APS not telling the truth.

In response to a demand for a candid, forthright and honest
accounting of the Moss Adams Audit, the leadership of the
APS posted this; link.

They offer the following statement;

The APS Finance Department, under the leadership of
Chief Financial Officer Gina Hickman,
recognizes that for a few years the district wasn’t always
following acceptable accounting practices."
(emphasis added)

The truth is that the District has never followed
acceptable accounting procedures.

The proof of the allegation is simple logic.

If there ever were acceptable accounting practices, where are
they now? Where is the record that they ever existed?

If there ever were acceptable accounting practices,
the leadership of the APS could point to the record and say,
Here is the evidence that proper accounting procedures
were once being followed.

And then they would be able to point to the place where
the proper accounting procedures were replaced with
improper accounting procedures.

They can't of course, because it is simply stupid to believe that
proper accounting procedures would allow for the dissolution of
themselves, to be replaced by

• inadequate policies,
• inadequate accountability, and
• inadequate record keeping.

You be the judge;

which is a candid, forthright, and honest portrayal of the facts;

• implying that there were only "a few years" of problems, or
  
• admitting that the problems have been there all along?

Their candid, forthright, and honest response,
was not so candid, forthright, and honest, after all.

They have made a deliberate effort to mislead stakeholders.

They have been dishonest according to the standard of
conduct that they enforce upon students.


And yet, their lawyers will argue;
their clients haven't been caught "telling a lie".

OK, so what am I to do with this?

I have it on good authority that;

A student brought a knife to Jimmy Carter Middle School.

He had brought the knife to school with the intention of using it.

He was caught, APSPD wanted to arrest him and press charges,
and then administration intervened.

His parents made a stink, and now he is back at school.

Many staff and teachers at the school are outraged.


Is all or any of this, true?

I guess the point is that
there is no reason to believe that, it is not true.

Teachers and staffs are outraged across the district.
The data would show that, if the data were collected.

The last audit by the Council of the Great City Schools
revealed that principals routinely falsified crime statistics
in order to make their schools look good.

The cleanest way to falsify data, is to not create it;
no paper trail;
what kid? what knife?


There is a document called

the Student Behavior Handbook.

Technically, it is an extension of school board policy.

There is a part of that document called

Minimum Mandatory Consequences.

It represents the district's promise that students
who willfully misbehave, will suffer some mandatory consequence.

The promise is diametric to the truth, which is that
principals take advantage of language in the Handbook,
that teachers call the "weasel clause".

In effect, the clause says that
administrators can do anything that they want to do,
and then justify it by saying that they used their "best judgment".

An administrator's best judgment is not subject to question
or review.

The leadership of the APS doesn't want to talk about student
discipline.

They don't want to talk about student discipline because;

• it is a powerful influence on success in schools,
• it is in the toilet, and
• it is an administrative responsibility.

So they just won't talk about it.

And teachers
who see their sacrifices made pointless in out of control schools,
find other lines of work.

The teacher shortage is not because the colleges of education
are not turning out enough graduates.

It is because half of new teachers quit teaching in the first few
years, and half of the remaining teachers, quit in the next.

Student discipline is not on the table for honest and open
public discussion.

It should be.

So what am I supposed to do about it?

The system has no place where the issue of student discipline
can be addressed, and no place to complain about the fact that
there is no place to address the issue.

Submitted as only one of many subjects about which,

the leadership of the APS will not tell the truth.

Superintendent Winston Brooks, tell us the truth!

Moss Adams, Certified Public Accountants
has submitted their Independent Auditor's Report.

I think that there are issues; past, present, and future.

I think questions about "criminal misconduct" were answered with odd non verbal communication among those who answered. It felt to me like the answers;

"... depend upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

I think APS Chief Financial Officer, Gina Hickman materially misled the committee, and apparently the federal government, by representing any efficacy at all of the APS SilentWhistle whistle blower program.

If at any place in the audit, I can find some evidence that
Moss Adams has signed off on APS' SilentWhistle,
then they have been materially misled as well.

I think that there is a lot of inconvenient truth about the Moss Adams Audit in APS' bucket of truth.


It is not my obligation to try to pry out the truth.



It is Winston Brooks' obligation
to tell the truth;
candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.


And it is not completely unreasonable
to ask to see his signature above
a line that reads;

and I promise to tell the truth,
the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth.

(so help me God)

photos Mark Bralley




Update;
The leadership of the APS has responded; link
Nothing in the response, to the allegation that
APS' SilentWhistle whistle blower hotline is a scam.

A complaint made against APS' Director of Internal Audit,
would go to SilentWhistle,
who would then return it to APS' Director of Internal Audit.

Who can then close the complaint, and refuse to identify who closed the complaint, and even refuse to answer a legitimate question about who her supervisor is.

APS Audit Committee Meeting Thursday, January 22, 2009

The agenda read;

Presentation/Discussion/Action of Financial Statements
and the External Audit for Year Ending June 30, 2007

In short, I am concerned about some of the things I heard,
not the least of which is a $36M "accounting error" brought
about in no small part by a still inadequate accounting system.

An external auditor, whose name I do not know, asked with
incredulity;

You're still using Excel Spreadsheets?

I will post again, on the audit itself, but first I would like
to offer an apology to Board Member Marty Esquivel.

Mr. Esquivel had to point out to me, because I had missed
the significance,




that this particular meeting was the first Audit Committee Meeting including the presentation of an audit, that was open to the public.

This was the first time the public saw the sausage before it was
packaged for retail.

I remember now, the discussion about whether or not
the audit committee meetings would ever be open to the
public. I remember Robert Lucero arguing vehemently
to keep them secret, and now I remember Marty Esquivel
refusing to take no for an answer.

This open audit committee meeting, warts and all, would not
have happened except for Marty Esquivel's efforts.

Mr. Esquivel is also working on legislative changes in the
Governmental Conduct Act, which would bring school boards
like APS', under the purview of the Act. Oddly, there is on
the books, an exception to that law, for school boards.

Marty Esquivel and I have gone round and round on the idea
of administrative role modeling of the Student Standard of
Conduct. We will continue to go round and round until I am
satisfied that there are administrative role models of the
Student Standard of Conduct.

In the meantime, I will try my best, to not let that interfere with
my giving credit, where credit is due.

Yesterday was Marty Esquivel Day in the Martin DeLayo
room.


Kudos as well,
to Board Member Delores Griego, who

when the bean counters were arguing that a $36M accounting
error was relatively small potatoes, considering the overall
amount of capital assets,


argued on behalf of stakeholders, that;

$36,000,000.00 error
was not inconsequential at all.

Perhaps there is some hope for stakeholder interests before
the school board, after all.



photos Mark Bralley

Are School Board Members Role Models?

Of course they are.

Are they accountable as role models?

Clearly not. Not if we can't get them to even admit that they are
role models.

Yet they are running for the school board, with some success.


Apparently, no one cares.

So when we give the little kid a Character Counts! tee-shirt,
that on its front and back reads;

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

basically,
they are.



They deserve better.

They deserve an adult role model behind them
offering encouragement.

And an adult role model beside them
sharing the burden.

And an adult role model in front of them
leading by their example.

Refusal to take an oath or affirmation

According to NM State Statutes, anyone who refuses to take
oath or affirmation is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

In theory, when the APS Board of Education refuses
to take the following oath, they are breaking the law.

As a senior role model of the student standard of conduct,
a standard of conduct which requires telling the truth,

I promise to tell the truth
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
about the public interests and about my public service
(so help me God)

The only reason they aren't breaking the law, by refusing,
is that I don't have "standing" to insist that they do.

After all, I am only a citizen, a tax payer, and a stakeholder.

"Pay to play" in the APS?

The Journal has reported on campaign contributions in the
APS School Board Elections. link
Oddly, I cannot find the story in my home editio of the Journal;
I only stumbled across it on their website.

There are some out of state contributions, which seem just a
little weird.

There is a contribution from Brad Winter's wife, whose
law firm does business with the APS.

There is a contribution from Doug Baker, whose law firm
Modrall, does millions of dollars worth of business with the
APS, in part for litigating exception to the law for APS
administrators and board members.

There are contributions from sitting APS administrators.
APS doesn't have a searchable data base. where I can confirm
my suspicions. I could be wrong on this one, but
I think that I recognize their names.


And of course nobody will answer questions about anything,
it's just not the way they roll.


According to the Journal,

District 3 candidate Jeffrey Rich said
he was refusing to disclose his fund raising because
he wants to "show how corrupt the election process is at APS."
He said he instead supports mandatory disclosure,
with legal penalties attached.

The Journal saw no need to elaborate on the issue,
or upon any other issue in the school board races,
less than two weeks from election day, and
more than two weeks into early voting.

More Journal reporting on anything but ...

Journal education reporter Andrea Schoellkopf has reported
on campaign contributions in the APS school board races. link

Don't get me wrong; this is great information to know.
But as an adjunct, not instead of some solid reporting on
the real issues in the race.

Four candidates have said that they will step up as role models
of the student standard of conduct.
And their opponents are stonewalling the question.

Four candidates have said that they will tell the truth about
public interests and public resources in the APS.
And their opponents are stonewalling the question.

Four candidates have said that they are in favor of an immediate
impartial standards and accountability audit of the leadership
of the APS.
And their opponents are stonewalling the question.

Four candidates are willing to stand on the record and swear
to tell the truth about the public interests in the public schools;
subject to, and only to, exception according to the law.

Four candidates are willing to look into the eyes of stakeholders,
including 87,000 of this community's sons and daughters,
raise their right hand and say;

I promise to tell the truth.

And their opponents are stonewalling the question.

And their opponents are stonewalling all of these questions.


And all Journal readers have to go on,
when they elect the people that they must trust with control
over their power, and with the administration of their treasure,

is relatively meaningless list of campaign contributions.


Instead of reporting on solid and important issues,
voters are given instead, campaign finance reports.

Good information for voters to have certainly, but


not instead of the truth.

This can't be!

Rio Grande High School and Ernie Pyle Middle School
are to be "reconstituted".

Because they have "failed" to make adequate yearly progress
on the NCLB testing, the schools are subject to "reconstitution".

In its extreme, the entire teaching staff is given their walking papers, and if they want to continue to work at the school, they must reapply for their jobs.

APS Superintendent Winston Brooks, according to an article
in the Journal, link, defends wholesale staff changes at
"failing" schools, saying it, "... has made a difference" across
the country.

Andrea Schoellkopf, Journal education reporter, writes;

"Brooks said one idea is that employees
who don't want to stay at the school or don't agree with
its mission be guaranteed three priority interviews at
other schools.

But Bernstein said the union doesn't want those teachers
in a classroom anywhere."

If RGHS and EPMS teachers don't buy into a plan that
they have had no part in creating, and don't agree with,

they shouldn't have a teaching job anywhere?

you have got to be kidding!


Update; turns out I was right at "this can't be".
The Journal admits an error, and I published a correction.

The line comes from a response from Bernstein in a response
to what the union would have done, with bad teachers.

APS to fight for police force during legislature

KOB TV reports that APS is trying to get the legislature to
make the APS Police Department a "stand alone" police force.
link

There are upsides; not the least of which is state and federal
grants that are made to actual police departments, and
immediate access to the NCIC Criminal Data Base.

The part I don't understand;

the felony criminal abuse of the BCSO NCIC involving APS
senior administrators,

• Tom Savage's fiancee was the victim of an illegal criminal background search,
• as was at least one whistle blower whose background was searched illegally and in retaliation for blowing the whistle,
• and I think, five other victims of illegal searches involving APSPD and the BCSO,

is still being hidden by APS, from the District Attorney's Office.


How does that wash, exactly,
in the decision to upgrade the APSPD to a stand alone police force?

The answer is; it doesn't.

Peanut Butter Off Menus at APS

Five column inches in the Journal this morning link
on APS' apparently unnecessary pulling of peanut butter from
school menus.

The Journal reports;

APS Director of Communications, Rigo Chavez said;

that the only thing APS now serves with peanut butter is a Smuckers Uncrustable peanut butter and jelly pocket sandwich, which, according to a company news release, is not part of the national recall.
"They decided to pull everything for now," he said.

The Journal reports nothing, still,

on anything to do with the school board elections,
and which would be useful to voters
in making this very important decision.

The Albuquerque Journal; keeping it relevant.

Journal endorses school board candidates

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

They have endorsed candidates before. In fact,
they usually endorse school board candidates.

The problem is that this year,
they are pretending that there isn't an election.
They are running the second stealth election in as many
board elections. link

So it would be difficult to endorse a candidate
in an election that isn't happening.

The election is half over, and
they still haven't given voters anything that would help them
to vote for the right person.

Why, you ask, does it make any difference?

Why does in make any difference if the leadership of the APS
starts telling the truth, as opposed to not telling lies?

Every significant problem in the APS
has roots in the still secret, inconvenient truth.

You can't solve problems and
keep them secret at the same time.


If hiding problems is more important than solving them
they will never be solved at all.

It doesn't seem fair.

The people who passed the law that requires everyone else
to promise to tell the truth before they testify,

never saw the need to pass a law requiring the same of them,

even when they are asked legitimate questions,
about the public interest, or about their public service.

When our character is being tested,

we call it

a moment of truth.

How ironic.

Public Forum available to aps school board candidates.

During the APS School Board meeting Wednesday evening,
there will be an opportunity for stakeholders to petition their
government.
The opportunity comes by way of the scheduled public forum.

Anyone can stand up and ask the sitting board to;

1)promise to tell the truth, and then
2)to sit still and respond to some legitimate questions,
candidly, forthrightly and honestly;

according to the standard of conduct that
they enforce upon students.

Questions like;

Why are you not honestly accountable as role models
of the Student Standard of Conduct,
and in particular, why are you not accountable
to any standard of conduct at all,
that requires you to tell the truth?

Honesty manifest in truth telling, is the foundation
of the Pillar of Trustworthiness.


How can anyone be worthy of trust,
who can not promise to tell the truth?

Revisiting the "bucket of truth" analogy.

Imagine a bucket. And in that bucket, the truth about the APS;
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The truth in the bucket, if it "belongs" to anyone at all,
belongs to stakeholders.

Except.

The law allows some of the truth to remain secret from public knowledge. A portion of the whole truth falls under honest interpretation of the law.

Another portion is reasonably removed according to any
legitimate higher standard of conduct than the law,
for any good and ethical reason.

The truth left in the bucket belongs to stakeholders.

Stakeholders own all of the truth
except in accord with any good and ethical reason.

Our share of the truth can be sorted into two buckets;
the convenient truth, and the inconvenient truth.

The leadership of the APS spends hundreds of thousands of tax dollars every year, to "communicate" the convenient truth to stakeholders; to deliberately mislead and deceive them.

They spend an equal amount of tax dollars, on litigation
to keep the inconvenient truth in the bucket.

We try to teach students to care about their good character.
We tell them that it is important in their lives, and in the lives
of those around them.

We teach them what it means to tell the truth, and we tell them
why "telling the truth" is different from, and better than,
"not telling a lie".

We try very hard to get students to come to believe that
if the bucket of truth were in their hands,
their immediate obligation is to spill the entire bucket out
for everyone to see.

We teach them: if they do not empty the bucket entirely,
they make that choice, at the forfeit of their good character.

So when I ask administrators, school board members, and
school board member candidates,
if they are going to "tell the truth" I mean;

• Are you going to spill the whole bucket?
• Are you going to tell all of the truth except, for a good and ethical exception?

Now how do I explain all of that,
in about five seconds
before some moderator tells me to get to my question,

which is;

Do you promise to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
about the public interests, and about your public service

(so help you God)

Someone on the A P S Board of Education
is going to be the first to stand up, raise their right hand,
look into the eyes of stakeholders,

and answer, yes.


All of the rest, will be among the last.



I pity the fool, who is dead last.

It's a toss up, in my humble opinion,
between Paula Maes and Robert Lucero.

Two weeks to election, full page on "Schools", and still nothing in the Journal,about the school board elections.

Voting has been going on for two weeks, the election will
be over in two more, and still, the Journal has not printed
a single article of substance, to guide voters in their selection.

Shame on the Journal.


In District 5, you have one of the good ol' boys,
Paula Maes, who, during the APS Gradegate scandal, said in defense of Teresa Cordova's efforts to get her son's grade changed, that
... it's alright for a parent to "get in a teachers face once in awhile", and who once boasted that she would never allow any audit that named corrupt or incompetent good ol' boys by name; like "for example; Tom Savage."



Running against her, a fresh face; Renee Louise Rosales, a candidate who did not hesitate one second before pledging accountability to the Student Standard of Conduct, a nationally recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethical conduct, and
a code of conduct which demands accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence; including truth telling.





Over in District 6, we have incumbent Mary Lee Martin who has been on the board for decades; decades that saw one scandal after another with no attention paid to the underlying corruption and incompetence.

Mary Lee Martin was on the school board when Character Counts! was unanimously adopted as the student standard of conduct. Now, if you ask her if she will stand up as a role model of the same standard of conduct, she responds by stonewalling the question.



Her opponent is David Robbins.
Robbins as well, did not hesitate even one second before answering the question about his willingness to stand up as a role model of the student standard of conduct, and his willingness to tell the truth to stakeholders.

Robbins supports an immediate standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the APS.





In District 7,
newcomer Patrick J Marron,
who says that he is ready and willing to step up as a role model of the Student Standard of Conduct, including telling the truth.

Marron is one of the most vocal of the candidates, in his support of an immediate full scale standards and accountability audit of the entire leadership of the APS.







His opponent in District 7,
David Eugene Peercy,
who when asked if he was willing to step up as a role model of the Student Standard of Conduct, muttered something about how I was preaching to him, and turned around and walked away in the middle of our conversation.

Which I take to mean no,
no, he is not willing to be held honestly accountable to a standard of conduct that requires him to tell the truth to stakeholders.






And last, but not least, in District 3,
we have Jeffery C. Rich.

Mr. Rich, says that he will step up as a role model of the Student Standard of Conduct,
and he will tell stakeholders the truth.

Jeffery Rich also has expressed his support of an immediate full scale standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the APS.





Running against Rich, in District 3, are Lorenzo Garcia, Agatha Lopez, and Anna Armijo.

In truth, I have not found the opportunity to ask these candidates face to face, if they are actually willing to step up as role models of a standard of conduct; a standard which requires telling the truth as opposed to the current standard of conduct which requires only, not getting caught telling a lie.

I will ask them, and I will report upon their response.

But the Journal will not ask the questions, nor will they
report upon the responses.


Shame on the Journal.



photos; Mark Bralley

In order to tell the truth, you have to say something.

Truth telling and Stonewalling are as
matter and anti-matter.

They can not exist together.
It is one, or the other.

If standards include telling the truth,
then stonewalling is not allowed.


If the highest standard of conduct is "not to lie",
then it is.


You have to understand that stonewalling means no.

You have to accept that stonewalling means no.

It means the same thing as saying no, out loud.


Especially when the question is;

Do you intend to tell the truth?

The Student Standard of Conduct requires students
to tell the truth.

We teach them that their good character depends on their
telling the truth.

We illustrate the point with a story about George Washington,
and about how he told the truth.

What utter hypocrisy to tell students one thing and then
show them something else entirely.

If this is too high a standard of conduct for public servants,
then it is too high a standard for students.

But this has already been decided and we have made it very
clear that we do not think the Pillars of Character Counts!
is too high a standard of conduct for the 87,000 of our sons
and daughters in the APS.

Nor do we thing that it is too high of a standard of conduct
for board members and administrators.

Telling the truth would be among the standards of conduct
for board members and administrators, except that
they wrote them out.

Accountability for truth telling was removed from their
code of conduct when they removed the phrase;

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

The leadership of the APS are accountable as role models
of the Student Standard of Conduct

whether they like it or not. Whether they accept it or not.

They can not simply write accountability as role models,
out of their own standards of conduct.

We teach students that their good character requires
holding oneself honestly accountable
to a higher standard of conduct than the law.

Every generation expects the next generation
to be the first generation
that actually holds itself honestly accountable
to some meaningful standards of conduct.

If we really want students to grow into adults who embrace
character and courage and honor,
someone has to show them what it looks like.

And that particular kind of leadership starts at the top,
and must be manifest in their personal example.

They think they are too powerful to be held accountable
for their conduct and their competence.

Honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct
and competence,

will have to be thrust upon them against their will,

... or it will not happen at all.

Do you promise to tell the truth?

The whole truth, and nothing but the truth,

(about the public interests, and about your public service)

so help you God?



Why is this question,

which is the same question that you will be asked
before you sit down in a witness chair,

not a legitimate question

to put to public servants during their election,
and during their public service?

"Is time right for ethics reform?"

asks the Journal in its headline this morning? link

Duh! !!


It has been time for ethics reform since the first meeting of
the NM State Legislature in 1912. It still is.

The real question is;

Will enough citizens leave their spheres of comfort and safety,
to go to Santa Fe to DEMAND the reform?

If they don't, then the same question will be asked at this time
next year, and the next year, and the next, ...


One rather immediate question;

Who is going to rally the troops?

Or do we expect them to just wander up there by themselves?
And hope that they will all show up on the same day.


Hint; it is unlikely that the Journal will lead the rally.

Which leaves the bloggers and,
who else, exactly?

Imagine a bucket full of truth

The bucket is full of the whole truth about the APS, or
about any other agency of government
that administers the public trust and treasure.

Look into the bucket. You will find a very small scoop.
Take two scoopfuls of truth out of the bucket;
store them in a safe place.

One scoop represents the truth that the law says should not,
can not, and will not be surrendered to public knowledge.

The other scoopful represents the truth that is excepted
from surrender, for any other good and ethical reason.

Everything left in the bucket belongs to us.

The legally and ethically redacted truth belongs to us.
All of it belongs to us.

The decision making power that they wield is our power.
The money they spend is our money.

The truth about the administration of our power, and
the truth about the administration of our resources,

belongs to us.

The leadership of the APS no more claim to that truth
than any other stakeholder. They have no right to dole
out the truth according to their whim.

The leadership of the APS holds up a standard of conduct
for students. That standard of conduct requires that under
circumstances such as these, the bucket is to be emptied out
on the table, for everyone to see.

We tell them that if they do not tell the truth,
it is at the forfeit of their good character.

The leadership of the APS is modeling far different behavior.
They think the bucket full of truth belongs to them.

If you can prove that you have a right to some small part of it,
they may give it to you. Or they may not.

Because as then APS Superintendent Peter Horoscak
once told me;

You can't just tell the truth;
you don't know how someone might try to use it.

Every problem in the APS has roots in the fact that
they will not let stakeholders look into their bucket.

It is time for them to empty out their bucket.

There is no legitimate agenda in the entire APS,
that does not move forward on the day
that the leadership of the APS tells the truth,
the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth.

The current leadership of the APS will not tell the truth.

Will the next?

It is a fair question. It is a legitimate question.


Candidates,
will you tell us the legally and ethically redacted truth
about our power and about our resources?

Will you swear that you will tell the truth,
the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth,

(so help you God)?


Will you create a district policy that requires administrators
to do the same?



Any answer except yes, means no.

Why didn't Gina Hickman squeal?

APS Chief Financial Officer, Gina Hickman used to work in
the department she now heads.

At the time when she worked there, she knew,
or reasonably should have known,
that the spending of more than a billion tax dollars a year,
was being done without standards and accountability
that were adequate to protect the public interest,
according to the recent Meyners + Co. independent audit.

She didn't blow the whistle.

She was promoted in spite of the fact that, she did not
blow the whistle, which would seem to indicate that
no particular importance was placed on her decision
not to blow the whistle.

Either that, or

a great deal of importance was attached to her decision
not to blow the whistle.

Entire APS under state restructuring plan?

I have received the following news tip;

"Our school was told on the Thursday inservice that
APS is now a district under state restructure-1.

Our principal told us this was not news that was
"out there yet", and they wanted to hear it internally first.

What this seems to mean is that an individual school's
compliance with NCLB doesn't determine if they will be
in "safe harbor" or restructured anymore; it means all APS
schools are now under the restructure umbrella, and this
is a secondary step to the State of New Mexico
taking over APS schools."

... could it really happen? Word is that the state doesn't
have a take-over unit in place, doesn't have approved
protocol, and some say the state legislation has not been
presented nor passed for this to occur.

It would explain the urgency of RGHS and EPMS to be
resolved immediately.

Last year, and soon to begin this semester, the state comes into most APS schools and demands a mountain of papers that include EPPS statement, mission statement, department exams w/ results, graphs, charts, etc....

To my knowledge, student discipline, attendance and classroom cleanliness and Character Counts! is not discussed nor documentation requested.

Monica Armenta's mother's name comes up in pay to play investigations

The Journal report is about a search for the names
of contributors to a favorite foundation of
Governor Bill Richardson. link

The Journal is trying to find out who donated money,
and what the money was used for.

The Journal reports;

"Loretta Armenta, president of Qwest New Mexico
and longtime community leader, was listed as
board secretary in the IRS filings.

She told the Journal she doesn't know who contributed.

"I actually got involved when Governor Richardson
(took office) ... the first year and actually have had almost
no interaction."

Armenta said she knew of no board meetings or a
Web site for the foundation."

This all sounds disturbingly like the story about
the APS Character Counts Leadership Council,

a group whose membership is still secret,

who apparently rarely, or never, met,

who applied for a federal grant through Pete Domenici's
office, whose details, including accounting, are still secret,

and who isn't answering any questions about anything,

even questions about their Character Counts! "leadership".

And finally, as the Journal pointed out; Loretta Armenta
is the President of Qwest New Mexico.

Qwest New Mexico recently signed a sweet deal contract
the leadership of the APS. link



The lyrics change, but the melody never does.

Normally, links can be established to pages on the APS website

You have to have more than a little computer savvy to do it,
but it is possible.

However, if you went looking for the address for the page that
contains all of the school board candidate questionnaires, and such,

you will find no address to which a link can be established.



Add to the list of "coincidences" on the APS website,
that work together,
and against transparency.

Journal editors hope for reform in Santa Fe

In one of their most strongly worded and articulate editorials
to date, link, the editors have expressed their hope that 2009
is the year that our representatives in Santa Fe finally do
what voters want them to do with respect to governmental reform.

The editors pointed out that they had hoped for reform in 2005.
And that they had hoped again for reform in 2006.
And that they had hoped even harder for reform in 2007.
And that they had hoped even harder still for reform in 2008.

And for all of their hoping, still no reform.

Not ones to give up on a winning game plan, Journal editors
are hoping harder than ever for reform in 2009.

If only "hoping" had a snowball's chance in hell of actually
bringing about ethical reform in NM's culture of corruption.


The Journal editors have the wherewithal to get a thousand
people to stand together on the roundhouse steps
to demand meaningful reform.

And if that doesn't work, they have the wherewithal to get two
thousand people the next weekend, and four thousand the next,
and eight thousand the next, and ...

Instead, they will hope really, really, really hard, for reform
this year.


Good luck.

By a vote of 4 to 3, good ol' boys lose.

There are seven seats on the APS Board of Education.
3 seats are in mid term, and 4, a majority, are up for election.


There is a candidate in each of the four districts,
who has promised to stand up as a role model
of the Student Standard of Conduct. link


Jeffery C Rich-Renee Louise Rosales-David L. Robbins-Patrick J. Marron

They are so far, the only candidates who have promised
accountability as role models of the Student Standard of
Conduct, including honesty.

They are willing to stop hiding the truth, and to lay the truth
on the table for stakeholders to see. And for problems to be
addressed.

They will show students what it looks like to tell the truth.
They will show students and staff, what character and courage
and honor look like.

Every standards and accountability audit done in the leadership
of the APS has pointed to the lack of standards, and the lack of
accountability.

Governor Bill Richardson said that the APS has a statewide
earned reputation for their lack of financial accountability.

Mayor Marty Chavez argued that the standards and
accountability crisis in the leadership of the APS
warranted mayoral appointments to the school board.

Gil Lovato, former APS Chief of Police said that,
if the truth ever gets out, there won't be a single
APS senior administrator left standing.



Telling the truth about standards and accountability in the
leadership of the APS, means an immediate full scale
standards and accountability audit of the entire leadership
of the APS.

Impartial auditors will look for meaningful standards
of conduct and competence.

They will look for accountability to those standards.

They will look for corruption and incompetence.

The good ol' boys who have knowingly permitted, or
negligently allowed the standards and accountability crisis
in the leadership of the APS,

will be named by name.


Game over.

Good ol' boys lose.



... if only



photos Mark Bralley

APS Students are expected to "tell the truth".

At best, the leadership of the APS is expected "not to lie".

"Telling the truth" is not the same as "not lying".

One is a higher standard of conduct than the other.

The leadership of the APS holds students accountable to
the Pillars of Character Counts!.

The Pillars of Character Counts! represent a code of ethical
conduct. Students are expected to behave ethically.

They are taught that their good character depends upon it.

The leadership of the APS, by their own deliberate choice,
can not produce a record of accountability even to the law;
the lowest standard of conduct of them all.

Administrative standards and accountability are inadequate.

The leadership of the APS cannot point to even one impartial
audit of standards and accountability, that did not expose
grossly deficient standards and accountability.

If you ask them why they won't commission an immediate
standards and accountability audit of the entire leadership of the APS;

• an audit that would expose all of the corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS;
• an audit that would expose the corrupt and the incompetent in the leadership of the APS;
• an audit that would name their names and their misconduct and incompetence.

they won't answer you.

The leadership of the the APS won't lie to you.

They just won't tell you the truth.

David E Peercy, APS Board of Education, District 7

David E Peercy has a slick website. link





What he doesn't have,
is an acceptable answer
to this question;

Do you swear to tell the truth;
the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth,

so help you God?

Definitions;
According the Student Standard of Conduct;
the Pillars of Character Counts!

Telling the truth means; responding to legitimate questions by
answering candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

Exceptions;
There are ethical and legal restrictions on
the truth that public servants can share.

Those exceptions are recognized and accepted.

Of all of the rest of the truth though;
will you look in to the eyes of stakeholders, raise your right hand
and say;

I promise to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth,

so help me God.

photo; Mark Bralley

A Framework of Possibilities

Winston Brooks is about to shake up RGHS.

I have in my hand a document entitled;

A Framework of Possibilities.

It was handed out to APS Board of Education at their meeting about the restructuring of Rio Grande High School and Ernie Pyle Middle School.

As a stand alone document, it is difficult to make great sense of.

It looks to me like the teachers union and the administration
have been working together for some time to provide a framework for restructuring schools whose restructuring has been mandated by their ongoing "failure" to meet NCLB standards.

What I find most disturbing is that, I cannot find the words
"student discipline" anywhere in the document.

It is almost like no one in the leadership of the APS is aware of the impact of chronically disruptive students, on the learning process of other students. Either that, or they just don't want to talk about it on the record.

I can understand why the leadership of the APS wants to soft
play a problem that falls more reasonably in their lap, than on
the laps of teachers.

I cannot understand why the Albuquerque Federation of Teachers is reticent to document a problem that makes teachers look incompetent,

and doesn't move that problem onto the table of those who have the power, resources and the responsibility to deal with it.

Was APS Superintendent Tom Savage fired?

I was talking with APS Superintendent Winston Brooks
this morning.

I was reminding him that the evidence of felony criminal
misconduct involving senior APS administrators,
and the APS Police Department, was being hidden from
criminal prosecution.

The look on his face indicated to me that,
it was news to him.

I will ask him later, what he has found out.



It has been suggested that there was indeed
a senior APS administrator held accountable for the mess in the
APS Police Department; it was Tom Savage.


Except that Tom Savage "retired" with honors.

And when APS administrators who have had a hand in
suppressing evidence of felony criminal misconduct,
have their names written in history, Tom Savage's name
will not be among them.

School Board Candidate Paula Maes once boasted that
she would never allow any audit that would name the names
of the corrupt and the incompetent in the leadership of the APS

"... like for example, Tom Savage"
Thursday, August 16, 2007

And damned if she didn't.



And how do you get her,
as a candidate for the school board,
to explain exactly what she meant?

Why has there never been an audit that named names?


The media obviously isn't going to ask Paula Maes,
the President of the N M Broadcasters Association,

to explain her remark, or to explain why they won't allow
an honest, impartial forensic administrative standards and
accountability audit

as soon as is humanly possible.

I met with Marty Esquivel and Jon Barela

The meeting occurred Friday, last. I have not written about it
because I felt it was a work in progress.

I think now, we are done.

I went to Mr. Barela and Mr. Esquivel to propose that
they be the motion and the second, to put

APS administrative standards and accountability

on the table for an honest and open public discussion
before the upcoming school board elections.

There is a need. Every recent audit of the leadership of the APS
has pointed to significant standards and accountability issues.

They were asked to place standards and accountability on
the table for discussion.

In so far as any answer except yes, means no,
their answer is no.

I told Mr. Barela that,
rather than me trying to
articulate his position,
he was welcome to post
a comment on this post.


I will copy any response
into the post, so that everything
is on the same page.


Mr. Esquivel has the same opportunity.




photos Mark Bralley






Update; Neither Esquivel nor Barela chose to respond to this opportunity to explain, defend, deny, or even acknowledge their position.

Winston Brooks evaluation, the board meeting.

The board meeting began at 7:30.

It began with a motion and a second to add a year to
Winston Brooks, already extraordinarily long, contract.

The motion was passed without discussion or debate;
unanimously.

After which,
each board member spoke in support of their decision.

I think that it is fair to say that all of the good things they said
about Winston Brooks, are true;

• He is a hell of a nice guy, affable, likable, a handsome face for the APS.
  
• He has formed a precedent setting bond with the community.
• He has established goals, to which he can be held accountable.
• He is a good leader.
• He is a man of action.
• He is a good communicator.
  

I would take issue with the compliment that he had assembled a great leadership team. I would take issue because his leadership team is made up of exactly the same people who led us to where we are now; there is not one new face.

My biggest complaint though, my only complaint really,
it that Winston Brooks' evaluation did not touch on his
obligations as the senior most administrative role model
of the Student Standard of Conduct.

There is no overt proof that he is accountable to the same
standards of conduct and competence that he enforces
upon students.

Inconspicuous role modeling is an oxymoron.

A role model has to actually do something to call attention
to themselves and the behavior that they are modeling.

There is only one way to role model accountability to the
Student Standard of Conduct, and that is to actually hold
yourself honestly accountable to the Student Standard of Conduct.



There is no equivalent gesture.

He has fallen short as a role model.

It's a deal breaker.


cc Winston Brooks upon posting

Character Counts! is a declarative sentence.

In 1994, that APS Board of Education, unanimously
adopted Character Counts! as the model for character
education in the APS.

The APS Student Standard of Conduct reads;

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

The Pillars of Character Counts! are a nationally
recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethical conduct.

Students are taught that their character is important;
to them, and to the people around them.

Role modeling is integral to teaching students about character.
Some one has to show them what it looks like.

Fundamental to the Student Standard of Conduct,
is the expectation that students hold themselves honestly
accountable for their conduct.

We teach them that their character depends upon it.

We teach them, by means of our words, that
if they are asked a legitimate question about their conduct,
they are supposed to answer, candidly, forthrightly, and
honestly.

We teach them that their character depends upon it.


We illustrate the point with a story about George Washington.

And then we illustrate the point with our personal example;
we model the conduct we expect from students.
We show them what it looks like to be honest when it is
done at some personal sacrifice.

Or not.

The leadership of the APS will not just sit down and tell the
truth. No one will point to a time, a day and a place,
where they will sit still and answer legitimate questions about
the public interests, and about their public service.

They accept legitimate questions only by means of a system
that allows them to ignore the questions, to stonewall them.

Upton Sinclair, derived;

We should not be so worried that
students never listen to us,
when we tell them to be honest;

as we should be worried that
they are always watching us,
when we are being dishonest.

It is dishonest to stonewall legitimate questions.
It violates the Student Standard of Conduct.

The leadership of the APS,
in refusing to role model the Pillar of Trustworthiness,
violates the Student Standard of Conduct, again.

They fall short as role models of the Student Standard of Conduct.

In their refusal to provide a system under which
they can be held honestly accountable for their failure,
they violate the Student Standard of Conduct, again.

We teach students that they must cooperate in the principled
resolution of a complaint that is made against them.

Four candidates for school board have indicated that
they are willing to step up as role models of
the Student Standard of Conduct;

understanding full well that it means that;
they will sit down and respond to legitimate questions
about the public interests, and about their public service,

candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.

Because that is what they will expect students to do.

District 3
Jeffrey C. Rich

District 5
Renee Louise Rosales

District 6
David L. Robbins

District 7
Patrick J. Marron

We have an opportunity to elect a majority to the school board,
who are willing to be held accountable to a standard of conduct
that requires them to tell the truth;
who are willing to start the problem solving, by telling the truth.

The opportunity is unprecedented, and unfortunately,
still un-newsworthy.

And voting has already begun.

Should APS be giving kids condoms?

That was the sit up, pay attention question that was put to the school board candidates last night.

The answer of course is,

Allow me to involve the people that I represent,
by means of meaningful, honest and open discussion
of the issues,

and I'll get back to you.

Instead, a number of candidates defended their intention to
express their personal beliefs, by writing them into district policy.

School board members are there to represent their constituents,
not to think for them.

Stakeholders are entitled to meaningful participation
in decision making that affects their interests.

If a candidate's answer to any question, does not rest on that
foundation, they have disqualified themselves as representatives of their constituents.

Thanks to Jim Villanucci, attendance dismal

60, maybe 70 people showed up at the candidate forum.
Local talk radio giant, Jim Villanucci has been asked
repeatedly to talk about the school board races.

If he wanted to, if he thought it was important,
Villanucci could send hundreds, maybe thousands of people
to the APS School Board Candidate Forums.

He won't. Apparently he doesn't want to,
because it isn't important.

The same can be said for the Journal,
and for the local TV stations
who didn't even send reporters to the forum.

School Board Candidates Debate

It wasn't a debate.

It was a round table Q&A.

The Journal offered two column inches of coverage of the
actual "issues" in the races.

Journal education reporter Andrea Schoellkopf reports;

"The two-hour forum at the APS City Centre building
drew more than 60 attendees, many of them district
administrators."

I would have written;

"The two-hour forum at the APS City Centre building
drew ONLY 60 attendees, many of them district
administrators."

And there in, lies the problem.

Is State Auditor Hector Balderas holding election changing information?

Sooner or later, the State Auditor will release a report on the APS Finance Division and the finding of the Meyners auditors.



It will not be a report of high standards
and honest accountability.



If he releases the report sooner,
before the February School Board election,
the outcome of the election will be dramatically different
than,

if he releases his report later,
after at least two of the good ol' boys, who knowingly permitted,
or negligently allowed the corruption and incompetence,

will have successfully dodged accountability to voters.


Auditor Balderas has an obligation to keep some information secret until the investigation is complete.

On the other hand, he has an obligation to the democratic process; voters have a right to know.


The solution would be to wrap things up before the election.

After all, he's been "investigating" for months now.




photo by Mark Bralley

APS' Custodian of Public Records

has surrendered a DVD copy of a board meeting. The meeting
includes the Community Safety Commission Report on the
APS Police Department.

The DVD lacks audio, no sound.

I'm not talking low volume, I'm talking about looking at the
disc and finding no audio files, kind of no sound.



Imagine my surprise.

Paula Maes said several times during the policy committee meeting

Winston Brooks is the man for the job at RGHS
because he doesn't know the history there.


That must be why he thinks a leadership change,

without talking about the way students behave,

amounts to more than a hill of beans.

If you don't have a seat at the table where decisons are made

what difference does it make,
what you would say,
if you did?


First, you have to have a seat at the table.

Journal editors weigh in on RGHS fix

The Journal editors are not very enthusiastic about Winston Brooks' plan to try the same old plan just one more time. link

In short;

"To date, leadership changes — including an experiment
with a four-principal academy system —
haven't translated into community buy-in at Rio Grande
and didn't get students on track toward improved
academic achievement and graduation rates.
In retrospect, it has seemed like change for change's sake.

Parents, teachers and taxpayers fervently hope that
Brooks' developing plan for the district's most
challenged schools ushers in change for the students' sake."

Winston Brooks evaluation went well

According to Winston Brooks and the Journal. link

It would depend on your perspective.

If the school board asked no questions about

• student discipline,
• administrative role modeling of the student standard of conduct,
• an administrative standards and accountability audit, or
• administrative standards and accountability in general,

Then yes, the evaluation went swimmingly;
at least from Winston Brooks' perspective.

From the perspective of stakeholders; not so much.

Paula Maes has a blog.

School board member and candidate for re-election, Paula " it's OK to get in teacher's faces once in awhile" Maes
has a blog, link.











She promises;

Jan 07, 2009
I've decided to start a blog this year to encourage the families of district 5 to get to know me and the work I've been doing for our children in Albuquerque Public Schools. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me and I will get right back to you. And chances are your concerns are the same as many others and I'll post my responses here, too. (emphasis added)

I would post a question, just for drill, but her format requires
posting an actual email address on the internet, which leads to
to death by spam. (There are robots who search the internet for
valid email addresses to sell to spammers.)

The truth is that when asked if she would point to a time, a day, and a place where she would sit and answer legitimate questions about the public interest, and about her public service; her response (stonewalling) meant;

no.

So who are you going to believe, Paula Maes blog,
or your lyin' eyes?


.

Meyners + Co tied to play for pay scandal

Blogger Steven Terrell link, reports that Meyners + Co has
been linked to a pay for plan scandal in the ERB; Educational
Retirement Board.

Meyners did an extensive audit on the APS Finance
Division that exposed serious deficiencies resulting in likely
millions of wasted and stolen tax dollars.

Meyners refuses to divulge whether or not they uncovered
criminal misconduct; as does the leadership of the APS.

The Albuquerque Journal admits to forums.

The Albuquerque Journal whose every obligation it is,
to fully inform voters in anticipation of very important elections,

has admitted that there will be public forums
before the upcoming school board elections,

and nothing else.



Submitted as evidence of journalistic malpractice.

Blogosphere, step up.

The outrage of the cameras being pulled down in Santa Fe
was not reported in the newspapers.

It was reported in the blogosphere by Steven Terrell. link

The newspapers will never encourage the people to rise up
and demand that the cameras not only be reinstalled,
but that they be turned on.

I believe that the blogosphere could lead in that encouragement.

A friend offered that, Terrell can't incite to riot, because
he is a Journalist, and his credibility as a Journalist
would be compromised by taking a side in the fight.

Why not let his readers be the judge?

Is it impossible to report the news candidly, forthrightly and
honestly, while at the same time standing up for what
you believe in?

We have the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The problem is addressed by full disclosure;
it is no longer a problem.


Terrell could ask his readers to join him on the capital steps,
and then report upon how many people showed up,
and upon their effect.

So could Monahan.

So could Haussamen.

So could the Duke City Fix.


What if every blogger in New Mexico, offered their readers
an opportunity to gather together , and storm the castle?

What if every blogger offered their readers an opportunity
to gather together, all together,

to take back control over power and resources that are
fundamentally their own?

What if every blogger brought their few, to join the many?


... what if?

Very disturbing news day

Most disturbing;
tax payers forked up the money, long ago, to install video
cameras in the NM State Legislature.

The idea being,
stakeholders have a right to know what's going on.

Now tax payer stakeholders are paying to
take the never used cameras out. link

Most of the opposition to transparent government comes
from in hiding. Although, there are legislators who have
articulated their justifications for government in secret.

Their justifications amount to a hill of beans, compared to
the overwhelming public support of transparency.

By definition, representative government represents the will of the people. Representatives are supposed to gauge and forward the will of their constituents.

Our representatives in Santa Fe are obliged to to forward
the public interests, even at the expense of their own.

These folks are not getting it a little wrong;
they are getting it a lot wrong.
Secrecy and transparency are polar opposites.
The will of the people and the will of their representatives
are diametrically opposite.

You can't order an out of control servant to do anything.
Out of control means, out of control.

You are not going to litigate control back.
You are not going to legislate control back.
You are not going to get it back by executive order.



You will take it back, or you will not get it back.

What more proof do you need that you have lost control
over power and resources that are fundamentally your own,

than to watch them take the cameras down in Santa Fe?

Public servants are accountable to the public interest.
But they will not hold themselves honestly accountable to
the public interest.

The good ol' boys have had hundreds of years, literally,
to install standards and accountability enough
to protect the public interest.

They made a deliberate decision not to;

• write meaningful standards of conduct and competence for public service, and then,
• provide accountability to those standards by means of an impartial system, powerful enough to hold them accountable, even against their will.

They chose instead, to create and maintain systems;
legal, legislative and executive,
that they control.

That control is illegitimate.

No more ethically indefensible secrecy.

The control over the spending of our power and resources,
is ours.



But only if we can summon the courage to take it back.



How many people would have to go to Santa Fe
and stand in the lobby of the legislature, to make transparency,
the first order of business?




How many people would go?