Journal coverage of little use to taxpayers

The Journal ran a story yesterday, link, on

"... a federal judge (coming) down hard on a governmental body that went too far in trying to limit comment at a public meeting.

Journal staff writer Scott Sandlin pointed out, this is the second time this year that a federal court judge found rules or policies barring speakers at public forums from criticizing politicians and public servants are  unconstitutional burdens on free speech.

According to the Sandlin;

Greg Williams, president-elect of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, said the importance of (the judge's) opinion is that “a policy that says you can’t be critical is improper.”

As is a "practice" that says you can't be critical.

(The judge's) opinion includes: “The core pursuit of governing body meetings is to make decisions and conduct business on behalf of the municipality. … (The governing body takes) limited public comment so that it can be informed of its constituents’ opinions, and, with this information, be better situated to make decisions that are more democratic and sometimes, more competent.”

The other federal court ruling Sandlin mentioned was in our complaints.

A federal court judge found that Marty Esquivel's justifications for banning me (effectively) for life from school board meetings were pretexts masking viewpoint discrimination.

They don't like being criticized from the podium in a public forum.

Sandlin reminds us, the people have no "legal" right to public forums in public meetings.  Public fora are provide by the grace of the politicians and public servants involved.

In exchange, and in gratitude for their beneficence in providing public fora, they expect us to follow their rules of "decorum".  The first of them is to not make electeds and senior public servants feel "uncomfortable".

To that end, Esquivel and the board have apparently come up with another brainstorm; speakers at public forum can criticize politicians and public servants by title but not by name.

They cannot be serious.

I am allowed, apparently, to stand up and say;

The superintendent of the APS is part of a cover up of a cover up of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators and the leadership of their publicly funded private police force.

but I can not stand up and say;

Winston Brooks is part of a cover up of a cover up of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators and the leadership of their publicly funded private police force.

Their new policy is as ridiculous as it is legally indefensible.

"Legally indefensible" doesn't mean a "legal" defense cannot be mounted. "Legally indefensible" does not mean they won't spend enormous numbers of tax dollars defending their mis or malfeasance; their stupidity and arrogance.

It means such a legal defense cannot be mounted in taxpayers' best interests.  The tax dollars they are squandering in their effort to escape justice cannot be justified.

And that's where the Journal has let taxpayers down.  Not one word in Journal about the cost to taxpayers for this ruling.

Taxpayers and other interest holders have no idea how many tax dollars are wasted by politicians and public servants in their efforts to avoid the consequences of their public corruption and or incompetence by conducting cost is no object legal defenses in their own interests.

Who knows how many dollars were wasted by Ruidoso politicians and public servants trying to cover their asses?

When APS was asked by Rob Nikolewski, Capital Report New Mexico, how much money APS was spending defending Esquivel and his cronies, they low balled him, link.  APS told him a quarter of a million dollars at a time when I know full well, the total was closer to three quarters of a million, and that was before Esquivel decided to go to trial rather than settle, and admit his wrongdoing.

APS School Board Member and Defendant Marty Esquivel will encumber a million dollars before he's done trying to escape the consequences of his violations of my civil rights; dollars which could and should be spent in classrooms instead.

Why are taxpayers paying for cost is no object legal defenses for politicians and public servants charged with betraying the public trust?  

Esquivel's spending is utterly unjustifiable and is being done without public oversight.


Where is the oversight?

I can tell you where the oversight isn't - it isn't in the Journal.




photos Mark Bralley