So what's up with Michael Sanchez?

From a report on Democracy for New Mexico, link, I have learned;


Senate Majority Leader
Michael Sanchez has tabled SR1.

Senate Resolution 1 was his own bill. It would have marginally improved Senate webcasting from a technological stand point, although he did include language that would have prohibited archiving; the creation of any incontrovertible and accessible evidence of his conduct and competence as the State Senator from link, from District 29; Valencia County.

It was one year and a few days ago, that our attention had also been drawn to this man's obfuscation in ending the culture of corruption and incompetence in state government, through ethics reform, link.

He doesn't want Senate Committee Meetings to be webcast. Because they could be recorded by someone.

And at his election, someone might come up with a link to incontrovertible evidence of his corruption and/or incompetence, such as but not limited to; during a Senate Rules Committee Confirmation Hearing on UNM Regent Jamie Koch, link.

He really has no interest in holding himself honestly accountable to the people, for his conduct and competence as a politician and public servant.

There is no reason, nor sum of reasons, to not webcast and archive deliberative meetings of state government officials.

Yet he is dead set against it. He won't even allow its discussion.
He gets away with it because he is a man of power and privilege;

even though the power belongs to the people, and
the privilege is purloined.




photo Mark Bralley

Lujan kills independent review of state spending.

Last year, State Senator Tim Keller, introduced a bill, link, that would enable the Legislative Finance Committee to evaluate and review state spending.

The bill passed last year with unanimous bipartisan support.
Then Governor Bill Richardson vetoed it. I suppose he
vetoed it to prevent the exposure of all of the people he has
installed in jobs for which they are under-qualified and overpaid.

It was brought up again this session in order to override the veto.

Speaker of the House Ben Lujan has apparently decided that it should go through another committee hearing before the full house gets an opportunity to vote to override the veto.

In effect, since the session is about to close and time is running out, the move by Lujan effectively kills the bill.

I cannot think of a single good, or ethical reason for him to kill this bill.

His apparent interest is in covering up wasteful spending by state agencies. Why he would do such a thing, defies reason.

It's as if he were a crook covering the tracks, and asses, of his cronies. If there is any other explanation, it eludes me.




photo Mark Bralley

"Hoping" legislators will do the right thing

For the most, we expect legislators to legislate our will.
If there is a cause which has overwhelming public support,
we expect legislators to write and pass legislation that reflects
the will of the people.

Yet that connection is tenuous. We cannot count on the legislature to legislate the will of the people. Every year we find ourselves in the position of "hoping" that legislators will legislate our will.

Take for example; webcasting. I think it is fair to say that nearly every New Mexican who is aware of the issue, supports it. I seriously doubt the existence of very many voters who want their representative to vote against webcasting.

And here we are at the end of the session and we have squat for webcasting; cameras too distant to show legislators faces, and no archive to search should we not be prepared to record the streams ourselves.

Some will tout the current situation as a huge success, many steps forward in the effort to make our government open and transparent to us.

It is not.

We have been betrayed by those who we had "hoped" would open our government up for us.

Perhaps there will be justice in the next election; perhaps we can deny an office to any and every politician who did not stand on the record this session, demanding robust webcasting and an archive.

It is not enough to "not vote against it". It is not enough to have not opposed it. It is not enough to claim to be in support and then say and do nothing.

They picked a side when they refuse to pick a side.
And next November we will hold them accountable for their lack of character and courage.

Division of the House

"A Division of the House is a parliamentary mechanism, available since the time of the Roman Senate, which calls for a rising vote, wherein the members of the house literally divide into groups indicating a vote in favour of or in opposition to a motion on the floor." wikilink derived

I wish there could be compelled, a Division of the House,
in favour of or in opposition to,
robust webcasting and other fundamental issues.

Make the fence straddlers pick a side.

Make them accountable at their next election.

Make them stand up for what they believe in.

Cowards; need not apply.


Odd that, though they are our "servants",
we cannot compel them to do so.

Nor even to participate in open and honest public discussions
on that subject or on any other.

Webcasting, in a manner befitting ...

The legislation which would create legislative webcasting all contain some similar language;

A live audio and video stream of the senate floor proceedings shall be accessible through the legislature's web site in a manner befitting the senate...

The stream shall be accessible through the legislature's web site in a manner befitting the house of representatives ...

So what does "befitting" mean? Apparently that will be left up to the Legislative Council Service to determine. The dictionary suggests that befitting means; to be appropriate for, suitable for, proper for, becoming of, fitting for, ...

So if the LCS regards the legislature as essentially characterless and cowardly, they will provide camera coverage that won't show their faces; that won't allow voters to look into their eyes.

On the other hand, if the LCS regards most legislators as men and women of character and courage, willing to be held honestly accountable for their conduct and competence, they will provide camera coverage showing speaker's faces and body language.

Herein lies a rub. If the LCS does hold the legislature in high regard, they would of course, establish a searchable and user friendly archive. Unfortunately, (some) legislators have managed to introduce language that specifically and explicitly prohibits the LSC from doing the right thing about archiving.

It would appear that the LCS is being given conflicting directions; unless of course, the underlying supposition is, the legislature by in large, does lack the character and courage to hold themselves actually and honestly accountable to voters.

Legislative webcasting on life support.

If you accept the premise; government of the people,
by the people and for the people; it stands to reason,
"the people" must know as much as possible about their government.

The more they know, the more ably can they participate.

The government has the primary responsibility to spread the truth. The people should not be required to buy software, link, or do anything else except to simply "look it up".

Everything the people need to know about their government should be recorded in a place where anyone can simply look it up; quickly and easily.

At the end of this legislative session, there will or will not be webcasting done right. If there is not, the blame falls on the shoulders of those who did nothing; those who were willing to make no sacrifice in support of their commitment.

It will be because of those who picked a side when they would not pick a side.

It will be because of those who let "evil" prevail simply, by doing nothing.

What does it say for us that we are not willing to fight for the truth about the spending of our power and our resources?

The position,

the reasons to not webcast robustly to a searchable archive, outweigh the reasons to webcast robustly and to a searchable archive,

is indefensible.

That is why Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez will not lead a candid, forthright and honest, public discussion about every aspect of webcasting.

He cannot, so he will not,
defend his position.

There is only one defense for an indefensible position; hide it.
Stonewall. Deny the discussion.

And since there will be no searchable archive, we cannot show voters in the next election, videotape of Sanchez, betraying their interests. Thereby, making it easier for him to maintain his position of power and privilege.

There is a small handful of legislators in both Houses, who have stood on the record in support of honest webcasting. There is a small handful of legislators standing in the breach, relatively alone.

Leaders have the obligation to step into the breach. In the breach is the only place where real leadership can be manifest.

Those who cannot be the first through the breach, have an obligation to be the second. If not the second, then the third, and the fourth.

Sacrifice is the currency of commitment.
It is the only currency of commitment.
The debt one owes to one's commitments is paid in sacrifice and only in sacrifice.

Of what importance is any principle,
if there is no one willing to stand in its support,
if there is no one willing to fight in its defense,
if there is no one willing to sacrifice on its behalf?

Is truthtelling in government a principle worth fighting for?

It is time for those legislators claiming the character and the courage to be held honestly accountable for their character and competence, to step into the breach; stand up for what you believe in.




It is time for voters to stand up and deny a seat to every legislator too afraid, or too corrupt, to step into the breach on this issue and, rather immediately.




photo Mark Bralley

Emboldened by their previous archiving success, Senate decides they don't have to webcast at all

They must feel if they can get away with refusing to archive webcasts, they can get away with anything.

A report by Larry Behrens, NMI, link, reveals that the Senate Public Affairs Committee, link, voted to not webcast Committee Meetings.

Committee Meetings are widely regarded as the place where the real wheeling and dealing takes place.

Behrens reports that Senator Eric Griego argued;

“..., committees are where key decisions are made–90 percent of bills are determined in committee, only 10 percent get out here to the floor."

Apparently they are considerably emboldened by successfully taking archiving completely off the table. They got away with it, scot free.

Transparency advocates got their asses handed to them on the issue of archiving. Nobody stood up to stop legislators when they decided the terms of their public service; terms that do not include a searchable archive record of their public service in our Roundhouse.

It isn't their call. The terms of public service are the prerogative of the people, not of their public servants. It is a usurpation of control over our power. It is an abuse of power.

Maybe these arrogant legislators bit off more than they can chew this time; maybe this time there will be some real outrage.

It's a big maybe.

Is it time to impeach Bill Richardson? or recall him? or something?

How many overpaid and under qualified political cronies must Governor Bill Richardson create cushy jobs for, before he has created too many?

How many questions must he refuse to answer, before he has refused to answer too many?

How much more crap do we have to take, before we fire him?

If we really want to end the culture of corruption
and incompetence in state government,
why don't we just cut off its head?




photo Mark Bralley

Barker report, payback?

KRQE's Larry Barker (r) just reamed Pahl Shipley (l)
in his report, link, on the latest wave to wash up on Governor Bill Richardson's beach of public corruption scandals.

I wondered as I watched, that Shipley seemed to get a little more ink than the rest of the targets in the investigation.

One of my allegigators, alleges, Barker was getting a little payback. It turns out that Barker used to work for Shipley at a local TV station. When Shipley left the station, Barker did too. The surmise is, Shipley was material in ending Barker's stint.

The moral of the story;

Never pick a fight with a guy that buys ink by the barrel, or apparently, with a guy that makes his living as an investigative reporter, in particular if you are going to work for the 38th most corrupt state government in the entire US.

photos Mark Bralley

Is Gerrymandering a Democrat Party value?

Following each census, the state is redistricted; sub-divided into districts from which legislators are elected. The idea behind "redistricting" is to create bodies of voters with something in common, so they can elect representatives who can defend their common interests.

In politically corrupt states, like New Mexico, the party in power looks at redistricting differently. They locate areas of political strength of the opposition party, and subdivide that strength so that it cannot elect opposition representation. Evidence of previous Gerrymandering, wikilink, is obvious when you look at a map, wikilink, of legislative districts and find districts that are a mile wide and fifty miles long, whose inhabitants share few, if any, common interests other than a preponderance of members of the political party in power; in this case, the Democrats.

The "spoils of war", they claim.

Yesterday, House Minority Whip Keith Gardner carried a bill, HJR 15, link, to the House Voters and Elections Committee. The legislation would have created a bipartisan redistricting committee for congressional and state legislative district boundaries.

The legislation was "indefinitely delayed" by the Democrats on the Committee; Rep. Jose A. Campos, Rep. Mary Helen Garcia, Rep. James Roger Madalena, Rep. Ken Martinez, Rep. Danice R. Picraux, Rep. Debbie A. Rodella, and Rep. Edward C. Sandoval.

"Had HJR 15 passed, it would have placed an option for the establishment of a bi-partisan commission on the next general election ballot, allowing the voters of New Mexico the opportunity to say how they wanted re-districting carried out. " according to a communication from the House Republican Caucus.

"By not enacting this bill, the Democrat controlled legislature will continue to determine congressional and state legislative districts."

Gardner said, "This is a sad day for democracy in New Mexico."

"Democrats in the legislature have sent a message that Democrat controlled redistricting is all but assured."

"Our hopes for an impartial, bi-partisan process are extinguished."




photo Mark Bralley

AG's funding cut; retaliation?

According to the Journal, no link, the Senate Finance Committee has cut the NMAG's budget by one third.

NMAG Gary King says the cuts are in retaliation for his several investigations of "politically well connected individuals" and their corruption in New Mexico.

King claims his Office is "the best tool we have for fighting corruption" and will be "eliminated" as a tool for fighting public corruption.

Finance Committee Chair Senator John Arthur Smith argued that the AG's Office has a settlement fund that could be used to compensate for the budget cut.

Smith argued that "everyone needs to share the pain" during budget cutting.

His argument is specious. It has nothing to do with "sharing pain". It has to do with making tough decisions and protecting the interests of taxpayers. It might well be, the interests of taxpayers are best served by increasing funding for the NMAG and for the State Auditors Office.

No mention was made of funding cuts to the SAO, though if the "pain is going to be shared", it stands to reason that shared pain is in store for State Auditor Hector Balderas as well.




photo Mark Bralley

Richardson skates on hiring scam

KRQE's Larry Barker went to a great deal of trouble, I am supposing, to put together his report on how Governor Bill Richardson has ignored the letter and the spirit of the hiring freeze in state government.

A few bloggers linked to his story; Terrel, link, Burgos, link, and finally, Gessing, link; none expressing any real outrage.

Three days later, the news cycle has come and gone long since, and if Richardson wanted to create yet another job for one of his cronies today, he could and would, and there's nothing anyone could do to stop him.

Apparently, we've not made much progress at all in curbing the abuse of power in Santa Fe.




photo Mark Bralley

Real ethics reform; the third rail in the Roundhouse

To the outside observer, it might look like legislators are talking about ethics reform in state government.

If I had a dime for every time the word ethical has been used in the Roundhouse, I would have enough money to hire two more UNM Vice Presidents of Something or Another.

The word you don't hear a lot is; truthtelling.
There really is a fundamental ethic; it is truthtelling.
If we are not talking about truthtelling, we are not talking about real ethical reform. At best, we are talking around real ethical reform.

There are limits on truthtelling.

Setting those limits is the prerogative of the people, not of the
public servant. Whether or not we talk about truthtelling,
is the prerogative of the people, not of the politicians and public servants.

It is clear that a majority of legislators do not want to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They want to hide as much of the truth as they can, without appearing to be trying to hide the truth.

Case in point; a searchable archive of legislative webcasting.

Whatever the reasons are, to not archive, those reasons in toto, pale in comparison to the right of the people to know what is being done with their power, their resources, and by their politicians and public servants.

If you don't know the truth, you have no control over the spending of power and resources that are fundamentally your own.

There is a line between the truth we must, and must not, know. That line needs to be defined and enforced.

And for as long as legislators pretend not see the elephant in the room, there will be only incremental ethical reform, which is not really ethical reform at all.

Truthtelling and accountability cannot exist without the other.
You cannot have accountability if the truth is not told.
You cannot claim to be willing to tell the truth, unless you are
willing to be held inescapably accountable when you don't.

Those who will not talk about truthtelling, have no intention to tell the truth; no matter what else they might want you to believe.

Sanchez feigns enthusiasm over webcasting.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez "defended" his webcasting bill, Senate Resolution 1, in Senate Rules this morning.

His enthusiasm is limited still, to cameras too far away to show his face when he speaks on the Senate floor, and prohibiting the archiving of the record, preventing its use against him in his next election.

The spineless measure passed.

Even Senator Tim Jennings voted in favor, after having spent a great deal of effort pleading his case, that he should not be filmed because members of other branches of government, judiciary and executive, are not.

Nobody said, life is fair, Senator.

Sometimes you just have to do what's right.




photos Mark Bralley

Where is Denish's leadership? Or Domenici's?

These two Gubernatorial Candidates both claim to be the "leaders" of a political following. Both have told New Mexicans to look to them for leadership.

While one cannot be leading and talking at the same time,
neither can one lead without talking.

These leaders cannot claim to be leading if they are not offering their advice on ending the culture of corruption and incompetence in state government.

Lt Governor Diane Denish won't even admit that there actually is a culture of corruption, or that she is awash in it. The following from Larry Behrens on NMI:,
"When asked if a “new way” means New Mexico needs changes after the last seven years Denish replied, “I’m looking forward, this is not a time to look backwards, about the hope for the future, the optimism of the future"link.

Good ol' boy speak for; never mind the past. Let's forget about holding anyone actually accountable for anything they did. Let's all look forward.


Where is Pete Domenici's leadership?
Has he even been to the legislature this session?

There are important issues on the table in Santa Fe.

Lt Governor Diane Denish has a convenient excuse for not sitting down in Committee meetings and speaking her mind; she is the Lt Governor.

St Pete the Younger, has no excuse at all.




photos Mark Bralley

Pluto is a planet, New Mexico is a State, and other feckless Memorials.

One would think that legislators have enough to do with the budget problem, without "wasting" time discussing and debating feckless Memorials.

The list of Memorials that will be occupying legislators time today, instead of fixing budget and ethics problems, can be found at the state's legislative website, link.

I have oft wondered, if the Memorials were left until the last day of the legislature, rather than among the first, would legislators stay in the Roundhouse until the wee hours on the last day, trying to get them all done. I think not, and that speaks to their real merit.

No wonder they don't want permanent recordings made.

Hispanic Education Act on the House Floor today.

Crazy, they say, is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

Despite the fact that no government bureaucracy has ever solved the problems in education, law makers in the Roundhouse are going to give it just one more shot, by creating yet another government bureaucracy with no reasonable expectation of success.

The fundamental problem in education is the belief that students can be educated in groups of thirty, moving lockstep for 12 years. That problem is not relieved by grouping students according to ethnicity, any more than it was solved by grouping them according to their chronological age, sex, or any other commonality unrelated to teaching and learning.

Good news for those who believe in more jobs through bigger government.

I wouldn't be surprised to find Public Education Secretary Veronica Garcia, who will be out of a job as Education Secretary in the new administration, bouncing laterally to years of employment security as the new Hispanic Education Liason.

Curious silence on archiving.

One would be hard pressed to find a political reporter in New Mexico who has not lamented at one time or another, on the unavailability of public records. Yet the move to ban archiving of legislative webcasts amounts to nothing more than making public records unavailable, and no one is writing anything about it, save an occasion mention of the facts without comment on the implications.

I find that curious.

Who is the screwer, who is the screwee?

According to Gov Bill Richardson,
(according to KRQE's Larry Barker),
he's the screwee.









According to Barker,
taxpayers are the screwees, and
Richardson has been doing the screwing.

You be the judge.

Watch Barker' s report on exempt positions and the supposed hiring freeze in state government, link.




photos Mark Bralley

Arnold-Jones on the ballot

.




Rep Janice Arnold-Jones, released the following statement today:

Today was Filing Day for statewide candidates and I was pleased to file papers with the secretary of state’s office this morning, officially stating that I am a candidate for governor of the state of New Mexico.

Through the tireless efforts of hundreds of volunteer hours, we collected 2,390 signatures - far above the 1,062 required.

I am very proud that this was a purely volunteer effort, and that we did not simply rely on paid workers to obtain these signatures.

This demonstrates the kind of volunteer spirit and determination I’ve seen from New Mexicans as I’ve campaigned throughout the state these past few months. These volunteers are hard-working, dedicated and committed to making our state better.

I’m looking forward to meeting many more voters who agree with me that New Mexico can be so much more, and are ready to join our Cause to make it happen!”




photo Mark Bralley

Denish; on archiving. not.

Diane Denish is at once two people; a Lt Governor and,
a Gubernatorial Candidate.


As Lt Governor,
she has no standing
in the archiving debate.









As a Gubernatorial Candidate, she is claiming to be the leader in transparency and open government. She has an obligation to pick a side on honest, robust and useful webcasting, and then stand up for what she believes in.

Or is that too much to ask, from a would be Governor?

I am given to believe
Rep Janice Arnold-Jones
stood in favor of archiving
on the record, and on the House floor.

I missed it, and of course,
there is no archive to retrieve it from.





Doug Turner stepped up.

He said the only reason to not archive, is to hide the truth from voters in the next elections.

Still waiting to weigh in; Allen Weh, Pete Domenici, and
Susana Martinez.



photos Mark Bralley

Martinez' anti-archiving argument is nonsense.

When Rep Jeff Steinborn's HJM15 came to the table, Rep Ken Martinez stripped archiving from the bill. This may not have been the first time he has stripped Steinborn legislation of archiving.

He is on the House Rules Committee, where archiving was stripped from Steinborn's HR2.

I don't know that he was personally responsible for the stripping in House Rules, and there isn't anyway to check up on it because, there is no archive of the Rules Committee meeting to check.

He has offered up an argument of sorts. According to Blogger Haussamen, link;

Martinez has consistently argued against archiving. New Mexico isn’t a state whose courts considers legislative intent in addition to the actual wording of legislation, so he has said it’s important to not create permanent records other than the actual legislation.

Assuming one actually understood this argument, and further that, one even bought the argument; so what?

There are a number of reasons to begin archiving. At least one of those arguments is an overriding consideration, taking precedence over all other considerations. That argument is, the people have a right to watch committee meetings and floor sessions. And that right extends to being able to find and watch those meetings after the fact.

I have argued previously that incremental reform is dangerous because it has a mollifying effect. It might well have been easier to pass a decent bill, than it will be to improve a bad one.

Already, people are arguing that they have gone far enough. House Minority Whip Keith Gardner said, of the decision to kill archiving;

"... it is possible for constituents to record webcasts on their own using inexpensive software."

The people should not have to go out and buy special software to watch their government, even if it is "inexpensive".

There is no software, of which I am aware, that could record simultaneous committee meetings from different streams, making them both available for review. It is conceivable that more than two Committee Meetings might be going on simultaneously, further compounding the problem.

Gubernatorial Candidate Doug Turner argues; the only reason to not archive is to hide the truth from voters during the next election.

He is right. There is no overriding argument to not archive. There is an overriding argument to archive. It is as simple as that, and anyone who argues against archiving is arguing against creating a record of their service that can be shown to voters at the next election.

Every webcasting bill contains a statement to the effect of;

"... any political use is prohibited."

Sez who? If I were a candidate and the incumbent had performed poorly in Committee and/or on the floor, why in the world would I not be allowed to use a public record in my campaign against the incumbent? The resistance clearly comes from incumbents doing everything they can to cover their asses come election time. They know their performance in the Roundhouse is not going to help their candidacies, so they are simply trying to hide the truth. If they were at all proud of their work in the Roundhouse, they would welcome a permanent record of it, and they would want to use it in their campaigns.

There are some would be candidates who cannot summon the character and the courage to hold themselves honestly accountable to voters. These men and women will come up with one specious argument after another, to not archive; none of them powerful enough to make a real case.




photos Mark Bralley

Archiving dead of apathy.

I asked House Minority Whip Keith Gardner for a statement on the record. Why isn't any stink being made over stripping archiving from legislative webcasting?

He replied;

“The overwhelming constituent interest in webcasting does not appear to extend to webcast archiving. So far your request is the only one that we have received.


Also, it is possible for constituents to record webcasts on their own using inexpensive software.

The deadline for introducing new bills has passed, though it is worth looking into this possibility for next year.”

And there you have it, archiving died because good men did nothing.

All that is necessary for evil to prevail in the world,
is for good men to do nothing. Burke.

photo Mark Bralley

Heath Haussamen (NMI-H): Debate on archiving will be back.

Well, sure enough, an amendment was added to HJM 15 stripping it of an archive.

The fact that I cannot find out easily, who made the motion to castrate the Resolution, who seconded the motion, or who voted for or against the amendment, points to the need for the archives.

Heath Haussamen, a respected political writer, commenting on NMI' Live Blog, wrote;

"Debate on archiving will be back".

Too late, for this session of the legislature and for every single interim committee meeting between now and the next elections.

Legislative disconnect on archiving of webcasts

There are at least four, maybe more, webcasting bills; HR1, HR2, HJM15, and SR1. Three specifically ban archiving, HJM 15 calls for archiving.

HR2 was amended in House Rules, SR1 was introduced with the ban in place. I am unsure how the language got into HR1, whether it came that way, or was amended. The language in HR1 that prohibits webcasting is underlined, indicating that it was probably changed by amendment.

If HJM 15 passes without an amendment, if it does provide for the archiving of interim meetings, it would seem particularly silly to not then archive everything.

Rep Jeff Steinborn's support of archiving seems resolute. This particularly interesting since it seems like most Democrats are opposing webcasting and archiving.

Good work, sir.

Sanchez goes down on Haussamen's poll

Senate Majority Leader
Michael Sanchez was the subject of Heath Haussamen's latest non-scientific poll, link.

My vote was among those against Sanchez; holding him accountable for his obstruction of meaningful ethics reform. He is even sponsoring legislation that would ban the archiving of Senate webcasts.

How even 94 people would vote in support of this kind of leadership astounds me.




photo Mark Bralley

ACVHS; proof that splitting school districts doesn't work

Albuquerque's Charter Vocational High School, offers an example of district splitting. ACVHS split into its own "district". They bought their own buildings, they hired their own superintendent, and then they started cooking the books. Update 2/16/10, I am reminded that ACHVS rented their buildings. Also that technically, a charter school doesn't represent a "split district", though the effect is the same)

ACVHS Superintendent Danny Moon's trial started today, link.

Why did things get so out of hand at ACVHS?

They got out of hand, because APS is a bunch of good ol' boys covering each others asses. Watch Larry Barker's video. Watch the (APS) administrators, Bruce Smith and Bettina Ekland, not step up to legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service.

Watch them refuse to answer legitimate questions.

There is not one single administrator in the entire APS accountable to any standard of conduct that requires them to respond to legitimate questions about their conduct or competence.

It isn't about the size of the districts, it is about unequivocal standards and inescapable accountability.

Without honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence, school districts will continue to squander our power, our trust and our treasure; without consequence.

And it doesn't make a bit of difference whether it is one room school house,

or 1,200,000,000 tax dollars annually.

Endbar; The gentleman who blew the whistle on the corruption at ACVHS was a security guard. He was severely beaten in the parking lot of the school one day; he believes in retaliation for pointing to the corruption.

Also, in apparent retaliation, a criminal background check was done on him. The checking constituted a fourth degree felony as there was no good and ethical reason to criminally invade his privacy.

Another victim of the illegal background checks was the fiancee of a senior APS Administrator Tom Savage.

He is the gentlemen that School Board Member Paula Maes mentioned when she revealed, she "would never agree to any audit" that individually identified corrupt or incompetent administrators, like for example; Tom Savage.

At any rate, none of these illegal background checks could have been done without the aid and abet of the APS Police Department, link. Three years later, the APS PD is "still investigating" criminal misconduct in the APS PD; long after statutes of limitation have expired on felony criminal misconduct.





photo Mark Bralley

What is Denish going to do about archiving?

Lt Governor Diane Denish claims to be a leader in ethics reform and in open and transparent government. Serendipitously, she will be holding the gavel when webcasting (and archiving) comes up for a vote on the Senate Floor.

There will be those who will argue that, within in her constitutional rights and duties ... yada yada and blah blah blah; Denish cannot step up on the issue of archiving legislative webcasting.

I would argue that anytime any one of them wants to ignore the rules, they do so without hesitation.

If she wants to, she can. If she wants to, she will.


It is too late for Denish to be the first candidate to step up on archiving, link.

She is already among the last.

Though not yet, dead last.




photo Mark Bralley

Turner steps up on archiving.

Gubernatorial Candidate Doug Turner became the first candidate in either party to step up on archiving legislative webcasting.

On the Terrie Q. Sayre show on KKOB this morning,
I asked him to step up. He did.


The only reason to not archive
is to hide the truth from voters
in the next election.







I couldn't have said it better myself.




photo Mark Bralley

Searchable archives of legislative webcasts, why not? except to hide the truth?

There are currently three resolutions that address legislative webcasting; HR1, HR2, and SR1.

Rep Keith Gardner is carrying House Resolution 1 which reads, pg2 line 14-15;

The live stream shall not be archived.

Rep Jeff Steinborn is carrying House Resolution 2 (substitute), link, which reads, pg 2, line 22;

The streams shall not be archived.

Senator Michael Sanchez is carrying Senate Resolution 1, link, which reads pg2, line15 ;

(c) the live stream shall not be archived;

Without an archive, the access to the legislative process that webcasting is supposed to provide, does not exist. It limits viewing to only those willing to watch all day, either live or if they make their own recordings. If two webcast meetings take place at the same time; committees all meet at the same time, it would be impossible, without multiple recorders, to catch more than one meeting.

I am disturbed at the number of people who are buying the new openness and transparency myth. Do they not know that archiving is being denied, or do they not understand the implications of the denial?

There is no good and ethical reason to not archive;
it is not technologically difficult, and it is not too expensive
- a few tens of thousands of dollars at most.

There is only one reason I can think of to eschew archives and that is, an unwillingness, born of a lack of character or courage, to be held honestly accountable for what is done and said in committee meetings and on the floor of the legislature.

If there were another reason, someone should be able to articulate it.

There is no reason, that I can think of, that political writers in any medium, should accept the denial of archives without a fight, as archives are central to documenting the process and sharing it with reader and viewer stakeholders.

There remains only one hope to create searchable archives; an upwelling of public support. That upwelling will not take place unless and until, political writers and reporters urge their readers to take up the cause and demand real access to the process.

The Darren White Show

There are those who think Public Safety Director aka "Sheriff", Darren White, link, is a publicity hound.

There is a running joke about
the most dangerous place in
Albuquerque right now,
being the ground between
Darren White and a TV camera.


Apparently, or a microphone either; he has a radio talk show on KKOB.

For an hour or so every Saturday, he has the floor.

Today, he shared the floor with Police Chief Ray Schultz, and former crime writer now PIO,
TJ Wilhelm.

They were basking in the glow of the solving of an eight year old murder. The cops who actually did the work, from locating the body to actually digging the hole, where not among today's guests on the show.


These men could not be more pleased with each other's performance. White says Schultz was the right person for him to have hired, and Wilhelm said Schultz is the best Chief of Police he has ever known.

I called in just a minute too late to ask a question on the air.

I was going to ask, so what's up with the Eye on Albuquerque?

If what you read on the Eye, link, is any indication of the truth about morale in the APD, these three have a problem.

If any of what we read about administrative incompetence is to be believed, these three have a problem.

The simplest path to clearing their name is to prove it; conduct an independent review of morale and other concerns of the rank and file.

To hear them tell it, they'd come out smelling like roses.

Prove it.




photos Mark Bralley

Ethics Commission will not review APS contribution to Denish Campaign.

The State Ethics Commission will not examine a contribution to the Denish campaign by an APS lobbyist, link, in order to determine if tax payer support of education is being funneled into a political campaign.

Because, there is no State Ethics Commission.

How many emails did Sanchez really receive?

During the confirmation hearing for UNM Regent Jamie Koch, Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez announced that it was his intention to vote in favor of all of the confirmations, even before hearing the testimony of those who had traveled to the Roundhouse to testify at the hearing.

When I called him on his willful disregard for stakeholder input, he got all pissy with me, and announced that his pre-decision was based on more than two hundred emails he had received in favor of the confirmation. Note that he did not deny coming to the hearing with his mind made up, but rather, he attempted to justify his prejudice by pointing to supposed email support of Koch's ordination.

I doubt the veracity of his claim, I don't believe him.

If he had indeed received emails, there would be some correlation between the sentiments expressed in those emails and the sentiments expressed in other venues; UNM Faculty held a vote of confidence on Koch; he went down by a margin of 70 to 1, (482 to 7) and the sign-in to speak at the confirmation hearing itself, was 8 to 1, against the confirmation.

If Sanchez told the truth, that he got more than 200 emails urging him to vote in favor of Koch's confirmation, he must have also received at least some emails urging him to vote no. It is reasonable to assume that those emails would out number the emails in support, by a margin of several to one, to tens to one; the margin reflected in other measures.

All of which begs at least two questions; if emails against outweighed emails in support, how is his vote in support justified, even if he did actually receive 200 emails in support?

If he did actually receive 200 emails in support, he must have received well over 200 emails in total. Do we really believe he received 300 or 400 emails on a Regent's confirmation, when there are so many more, more pressing concerns?

I, for one, do not. I think he made them up.

Endnotes; I cannot provide readers a link to his Sanchez's comment, in no small part because Sanchez doesn't want a searchable archive by means of which, he could be held accountable for his conduct and competence, link. Nor can I file a complaint with the Ethics Commission, because there isn't one, again, in no small part, because Sanchez doesn't want one of those either.



photo Mark Bralley

Demand for independent investigation at UNM falls on deaf ears.

The editors at the Journal, link, have concluded that the most recent demand for an independent investigation of the Locksley Gate fiasco, will be ignored by the leadership of the UNM;

"Like a previous request of UNM regents (for an independent investigation), this one appears to again have fallen on deaf ears.

Certainly, if UNM President David Schmidly or any of the Regents had any intention to follow up on the demand, they would have said something by now, one way or the other.

It is clear, why the demand is being ignored. If Schmidly or any of the Regents gets involved in a discussion of the demand, it will become immediately clear that their position; no review, is philosophically indefensible. After all, if Schmidly et al, are telling the truth; that they have told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, an independent review would substantiate their claims and their tarnished reputation will be rehabilitated. There is no reason to not conduct the review, except that the review will reveal, they haven't told the truth after all.

The cost of the review is inconsequential.

It is clear that the cover up of Locksley Gate will continue.

It will continue, unless the Graduate and Professional Student Association, who picked this fight, is willing to take the fight to the next level. What that level is, is uncertain.

At the very least there will need to be a demonstration of some kind; hundreds of stakeholders standing outside someone's office, demanding that the investigation begin.

Else, the good ol' boys will win again, like they always do, simply by ignoring anyone who challenges their power and privilege.

APS lobbyist gives money to Denish; raises questions.

According to a Larry Behrens, NMI link,
Art Melendrez, APS' lawyer, and a
registered lobbyist for the APS,
has given $1,000 to Lt Diane Denish.

Which begs a question or three; if the money came from APS, did it first come from taxpayers? In which case, doesn't that mean that tax dollars have made their way into Denish's campaign war chest?

Both the APS and the Modrall Law Firm, for which Melendrez works, have refused to supply public records of the amount of money APS pays Modrall for its services.

Until recently, the President of the Modrall, was the husband of School Board Head Honcha Paula Maes, along with all of the conflict of interests therein. (He is still her husband, I suppose, he is no longer the President of the Modrall.)




Wouldn't it be nice if there were somewhere, anywhere, where legitimate questions could be asked and answered, candidly, forthrightly, and honestly?




photos Mark Bralley

Weakened webcasting back on the table.

House Joint Memorial 15, link, comes up Thursday in the House Appropriations and Finance Committee. (the link does not include the amendments added in the Rules Committee Meeting)

The HJM is being carried by Rep Jeff Steinborn.

It was castrated in House Rules where an anti-archiving amendment was added that makes webcasting essentially worthless in terms of actually holding someone accountable for what they're doing.

What ever it is that webcasting is supposed to do in the way of transparency and open government is rendered meaningless if there is no searchable archive.

A searchable archive is the whole point. How can anyone be held honestly accountable if there is no archive? It makes accountability a joke.

There was a time when the Republicans were reported to be too afraid of losing webcasting altogether, to push the archiving issue. Since webcasting is a done deal, no longer hostage to a decision on archiving; it would appear, now is the right time to pick a fight over the principle.

For some reason, link, the webcasting with integrity battle appears to be Democrats fighting against Republicans.

What a great opportunity for Republicans;
talk about being on the right side of history.

UPDATE; I didn't realize Steinborn had two pieces of legislation, HR2 and HJM 15, one applies to committee meetings, the other to interim committee meetings. HR2 was the one castrated in House Rules.

Michael Sanchez misses the point, again.

The point is; any state employee who is pointing to corruption or incompetence should be protected, by the state, from retribution and retaliation for blowing the whistle on public corruption and incompetence.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez voted against it. He is concerned about its cost.

What ever it costs, it must be done.
It must be done, no matter what it costs.
Cost is no object.

Similarly, cost is no object with respect to webcasting to a searchable archive. It simply must be done. There is no good and ethical reason to postpone it for even one more day.

He claims worry over the cost of legislative webcasting with a searchable archive.

Again, cost is no object.

It is too important to do, to not do it.
No matter what it costs.

Which is, as far as I can tell, negligible.



He doesn't want real webcasting and archiving. He doesn't want to protect whistle-blowers; leaving them liable to retribution and retaliation for trying to hold politicians and public servants honestly accountable for their conduct and competence.

Who is this man protecting?



What is it, this man doesn't want us to find out about?




photo Mark Bralley

Staff and Students lack "standing" at UNM.

During the "debate" over whether UNM Regent Jamie Koch would be re-crowned, a Senator reminded staff and students that they don't run the UNM.

I wasn't attending closely enough to see who said it. Were there a searchable archive of quality recordings of Senate Committee Meetings and Floor Sessions, I could enable you to watch and listen to him.

(Update; I have it on good authority,
it was Senator Tim Jennings
who schooled students and staff on
their standing in the process.)

He reminded students and staff, they can hold all of the silly little elections and confidence votes they want, and it won't make any difference.

To underscore the point, he and the rest of the Senate went ahead and extended Koch's reign for six years, nearly unanimously.




photo Mark Bralley

Domenici is not the leading Republican Candidate.

People loyal to St Pete, the Younger, are writing that he is "leading" Republican Candidates for Governor.

If he were "leading"" Republicans, he would be in the Roundhouse, "leading" Republicans.

Has he been to even one Committee Meeting?

In truth there is only one Republican Gubernatorial Candidate actually leading Republicans through personal example, and that is Rep Janice Arnold-Jones.

imho




photo Mark Bralley

Lt Governor's Office ignores legitimate request.

James Hallinan works for the Office of the Lt. Governor.

I got his name off the top of an official "Media advisory".

I have sent him three emails now, reading;

I am in hope that you will add me to your media advisory mailing list.
(my email address)

I am grateful for your time and attention

ched macquigg

He is apparently ignoring me.

I would suppose he is ignoring me in retaliation for my exercise of First Amendment rights to criticize his boss in writing.

That government can do this to you,
and yes, if they can do it to me, they can do it to you,
is unacceptable. Government is our servant.


Until I am convinced otherwise,
I hold Lt Governor Diane Denish,

here seen promising New Mexicans
a Sunshine Portal on state government,

personally responsible for the hiding of
Media Advisories from "opposition" media.



And I see no reason to suppose that a Denish Roundhouse would behave any differently.




photo Mark Bralley

Domestic partnerships and a Special Session.

I am wondering if the issue of legislation on domestic partnerships might be better accomplished in a Special or Extraordinary Session.

We have enough to do; figuring out the budget and ethics reform.

We have more than enough to do.

I am not being unsympathetic to domestic partnership legislation. I think the level of the discourse, and the ultimately the quality of the final legislation, would be vastly improved if the issue is tabled at least until budget and ethics reform are complete.

There needn't be an extraordinary session; perhaps they could just stop wasting time with good ol' recognition and feckless memorials.

If for no other reason, the discussion should be tabled until it is being robustly recorded, broadcast, and properly archived.

Think about it, at least.

On the same page, in the same book, on the same day, and at the same speed

The leadership of the APS has decided that every middle and elementary student in the entire APS will be reading on the same page, in the same book, every day, link.

This despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of those students would rather be reading some other book, a book they have an actual interest in.

Imagine a classroom full of students and a bookcase full of books. Invite them to pick a book that they are interested in. What is the likelihood they will all pick the same book? What is the likelihood they will read it at the same speed? The number "zero" comes to mind.

I can easily imagine a bunch of administrators sitting around and concluding that every student in New Mexico should experience Rudolfo Anaya's "Roadrunner's Dance". Never mind that in truth, there may not be a single student who wants to.

Ask anyone in the leadership of the APS if you can lead a horse
to water and make it drink, they will all agree, yes, you can.

Ask a teacher the same question; they will tell you,
no, you cannot.

Unfortunately, teachers have no seat at the table where
decisions are being made.

And people wonder why Johnny can't read.

Legislative webcasting is a scam

Senate Majority Leader
Michael Sanchez has added
another chapter in the book
about how to scam citizens into
believing they know what is
going on in the Roundhouse;
SR1, link.





Within his resolution, please find;

• "... produced from cameras configured and operated in such a way that as much of the chamber is displayed as practicable ..." and
• "... the live stream shall not be archived."

"Google earth" camera coverage that won't allow viewers to see the faces of speakers, and no archive of the recordings, are manifest cowardice.

Unless and until citizens can look into the faces of legislators as they speak, and unless and until citizens can retrieve and examine recordings after the fact, we have made no real progress in holding them accountable.

If there is any reason at all, that cameras will not be focused upon faces, and that recordings will not be archived, except that legislators lack the moral courage to hold themselves actually and honestly accountable, I would like to know what that reason is.

It is not a lack of technology; it is not a lack of funding.

It is a lack of courage.




photo Mark Bralley

Koch reappointment a faith shaker.

Anyone who thought the process for approving UNM Regents is above board, has reason to suspect that their faith is unjustified.

James Henry "Jamie" Koch is not the only person qualified to sit on the UNM Board of Regents; he is certainly not the best. But he is Governor Richardson's favorite, and apparently that ends the discussion.

Never mind the fact that in a vote of no confidence by UNM Faculty, he fell by a margin of 70 to 1 (482-7). Never mind that the citizens who showed up to speak against his confirmation out numbered supporters 8 to 1. Never mind that nearly every legislator who spoke on the issue, prefaced their remarks with the belief that the leadership of UNM has failed taxpayers in very significant ways; in particular, bloated administration.

Before the hearing, I ran into a former legislative leader. He assured me that the confirmation was a done deal; no amount of protest was going to change anything. Another person who spoke up at the hearing, indicated that she had heard the same thing.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez stated, on the record, (if there actually were an accessible record, Senate committee meetings are still not recorded for the benefit of citizens), that he intended to vote in favor of the coronation, even before hearing the testimony of those who had come to the hearing to testify.

The good ol' boys are clearly still running the government, they still regard the government as their personal plum tree, and they are still feeding plums to their cronies, even in plain sight.




photos Mark Bralley