Richard Romero posts the Bode tape on line.

When local businessman, John Bode was being shaken down by city hall, he had the cameras running.

He has already won one of two lawsuits against City Hall in a ruling that the judge called an embarrassment to the city, link.

One of Richard Romero's pet projects is ending the culture of corruption in City Hall and has put these tapes up to make his point.

Want to see what it's like to do business with the city? check it out; link.

Listen to the radio interview with John Bode. Link through Errors of Enchantment, link.





photo Mark Bralley

Cadigan kicks ass in defense of Garduno.

I watched, link, the City Council discuss Councilor Ray Garduno's bill, link. The bill will create more transparency in City Government.

At 47:40, Councilor Ray Garduno, a man of apparent character and courage, begins his defense of increased transparency in City Government.




At 49:30, Councilor Trudy Jones argued, first we must determine and then debate whether the value of telling the truth to stakeholders justifies the cost. She wants an FIA (Financial Impact Analysis) and various blah, blah, blah, until 51:04.





At 51:40, Councilor Don Harris stood against passage. He said that he needed more time to "really study" the question of whether to tell stakeholders the truth about their power and their resources. He also introduced a concern that the cost of computer hard and software might be a deal breaker; the cost of telling the truth might outweigh the advantage.

At 52:55, Harris said something really weird;

"We had issues this last year in the state legislature where one representative had a web cam and that caused a big stir."

What in the hell does that mean?

Then he goes on to argue that the City of Albuquerque isn't as bad as others; the county and the state, for example.

He finishes by saying that there has not been enough time to think about the limits on public access to government to "work in an orderly fashion". The issue of transparent accountability in government is just moving too fast for his liking.

At 53:40, Councilor Ken Sanchez
stepped up to the plate, and then hit a
foul ball. He too, is concerned about the
lack of study of the actual financial cost
of transparency. In a stroke of genius,
he argued that if we really believe in
transparency, we would be transparent
about the cost, and therefore delay passage.


The argument is specious; the cost is insignificant; both fiscally and philosophically.

He continued; blah, blah, blah (relatively speaking) until 54:58.

At 56:53, Councilor Michael Cadigan smacked one over the center field wall.

He called calls for an FIA, a delaying tactic.
He built a compelling argument that there really is no significant financial impact at all.

In the end, the council voted 5 to 3, to not take final action
on the bill.

In truth, I am not sure that final action could be taken anyway,
because the Open Meetings Act prohibits making a decision
about any issue, unless the decision is on the published agenda.

I see no reason why the bill cannot be passed at the next meeting of the City Council.

In particular, if a few hundred people show up in support.

Governmental truth telling falls along a continuum. On one
end the truths that should be told, on the other, the truths
which should not be told. Somewhere in between, the point
where the need for public knowledge and secrecy meet. That
point has been identified in law,
a handful of specific exceptions have been created.

That "legal" point has not met the need for transparency in
government. Too many truths about the spending of public
power and resources are still secret from stakeholders.

The point where publication meets secrecy needs to be
reestablished. A new point needs to be found.

That discussion needs to happen now. We need to determine
where that point is, and then move to it now.
Not incrementally, not next year, but now.




file photos Mark Bralley

Policy Committee meeting today at 5pm.

Tonight is the night when APS Superintendent Winston Brooks is supposed to clue the board in on "what their principles are". I kid you not.

In a previous policy committee meeting, the subject of board members accepting gratuities was discussed, link, David Peercy asked the administration; Brooks, to come up with some ideas on what the board's principles should be on the issue of accepting gratuities, etc.

The entire premise is ridiculous as the board is supposed to be guiding the administration, not the other way around. The board is charged with establishing the guiding principles for administering the APS.

On the agenda tonight, the ongoing revision of APS policies and procedures. Peercy claims that the overhaul of policies and procedures was ongoing even as early as last March. It is frankly indefensible, that the review should be taking so long and that so little progress has been made. I would argue that it is obvious that they are stalling, and that they are stalling mostly because they are trying to avoid a public discussion of standards and accountability. Among the policies and procedures under "review"; the role modeling clause.

The role modeling clause;

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

has been tabled since it was first placed on the table by David Robbins, last March, link.

Policy Committee Chair David Peercy will not discuss the fundamentally important issue, because he lacks the character and the courage to discuss the APS Student Standards of Conduct, and administrative and executive role modeling of those standards, openly and honestly.

I have asked repeatedly for anyone to suggest any reason except a lack of character and courage, for the refusal to discuss the issues candidly, forthrightly, and honestly. Neither Peercy, nor any other member of the leadership of the APS has been able to suggest any other reason at all.




photo Mark Bralley

Slimy politics.

Someone bought some robo-calling. It is a push poll; it pretends to be a poll but is not. They are campaign communications without identifying a responsible party. It appears to be a violation of campaign law.

Richard Romero denies having anything to do with it; period.


Marty Chavez, through Joan Griffin,
first claimed they didn't know whose poll
it was. Later Griffin added, "I believe
that polls are not required to have disclaimers".







Can't prove it of course,
but if I had to place a bet,
I would bet that when
the truth is finally told,
we will find that
Marty Chavez did it.




photos Mark Bralley

Chavez's attack on Berry misses the point.

RJ Berry claims to be a successful businessman.

Mayor Marty claims the claim is dishonest because the only
business that RJ Berry owns, is no longer in business.

Berry gets no credit apparently for whatever it is that he is
doing in Cumbre Construction. Chavez' argument is silly.

Marjorie Childress, NMI link, asks the real question;

Is it appropriate for Berry to take credit for running a successful small business, while on paper he takes no credit so that his wife can claim the business is Hispanic- and woman-owned?

Is it "appropriate"? Is it honest; is it ethical?

According to Childress, Berry's campaign has not responded to NMI’s request for comment.

Rael's move may backfire.

Monahan points to Terrell's story, link, after pointing out that he, Monahan pointed it out first; Lawrence Rael is appearing in TV spots about Rail Runner safety, paid for by taxpayers, giving him name recognition in his run for Lt Gov.

There are 24 comments on the story, as of this writing, the overwhelming majority of which, express their upset with Rael's appearance in the ads, and in particular with his lame excuse about why it is all OK for him to be doing this.

"Rael, in an interview Friday, said the ads have nothing to do with his candidacy. "It's about safety.""

One commenter wrote,

"... Ethics 101 says that if there is even a HINT of impropriety, not to do it... "

Is it fair to hold Rael accountable to a higher standard of conduct than the law? Yes it is. If it were not fair in the first place, it became so when he brought up the subject of ethics and when he promised to hold himself honestly accountable to higher standard of conduct than the law.

Well here it is then, the chicken came home to roost. Another commenter wrote;

"Yes, nothing to see here folks. Move along please. Nothing to see here. Just another SLEAZY politician MILKING the NM taxpayers for his own personal gain.

Just BUSINESS AS USUAL in this great state of NM."

photo Mark Bralley

"Have you called his parents?"

Not all kids are assholes, but imagine that you are dealing with one who is.

As their "teacher", you are entirely responsible for getting the recalcitrant to perform adequately on the annual Standards Based Assessment. If you cannot, you have failed.

All the while, you have no real power to provide meaningful consequences for sometimes even the most egregious misconduct.

There are administrators within reach, whose job description reads, enforce discipline policies. If it does not, why not?
They have the power to administer meaningful consequences.

There are those, I among them, who think that "calling parents" as the answer to discipline problems is simply naive. How many parents of an "asshole", don't know they're raising an asshole?

Parents are the part of the dynamic over which we have the least control. If we can't even control what goes on with a kid at school, how can we possibly assume that we can control what happens outside of school?

Administrators, some of them at least, would like to step away from dealing with upset parents. They like to insist that teachers "make parent contact", before they will assume any responsibility at all for a disruptive student.

Teachers need effective interventions on site, at school.

Teachers and EAs can remain 100% involved in the positive aspects of education. There are more than enough kids with legitimate learning needs to fully occupy their full attention.

If teachers are expected to teach and are given the responsibility of dealing with complex emotional, psychological, socio-economic, ethnic, and societal problems manifest belligerently, they are denied the opportunity to succeed with either student.

Teachers, EAs, and a teachable moment are lost whenever an
adult has to leave a learner to attend to a non-learner.

Children, by they very nature, push limits. It is actually a very effective learning strategy.

If they go too far, it is the responsibility of authority, to tell them to step back. If their answer means no, it is no longer the "teachers'" responsibility.

The problem at that point, becomes the problem of someone
with the time and the tools to get the kid back on track.

Use teaching expertise to teach and to identify problems.
Use the most appropriate resource, to solve the problem.

It stands to reason, if you want students to excel,
you don't hold them back.

A workable 2 step plan for improving the APS

In the Saturday Journal, APS Superintendent, Winston Brooks laid out a number of improvement goals, and not one plan to reach any of them. I chided both the Journal and Brooks for the egregious omission.

It would be fair if someone asked, so what's your great plan?

Good question, and thanks for asking.

My plan has two steps and will raise all performance measures by 10% almost immediately.

Step 1, gather data. The APS employees more than 10,000 adults who work at the educational interface; they see students face to face every day. Among them, more than 100,000 years of first hand experience with students.

They have never been asked collectively, for their input.

The Director of APS' Research, Development, and Accountability Division, Tom Genne, freely admits that he has never surveyed teachers and EAs to ask them what they think is wrong and, what do they think needs to be done to fix things. Not only has he not conducted the survey, but he admits that he is unaware of anyone else, ever, doing such a survey either.

Step 1 then; gather data by designing and administering a comprehensive survey of educator opinions on all of the relevant issues and problems. Publish survey results to the public record so that the leadership of the APS cannot hide certain issues and answers from further discussion.

Step 2; end chronic disruptions in schools. Establish meaningful standards of conduct and competence for students, and then enforce them.

Currently there is no agreed upon Student Standards of Conduct. Although there are implied standards, the Pillars of Character Counts!, they are currently being utterly ignored by the leadership of the APS. They will not even admit to their existence, link.

The problem of chronically disruptive students has never been documented by the leadership of the APS.

The reason that no effort has been made to document student discipline issues is, administrators are ultimately responsible for addressing the issue. The negotiated agreement between teachers and administrators places the ultimate responsibility for enforcing district and school discipline policies on the administration. If the Step 1 survey were ever done, the administrative failure to adequately address chronic discipline problems would be documented.

If those who work at the educational interface are given a seat at the table where decisions are made, all markers of student achievement will rise by 10%.

Guaranteed.

Denish" won't take a stand", if Sanderoff is to be believed.

According to the Journal, link, and pollster Brian Sanderoff;

"Lieutenant governors don't take those battle line stances
on polarizing issues that cubbyhole them as too liberal or
conservative."

Denish won't take a real stand, on the record, on the steps of
the Roundhouse, for real transparency, or real accountability,
or a real ethics commission.

Her apologists argue that it is just because she can't stand up to Governor Bill Richardson. Once he is gone she will be able to stand up to everybody else.

They would have us believe, after Richardson is out of the picture, Denish will find the courage that she cannot find now.



She will stand up to House Speaker Ben Lujan and tell him he can't have a highway to his place, link.

If she can't stand up to him right now, why should we believe that she might be able to stand up to him later, even if Richardson is gone?



As for me, I can not believe it.




photos Mark Bralley

Editors' pens make dots and lines, but no point.

Clearly, Journal editors get it, link.

They see the lack of transparency in government.
They see the resistance of politicians and public servants
in providing that transparency.

"But it should go without saying that an administration
that promises accountability ... but refuse(s) to release
any information ..." is completely unacceptable.

They would agree, I think, we have lost control over power
and resources that are fundamentally our own.
The truth about the spending of our power and our resources
is being kept from us, deliberately.

It is completely unacceptable.

• End the culture of corruption, immediately.


• Make government completely transparent, immediately.


• Provide honest accountability to meaningful standard of conduct and competence for politicians and public servants, immediately.

None of these is impossible.

None of these will be provided for us by those whose interests
are more served by their existence than their demise.

None of these will be provided for us except upon our insistence.

Whenever the editors get going on our loss of control over
our government, I am always looking for the money line,
the call to action. Else, what is the point of a printing press?

The editors know, we all need to show up somewhere,
in the same place, at the same time, demanding the same thing.
But they won't write it.

Where is the line that reads,

It is time for the politicians and public servants to feel
the heat of our torches and the points of our pitch forks.

They always wimp out. They always end with some cute little
line like,

"It could be said that when it comes to transparency and
accountability, this isn't change at all."

Gee, ya think?

They never fail to disappoint.

Benjamin Franklin and his fellows must be spinning in their graves.

Our right to know

There is a story in the Journal, link, about an athletics vice president at New Mexico Military Institute, who resigned, but will be paid $90K for services he will not perform.

According to the report;

"The circumstances surrounding South's resignation are unclear. The settlement contains nondisparagement clauses that prevent either side from making negative comments about the other. It also contains a confidentiality clause that prevents the school and South from discussing the settlement."

Oh really.

If this guy is a public servant, and these are public monies,
why are none of the circumstances any of the public's business?

How can those with the most to hide, be the ones who decide
how much of the truth will be hidden?

"51% Give Gov. Thumbs Up"

according to the Journal headline, link.

"Governor Richardson feels good about having
the support of a majority of New Mexicans ..."

said Gov Richardson's PIO, Gilbert Gallegos, in response.

Another interesting quote from the same article, addresses
the apparent popularity of Lt Gov Diane Denish and is
attributed to the pollster, Brian Sanderoff;

"Lieutenant governors don't take those battle line stances
on polarizing issues that cubbyhole them as too liberal or
conservative."

If there is to be meaningful ethical reform in government, it
will not come because of folks who lack the character and/or
the courage to take a battle line stance on ethics reform.

I hope voters will remember that.

Brooks sets goals, offers no new plans.

The Saturday Journal offered 28 column inches to the APS
and Winston Brooks, to lay out the goals for next year,
link.

The goals include; raising graduation rates, raising the
percentage of students who are proficient in math and reading,
raising scores on the NCLB mandated tests, and reducing
truancy.

No where in the 28 inches, was there discussion of actual
plans to achieve any of the goals.

For example; Brooks announced his intention to lower the
truancy rates by 1% per year, but offered no plan to achieve
that end.

He could have said, for example; I intend to reduce truancy
by using our highly qualified school counselors differently.
Instead of using them as scheduling clerks, we will use them
as counselors, and direct them to counsel "at risk students"
instead.

But he did not.

He could have said, I intend to follow school board policy
and institutional character education, thereby directly
addressing a myriad of fundamental road blocks to reaching
our goals.

But he did not. (and never will)

Goals without plans to reach them, are just numbers. Brooks,
in the article, complained that the NCLB goal numbers are
arbitrary numbers. So are his. They are guesstimates.

In truth, they amount to the lowest number that would
not raise public ire. If the estimate were lowering truancy
rates by 1/10th or 1/100 of a percent, the public might have
taken notice and raised some ruckus.

Brooks goals were of course, approved by the board. I would
point to the lack of qualifications of the board, to honestly
evaluate whether the goal numbers were realistic or not.

Reporter Hailey Heinz, reported that the President of the
Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, Teri Cole, said,

"We look forward to additional strategies that will deliver
even better results by 2012. "

I look forward to seeing the first. Bottom line;
plans are not on the table for critical review.

We really have no idea whether there are changes in the
offing that offer any real hope at all of making a difference.

And next year, when the arbitrary numbers are not met,
new arbitrary numbers, smaller ones, will be invented.

Winston Brooks and the leadership of the APS have never
asked teachers, what do you need to succeed? They have
never asked and they never will. If we really wanted teachers
to be more successful, why aren't we asking them why they
are not seeing success?

There are more than 70,000 years of teaching experience in
the APS, and they have never been formally surveyed for their
opinions; not by the leadership of the APS, and not by the
Journal.

Why are the opinions of teachers given no weight at all?

The short answer is , the leadership of the APS does not want
to document teachers' dissatisfaction with their leadership.

And neither do their friends at the Journal.

The Journal was at the board meeting last Wednesday, and
watched the leadership of the APS refuse to answer a very
simple, straightforward, and legitimate question;

What are the APS Student Standards of Conduct?

As if student conduct had nothing at all to do with truancy,
graduation rates, achievement, or any other measure of their success.

Not only is APS not telling the truth about student discipline,
they are about hiding it, link.

Winston Brooks wouldn't answer; here's why.

During the last public forum, I asked
APS Superintendent Winston Brooks
to answer a legitimate question.
I asked him, what is the APS Student
Standard of Conduct? Specifically,
is it still the Pillars of Character Counts!?

I asked him to respond to the question candidly, forthrightly and honestly. He did not.



School Board President, Marty Esquivel was asked the same question. He also chose to not answer candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.

I asked APS Director of Communications, Rigo Chavez to gather together for me, any proof that the administration was doing anything at all in support of Character Counts!. I just talked to him; he said there is none.

Winston Brooks is doing nothing at all in support of Character Counts!.


School Board Member David Robbins was the only member of the leadership of the APS who answered the question. He said "...in regards to Character Counts! ...the school district is emphatic that we support it."

There is, we now know, no evidence the district supports Character Counts!, emphatically or otherwise.

David Robbins did not tell the truth. If he uttered an untruth deliberately, he lied. If he is ignorant of the truth, he should have investigated the truth before answering the question. In any event he owes stakeholders a retraction of his untruthful and misleading statement.

Cogent documentation; in 1994, the APS School Board adopted Character Counts! as the model for character education in the APS by adopting the following resolution. The resolution does not have a shelf life; it is as binding today as it was the night it was passed, unanimously, by the APS Board of Education.
(emphasis added)

Resolution To endorse and Implement Character Counts! Program in the Albuquerque Public Schools

Whereas, Albuquerque Public Schools reaffirms the need to join with other community groups to actively engage in the development and demonstration of ethical behavior among youth, adults, and

Whereas, the mission of Albuquerque Public Schools is to provide learners of all ages the skills and knowledge needed to become successful and productive members of a dynamic society , and

Whereas, the Albuquerque Public Schools recognizes that students in our schools are more likely now than in the past to experience family disintegration, homicide, drug use, teen age pregnancy, dishonesty, suicide, and strong messages from media and society that undermine home teaching of ethical values, and

Whereas, the Albuquerque Public Schools recognizes that no single community institution can instill ethical behavior in youth and adults if it is acting without the support of other institutions and groups, and

Whereas, the Albuquerque Public Schools recognizes the important role played by teachers and other adults in school settings in modeling good character for young people

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED;

1. That the Albuquerque Public Schools endorses the Aspen Declaration on Character Education * as well as the Character Counts! Program as ways to develop character based on six core ethical values; trustworthiness, respect, responsibility , fairness, caring and citizenship;
2. That the Albuquerque Public Schools will enter into community-wide discussions with other institutions and groups to reach agreements about the role of each in promoting ethical behavior among young people, and adults in various aspects of life;
3. That the Albuquerque Public Schools is committed to creating models of ethical behavior among all adults who serve students and schools;
4. That the core curriculum should continue to give explicit attention to character development as an ongoing art of school instruction;
5. That materials, teaching methods, partnerships, and services to support school programs shall be selected, in part, for their capacity to support the development of character …
6. That all schools examine school curriculum and practices to identify and extend opportunities for developing character, especially through the utilization of violence-prevention programs, mediation training, community service programs, fair rules which are fairly enforced, democratic practices in classrooms and organizations, and extracurricular activities which help students learn and model caring and ethical behavior.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 1994

*
The Aspen Declaration on Character Education
In July 1992, the Josephson Institute of Ethics hosted a summit conference in Aspen, Colorado. A diverse group of ethicists, educators and youth-service professionals convened to find ways to work together and boost their character-education efforts. The declaration that concluded this meeting would form the intellectual foundation for the CHARACTER COUNTS! movement, started by the Institute the following year.
1. The next generation will be the stewards of our communities, nation and planet in extraordinarily critical times.
2. In such times, the well-being of our society requires an involved, caring citizenry with good moral character.
3. People do not automatically develop good moral character; therefore, conscientious efforts must be made to help young people develop the values and abilities necessary for moral decision making and conduct.
4. Effective character education is based on core ethical values rooted in democratic society, in particular, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, justice and fairness, caring, and civic virtue and citizenship.
5. These core ethical values transcend cultural, religious and socioeconomic differences.
6. Character education is, first and foremost, an obligation of families and faith communities, but schools and youth-service organizations also have a responsibility to help develop the character of young people.
7. These responsibilities are best achieved when these groups work in concert.
8. The character and conduct of our youth reflect the character and conduct of society; therefore, every adult has the responsibility to teach and model the core ethical values and every social institution has the responsibility to promote the development of good character.




photos Mark Bralley

Journal poll; no one else cares.

The Journal has been running polling results all week.
Among the first they ran, the results when people were asked
which are the most important issues.

According to the Journal, when 406 registered voters
were asked to name the top three problems,
they named; (plus or minus 5%)

Health Care ...........................53%
Economy/week job market ..47%
Education ..............................12%
Budget Deficit .........................9%
Afghanistan war .....................8%
Iraq war .................................6%

I am disappointed that public corruption and incompetence
don't even make the list.

By my estimation, there is not a single legitimate agenda on
any of these other issues, that does not move forward on the
day that the politicians and public servants whose job it is to
solve these problems, are inescapably accountable to
unequivocal and meaningful standards of conduct and
competence, within their public service.

Why is such a fundamental issue, not an issue at all?

And even if people don't think that ending public corruption
and incompetence is important, shouldn't we do it anyway?
if only as a matter of principle.

Transparently accountable government as a matter of principle.

I wonder how it is that people decide which problems are more important. Certainly if one is experiencing economic problems, they would naturally list the Economy as a most important issue. But beyond that, what drives their decision making?

Does the media report public opinion, or do they create it?

Take for example the question, what are republicans?

The media would have you believe that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or even some fringe lunatics, speak for republicans. It is the media who decides to pay attention to the most outrageous opinions, and for obvious reasons; it sells papers.

They submit as proof that these are our leaders, the "fact" that
we have not stood up in opposition to them.

How are we to stand up except through the media? who won't
tell our stories because they don't sell newspapers.

On Clearly New Mexico, link, tdingman wonders if conservatives are listening to their "leaders". The loudest mouth screaming the most outrageous nonsense is not "the leader", except in the minds of those would like to support their prejudice concerning "republicans" and "conservatism".

The issues are the issue. This is about the message.
It is not about the messengers. Stop the name calling.

Red herring for dinner, from the narrow minded media.

Qualifications for the next mayor.

Vision. We need a mayor with a vision. Why, because no one
else has any good ideas? Someone else first wrote;
"no one of us, is as smart as all of us".

Along the same line, no political candidate has more or better
visions than all of us. Whoever is in office, there will be more
than enough ideas about what can be done with hundreds of
millions of tax dollars. We don't need a mayor who claims
exclusivity on good ideas.

Another name for vision is "agenda". And while candidates
have an agenda, maybe even a great agenda, it is still the
people's will which should be done, it is the people's agenda
which should be respected.

Rather than a candidate with vision, how about a candidate
that guarantees that all "visions" receive appropriate consideration?

Results. Our current mayor claims credit for;

dog parks,Tingley Beach,Verizon Wireless, Albuquerque Studios, Shamrock Foods, Prime Therapeutics, Fidelity, Schott Solar, Sony Imageworks and the Reelz Channel. He claims credit for Rapid Ride, city landscaping, bike lanes and trails,the Botanical Gardens, Aquarium, Explora and International Balloon Fiesta Park and Museum and Isotopes Stadium, 8 skateboard parks, a world class BMX facility, progressive spay and neuter laws,the Elementary School Initiative, and reinstating Middle School Athletics at APS.

But can he really claim personal credit for any of these accomplishments? If anyone else had been mayor, wouldn't most of these accomplishments been realized anyway? And the ones that weren't, wouldn't something just as worthy have been realized instead? Is the City Council completely worthless when it comes to new and good ideas?

We don't need a mayor with vision, we need a mayor who listens to the visions of the people, and then enables their success.

What we need more than anything else, is a mayor who will make city government responsive to the people. We need a mayor who will clean up the corruption and incompetence in government. We need a mayor who can restore our faith in our government.

Marty Chavez has not cleaned up city government.

He has had twelve years total, and eight years in a row, to clean up city government and he has not.



There are the videotapes of the Mayor(s flunkies) shaking down
a local businessman for free air travel, link.



There is the audit revealing that the Contract Management Department of City Government is completely incompetent, if not outright corrupt, link.

Marty Chavez has had the opportunity to clean up city
government and has not. It was on his watch that the
Ethics in Public Service Act died without a whimper, link.


Chavez says we should elect him because he intends to put 20% more cops on the street.

Why shouldn't we not elect him because it was on his watch that our police department became 20% understaffed?

Whatever else he claims to have done,
it is what he hasn't done,
that really matters.




photos Mark Bralley

"Winston is very intent on making this district better.”

Tracy Dingman who keeps an eye on the Journal at Abq Journal Watch, link, has a report on NMI, link, on the fund raising efforts of the APS Education Foundation.

She interviewed Phill Casaus, the Executive Director of the APS Foundation, and reports that he said;

"Winston is very intent on making this district better.”

Casaus and I are in accord.

I too believe that Winston is very intent on making this district better.

The difference between us is, Winston is intent upon doing so
while at the same time covering everybody's ass.
No heads will roll.

His first priority is that no heads will roll.

School Board heavy hitter Paula Maes came right out and
said, she will never agree to any audit that names the names
of the corrupt and the incompetent in the leadership of the APS.

She said, no heads will roll.

The district will be made better. But not as good as it could
be made. Not as good as it would be made if only improvement
was their only priority.

Which is more like to make things better?
APS telling the truth about the scandal in the APSPD and
letting heads roll, or,

APS hiding the truth about that scandal and every other,
but "intent on making the district better".

The priority must be improvement, not "covering asses".




photos Mark Bralley

This is why the leadership of the APS should NOT have their own publicly funded, private police force.

It was bad enough when the Journal reported that APS was not telling the truth about crime statistics in APS schools, "APS Ditches Crime Reports", link.

This morning the Journal reports, link, that an autistic child was assaulted by an adult in a classroom at Eldorado High School. The adult (allegedly) physically assaulted, as in; criminal battery, a special needs student in a classroom.

The incident was then kept secret from the Albuquerque Police Department, and from the two APD officers who are stationed at Eldorado. The APS Police Department even chose not to tell the victim's parents that, their child (a 20 yr old with a 6 yr old cognitive ability) had been the victim of an assault at school.

According to TJ Willham's report;

"School police did not fill out a police report, and the two
APD officers assigned to the school were not notified."

The APS Police Department is unaccredited, un-certificated, and un-certified by anyone except the leadership of the APS.

If anyone wanted to file a complaint against them, for hiding the truth, the only place they could file a complaint is with the leadership of the APS, who maintain a publicly funded, private police force; a Praetorian Guard, for what other reason than,
to be able hide the truth about criminal activity in APS?

Side bar;

Evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving APS administrators, link, two and a half years later, after statutes of limitation have expired, is still being held by the APS Police Department and the leadership of the APS and, has still not been turned over to the Office of the District Attorney for prosecution.

On the issue of hiding this assault; there appears to be
applicable law; SS32-4-3 which reads (in significant part);

Every person, including ...; a law enforcement officer; ...; a schoolteacher; a school official; ... who has information that is not privileged as a matter of law, who knows or has a reasonable suspicion that a child is an abused or a neglected child shall report the matter immediately to a local law enforcement agency.

According to state law, failing to report child abuse is criminal misconduct.

According to the legal weaselry which is about to take place,
ridiculously expensive and underwritten by taxpayer support
for "education", no wrong doing will be found.



The APS PD does not exist to "protect our future", it exists to
hide the truth about criminal activity in the APS and to
cover the asses of administrators and board members who
have broken the law.

And what ever they can't hide, will be litigated away by
APS/Modrall, no matter the cost to taxpayers;
a number that the leadership of the APS refuses to make
public. A number so large, APS' insurer raised insurance
premiums in order to cover inordinately high litigation
expenses accumulated by the leadership of the APS.

When is enough finally going to be enough?




photo Mark Bralley

Winston Brooks chooses to not answer.

I had eye contact with APS' Superintendent Winston Brooks. He at least can summon the courage to look up from his laptop during the public forum.

As I looked into his eyes, I said that I expected a candid, forthright and honest answer to one question;
what is the APS Student Standard of Conduct?

He chose to not answer.

I was asking a question to which, I know the answer.

The APS Student Behavior Handbook reads;

"... students are expected to model and promote
the Pillars of Character Counts!, link.

The Pillars of Character Counts! have been the APS Student Standards of Conduct since 1994. link.

According to the student standards of conduct,
(quoted in significant part, emphasis added);

Honesty

There is no more fundamental ethical value than honesty. We associate honesty with people of honor, and we admire and rely on those who are honest.

Honesty in communications is expressing the truth as best we know it and not conveying it in a way likely to mislead or deceive.

Truthfulness is presenting the facts to the best of our knowledge.

Sincerity is genuineness, being without trickery or duplicity. It precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading.

In relationships involving legitimate expectations of trust, honesty may also require candor, forthrightness and frankness, imposing the obligation to volunteer information that another person needs to know.

Winston Brooks, asked, what is the
APS Student Standard of Conduct,
chooses to not respond candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.









As does School Board President Marty Esquivel when asked the same question.









Board Member David Robbins was the only board member to respond to the question. He said that the Pillars of Character Counts! as the student standards of conduct, has "our" support. He then added, he thinks it would be "micromanagement" for the board to interfere on the subject of the district wide policy on students standards of conduct; not realizing apparently, that writing district wide policy is the board's specific and explicit, responsibility and obligation. Not realizing apparently, that the current student standards of conduct are in fact, the result of a school board decision.

Robbins' disregard for school board policy is further manifest in his decision to deny whistle blower complaints the due process that they are guaranteed by school board policy. The policy requires that his Audit Committee review and approve of every single whistle blower complaint, and is yet to review and approve even one, link.

Robbins defends his refusal as "not violating the law". The APS Student Standards of Conduct express a different perspective;

people of character are required to do more than
the law requires and less than the law allows.

The Albuquerque Journal was present at the Public Forum, heard the question, saw the refusal to answer, and found the whole issue not newsworthy.


Four people came up to me last night and expressed their appreciation for what I am doing at the Public Forum.

I thank them for their support.




photos Mark Bralley

Transparently accountable government.

In principle; politicians and public servants must be accountable to the people. The power is ours, the resources are ours, and their public service is ours.

Accountability to the people is satisfied when there is a system in place, under which public servants are held accountable to (meaningful) standards of conduct and competence. The system must be impartial and powerful enough to hold even the most powerful politician or public servant accountable, even against their will.

Standards of conduct and competence are the prerogative of the people and not of their servants.

The proof is in the doing. For as long as government is not absolutely and completely transparent, the people do not have control over money and power that are fundamentally their own.

The waste of power and resources ends with inescapable accountability to unequivocal standards of conduct and competence, standards high enough to protect the public interests. Standards the least of which includes; telling the truth.

There is no reason in the world the New Mexico cannot be a model for the free world, of transparently accountable government.

Except that we don't have the want and the will, to make it so.