APS School Board sanctions fraud, unanimously.

The APS School Board voted unanimously to accept the
recent Moss Adams APS audit.

Before they voted,
I pointed out, on the record, that the audit contained a fraud;
that APS Chief Financial Officer, Gina Hickman
had represented that APS had a whistle blower process
that meets (unspecified) federal requirements.

I have proved that APS' SilentWhistle is a sham.

And to imply that it meets any meaningful standard for an
honest opportunity for whistleblowers to find a principled
resolution for a complaint, is simply dishonest.

No one in the leadership of the APS, or at Moss Adams
has denied or refuted any part of my allegation.

I also placed on the record, the fact that
no investigation of my complaint was conducted,
no evidence was examined,
no testimony was taken, and

no effort at all, was made to uncover the truth.

Never the less, the board voted unanimously to ignore the
complaint, approve the audit, and sanction the fraud.

Journal education reporter Andrea Schoellkopf
was in the room, must have heard the allegation,
and will not write a word about it. She would have to ask
the leadership of the APS only two questions;

1. Has APS represented to Moss Adams auditors, or anyone else, that its SilentWhistle whistle blower program satisfies any requirements of federal or state regulations?
2. Is is actually true?

She will ask neither.



Expect Journal editors in the next day or two,
to scourge voters for their apparent apathy
regarding the recent school board elections.

UPDATE; wow, wasting no time, editors fixed the
blame in an editorial in this morning's Journal. link

And good riddance to turnouts in the low single digits —
less than 3 percent of eligible voters made it to the polls
this week.
A state constitutional amendment ... will piggyback
school board elections on higher-turnout nonpartisan
municipal elections.

See, it isn't the Journal's fault for not covering even one
substantial issue in the election; the worst coverage yet for
Albuquerque's newspaper of record.

It is because the elections are not held on the best possible day.


Shame on the Journal,
for their incompetence and, for their cowardice.

Is Frank Foy credible?

Frank Foy, the former chief investment officer at the ERB,
has filed a lawsuit alleging investments in Vanderbilt
Financial and associated companies, were in exchange for
political contributions from the firm's employees.

During a recent press conference, lawyer Marty Esquivel
called Frank Foy a liar, and said that, he had zero credibility.

I emailed Esquivel and asked him to back up his claim.

Other than the fact that Foy, and Esquivel's client, Malott
have different stories, could Esquivel cite any specifics
that speak to Foy's credibility.

Esquivel did not respond. He made an accusation in public,
and will not, or cannot, back up his claim.

I suspect that the fact that Foy is a "disgruntled former
employee" is the foundation for Esquivel's claim.

"Disgruntled former employee" is a favorite catch all phrase
for lawyers trying to impugn the character of a complainant,
and to diminish the credibility of their testimony against
the lawyer's client.

Whether or not, one is a former employee, and
whether or not they are "disgruntled" does not speak to credibility.

It speaks more actually, to the credibility of the person who
uses the phrase, and then tries to assign some veracity
to the implication.


UPDATE: Marty Esquivel has responded to my email, and
I to his. I will update again, when an overall impression
has emerged.

2ND UPDATE: my impression;
Mr. Esquivel's belief that Frank Foy is not credible
rests on at least, fact that Foy at one point apparently
recommended making the investment in question.

Frank Foy's personal credibility aside; I expressed again,
my belief that the credibility of a complaint, and the credibility
of the complainant, are separate, and actually,
unrelated.

Complaints, like questions, stand or fall on their own.

It has nothing to do with who makes the complaint
or with who asks the question.

Answer the question; respond to the complaint.

It's about the message,
it is not about the messenger.

APS School Board to sign off on audit despite credible allegations of fraud.

The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education
will meet tonight to sign off on the Moss Adams audit.

I have made a credible allegation regarding a fraud attached
to that audit.

I have been denied a principled resolution of my complaint.

I allege;
during the Moss Adams /APS Audit Committee meeting,
APS Chief Financial Officer Gina Hickman
made a statement which implied that the APS had satisfied some
federal regulation regarding whistle blower protection.

I am prepared to prove that APS' SilentWhistle whistle blower
protection plan, is nothing more than a forwarding mail box.

Complaints are returned to the people against whom they are made.
They close them without a fair hearing.
No investigation is done.
No statements are taken from anybody.
They are denied principled resolution.

As an example;

Superintendent Winston Brooks is behaving unethically.

He refuses to step up as a role model of
the student standard of ethical conduct.

His refusal is unethical on its face.

A SilentWhistle complaint was closed without a fair hearing.

• No investigation was done.
• No statement was ever taken from Winston Brooks.
• No evidence was ever examined.
• No attempt has been made to determine the truth.

There was never a principled resolution.

SilentWhistle served only to hide the truth.

APS' SilentWhistle cannot possibly meaningfully satisfy any federal requirement.

It remains to be seen,
whether or not my allegations will be proved or not.

The point is that they have never seen a principled resolution;
they have never been heard by an impartial third party.

The school board knows about the allegation of fraud that
is attached to the Moss Adams audit.

If they sign off on the audit, while at the same time denying
a principled resolution to a credible allegation of fraud,

do they not become part of that fraud?



So far, still nothing from Moss Adams.

I emailed them about the apparent fraud.
They read the email.

They refuse to respond on the the record.

They won't even acknowledge on the record,
that an allegation has been made.


At what point do they become co-conspirators in the fraud?

Paula Maes; four more years.

With Paula Maes re-election to the APS Board of Education,

her husband's law firm, the Modrall,
is guaranteed four more years of getting rich by litigating
exception to the law for APS administrators and board members;

four more years of getting rich by using unwitting taxpayer
support for "education" to litigate against the public interests.

It will also be at least four more years before a candid,
forthright, and honest accounting is given for APS spending
through the Modrall.

The board's own code of conduct, which specifically prohibits
"creating the appearance of a conflict of interest"
will be ignored for at least another four years.

"Ethics reform" is not incremental

Currently, legislators and public servants are accountable
only to the law; the lowest standard of acceptable conduct.

Legislators in Santa Fe are now compiling a list of the most
egregiously indefensible unethical practices allowed by law,
in order to outlaw them.

It is not ethics reform. "Ethics reform" means accountability
to an ethical standards of conduct.

It doesn't mean vacillating back and forth between legal and
ethical standards as is convenient.


Ethics reform is not incremental;

climbing the mountain is not the same thing as
standing on its summit.

APS' school board election; <3% turnout.

Journal editors will blame voter apathy.

They will hope that if the school board elections are
coincidental with other elections, turnout will improve.

Two writers in the Journal West (Rio Rancho)
blamed it on voters. link

"We also admonish the community
to demand more information from the candidates."

How exactly, is the community to demand anything from
candidates?

If the Journal had made even the smallest effort to investigate
and report upon any of the (APS) issues;

• student discipline
• an administrative standards and accountability audit
• administrative role modeling of the student standard of conduct, and
• the ongoing refusal of the leadership of the APS to meet with stakeholders and answer legitimate questions about the public interests in the public schools, just to name a few
  

the turnout would have been much higher.


Instead, let's damn the community for not demanding more.

UNM faculty lack "standing" in complaint.

UNM Regents President Jamie Koch, in response to
a proposed vote of (no)confidence petition being circulated by
UNM faculty members, pointed to an article in the
Princeton Review, which ranked UNM number one in
"inaccessible professors".

Apparently, UNM faculty are expected to lower the ranking
before they earn the privilege of voting no confidence

in an administration that spends so much money on
administrative salaries, that there is little left to hire the
professors who could be meeting with students. link

Faculty will not be allowed to complain about under staffing
until they have remedied the effects of being understaffed.

Kind of a Catch 22. wikilink

Ya gotta love it.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez; we don't need no stinkin' rules.

There is a bill floating around in Santa Fe,
that would open conference committees to public scrutiny.

According to Steven Terrel, link,

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez said;

"... opening conference committees would encourage members to get together away from the Capitol to decide on the bills that go to conference.

In other words,

if we pass a law that they have to show us what
they are doing with our power, and with our resources,
they will ignore it.

If we pass a law that prohibits secret deal making in conference
committees, they will do it anyway.

And they are so cocky and so arrogant, that
they will tell you right to your face that
they will do it anyway.


After all,
who in the hell do you think you are,
to be telling them, what to do?



photo Mark Bralley

Paula Maes is one of the good ol' boys.

Foursquare against meaningful standards of conduct and
competence, and foursquare against honest accountability
to any standard of conduct at all.

Mary Lee Martin, is either a good ol' boy herself, or
wouldn't know a good ol' boy if he was biting her on her ass.


There is no good and ethical reason for the lack of standards
and accountability in the leadership of the APS.

It is the work of generations of good ol' boys.

Or am I wrong?

Is there really no ethics and accountability crisis in the APS
after all?

An Administrative Standards and Accountability Audit
would settle the issue once and for all.

If an impartial audit reveals
a profound lack of standards and accountability,
the allegation that they are a bunch of good ol' boys is proven.



If the audit comes back clean, the allegation is proven false.

It would be the single best thing by far,
that the leadership of the APS could ever hope for.

A clean audit of the leadership of the APS
would restore their image in the community.

A clean audit of the leadership of the APS
would mean they could look taxpayers in the eye,
the next time they ask them to float a bond issue or mill levy.

It would prove that they have recovered from
the standards and accountability failures that have been
identified by every audit that has ever been done,
on the leadership of the APS.*

*I will bow to controverting fact.

A clean audit is the best thing that could ever happen
for the leadership of the APS.

Talk about restoring community trust.

There is no reason at all not to do the audit,
except that,
it is not going to come back clean.

If Winston Brooks' continuing employment
depended upon the return of a clean audit,
he would not be getting an extension.

He would not be getting a renewal.

He would not have a job.


The test for "good ol' boy" is simple as
a straightforward and legitimate question;

Will you support an honest and impartial
standards and accountability audit of
the entire leadership of the APS?

Any answer except yes, means no.

Any answer except yes, means they are a good ol' boy.


Mary Lee Martin won't answer the question.


Paula Maes answered the question by saying;

"I will never agree to an audit that ... address(es) personnel.

I do not want an audit that would say; ...
Tom Savage is a horrible administrator."

This despite the fact that the record suggests he clearly was.

Tom Savage had direct oversight over two of what
independent audits revealed were the most screwed up
administrative divisions in the APS;

• the APS Police Department, and


• the APS Financial Division.

How can this not be an issue in this election?


Is it as simple as

The good ol' boys in the media covering the asses of
the good ol' boys in the APS?



And to hell with everybody else;
including the 89,000 of this community's sons and daughters
who are students in the APS.


How else can you explain it?

KRQE does a piece on low turnout in school board election.

KRQE did quite a piece on the fact that no one is going to
vote in the school board elections today. link

If they had spent the same time and energy covering even
one of the issues in the race;

• student discipline
• an impartial administrative audit
• administrative role modeling of the student standard of conduct

they could probably have doubled the turn out.

The Journal editors will weigh in tomorrow on the low voter
turn out.

They will bemoan voter apathy, hold out hope that when the
elections coincide with other elections, the voter turn out may
increase.

And they will ignore the fact that if any of the mainstream media
had offered any substantial coverage at all,
the voter turnout might have been surprising.

The Journal's coverage today is called "Elections at a glance"
which pretty much sums up,
their entire coverage of the elections.

It looks like the legislature won't be writing the rules after all.

Everyday there is news of another webcaster broadcasting
from some legislative committee or another in Santa Fe.

Legislators will frame rules that manifest their character,
or lack of character, and
expect folks to follow them either way.

As for the webcasters, they will do what must be done.



What are they going to do;
strip search everybody?

Ethics; the mother of all third rails.

It turns out that there are a lot of third rails in politics.
wikilink highly recommended



If we can't get a handle on ethical standards in public service,

none of the other of them, makes one wit of difference.

If Paula Maes is re-elected to the school board tomorrow

It will be because the Journal refuses to report that during
a policy committee meeting discussion of an Administrative
Accountability Audit;

Paula Maes said;

"I will never agree to an audit that ... address(es) personnel.
I do not want an audit that would say; ... Tom Savage
is a horrible administrator."

This in spite of the fact the Tom Savage had direct oversight
over two of what independent audits revealed were the most
screwed up administrative divisions in the APS;
the APS Police Department, and
the APS Financial Division.

Audits of both divisions revealed significant standards and
accountability failures.

Paula Maes will never allow an audit that names the name
of any of the incompetent and corrupt good ol' boys who
run the APS.

She is one of them.

When I asked Journal education reporter Andrea Schoellkopf
if she wanted a videotape of Paula Maes indicating her intention
to cover the asses of the good ol' boys, she replied;

"OK, though maybe just for reference. I was probably there."

If that doesn't mean "so what?"

what does?

Role modeling coverage, a la the Journal.

The Journal reports that Olympic swimmer
Michael Phelps has come up short as a role model. link

The fact that,
the entire leadership of the APS has failed as role models,
through their overt refusal to be held accountable as
role models of the APS Student Standard of Conduct
however;

still not newsworthy.



As an aside, I would offer that Phelps failed as a role model
not so much in being photographed with a pot pipe in his
mouth,

as he did by admitting only that;

a pipe that looked suspiciously like a pot pipe was in his mouth,
but not that he was actually smoking pot.


Perhaps he,
like the young, later to become President Bill Clinton,
never inhaled.


Role models come into their own, not in being perfect,
but in stepping up to accountability for being imperfect.

George Washington is held up as a role model for children,
not because he never chopped down anyone's cherry tree,
but because he did,

and then he stepped up to the consequences.

Last worst act.

During Character Counts! training, CC Founding Father,
Michael Josephson pointed out that when one is asked
about the quality of their own character, they will respond
based on their lifetime achievements.

However, if someone else is asked to describe the same
person's character, they will respond according to that
person's last worst act.

In the Superbowl yesterday,
Steeler linebacker, James Harrison intercepted a pass and
ran it back for a touch down. The longest run back in
Superbowl history, and conceivably the proudest moment
in his life.

Moments later he was filmed punching an opposing player
in the back as he lay trapped on the ground.

There was a penalty assessed; 15 yards.

That, and, whenever his performance in that game is recalled,
he will be remembered for his last worst act.


Students in the APS would be examining issues like this,
as part of their Character Counts! training in the APS;

were there Character Counts! training in the APS.

There really isn't any more, not that there is anything at all
wrong with Character Counts! as a model for character
education. But because, the standard of conduct that is
represented by Character Counts! is a higher standard of
conduct than the leadership of the APS is willing to hold
themselves accountable to. They refuse to even discuss in
public, their obligations as role models of any standard of
conduct at all.

The leadership of the APS has been spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars over the last decade and a half,
promoting Character Counts!

They will be remembered for their last worst act;

failing to find in themselves, the character and the courage
to hold themselves honestly accountable as role models
of a higher standard of conduct.

Webcasting the legislature; why stop there?

Why is it that;
government is secret unless proven otherwise?

Why is it not that;
government is transparent, unless proven otherwise?

"I didn't think I said anything worth quoting."

NM Rep Al Park, in response to my request for permission
to quote him from a recent email exchange.

I had told him about a loophole in state ethics law, when
I met him at the House Rules Committee hearing.

He just wrote to me and said;

"... after the hearing, I asked Legislative Council to
prepare a bill making the Governmental Conduct Act
applicable to school boards."

There is a leak in the dike, and he has stuck his finger in it.



I think that's worth quoting.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is.

This now famous line from the battle between
the lawyers who make laws, and the lawyers who make
ways to get around laws,

is a reasonable segue

into a discussion of the meaning of the word "ethical".

It will come up in the discussion of ethical reform of government.


Ethical reform in government, absolutely depends on
the meaning of the word "ethical".



It also depends on the meaning of the word "accountability".


The meaning of "ethics" is a no brainer.

There are a million written "codes of ethics";
the best ones are the most unequivocal.

Pick one.

Hold yourself accountable to it.

Honest accountability to an ethical standard of conduct.

That's what the word ethical means.

"Ethical" is unequivocal standards and inevitable accountability.

Accountable by a system over which you have no control.

Accountable by a system that is powerful enough to hold you
accountable, even against your will.

On the day that you see honest accountability
to meaningful standards of conduct and competence,

you will see the end of the culture of corruption.



And not one day sooner.

Ethics reform under the law.

I ran into State Rep.
Al Park, after the
House Rules
Committee meeting
on bolo ties and
webcasting.







I recognized his name as one on my list of people
who would cast large shadows over the next rev of
State Statute 10—16-3. link

The Governmental Conduct Act is a completely useless law
supposed to hold Legislators, public officers and employees
accountable for discharging ethically the high responsibilities
of public service.

A few years ago,
I asked the clerk of the 2nd Judicial District Court,
how many prosecutions there had been under the Act.
The clerk said;

"None. I guess it has never been necessary."

Attorney General Gary King
is out and about, pushing
reform for the Act.








He would like to extend the coverage from just state level
to include county, city, and municipal officials.



I was very impressed with Park's participation in the hearings;
short, sweet, on point.

So, I begged a moment of his attention as he was leaving,
to chat about my interests in ethics reform in law.

I saw surprise in Park’s eyes,
when I told him that school boards are currently exempt
from the Act by means of an Attorney General’s ruling.

He found it incredible.


Parks then indicated that,
he was on it.




photos Mark Bralley

Is webcasting a partisan issue?

I have no statistics to draw upon; nobody has surveyed
the entire legislature on the issue of webcasting.
It would be as interesting a survey as most.

My impression is that the line is not drawn on party lines,
but rather on power lines; the more power one controls,
the less likely they are, to want to be filmed (ab)using it.

That conclusion seems both consistent with the data and
logical.

Beyond that, my impression is that
when Republicans speak in favor of webcasting, they do so
with more conviction than Democrats.

The problem so far, is that not enough legislators in either
party, are speaking with conviction on the issue.


Which would seem to indicate that they do not want to be
webcast; that they do not want there to be, a public record
of their public service.

Either that, or
they just don't have the cojones wikilink to pick a side at all.


You pick a side, when you don't pick a side.

In defense of NM Representative Ray Begaye

At her Saturday office hours this morning, NM Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones rose in defense of Rep. Ray Begaye.

She believes, Begaye is being treated unfairly in the media.









Begaye has recently become the poster child for the resistance to webcasting in Santa Fe.



This after voicing a concern that he might be caught sleeping.


Arnold-Jones suggested that Begaye may not have been
thinking of himself, but of senior legislators, men far more
likely to be caught sleeping than he, and who have earned
more respect than to have a camera searching for their
vulnerable moments.

No one has earned the right to have the camera turned away
at moments like these.

Some have earned more than others,
an expectation that the camera will not be turned toward them
at moments like these, and especially, for that reason alone.


Additionally, Arnold Jones and others,

wish the public understood how absolutely reasonable it is
for hard working legislators to catch a little sleep
any chance they get.

A catnapping legislator can be a good sign;

one that indicates that s/he is working very, very hard.



Never the less,
I would remind those legislators who are worried that
even a well earned catnap might end up on YouTube;

try really, really hard not to drool.



photos Mark Bralley

New Mexico legislators not through wasting time on the bolo tie issue.

The Journal reports that the utterly pointless debate over
the wearing of bolo ties is not finished yet. link

I am all for having a little fun, but come on boys and girls,
state government is a half a billion dollars in debt, and
circling the drain;

could you please try to keep your eyes on the ball
for just 55 more days?

UNM faculty mad as hell, not gonna take it anymore.

The Journal reports that UNM faculty members are rising
up against the rape and plunder of their school. link

Yet another wave in the rising tide of down trodden who
have finally had enough, and are ready to leave their spheres
of comfort and safety, to storm the castle.

Hear, hear. wikilink

The proudest moment of your life.

Is it behind you or ahead?

The opportunity to create the proudest moment of your life,
the occasion to make sacrifices of which you can be proud,
may last only a moment.

And then the moment has passed.

There may not be another.

It would be a shame to miss the proudest moment of your life,
while waiting for a better one.

Comfortable telling the truth.

New Mexico State Representative Janice E. Arnold Jones
telling the truth.

She is in the middle of a telephone interview on talk radio
with Jim Scarantino.

How many legislators do you know, this comfortable
telling the truth,
about how the sausage is made in Santa Fe?



great photo Mark Bralley

There is no way to tell the truth

except as best you can.

NM blogosphere needs a point wo/man.

I think that its fair to say that, the ultimate success
of webcasting the NM State Legislature in Santa Fe,

has more to do with the NM political blogosphere,

than it has to do with anything the NM mainstream has done,
or will do.



If political blogging in New Mexico had a point person,

and a shared mission, like;

government;
free of institutional, and individual corruption
and incompetence,

mountains could be moved.

Mountains would be moved.



Any volunteers? any draftees?


cue the music;

Tina Turner "We don't need another hero"
extended version link,

and read along lyrics link

substitute for "love and compassion"

honest accountability to
meaningful standards of conduct and competence

or maybe

just telling the truth

Webcasting Schmebcasting

Implicit in webcasting the legislature,
there should be a user friendly archive.

Senators Boitano and Smith

It would appear that Senator Mark Boitano wants to see the truth
webcast.















It would appear that
Senator John Arthur Smith
thinks webcasting is not the priority.















I am disappointed that Senator Mark Boitano
did not take that opportunity to point to
the hundreds of millions of tax dollars that will be saved
in the coming few weeks, if everyone can see
what public servants are doing with tax dollars,

real time.




photos Mark Bralley

The answer to the question; will you tell the truth?

The answer to the question;

do you promise to tell the truth?

is not a climb up a hill.

It is a step off of a cliff.

It is a leap of faith.

It is faith that
your fall will be broken according to your faith.


Once you answer the question, yes,
there is no going back.

Legislators in Santa Fe want to cast webcasting;

read; telling the truth about what they are doing with
our power and with our resources,

as rolling a bolder up a hill.

It is not.

It is as simple as their standing up, raising their right hand,

and promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth,

about our power, about our resources, and about their public service,

(so help them God)



Someone in Santa Fe was the first to step off that cliff,
and I could not admire any more than I do,
the courage she modeled.

Every one else in Santa Fe will be among the last.

Pity the fool who is dead last.


So help me God.

Why will no one deny fraud?

It appears to me that a fraud is attached to the Moss Adams APS audit.

It appears that the leadership of the APS has passed off
SilentWhistle as something beside a sham.

Did they? Yes or no?

If they did not, why won't anyone deny that they did?

Why won't someone say, either;

• the subject of whistleblower protection is not part of the Moss Adams APS audit or,
• the subject of whistleblower protection is part of the Moss Adams APS audit.

And if it is part of the audit,
how can a credible allegation of fraud, be simply ignored?

Especially by Moss Adams.

OK, but where can I file a complaint?

Winston Brooks seems to be backing off on his my way or
the highway problem solving approach to the problems at
Rio Grande High School and Ernie Pyle Middle School.

He was on the news last night. I can't find a link.

He was listening to parents and community members from
the two schools.

APS is great at listening. The leadership of the APS has
discovered that if they make a big deal out of listening to folks,
they can be mollified to the point where a solution is no longer
a specific demand.

The parents at RGHS and EPMS were listened to.
Many left the meeting believing that they were heard.
Nothing will change.


On the other hand, if the leadership of the APS provided a venue
where a complaint could be lodged, and then guaranteed a
principled resolution, real progress would be made.

School board candidates fielded questions the other night,
about what they would do with many specific problems
in the APS; problems like ongoing racism in the APS.

They all offered to listen to the complainants.

None offered them a place where they could lodge a complaint
alleging racism, where the complaint would be guaranteed a
principled resolution; fair, impartial, and consistent with
agreed upon principles.

In fact, there is no such place in the APS.

They pretend; their Public Forum is such a place.
They pretend; their Employee Grievance Process is such a place.
They pretend; their APS Police Department is such a place.
They pretend; their Equal Employment Opportunity Office
is such a place.
They pretend; their SilentWhistle is such a place.


They lie.

Retribution and retaliation

The Santa Fe New Mexican has a report on those who have
contributed to Bill Richardson's treasure chest and who
now enjoy cushy and high paying state government jobs. link

It is going to be difficult to get specific information on the depth
and breadth of the problem, or upon the effect on government
overall, because people are afraid to speak up,
they are afraid of retribution and retaliation.

From the story by Anne Constable;

Numerous people interviewed about the situation told The New Mexican that they didn't want to be identified because they feared for their jobs if they spoke openly. But all said gov-ex employees have had an impact on operations of the department.

The road to exposure and ultimately to the solution of problems like these are whistle blower systems that both protect the whistle blower, and also, engage a mechanism with the power and authority to act on the complaint.

Without real protection, and without engaging a system of real investigation and meaningful responses to the allegations; the good ol' boys will continue to plunder the system under a cloak of secrecy.

APS is a case in point. It's SilentWhistle, whistle blowing system, is supposed to allow anonymous complaints, and then pretends that the complaints will receive a principled resolution.

I have proved, beyond contradiction, that SilentWhistle is nothing more than a forwarding mailbox, that sees the complaint delivered to the desk of the person against whom the complaint is filed, who can then deny a principled resolution of the complaint, in secret.

I have no need for anonymity.
I do have a need for a principled resolution of my complaints.
And there is apparently, nothing that I can do to get the issue
out of the closet, and into the light of day.

I have made credible allegations that SilentWhistle is a scam,
and that if it has been accepted by Moss Adams auditors,
they have accepted a fraud.

And no one is talking. APS won't talk about whether or not
SilentWhistle was offered to Moss Adams auditors as an
honest whistle blower program, and Moss Adams won't talk
about whether or not they bought what APS was selling.

It is all a big secret.

My efforts to get SilentWhistle on the table for an honest discussion, are being blocked by the same people who refused to put anything to do with administrative standards and accountability on the table for honest discussion. link

No problem is ever solved in secret.

And no problem is going to be exposed to the light,
for as long as the person who shines lights on the problem,

does so by exposing themselves to unacceptable risk.

Paula Maes audio!

I was going to begin by apologizing for the quality of the audio.

On second thought though,
it is Rigo Chavez, APS Custodian of Public Records,
who owes you an apology.

Instead of just making a copy, disc to disc,
he or someone else has instead, played the original on a TV set
and used a camera to film the TV. Trust me, audio and video
suffer.

I am not sure that that camera was even focused on the screen
The audio and video of a surrendered public record are nearly
unintelligible.

I consider this yet another failure to tell the truth,
by the leadership of the APS.

Never the less, Paula Maes can be heard saying,

"I will never agree to an audit
that will come and address personnel.

I do not want an audit that would say,
(and I am not picking on you Tom Savage),
Tom Savage is a horrible administrator"

and not one that would say that Linda Sink
is the best person you ever hired.

Which means; she will never allow any audit that identifies
corrupt and incompetent APS administrators or board members
by name.

You can hear her say that,
she would never allow any audit that would say that
"Linda Sink is the best person you ever hired."

The truth is she would, and in a heartbeat.

What she really doesn't want is an audit that shows that
there are incompetent and corrupt administrators.

What she really doesn't want is an audit that shows how many
tax dollars have gone through APS to her husband's law firm,
Modrall, and what exactly, those tax dollars bought.


Council of the Great City Schools auditors wrote that
administrative evaluations in the APS are;
subjective and unrelated to promotion or step placement;

in effect; that the leadership of the APS is a good ol' boys club.

Paula Maes will never allow any audit that would show that
things have not changed since the CotGCS audit.

Paula Maes will never allow any audit that names a corrupt
or incompetent administrator by name.

If her remark does not mean that
she will cover the good ol' boys asses, what does it mean?

And we want someone like that on the school board,
why, exactly?

Why would the Journal editors endorse this kind of behavior?


UPDATE
It is Saturday, January 31. I have been trying to get a clip to
post here, but I am having problems.

The DVDs that I have were produced by APS Custodian of Public Records, Rigo Chavez.

This is the third batch;

1. the first had no audio or video,
2. the second set, video but no audio.
3. This set has barely intelligible audio and video.

APS prepared it by playing their discs on a TV, and then
using a camera to record the TV screen and audio speaker.

And now, after taking it to computer specialists, I am told
that it is recorded in some format that they cannot process
without special software, and they are unable to lift the
clip, so I can post it here.

Final update, June 1, 2009. I was never able to get the
audio clip up on the internet. Rigo Chavez would be the
person to contact to get your own recording of this meeting.

This is the meeting that I have been trying to get for fifteen years.

In 1994, I was trained on Character Counts!
by its founding father, Michael Josephson.

Ever since, I have been trying to get the leadership of the APS
to tell the truth about administrative role modeling
of the student standard of conduct.

My argument is that the leadership of the APS has not stood up
as role models of the student standard of conduct, and that,
it makes a difference.


The leadership of the APS has over the last fifteen years,
spent a great deal of energy and resources in an effort to avoid
ever having to sit down at a table and answer legitimate
questions about their role modeling of the student standard of conduct.

And now, it looks like the leadership of the APS has misled
Moss Adams about the existence of whistle blower protection
in the administration of the APS.

I cannot say that for certain, because
no one will say whether or not, the verbal representation
that I heard at the audit committee meeting, was actually
written down somewhere in the Moss Adams audit.

If it is, I am prepared to prove that SilentWhistle is a fraud.

And I am prepared to demonstrate that,that fraud is one and
the same with their refusal to stand up as role models of
the student standard of conduct.

Before the full board signs off on the audit,
they have an obligation to address this issue.
They cannot simply pretend that the allegation has not been made.
They cannot simply stonewall it again, because now
Moss Adams name is on the bottom line.
It is their name and reputation attached to the truth in this audit.


Surely Moss Adams would like to hear
APS Chief Financial Officer, Gina Hickman
explain any discrepancy between her representation of
SilentWhistle to Moss Adams auditors, and
the truth.


The leadership of the APS is finally going to have to sit down
at a table and either, admit that they are only pretending to be
accountable as role models of a higher standard of conduct,

or,

they will have to explain why conduct which is incontrovertibly
unethical on its face, is knowingly permitted and/or negligently
allowed, by a system that the leadership of the APS, is telling
Moss Adams auditors, is a system that guarantees
accountability for ethical misconduct.


In the first case, my long standing allegation is proven.


In the second, their explanation will be justification for an
immediate, impartial standards and accountability audit
of the entire leadership of the APS.

... and an end to the good ol' boy organizational structure
that is the leadership of the APS.

I'm a winner either way.


The down side is; I have just been informed by someone
who should know;
that it is "ridiculous" for me to even imagine that this meeting
will ever take place.

Journal endorses Paula Maes

The Journal has endorsed Paula Maes for APS School
Board District 5.

I will begin by pointing out that the Journal has endorsed
school board candidates without discussing student discipline,
administrative role modeling, or the need for an
immediate independent audit.

Worse still, is their endorsement of Paula Maes.

Paula Maes service on the board is already under a cloud;
her husband's law firm is making so much money off of
taxpayers and the APS, that they won't even respond to
requests for the public records of how much they have been paid, and for doing what, exactly.

The Journal editors have no problem apparently,
with the fact that when there was a discussion of a full scale
standards and accountability audit of the leadership of the APS,
at a Policy Committee Meeting on August 16, 2007,

Paula Maes said that she would never allow any audit
that would individually identify incompetent and/or corrupt
APS administrators and board members.*

And so far, she has kept her word.

There have been two audits of the APS Finance Division
since she declared protection for individual incompetence and
corruption. Neither, although reporting significant problems,
has mentioned the name of a single senior administrator who
was responsible for the problems.

We do not know for example, who should be held accountable
for the fact that the APS Finance Division was spending a
billion tax dollars a year;

• without adequate financially sound policies, and
• without adequate accountability, and
• without adequate record keeping.

And since we don't know who that good ol' boy was,
we don't know whether the good ol' boy that supervised him
was held accountable for their failure, or the person above
them for theirs.

And so on, right up to the highest levels of the administration
of the APS, and finally to the school board.

The Albuquerque Journal editors have really fumbled the
ball on this one.


*I have this on videotape and I am struggling trying to find
a way to put it online. When I figure it out, you will be able
to watch and hear her say exactly what I have been alleging
all along, that she said. The video I have, is of relatively poor
quality, because that is the kind of records that APS makes
and then surrenders under NMIPRA requests.

But it is legible and you will see the truth.

You just will never hear it from the Journal editors.


I have sent a letter to the Journal editors offering them an
opportunity to view the recording and then modify their
endorsement. I expect the letter to be ignored.




photo Mark Bralley

Command decision making and webcasting

The compromise on the table in Santa Fe, is that legislating
will be subject to webcasting except according to the wishes
of the committee chair.

I am told that it represents a reasonable compromise because
there are times when committees might nee to meet in secret
legitimately.

The problem with giving the committee chair the right to close
meetings unilaterally, is that is allows abuse of the privilege.

The answer lies in allowing command decision making,
but making it subject to review.

Allow command decision making, but provide a complaint
process that offers a principled resolution of complaints
of the abuse of that power.

Provide consequences for those who abuse the power.

Moss Adams; resetting the piece.

I attended an Audit Committee meeting, during which
APS Chief Financial Officer, Gina Hickman answered
board member questions about the Moss Adams audit
of the APS Finance Division.

During her testimony, she indicated that APS had met some
federal requirement for whistle blower protection,
because of the APS SilentWhistle program.

I have proved that APS' SilentWhistle is no more than
a forwarding mail box. link

Complaints are not guaranteed a principled resolution.

Complaints are forwarded to the very people against whom
they are made.

If the Moss Adams audit indicates that the leadership of
the APS has represented that they have an honest whistle
blower protection program, the audit contains a fraud.

I have contacted Moss Adams to allege that the leadership
of the APS, if they have deliberately misrepresented
SilentWhistle, have materially misled Moss Adams auditors.

Moss Adams apparently, does not want to respond to my
allegation on the record. They are yet to acknowledge
in writing, that they have even received it.

The Audit Committee, according to School Board Policy
has some responsibility with respect to oversight over the audit
and over APS' whistle blower protection program.

APS school board policy, here quoted in significant part;

"An Audit Committee to review and recommend
approval or action(s) ... any employee whistleblower
complaints ..."

It seems to me that the Audit Committee has to sign off on
the handling of my complaints.

If the Audit Committee signs off on a fraud, do they not
become complicit in an effort to materially mislead the
Moss Adams auditors?

The Audit Committee has every obligation to insist that
APS' Chief Financial Officer defend her representation
of the truth about SilentWhistle to Moss Adams auditors.

In an open meeting.

And why in the world, would I not be given the opportunity
during that meeting, to defend my complaints?


It is a simple enough question,

Does the audit represent that,
APS protects whistle blowers and offers principled
resolution of complaints by means of SilentWhistle?

If it does, it contains a fraud.

It seems fitting

A number of New Mexico bloggers have picked a side
on the issue of legislative webcasting.

They may not own it, but it is in the way they write.

The work of public servants is going to be public knowledge.

It will be on the internet, and it will because of the internet.

Heath Haussamen's; "Webcasting would change Santa Fe's culture"

Is a really good essay on legislative webcasting.
link

self discovery of a gadfly

www.carolmoore.net
(who wrote me that she came upon it twenty years ago; signed "Park" and was not able to contact him or her)

This is a re-posting of a piece I did in August 2007.

How can the Albuquerque Journal possibly justify its coverage?

In their entire coverage of the school board elections,
the Albuquerque Journal deliberately refuses to

ask the senior most role models of the student standard of conduct


how seriously they take that obligation.

S'up with Moss Adams?

I have been trying for a couple of days to engage either Moss
or Adams on the record, with respect to my allegation
that a fraud is attached to their recent audit of the APS.

So far, no one at Moss Adams has responded except
to offer to engage in a phone conversation.

I have made it clear that
I would rather that our communication not be verbal.

My experience with verbal communication with good ol' boys
is that we remember the conversation differently in court.

In fairness, Diogenes was, a cynic.

Why would Moss Adams not want to communicate on the record
except that they want to protect the possibility that
it might be remembered differently in court?



If there were another reason
that we are not now exchanging emails, and scheduling
a public discussion,

what is it?

The Journal covers the School Board Election, finally.

It is unfortunate that the Journal waited until after all of the
candidate forums before covering the election. There is now
no opportunity for voters to question candidates on their
stances on various issues.

I object to the limited scope of the questions that
the Journal put to candidates. link

And further, to the characterize of the "biggest" issues.

For example;
Journal education reporter, Andrea Schoellkopf
writes at one point;

Declining revenues, budget cuts and threats of a district
breakup are among the biggest issues facing a new
Albuquerque board of education. link

Which on its face is true; these are "among" the biggest issues;
they are not the biggest.

I would suggest that if you asked teachers and the others
who work face to face with students, to name their three
biggest issues, these three would not be among them.

I would suggest that teachers are far more concerned about
APS' third rail; student discipline and chronically disruptive students.

Further, I would suggest that teachers are far more concerned
about the negative effects of the exclusive focus on NCLB testing.

Taxpayers, I think, are far more concerned about tax dollars
being wasted by a system that enables administrative
corruption and incompetence. And they are, or would be,
if they knew about it, far more concerned that the leadership
of the APS is refusing to conduct an impartial standards and
accountability audit of the leadership of the APS.

Stakeholders would be very upset to learn that the leadership of
the APS steadfastly refuses to be held accountable as role
models of the student standard of conduct, and cannot even
summon the character and the courage to talk about the issue
in public and on the record.

Stakeholders would be more upset to learn that the leadership
of the APS will not tell the truth; they will not name a time,
a day, and a place where they will respond to legitimate
questions about the public interests, candidly, forthrightly and
honestly.


I am still not satisfied that the Journal has lived up to
its obligations to fully inform stakeholders about pertinent issues
in the APS school board elections.

In the brouhaha over the webcasting of the NM State Legislature

Too much credit cannot be given to Republican legislator
Representative Janice Arnold-Jones.

This is a lady of tremendous personal courage and dedication
to her service in the NM State Legislature.

Webcasting is only the first step in her plan to shine light
on some huge problems in state government.

There is going to be abundant change; change that would
not be happening were it not for Rep. Arnold-Jones.

I, for one, would have the whole webcasting system named
after NM State Representative Janice Arnold-Jones.

Truth and power.

It is hard to sum up the issue in fewer words than were used
by House Minority Leader Tom Taylor, R-Farmington,
who according to Trip Jennings at the New Mexico Independent said;

"The fact of the matter is any transparency that you do in a process like this dilutes the power of leadership to some degree.”

Secrecy is essential to escaping accountability for the
abuse of power.

There is no stopping an idea whose time has come.

And, transparency in government is an idea
whose time has come.

The other truth is that the NM Legislature has plenty to hide.

Were I them, I would want to hide the fact that,
with all of the problems that the legislature has to deal with,

the House Rules Committee spent 45 minutes debating
whether or not Bolo ties were acceptable attire on the
House floor.

Worth noting; I would suppose that many of these same
legislators previously voted in favor of
adopting the Bolo as the State Necktie.

Give me a break.

KRQE is doing an outstanding job covering the issue; link

Smells fishy to me.

The APS Audit Committee has an external component.
The external component exists
to mitigate the appearance of a conflict of interest;

good ol' boys evaluating the good ol' boys , while
simultaneously evaluating their own performance.


Half of the external component of the APS Audit Committee is vacant, and the good ol' boys are getting ready to accept an audit whose findings are in dispute.


Smells fishy to me.

APS Director of Internal Audit refuses to tell the truth

I am trying to find out the identity of the external member
of the APS Audit Committee.

I asked at the board office and was told that I could get that
information from the Director of Internal Audit.

I emailed Margret Koshmider and asked her for the identity
of, and contact information for, that member.

In response she "did not lie".

Mr. MacQuigg -

The structure of the audit committee is in the policies that were
approved on 9-3-08. Any release of information must go through
Rigo Chavez, and I believe you are aware of that.
I chose to release information on my e-mail and contact information to you, but cannot do that for others.
Also, one of the public positions is currently vacant and the committee
will discuss possible candidates at their next meeting.

I am sorry I cannot be of more help.

Peg Koshmider

Nor,

did she "tell the truth".



I refuse to go to Rigo, I mean puhleeeeease;
been there, done that.

The external member's name and email address will come out at some point.


It would be a shame if it were after the school board elections.

APS' SilentWhistle is a fraud.

Apparently, as part of the Moss Adams audit of the APS,
they have agreed that APS has met federal guidelines
for whistleblower protection.

When the school board approved APS' Whistleblower Policy
they specifically and deliberately denied protection to anyone
who blew a whistle on ethical misconduct by administrators or
board members.

I have published proof that complaints of ethical misconduct
do not receive a principled resolution through SilentWhistle.

The public record of the school board is of;

• tabling a motion that would have created a policy requiring candid, forthright and honest responses to legitimate questions, and
• tabling a motion that would have created honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence for administrators and board members, and
• ongoing refusal to set a time, a day, and a place where they will promise to tell the truth about the public interests and about their public service.

Yet APS claims its SilentWhistle, not only meets
the requirements of the federal government,
but it also provides a principled response
to claims of ethical misconduct.



Moss Adams auditors apparently agree.



I have emailed Moss Adams, and await their response.

How can they get away with this in plain site?

The leadership of the APS used the phrase "for a few years"
when they were supposedly telling stakeholders the truth
about the lack of standards and accountability
in the APS Finance Division, and of course,
in the entire leadership of the APS.

Technically, in a loop holey, legal weaselry kind of a way,
they have not "told a lie."

In a role model of the student standard of conduct kind of a way;

they did not tell the truth.

They did not role model for students and staff,
what it looks like to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, even against personal interests.

They did not walk the talk.

They did not show students what character and courage and
honor look like.

They did not prove to students that, character counts!



Why am I the only one who finds this outrageous?

Why am I the only one who wants to stand up and
scream wtf? ??



The hardest part of standing up alone has got to be
the wondering why.

I hold in my hands, two documents

There is no convenient way to post them. If you want to see
them, you will have to ask APS Custodian of Public Records,
Rigo Chavez to send them to you. It could take months.
Even after months, Chavez still has not surrendered an
original, clean copy, of one of the two surveys.

We are playing the, "here is a xerox copy, of a copy, of a copy", game.

One is called the APS/UNM Teacher Survey. It has only been
administered twice, the last time in 2002.

The other is called, the Evaluation of Supervisor by Staff,
a survey that is taken yearly. Teachers and others on school
staffs are supposedly enabled to evaluate their principals.

"Enabled to evaluate" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

For example; one of the biggest problems in schools, is the
student discipline out of control.

The biggest gripe among teachers and among those who work
face to face with students, is that
they are not being "backed up" by administrators
when they are dealing with chronically disruptive, and even
dangerous students.

Yet neither survey instrument gathers any data on these issues.

The closest either survey comes is, in the APS/UNM survey,
respondents are allowed varying levels of agreement with three
statements;

• Most students are well mannered or respectful to the school staff,
• Most students are helpful and cooperative with teachers, and
• Students in this school are well behaved.

The Evaluation of Supervisor by Staff,
does not ask a single question that allows input on student
behavior issues, or upon a principals efforts to support teachers
who are dealing with those problems on a daily basis.

When I asked Thomas Genne, APS' Director of
Research, Development and Accountability,

if his department had ever asked teachers
for input on the problems that they confront
on a daily basis;

he admitted that for as long as he had been there,
the RDA had never surveyed teachers for their opinions
about what they need to succeed.

More than 70,000 years of teaching experience in the APS,
and the leadership of the APS has never asked them for their
opinions about what is wrong, or about how to fix it.

They have not been asked, as part of a deliberate effort
to cover up problems instead of laying them on the table
for people to see,

even as the first step in actually fixing them.

One week until election day, still nothing from the Journal

Early voting in the school board elections has been going on
for three weeks. Election day is next Tuesday.

And unless they went to a candidate forum,
voters have no idea what the issues are,
or what the candidates positions are, on those issues.

This represents a major failure on the part of the Journal
to meet their obligation to fully inform voters in anticipation
of an election.

It is Journalistic malpractice.

Shame on the Journal.

Journal reports on audit

Well, actually, the leadership of the APS reported on the audit,
the Journal printed a cut and paste, from APS' report. link

The Journal did pass along an excuse for the tardiness of the audit report;"

— filed nearly a year late due to personnel issues and
an upheaval in leadership —"

The upheaval in leadership included

• putting their only CPA on administrative leave for blowing the whistle on irregularities in the division,
• "firing" a senior administrator who was the subject of sexual harassment complaints, and
• the firing of the Director of Internal Audit, for spending half days at a casino and a porn shop.

I think it would be fairer to say that the report was filed a year
late because of a lack of standards and accountability
which has existed for as long as there has been an
APS Finance Division.

The Journal did not report on the fact that the leadership of the
APS made a deliberate effort to mislead stakeholders about
the problem. The leadership of the APS wrote;

“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."

when the truth is, and they know that the truth is; to say
"for a few years" is a deliberate misleading.

The district has never had, and therefore has never followed
acceptable accounting practices.

If they did, they could point to them.
And they could point to, and justify or defend,
the removal of those acceptable accounting practices from
APS policy handbooks.

They can't.

Adequate, written, "acceptable accounting practices"
have never existed in the APS.

They are not telling the truth;

neither the Journal, nor the leadership of the APS.

APS Policy Committee will meet this morning.

Policy and Instruction Committee Meeting
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
7:30 AM
DeLayo-Martin Community Room

On the agenda, link,

Clarification of Board Committee Policy (B.07)

Specifically,

D. The Audit Committee reviews and recommends approval of action(s) associated with the District’s Annual Audit, any internal audit(s), audits associated with the Capital Outlay and Technology Committee and any whistleblower complaints. The Audit Committee will also include two non-Board/non-APS employees. The Finance Committee Chair will chair the committee. The non-Board/non-APS members, one of whom shall be a CPA, will be selected by the Audit Committee and approved by the Board. The non¬Board/non-APS Committee members shall serve two-year terms.

It would appear that I have an opportunity to appeal the abuses of APS' SilentWhistle by APS Director of Internal Audit, who mishandled two complaints; one made against Winston Brooks, and the other made against her. link

I have been waiting for, and fighting for, this hearing
for about fifteen years.

The thick, plottens.

Albuquerque Public Schools; Student Discipline

Where to begin?

Are there problems?
If so, what are they? and says who?

How bad are the problems?

What is being done about them?

Who is responsible for getting it done?

Who will answer these questions?

candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.





I can tell you who won't;

... anybody at all, in the leadership of the APS.

A time, a day, a place

where the leadership of the APS will sit still and
answer legitimate questions about
student discipline in the Albuquerque Public Schools.

A time, a day, a place

where the leadership of the APS will tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth


so help me God.

Imagine a six year old kid who wants to be a firefighter.

Imagine that the student learns to read
by reading about firefighting.

And s/he learns math, by doing firefighting math,
and learns about science,
by studying the science of firefighting.

All the while practicing learning.
All the while developing learning skills and resources.

And, the very next day,
when that dream has been replaced by another,

s/he will learn how to learn, by learning about policing,
or about nursing, or about flying, or about
any other goal that a child's mind can imagine.

And when the kid gets to middle school
and dreams about being "a marine biologist",

(for some reason, all middle schoolers want to be marine biologists)

they pretty much know how to learn on their own.

They pretty much know how to learn about anything at all
on the web and on their own.


Imagine teachers with enough time to devote to students
in need of individual attention.

And enough time to help to grow children into adults
who are decent human beings;

good citizens, caring and fair, respectful and responsible,
and trustworthy.

And when they graduate high school, they are as prepared
as they can be, to learn and do anything at all.

Compare that to the likelihood of a student in an NCLB
bureaucracy high school, graduating,
prepared to learn and do anything,

... at all.

Journal stays on top of APS

In the Journal this morning; everything you need to know
to participate meaningfully in the great cheese sandwich debate.
link

Nothing, of course, that you need to know to participate
meaningfully in the school board elections.

Nothing for example, on the Moss Adams audit report.

The Moss Adams audit found,
and now the leadership of the APS is finally admitting;

"... for a few years, (during which the APS Finance
Division spent BILLIONS of tax dollars) the district
wasn’t always following acceptable accounting practices."

During those past few years,
APS Deputy Superintendent Tom Savage oversaw the
APS Finance Division.

He also had oversight over the APS Police Department
whose problems were/are so bad, that the leadership of the
APS is stilling hiding the evidence (the Access Investigations
Report).

Upon his retirement, APS Board Members Paula Maes and
Mary Lee Martin were falling over themselves gushing about
what a wonderful job Tom Savage had done.

The buck for both problems stopped on the desk of then
APS Superintendent Beth Everitt.

Upon her retirement, Paula Maes and Mary Lee Martin
were falling over themselves gushing about what a wonderful
job that Everitt had done as APS Superintendent.




Now Maes and Martin are running for reelection to the school board. The implied promise, that they will be looking after taxpayer interests; a task at which, both are demonstrable failures.

Voters won't take that into account when they cast their ballots,
because the Journal won't report upon the Moss Adams audit,
nor upon any other problems in the APS for which Maes and
Martin bear oversight responsibility.


They will be re-elected, against the public interests,
because the Journal won't live up to its obligations
to fully inform voters in preparation for an election.

Journal readers though, will be kept fully informed on the
cheese sandwich debate.


Shame on the Journal.



photos Mark Bralley

Robert Lucero would like every one to know;

the Moss Adams auditors (supposedly)
found no criminal misconduct; no blatant corruption.

I would argue that it IS corrupt
to witness a century of incompetence;

• policies inadequate to protect the public interests,
• accountability inadequate to enforce the policies they had, and
• records so inaccurate and incomplete, that criminal misconduct could not be proven, no matter how egregious,
  

and do nothing about it.