Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

Election depends on keeping voters uninformed, under informed, or downright misinformed.


... go figure.

Answer; APS Executive Director of Technology, Tom Ryan's desk.

Question; where doe the buck stop in the scandal just covered
by Larry Barker? link.

Two possibilities exist;

1. Tom Ryan didn't know that it isn't alright for a vendor to buy food and drinks for people who at some point might be involved in evaluating the vendor, product, or services.
2. It didn't make any difference to him, whether is was "alright" or not.

It really doesn't make any difference which scenario is at play, because Ryan is not accountable to any meaningful standards of conduct or competence, not even the law.

He is accountable under the same system as every other senior administrator in the APS. According to the Council of the Great City Schools, that system is;

"... subjective and unrelated to promotion or
step placement."

A system commonly referred to as, a good ol' boys club.

These are the kinds of facts that a standards and accountability
audit will reveal. Which is why, if the leadership of the APS has
anything to say about it, there will never be an impartial
standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the APS.

Is Marty Esquivel trustworthy?

There is a reason that APS School Board President Marty Esquivel is not honestly accountable as a role model of the Pillar of Trustworthiness.

Esquivel sat for an interview with Larry Barker after Barker's exposure of the most recent ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

If at any time in the interview, Barker had asked Esquivel;

• Will you ever allow an impartial standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the APS?
• Will you ever allow any audit that ferrets out any inadequate standards, any lack of accountability, any corruption, and any incompetence?
• Will you ever allow any audit that reports to the public record?
• Will there ever be any audit that names the names of the corrupt and the incompetent in the leadership of the APS?
  

Esquivel would stonewall the question. He would have no choice. The only defense an indefensible position is, to hide it.

If Esquivel answered the question candidly, forthrightly and honestly, according to the student standards of conduct,
of which he is APS' most senior role model,

he would have to admit that he will never allow
any impartial audit at all, link.

Knowing that,

watch the videotape, link, of the conversation with Larry Barker, and look into Marty Esquivel's eyes.

Do you think he is a good role model for students and staff, of
the Pillar of Trustworthiness?

Larry Barker exposes another APS scandal.

KRQE's Larry Barker has reported on yet another ethics scandal in the leadership of the APS, link.

The scandal was first reported two months ago by photojournalist and blogger, Mark Bralley, link.

He offers to his readers, an understanding of the issues that
is far deeper than Barker's.




photo Mark Bralley

October Special Session, and ethics reform.

It looks very much like there will be a Special Session of the
New Mexico Legislature in October.

There are bucket loads of federal stimulus dollars on their way to New Mexico. Legislators will be eager to grab that money for their own special projects. It will be spent according to the way money is normally spent in New Mexico. Some of it will get stuffed directly into people's pockets, some will be wasted because the people who are spending it are incompetent, and the leftovers will find their way to some legitimate need.

State Auditor Hector Balderas estimates that 3-5% of the state's budget is lost every year due to corruption and in competence.

Of every billion stimulus dollars, 30-50 million will be wasted or stolen.

Before we spend even one more dollar, why don't we end the culture of corruption and incompetence?

Why isn't ending the waste due to corruption and incompetence the first priority? There really is no reason except that the people who are wasting our money would like to continue to do so without being exposed and without being held accountable if they are.


Lt. Governor Diane Denish put a plan on the table to end the culture of corruption. The plan is still weak in that it still does not include the robust funding of the State Auditor's Office, that is necessary to forensically audit corruption out of existence.

If she pushes it hard enough, and if Bill Richardson steps up by putting ethics reform on the call before the spending begins, a great deal of money that would be lost or stolen, will be saved instead.

The only reason that Denish would not push her plan, is that it never was her plan; it was sham from the beginning. It was a bluff. She put the plan up only because she knew that Richardson would never put it on the call for any legislative session.


Richardson may also have good reason not to push her plan, or any other. Any plan worth its salt, will open the Pandora's Box of the culture of corruption and incompetence in state government, including the part played in it, by Richardson himself.






In which case, brace yourself for a whole bunch of Republican campaign adds suggesting that there is a reason why Denish's plan was contingent upon Richardson's approval, and that neither has any real intention to expose and end the culture of corruption in NM state government.




photos Mark Bralley

APOA endorsement of Chavez; "all perfectly legal".

There was a time when corrupt people went to some length to hide their corruption.

For example, if a corrupt union leadership planned to endorse a particular mayoral candidate, without regard to the feelings of union members, they would at least fake a process that pretended to gather members' opinions.

When you are entrenched enough, you don't even need to fake it anymore.

First ASCME endorsed Marty Chavez without consulting its members, and now the APOA has endorsed Chavez, without even interviewing the other two candidates.

Why do Chavez and these union leaders behave this way?

Why not? Who is going to hold them accountable, and how?

Excellent opportunity for Diane Denish.

Lt. Governor Diane Denish is in a bit of a bind. No matter how many times that she insists that she is not pay to player, the Republicans are always going to say, show us the beef; show us where you stood up against either Bill Richardson or his culture of corruption and incompetence.

Unfortunately for Denish, she doesn't actually have a time, a day and a place that she can point to, where she stood up against the good ol' boys.

She has an golden opportunity right now, to show voters the substance of her commitment to ending the culture of corruption.

Governor Bill Richardson has found the time to comment the next stimulus package. And, he has found time to comment on health care reform.

He has had time to comment on the Denish Plan. He has not.

Richardson has not put ethics reform on "the call" for the very next session of the legislature.

And Denish needs to call him his failure to take a stand against corruption, to show us what she's really got by way of character and courage.




photos Mark Bralley

On the subject of administrative and executive role modeling of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

We know how APS senior administrative role model feels about it;

he refuses to discuss the subject openly and honestly.







We know how the APS senior executive role model feels about it,

he refuses to discuss the subject openly and honestly.






We know how board members,
Robert Lucero, David Peercy,














Paula Maes, and David Robbins feel about it,
they refuse to discuss the subject openly and honestly.










We have heard nothing at all, neither from Brad Winter, nor from Linda Sink, the second most senior role models of the Student Standards of Conduct.


Nor have we heard from the other executive role models of the Student Standards of Conduct,
Board Members Lorenzo Garcia and Delores Griego.













If no one in the entire leadership of the APS can summon the character and the courage to discuss their obligations as role models of the student standards of conduct, someone should go out and take back all of those t-shirts that we gave to APS students; the ones that on their front and back read;

Stand up for what you believe in,
Even if you are standing alone. link

photos Mark Bralley

Is Winston Brooks secretly dismantling APS' Character Counts! program?

If you click on the Character Counts! link on the APS website,
you no longer go the office of APS Character Counts! Director, Carole Smith.

Instead, you go to the state organization's website, which for some time now opens with a warning that the site is infected by malicious software.

The malicious infection part is just too ironic.

School Board Policy mandates Character Counts! as the model for character education in the APS.

Brooks needs to get rid of Character Counts! if he is to successfully continue to evade honest accountability to any standard of conduct higher than the law.

Is Brooks capable of doing something so characterless as to dismantle Character Counts! in the APS, secretly.

Well, duh!

Look how honest he is willing to be about administrative role modeling of the Student Standards of Conduct; he refuses to talk about it in public. He cannot summon the character and the courage to tell stakeholders the truth about administrative role modeling of the Student Standards of Conduct.

Why would you expect him to be candid, forthright, or honest about his intention to undermine any support for the Pillars of Character Counts!, the standard of conduct he is trying so desperately to ignore.




photo Mark Bralley

"Mr. MacQuigg apparently has an ax to grind ..."

School Board Member David Robbins' understanding is correct.

I do have an axe to grind; it is in fact a double edged ax.

I have both;

• a selfish reason for saying or doing what I do, and
• I have a strongly held belief about something that influences my actions; a strongly held belief that the leadership of the APS needs to step up to honest accountability as role models of the Student Standards of Conduct.
  

What Robbins doesn't understand or, is not willing to admit, is that my motive for asking a question has nothing at all to do with his ethical obligation to answer the question.

APS' SilentWhistle, is a complaint mechanism. Unless people have faith in it, it is worse than worthless. One of the best reasons that whistleblowers can have faith in APS' SilentWhistle, is likely completely unknown to them.

APS' SilentWhistle is subject to checks and balances that are supposed to keep it trustworthy. It is administered by the administrative arm of the leadership of the APS, and overseen the executive branch; the branch that is most accountable to the people whose power and resources underwrite the program.

The specific check and balance can be found in school board policy. According to school board policy, the Audit Committee has the responsibility to review and approve whistleblower complaints. The policy language is clear and unequivocal; the executive branch has the responsibility to oversee the administrative branch's whistleblower protection program.

More than 100 people have filed complaints with APS' SilentWhistle. They must have believed that their complaint was going to see due process, or they wouldn't have bothered to file a complaint in the first place. Without knowing specifically about their school board's oversight obligation, they simply assumed that something like that must exist because it so obviously needs to exist.

Unless it is blithely assumed that every complaint was settled to the satisfaction of the complainant, at least some of the complainants would take advantage of their right to the rest of their due process if, the rest of their due process were afforded to them.

Not one of their complaints has been reviewed and approved by Robbins' Audit Committee, and not one ever will.

Robbins has betrayed the trust that constituents have placed in him. He is denying due process to complainants for no good and ethical reason.

He would have stakeholders believe that if the Audit Committee actually performed the review and approval as provided for in school board policy, it would be in violation of the law.

If there is an applicable law, it would be a law that guaranteed that the constitutionally protected right to privacy would not be violated. That guarantee is provided by means of a black line drawn through a name. It is called redaction. Robbins would have stakeholders believe that these records cannot be ethically redacted and then reviewed and approved, without breaking the law. That is simply not true. It is a deliberate deception.

And Robbins says that he doesn't have to explain why he is denying hundreds of stakeholders their due process, because I am the one demanding that he answer legitimate questions candidly, forthrightly and honestly, according to the standards of conduct that he holds for students.

And because I have an ax to grind.

David Peercy thinks he doesn't have to tell the truth about why he will not allow an open and honest public discussion of administrative and executive role modeling of the student standards of conduct,
in his Policy Committee,
because I have an ax to grind.




Paula Maes thinks she doesn't have to explain why she will never agree to an audit that names the names of the corrupt and the incompetent in leadership of the APS, because I have an ax to grind.




Winston Brooks, the senior most administrative role model of the student standards of conduct, thinks he doesn't have to explain his refusal to step up to honest accountability as a role model,
because I have an ax to grind.





School Board President Marty Esquivel thinks that he can refuse to provide for an open and honest public discussion of standards and accountability in the leadership of the APS,
because I have an ax to grind.






Robert Lucero thinks that he doesn't have to explain, defend, deny, or even acknowledge that he tabled a motion that would have lead to truth telling as a matter of policy,
because I have an ax to grind.





And they are going to get away with all of this, because our newspaper of record, the Albuquerque Journal, refuses to investigate and report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS, even according to their obligation to fully inform voters in anticipation of a $650M bond election next February.

cc Robbins upon posting
Robbins responded;

"Given the absence of my responses on your blog, I believe your are not interested in the truth, just your version of it. ..."
David L. Robbins

This, despite the fact that I published every single one of Robbins' responses in their entirety, link,.



photo Mark Bralley

Where is Bill Richardson on the "Denish Plan"?

When Lt. Governor Diane Denish introduced her plan to bring transparency and accountability to state government, she indicated that she intended to give the plan to Governor Bill Richardson, who is the only person with the authority to put it on "the call" for the upcoming special session, or at a later regular session.



I've been chatting with a few cynics; some about Denish in particular, some about the prospects of actual, meaningful reform in general.

The reform cynics argue that there is no way that Richardson is going to begin any ethics reform which will expose the corruption in which he is involved, up to his eyeballs.

The Denish cynics argue that she knows full well that Richardson is never going to put real ethics reform on "the call" for any legislative session, and that her laying her reform plan in his lap, is just her way of pretending to want reform, knowing that her bluff will never be called.

In fact, Richardson has had more than enough time to express his support for the Denish plan, and so far, has not even acknowledged its existence.

The Republicans could of course, call her bluff, by one upping her plan with one of their own.

... but have not.


photos Mark Bralley

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

As one Republican hopeful in the gubernatorial race left,
another joined. She, Susana Martinez, link, said that she
intends to end the culture of corruption. More specifically;
she indicated the she intends to end "pay to play".

However, she presented no specific plan to accomplish even that limited goal. She gave no indication that she is any different from any of the other NM Got nO Plan candidates.

Democrat hopeful, Diane Denish remains the only gubernatorial candidate with a plan on the table for public scrutiny, to end the culture of corruption.

That public scrutiny, has pointed to her plan's lack of additional support for the Offices of State Auditor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. All of these Offices are underfunded and understaffed, and each is critical in its own way, to actually ending the culture of corruption.

Although, at her press conference, she indicated support for webcasting, she has not updated her plan to include any reference to that critical element in transparency in government.

Denish indicated when she introduced her plan, that it was a work in process and would be fine tuned as necessary.

Ms. Denish,

It is necessary to fine tune your plan to include;

• robust webcasting of the people's business, and
• adequate funding for the offices of oversight of government and the spending of public power and resources.

Marty Chavez, running for fourth term, won't rule out a fifth.

Apparently he really does want to be
"Mayor for life". link




photo Mark Bralley

And yes Virginia, size does matter.

In particular when it comes to campaign war chests.

When I reflect upon the growing size of Diane Denish's campaign war chest, I am not so concerned about who donated what, as I am about what that donation might buy.


It think that it is not only possible, but in fact, it is inevitable that the culture of corruption and incompetence in Santa Fe will end.

At which point, who cares who gave what to whom or what good they thought it might be buying them?

The problem is that the election should turn on the approval
of a majority of voters of a particular candidate or philosophy,
and less on what clever manipulators of public sentiment can create given enough time and money.

Elections should turn not on the money that is spent swaying public opinion, often with deliberate deceit, but on the needs of the people, most of whom have too little money to buy the representation that they deserve.




photo Mark Bralley

"Credentials" for journalists.

There was a cyber meeting last evening, of cyber journalists to explore the possibility of forming some kind of "association" with at least two tentative goals; providing some sort of recognition of our accomplishments as journalists, and to provide "credentialing" for members.

On the issue of credentials, I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand, it might be useful to have something to
hand to one of thugs who persistently ask for "credentials"
before allowing members of a free press to do their thing.

On the other hand, creating credentials at all, reinforces the misconception that the founding fathers, when they were writing the first amendment to the constitution, provided protection for the rights of members of a free press, but only if they had some piece of paper, badge, trinket, talisman, or secret handshake that must be learned, before, and in order to, exercise a constitutionally protected human right.

A premise with which,
I thoroughly
and heartily
disagree.

APS School Board Member Robbins succumbs.

When David Robbins was running for the District 7 seat on the APS Board of Education, he offered stakeholders the promise of two notable reforms; 1. restoration of the Role Modeling Clause to administrative and executive standards of conduct and, 2. an honest and impartial audit of the administration of the public trust and treasure in the administration of the APS.

He now fights for neither.

Students in the APS are accountable to a nationally recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethical conduct. As role models, the leadership of the APS is accountable to the same standards of conduct.

Yet that accountability cannot be enforced, because the leadership of the APS removed from their own standards of conduct the phrase which read;

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

While their moral obligations as role models are unaffected by the existence or not of words in their standards of conduct, the enforcement of those obligations is affected. Removing the clause provided the opportunity to use their legal weaselry to except themselves from any real accountability to any standards of conduct at all.

David Robbins placed a motion on the table in a Policy Committee Meeting, that would have restored the clause to the employee standards of conduct. And that was it. When I asked him if he had ever done anything more than that, he told me that he had

"... raised the issue in committee meetings." and

"I believe the intent and results of regarding standards of conduct and role modeling are what is important and not the specific wording requested by any single individual."

When I asked, "which meetings and, with what response and, from whom?" and, "What other wording would possibly serve the same intent with the same results? or In what other way besides restoring the role modeling clause, could the same intent be served, and the same results had?" he responded;

"I have answered these questions previously. I believe my answers have been clear and suscinct.
I don't see the point of the endless questioning, other than you are trying to trip me up."
(Note; there were 12 questions in total, with 7 follow-ups made necessary only the the lack of candor, forthrightness, and honesty in his initial responses; hardly "endless" questioning.)

I asked him if he had ever promised voters a standards and accountability audit. He responded;

"I do not remember every promising such and audit ..."

Sensing that he was hiding behind semantics, I asked the question again in more general terms; "Would you agree that, you promised voters an "independent audit"?"

His response;

I have answered these questions previously. I believe my answers have been clear and suscinct.
I don't see the point of the endless questioning, other than you are trying to trip me up.

On the issue of his denying my request for the simple review and approval of my whistleblower complaints by the Audit Committee that he chairs; review and approval that is called for, rather specifically, in board policy, he replied;

"The Audit Committee was provided information consistent with Federal Law ..."

Clearly not the candid, forthright, and honest response that is called for by the standards of conduct that he is supposed to be role modeling for students, I pressed the point;

Can you provide any good and ethical reason not to provide individual review and approval of my complaints in particular?

To which he responded;

I have answered these questions previously. I believe my answers have been clear and suscinct.
I don't see the point of the endless questioning, other than you are trying to trip me up.

I once posited to Robbins that the only reason that any member of the leadership of the APS would refuse to hold them self honestly accountable to the same standards of conduct that they establish and enforce upon students was, a lack of courage and a lack of character, he agreed.

That was before his own lack of character and courage manifest itself.

I'm a sure that he, and they, would like us to believe that there is a third reason; a less despicable one. There isn't.

If there were, either he or they, would be able to point to it. Neither he, nor they, can.

The leadership of the APS, individually and collectively, are not now honestly accountable to the APS Student Standards of Conduct, because they, individually and collectively, cannot summon the character and the courage to make it so.

cc. David Robbins upon posting. He will have an unfettered opportunity to explain, defend, deny, or even acknowledge these several charges.




photo Mark Bralley



Update; Mr. Robbins has responded in a comment on this post.

"I have stopped responding to Mr. MacQuigg's endless questions. I have answered most of his questions at least twice over the past four months. He does care what Federal or State laws require or limit regarding Board actions, he wants his way, period. What he has posted is a very narrow selection of my responses and he should be ashamed for presenting my responses in such a biased and shaded fashion. The Board of Education is reviewing all of its policies and I have informed Mr. MacQuigg, but he is note satisfied because I haven't demanded his words be included immediately in policy. He wants me to force his words into the policies regardless. That is not how the APS Board of Education functions; not in this democratic country.
Mr. MacQuigg apparently has an axe to grind and I will no longer be part it. I will continue to ask for and expect high standards for all APS staff, including the Administration."

He will not however, ask for or expect APS staff (administrators and board members) to be held accountable to as high a standard as the Pillars of Character Counts! which are the APS Student Standards of Conduct.


He has accused me of posting;

"... a very narrow selection of my responses and he should be ashamed for presenting my responses in such a biased and shaded fashion."

At the end of this post, please find the entire exchange, and that I have not presented his answers in "a shaded and biased fashion" at all.

He also wrote the following;

"He does care what Federal or State laws require or limit regarding Board actions, he wants his way, period."

There is nothing that I have requested that is limited by Federal or State Law. The truth is while neither State nor Federal law "require" what I have requested, neither do they limit or prohibit the actions that I have requested. It is simply a a legal loophole through which Robbins will slither, rather than step up to honest accountability as a role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

Note that, Robbins can not point to a single request of mine, compliance with which, is actually prohibited by law. For example, I want an Audit Committee hearing of my complaints as is required by board policy. Neither State nor Federal law require those hearings, but neither do they prohibit them as Robbins would have readers mistakenly believe. It is a deliberate deception on his part. It is typical of the lack of candor, forthrightness and simple honesty that Robbins brings to the table.

This is his response to the first letter, his responses are mixed into my letter to him. I will highlight his responses with boldface italics.

Ched - below are my responses.
David L. Robbins
(I have deleted Robbins phone numbers from this space)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles MacQuigg"
To: (Robbins email address)
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 11:01:01 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: facts check

Mr. Robbins,

I am preparing a post and I would like to verify some facts before I post.
I would like to know if each of the following points are, in fact, true;

On the subject of a standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the aps;

1. you promised voter/constituents an impartial standards and accountability audit of the entire leadership of the APS

If I have misclassified the type of audit, or the nature of your promise, please elaborate.

I do not remember every promising such and audit but that independent financial audits must be performed in a timely manner and available to the public. APS has caught up on all previous financial audits, and is on track to completing and submitting to PED the audit for the 2008/2009 school year.

2. You have not brought up the subject of such an audit, on the record, since your election.

APS' Internal Audit group does conduct audits on schools and administrative areas regarding following policies, procedures and providing requested information. Federal Law must be followed regarding all audits. APS Policies are being reviewed for consistency and adherence to current law and some will likely be need to be updated. I hope this process will be completed in the next couple of months, but I don't have a completion date.

3. There is no such audit in planning, even in light of the upcoming $650M bond issue election in Feb.

I'm not clear what this statement means.

4. You do not intend to bring up the subject of any such audit, in time for the bond issue election.

See answers to # 1 and 2 above.

On the subject of audit committee review and approval of whistleblower complaints;

5. The audit committee is charged by board policy with "review and approval" of whistleblower complaints.
6. There has never been even one such approval, and
7. You are now more than a hundred complaints in arrears.
8. You have no intention of putting the review and approval of whistleblower complaints on the agenda of any audit committee meeting,
9. for no other reason than to deny that review and approval to my two complaints.

The Audit Committee was provided information consistent with Federal Law regarding confidentiality. In May were were provided a summary of the status of complaints and the total number open was fewer than 2 dozen.
Your two complaints have been closed.

On the subject of executive and administrative role modeling of the student standards
of conduct by means of restoration of the role modeling clause, to the employee standards of conduct.

10. you promised voter/constituents that you would fight for the restoration of the role modeling clause to the employee standards of conduct.

The inclusion of such a clause has been proposed. The Policies are under review and I will continue to work in a constructive manner to ensure role modeling is addressed in APS Policies and Procedures.

As I have no recording of your promise, please feel free to furnish the exact wording, which I will publish it uncensored.
11. You have done nothing about that promise, except that you put it on the table in a policy committee meeting.
12. You have no intention to do anything, except that you put it on the table.

I have raised the issue in committee meetings and will continue to work with the Board and Administration. I cannot force the other six members of the Board to agree to a specific wording. I believe the intent and results of regarding standards of conduct and role modeling are what is important and not the specific wording requested by any single individual. I would like progress to come quicker, but in any large organization, progress is slower than what many would like. I will continue to work to ensure that honesty and transparency are practiced within APS. I can not nor will I guarantee the results will satisfy everyone. Sincerely,David L. Robbins

The courtesy of a response will be appreciated.

In the absence of any controverting arguments from you, I will assume that my understanding of the situation is substantially correct.

Grateful for your time and attention

ched macquigg

And the second letter and his response.

I have answered these questions previously. I believe my answers have been clear and suscinct.

I don't see the point of the endless questioning, other than you are trying to trip me up.

David L. Robbins

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles MacQuigg"
To: (Robbins email address)
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:22:10 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: follow up questions

Mr Robbins,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. Your responses have raised a few new questions.

1. Did you promise to respond to questions candidly, forthrightly and honestly, (according to the following logic, if there is a problem, please be specific about the point at which the logic breaks down. or where you specifically disagree.)

1. You promised to hold yourself honestly accountable to the APS Student Standards of Conduct
2. which are the Pillars of Character Counts!
3. which require truth telling- responding to questions candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

2. If you will not agree that you promised a "standards and accountability audit, Would you agree that, you promised voters an "independent audit"? An audit performed by someone outside the APS

2. My impression is that regardless of whether “Federal Law” was followed, board policy stating that the audit committee is charged with “review and approval of whistleblower complaints”, obviously requires review and approval of individual complaints, and not review and approval of the “process” or of a statistical “summary” of the complaints.
Do you agree that, regardless of "Federal Law", board policy requires review of individual whistleblower complaints?

3. Do you agree that the audit committee has not reviewed and approved a single individual complaint?

4. Do you intend ever, to place on an audit committee agenda the individual review and approval of whistle blower complaints?

5. You wrote "Your two complaints have been closed." which does not answer the question that I asked which was; Why will you not provide the review and approval of those complaints according with board policy?. Can you provide any good and ethical reason not to provide individual review and approval of my complaints in particular?

6. You wrote that you “… have raised the (role modeling) issue in committee meetings …”

6a. At what committee meetings, beside the Policy Committee meeting where you first placed the issue on the table, did you revisit the issue?

6b. With what response, and from whom?

7. You wrote that “I believe the intent and results of regarding standards of conduct and role modeling are what is important.”

Considering the phrase;

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

7a,What other wording would possibly serve the same intent with the same results? or
7b. In what other way besides restoring the role modeling clause, could the same intent be served, and the same results had?


Again, I am grateful for your responses, and I apologize for intruding in your life at a difficult time.
Were the issues not so important, I would happily just let them drop.

ched macquigg

Please note that nowhere in his response to my "endless" questioning, does he offer any explanation for his unwillingness to hold himself honestly accountable as a role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct, the Pillars of Character Counts!, except his personal lack of courage and character.

Diane Denish's "yeah, but ..." defense.

The Republicans keep pounding away on Lt. Governor Diane Denish, her ties to Gov. Bill Richardson's culture of corruption, the contributions that she is receiving and, from whom.

Denish is still the only one with a plan, link, on the table to end the corruption that these contributions create. So, no matter what the Republicans throw at her, all she has to offer is a simple variation of the school yard retort; "I know I am but what are you?";

"Yeah, I know I do, but where is your plan to end the culture of corruption?"

And the Republicans shut up in short order.

Where is the Republican plan to end the culture of corruption in Santa Fe? The list of potential Republican candidates for governor, now numbers four, and still no one has laid a Republican response to the Denish or Solano Plans on the table for comparison. With no plan at all, it is fair to assume that they are not so committed to ending the culture of corruption as they are committed to ending Democrat's control over it.

A Republican controlled culture of corruption offers taxpayers nothing substantially better than a Democrat controlled culture of corruption.

And, it is an offer that can be refused.




photo Mark Bralley

"I don't have to discuss certain matters if I don't want to."

said the public servant in response to a legitimate question about the public interests; a question about public servants "double dipping". link.

"Bullshit", writes the blogger.

Public servants have an inescapable obligation to acknowledge legitimate questions by responding to them candidly, forthrightly, honestly, rather immediately, and in person
(subject of course to common sense, and a legitimate alternative response).

If that obligation is not written into the law, it should be.

Because we have no choice but to "trust" public servants with the control over power and resources that are fundamentally our own, we have the right to insist that they are accountable to a higher standard of conduct than the law; the law on its face, unequal to the task of protecting the public trust and treasure.

What higher standard of conduct than the law,
does not include "telling the truth"?

If the law does not require public servants to tell the truth
about the public interests and about their public service,
and clearly it does not, then the law needs to be changed,
as the first step in anything called ethical reform.

Any candidate for any elected office should have a plan to end the culture of corruption and incompetence. Any viable plan includes, telling the truth.




So far, former Senator Richard Romero is the only candidate in any race for any office, who has promised to tell the truth. link

So far, he is the only candidate who can claim to have earned the public trust.





You pick a side, when you don't pick a side. If you don't pick the side of candidates who will promise to tell the truth, you have picked the side of candidates who will not promise to tell the truth.



Candidates like the former
Founding Father of Character Counts!, Mayor Marty Chavez.

How, you might be asking,
does one become a former
Founding Father?

He does it by renouncing in
his heart, the standards of
conduct of his Found Child.

He does it be becoming a dead beat Founding Father.




photos Mark Bralley

Corruption's conjoined twin, incompetence.

There is a lot of talk about the culture of corruption in NM State Government. Whether the "talk" amounts to a hill of beans, is a whole other issue.

There doesn't seem to be much talk about the culture of incompetence. Incompetence wastes as many or more tax dollars as corruption. It affects directly, the quality of service that government delivers. It affects directly, the quality of the product that government produces.

Imagine a business where all of the top slots are filled with friends and cronies who are promoted to, or appointed to, all of the most important positions based not on their intellect, their education, their training, or their experience, but rather on their political influence. What would be the bottom line in such an organization? If one is being honest, they would predict the eventual demise of the business.

Except if the business is government, there is no eventual demise. There is instead, an inevitable increase in the cost of doing business, paid for by taxpayers who have no say in the promotion or appointment of their (public) servants.

Take for example, Manny Aragon. He was appointed to the Presidency of Highlands University; a position from which he was later fired. He was appointed to the position by Governor Bill Richardson. Is there a person so naive, as to believe that Richardson appointed him because he was the most qualified candidate, or even qualified at all?

And then there is Jamie Koch, "... a prodigious fundraiser for Democratic candidates and causes." according to blogger Monahan. He also is a Richardson crony appointed to high (paying) office. Is he any good at the job? If an overwhelming vote of no confidence, 482-7 link, by the faculty of the UNM is any measure at all, the answer would seem to be, no.

Did the vote make any difference?
He said;

"... he didn't care one bit about the vote —
that it had slid off him like water off a duck's back."link

He still has his job.

I have argued for some time that, enabling incompetence is a form of corruption. I still do.

"The public financing of elections is supposed to open the process and not used to close it."

The money line from Mark Bralley's piece, link, on the
thuggery used by the Chavez campaign to control media
access to public property rented with public funds for
a public function.