UNM Pres David Schmidly, "still thinkin'"

UNM President David Schmidly
when asked if there would be an independent, impartial stem to stern investigation of the the Locksley affair said, no decision has been made.

He implied that, they had actually been considering whether to do the redeeming investigation.

When asked to go ahead and make the decision Wednesday, at the news conference, he declined.

Schmidly doesn't have to actually say no. He has the luxury of
saying nothing at all. Saying nothing means no investigation, but
will protect him from the criticism he will face if he is candid,
forthright and honest about his real intention.

The decision could not be more simple.

The financial considerations are infinitesimal.

The opportunity to rehabilitate the University's severely tarnished reputation is huge.

There really is no downside.

Unless they really have not told the truth, the whole truth and,
nothing but the truth.

In which case, the downside will be considerable.

For a time, I was alone in calling for the independent investigation. Two days after I asked, Journal sports reporter Rich Wright joined me in calling for the investigation to begin, link. And now the editors have jumped aboard as well, link. They wrote;

"(UNM) needs to pay for an independent examination of both the incident involving the coaches and the subsequent investigation(s). The university needs to commit in advance to give the investigator carte blanche, full access to all witnesses and to everything already compiled from both investigations. And it needs to commit in advance to make the findings public.

There really is no one at all standing against the investigation except, those with something to lose if the investigation is ever under taken.

And they are not really "standing" against it.
They are in hiding, "hunkering down in their foxhole",
waiting for the storm to blow over. And then, as Schmidly
indicated, they will just "move along".

Expect that neither Schmidly, Krebs, nor Gonzales will
show up in any venue where they can be asked about the decision they will not make.

It's just not the way they roll.




photo Mark Bralley

Journal steps up, demands Independent Answer to questions about the handling of the Locksley affair.

In the Journal this morning, link, Rick Wright reamed me for being bellicose and guilty of delivering a 45 second soapbox diatribe before getting around to asking a "valid and pertinent" question;

Will there be an independent investigation of
the handling of the Locksley affair?

Wright agrees with the need for an outside investigation.

UNM's image is in the toilet. Many people really believe
that there is something being covered up.

KRQE's Jessica Garate, after stating that they had lied
to the local press, asked straight out if there were going to be
any consequences for the botched investigation.
Their response to her question meant, no. Everyone involved
will get a "second chance".

If Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales are telling the truth
about a cover up, an independent investigation will exonerate
them. They should be demanding an independent corroboration.

UNM President David Schmidly, Athletic Director Paul Krebs, and HR VP Helen Gonzales freely admit to a myriad of mistakes. Yet they insist that it is up to them to decide which mistakes will be admitted and whether anything will be done about them.

That Schmidly still "has not made a decision" is a pretty good indication that he has.

When the question is;
do you intend to tell the truth,
any answer except yes, means no.

Hesitation, usually means no.

None of them has any intention of allowing any impartial, independent investigation of their handling of the situation.

UNM has nothing to fear, except the truth.

sidebar;

bellicose; inclined or eager to fight.
diatribe; sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism.

Yeah, I can roll with that.

Wright would rather I be ashamed or embarrassed I guess.

Perhaps he feels personally wounded by my ongoing insistence
that the Journal itself, is part of a cover up.

A cover up of the ongoing refusal by the leadership of the APS
to commence an "outside investigation"; an independent
investigation of the ethics and accountability scandal
in the leadership of the APS.

I will assuage the damage to my ego by reflecting on the number of people who came up to me immediately afterward and expressed their appreciation for what I had done. I was asked to speak on radio afterward. The host told his listeners there was nearly a standing ovation.

Often, though not often enough, people do come up to me and
express their appreciation for my effort. It sustains me when
I have to put up with those who would rather attack me than
tell the truth about whatever it is that I am pointing to.

During the conversation on the radio, the discussion came around to the need for torches and pitchforks. He asked if I was willing to cause a demonstration.

Well, yeah.

But somebody else has to show up or, I just look stupid.





photo Mark Bralley

David Schmidly, still thinkin', one week later.

If you asked UNM President David Schmidly if he expected UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley to step up to honest accountability for what he has done,
Schmidly would say yes.

He would tell you as well, UNM Athletic Director Paul Krebs, is expected to step up.

He would tell you as well, UNM Vice President,Human Resources: HR Dept Administration Helen Gonzales is expected to step up.

He would tell you as well, that he himself, is not only expected
to step up, but that he already has.

He was asked to step up to his promise of transparent accountability, by means of an independent impartial review;
a review that will report to the public record.

There no reason not to conduct that review,
except to protect the corrupt and the incompetent.

Schmidly has admitted incompetence in significant width and depth.

He denies corruption in any width or depth.

But he can't make up his mind to do the only thing that will end conjecture about corruption.

Best case scenario at this point; the independent, impartial review team points to all the incompetency that Schmidly, Krebs and Gonzales already admitted.

That is the review result that would corroborate Schmidly's current story; admitted incompetence and, zero corruption.

The only downside, a comparatively meaningless amount of money that the investigation would cost.

For that pittance, the University's reputation is rehabilitated.
Any perception of corruption in the leadership of the UNM,
will be proved unwarranted; proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If Schmidly expects Krebs, Gonzales, and Locksley to step up to honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence, then Krebs, Gonzales, and Locksley, have a right to expect David Schmidly to show them what that looks like.

Members of the UNM Athletic Department, including
Lobo players; in fact, especially Lobo Players,
have a right to expect David Schmidly to show them what it looks like.

Stakeholders expect Schmidly to step up as a role model of honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence.

File under ironic; it was recently pointed out to me that,

in the entire handling of this issue, the only person whose word
is not being accepted, is the only one who gave his word,
on record, under oath, and under penalty of felony criminal perjury.

How long does UNM President David Schmidly have think
about this decision, before you will accept that his decision is made long since?.

There will be no independent review.

Why? because you can make him.



photo Mark Bralley

So who has Shannon's back?

UNM Board of Regents President Ray Sanchez is covering David Schmidly's ass; he has decided that there will be no independent investigation Schmidly's handling of Locksley Gate.

UNM President David Schmidly is covering Helen Gonzales' ass; he is still trying to "decide" whether he will order an independent investigation of her handling of Locksley Gate.

UNM Human Resources Vice President Helen Gonzales covered Paul Krebs' ass; she investigated the whole thing without making a single recording of anyone's testimony.

UNM Athletic Director Paul Krebs covered his own ass by having a student do the preliminary investigation of Locksley Gate.

The only one whose ass didn't get covered was the student caught in the middle, Shannon Garbiso.

She has no one to cover her ass except a former colleague, link,

someone whose calls for an independent investigation of Locksley Gate have already been rebuffed.

It would be difficult to find a more cogent measure of organizational rot, than measuring the fear of retribution and retaliation for those who stand up and tell the truth.

It must suck to be Shannon Garbiso these days.

"Hypocrisy 101" to be offered at UNM next year.

Soon not to be UNM President David Schmidly has announced that he will join the ranks of the UNM faculty upon stepping down from his Presidency.

According to the Journal, link,"He looks forward to returning to teaching and will offer a course on leadership at the Rio Rancho campus."

Leadership? really?

Will he call it; Leadership New Mexico Style?

In a speech before Leadership Sandoval County graduates, Schmidly listed "vital leadership attributes". On his short list; being "ethical".

Schmidly is not ethical. Will he have a guest speaker on the
day his class looks at ethical?

If ethical means anything at all, it means honest. It means
responding to legitimate questions by answering candidly,
forthrightly, and honestly.

Ask yourself one question; do you know the truth about Locksleygate?

I would argue the answer is no. If there had been even the
semblance independent investigation, if the findings of that
investigation had been made public, then and only then could
anyone say with any conviction at all, that the whole (ethically redacted) truth is known.

UNM President David Schmidly blocked that investigation of his own public service, link, and got away with it.

Will he point to that as an example of leadership "New Mexico style"?

Not only in plain sight, but above the fold in the Metro section
of the Journal.

Nobody ever said the good ol' boys don't have balls.




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.

No mention of an independent investigation.

The Journal ran three stories this morning, on the fallout over the Locksley situation.

They even quoted, though inaccurately, my question about why no agency of law enforcement was asked to investigate any of the allegations.

Their most grievous omission was of my original question;
will you begin an independent investigation of the entire fiasco?

Despite the facts;

• it would cost pennies, comparatively, and
• the investigation, according to UNM President David Schmidly, would exonerate him and his staff on charges of a cover up, and that
• that finding would completely rehabilitate the University's reputation as far as the appearance of a cover up,

Schmidly so far, is pretending he didn't hear the question.

So is the Journal.

Why not begin an impartial, independent investigation that
will report to the public record, except that, that investigation
will reveal administrative incompetence and corruption,

which they really are trying to cover up?

Locksleygate litigation will raise "open government" questions

The litigation surrounding UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley's "alleged" misconduct will raise questions, albeit tangentially, about the most fundamental issue of open government.

Plaintiff, former Assistant Football Coach JB Gerald's lawyers will argue that their client was denied fair treatment by the UNM, both individually and institutionally. They will have to argue that there is not,

inescapable accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence,

for UNM administrators.

Whether Gerald or any other UNM employee, is in fact,
protected by adequate standards and accountability,
is the real question.

It would appear that there are not those standards, and
there is not, that accountability. And, it would appear,
the UMM leadership and their lawyers would rather,
the question not be investigated.

UNM President David Schmidly has made it pretty clear that he has no interest in any impartial investigation of administrative standards of conduct and competence, or of his actual and honest accountability to them. He doesn't want anybody looking at the UNM's administrative standards and evaluating their adequacy. Nor, does he want anybody to look at whether a legitimate complaint filed by the least powerful employee or stakeholder, will receive due process.

At the risk of stating the obvious, there are substantial problems with both, and especially with, honest accountability for the most powerful public servants.

Gov Bill Richardson appointee, UNM Regent's President Raymond Sanchez is no more inclined to see the truth told than is Schmidly, link.



Do the people have a right to know the truth about the spending of power and resources that belong fundamentally to them?

Do we have the right to see the results of an independent standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the UNM?

Richardson, Sanchez and Schmidly would have you believe,
they have no obligation to tell you the truth about standards and accountability at the UNM.

Just like Bernalillo County Manger Thaddeus Lucero would have you believe that you have no right to see the ethically redacted results of any investigation of standards and accountability in the MATS Scandal.

Just like APS School Board President and Open Government Lawyer Marty Esquivel would have us believe we have no right to see the results of an independent investigation of public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of their Praetorian Guard; the APS Police Department, link, Administration and School Board.

The opponents of transparently accountable government are winning the fight over the surrender of the truth, not because their position is compelling, or even defensible, but rather, because they never have to defend it.

There is no way to get them to defend their position in a fight, because they will never engage in a fight. They will pay the Geralds, Lovatos, and Dantis's of the world enough (public) money to convince them to surrender their right to their day in Court and forgo their opportunity to expose the system for what it really is, and the good ol' boys for what they really are.

... and no one will be the wiser,
especially the people footing the bills.

There is no government by the people which is at once,
secret from the people.

Those secrets will not be shared willingly.

We will have to fight for the truth; we will have to fight for
independent standards and accountability audits of politicians and public servants, and of their public service.

They will not commission them otherwise.




photos Mark Bralley

Locksley, Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales "got to the result that they were looking for."

Everyday, I watch the furor over the Locksley Gate subside.
My fear is, like every other "gate", UNM leadership will simply
wait out the upset until no one cares anymore and then,
back to business as usual.

The Journal editors this morning, link, note;

(Schmidly and Krebs) seem to think silence will make it go away. Not likely.

The first point is on point, the second remains to be seen.

Good ol' boy logic is, everyday you don't lose, you win.
And the good ol' boys are winning; their silence likely will
make it go away. It has always worked before.

At the very least, it is unbelievably optimistic to suppose
it might play out differently this time.

The good ol' boys haven't lost. They will not lose until the
moment they knuckle under and begin an independent review
of their handling of the investigation of the "alleged" assault
by their Head Football Coach Micheal Locksley on a subordinate employee.

They will fight the first ever independent review of good ol' boy competence and character, tooth and nail.

There is no reason at all, to not begin the independent review,
one that reports to the public record, immediately, except to
protect the corrupt and the incompetent.

The reputation of the leadership of the UNM is in the toilet
according to any reasonable measure. That reputation, the
part where the community believes there is a cover-up afoot,
would be rehabilitated completely if the independent review
reveals what UNM President Schmidly has promised it would;
no cover-up.

If I were Schmidly, and I were telling the truth when I made
that promise, I would be fighting for the review that would
validate my claim.

It's fair to ask then, why is he obstructing the investigation
he would have us believe would clear his name,

except that it would not?

Locksleygate; an epilogue

Former Assistant Coach J. B. Gerald has filed a federal lawsuit against UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley and UNM over a "punching and choking" incident in September 2009, link.

Despite UNM's assertion that it will defend itself and its employees vigorously against Gerald's claims, there is a more likely scenario; they will settle before the actual truth comes out in court.

There never has been an impartial investigation of what happened. The community called for one, the Graduate and Profession Student Association called for one, and common sense points to the need for one. Yet UNM Regents President Raymond Sanchez and UNM President David Schmidly have no intention of conducting one, ever.

The reason seems obvious, they are hiding something.

If an investigation would reveal that the leadership of the UNM has told us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the (ethically redacted) truth, they would be happy to have that fact confirmed. It would do wonders for their diminished reputation.

It would appear though, that would not be the outcome of an impartial investigation, So they will not commission one; nor will they allow the truth to be revealed in court.

So they will settle, and;

• UNM lawyers will make beaucoup bucks, and
• Gerald's lawyers will do even better, and
• Gerald himself will walk away with a lot of cash.
• Taxpayers will foot the bill for the whole thing.
• The Settlement Agreement will contain a phrase reading,

  UNM, despite handing over a huge amount of cash to Gerald and his lawyers, admits no wrongdoing.

• And, the rest of the Settlement Agreement will be kept secret from stakeholders.

Just like the facts are being kept secret from stakeholders by Bernalillo County Manager Thaddeus Lucero while he continues to hide the impartial investigation of the nepotism and scandal in the MATS facility, and

Just like APS School Board President Marty Esquivel and APS Supt Winston Brooks continue to hide the results of the impartial investigation into the scandal in the leadership of the APS Police Department.

We, taxpayers, apparently have the right to foot the bill for the incompetence and corruption, but not the right to know the truth about it.

That's just the way good ol' boys roll.

And if you don't like it, they don't care.

So what are you going to do about it?

UNM Regents cover their asses.

KRQE reported tonight that UNM Regents have decided to
ignore the obvious need for an independent review of the handling of the investigation of the Locksley affair.

According to the KRQE report, UNM Regents President Ray Sanchez, says "no new information" points to the need for an independent review. In effect, if anyone can actually prove further incompetence or corruption, they will then investigate the possibility of further corruption and incompetence. huh?

What about the old information that points to the need;

• epic incompetence and
• an overwhelming public lack of confidence in the process?

Their news conference was ended by them, not by the fact that there were no more questions to ask. Questions like; why was the investigation left in the hands of a student, for almost two weeks?

UNM staff are apparently concerned that they are more likely to fall victim to a Locksley like assault by virtue of the fact that the investigative process inspires no confidence what so ever that another assault will not be met with the same incompetent response.

One mustn't be too surprised that the top level of good ol' boys would cover the asses of the next lower levels of good ol' boys.

This from a prior post on the culture of corruption, and from a more distant source, link;

The culture of corruption exists and is nurtured by the political and economic elites of society. Their political and/or economic status is their passport and visa to power. Personal gains earned through the abuse of their political and economic status is their commonality. This is the reason why, even if they hate each other, they have to protect each other. (emphasis added)

According to the Regents' website, link, they are responsible for;

... oversight of the functioning of the University.

By reasonable and logical extension, if the President of the UNM is a screw up, they are responsible, if he is corrupt, they are responsible. Therefore, they have a self interest in making sure there are no more revelations of either incompetence or of cover up and corruption. They're not just covering Schmidly, Krebs, Gonzales, and Locksley's asses,
they are covering their own.

How bad would the Regents look if an independent review
actually revealed what a lot of people believe that it would;
epic incompetence, cronyism, and a cover up?

An independent review revealing even more incompetence than UNM President Schmidly, UNM AD Paul Krebs, and UNM Human Resources Vice President Helen Gonzales have been willing to admit, especially any revelation of a cover up or corruption, would reflect badly on the Regents and their failure to oversee the best interests of the UNM and UNM stakeholders.

If David Schmidly is telling the truth, he should be screaming for the review that will vindicate him. I would. Who wouldn't?

What possible reason can there be to not do the review?
Why must that reason be kept secret? Why won't they tell us
the reason? Why won't they defend it?

Except to cover up more incompetence or corruption?

Q. What is really in play here?
A. The privileged class does not bend to the will of the great unwashed. They don't tolerate demands for independent review of their conduct and competence.

They are accountable to each other, and to each other only.

And don't you forget it.

When the question is, will you tell the truth? any answer except yes, means no.

There was a press conference today regarding the Locksley-Gerald dust up.

You could cut the skepticism in the room with a knife.

Jessica Garate from KRQE called them liars to their faces.

UNM President David Schmidly
says he wants transparency.

He says they are telling the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yet when I asked him if he would begin an impartial investigation of the handling of the entire matter, an investigation that will report to the public record, his response meant, no.

His actual words were, "I haven't made a decision on that yet."

My follow up was, would you care to make one now?

His actual answer was, "no"
he would not.

He says the leadership of the UNM would be completely vindicated if an honest audit were done. Yet he won't begin the audit. To save a few thousand dollars. Krebs and Schmidly make more than the audit would cost, every single day.

Even for a day like today.

Paul Krebs was asked why no incontrovertible records were
created. His answer was, because there is impending litigation.

Which means, it is OK to suppress the truth, if the truth can be
used against you later, by some poor schmuck suing for justice.

UNM President David Schmidly actually mouthed the mantra
of good ol' boys in trouble; it's time to move on.

No need to hold any of the good ol' boys actually accountable for
their misconduct and their incompetence. Let's just move along.

This is not old news. Right now, right this minute,
the truth is not being told.

Move on?

I don't think so.




photo Mark Bralley

Schmidly in tough spot.

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

His decision has been challenged.

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

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

The GPSA has no standing with Schmidly.

They have no more standing anyway, than everybody else.

None.

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

He has no intention of standing for independent review.

If he did, he would.

It's just not the way he rolls.

photo Mark Bralley

Government of the Regents, by the Regents, and for the Regents.

"The people" want an independent review of the handling of the Locksley affair by UNM President David Schmidly, UNM Athletics Director Paul Krebs, and UNM Human Resources Vice President Helen Gonzales.

The Regents are directly responsible for Schmidly's performance, and by logical extension, the performance of Krebs and Gonzales.

The good ol' boys have decided to not investigate incompetence and corruption any further than the investigation already completed by the incompetent and increasingly likely, the corrupt, themselves. Journal, link.

In short, the Regents are covering their own asses.

Public servants have an irrefutable obligation to respond to all legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service. They have an ethical obligation to respond to those questions candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

The Journal reports that Schmidly and Krebs refuse to answer any more questions. This after ending the news conference abruptly and with legitimate questions unasked and unanswered.

They refuse to answer any more questions.

And this is alright with everyone, because?

"... announced crowd of 24,344 - many dressed as empty benches ..."

Journal reporter Greg Archuleta, link, seems to not believe
UNM about the number of people who attended the UNM/BYU
football game last Saturday.

Not surprising, nobody believes UNM about anything anymore.

Attendance at Lobo football games is down. Again, not surprising in so far as they have yet to win a game. Though, also at play, Schmidly, Krebs, Gonzales, Locksley Gate.

A number of fans have spoken out in on-line forums, saying that they were boycotting Lobo games in protest over the incompetence and apparent corruption brought to light in the Locksley Gate scandal.

The refusal to begin an immediate independent investigation of Locksley Gate by Richardson good ol' boy, Raymond Sanchez, President of the UNM Board of Regents, brought things to a head.

My dad would say, if there isn't a cover-up here, I'm a
Chinese sea cook.

The independent review, the one which UNM President Schmidly assures us would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Schmidly, Krebs, Gonzales, and Locksley, are not part of a cover up, won't be done. The only explanation; "no new information has surfaced" which would compel the review. Never mind that, the "old" information was more than enough to justify the review.

It's a shame, because the independent review would likely have saved taxpayers a whole lot of money.

The review results would likely have provided evidence enough to fire some of these people for cause. Now, if they are going to be tossed off the train in order to restore confidence and get fans back in the bleachers, (real ones, not the ones dressed like empty bleachers), they will get huge buyouts of their contracts, as is the custom when good ol' boys in New Mexico, are finally given the boot.

Locksley scandal investigation would be precedent setting.

When is the last time you heard of an independent, impartial,
and honest investigation of a good ol' boy oligarchy?

There is a reason they insist upon conducting the
investigations into their own wrong doing, themselves;
they get to maintain control over the truth.

There is a reason state government leaders won't fund the Office of the State Auditor at levels that would allow the Auditor to expose public corruption and incompetence fully.

There is a reason why when credible allegations of felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators surfaced, link, they investigated themselves.

Three years later, and long after statutes of limitation on felony criminal misconduct have expired, they are still hiding the the truth from criminal prosecution.

There is a reason why when UNM President David Schmidly
is asked if he will begin an honest and impartial investigation of
his handling of the Locksley affair,

his response means no.

"I believe it is now time to move forward ..."

The Journal reports again on the ongoing Locksley saga, link. The coach is being punished for the physical confrontation involving an assistant coach.

Although there are two distinctly separate controversies, only one is being reported upon. There is the "alleged" "assault and battery" on a subordinate employee, and there is the handling of the assault and battery by UNM senior administrators.

UNM Athletic Director Paul Krebs initially responded to the assault and battery by slapping Locksley's wrist; verbal and written reprimands.

The ensuing storm led to an investigation by UNM's Human Resources department, after which Krebs upped the ante to a 10 day suspension without pay.

And now UNM President David Schmidly says, according to the Journal,

"I believe it is now time to move forward ..."

He would like to move past Krebs' initial mishandling of the incident. No one will look into a good ol' boy cutting another good ol' boy some slack in a disciplinary process.

Paul Krebs is paid almost $400K per year, to be on top of things. Yet, he is not expected, apparently, to be on top of University Policy. Even Krebs admits to his ignorance;

"It was made clear to me we were not following university policy. (unclear who "we" are)

The enhanced consequence will apparently end the controversy over the punishment for a head coach violating school policy. It doesn't even begin to address the controversy over the gross mishandling of the incident by the UNM Athletic Director.

It doesn't appear that that issue will be looked into by anybody. Schmidly is done with it; he is ready to "move forward".

Even Regent President Raymond Sanchez is done with it. The Journal reports he said;

"Hopefully this will put an end to the controversy."

Gross mishandling of a significant problem, and rather than
addressing that issue, the good ol' boys will instead;
"move forward".

No good ol' boy's head will roll.

It isn't moving forward at all.

If anything, it is just more of the same old, same old.

Schmidly fails confidence vote, overwhelmingly.

Duke City Fix, and KRQE and UNMToday and a Bralley
to keep the facts straight.

Schmidly asked for a "second chance" today.

Wouldn't it be his third?

Let's not lose sight of the fact, when he was asked to commence
an independent, impartial investigation of the entire incident,
his response so far, means no.


This is the part that really drives me nuts. How do they keep
getting away with pretending they haven't heard the demand.


Perhaps what we need is a few thousand people standing
around the President's Office and chanting;

au-dit! au-dit! au-dit! au-dit! au-dit! !!

until we're satisfied that the process has begun irreversibly.

Oh and, the last time the faculty had this guy by his short and
curlies, they let him get away, link.

Stakeholders have been given a second chance.

I doubt there will come a third.

21 Vice Presidents at UNM

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

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

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

Which begs another question; how would we know?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask UNM President David Schmidly.

Doing the math on missing records in Locksley Gate.

From the editorial in the Journal this morning, link.

A new piece of evidence has turned up in the Locksley Gate investigation.

The "new" evidence points to a pattern of (implied) violence in the relationship between UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley and his Assistant Coach JP Gerald.

(UNM Regents President) Sanchez, meanwhile, says no new information has surfaced to warrant an outside probe — that despite the emergence of new notes from an interview with an assistant coach who said Locksley had threatened Gerald with physical violence in an earlier incident and that players felt responsible for Gerald being mistreated.

"The new information turned up around 5 p.m. Friday after UNM officials said they had inadvertently failed to turn over the back side of one of the witness accounts. They blamed it on a copying error."

Do the math;

"The new information turned up around 5 p.m. Friday ..."

A coincidence as unlikely as it is convenient; the evidence turned up at 5 pm on a Friday; a time and day widely recognized as the single best time to make bad news available to the press.

The "just found" document is the one they would most want to hide; proving not only a previous record of (implied) violence, but also that students had been folded into the scandal.

The missing evidence was on the back side of a sheet of paper that Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales, claim was destroyed long since. How could they now be able to surrender a copy of an "inadvertently not copied" sheet of paper that they claim doesn't exist? Or did Shannon Garbiso make back to back copies of her notes? this one backside somehow separated from the stack and remaining conveniently undiscovered by everyone until 5 pm last Friday?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

It is well past time to begin the independent fact finding that reports to the public record.

It is well past time to tell the truth.

It is well past time to hold Raymond Sanchez, David Schmidly, Paul Krebs, Helen Gonzales, and Michael Locksley, honestly accountable for their conduct and for their competence, even if they are good ol' boys.

... especially if they are good ol' boys.