When APS bought the twin towers years ago, it was with the
promise that half of the building would be used to consolidate
the administration, and the other half would be rented out to
pay for the building.
Since, every nook and cranny, on both sides of the building
was filled by the stampede to find a slot at 6400 Upyours Blvd.
There are those, myself included, who believe that there is
some dead wood in the administration of the APS. The
existence is hard to prove, as it is nearly impossible to get
any information out of the APS. But the supposition stands
to reason.
There is a way to find out. You pay independent auditors
to come into the APS administration and carefully examine
each and every administrative position; the executive
administrative assistant to that administrator, the administrative
assistant to that administrator, and the secretary to the
administrative assistant to the administrator.
Are there good, decent, capable, hardworking administrators
in the APS administration? Of course there are. And it is grossly
unfair to them to allow their reputations to be soiled by the
leadership's steadfast refusal to do anything at all about the
not so good, not so decent, and not so hardworking friends
and relatives that work there.
APS will be coming to voters in a few months, looking for
another $650M. At the same time, they steadfastly refuse
to allow any audit that comes in and names the names of
the corrupt, the incompetent, or the dead wood in the administration.
They will argue that the cost; a few tens of thousands of
dollars, is too great.
The cost of not doing the audit is greater, far greater.
No audit; no more money. Not even one thin dime.
photo Mark Bralley
Taxpayers paying lawyers $400-$700 per hour to hide the truth.
Kate Nash reports, link, that the State Investment Office has lawyers assigned "... in part to help handle public records requests and subpoenas."
The original contract, worth $30,000, has been amended five times and is now worth $2.8 million, the records show.The record suggests that they are earning between $400 and $700 dollars an hour to suppress rather than surrender public records.
The most recent amendment says the company will "provide advice and assist with reviewing documentation and responding to subpoenas, requests and inquiries from regulators and other governmental agencies, and document requests made pursuant to public disclosure laws."
On the other hand, there are no $400 to $700 an hour lawyers assigned to help taxpayers find out what politicians and public servants are doing with their tax dollars.
