"Winston Brooks: misleading the public ..."

So begins the flip side of a flier sent to River City residents this week.  The flier was  the product of New Mexico Competes.

According to blogger Joe Monahan, link, New Mexico Competes primarily for more power consolidated in the hands of Governor Susana Martinez and shadow governor Jay McCleskey.

The self evident purpose of the flier is to dishonestly manipulate public opinion regarding APS Supt Winston Brooks and education reform.

I write "dishonestly" deliberately and cite as an example, their "fact";

Fact: 99,9% of all APS teachers are currently rated at the highest level, because student progress is not part of the evaluation process.

The truth is; if that many teachers are rated that highly, it is because of a lot things, not just because student progress is not part of the evaluation process.

No one wants to talk about it, but teacher evaluations aren't the only problem.  A recent audit of APS' administration found that administrative evaluations are subjective and unrelated to promotion or step placement.  That and, there is a culture of fear of retaliation against whistleblowers.

In any event, the flier is manifestly dishonest; it is New Mexico Competes that is misleading the public. It is so dishonest that the people who paid to have it published, have to do so anonymously.

The sitting and shadow governors would have you believe;

Winston is misleading the public to block education reform.

That particular statement may or may not be true, nobody has actually asked Brooks "why" he is misleading the public in this particular case.

What is true is, 

Winston Brooks is misleading
the public about a whole bunch 
of things and education reform 
is the least of them.

Why New Mexico Competes 
has limited its attack on Brooks
to simply his "misleading the public"
on the one issue is perplexing.

Brooks is misleading the public about;

• student discipline issues and the problems with chronically disruptive students and,
• the lack of due process for complaints filed against senior administrators and school board members, and
• the lack of an honest accounting of spending at 6400 Uptown Blvd, and,
• the cover up of corruption in the leadership of the APS Police Force including felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators and
• the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS including the abject abandonment of any responsibility and accountability at all, as the senior-most role models of APS' student standards of conduct; a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!.

New Mexico Competes is misleading the public because they have the money.

Winston Brooks is misleading the public because he has Kent Walz.  

Walz, the Journal, and the rest of the establishment's media; KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV.




photo Mark Bralley

Esquivel and Walz should resign from NM FOG leadership

New Mexico in Depth and Heath Haussamen, link, come with a piece  on problems in the leadership of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, to whit;

FOG Pres Terri Cole

a President wanting to give unearned accolades to deliberate obstructionists and,

a Vice President who is self evidently conflicted in his roles as an elected and public servant and, as a watchdog over electeds and public servants.

NM FOG VP Marty Esquivel's appearance of a conflict of interests isn't his only disqualification and nowhere near his greatest.

The leadership of the APS has in their immediate possession, a fistful of public records. The records are the findings of several investigations of corruption in the leadership of the APS police force, including felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators.  The records name names and according to APS Modrall lawyer Art Melendres, have the capability to lay waste the entire senior leadership of the APS.

They claim for entirely "personnel" reasons, they would rather that you not see them, ever.  Read that personal reasons. They are covering up an ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

In their defense, they prefer to be held accountable to the law; the standard of conduct that every "higher standard" is higher than. The law does not require them to hide the records from you, the law allows them to hide the records from you.

NM FOG Vice President Marty Esquivel is defending himself in federal court over his refusal to produce those records for public inspection.  The law, he and his legal team argue, allows him to do nothing in the face of corruption.

He is spending a lot of money doing it. He spends without board oversight, without signed contracts, and he spends without limit.

He spends from a pot of money called operational funds; money that if it were not being spent in an effort to protect him from the consequences of his misconduct, would be spent in classrooms instead.

Esquivel's legal team is arguing that he is not the custodian of public records, and therefore has no personal participation in the illegal withholding.  I would say turning a blind eye is personal participation.  Guilty knowledge is personal participation.

Operational dollars also underwrite the legal defense of  APS Director of Communications Rigo Chavez.  He is being sued in his capacity as the Custodian of Public Records.

Taxpayers are paying lawyers to hide the truth from them, the truth about the squandering of their trust and their treasure.

Esquivel would have you believe it isn't his job to produce public records.  He is being at best, disingenuous.

As a board member, he could at any time start the wheels rolling on a candid, forthright and honest accounting of the corruption in the leadership of the APS and their publicly funded private police force.

Moreover, he could at any time, go to his good friend Kent Walz and tell him, hey Kent, you should investigate and report on the cover up of the corruption in the leadership of the APS police force.

Kent Walz, NM FOG Secretary and co-founder, could do that.  He could order that investigation, he could publish the results.

But Esquivel won't, and Walz won't.

And we know why they won't.

The likes of Esquivel and Walz being the face of the FOG is dumbfounding.  It defies explanation.





photos Mark Bralley
Walz caught by macquigg

William Dixon must be spinning in his grave!

Turn in one's grave, wikilink.

William Dixon, in whose name the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government presents Dixon Awards to heroes of open government, was a co-founder of FOG; he and  Journal Managing Editor Kent Walz put it together together.

A Dixon Award has been given to both Marty Esquivel and Winston Brooks.  That would be unsettling enough for the founder, as both of them are up to their eyeballs in a cover up of corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS.

His real consternation flows from Walz part in the cover up.
Walz and Esquivel actually managed to bamboozle the FOG
into giving Brooks a Dixon Award while all the while,
all three were busy covering up an ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

Walz could not be acting in more diametric opposition to the FOG's mission if he tried, and trying he is.





photo ched macquigg

KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV cowardly or corrupt?

There is an ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

All anyone in the media, or anyone else for that matter, has to do to investigate the allegation to their complete and utter satisfaction, is write an email to
APS Director of Communications and Custodian of Public Records Rigo Chavez.

They don't have to go anywhere, they don't have to do anything, and they don't have to believe anybody.  All they have to do is ask to see the public record.

All they have to do is request that he produce any and all ethically redacted public records of allegations and investigations of public corruption in the leadership of the APS, in particular of the investigations of corruption in the leadership of their police force.

The records are immediately available as most are currently in evidence in my lawsuit against them.  In particular if the request is made for electronic records, there is no reason why they couldn't have them right away.  It is his policy to produce records, if he in deed does produce them, "within the 15 days allowed by the law".  That's not the way the law reads, but ...

They could ask to see the public record of all of the IPRA requests for those records, and their responses.  They could ask for the records of communications by and among the leadership of the APS about how they were going to handle the scandal, (and the subsequent cover up).

The only reason the news directors or whomever in the establishment's media won't ask for a candid, forthright and honest accounting of the corruption, its investigations and its consequences, is because they are afraid of the consequences of so doing, or they are corrupt; unwilling to tell the truth, complicit in hiding the truth from interest holders.

If there is another good and ethical reason that the media won't make the request and then report upon the response, other than journalistic cowardice or corruption, someone would be doing them and me a great big favor by suggesting what that might be,

go for it _____________________________________ .


I have reason to believe that at least KRQE asked for the findings at the time of an independent investigation; the one that named the names.  And then they abandoned the request.  I suspect that their lawyer Marty Esquivel counseled them to (I will bow as always to controverting proof).

It would be interesting to know which other media outlets even bothered to ask for the findings.   And if they did, why did they stop asking?




photos Mark Bralley

More dishonesty, of the Esquivelian kind.

APS School Board President Marty Esquivel, by and through his lawyers, has told a federal court that he "... is entitled to summary judgement (sic) on Plaintiff's claims as they relate to ... the August 25, 2010 Audit Committee Meeting based on a lack of personal participation. (emphasis added)

In his sworn testimony, Esquivel says he said "(Get) Out. Please get out."  I don't believe he actually said "please" for whatever that's worth. He indicated he had to "reiterate" that I needed to leave.  That sounds like "participation" to me.

 "Get out.  Please get out."

In this photograph, Esquivel is pointing his finger at me in what I would describe at a threatening manner; far more threatening a gesture than I have ever made toward any of them.  Note; his personal space has not been invaded, and if the distance between us had closed, it was by his deliberate action and not mine.

Speaking of threatening, do any of these people look afraid for their safety?

I was necessarily where I was, to photograph a public servant within his public service; it's the only reason why this record exists; of Esquivel documenting the unlawful ejection.

According to his sworn testimony

"... I pulled out my video phone, and really wanted to capture what was going on.  And I didn't capture everything but I think I got enough, because I knew things were headed downhill pretty fast. And I really wanted to document the misconduct, document the disruption in case I needed to really do it someday.  And I'm really glad I did."

Esquivel claims a degree in Journalism.  Who taught him to turn his camera off as soon as "things started heading downhill pretty fast."?  Isn't that the moment most of all, when his camera should be turned on?

In his deposition, Defendant Esquivel testifies in great length and detail about our alleged misconduct before the Audit Committee began.  Nowhere in his deposition does he mention that he wasn't even there - it's all hearsay.  He didn't even get to the meeting until after they had already adjourned the regular meeting and then moved into executive session.

If Esquivel found out what supposedly happened before he got there, he found out about it in a discussion that took place outside of the open meeting; in violation of the Open Meeting Act.

He learned it during a discussion of whether to eject Mark Bralley and I from the meeting; a discussion and vote that took place in violation of the Open Meetings Act.

A violation they later denied under oath when they approved a claim that nothing other than the agenda had been discussed and acted upon during the closed session.

I'm sure they will argue this is all "legal".

I'm just as sure I will never understand how it possibly could be.




wide shot Mark Bralley
the other is mine

Monahan picks scab off NM FOG

Blogger Joe Monahan sounded a FOG ALERT this morning, link.

I have sounded the alert as well,
as recently as yesterday.

I have been sounding the alert ever since the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government gave APS Supt Winston Brooks a Dixon Award for heroic transparency, while knowing that he was hiding, and continues to hide, the finding of several investigations of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators. Findings that name names.

The Dixon Award travesty was pulled off my Defendant Marty Esquivel and Journal Managing Editor Kent Walz.

It is Walz who is keeping the Journal from investigating and reporting upon an ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

Monahan asks;

why not clear the fog at FOG and let new blood take over?

I ask, why would any new blood want to "take over" a good ol' boys club whose primary interests lie in covering each others asses?

Monahan avers, the Journal and the Alb Chamber of Commerce run the show.

I aver, APS is a player.

The Vice President of FOG is Defendant Marty Esquivel; the President of the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education.

APS spends more than a billion tax dollars a year; not well, not transparently, not under any serious oversight.

Take for example; Esquivel's spending on his own legal defense.  Oversight by underlings.  Subordinate oversight is oxymoronic.
It is conflicted decision making on its face.

The willful ignorance of the APS School Board, of the issues under litigation defies explanation except by their complicity in, or complacency about Esquivel's squandering of the public trust and treasure.

The establishment's broadcast media investigative reporters aren't investigating either.

Until recently, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the New Mexico Broadcasters Association Paula Maes sat on both the FOG Board and the APS School Board.






The end line of the post screams for a pun on the impenetrability of fog. I'll settle instead for wondering for us all,
what in the hell is going on in there?

Steve Terrell offers this on that; link.





photos Mark Bralley

NM FOG Vice President says, the First Amendment is just too damn confusing, for anyone to expect him to follow it.

New Mexico Foundation for Open
Government Vice President (and
Defendant in a federal civil rights
lawsuit) Marty Esquivel argues that
the law is too unsettled for him to
have known that what he does to me
in the following video violated my
First Amendment rights.





Esquivel ejected me, he insists, not because of what I was saying, but because what I was saying included personal attacks and dealt with personnel issues.  It did not, as you heard.  Even if it did, both are protected speech under any ethical interpretation of First Amendment rights.

Esquivel is arguing that I have offered my petition one too many times.

Which begs a question;

If the government is allowed to ignore petitions for even one more time than petitions are allowed to be delivered, what is the point in protecting the right to deliver them to people who openly admit, they are ignoring them?

What is the point in Constitutional protection for the human rights to speak freely and petition the government, if the government has no obligation to respond to the petition in good faith?

However you look at it, the First Amendment either protects what I did at the public forum November 4, 2009, or it does not.

If it does not,
we are in a world of shit.

The terms of public in-servitude are the prerogative of the people.
The people get to decide the limits on their liberty, not the government.

And especially, not Marty Esquivel.




photo Mark Bralley

Esquivel lies again, this time before a federal court judge

In Defendant Marty Esquivel's Motion for Summary Judgment, he made a claim that is an outright lie.  All of his motions are characterized by a profound lack of honesty, but I point to this one in particular because it is so demonstrably, unequivocally dishonest.
The claim is based on Esquivel's sworn testimony, and reads;

"(During my public forum appearance on November 4, 2009, I made) allegations that a particular senior APS administrative official, who was not present, had engaged in criminal behavior."

What I actually said;

I have come tonight with individual opportunities to stand up as role models of the Pillar of Trustworthiness.
...
Ms. Sink (the administrator who was not present) can tell the truth about ...(ejection begun)

I was going to say;

"Ms. Sink (in order to take advantage of an opportunity to stand up as a role model of trustworthiness) can tell the truth about student discipline and the effects of chronically disruptive students."

I was not allowed to complete my thought.  Even if I had I been, I would not have had accused her of having engaged in criminal behavior.  It was enough to point out that she had not yet told interest holders the truth about the problems consequent to students misbehaving in APS schools.

Saying that I accused her of engaging in criminal behavior, is a bald faced lie.


See for yourself at 1:30.

So who are you going to believe, Marty Esquivel or your lyin' eyes and ears?

Unfortunately bald faces lies come easy for APS School Board President, NM FOG Vice President, and self proclaimed "open government expert", Defendant Marty Esquivel, link, link; the senior most role model in the entire APS, of the student standard on truth telling, the Pillar of Trustworthiness.

This is newsworthy, as is;

• The removal of the role modeling clause In no case shall the standards of conduct for adults, be lower than the standards of conduct for students, from APS school board policy and their own code of conduct.  And in the so doing, their wholesale abandonment of the duties and obligations of the senior most role models of student standards of conduct, and
• the abject lack of due process for complaints filed against administrators and board members, and
• their refusal to produce a candid forthright and honest accounting of their spending at the Castle Keep at 6400 Uptown Blvd, and
• their refusal to produce and discuss, statistics on student misconduct, past, present and future, and the effects of chronically disruptive students, and
• their refusal to recognize the nearly 100,000 years of teaching experience in the APS by providing for them, a seat at the table where decisions are made, and
• their refusal to allow any audit of administrative and executive standards and accountability, in particular if that audit, review, investigation and report will individually identify corrupt and incompetent administrators or board members, and 
• steadfastly refuse to produce ethically redacted public records of investigations of felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of the APS police force, and
• their limitless spending on litigation to protect the leadership of the APS from the consequences of their misconduct; civil and criminal.  Spending that is "overseen" by underlings.  They claim subordinate oversight.  It is oxymoronic, and worse. And
• that litigation is being done without the presentation of a "case analysis" before the whole board (for what reason except to maintain plausible deniability when the truth gets out.  Truth that won't leave a single senior APS administrator left standing, and
• so is quite frankly, that the only guy standing up a public forum and calling them on their bullshit, has been banned for life (or until I admit to doing what I have not done, and promise to never do it again, despite my several First Amendment rights to do just that) from just the public forum at school board meetings, and only from there according to Defendant Marty Esquivel.

How many hundreds of thousands have they spent and need to hide?  Hell, how many millions?

So why won't the Journal, KRQE, KOAT, or KOB TV investigate and report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS?

Except that they are complacent, or
except that they are complicit?




photos Mark Bralley

APS teacher morale horrifically bad throughout the district

APS Supt Winston Brooks, in a Journal report, link, suggested that “75 percent of the morale problem is because of the PED reforms and 25 percent is because of the implementation of the new common core standards.”

Consider for a moment, the statistical unlikelihood that his estimations are accurate.  Are there really no other factors in declining morale among teachers; not even one?

Bad times and bad morale don't necessarily correlate.
Good leaders can get people through bad times and
with their chins up.

Bad leadership and bad morale do correlate, directly.

Teacher evaluation and common core are part of the problem for certain.  I would venture that most teachers would point to other problems as well.  For one; the administrative failure with regard to student discipline and chronically disruptive students.

Brooks would like to draw attention away from his bad leadership for selfish reasons.

The Journal, apparently, would like to help.

A simple survey of teachers would reveal the truth and so much more.  Therefore, a simple survey of teachers will not be done.

Not by APS, not by the Journal, and oddly enough,
not by teachers (unions).

The Council of the Great City Schools Fall Conference coming to APS

APS Supt Winston Brooks has a monthly Journal column.  This morning, link he wrote about the upcoming national conference of the Council of the Great City Schools.

His column is called "From the Top" and, in an interesting aside;

during his deposition, Brooks made it clear that he actually believes the Kevlar reinforced dais; the raised platform at the front of the John Milne Boardroom behind which he and the board hide during school board meetings, is in fact called a "deity". 

He said it three times; it wasn't a slip of the tongue.  Freudian slip, wikilink, or ...?

In any case, the CoGCS conference is coming to town, link.

Brooks wrote;

I am very proud to help bring some of the most respected and influential thinkers of our time to Albuquerque for the purpose of creating better public schools.

Brooks argues that the conference will provide;

• the opportunity to network,
• exchange ideas,
• share challenges and
• problem solve

in both intimate and large public discussions empowering participants to

"deliver the best possible education for the 6.8 million students we collectively serve".

And in the final analysis,

"... it’s our students in the long run who will benefit from this gathering of the minds."

If after the conference, anyone asks Brooks what exactly are the benefits that students received, or what exactly he learned, that he didn't already know, he will not answer, link. 

He can't.

There is nothing, that will profoundly affect the outcome in public education, that is new to learn.

There is no magic.

If there were magic, teachers should be invited to hear it
first hand from the magicians.  Why filter the explanation
through the likes of Brooks and APS Executive Director
of Communications Monica Armenta?


In the end, Brooks and Monica Armenta will enjoy the warmth
of the limelight for about a week and that's about it.

Brooks invites you to "Send comments or questions to
superintendent (at) aps.edu.

He won't read them, but he does encourage you to send them.
It's another way of his, to stay in touch.




photo Mark Bralley

Armenta swears; no one (in the media) ever asked

In her sworn deposition testimony, APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta testified that there is nothing she needs to know that could be found on my blog.

She was asked, if she never read the blog, how does she know that there is nothing on it she needs to know.

She replied;

... no one has ever asked me a question in the media about it.  There has never been a question, according to this, is this happening?  There is no questions that have come, whose origins are from that particular blog.

Her sworn testimony is that no one in the media, not the Journal, not KRQE, not KOAT, and not KOB TV, has ever asked her about;

1. the cover up of criminal misconduct in the APS police force leadership, or about
2. the abandonment, by the entire leadership of the APS, of the obligations and responsibilities of role models of student standards of conduct. or about
3. spending at 6400 Uptown Blvd, or about
4. their resistance to an independent audit of administrative standards and accountability, or about
5. the denial of due process to hundreds of whistleblowers, or about
6. any of the issues I have raised on my blog.

If the media has ever asked her about any of these issues, Armenta is lying.

If Armenta isn't lying, then the Journal, KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV are guilty of journalistic malpractice on an epic scale.




photo Mark Bralley

It was Melendres who reported that no top administrators in APS would be left standing

In a Journal report, dated June 8, 2007, link, it was APS Modrall APS attorney Art Melendres who offered up the boast for publication;

"Sam Bregman has said that, by the time this lawsuit is over, there will be probably no top administrators in APS standing because his goal is to take everyone down."

Why would Bregman think that the truth that APS Police Chief Gil Lovato had to tell, would bring down the top of the APS?

It could be nothing more than
Bregman bombast and braggadocio.

Or it could be that Lovato, with his
knowledge of in secret investigations,
really could have taken down the
entire leadership of the APS,
had he had his day in court.

It is an important question and a question worthy of investigation and report.

A question the answer to which, is curiously uninteresting to the local press.



Is it because they know the answer, and
they are complicit in hiding it?

I invite any alternative, good and ethical alternative explanation.




photos Mark Bralley

The first government takeover; the takeover of government

When the government was first formed, it was widely understood, but not yet expressed, that government was to be of the people, by the people and for the people.

As government matured, it became more independent.  Less attention by the people was necessary and, less attention was paid.  The people wandered off to make livings, raise families and build a country.

The power of government grew in inverse proportion to the people's interest and involvement. A tipping point was passed and now the people don't tell the the government what to do, the government tells the people what to do.  And how to it, where to do it, and when to do it.

Consider the who, what, where and when of the right to petition the government.

The ultimate outrage; the government took it upon itself to write the rules over people's right disagree with government. And in those rules, revoked the "privilege" of the people to freely petition their government; a Constitutionally protected human right.

Open Meetings law in New Mexico, does not require politicians and public servants to take public comment at public meetings.  The public forum is a "privilege" flowing not from our rights but rather, from their individual beneficence, or not.

What is the point of Constitutional
protection of the human right
to petition one's government,
if there is not a corresponding
obligation on the part of government,
to accept that petition in good faith?

They are not doing us a favor
by listening to us; it is their duty.
They are not doing us a favor in
accepting our petition, it is their duty. 




photo Mark Bralley

Skandera's PIO; debate; we don't need no stinkin' debate!

Albuquerque Teachers Federation President Ellen Bernstein invited NM Public Education Secretary Hanna to Skandera to participate in a “formal debate” on the new teacher evaluation system.

Teachers, arguably the most qualified to speak on teaching and teacher evaluation, want to sit down and have a two way discussion about how teachers should be evaluated.

Bernstein asked for a serious debate “that includes the voices of the professional practitioners who are experiencing the policy, as well as the voice of its primary designer.”

If teachers have serious concerns about the efficacy of this system, it would seem prudent to hear what they have to say.

I am disappointed that they have selected a "formal debate".  They can ask for whatever they want, but what they need is a forum where they can engage in a meaningful and complete dialogue with a person who has the power and the authority to say "yes".  (There is an adage that applies to travelers having problems; never take no from a person who doesn't have the authority to say yes.)

Larry Behrens, spokesman for the state Public Education Department, said Thursday that Skandera will not be meeting ATF members for any such debate, but not very nicely;

“What is disappointing, but not surprising, is that this so-called offer from the status quo defenders does not once mention the most important element of education – our students,” said Behrens. “It’s unfortunate our students can’t afford the organized political operation from which ATF union leaders benefit.”

And further;

Regarding this latest debate invitation, Behrens said: “Their stalling tactics in the courts make it impossible for us to even seriously consider their ‘offer.’”

Whose side is Behrens on, the people he works for, or the woman he works under?    Whose side are all Public Information Officers on?  Is it there job to inform the public, or defend their bosses from legitimate questions about the public interests and their public service.

Skandera loses this one by trotting out her PIO,
not to explain why their request is unreasonable,
but  to bad mouth the teachers who made it.




photos Mark Bralley

Where does the press get to stand?

There are good and ethical restrictions on where members of the press  (or anyone else) can stand and participate in the deliberations of their government; the wielding of their power and the spending of their trust and treasure.

Genuine safety concerns are exemplar;
you can't set up a tripod in anyplace that complicates an emergency evacuation.

There are at least two schools of thought;

1.  The government has the right to tell the press (and anyone else) where they can/must stand.

2.  The government has the right and obligation to tell the press (and anyone else) where they cannot stand; but only for reasons that stand some scrutiny.

If the government's rules are created to protect politicians and public servants from oversight by those whose power they wield and whose resources they spend, then the rules are "bad" rules.

It begs a question; a question I've been asking for a long time;

who writes the rules for public in-servitude, the people or the public servants?

And a more important question;

who should be writing the rules?

Is it reasonable for the government, APS School Board Member Kathy Korte for example, to tell the press where they have to stand; up to and including; offsite?

In her sworn testimony and email exchanges, she reveals her conviction that;
a male photographer taking her picture from a distance and even "while she was doing her job" as an elected and as a public servant, is a stalker.

There is nowhere, where they can stand to photograph her or ask her questions about the public interests or about her public service, and where that will not be "stalking".

She admitted that there are certain members of the press, in particular from KOAT TV that she will not talk to at all, even to answer their legitimate questions about public interests and her public service.

Her denial of equal access, to certain KOAT press, is a violation of their civil rights.  Her denial of access to any particular member of the press, especially males, is a violation of their civil rights to equal access to government and a place to stand.


That's wrong, right?




photo Mark Bralley

I know squat about Character Counts!

During her sworn testimony,  APS School Board Member Kathy Korte offered that I was in no place to tell her anything about Character Counts! because I am ignorant on that subject.

My lawyer asked her if she knew I was trained in Character Counts! by its founder Michael Josephson.  (That I had done dozens of highly acclaimed trainings before audiences including a sitting Governor, and APS superintendent, and that I am as knowledgeable about Character Counts! as anyone in the leadership of the AP; I would be happy to stack hats with any or all of them at once.)

Her response was that she thought Character Counts! was founded by US Senator Pete Domenici.

So, no.

The photograph is of her modeling the Pillar of Respect, in defense of, and shortly after her assault and battery on photographer Mark Bralley.




photo from Korte's Facebook

Journal editors think I'm a gadfly; they have written as much

1. A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance.
2. One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad.
3. Any of various flies, especially of the family Tabanidae, that bite or annoy livestock and other animals.

They think ill of me after years of defamation by the leadership of the APS.  They think ill of me because the leadership of the APS convinced them to.  The editors accepted the slander and libel and acted upon it.  Whether out of their malice or incompetence, they have ignored credible evidence and testimony regarding a years long cover up of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators.

That I was a "gadfly" should not have , would not have, and
did not keep them from investigating and reporting on the cover up.

Their corruption and or willful ignorance/incompetence did.

That I am still a gadfly, does not keep the media from
investigating and reporting on the ethics and accountability
scandal in the leadership of the APS,

... it is only their corruption that does.




The drawing is not mine, 
my considerable effort to 
find the creator was fruitless

Is Brad Winter's testimony credible?

I am going to write from memory here; if the transcript contradicts me, I will let you know.

APS COO Brad Winter was testifying under oath.  He testified that after the August 25 Audit Committee Meeting, I walked up to him and invaded his personal space by leaning in and whispering something he took to be "threatening" in his ear.

 I already told you what honestly happened, link.

Winter ended up arguing that no one has ever leaned in toward him, that did not make him feel threatened by their so doing.  After considerable coaxing, Winter finally conceded that "maybe 3 or 4 times" in his life, has someone leaned in toward him without making him feel threatened.

Would you believe; photo-
journalist and blogger
Mark Bralley managed to
capture all three!?

What are the odds?

I mean, seriously,
what are the odds
that Bralley caught
Brad Winter every
time in his life that
someone leaning in
toward him, didn't
make him feel threatened?

Slim; in my estimation;
exceedingly slim.  Really, really slim.

The same odds probably, that you will get bitten by a
Polar Bear and a Brown Bear in the same day.

A little later, Winter swore;

All anyone has to do to find out how much money he spent, and on what, at 6400 Uptown Blvd., is to file a public records request.

Been there, done that, link.

You really can't make this crap up; not in this volume,
not this fast.




photos Mark Bralley

I cannot, I was told, have it both ways

I have testified under oath, that I believe the leadership of the APS has made a deliberate decision to ignore me.

I have testified as well, that I believe the leadership of the APS is retaliating against me because of the content of my speech at public forum, and because of what I write on my blog.

You can't have it both ways, I'm told.  If they are retaliating against you, they are not ignoring you.

Honestly, I never thought of it that way.

They ignore me at public forum, and everywhere else I try to engage them in two way conversation about legitimate public interests, except that they retaliate against me for having so done.

The Defendants also, cannot have it both ways.

Either I am so threatening that

• an entire administrative complex has been, at great expense, fortified and wired to record my every movement,
• Their Chief had to order my close up surveillance by multiple police officers whenever I set foot on APS Property
• The Communications Director ordered her subordinates to photograph me,
• Their lawyer told them to document my behavior,
• I am banned for life from "threatening" them again.

or;

The fact that, despite all that effort and six years of trying,
they were not able to create a single;

• photograph, 
• videotape, 
• audiotape, 
• document, or 
• contemporaneous record of me doing anything other than exercising my Constitutionally protected human rights to speak freely and petition my government

means something!



They can't have it both ways.




photo Mark Bralley

Korte doubles down on "the kid is a jerk" remark

APS School Board Member Kathy Korte drew some attention, when in an email to constituents, she referred to an APS student as a jerk, to a parent as whiny, and to her belief that KOAT TV cannot be trusted to tell the truth about APS.

KOAT reported on it. link.

School Board Member Targets Action 7 News in Email

Today in her sworn testimony, she indicated
she still feels the same way about the little jerk,
so there.

In so far as her expressed belief that KOAT TV
cannot be trusted to tell the truth about APS, she and I
find ourselves in agreement, although for different reasons;
she thinks they don't tell the good truth,
I think they won't tell the bad.

She expressed continuing disappointment with KOAT,
and again, we found ourselves in agreement, and again
for those different reasons.

Korte testimony indicates no understanding of her obligations as a role model of student standards of conduct.

In her sworn deposition this
morning, APS School Board
Member Kathy Korte
answered enough questions
about Character Counts! and
about the role modeling of
them, to conclude that there
are severe limits on her
knowledge about either.



Nothing in her testimony would lead anyone to believe that she knows;

• Character Counts! was adopted for the entire APS by unanimous school board resolution.  The 1994 resolution has been neither rescinded nor modified.  It is a binding today as it was on the evening they adopted it.
• The Pillars of Character Counts! are the current APS student standards of conduct, and have been since 1994.
• Every year, she and the board sign off on the Student Behavior Handbook, an extension of School Board Policy, and in it, a line which reads;
• Students are expected to model and promote the Pillars of Character Counts!
• The only way one can "model" any standard of conduct is to hold themself honestly accountable to it.  
• Students are expected to hold themselves accountable to higher standards of conduct than the law.
• Korte thinks accountability as role models of the Pillars of Character Counts! applies to students.
• Korte thinks accountability as role models of the Pillars applies only to students.
• Korte does not realize that she is one of the senior-most role models in the entire APS, of student standards of conduct, and from a position of absolutely no accountability to them.

It is manifest hypocrisy.

Accountability is the foundation upon which any and all standards rest.  Without accountability, there isn't one whit, link, of difference between the highest standards of conduct and the low.

If you ask Korte, or any other board member or senior administrator, if they are accountable as a role model of the Pillars of Character Counts!, they will undoubtedly claim that they are.

The funny thing about "claiming" accountability to anything, is that is so easily tested.  If you can't see it, it isn't there.

If Korte was actually and honestly accountable as a role model of student standards of conduct, she could point to a venue where that claim could be tested.

Where can a complaint be filed against Kathy Korte, Marty Esquivel, Winston Brooks, Monica Armenta, Steve Tellez, or any other senior administrator or board member, and where that complaint will see due process?  If the complaint alleges their failure to meet higher standards of conduct than the law, where can it be filed? With Ethical Advocate, link?  In court? 

Korte will tell you it is at election and, nowhere else.

They could create such a venue.  Any guy worth more than a quarter of  a million dollars a year, could figure out a way to do it.

If they did create such a venue, they could point to it when anyone asked them;

Where is the place where you can be held accountable as a role model?  Where can I file a complaint?

There is no such venue, there is no honest accountability
for the leadership of the APS, as role models of the standards
of conduct they establish and enforce upon students.

They just won't admit it.

Fortunately for them, their establishment media friends
aren't about to rat them out.

Quite to the contrary, obviously.




photo Mark Bralley

George Washington and the cherry tree; new development

I am curious about what my readers are curious about.
One had linked to a very early post, link.  It was entitled and read;

George Washington and the cherry tree; new development

If you asked a Leader of the APS, did you chop down the cherry tree? If they answered they would say, through their lawyers, “Prove it.”

And then they would use a whole bunch of money to keep you from doing that. The money comes from people who think that their taxes are being spent in the best interests of children.

APS Leaders are spending money to protect their own interests. They’re doing it in diametric opposition to the interests of children.

Taxpayer trust is being betrayed.

But just you try to hold them accountable for it.

I wrote it November 21, 2006.

It's all still true.

But just you try to hold them accountable for it.

L. to r. me, my poster, a wall, the chain of command; the grinning APS COO, the grinning APS Police Chief, a gun, a pair of handcuffs, a grinning uniform, and a badge.

photo Mark Bralley

The idea that the APS board could be embarrassed, humiliated, or ashamed, "is ludicrous".

APS School Board President Marty Esquivel argues by and through his lawyers;

The idea that the powers that be are concerned
about Mr. MacQuigg speaking about the importance
of Character Counts! is ludicrous.

"The powers that be" ought to be concerned.

Imagine you are a member of the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education.  As such, you are one of seven of the senior-most role models in the entire APS, of student standards of conduct.

If you cannot imagine the premise,
you should not imagine sitting on the school board.

A guy stands up at public forum every two weeks and challenges you to actually role model honest accountability to the Pillars of Character Counts!; APS' current and for nearly a score of years, student standards of conduct.

The guy suggests that the only reason you won't hold yourself honestly accountable to higher standards of conduct, is that you lack the character and courage to hold yourself honestly accountable to higher standards of conduct than the law.

The guy asks you to point to any other good and ethical reason to justify removing the role modeling clause from your own standards of conduct.

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

The guy asks you to explain in words that any student can understand, why they are expected to hold themselves honestly accountable to higher standards of conduct than senior administrators and school board members.

And you, Marty Esquivel, a board member, are being asked
these questions in public and on the record, and you are
"not concerned"?

Now that, is ludicrous.




photo Mark Bralley

Brooks to ask SuperSAC what they think about double standards of conduct in the APS

I made that up.

I mean really, can you imagine
APS Supt Winston Brooks asking the
Super Student Advisory Council, SuperSAC,

What do they think about students being expected to hold themselves honestly accountable to a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct, and their senior-most role models are accountable only to the law.

For how much longer can the Journal, KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV refuse to investigate and report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS?

For as long as good women and men do nothing.

School Board Meeting and public forum next Wednesday at 5:30.

I am kept away by a publicly funded private police force;
a Praetorian Guard in every sense, enforcing an unlawful
restraining order.

And you are kept away by ...



photo Mark Bralley

The Constitutionally protected human right to express anger against the government and government officials

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides protection for people who want to petition their government for redress.  And by extension it protects people who want to petition their governmental officials for redress.

What if  the government, or government official's response makes the petitioner feel anger?

Does the First Amendment protect a human right to feel angry?  Does it then protect a human right to express that anger in the tone of their voice, and the look in their eye?

Is there a human right to express anger *in the face of government?

*In an aside; My right to free expression has been limited by government lawyers.  I find now, I have to qualify anything I write, lest its meaning be misconstrued in their litigation against us.

When I used the phrase in the face of government, it will be written;, see, he thinks it's OK to get in people's faces. 

I never have, I do not now, nor will I ever, get "in their face" except from the podium during my two minutes during public forum.

We're talking about what people are allowed say and express from the podium when they have the floor.

And the question is; if a petitioner feels disrespect for their government, does the First Amendment protect their right to express it, in a public forum?

The law is the only legitimate limit on liberty.

The only legitimate limit on the free exercise of human rights protected under the First Amendment is the law.  If a politician or public servant needs to be further protected than they are by the law, from anger and disrespect of those they serve, they need permission to provide it.  They have to ask the people first.

For as long as it is; government of, by and for the people,
the people hold the only legitimate authority to limit
the free exercise of their Constitutionally protected human rights.

The terms of public in-servitude are the prerogative of the people, not of their servants.

It is up to the people to further protect public servants
from the justified and legally expressed wrath of those they serve, if they need it.

Allowing public servants to limit criticism and free expression
is rather like allowing convicts to tell the judge
what they will or will not accept as sentences.

If the relationship between government and the people
is not one of servant and master, what is it?

What two other words describe the relationship?

Who decides which two words they are,
the government or the people?

The leadership of the APS is using operational funds
(money that could and should be spent in classrooms instead)
to argue that it is they; Marty Esquivel, Winston Brooks,
Steve Tellez, and Monica Armenta who will decide
what are the limits on emotions that the people may express
at public forum.

Their sworn testimony leads us to believe;

It will be "OK" to express emotion if you are happy,
but not OK if you are not happy, and in particular,
if you appear angry.

They spend on this litigation without limit and, without oversight.

They get away with it because
the establishment's media is in cahoots.

People like Journal Editor
Kent Walz. and the people
like him, at KRQE, KOAT
and KOB TV; not one of
whom will identify themself
as the person most responsible
for letting these people slide.




photo Mark Bralley

Legal weaselry; Juris Mustelidae

Using the law, the loopholes, weaknesses and technicalities
to escape the earned consequences of conduct prohibited
by higher standards of conduct than the law, the standards of
conduct that all higher standards are higher than.

It represents a failure of character and of courage.

... if you ask me.

APS Defendants argue, I don't want to participate in the public forum

The unjustifiably expensive, intrusive and abusive legal defense taxpayers are providing for Marty Esquivel, Winston Brooks, Monica Armenta, and Steve Tellez, noticed that I stopped coming to public forum after the November 4, 2009 meeting.

They argue that because I stopped coming, they didn't take anything away from me when they banned me from public forums.  I am banned until I kiss Esquivel's and Tellez' rings; admit doing what I haven't done, and assure them I will not continue doing what it is I have never done.   Driving me away from public forums and then saying I'm not there because I don't want to be, is a little like a bully punching a kid in the stomach until the kid gives up his lunch money, and then saying,

I didn't "take" it from him, he "gave" it to me.

It is likely "legal" for Esquivel et al, to argue such ridiculousness.

Just like it's legal to claim that in this photograph such as this, I am scaring the crap out of everybody in the audience, by asking the leadership of the APS to answer questions they don't want to answer, in public or anywhere else.  Questions like;

Why won't you produce the findings of investigations of felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of the APS?  Findings that former Chief of Police Gil Lovato, won't leave a single APS senior administrator left standing.

Their conduct is specifically prohibited by the standards of conduct they establish and enforce upon students;

People of character, people who are accountable to higher standards of conduct than the law, are expected to do more than the law requires, and less than the law allows.

The are specifically prohibited their "legal" weaselry.

The Defendants are no more accountable to higher standards of conduct than the Journal, KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV
are accountable for helping them in the cover up, by hiding the truth from their readers and viewers,

the universal abdication of the entire leadership of the APS,
as role models of student standards of conduct.

photo Mark Bralley

"When the truth gets out, there won't be a single senior APS administrator left standing"

Those are the words of a former APS Chief of Police; Gil Lovato and his lawyer Sam Bregman.

It was their reply to those in the APS who were thinking about firing Lovato when the public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS Police force was exposed in a lawsuit against now APS Chief of Police Steve Tellez.

The firing would result in litigation, and in court, the truth would come out and no APS senior administrator would be left standing.

What if they were telling the truth?

There is a considerable amount of evidence and credible testimony to more than substantiate Lovato's boast.

There is overwhelming evidence, incontrovertible evidence.

And the establishment media, the Journal, KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV are in cahoots to hide it from public knowledge.  They are part and parcel in the cover up.

If Lovato and Bregman's boast was all hot air, if the truth leaves everybody standing, why are they spending so much money to keep it hidden?

Why would APS hide it?
Why would the establishment's media hide it?

Why would anyone hide it?

A more important "why", is why are they still getting away with it?

It is because too many good women and men are doing nothing to expose them.

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

I'm not saying these people are evil, but when Edmund Burke wrote those words,
these are the kind of people he was writing about, and you are the kind of people he was writing to.

email somebody




photo Mark Bralley

Trybus' actual words

From APS Assist Supt of Human Resources Andrea "Andi" Trybus' sworn testimony in deposition;

Q.  So my final question then is, do you have any recollection of APS police conducting its own investigation related to Mr. Lovato?

A.  I have no information that they did.

Q.  As the human resources -- as the head of human resources for APS, is it correct that the report that was prepared in relation to Mr. Lovato is a matter of opinion that is in Mr. Lovato's personnel file?

A.  It is a matter of opinion, yes, it is.

Q. ...

A.  Because it is an internal investigation, and the practice is not to release them.

If the APS Police force did not investigate itself (they claim they did, despite Trybus' denial) then no agency of law enforcement ever investigated anything, and all the evidence is internal and not for release; even to the District Attorney.

No heads will roll.




photo Mark Bralley

APS Modrall Melendres making stuff up

From the deposition and sworn testimony of APS Lead Counsel Arthur "Art" Melendres of the Modrall;

Q.  Have you seen him (me) do anything violent to anyone?

A.  I have personally not seen him do anything.  I have seen his agitated behavior, but it has been reported to me that he has pushed and shoved people, and got in their face, but this only reported to me.  You would have to ask others about the specifics.(emphasis added)

Interestingly enough, both APS Supt Winston Brooks and APS Chief of Police Steve Tellez were asked about the specifics and, testified under oath that they had no reports of me actually touching anyone.  No one does; I never did.

Chatter among the leadership of the APS via emails and texts; they all want to file a criminal complaint against me, or that, they want to get a restraining order against me. They all agree, unfortunately they can't until I actually batter someone.  And here they are, with supposedly just the evidence they're looking for, and Melendres doesn't share it.

So either Tellez and Brooks are lying; they had reports of me actually battering someone but denied under oath, having seen or heard of them.  Despite that they both were dying to have one, these (several) did not fill the bill somehow?

Could it be; Melendres is just making up crap? 
He is the only witness among them all, to testify into the record that, he had knowledge of reports of actual batteries; multiple batteries.

So here he is, their lead counsel, knowing they're crying for something real to use against me; he hears about something real, some misconduct that would justify a real restraining order to replace the banning letter, and doesn't tell them.

How much did that legal advice cost taxpayers?

He also testified to an internal investigation of the APS Police whose finding had missing pages.

Q.  Have you read any other documents in this case, in preparation for today's hearing?

A.  Yes, I asked Ms. Andi Trybus -- Andrea Trybus, if she would provide me with a copy of an investigation that was done relating to MR. Gil Lovato, and she did that.  And I -- how do you describe this?  Maybe to say I perused it, or I speed-read it.

Here are the investigative findings of an investigation of felony criminal misconduct, the production of which is part of this litigation, and he sped-read them on our behalf?

Did speed bill us for his speed-reading? 

There is his testimony that he advised them to document things;

Q.  You didn't think to bring that (... the need for a governmental entity to crate a proper record ...)up during the course of giving advice?

A. I've given advice on the subject, but I've given advice on many, many subjects.

Q.  Does that mean this it wasn't followed?

A.  No, it doesn't mean it wasn't followed.  I'm telling you, I don't know. ... I do training sessions on documentation.  I can't disagree with you. 

He continues;

And I was told by Mr. Allen (their lawyer), in connection with that investigation, that the police -- or the investigative report had some missing pages.  (emphasis added)  And so I did, on my own, follow up with a gentleman by the name of Carl Wiese, W-I-E-S-E, and I asked him if he still had a copy of the report, because he's the individual who had it.
He responded yes, and he said he would send it to me, and he did.  And I will tell you that I did essentially the same thing, which was to peruse it.

And again, speed bill us?




photo Mark Bralley

The Journal and Walz, complicit or complacent?

Hint; it's not complacent.

The success of any endeavor, the APS for example, depends on two things;

1. standards and
2. accountability

Are APS standards high enough; is accountability honest?

The standards that apply to APS senior administrators and board members are either

• adequately high, or
  
  
• they are not.  

That is a statement of fact.

It is my repeatedly expressed opinion that;
The standards of conduct to which the leaders of the APS are held begrudgingly accountable are not high enough to protect the public interests in the APS.  They are not high enough to protect our power, our trust and our treasure from abuse.

Their record shows; the standards to which they actually, honestly accountable, are the very standards that every other higher standard, is higher than; the law.

The law and an unlimited budget for litigation and
no oversight except from underlings.

Unless you wade in APS, you, a Journal reader, don't know anything at all about the actual, honest to God standards to which the leadership of the APS will pledge their allegiance.  You have no idea whether complaints see due process, or whether whistleblowers are routinely subject to retaliation over their complaint.

Why not?

Why won't the Journal investigate and report upon APS' administrative and executive standards of conduct and competence?  If the standards are a high as they would like interest holders to believe they are, wouldn't Journal readers be comforted by that knowledge.  It would be newsworthy.

Wouldn't readers be more likely to vote in favor of bond issues and mill levies if they knew there is honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence in the leadership of the APS?


So why won't Journal Managing Editor Kent Walz stand up and assure the parents of nearly 90,000 of this community's sons and daughters in the APS that; the standards of conduct to which the leadership of the APS are willing to hold themselves honestly accountable are even in any way, adequate to the need?

Hint; it is because the standards of conduct to which they are accountable, and only after whatever cost is no object, win at all cost legal defense they need, are manifestly, ridiculously inadequate.

OK, so let's say that Walz knows the standards of conduct are inadequate, and further that he knows that there is no due process for complaints filed against senior administrators and board members.  That would be newsworthy too, right?

So why won't he report on that either?

Kent Walz cannot report credibly on the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS unless and until, he reports credibly on his relentless refusal to report on credible evidence and testimony regarding the cover up of felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators, for the last six years.

The truth is in their depositions, sprinkled amongst the slander and libel; defamation by the pound; not one bit of it supported by one second of videotape, nor one bite of audio, and not by one photograph in six years.

For the record and as an aside;

I emailed the news departments at KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV.  I asked for the name of the person at that station who is deciding to not investigate and report upon credible evidence and testimony regarding a cover up of felony criminal misconduct.

Not one of them would tell me the name of the person whose hand slapped the table and said,

we are not going to investigate this,
we are not even going to read the depositions, and
we are sure as hell not going to report upon it!

Now get back to work.

photo Mark Bralley 

Journal editorial board meets with Brooks and Winter

In a Journal story, link, a couple of days ago, an editorial board meeting was mentioned;

"APS Superintendent Winston Brooks and APS chief operations officer Brad Winter said during a Journal editorial board meeting Monday that ..."

I have know idea what "editorial board meeting" means at Journal headquarters.  The Wikipedia, wikilink, suggests there was a meeting of the editors and the leadership of the APS, in order that the editors can determine the tone and direction the publication's editorial policy will take.  In this case, the editorial tone and direction on the subject of the traffic loop at Jefferson Middle School.

OK, I can't help but wonder the subject of the editorial tone
and direction on the ethics and accountability scandal in the 
leadership of the APS came up.

I am wondering if there was a single editor who said;
"we owe the people the truth" or words to that effect.

Or maybe I'm just watching too much Newsroom, link.