In your face PIO abuse.

Public Information Officers have two roles;

1. the imaginary one, where they help the public find information about the government of the people, by the people and for the people, and
2. the actual one, where we surrender tax dollars to pay public servants to make it difficult to find out anything about the public interests and public service. They work in the interests of politicians and public servants with something to hide.
   

Apparently, not content with making it difficult for Journal reporter Thomas J. Cole to find out anything about Governor Bill Richardson that might make him look incompetent and/or corrupt, the Governor's press secretary, Gilbert Gallegos stands accused by Cole, link, of going an extra mile;

In my case, Gilbert Gallegos, the governor's combative press secretary, has gone a step further, recently ordering public-information officers throughout government not to speak to me.

Bullshit of course, but what are you going to do about it?

What more proof could you need that you have lost control over power and resources that are fundamentally your own, than the use of that power and those resources to keep from you, the truth about the wielding of that power and the spending of those resources?

Denish claims to be foregoing PSAs, but they're still running.

Lt. Governor Diane Denish was in another PSA this morning. It was paid for by the New Mexico Department of Health, and ran on KKOB.

Recently, she claimed she was going to stop doing that.
The NM Department of Health said they weren't going to use
the PSA anymore.

This is the part where it's fair to point out how cheap talk is, and
actions speak louder than words.

Update; it has been pointed out to me that these ads may have been in the works and "unstoppable", although no mention of that possibility was made by either Denish or the NM Dept of Health.

According to blogger Terrel, link,

A spokeswoman for the department said they have pulled the Denish ad. The department had planned to stop the PSAs in January anyway.

Ed Adams, bulletproof?

Ed Adams was promoted to Chief Administrative Officer by Mayor Marty Chavez. This despite overwhelming evidence that as the head of the Department of Municipal Development, he failed to create or maintain a system that actually protected taxpayers interests in the management of contracts between the city and independent contractors working for the city.

There is one contract in particular, between the city and Chavez' crony's nephew's landscaping company, where taxpayers got ripped off big time. An investigation was done following a complaint made to the City of Albuquerque's Office of Internal Audit and Investigations. Their report is posted online, link.

To my knowledge, Ed Adams was never asked to explain how a contract could have been so badly managed by his subordinates.

Instead, he was given a bonus; a contract agreement between Adams and the city, was entered into by the then Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Perlman.

The Journal reports, link, City Attorney Bob White, asked to investigate the one of a kind contract, found the contract legal and binding. This despite the fact that according to White, "... the Perlman memo had never been sent to city attorneys "pursuant to the normal contract review process."Again, from the Journal report, the Perlman memo included the following;"In addition, it is clear that (Adams') service to the City as an unclassified employee has been exemplary."That "exemplary service" included of course, the failure to see that contracts were managed in the public best interests, by city employees subordinate to Adams in the DMD.

Neither Adams nor Perlman has responded to the Journal's questions directly; the Journal reports that Perlman did not return a phone call and Adams referred them to the Mayor's Office.

The expectation that Ed Adams should have explain his abject failure as the Director of the Department of Municipal Development to see that the contract with Mountain West Golfscapes, Inc,was managed in the public best interests, is legitimate.

But he will not have to explain anything at all.

Business as usual, the good ol' boys give each other sweet deals, and when asked legitimate questions about the public interests or about their public service, rather than a candid, forthright and honest response, we get referred to someone else or, blown off entirely.




photos Mark Bralley

UNM has $4.5M worth of VPs. Are we getting our money's worth?

The Journal has a lengthy exposé on UNM's many Vice Presidents and their salaries, link.

Readers are left, as they always are when they read reports such as these, thinking, wow, that's a lot of VPs, or wow, that's a lot of money. But, compared to what?

The real questions are;

• do we, taxpayers, need this many VPs, and
• do we need to pay them this much?

Those questions never get answered. UNM President David Schmidly is apparently ready to admit that he has hired too many VPs, but only in the context of the current budget crunch.

Before the crunch, he (apparently) thought he needed between 19 and 25 VPs (depending on how you count them).

If you want to ask two questions;

1. Do we need this particular Vice President, and
2. do we need to pay them this much?

you will be hard pressed to find an objective answer. If you ask the person who hired them, the answer to both questions is of course, yes.

But if you dig a little deeper, you find in many cases that the justification for the salary, and maybe even for the job is, everyone else has one and, everyone else pays that much, specious arguments, both.

Taxpayers find themselves being whipsawn between salaries here and salaries there. Everytime APS hires a new superintendent we play the same game. We have to pay what Tucson pays, plus a little more to sweeten the deal, then Tucson has to pay what Albuquerque pays, plus a little more, until superintendents are being paid more than a quarter of a million dollars a year with no more justification than, "everybody else is doing it".

Who knows what we might find if we hired an impartial person to look at a job, the amount and complexity of the work, the skill set required, and determine what we should actually have to pay to hire someone for the job.

Nor will you ever.

Schmidly is not going to hire someone to critically examine his hiring of VPs, nor are the regents.

It's just not the way they roll.




photo Mark Bralley

Records requests over job cuts.

Governor Bill Richardson says he is going to lay off some of his political appointees. A number of people have asked, who?

Their questions came in the form of requests to inspect the public records of who is being laid off.

Richardson's response, through spokesman Gilbert Gallegos,

"it's not necessary, nor is it appropriate or dignified to identify individuals who are losing their jobs".

The New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act does not provide such an exception.

Which begs the question, are public records closed unless proved otherwise, Richardson's position, or are records open unless proved otherwise?

Should we have to seek permission to see public records, or
should public servants need permission to hide them?

Are the records ours, or theirs?

By placing the burden on the requester, government is less transparent.

If the burden were on the public servant who wants to hide the record, government would be more transparent.

This situation points to a need for an impartial and relatively speedy system for deciding which records do and don't enjoy exception to the law.

Denish has some more 'splainin' to do.

Jim Scarantino has uncovered more stimulus fund spending
by Lt Governor Diane Denish, link.

Of interest is a comment left on the post by someone who will
identify himself only as "Richard".

It is for the most an ad hominem attack on Scarantino and his blog.

Richard is unhappy because Scarantino didn't go to Denish
and ask her for some explanation of the spending.

In his response, Scarantino points out correctly;

Fair point. Indeed, Denish’s office has criticized us for not asking them to comment. Problem is, they’ve never answered any questions, even when we spell them out in e-mails with the promise we would print their answers verbatim.

That is my experience as well.

She did the same thing to me when I asked her to clear up the confusion over whether she would really support an independent body that would oversee public records requests.

Politicians and public servants like Denish, can't respond to legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service, by ignoring the questions.

It is a fundamental flaw in our government.

It is proof positive that we have lost control over power and
resources that are fundamentally our own.

Apparent problem with Ethics Commission Legislation

Steve Terrel, link, follows up on Jim Scarantino, link.

There might be some constitutional issues in jailing nonmembers of the commission, for leaking information about ethics charges.

Terrel hopes they won't pass flawed legislation;

"Hopefully our wise Legislature will see clear not to pass a bill that has foreseeable constitutional violations."

I say, hopefully they will fix this simple problem before the legislature even convenes, and pass this important legislation.

APS looking for input on cell phones.

So they say, link. Being a cynic, having been there, having done
that, I doubt that they really are. My experience is, they are
looking for some input that supports their intention.

They intend to ban cell phones from school campuses.

There is one opinion here that matters more than most.

It is the opinion of the teachers and staff members who are
expected to enforce this "stupid rule" against the wishes of
nearly every student in the APS. It is they who will pay the
piper when kids look for someone to hold accountable.

APS has a department called Research, Development and
Accountability. They have the wherewithal to survey teachers
and determine with some degree of certainty and accuracy,
their buy in.

According to an online calculator, link, of random survey size
and accuracy, RDA could survey 400 or so teachers, and get
results that are accurate within 4%, + or -, with 90% confidence.

A one item survey; piece of cake.

They won't of course. It's just not the way they roll.

A fundamental difference.

When Rep Janice Arnold-Jones and Doug Turner were asked to point to a fundamental difference between them, neither could.


I can.


If you go to Errors of Enchantment and watch the Candidate Forum video, link, at approximately 1:45:40 you will hear me ask both candidates to describe the limit they would place on transparency in government.


Doug Turner went looking for instances of government that should be open.

Rep Janice Arnold-Jones went looking for instances that
should not; and could not point to one
(except those provided by the law, of course).

The approach is fundamentally different. One presumes
opaque except by exception, the other presumes
transparent except by exception.

Diane Denish, Susana Martinez, and Allen Weh
were not even there to take the question, and still
have not answered it.

All else equal, which is the more likely to provide really transparent government?

I would rank them in the following order.

1. Rep Janice Arnold-Jones

2. Doug Turner

3. (in alphabetic order) Diane Denish, Susana Martinez, and Allen Weh.




photos Mark Bralley

The APS split, cherry picking?

There are a number of northwest side residents who want to
see APS split into two districts. Their rationale according the
the Journal, link;

"... splitting from the 87,000-plus student Albuquerque Public Schools would help improve the education of their students, including those at West Mesa with its dismal graduation rates.

... a smaller district with a scaled-back administration ... would be more responsive to needs of the classroom.

... give our kids a better education, bring parents into the process, and increase performance."

All of these arguments are specious.

Whether or not a district administration is responsive to the
needs of the classroom, has nothing to do with district size,
and everything to do with the attitude of the administration
toward the people in the classroom.

If the APS administration is unresponsive to the classroom, that unresponsiveness flows directly from APS Superintendent Winston Brooks' deliberate decision to bring all decision making power back into the district headquarters under his personal control, and the teachers' union failure to stand in his way.

It was he, with a rubber stamp from the school board, who decided to ignore the 70,000+ years of teaching experience in APS classrooms.

There is no guarantee that the superintendent hired to run a new northwest side district will not do exactly the same thing.

The lack of opportunity for stakeholder input has to do with executive and administrative conceit and arrogance, not with district size.

It has to do with government that doesn't give a rat's ass
about input from the governed.

The seat of decision making can be in central office, or it can be in the neighborhood school. The largest district in the country can respect the education, expertise, and experience of its teachers, and the smallest can ignore them.

It is a deliberate choice by a superintendent, not a function of size.

According to the Journal,

"... APS chief Winston Brooks, charge (sic) that the proposed district is "cherry picking" its schools, leaving APS with an even more difficult road than it has now.
... the proposed district (would) leave out many of the poorest neighborhoods, students in the new district would outperform those in the rest of the city.

If approved, the new district would make it "really hard" for Albuquerque Public Schools "to increase graduation rates and proficiency levels when we get left with the poorest kids," Brooks said."

The truth is; test scores correlate tightly with SES (socio-economic status). Experts, given the SES of a school can predict test scores with great accuracy. Tests scores are a surprisingly accurate indicator of SES.

If richer neighborhood schools are removed from the APS, the APS overall performance indicators will show a decline.

So what?

Is the issue increasing students' performance, or looking good?

Brooks argues, it will be hard to increase graduation rates and proficiency levels if left with the poorest kids.

The graduation rates of those particular kids are going to remain the same whether the district splits or not. To imply that splitting the district somehow disadvantages those particular students, is not honest. It's just easier to hide that simple truth, if you can mix in higher performance rates of more affluent students.

NM Public Education Secretary
Veronica Garcia has been drawn
into the fray.

According to the Journal,

"Garcia met with APS in November to discuss the proposal but said the district has still not provided her information about the effect of a split, student growth projections, transportation and other issues."

If anyone wants to point to an indicator of the real problem, consider the fact that the NM PED Secretary can ask APS for facts and figures, and then not get them.


If the northwest side really wants more input into the education of their offspring, they would do well to elect someone other than Robert Lucero to represent them on the school board; someone with less conceit and arrogance;

someone who might actually respond to their emails.




photos Mark Bralley

More windows will be broken.

Over the weekend, vandals broke between $8K and $10K
worth of windows at Cochiti Elementary School, link.

KOB reported, link, APS spent $619,000 last year, repairing vandalism at APS schools; a new record.

I would suggest, if character education were taught, and if
expectations were enforced on APS campuses, that number
would go down.

When I was teaching character education, I admitted that character education was not going to change the worst kids into good kids.

What it does do, is push the undecideds in the right direction.

There are kids who think about it for a minute, when their peers
say, let's go break some windows.

APS is giving those kids nothing to work with
as they make their decision.

Do the math, the fewer kids that think vandalism is acceptable,
the less vandalism there will be.

In a very real sense, the leadership of the APS is responsible
for vandalism in schools because they steadfastly refuse to
invest in any training that would lead students down a different path.

There is no character education in the APS.

There is no discipline philosophy for getting kids under control.

There only cleaning up the mess afterward.

To the tune of the better part of a million dollars a year.

Unscientific poll points to problems in the APD.

The poll on the Eye on Albuquerque, link, was "unscientific".

That means the results are unreliable. It doesn't mean the results are inaccurate.

If "eye" readers are really in the know about the inner workings and hidden mechanisms in the Albuquerque Police Department, there are real problems.

The suggestions of problems in the leadership of the APD are so relentless, it would seem prudent to investigate them.

The problem is, the system doesn't work that way.

If anyone wants an investigation done,
they must first do the investigation they want done.

And if the investigation reveals corruption and incompetence,
maybe another investigation will be done by those powerful
enough to do something about what they find. Or not.

The good ol' boys don't necessarily like each other. They may not even get along. But they act as one in defending the good ol' boy system from attack by outsiders.

Mayor Richard Berry may come to regret his choice for Chief of Police. Or he may not. Likely, he will just ignore the criticism and act like nothing is wrong.

That works out alright for him, and for Chief Ray Schultz,
but not so good for the rank and file who complain about
corruption, incompetence, and retaliation for pointing to either.

"Compulsory" education.

Consider the idiom;

You can lead a horse to water,
but you can't make him drink.

and its corollary

You can drag a kid to school,
but you can't make him learn.

While attendance can be made compulsory, learning cannot.

There is no such thing as a disengaged learner.
The concept is oxymoronic.

NM-Leftnright, link, points to a misguided plan to deny learner permits to children who are perpetual truants. They report the following;

Santa Fe - The Public Education Department hears testimony on a proposed rule that would make good grades and school attendance a pre-requisite for granting teens a driver's permit.

Education Secretary Veronica Garcia says the idea is to ensure kids take school seriously and to get them in the habit of attending regularly by 9th grade so they're less likely to drop out.

It is difficult to believe that anyone with any teaching experience can come to the conclusion that if you drag a kid to school enough times, s/he will "get in the habit of attending regularly".


What do these folks suppose happens when the recalcitrant is dragged kicking and screaming to school? Does anyone really suppose that they settle down and get to work?

News flash; they don't.

For the most, they disrupt the education of 29 other kids for the rest of the day.

The same folks who would advocate dragging kids to school against their will, will argue;

They can't learn if they aren't in school.

There is a kernel of truth there, though it disregards completely the out of school learning opportunities. Not the least of which is on-line learning.

But for the most, the argument is specious.
It presumes that if a kid is in school, s/he will learn.

There are a number of ways to address the issue of truancy.
The least effective, most costly, and most difficult to implement,
is dragging kids to school against their will.

It would appear that one of the greatest problems in education today, is the lack of sensible leadership.




Photo Mark Bralley

This isn't about cell phones.

APS is set to "crackdown" on cell phones, link.

This isn't about cell phones,
it is about students not following rules.

It is about students who do not recognize the authority of adults.

Were it not for the fact that students don't follow rules about
cell phone use, there would be no need even to discuss a ban
on cell phone possession.

But the leadership of the APS doesn't want to talk about
students disobeying adults, so they will talk instead, about
banning cell phones.

There are only two reasons why students obey rules;

1. virtue, and
2. self interest.
   

Virtuous students follow rules because it is the "right thing to do."

In the absence of virtue, students will follow rules only when it
is in their best interests to do so. It is a cost benefit analysis;
the reward that misbehavior offers versus the cost of
misbehaving (the likelihood of being caught couples with the
consequence of being caught).

In the APS, there are too few rewards for following the rules, and too few consequences for breaking them.

As but one quick example; a student walks into the cafeteria and sees a long line of students waiting to be fed. The student has a choice to make; cut in line, or wait in line.

The reward for cutting is immediate and satisfying. The cost of cutting is inconsequential; even if caught, which is unlikely, the consequence is they will have to go to the end of the line, which is precisely where they would be anyway.

For the student it is a no-brainer, go ahead and cut.

The only reason they might not cut, is that it is the wrong thing to do, and they want not to do the wrong thing; virtue.

APS is doing nothing to build virtue in students. The most immediate opportunity to build virtue is character education. The leadership of the APS has renounced character education. When asked to point to any district wide effort to provide character education for students, APS spokesperson Rigo Chavez could not point to one, though occasionally you still see Character Counts! posters hanging on walls.

In fact, APS Superintendent Winston Brooks has a large Character Counts! tapestry hanging right outside his office.

Yet if you go into that office,
and ask him to hold himself
honestly accountable as
a role model of the
APS Student Standards
of Conduct, the most
fundamentally important
step in character education,
he will not.



If you ask School Board President Marty Esquivel to deal with the issue of executive and administrative role modeling of the student standards of conduct, he will hide from the question.





If you ask Rigo Chavez another question; what is the district's discipline philosophy?, he will admit that there is not one. APS has no written discipline philosophy; no effort has been made to write down the philosophical foundations for effective discipline policies.

So here we are, no effort to build virtue in students, and no effective strategy for making the consequences of misconduct considerable in the cost benefit analysis done by students contemplating breaking the rules.

The result is policies written in the heat of the moment, like the ban on cell phones, with no thought given to any foundation upon which the policy rests. If a student asks why s/he cannot bring a cell phone to school, instead of offering any philosophical justification, we are stuck with; because I said so.

"Because I said so" does not work, it has never worked, and it
never will work. If for no other reason than, students do not
respect the authority of adults. They do not accept that they
have to do as they are told; especially in the light of the fact
that there are so few and ineffective consequences for
their refusal to comply.

And there is so much misbehavior in schools, that it is adversely
affecting the opportunity for all students to educate themselves.

There is no aspect of public education that would not improve
on the day students are expected to follow the rules.

And the very first rule is;

1. You have to obey the rules.

Students in the APS don't accept rule 1.

And the leadership of the APS has no plan to deal with that
fundamental reality, except to limit the right of students to
carry cell phones.




photos Mark Bralley

The "right" to carry a cell phone.

Albuquerque Journal editors recently argued in their support of APS' cell phone ban, link;

"Having a cell phone isn't a right, ..."

Well of course it is.

Just because it is not written, "citizens have a right to carry cell phones", does not mean that the right does not exist.

Rights are not created by being recognized by, and written in,
the Bill of Rights.

All rights exist independently. The right to exercise them is
sometimes limited in the community's best interests.

Students' right to carry cell phones is real.

The opportunity to exercise that right may be limited, rightly
or wrongly, but to argue that it does not exist is nonsensical.

Journal editors support fighting over cell phones.

In a Journal editorial Sunday, link, the editors weigh in on the decision to fight students over their cell phones. They note;

APS can expect serious pushback.
It should resist that call.

It is easy for the editors to ignore the "push back"; there is not one of them who will suffer the consequences of taking some kid's phone away. No one of them will have the paint on the their car scratched, not one will have something put in a coffee cup left unattended on a desk.

Nor will any one of the people who wrote this "stupid rule", suffer any of the consequence for enforcing it. The simple truth is, there are many school site administrators, principals and assistant principles who will ignore phones, rather than suffer the consequences that follow taking them away.

The heat will be born by a handful of teachers who believe that the worst thing you can do for a kid is tell them they can't do something, and then let them do it anyway. They will try single handed, to avoid yet another instance of permitting prohibited behavior.

Not true? Look back to the district wide ban on "sagging", link.

Based on the "expert" advice of various law enforcement gang units, a decision was made to prohibit sagging. A one point, it was even specifically and explicitly prohibited in school board policy.

Then came the push back; saggers continued to sag and dared those in "authority" to do something about it. In the end, students are still sagging. Please note; this is not about sagging, it is about permitting prohibited behavior.

It is about a bunch of people who haven't been in a classroom in decades, or in the case of Journal editors, people who have never run a classroom at all, coming up with bright ideas for other people to enforce.

There are currently well over 70,000 years of teaching experience in the APS. That experience, that expertise, did not have a seat at the table where this decision was made. It was not they who decided to pick a fight with 90,000 students over cell phones.

The only thing more difficult than enforcing the rules is enforcing "stupid rules". Kids can understand enforcing rules like, no fighting. They may not like it being enforced on them, but they can at least understand the rule. This rule is going to be appreciated as "stupid". And the relative handful of teachers who are going to be stuck with all of the enforcement of "another stupid rule" are going to pay the entire price of enforcement, they are going to feel the entire push back.

Not the administrators and school board members who decided to pick the fight, and not the editors of the Journal, whose advice to those who will feel it, "resist" it.

Worth noting, there is not a single member of the leadership of the APS, neither in the administration or on the board, who is willing to be held honestly accountable to the standards of conduct that they establish and enforce upon students.

There is not one of them willing to lead by their personal example. They are more than willing though, to insist that other people do.

We have to pick our battles, and cell phones are not a hill worth dying on.

Mayor Richard Berry begins independent investigation.

There has been a cloud over red light cameras since their inception.


City Hall has been loathe to releasing any data that would support any investigation of the efficacy or honesty of the system.


Mayor Richard Berry promised to dismantle the program if it could not be proved that the cameras contributed to safer streets.

He has taken an unprecedented first step; an independent investigation of the facts, link.

The independent review he proposes is unheard of.

An independent review of the administration of the UNM was shot down by the Board of Regents, who are themselves are appointed by the Governor.

Governor Bill Richardson has no obvious interest in seeing anyone of his appointments held accountable for the conduct and competence of the administrators they oversee.



An independent review of the administration of the APS has been shot down by the APS Board of Education. Board President Marty Esquivel will not even discuss an independent review on the record.





There is a check and balance between administrative and executive branches of government.

Administrators are not directly accountable to the people; they are accountable to the executive branch, which in turn is accountable to the people.

If the executive branch of government is not willing to step up and hold administrators accountable, they are free to do whatever they please, hire whomever they want, and pay them whatever they care to.

It is unusual to say the least, for an executive leadership to tell the actual truth about the performance of administrative leadership.

Kudos to the new Mayor.





photos Mark Bralley

21 Vice Presidents at UNM

The Journal reports on possible job cuts and furloughs at the
UNM, link.

Martin Salazar reports that there are 21 Vice Presidents on
the payroll.

Which begs at least one obvious question; are taxpayers getting their money's worth?

Which begs another question; how would we know?

If you ask the leadership of the UNM, I would suppose that they would say yes. What else could they say?

But if you hired someone to come in and do an impartial investigation, would they come to the same conclusion?

Unfortunately, we will never know. We will never know because,
there never will be an impartial investigation.

If you google "business efficiency experts" you will find an interesting Wikipedia overview, link, and 4,210,000 other hits.

There are organizations and individuals who do this for a living.

They just won't be doing it at the UNM.

Ask UNM President David Schmidly.

Ethics Commission Analysis

Jim Scarantino is writing a very detailed analysis of the proposed legislation that would create an ethics commission.

As a huge fan of an ethics commission, I find his analysis disheartening. He points to a number of flies in the ointment. link.

APS' continuing disregard for the law.

I have filed a request for public records with the APS, under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act.

The request was filed at 8:51 on Wednesday December 2, 2009. The receipt of the request was acknowledged at 9:33 that morning.

According to the law,

"A custodian ... shall permit the inspection immediately or as soon as is practicable under the circumstances, but not later than fifteen days after receiving a written request. If the inspection is not permitted within three business days, the custodian shall explain in writing when the records will be available for inspection or when the public body will respond to the request."

Well over three business days have passed, and I have not been allowed to inspect the records, nor have I received any notification when the inspection will be allowed.
APS is in apparent violation of the law.

My recourse is to take on APS and Modrall, one of the largest and most powerful law firms in the state, in court; their home field.

One should not have to sue in order to inspect public records.

To: Custodian of Public Records, Albuquerque Public Schools

From: Charles MacQuigg, xxx, xxx

This constitutes a request for public records.

I am requesting the opportunity to inspect the reports of two of the three investigations into the scandal in the APSPD during late 2006 early 2007.

1. I request the opportunity to inspect the report following the internal investigation done by APS.

2. I request the opportunity to inspect the independent investigation done by Access Investigations.

I understand that a third investigation is underway by the APSPD. I have asked APS Police Chief Bill Reed if releasing the Access Investigation will interfere with his ongoing investigation. He responded by saying that, the release of the Access Investigation "... would not interfere with what we are doing."

The NNIPRA Compliance Guide states the following;

1. This exception does not protect all records held by a law enforcement agency. A request to inspect law enforcement records can be denied only if the records requested reveal confidential sources, information or individuals accused but not charged with a crime. Otherwise inspection must be allowed.

2. Further, the guide states, The Act requires the applicable records custodian to separate out the exempt information in a file or document before making the record available for inspection. The fact that a file may contain some information that may not be disclosed does nt protect all the information from public disclosure.

The records will reflect the involvement of senior APS administrators in criminal misconduct.

The leadership of the APS has kept the records secret for three years; long enough for statutes of limitation to expire on felony criminal misconduct.

"A Change in Attitude ..."

Jim Scarantino reports an encouraging sign an apparent
turnaround in the handling of public records requests under
our new mayor, link.

The truth is an essential element of reform; it is in fact, fundamental.

Hear, hear. wikilink

The Rio Grande Foundation Gubernatorial Forum.

Only two
candidates
showed up
for the
informal Q&A,
Rep Janice
Arnold-Jones
and
Doug Turner.



The rather homogeneous crowd saw no fireworks. In fact, when asked to point to any major policy or philosophical difference that separated them, neither could immediately identify one.

Both had made it quite clear that they were about ending the culture of corruption and about the need for increased transparency as a first step toward that end.

Because I take so much flak for my insistence that candidates promise to tell us the truth about the public interests and about their public service, I decided to rework my question.

Instead of asking, will you promise to tell the truth?,
I asked both to describe the limit on the increased
transparency they advocate.

What is the limit on transparency surrounding the public
interests and their public service?

Being rigid, I was not entirely satisfied with either's answer.

Janice Arnold-Jones quipped that transparency ends at the
restroom door. Doug Turner cited examples of processes that
should be open.

The answer that would have satisfied me entirely would have been;

Every meeting is open to the public, unless the law
specifically and explicitly requires that it be closed.

Every public record is subject to surrender unless the law
specifically and explicitly requires that it be kept hidden.

And most importantly, decisions limiting access to
meetings and public records must be made by an impartial
third party, in strict accordance with the spirit of open
government laws.

The appearance of a conflict of interest in allowing those
with the most to "hide", to close meetings and redact
public records must be addressed by ending the practice.

The limit on transparency is; as much as the law will allow.

Rep Janice Arnold-Jones was the "winner" in my opinion,
based on the depth and breadth of her responses, bases on her
12 years of experience as a committed legislator.
She was able to illustrate points with concrete examples.

Doug Turner seemed as fluent in philosophical underpinnings
but less conversant in specifics.




photos Mark Bralley

APS cell phone ban misses the point.

The problem is not cell phones; the problem is that students
will not obey rules about how and where they can be used.

The point is; students in the APS no longer obey adults.

When they are told to put their phones away during class,
they don't.

Rather than deal with the fact that adult authority over students
has evaporated, leading to a subsequent collapse in student
discipline in schools, the leadership has decided to ban cell phones, link.

The leadership of the APS doesn't want to deal with the facts.
Students no longer recognize the authority of adults over kids.
They don't want to deal with the collapse of student discipline.
They don't want to deal with either, because they are
responsible for both.

No surveys have been done, or will ever be done, that qualify
and quantify that data surrounding student discipline issues.
Considering the impact of student discipline issues on other
students and on staff, there would have to be a pretty good
reason to not explore the issue and design some solutions.

There is no pretty good reason. There is only one;
it is self serving and entirely indefensible.

Meeting with Winston Brooks a disappointment.

I had a meeting with APS Superintendent Winston Brooks, a week ago Monday. The premise of the meeting was to discuss the issues that I bring to the board, in a less confrontational setting.

I came prepared;

• a copy of the Aspen Declaration, link,
• a copy of the Pillars of Character Counts!, link,
• a copy of the school board resolution adopting the Character Counts! as the model for character education in the APS, and
• a copy of the APS Student Behavior Handbook page showing, "... students are required to model and promote the Pillars of Character Counts!

I brought a copy of the role modeling clause that was removed from the employee standards of conduct. It read;

In no case, shall the standards of conduct for an adult
be lower than the standards of conduct for a student.

Though my ducks were in a row, Brooks still will not concede that adults in the APS have an obligation as role models, and that obligation includes honest accountability to the same standards that they establish and enforce upon students, even for the few hours a day that they expect students to hold themselves accountable to those standards.

Brooks argued, as an example of his position that "standards" for adults and children are not the same, that APS provides a place for adults to smoke, but provides no such place for students.

I argued that he was talking about adult privileges and student privileges, which can be different; not about "standards of conduct" which must be the same.

I argued that administrators cannot be held accountable for their conduct and competence except under systems which can be gamed by administrators, in particular powerful administrators. I pointed out that my complaints against him and Director of Internal Audit Margret Koshmider, did not see due process.

His defense was to a list of those he has held accountable.

The argument is specious. That "many" have been held accountable is not proof that "all" can be held accountable.
He cannot be held accountable.

My last point was, if there is to be real and honest accountability to any standards of conduct, a place must be created where a complaint can be filed, and the complaint will see due process, even against the will of the person about whom the complaint has been filed, even against the superintendent himself.

The bottom line; Brooks is unwilling to concede that he, as the senior most administrative role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct, is actually accountable to those same standards. Nor could I get him to concede,there is a need for him to create the opportunity for complaints that are made against him, are afforded due process.


In other words, business as usual.




photo Mark Bralley

The Office of Government Information Services.

The Office of Government Information Services which was created to resolve FOIA disputes, has apparently created one instead.

A training was offered Monday to FOIA public liaisons, those charged with surrendering, or not, public records to public knowledge.

"The Monday workshop was organized by the Justice Department's Office of Information Policy for agency FOIA public liaisons. It was held in part to introduce them to the new U.S. Office of Government Information Services, set up under the Cornyn legislation to resolve FOIA disputes." link.

The training was closed to the public. An AP reporter who showed up was turned away at the door.

The situation stands in rather stark contrast to assurances
by President Obama offered when he took office.

"The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails," Obama told government offices on his first full day as president. "The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."

Not everything that the government does with your power and your resources should be public knowledge. The line between what should and should not be made public is the bone of contention.

There are those who argue, in effect, everything is secret unless you can build a compelling case that it is not. All records are secret, all meetings are secret, unless you can prove that they are not; a process which often requires filing lawsuits against the government.

On the other hand, some argue that all records are public, and all meetings are open, unless the government can build a compelling case that they are not.

It is an important distinction.

Either public records are kept secret according to what the law allows, or public records are kept secret only as the law requires. There is a world of difference.

There is a fundamental flaw in the process of redaction of public records. Rather than having redaction done by impartial third parties, the redaction is done instead by the politicians and public servants with an interest in keeping some facts secret. There is an inherent conflict of interest.

What more proof in necessary, that we have lost control over power and resources that belong fundamentally to the people, than that the facts over the wielding of that power and the spending of those resources can be kept secret from us, according to the whim of politicians and public servants?

NM Department of Health TV ad starring Diane Denish

Diane Denish's run for governor got a boost when Denish was

tapped to star in the TV spot being run by the NM Department
of Health.

Unclear whether Denish has any particular expertise in the flu
or in preventing it, but it sure doesn't hurt to get your smiling
face in front of voters, for free.

It is fundamental fairness issue, Mark Bralley points out.

All perfectly "legal" of course.

Schmidly in tough spot.

UNM President David Schmidly made a decision to not conduct an independent review of the handling of the Locksley affair.

His decision has been challenged.

The Graduate And Professional Student Association @ UNM, at their recent GPSA Council Meeting, have decided to conduct an election on the question of their demand for an independent third party investigation.

The measure will pass, and still their will be no independent review.

The GPSA has no standing with Schmidly.

They have no more standing anyway, than everybody else.

None.

Long before it became obvious that the people wanted to know the truth about the wielding of their power and the spending of their resources, Schmidly knew the answer to the question of an independent truth telling.

He has no intention of standing for independent review.

If he did, he would.

It's just not the way he rolls.

photo Mark Bralley

Bernalillo County Ethics Ordinance isn't.

County Commissioner Maggie Hart Stebbins is trying to write and pass legislation that would compel county employees to discharge their duties ethically.

The proposed legislation, link, is under revision, and community meetings have been held for public input.

At one of the first meetings, I took the opportunity to point out that the proposed ordinance did not address the most fundamental ethic of all; truth telling.

Nowhere in the ordinance does it read; in response to any legitimate question about the public interests, or about their public service, county employees will answer candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

Unless it rests on the foundational ethic, ethics reform is meaningless.

How can the ordinance be enforced if you can ask a politician or
public servant a legitimate question and they can respond by saying "no comment", or by simply not responding at all?

cc Maggie Hart Stebbins upon posting.




photo Bernalillo County website.

"anonymous" points to huge problems in the Albuquerque Police Department.

The question is; do you ignore complaints from people who make their complaints anonymously simply because their complaints are made anonymously?

One of the allegations that "anonymous" makes is; if s/he made a formal complaint, s/he would suffer retaliation.

That fear is justified.

Despite sworn testimony from
Chief Ray Schultz, that there
is no retaliation against police
officers who file complaints
against other police officers,
a federal court jury decided
otherwise.

They awarded $662,000 to
a police officer that was subjected
to retaliation for testifying in court against other police officers.

That fear is justified.

"Anonymous" makes other allegations as well, coercion, intimidation, cronyism, dishonesty, lack of integrity, lies, deception, double standards, and favoritism.

APD PIO Nadine Hamby has admitted that the leadership of the APD makes no effort to research any of these allegations by means of an impartial survey of the rank and file.

Though it would be simple to do a survey of a couple of thousand employees, asking them if they see corruption and incompetence, and retaliation for reporting either, no survey has ever been done.

Likely, no survey will ever be done.

There are only two reasons to not survey;

1. it would cost too much, and
2. it would reveal the inconvenient truth.

The cost is inconsequential.

Mayor Richard Berry
promised open and honest
government.

He promised an end the cronyism,
the corruption and the incompetence.

Then he appointed Ray Schultz to Chief of Police, despite all of these outstanding allegations and his ongoing refusal to document the truth about them one way or the other.

Berry it seems, is also loathe to surveying the rank and file as a means of rooting out corruption and incompetence.

Though, the cost of doing a survey, would be inconsequential.

The only real cost would be the fallout from revealing the inconvenient truth about the width and depth of corruption and incompetence in City Hall.




photos Mark Bralley

UNM Graduate and Professional Student Association votes for inquiry

The most important resolution just passed the the GPSA @ UNM Council, link, meeting today, was to call for an independent investigation of Locksley Gate. They also voted for a confidence vote both for Paul Krebs' handling of Locksley Gate, and on his leadership of the UNM Athletics Department in general.

The good ol' boys aren't going to be happy with the vote.

Where is the oversight?

I posed a question recently, what if this comment that was
left on the back side of the Eye on Albuquerque, link, was genuine?

I love being a cop but I find it harder and harder to work for a police department where the so called leadership has no Honesty or Integrity. When the chain of command constantly lies and the department is run by Intimidation and Retaliation I think it’s time to look for another job. I have witnessed first hand the lies and the deception that goes on. A police officer that is not honest or has no integrity is no better then the people we arrest. Please don’t get me wrong, I think there are a lot of good honest cops out there but the double standards and the favoritism that goes on within this department is crazy. How do they sleep at night? I will be making a very difficult decision on whether I should look for another job or not because my integrity defines me as a man, father, a husband, neighbor and of course a cop. (emphasis added)

So I emailed Nadine Hamby, APD's PIO.

Here seen, piloting her
scooter in front of a
political motorcade.

I asked her if she could
point to anything that the
Department does, that
would make this accusation
impossible to believe.

Are there subordinate evaluations, morale surveys, ethics surveys, votes of confidence, any (anonymous) data gathering that would document these issues as a first step in dealing with them?

I told her right up front that I was not interested in reading a denial from anyone whose job it was to deal with this issues, and therefore has a self interest in denying them.

She said no, there is nothing in place.

Now Peter St Cyr has broken a story on allegations of nepotism in the New Mexico Health Department, link.

Previously, Kate Nash reported on a one of a kind ethics survey in state government, the PRC ethics survey, link.

Every time that the rank and file are given an opportunity to
point to problems, without fear of retribution or retaliation,
they do.

They point to more problems than you can shake a stick at.

Which is why no one does them. No one who is actually
responsible for the existence of a problem, is going to do
anything to document the actual existence of a problem.

This morning, Nash reports on the formation of yet another
committee, this one in search of "waste in government", link.

Instead of appointing another commission to do a superficial scan of another agency, why not commission a survey of every state employee, link?

Allow the rank and file, the opportunity to point to corruption and incompetence without fear of retaliation.

Then the corruption and incompetence will be out in the
daylight; the fundamental first step in actually ending them
altogether.




photo Mark Bralley

New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act largely feckless.

If the NMIPRA were enforceable it might be of some use.

As it is, the fundamental flaw is largely insurmountable.
Those with the greatest need to hide the truth are the
same people who get to redact the truth. The inherent
conflict of interest is obvious, yet completely ignored.

If you are of the opinion that the truth has been redacted
dishonestly, you have three options;

1. asking your District Attorney for help,
   
2. asking the Attorney General for help, or
3. filing your own lawsuit.

In truth you have only one choice; filing a lawsuit on your own.

Both District Attorneys and the Attorney General's Office
are so underfunded, they must pick and choose among the
cases they will investigate and follow up upon.

Given a forced choice between prosecuting serious felony
misconduct and relatively unimportant public records issues,
they make an appropriate choice.

You will receive no help from either.

If you choose to file your own lawsuit, you will be taking them
on, on their playing field. They will have all the lawyers they
want, at taxpayer expense. You will have to pay for your own,
upfront.

It could take years, as the legal system is easily manipulated
by taking advantage of loopholes, technicalities and all manner
of legal weaselry.

The situation is further complicated by the fact there are no
penalties or consequences for public servants who disobey
this law, no matter how flagrant or egregious their disobedience.

There are fines which can be imposed, up to $100 per day, but
these fines are paid by taxpayers, not by the offending politician
or public servant.

The solution is to rework the Inspection of Public Records Act.

The rework is simple and straightforward; if there is a dispute
over redaction, the dispute is surrendered to impartial redaction
by a third party, perhaps out of the Attorney General's Office.

This would require additional funding for the AGO.
Therefore, there will be no reform.

And in a dispute over public records, you remain,

entirely on your own.

Journal ethics poll.

The Albuquerque Journal has the wherewithal to conduct a poll of state employees.

Journal owner Tommy Lang also owns Research and Polling, link.

Brian Sanderoff will likely get it right,
give or take a percentage point or two.

The question would be;

1 . Are you afraid to report misconduct?

If this poll is not undertaken in short order, are we entitled to
some form of explanation as to why it will not?




photo Mark Bralley

Throw the bums out!

An oft expressed opinion is that the only way to fix our government is to elect a whole new team.

So along comes an absolutely antithetical candidate.

The exact opposite of the status quo.
Not one of the good ol' boys by any stretch.


Former United States Senator, the "honorable" Fred Harris (one of the status quo) says to ignore her because

"None of the four candidates running for the Republican nomination is well-known. None has ever held statewide office and they're all just now beginning to introduce themselves to New Mexicans, link."

Lt Governor Diane Denish, (one of the status quo) says;

"Sen. Harris hit the nail on the head ..."

The only real complaint they have lodged against Janice Arnold-Jones is that she is a new comer, a political pipsqueak, and doesn't have two million dollars to spend.



She showed them "pipsqueak" when she turned on her webcam.



And they say Republicans need to raise the level of the discourse?




photo Mark Bralley

The rest of the story

I have been chastised for not telling the whole story, link,
about the $11,000 that the UNM Athletics Department
spent on a PR firm to supplement their own PR Department.

I did not mention that part of the money was used to find
a mentor for the embattled UNM Head Football Coach
Michael Locksley.

According to the Journal;

"Besides helping the department with crisis management and communication strategy, the firm played a key role in getting retired Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy to mentor the embattled Locksley ..."

"... the firm was also instrumental in bringing in Apex Performance "to enhance (the) entire UNM coaching and administrative staff."

"The Athletics Department did not immediately respond to a request for clarification on what services Apex Performance is providing or how much the company is charging."

"And now you know the rest of the story" wikilink

Shannon Garbiso - unafraid.

Shannon Garbiso, the UNM student who conducted the original investigation into Locksley Gate has taken exception, link, to the report in the Daily Lobo which portrayed her in fear of retribution and retaliation should she tell the truth about her actions.

Garbiso's colleague, Maria Garcia, who's testimony was the substance of the story in the Lobo, still maintains that her version is the truth.

Being a cynic, I am required to point out that if one really were afraid of retribution and retaliation, they would be required to say that they were not.

Comments on the story have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Yet, there are people who claim to be knowledgeable and on
the inside, who believe Garcia's version more than Garbiso's.

An independent review, would of course, settle the issue
at once and for all.

APS School Board Member Griego suggests moving board meetings out into the community

Delores Griego, according to draft minutes of the November 13th meeting, has;

"... requested to have board meetings held in the community at schools to get more local feedback from constituents and more awareness out to the community regarding all of the wonderful work done by APS."

This would mark a return to the way it used to be.

Board meetings rotated around the district between high schools allowing community members at least occasionally convenient access to school board meetings. She made no mention of moving the meetings to a time of day that would accommodate people who have day jobs.

The minutes cite no support for her plan, from any other board member.

Which is not surprising in the least.




photo Mark Bralley

Gubernatorial candidate forum

A rather unique opportunity
presents itself.

Rio Grande Foundation
President Paul Gessing
announced, the RGF is hosting
a low-key casual gubernatorial
forum, link.

"The Foundation is hosting a forum for each of the candidates* for New Mexico governor on December 9, 2009 from 6:00PM to 8:00PM in the auditorium at the Albuquerque Museum. The Museum is located at 2000 Mountain Road NW near Old Town. Admission is $5 payable at the door. Let us know you are coming by sending an E-mail to: rsvp@riograndefoundation.org. Light beverages will be provided.

Be ready to ask a question of the candidates. This is not a formal debate, rather it is an informal way for concerns to “kick the tires” and find out more about the candidates, their stances on the issues, and how they interact with the crowd.

The discussion will be moderated by Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing."

I will ask,

Do you promise to tell the truth?

Will you respond to any legitimate question
about the public interests and about your public service
by answering candidly, forthrightly and honestly?

Paul Gessing added,

*All candidates of both parties have been invited and
some have pledged to attend, but we have no way
to guarantee that specific candidates show up.

I say, if they don't show up and answer the question,
candidly, forthrightly and honestly,
don't vote for them.

cc upon posting;

Janice Arnold-Jones
Diane Denish
Susana Martinez
Doug Turner and
Allen Weh

photo Mark Bralley

Paying to be misled.

Taxpayers have paid $11,000, to a media consulting firm to help the leadership of the UNM to get through the latest scandals unscathed.

According to the Journal, link,

The Athletics Department has five full-time employees in its media relations office along with three interns and three part-time undergraduate students. The university also has a separate media relations office.

Not enough people apparently. So they had to hire outsiders
to help them manipulate the truth in less damaging ways.

Personally, I would rather just be told the truth.

For $11,000 we probably could have paid for an independent review of the handling of Locksley Gate.

According to UNM President David Schmidly, that review
would completely exonerate everybody in the process from
allegations of a cover up.

That alone would have largely rehabilitated their reputations.

Instead, we paid to be shined on by professional "shiners on".

Fred Harris won't apologize, now Diane Denish piles on.

Former United States Senator, the "honorable" Fred Harris got a little carried away when he wrote an op-ed piece about Republican mud slinging. He included gubernatorial candidate Rep Janice Arnold-Jones in his accusations.

His attention was drawn to his mistake.

He has neither apologized nor retracted his accusation, though

it is incontrovertibly unsubstantiated and unjustified.

Now, Lt Gov Diane Denish is piling on.

In a letter to her supporters, she calls his op-ed "important" and

praised him for;

(taking) "Republican candidates for Governor to the woodshed for running campaigns based solely on negativity, completely void of any new ideas to help New Mexico families.

Denish heaped on the praise writing; "Sen. Harris hit the nail on the head."

Well, no he didn't, at best he hit two, maybe three,

the fourth was a miss if there ever was one.

Harris could not summon the character and the courage to retract his false accusation.

Now it is Denish's turn to show us her character and her courage, by acknowledging her error and making an appropriate apology.

Arnold-Jones ignored the Harris piece,

but when Denish piled on,

she felt compelled to respond.

Arnold-Jones wrote;

"... if the Lt. Governor wants clean campaigning,

she should lead by example.

This is certainly not the way."

She has a point.

photo Mark Bralley