I have a follow up question for Lady Overcast.

Senator Linda Lopez is running for Lt Governor.

She is afraid of
an Ethics Commission that
has "too much power". link

I will ask her at the very next
opportunity, to cite an example,
hypothetical or otherwise, of
how government oversight
with "too much power",
might run amok, and against
the public interest.



Personally I can't think of one.

Neither, I would bet, can she.




photo Mark Bralley

There is no such thing as incremental ethics reform.

First and foremost, ethical reform means truth telling.

If it is alright for politicians and public servants to tell the truth
incrementally, then it is alright for you and I to tell the truth
incrementally.

So, if you ever find yourself in a court of law, and you are asked;

Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

you may respond;

"I do, incrementally."

What is your plan to end the culture of corruption in state government?

That was the question I asked several times last night at a
Democratic Party of Bernalillo County meeting.

The meeting featured some speechifying by one candidate
for Governor, and three for Lt. Governor. All answered questions
after they introduced themselves.



Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino,
running for the second slot,
was the first to field the question.
He offered nothing new;
campaign finance reform and an
ethics commission.






Next up to bat; was Senate Majority
Leader Michael Sanchez,
who is running for governor.

It is always interesting when
Sanchez responds to ethics
reform questions, because he
seems always, to take them
as a personal insult.



Instead of offering a plan to end the culture of corruption at
once and for all, he pointed to the number of good and hard
working democrats serving the state. Apparently, there are no
good and hard working republicans serving us in Santa Fe.

The bottom line; Sanchez has nothing new to bring to the table,
he is still an obstructionist when it comes to ethics reform.

Next up, Senator Linda
Lopez. Her eyes met mine,
but she didn't call on me,
apparently unwilling to
answer the question she
knew I was going to ask.
She called on someone else,
who asked basically the same
question; so it ended with
her having to answer it anyway.

Lopez is the chair of the Senate Rules Committee, which was
the jumping off point for ethics reform bills in the legislature.
I think that it is fair to say that, she is personally responsible for
the fact that ethics commission legislation didn't make it out
of Senate Rules. She claimed that there was just too much to
do to get around to considering an ethics commission.

She is deathly afraid of an Ethics Commission which might
have "too much power". You can watch and listen to her beat
around the bush in a video on Peter St. Cyr's site, link.

Lopez is in favor of "incremental" ethics reform. The word
incremental could be replaced by "begrudging", like pulling
teeth. She is clearly not a big fan of ethics reform.

The gaping hole in her position on ethics reform, is an argument
posited by a number of anti-ethics reform politicians;

"You can't make people be ethical".

The argument is specious; it sounds good, but isn't sound.

The object is not be make people be ethical, it is to hold them
accountable when they are not.

You can't make people be law abiding either. But you can hold
them accountable when they are not. Enforcing a higher
standard of conduct than the law, is no different than enforcing
the law; you write rules, you hold people accountable to them.

Sheriff Solano, ran out of time
before I could ask him the same
question. I spoke to him later
about the obvious end to the
culture of corruption;
transparency enough, to make it
impossibly difficult to hide
corruption.

The argument seemed to resonate
with him, but no commitment
to promising it.




So far, Mayoral Candidate
Richard Romero is still the only
candidate who has answered the
question by promising to shine
the light of day on the spending of
the public power, trust and treasure.



Richard Romero is still the only candidate who has expressed
willingness to be held honestly accountable to "telling the truth"
as opposed to the going standard, "don't tell lies". Romero said
that he is willing to step up as a role model for the 90,000
constituents, students in the APS, who are told that their
character counts, and rides on their willingness to tell the truth.

Telling the truth, will end the culture of corruption.
Telling no lies, will perpetuate it, for ever.

It is fascinating to discuss truth telling with these people.
You can see that most of them would get on board with truth
telling, but are unwilling to burn the bridge back to the place
where they can be held accountable only for telling lies;

just in case.

The buck stops where exactly?

APS accounting, by any reasonable measure is in shambles.
link

Who is responsible?

If provoked I'm sure, APS Supt.Winston Brooks would offer,
some manner of a "the buck stops here" contrition.

In a very real sense it does. He has been here long enough
to know that APS accounting is in shambles and to have done
something about it.

But somewhere in APS'
Edifice of Incompetence and
Corruption, there is an
administrator whose actual
job description reads;
make sure that APS'
accounting is flawless.



For more than a hundred years there has been a good ol' boy
whose job it was, to make sure that APS' accounting was in order.

It never got done. Never.

When the Meyners auditors took a look at APS' Finance
Division, they found that there were not, and could
never have been;

• adequate financially sound procedures
• adequate accountability to such procedures as
  there were, and
• records kept, adequate and accurate enough to send a good ol' boy to jail.

They buck never stopped anywhere.

The buck never stopped on any good ol' boy's desk.

It never will.

Submitted as proof that it never will;

You don't know the name of good ol' boy whose direct
responsibility it was currently, to make sure that there
were standards and accountability in place to make it
impossibly difficult to steal or lose our money.

And, you never will.




School Board heavy hitter,
Paula Maes, said
she would never allow any
audit that names the names
of corrupt and incompetent
administrators or board members.

Good ol' boys turn a blind eye to each others corruption and
incompetence. That's why it has never ended, and never will.

The culture of corruption in government is not going to be fixed
by corrupt and incompetent politicians and public servants.

They will never institutionalize honest accountability to
meaningful standards of conduct and competence.

It's not the way they roll.




photos Mark Bralley

More audit problems in the APS

KOB TV, link, reports;

About 70 schools were audited and auditors found
problems at about half of them.

KOAT, link, and the Journal, link, also ran the story.

Why are there so many problems in so many places?

KOB reported audit results that revealed;

When the audit team requested information,
several APS departments didn’t respond.

How does one (administrator) simply not respond to an auditor? How does one (administrator) get away with it? Are those (administrators) who didn't respond going to feel any consequence for their corruption and/or incompetence?

How is it that after more than one hundred years,
the leadership of the APS still has not figured out how to
protect ours resources from waste due to administrative
incompetence and corruption?

There really is only one explanation; every time that these
problems have surfaced in the past, no one was actually held
accountable for their failure. There has never been a reason
to fix things, that outweighed the need to ignore each others
incompetence and corruption.

This is not rocket science. It can be made impossibly difficult
to hide corruption and incompetence. It can be made impossibly
difficult to allow even inadvertent errors to remain undisclosed.

But the leadership of the APS has decided not to make it
impossibly difficult to hide corruption and incompetence. The
leadership of the APS has chosen instead, to make it impossibly
difficult to expose administrative and executive corruption and incompetence.

They have chosen instead, to make it impossibly difficult to hold
administrators and board members accountable for anything,
not as role models of a higher standard of conduct than the law,
not even to the law, not even for felony criminal misconduct.

Consider the Peanut Butter Gate scandal in the APS Police
Department. APS senior administrators were involved in
felony criminal misconduct. Yet the leadership of the APS is still
protecting the guilty from the consequences of their corruption
and incompetence. Evidence of felony criminal misconduct still
has not been turned over to the District Attorney's Office
more than two years later, and after statutes of limitation have
long since expired and criminal prosecutions are no longer possible.

The foxes are guarding the hen house. They refuse to allow an
impartial audit of their stewardship of more than a billion of our
eggs every year.

And every year, there will be more lost or stolen eggs, because
the foxes are never going to hold each other accountable for
occasionally loosing, or even stealing, an egg, or two, or twenty.

Study data, another spear in the Marty Chavez/Pete Dinelli red herring.

When Mayoral candidate Richard Berry brought up the fact
that property crime in Albuquerque has gone up 9%; far more
than comparable cities, Pete Dinelli, pointed out that the
increase in property crime in Albuquerque is being driven by
the recession. He did not explain how the similar cities with
lower crime rates somehow escaped those same effects from
the recession. link

Now it turns out that Albuquerque isn't doing as bad as a lot
of other cities. FBIHOP has a report on a study done by the
Brookings Institution that found that Albuquerque is 15th
among "strongest performing metro areas". link

For those keeping score;

RJ Berry ............... 1

Chavez/Dinelli ..... 0

Is Darren White the face of the new NMGOP?

Is the face of the new NMGOP the
face of the old NMGOP?

Darren White is back to attacking
other Republicans link, over
philosophical differences.

He is attacking gubernatorial
possibility Representative Janice
Arnold-Jones over her vote on the
repeal of the death penalty.

It's fine to argue philosophies, it's the the whole point of political debate.


It's not fine to make it hard
to be a republican in the NMGOP,
just because you disagree with
Darren White.









Anyone who knows state
Rep Janice Arnold-Jones,
anyone who knows about her
commitment to transparent
and accountable government,
anyone who has been to her
Saturday morning political
discussion group, knows that


Janice Arnold-Jones would make a great governor for all
New Mexicans.

And imho, a far, far better face for the new NMGOP.




photos Mark Bralley

SBA spells doom.

Standards Based Assessment

If you went looking for a controversy about Standards Based
Assessment you would find it centered on the assessment end.
There is concern that, at the very least, the tests are insensitive
to cultures and to special needs.

There doesn't seem to be any controversy over the standards
side. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement with the premise;

That not only is it possible to assemble groups of thirty
children and march them lockstep for the next
17, 842.5 hours, but more importantly that you would
even want to.

The only thing kids really need to learn is, how to learn without
teachers. Students need to be taught how not to need teachers.

SBA perpetuates the need for teacher centered learning.

The effort to keep thirty cats moving in the same direction and
at the same speed, is so great that it prevents teachers from
paying individual attention to any student.

SBA denies students individual attention from adults in general, and teachers in particular.

The effort to keep thirty cats moving in the same direction and
at the same speed, is so great that it leaves the system no time
or resources, to address any other student needs other than
the supposed need to perform well on the next SBA.

SBA significantly reduces the opportunity to provide positive
impact on the lives of students, that are not specifically relevant
to SBA.

Irreparable damage is being done by ignoring irretrievable opportunities to help children grow into decent and productive adults, for no other reason that to support the Standards Based Assessment model for public education; a model that is
fatally flawed on its face.

The Jimmy Carter Middle School Climate Survey.

The Climate Survey itself is available to stakeholders.
It is not available on the APS website, you will have to deal
with actually obtaining a hard copy. Mine was free but I don't
really understand why. Yours may cost you as much as $.50 per page.

It is snazzy; apparently the basis of a power point presentation,
with raw results. The raw data comes with an apologist to put
the administrative slant on the results.

It is still effectively secret from stakeholders, including the staff
members who completed the survey many months ago, and
certainly secret from the JCMS community stakeholders.

It reveals that there are problems at JCMS which are of a
magnitude that they affect the likelihood of student success.

The problems will go unresolved.

They will go unresolved because the problem solving rubric
in the leadership of the APS includes a prime directive, which
is;

Do nothing against interest.

Do not gather data against interest.
Do not create documents or any other evidence, against interest.
And most importantly; do not make admissions against interest.

Never, ever admit that there is a problem in the first place.


How likely is it, do you think, that the problems at JCMS
will be solved in the best interests of stakeholders?

Zero to none would be my estimation.

(West Side) Journal bias exposed.

I stumbled across an April editorial in the West Side Journal.

It was entitled;
Some Parents Are Just Being Counterproductive, link

The editors accused parents who are upset about being left out
of the decision making process, of being obstructionists, with
no real complaint.

As it turns out, the New Mexico Public Education Department
agreed with the parents, and in their findings, link, pointed to
administrative incompetence and/or corruption that denied
parents the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the
restructuring process.

The story here is that the Journal is biased. They are biased
in favor of one of their major advertisers, according to what
appears to be an agreement between the Journal and the APS,
link, to keep voters in the dark about problems in the APS,
in order to increase the likelihood that voters will pass a
$650,000,000.00 bond issue in February.

Apparently, passing the bond issue is just too important to
leave up to fully informed voters.

APS to enrich its lawyers over NMPED ruling.

Rio Grande High School, and Ernie Pyle Middle School,
failed to meet the arbitrary goals set by NCLB, for several years.

As a result, the schools were compelled to "restructure".

Many parents, rightfully so, felt left out of the restructuring
process, and the NM Public Education Department agreed.
They issued a report that pointed to corruption and/or
incompetence that saw parents denied their seat at the table
where restructuring decisions were made. link

Now it appears, that instead of just involving the parents
according to the NMPED ruling, the leadership of the APS
has decided squander more tax dollars to pay their lawyers to
"contest" the NMPED's findings. link

The West Side Journal reports that, APS Board Member,
Delores Griego, who district includes both schools, said;

"If the state ruled that we were negligent in meeting
parents' needs, we need to look at that and get better at it."

"This is not just happening on that side of town.
This complaint happens all over (the district)."

Griego said APS should follow the state's instructions
and move forward.

Sorry Ms. Griego, but as you know,
that's just not the way they roll.

Marty Chavez' responds to legitimate issues with misdirection.

When candidates Richard Romero and Richard Berry
suggested that Marty Chavez' spending of capital funds on
operational costs was unwise, Chavez skirted the issue with a
claim that the city has a good bond rating.

Now candidate Berry has suggested that
the priorities of the Albuquerque Police
Department, bagging cell phone using
drivers instead addressing property
crime, are misplaced. (my example, not his)

Berry points out that property crimes are
up in Albuquerque but down in similar cities.



Chavez, through minion Pete Dinelli, suggests that crime
is up in Albuquerque only because of the recession, which
apparently has not hit the similar cities.

Although Berry did not slight or insult the Police Department,
Dinelli again, offered that Berry had somehow done the police
department "a real disservice.”

The tactic is simply manipulative, an effort to drive a wedge
between Berry and voters who support the Police Department
over an imaginary slight.


Chavez, is ducking issues by
either not responding at all, or
by responding in ways that are
deceptive and misleading.

Why in the world would anyone
still trust this man?

Character counts, my aching ass.




photos Mark Bralley

Marty Chavez' fatal flaw.

Marty Chavez has been Albuquerque's CEO for the better
part of 16 years. He is no closer to ending the culture of
corruption now than he was 16 years ago. Some would argue
that the culture of corruption has grown on his watch.

Why in the world would anyone vote for someone who is a
proven failure at ending the culture of corruption in city hall?

Perhaps the blogosphere is coming around on ethics reform.

I could be wrong, but I think
Heath Haussamen is the
first heavy hitter in the NM
political blogosphere to lay out
his own specific plan for ethics
reform, link.

This is a good thing, because
the solution lies in mobilization,
mobilization depends on
exposure, and so far, none of
the heavy hitters has laid a
specific "demand" on the table.

It is the first step in mobilizing the thousands of New Mexicans
that are necessary to force real change on a recalcitrant
legislature and governor.

There is an inherent problem. Haussamen and I do not agree
on what on what "ethical reform" means. Nobody does.
I cannot think of a concept that means more things to more
people than the concept of "ethical reform".

The problem can be solved if we could all agree on even one
thing that ethical reform means to everyone, and then push it
instead of pushing "ethical reform".

Can we agree that ethical reform means transparent
accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and
competence?

Can we insist that the next step is transparent accountability?

If we can agree, we can successfully demand it. If we cannot
agree, we can demand all we want, and nothing will change ever.

There is no legitimate agenda that does not move forward on
the day that government is transparently accountable to the
people, and to meaningful standards of conduct and competence.

All boats rise on the tide of transparent accountability.

Transparent accountability in government is within our grasp
if we can just get enough people to grasp for the same thing
together.




photo Mark Bralley

Flash; Our government does nothing well.

Given; two organizations side by side and with the same goal.

One is run by the government, and is populated by politicians
and public servants .

The other is run by the private sector.

Which do you suppose would reach the goal first?

Which do you suppose would do it cheaper, faster, or better?

There are many differences between the private sector and
and public service, that play in varying degrees.

The biggest factor, far and away, is accountability to meaningful
standards of conduct and competence.

The more unequivocal the standards, the more inescapable
the accountability; the more effective the organization.

The most effective organization in government is the military.
If I wanted to be sure that something or another was going to
get done right, I would delegate it to the military.

The difference between the military and any other agency of
the government is; honest accountability to meaningful
standards of conduct and competence.


We would be far better off if all politicians and public servants
were honestly accountable to meaningful standards of
conduct and competence, as well.

We would be far better off if politicians and public servants
had to tell the truth about our government, our power, and
our resources.

If politicians and public servants had any intention at all to
hold themselves honestly accountable to meaningful
standards of conduct and competence, they would now be,
honestly accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and
competence, they would now be, telling the truth
about our government, our power and our resources.

The terms of public service are the prerogative of the public,
not of the public servant. It is in defiance, that they will not
end the culture of corruption.


New Mexico is a national laughing stock. Our culture of
corruption and incompetence, is a model for the free world.
We are last in everything but scandals.

It is up to us to demand an end to the culture of corruption,
right now and for ever.

Do not vote for anyone who is not on the record with a plan
to end the culture of corruption.

Do not vote for anyone who will not look you in the eye,
raise their right hand, and promise to tell you the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
(so help them God).


The truth about our government, our power, and our resources
can be separated into two bags; one bag to be handed to over
to stakeholders; rather immediately and without a lot of fuss and bother.

The other bag to be handed over to honest due process for
sorting; rather immediately and without a lot of fuss and bother.

Your ombudsman makes $45K.

He is the point on your spear when you are fighting against
"improper government activity".

The people whose job it is to keep you from finding out about
"improper government activity", earn three times as much.

There is one ombudsman. There are God only, knows
how many Public Information Officers.

Do the math.

We would be a whole lot better off with a hundred ombudsmen
with subpoena power and, earning a hundred grand a year and,
one PIO.

After all, how many people does it take to tell the truth
as opposed to spinning it?

Diane Denish has an ombudsman!

According to the Wikipedia, link;

In general, an "ombudsman" refers to a state official
appointed to provide a check on government activity
in the interests of the citizen, and to oversee the
investigation of complaints of improper government
activity against the citizen.

Making a complaint to an ombudsman is usually
free of charge.

I need some help investigating two complaints of
"improper government activity ...".

I will contact our ombudsman and we will see what happens.
My request will read;

1. A complaint was filed with the Office of the State
Auditor in February of this year. The complaint alleged
that there was a fraud attached to the audit of the
Albuquerque Public Schools.

2. A complaint was filed with the Office of the
Attorney General in February of this year.
The complaint alleged that the leadership of the APS has
suppressed evidence of felony criminal misconduct
in order to allow statutes of limitation to expire on criminal
activity involving senior APS administrators.

I would appreciate it very much if you would investigate
and report upon any progress that has been made in
resolving either of these complaints.

The request was emailed to the Office of the Lt Governor, upon posting.

"Sensible Salaries Summit" suggested, soon.

In the first place, anyone who works for the government, works
for taxpayers.

And since it is our money that is being spent, we have a seat
at the table where decisions are made about how our money
will be spent.

I am having a hard time making sense out of paying a
basketball coach, ten times as much as a Governor makes
(above the table).

What does a "Special Director" do for a Governor,
and he worth three times as much as a public school teacher?
twice as much as the best public school teacher who ever lived?

Why does the Governor's maid make more than a teacher?

Why are Chief Information Officers, whose job it is to
deliberately mislead people about what their power and
resources are being used for, paid at all?



All of these salaries are arrived at independently of each other,
and apparently not all that related to education, training,
experience, skill set, or any other objective measure of bang
for our buck.

I say, let's revisit the salary schedule for politicians and public
servants; soon.

"Second gentleman" rakes in $2.08 a year.

According to a state salary data sheet kept by the Journal link,
taxpayers are paying Herb Denish $2.08 a year to be
"second gentleman".

Barbara Richardson is paid $2.08 to be "first lady".

Slightly more outrageous would be the salary of
the "First Lady's Assistant" who makes $108K, or
the Governor's Chef, who makes $94K, both of whom are
paid more than the State Auditor, who makes a measly $85K.

In comparison, Bill Richardson makes $110K (above the table)
to be governor; $33K less than his Chief of Staff.

I wonder if it is time to review the salaries of everyone whose
salary is paid by taxpayers, to see if their salaries make sense
and are even remotely justifiable.

Taxpayer rape at UNM continues unabated.

In the Sunday Journal, link, we read that the good ol' boys at
the UNM have figured out a way to boost good ol' boy salaries
even more, and at the same time, defer taxes on their
outrageous salaries.

On top of that, they are being dishonest about what they are
doing. According to the Journal report;

A longstanding tradition at UNM has been to keep a
salary book in Zimmerman library listing pay for all UNM
employees.

The book, which is available to anyone who asks, lists
only base salaries.

It lists Schmidly's pay at $387,600, for example.
His total compensation package, however — which
includes the $120,000 in deferred compensation
plus housing and auto allowances — is $594,600.

There is only one reason to hide the truth; they know that
what they are doing is "wrong" and, they don't want taxpayers
to learn the truth.

The very worst thing that any public servant can do, is
everything they do in (unwarranted) secrecy. Public servants
should not be doing things that they have to hide from public
knowledge.

The time for full disclosure is long overdue.

It is time that the honest version of the salary book be created,
along with the honest version on all spending of tax dollars.

And then put it online, don't hide it in some dusty, dark corner
in Zimmerman Library.