Is it time to lower expectations for APS students?

APS students live and work under a set of high expectations;
they are expected to "... model and promote the Pillars of
Character Counts! link.

The highest among those standards is, the expectation that
students are to tell the truth. (Note please, the huge
difference between the student standard; telling the truth,
and the would be adult standard; not lying.

I say "would be" because, if one believes in the requirements
and obligations of role modeling, then the adult standards are
the student standards (at the very least).

That is the whole point of the role modeling clause which reads;

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

The adults don't want to tell the truth.

The hypocrisy in holding students accountable to higher
standards of conduct than adults can only be resolved by
making one or the other, of two choices;

• raise the adult standards of conduct, or
• lower the student standards of conduct.

It is clear that the adults are not going to raise the standards
of conduct to which they are willing to be held honestly
accountable. They will never be held accountable, voluntarily,
to any standard of conduct which does not allow them to hide
the inconvenient truth.

Therefore, the only other option is to lower the standards of
conduct for students.

How low should they be lowered?

They need to be low enough that adults are willing to be held
honestly accountable to them.

The record shows that the leadership of the APS is not willing
to be held accountable even to the law; they pay lawyers to
litigate their exception to the law. I am not making this up,
the allegation is proven in the public record. That proof is
the reason that APS will not surrender the record of the
litigation by Modrall lawyers that has excepted senior APS
administrators and board members from accountability to
the law.

It would appear then that the student standards of conduct
must be lower even, than accountability to the law.

The problem is that there really is no standard of conduct
lower than the law.

The only choice left to Winston Brooks and the board then,
is to avoid the open and honest discussion of either student
standards of conduct, or adult standards of conduct.

One can get away with just about anything if one can but
keep it all a secret.

What is Winston Brooks willing to do to reach Goal 2?

Winston Brooks has eight goals; link, the second reads;

Goal 2
... develop and implement a plan to change the perception
and build the confidence (in the leadership of the) APS ...

The perception is that APS lacks standards and accountability.

• Governor Richardson pointed to APS' statewide earned reputation for its lack of accountability.
• Mayor Marty Chavez at one point was advocating for mayoral appointments to the APS School Board, as the only solution to the accountability issues in the APS.
• Bond and mill levy issues pass by smaller and smaller margins each time they come up.

At the same time, Winston Brooks is doing everything he can to keep standards and accountability from being openly and honestly discussed in public. Witness his ongoing refusal to discuss the Student Standards of Conduct, and his honest accountability to them.

Most important among the Student Standards, the Pillar of Trustworthiness and its requirement to tell the truth in response to legitimate questions.

Winston Brooks steadfastly refuses to point to a time, a day, and a place, where he, or any of his subordinates, will simply sit and answer legitimate questions.

If Winston Brooks is not willing to tell stakeholders the truth, and if he is not willing to publicly discuss standards which would require him to tell the truth, what is he doing to improve the public perception of the leadership of the APS?

Apparently, all he is willing to do is to not talk about, any issue which might hurt APS' reputation.

According to the Student Standards of Conduct, Brooks is
specifically and explicitly denied this choice; link,

Sincerity.

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

It is clear that Winston Brooks will not only allow beliefs and
impressions that are untrue or misleading,
he is deliberately cultivating them.

The culture of fear of retaliation is real.

The Council of the Great City Schools did an audit of the
administration of the APS.

In the report on that audit, they wrote that there is a culture
of fear of retaliation and retribution in the APS for anyone
who stands against an administrator or board member.

Culture is their word, not mine, and it is a powerful word;

The behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular
group. The sum total of ways of living built up by a group
of human beings and transmitted from one generation
to another. The totality of socially transmitted behavior
patterns. The predominating attitudes and behavior that
characterize the functioning of a group or organization.

My recent post, link, on APS' culture of fear of retribution and
retaliation has drawn a greater number of comments than most,
and they all agree with the premise.

The latest ended their comment with;

Fear of retaliation permeates the entire culture of APS.

The leadership of the APS will not comment on the issue.
They will stonewall the issue. They will pretend that the
issue does not exist.

And it will never get any better, it will never go away.
And there will never be a principled resolution of any
complaint filed against any administrator or board member.

Smoke and mirrors, but mostly smoke.

Try to get David Peercy to talk about role modeling of the
APS Student Standards of Conduct, or role modeling of
the Pillars of Character Counts!, and you will get smoke;
vague references to existing policies and procedures,
which he claims already surpass anything that accountability to
the Student Standards of Conduct would add.

Ask him to point to even one; you get nothing.

The APS Student Standards of Conduct require truth telling.

I defy anyone to find the concepts of truth telling or honesty
even mentioned anywhere in any policy or procedure
that applies to adults.

I defy anyone to point any place in the APS where a legitimate
complaint can be filed against an administrator, and where
that complaint is guaranteed a principled resolution.

They do not exist.

There are no standards of conduct anywhere in the entire
APS that are as high as the standards we set for students.

If there were, someone could point to them.

If you could get anyone in the leadership of the APS to actually
tell the truth, the truth is; students are accountable to
higher standards of conduct than adults.

And that truth is utterly indefensible, except by hiding it
behind screens of smoke and bullshit.

I double dog dare, anyone in the leadership of the APS

to use the phrase "Character Counts!", or
the "Pillars of Character Counts!" or even,
"APS Student Standards of Conduct",
in the same sentence with the words; "I" and "role model".

David Peercy is at a fork in the road.

At the school board meeting tonight,
Policy Committee Chair David Peercy,
will find himself at a fork in the road.


He will have three paths from which to choose.






Following one path, he will honor the commitment that has
been made to put administrative and executive standards and
accountability on the table for open and honest discussion.

Following a different path, David Peercy will tell the truth
about why he will not honor the commitment to put
standards and accountability on the table for honest and
open discussion.

And by the third path, David Peercy will stonewall the issue.

According to the APS Student Standards of Conduct,
stonewalling is specifically and explicitly identified as a
dishonest path.

Because stonewalling is dishonest, students are taught,
it is unethical, and therefore done at the expense of their
good character.

So here he is, at his moment of truth.

David Peercy will put standards and accountability on the table
for open and honest discussion.

or

David Peercy will tell the truth about why he will not put
role modeling of the Student Standards of Conduct
on the agenda for open and honest discussion.

or

Or David Peercy show students what dishonesty looks like.

Dishonesty followed by, shirking accountability for dishonesty.

A far different story than the one students hear at school
about George Washington and a cherry tree.




photo Mark Bralley

APS to give update on Goals.

According to an (unlinkable) article in the Journal this morning,
School Board President Marty Esquivel has asked the
administration to update the board on their progress in reaching
the eight goals that had been established for the district, by
APS Superintendent Winston Brooks last summer.

By way of review, the goals are;

1. Three-year academic plan - Brooks wants to develop the plan with measurable targets by the end of the 2010-11 school year. He wants to focus on improving student achievement, narrowing achievement gaps, increasing graduation rates and improving attendance. Administrators will work out the plan and present it by the end of September.

2. Build confidence in APS - Brooks wants the administration to improve relations between the school district and the community, media, other organizations, business and government. The plan for that is due by mid-October.

3 (tie). Create a communication plan - Brooks wants the administration to develop a communication and evaluation plan between the district and the community, media, school board and others. The plan for that is due by mid-October.

3 (tie). Schedule board training workshops - Brooks wants to train the school board on the role and responsibilities of a school board, creating a more student-focused organization. The first workshop is due for mid-November.

5. Review and enhance facility upgrades - Brooks wants plans for facility upgrades to be completed and publicized by mid-October.

6. Improve the district's money management - Brooks wants a "transparent, sound and effective financial stewardship plan" with well-documented processes in place, with reports due every quarter starting with the 2008-09 school year.

7. Transition APS from site-based management to district-based management - Brooks wants the plan to include fair distribution of resources. The plan is due in the spring.

8. Enhance school crisis plans - Brooks wants a template for crisis management provided to all school and non-school sites, and wants those sites' administrators to create and file a crisis plan based on that to the district offices.

I would like to focus on three; goals 2, 3a, 6.

6. Financial transparency.
Winston Brooks still will not tell stakeholders the truth about
spending at the Uptown Administrative Complex.

Honest grade; F

2. Build confidence in the APS.
Winston Brooks traveled all around the district, schmoozing
stakeholders. He is a very affable guy. Confidence in the APS
has probably improved.

However, if the Journal were reporting the truth to
stakeholders, and they knew that there was still secrecy
surrounding the spending of tax dollars, and if they knew that
the leadership of the APS has abdicated as role models of the
Student Standards of Conduct, and is currently refusing
to lay administrative and executive standards and accountability
on the table for an open and honest discussion, the public
perception of the APS would not have improved one iota.

Apparent grade; A
Honest grade; F

3a. APS' "communication" plan.
APS is as inaccessible as it ever was. Their website is as useless
and user unfriendly as it ever was. And, there is still no one in
the entire leadership of the APS who will point to a time, a day,
and a place, where they will sit still and answer legitimate
questions, candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

Apparent grade; who knows?
Honest grade; F

The administration is scheduled to begin their defense of their
progress on the goals at the board meeting this evening.

The Journal is suing the NMDOT over public records.

According to the Journal, link, the Journal has filed a
lawsuit against the NM Department of Transportation
over their failure to surrender public records as required under
the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act.

According the the Journal, their complaint alleges;

"The department has violated the IPRA in order to derail and obstruct an investigation into potential corrupt practices and incompetent management of public funds by high-ranking public officials in the employ of NMDOT," the complaint states."

"The complaint claims the defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of secretly withholding public records, falsely denying the existence of public records that had been requested and violating the records inspection act by failing to explain their decision to withhold documents that had been requested"

Noteworthy if you are a taxpayer;

• You will be paying the salary of the lawyers who defend your public servants against charges that they were acting against your interests.
• In the unlikely event that they are fined, you will pay the fine, not the public servants who tried to hide public records from public knowledge.
• In the likely event that the Journal insists that their legal fees and court costsbe paid by the NMDOT, the money will come out of your pocket, not the pockets of anyone who deliberately hid documents.

Have a great day.

Why in the world would you believe Winston Brooks?

Winston Brooks has a monthly column
in the Journal.

The Journal offers no opportunity for
anyone to rebut anything that Brooks
writes. Brooks has free license to claim
whatever he wants to, without having
to explain, defend, or acknowledge
that there are questions about what
he has written.



In this morning's column; Take a little time to do things right
Winston Brooks informs stakeholders that there is a boat load
of stimulus money on its way to the APS.

Winston Brooks promises stakeholders that the funds will
be spent "transparently".

Yet, if you ask him how many tax dollars were spent on the new
and completely unjustifiable Board room, he will not respond
by telling the truth.

If Winston Brooks will not be transparent about the past,
why would you believe he will be transparent in the future?

Never, ever forget;
Winston Brooks steadfastly refuses to be held accountable as
a role model of the Student Standards of Conduct,
primarily because those standards require truth telling
specifically, explicitly, and unequivocally.




photo Mark Bralley

Just so you know it's not just me.

I have often written about APS' culture of fear of retribution
and retaliation; first openly acknowledged in an audit of the
APS by the Council of the Great City Schools.

Now a local teacher and blogger, Scot Key, link, acknowledges
same;

"Right now we have a situation where a large majority of
those practicing public education oppose something,
but are afraid to really say anything for fear of retribution."

How important are role models?

In the following post, you will find a reposting of a compilation
of quotes by author Ayn Rand. One bears closer focus, and is
the one that comes to my mind when people turn their backs on
their obligations as role models.

It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men
when you abstain equally from praising men's virtues and
from condemning men's vices.
When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that

neither the good nor the evil may expect anything
from you

- whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

When we abstain from praising students who manifest
courage and character, and when we abstain from providing
consequences to those who do not, which of those students
do we encourage, and which do we betray?

Ayn Rand Revisited

Revisiting a compilation of Ayn Rand quotes, first published
in January, 2007.

The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it.

Thought does not bow to authority.

The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.

It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men's virtues and from condemning men's vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you - whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.

The precept: Judge not, that ye be not judged ... is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.

There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.

To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true.

"Ethical" means what, exactly?

One cannot read about government or laws without coming
across the word "ethical". "Ethical" reform was a big topic
during the last legislative session.

"Ethical" behavior is expected of public officials; the title of
NM State Statute 10-16-3 reads;

Ethical Principles of Public Service.

Within the Act, it is written;

Legislators, public officers and employees shall conduct
themselves in a manner that justifies the confidence
placed in them by the people, at all times maintaining
the integrity and discharging ethically the high
responsibilities of public service.

So what does "ethical" mean. I have asked everywhere;
nobody knows.

I finally got a response from the Legislative Council Service.
They should know; they are the folks who do the research and
actually write the bills that legislators then pass or defeat.

They wrote;

New Mexico is a plain language state, and in the case of
10-16-3, no definition of "ethical" or "ethically" is given.

As stated in the statutes:

12-2A-2. Common and technical usage. (1997)
Unless a word or phrase is defined in the statute or rule
being construed, its meaning is determined by its context,
the rules of grammar and common usage. A word or
phrase that has acquired a technical or particular meaning
in a particular context has that meaning if it is used in that
context.

Now, imagine that you are trying to enforce this statute upon
a public official. That public official will be defended by a bevy
of lawyers who are paid handsomely to litigate in defense of the
corrupt and the incompetent, against the public interests.
What will those lawyers do with loose language?

To whose advantage does the confusion work; the average
citizen, or the corrupt public official?

Submitted as proof; although this particular statute is at
least as old 1978, and perhaps even older, there has never
been a single prosecution under that law; to the delight of
public servants without ethics, and to the dismay of the
average citizen who is getting screwed on a daily basis.

What ever ethical means overall,
at the very least, perhaps we can all agree that it means;
telling the truth about the spending of our power and
our resources.

You caaaaaaaannnnn't make me!

How is it that, public servants cannot be compelled to point to
some set of unequivocal standards, and then hold themselves
honestly accountable* to those standards?

*"Honestly accountable" as defined in the most enforceable
terms. "Honestly accountable" defined as meaning
circumstances under which it is made the most difficult for
the corrupt and the incompetent to weasel out of accountability
and the consequences of their corruption and their incompetence.

And, why aren't those unequivocal standards for public service,
standards that are higher standards than the law?

The "law" represents the lowest standards of conduct that
civilized people will abide.

The "law" doesn't even require public servants to tell the truth
about how they are spending our power and our resources.
The law allows them "no comment".

The "law" is inadequate to the need.

If we must "trust" them with control over our power and our
resources, then they must hold themselves accountable to
standards of conduct which prohibit betraying our trust.

There is no "law" against betraying our trust.

David Peercy responds.

David Peercy is the Policy
Committee Chair. He is the
person most responsible for
preventing a public discussion of the
restoration of the role modeling clause
to the Employee Standards of Conduct.

He, more than any other person in
the leadership of the APS, is preventing
and open and honest discussion of
administrative and executive
role modeling of the student standards of conduct.

The clause reads;

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

Peercy has copied me, a letter that he wrote in response to
a letter that he had received from one of his constituents.

Thanks for your concerns.
Let me provide some thoughts for your consideration.

(1) Mr. Robbins Proposal
First, it is important that you understand that I do support what is right to do. Second, I do not believe the language of Dave Robbins suggested proposal would add value to what we already have, and in fact may suggest conduct of less value than what we already have. That clearly would not be the right thing to do.

To suggest that our adult behavior be something that "measures up to a minimum of the standards of students" is unacceptable to me. We should in fact aspire to a much HIGHER standard, such as what is stated in the current policy as "APS expects employees to maintain the highest standards of conduct " and also "...shall serve as positive role models for students". These statements apply to all employees and all relationships - adult to adult as well as adult to student. Any suggestion that we need only be as good as or slightly better perhaps than what we expect of our students is not acceptable to me, nor should it be acceptable to you.

The existing policy and the extensive procedural directive information is much more comprehensive and specific about expected code of conduct and behavior in any such APS relationships - the board, administration, teachers, staff, students, parents, and community - than the additional words that Mr. Robbins suggested. And the existing policy language requires a much higher expected behavior and code of conduct than the additional words that Mr. Robbins suggested. I believe Mr. Robbins would agree now that we have presented that information, although the intent of Mr. Robbins' suggestion is clearly understood and in particular there may still be opportunities to improve the existing policy.

(2) Policy and Procedural Improvements
That said, I do believe, as was stated in the meeting, that our existing policies and procedural directives can be improved. That improvement process has already been initiated, actually prior to my involvement. There may be better ways to phrase and improve the existing policy in which you are interested, and that will be reviewed. There are some changes to other policy areas that are needed for clarification as well as ensuring we meet changes to legal requirements of the federal and state laws as well as the State PED. Such changes are reasonably normal since regulations and legislation as well as our own community expectations tend to evolve over time, .

(3) Litigation and Law Suits
The context for this board discussion was in terms of the overall side effect that I'd like to see due to improved policies, procedures, and the implementation of those procedures. With improvements and effective implementations, it is expected that there might be fewer reasons why anyone would need to seek remedies outside of the normal processes for conflict resolution. The result won't be zero litigation, but such litigation is costly to the district and to reduce that cost would be a worthy result. The context of the board discussion was not to ensure that any changes did not "cause" lawsuits, but rather that such changes would be value-added and hence reduce such lawsuits.

Reducing litigation is of course not the primary goal of our policies and procedures improvement, but hopefully a good side benefit. Part of the "right thing to do" is to be consistent with what is legally required - that in itself is a policy requirement.


Thanks again for your concerns. I will do the best I can to ensure that our policies, procedures, and implementations are improved and effective. I'm sure you heard in the board discussion that the administration is clearly in support of that effort.

Sincerely,
Dave Peercy

And my specific objections to Peercy's claims;

1. Peercy writes; Any suggestion that we need only be as good as or slightly better perhaps than what we expect of our students is not acceptable to me, nor should it be acceptable to you.

The truth;
the proposed language creates a floor, not a ceiling.

Peercy writes as if the role modeling clause read;

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

It does not of course, so his claim that restoring the clause
somehow lowers the expectation for adults, flies in the face
of the reality which is, it raises the standard for adults.

2. Peercy writes; ... the existing policy language requires a much higher expected behavior and code of conduct than the additional words that Mr. Robbins suggested. (which) "... in fact may suggest conduct of less value ...

There are no higher standards of conduct than ethical
standards of conduct.

The student standards of conduct represent a nationally recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethical conduct. The simple truth is that the standards for adults don't come close. I would challenge Dr. Peercy to point to even one "...existing policy and the extensive procedural directive ..." that comes anywhere close to an ethical standard of conduct.

In particular, I would like to point out that the student standards
of conduct require truth telling, and further that, Peercy
cannot point to any place in the standards for adults that
requires anything more than not lying.

Feel good language like; highest standards of conduct " and also "...shall serve as positive role models for students"
is completely unenforceable because it does not point to any specific definition. Nowhere will you find written, the meaning of "highest standards" or "positive role modeling".

On the other hand, student standards do point to a written document with unequivocal and explicit definitions link, and therefore, are enforceable.

The truth is; Dr. Peercy cannot point to any place in APS rules,
regulations, policies or procedures that even come close
to measuring up to the six Pillars of Character Counts!,
period.

By any reasonable measure, student standards of conduct
are higher standards by far, than adult standards.

3. Peercy writes; With improvements and effective implementations,
it is expected that there might be fewer reasons why anyone would need
to seek remedies outside of the normal processes for conflict resolution.

One of the strongest arguments in support of the Pillars of
Character Counts! is that with respect to litigation and lawsuits,
adherence to the Pillars of Character Counts! absolutely
eliminates the need for any litigation at all. The Pillars require
all participants to pursue a principled resolution of any dispute.

A principled resolution guarantees a fair resolution, and renders
litigation unnecessary except in the pursuit of an unfair resolution.

The only reason APS litigates is to prevent a fair resolution of
disputes, and to make Modrall lawyers wealthy.

In my own case, a principled resolution of my complaint would
have cost tax payers far less in the long run, than it cost to pay
Modrall lawyers to prevent that resolution.

Were one looking for the biggest difference between the
Student Standards of Conduct, and the Employee Standards
of Conduct, it is that; the Student Standards of Conduct
require honest accountability to those higher standards,
and the Employee Standards of Conduct do not require
honest accountability to any standard of conduct at all,
even the law.

The bottom line;
the refusal to restore the Role Modeling clause to the
Employee Standards of Conduct, is indefensible.

And, David Peercy's refusal to entertain any kind of public
discussion of the restoration of the Role Modeling clause to
the Employee Standards of Conduct, illuminates his
intention to avoid circumstances where he can be compelled
to defend his indefensible positions, or where any of his claims
can be questioned.

cc Peercy upon posting.




photo Mark Bralley

Learning from the Courthouse Scam.

Journal editors ask this, this morning. link

How can future government construction projects
be made, if not fraud-proof, then at least more
fraud-resistant?

Editors pointed out that, during a recent sentencing hearing,
a lawyer tried to minimize his client's role in the scam, by
placing it in a larger context; scams at Metropolitan Detention
Center, the state District Courthouse and the University
Hospital expansion. The lawyer did not elaborate on those
scams, and they will never be prosecuted because statutes of
limitation have expired on the criminal activities.

So what? Those scandals should be investigated, thoroughly,
regardless of whether criminal charges can be brought or not.

Editors point out that the Courthouse scandal was not a freak
occurrence, similar scams abound. The only reason that this
particular scam came to light, had nothing to do with system
safeguards.

A court appointed forensic accountant dug up evidence that
routine government audits of government construction projects
did not, and can not. The "supposed" safeguards of tax dollars
did not threaten the thieves in any manner that gave them pause.

The editors conclude by offering that;

"... thorough postmortem of those projects added to what was divulged by the courthouse case could provide a blueprint to better methods of preventing, detecting and rooting out corruption."

Here is the blueprint;
forensic audits of all government spending projects.

For a very small percentage of the total project cost,
a fraction of a percent overall,
every project could be forensically audited at its conclusion.

Who in their right mind, is going to become involved in a
conspiracy to steal tax dollars,
if the likelihood of getting away with it, is zero?

If Manny Aragon and the rest had known up front, that
there was going to be a forensic audit at the end,
would they have stolen the money anyway?

I doubt it.

Role modeling has been left off the Policy Committee Meeting agenda.

I have to admit to some surprise that
David Peercy has left the role modeling
debate and vote, off the agenda for the
April 17th, Policy Committee meeting.
link

It appears to be an effort to avoid a
debate and a vote that will individually
identify board members who are
not willing to step up as role models of
the Student Standards of Conduct.

It appears to be an effort to avoid individually identifying
board members who lack the character and the courage to
hold themselves honestly accountable to standards of conduct
that require truth telling as opposed to not lying.

It appears to be an effort to hide from stakeholders,
the truth about administrative and executive role modeling of
the Student Standards of Conduct.




photo Mark Bralley

APS facing technology position cuts

According to the Journal, link, budget cuts will force APS to
cut technology positions. They are the folks who teach and fix
computers in schools.

Assistant APS Superintendent Diego Gallegos said,
"From a resource standpoint, we didn't have enough
resources to have technology teachers at every school in
the district."

Journal reporter, Andrea Schoellkopf, goes on to report,

Montezuma Elementary Principal Deb Detorie said
she considers the instruction "a life requirement."
"Twenty-five percent of my kids come from a home that
doesn't have a computer."
We're not teaching them the world if we're not teaching
them how to navigate the Net.""

At the same time, APS has managed to scrape together enough
money, to give Monica Armenta three more non-teaching
staffers in her beleaguered "Communications" division. link

Go figure.

New Mexico Secretary of Education, Veronica Garcia weighs in on role modeling.

Radio Journalist and Blogger, Peter St. Cyr, link,
recently attended a bill signing with the Governor.

PED Secretary Veronica Garcia was there, and St. Cyr
took the opportunity to ask for her opinion on the subject of
APS' School Board's upcoming decision about whether to
step up as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

Garcia was quick to point out that the decision was entirely
up to the local board. However she was quoted as saying;

"There are many districts that Character Counts!
applies to both the adults and the kids.

And, it seems that if we want to be good role models for
children, that we would have similar values that
we all adhere to ..."

I can't help but to agree.

I have contacted her office in an effort to find out which
districts apply Character Counts! standards to both adults
and students.

Perhaps if we can figure out how they compelled their leadership
to step up to the challenge, we can make our leadership step up
as well.

92% of our kids are "satisfied with my own ethics and character."

According to a survey done by the Josephson Institute. link

Yet; when asked about their own behavior in year preceding the survey;

56% admit to having lied to their parents, about something significant, two or more times.

37% admit to having lied to their teachers, about something significant, two or more times.

19% Copied an Internet document for a classroom assignment, two or more times.

38% Cheated during a test at school, two or more times.

62% Copied another's homework, two or more times.

11% Stole something from parents or relatives.

8% Stole something from a friend.

15% Stole something from a store.

38% Had done things in violation of their religious belief.

56% Think that "all or most" of the people they know, would list them among the most ethical people they know.

There is a disconnect.
They admit having done unethical things,
yet 92% are satisfied with their own character.

When asked why they misbehave, most kids will tell you;

"Everyone else is doing it."

Everyone else being primarily, their adult role models.

APS School Board is in a boggle;

Should we step up as role models,
or not?

Character Counts!
or not?

Governor RIchardson's 2006 Task Force on Ethics; Recommendations

2006 report link

This is the second time a task force has pointed to the need
for an Ethics Commission.

And yet, Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez,
among others, steadfastly refuse to create one.

Which begs the question;

Why even bother to put together Task Forces on Ethics,
if their recommendations are going to be ignored?

Marty Esquivel on; the character of APS Board Members

A new issue of the APS Perspective is out; link.

School Board President Marty Esquivel penned a piece,
in which he wrote;

"I am pleased and excited with the content of
the board members’ character ..."

In truth, the content of board members' character is
yet to be tested; they are about to decide whether
the Pillars of Character Counts! are standards of conduct
that apply to them, or just to students.

The actual content of board members' character will be manifest
on Friday April 17th, when they decide whether they will
hold themselves honestly accountable as role models of the
Student Standards of Conduct.

Restoring to their own standards of conduct, the phrase;

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

now that, would show some real character.

Governmental Conduct Laws feel good.

There is widespread and deeply rooted corruption in
NM State Government.

There are laws in New Mexico, against public corruption.

Yet, there is still corruption in NM State Government.

Are governmental conduct laws just feel good legislation?

Monahan reports this morning, link, that the charges filed
against PRC Member Jerome Block and his father,are;

"... the first substantial public corruption charges AG
Gary King has produced from a state grand jury since
taking office in 2007."

Dave Maass of the Santa Fe Reporter, link, reports that
NMAG King's office has identified 20 violations of NM
Sunshine Laws (NMIPRA and OMA), and yet;

King has not penalized a single agency for OMA/ IPRA
violations since taking office.

In my own experience; when I asked the clerk of the Second
Judicial District Court, how many prosecutions has taken
place under the Governmental Conduct Act, she replied;

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

I have never had a single governmental agency actually
surrender a public record (against their interests) despite
the fact that their denials clearly violated the requirements
of the NM Inspection of Public Records Act.

Someone else first observed;

You can't fight city hall
(and their droves of lawyers, litigating against the
public interests, and on the public dime)

even with a book full of (feel good) laws on your side.

If government were as transparent as technolgy will allow

it would mean the end of governmental waste of our power and
our resources.

Why isn't government as transparent as technology will allow?

Except to protect the people who are wasting our power and
wasting our resources.

John Trevor's cartoon isn't funny.

John Trevor has a cartoon in the Journal this morning. link


The cartoon is only funny if you accept the premise;

that even though we have passed a law that opened
conference committee meetings to public knowledge,
the folks who we must trust to obey the law, will instead
ignore it.

Which begs at least one question;

Why in God's name,
would you accept that premise?

Public servants and telling the truth.

Clearly we would be better off if our public servants were
required to tell us the truth.

So far, they have not seen fit to write a law that
requires them to tell the truth.
They have only written laws which prohibit telling a lie.

There is not a single one of our public servants who is
honestly accountable to any standard of conduct
that requires them to tell the truth.

With one exception;

the public servants who run the APS,
are currently accountable to a standard of conduct
that requires them to tell the truth.

Unless, on Friday, April 17th, they decide not to restore
the role modeling clause to their own code of conduct.

At which point, not even these senior most role models of
the Pillars of Character Counts!; a standard of conduct
that specifically and explicitly requires truth telling,
will be accountable anymore, to a standard of conduct
that requires them to tell the truth.

Government has morphed.

When the founding fathers wrote it,
our government existed to serve the people.

The judicial branch now serves the interests of lawyers.

The executive branch now serves the interests of oligarchs.

The legislative brand now serves the interests of legislators
and special interests.

Our government no longer serves our interests,
because we no longer have any control over it.

Public servants tell us how they will spend our power and
our resources; with or without our accord.
Without even the consideration of our accord.
Our accord, no longer plays.

What more proof could you possibly need,
that you have no control over your government,
than that you can ask a legitimate question about the spending
of your power and your resources, and be told

"It's none of your business."

Unless it is under our control,
our government is not our servant,
it is our master.

Defining "ethics".

There are as many definitions as there are mouse clicks
following a google search. Most are distinctions without a
difference. Most fall back on simple, intuitive explanations;
what is "right" or "good".

People who would not have accountability to any code of ethics,
understandably focus on the vagary. And then they cite the
vagary as the compelling flaw in "legislating ethics".

It might well be that an all encompassing definition cannot
be found.

Perhaps it would serve us to focus on a single issue at a time.
We need to look not at everything ethics means,
but on what it means at the very least.

At the very least, ethical means honest.

Honesty happens to be the issue that provokes the most
resistance. For the most, people do not want to be honest,
because being honest exposes them to the consequences
of their choices and their conduct.

It is not Character Counts! that Winston Brooks is afraid of.
He is afraid of having to tell the truth.
He is afraid of the consequences of telling the truth.

So what does "telling the truth" mean? What is "the truth".
The truth is the actual state of a matter, the reality, the actuality.

In my experience, those who would seek to split those hairs,
are not looking for a definition of truth, but rather
are looking for an excuse to not tell the truth.

APS students are expected to tell the truth;
to the best of their knowledge, candidly, forthrightly,
without deception, without creating beliefs or impressions
that are untrue. They are expected to volunteer information
that they know another person needs to know, even if they
have not asked for it.

Either the truth belongs to all stakeholders, or
the truth belongs to a few who will then share it
as suits their personal best interests.

If the leadership of the APS are accountable to the same
standards of truth telling as students, the truth belongs
to stakeholders.

If the leadership of the APS are accountable to any other
standard of conduct at all, the truth belongs to them.
Stakeholders have to prove their right to know the truth,
often in court, before it will be shared with them.

Winston Brooks wants not to be held to a standard of
conduct which requires him to tell the truth.

The leadership of the APS wants to control the truth,
in order that it can be spun their interests.

It doesn't require an entire "communications" division to
tell the truth. A communications division is justified only by
the need to "spin" the truth.

The bottom line;
If one is accountable to a code of ethics, they are required
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.*

Winston Brooks and the leadership of the APS will oppose
honest accountability to any standard of conduct that requires
them to tell the truth, even while holding students accountable
to standards of conduct that do.

And shame on them for their hypocrisy.

And shame on them for their unwillingness to tell the truth.


*There are a very few exceptions which are specifically and
explicitly provided under the law. There are no other justifiable
exceptions.

Disengaged learners.

There is no such thing.

Disengaged learning is an impossibility, it is oxymoronic.

To suppose that the greatest single learning barrier by far,
can be addressed by "Raising the Bar" link, is ridiculous.

It is driven by the mindset;

You can make a horse drink bad tasting water
if you offer it to him in a deeper bucket.

And, serves only to draw attention from the real problem;
disengaged students.

Every single administrator in the APS ...

There are those who think that I paint all APS administrators
with the same brush.

This is post 3,108.

You will not find in any of them,
any accusation laid on all APS administrators.

There are decent men and women in the administrative ranks of the APS.

I make two global allegations;

1. There are only two kinds of administrators in the APS,

1. the corrupt and the incompetent, and
   
2. those with guilty knowledge of their corruption and incompetence.

2. There is not a single APS administrator who is willing stand up and declare their accountability as an administrative role model of the Student Standards of Conduct.


I stand by both.

With regard to the first, I will stand on the record,
which does not offer contradiction.

As for the second, I will stand on the record,
which does not offer contradiction.

Who is lying, do you think?

Winston Brooks told me to my
face, that my complaint against
him was closed because
it was a "nuisance" complaint.





I have reason to believe that Audit Committee members are
being told that it was closed for "insufficient detail".


It would appear that someone is lying to someone.

APS' oligarchical thinking.

Oligarchies run on power and influence.

For oligarchs, it is all about accumulating power and influence.

Monica Armenta, like any other oligarch,
would like to supervise more people.

So to fix the problem with the APS website,
she is going to add three more non-teaching
employees to the payroll, who will report to her.

Works out great for Armenta,
she will be moving up in the building.


Not the penthouse yet, but it is four floors closer.

And, now that she is supervising three more people,
it will make sense to give her a raise.


Works out great for Armenta,

... not so great for the pupil teacher ratio in the APS.




photo Mark Bralley

Monica Armenta sez, we need three more people at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

The minutes, link, from the last Capital Outlay Committee
meeting show that;

"Ms. Armenta stated that her
department was going to be
developing a web department
of three new members.

They also have set a goal to have more
communication and information and
provide it efficiently and timely.


The larger department would be moving to the 5th floor."

I have been wondering for some time,
if the notoriously bad APS website could be better managed
by Web Design classes at the Career Enrichment Center.

I did a quick internet search to determine whether website
design is rocket science or something more basic;
something that could be done by high schoolers in one or
more high schools with a software and hardware budget
of well over $100K annually to create and maintain
a state of the art website.

It appears that they could.

I would be willing to bet that, they could at least manage to
webcast board meetings that have sound tracks.



photo Mark Bralley

If you can get Winston Brooks to look you in the eye

Ask him if he is accountable
as a role model of the
Student Standards of Conduct.

If he answers yes, ask him to prove it.
Ask him to show you where a complaint alleging otherwise
can be filed.

He will stonewall the question.


Because the only defense for an indefensible position
is to hide it.




photo Mark Bralley

Does Character Counts! work?

It is a fair question.

Research has been done, and it would appear that it does.
link

The need to do something is underscored by a survey of
30,000 high school students nation wide.
Ethics of American Youth Survey. link

In stark contrast to our own Albuquerque Journal,
there are news outlets unafraid to investigate and report upon
the issue. link

Other school districts in New Mexico are stepping up
to the need. link

Power and honest accountability vary inversely.

I was googling "honest accountability" and came across my
own post, circa 2006. Nothing has changed except the number
of times they have been asked to step up to honest accountability
and then stonewalled in response.

Powerful people can break the rules; and then dodge
accountability. APS leaders have broken the rules and
are dodging accountability.

Consider what you have seen with your own eyes.

Nine times the Superintendent and School Board Members
have been asked to hold themselves honestly accountable
to the same standard that they established and enforce upon
students. Nine times they have stonewalled the question.

By their history, and by their stonewalling; APS Leaders have
indicated that they are unwilling to be held accountable to
ANY standard of conduct; even the law.

As senior role models for 98,000 students, and as the stewards
of the public trust and treasure, and as public servants;

Are APS Senior Administrators and Board Members
honestly accountable to a meaningful standard of conduct?

They would like you to believe that they are.


So who are you going to believe;
APS Leadership, or your lying eyes?

There is not a single APS senior administrator, willing to stand up as a role model for students.

Students are expected to hold themselves accountable to
a set of standards of conduct called,
the Pillars of Character Counts!
It is a nationally recognized, accepted, and respected
code of ethical conduct. When people talk about higher
standards of conduct, these are what they are talking about.

There is not a single senior administrator in the entire APS
who will step up to honest accountability as a role model of
the Student Standards of Conduct.


Winston Brooks is the senior
most administrative role model
of the Student Standards of
Conduct.

It is his responsibility and
obligation to show students
what it looks like to hold
oneself honestly accountable
to higher standards of conduct.


But he won't.


honestly accountable;

accountable to agreed upon standards of conduct under
an impartial system, powerful enough
to hold him accountable, even against his will.

accountable to the least powerful person in the APS,
whose legitimate complaint will see a principled resolution,
and without fear of retribution or retaliation.

He will not hold himself honestly accountable as a role model
of the Pillars of Character Counts!

The Pillar of Trustworthiness requires a candid,
forthright, and honest response to any legitimate question.
He will not hold himself accountable to a standard of conduct
that requires him to tell truth.

He would rather be accountable to a lower standard of conduct,
one that only prohibits telling a lie.

One standard gets you
the truth about the public trust and treasure that have been
squandered at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

And the other, gets you
no comment.





photo Mark Bralley

Winston Brooks and Character Counts!

Winston Brooks is the
Superintendent of the
Albuquerque Public Schools.
He is the senior most,
administrative role model of the
Pillars of Character Counts!

And he refuses to step up to honest
accountability as a role model.

He refuses to explain, defend, or even
acknowledge his failure.






Marty Esquivel is the President
of the Albuquerque Public
Schools Board of Education.

He is the senior most, executive
role model of the Pillars of
Character Counts!

And he refuses to step up to
honest accountability as
a role model.

He refuses to explain, defend, or even acknowledge his failure.






Paula
"I will never allow an audit"
Maes, is the head honcho
on the school board.

She is also the (past?)
President of the Character
Counts! Leadership Council.




And she refuses to step up to honest accountability as a role model. She refuses to explain, defend, or even acknowledge her failure.


Why are the folks who should be singing the praises of
Character Counts! from the roof tops,
afraid even to discuss it, in public and on the record?

Except that, honest accountability to meaningful standards
of conduct and competence in the APS, is a fairy tale.

Except that, they are not now, and have no intention
to ever be held honestly accountable as role models.

Except that, the Pillars of Character Counts! are
too high of a standard of conduct for anyone in the APS,
except students.

It takes extraordinary character and courage to be
a role model of the Pillars of Character Counts!.

It takes character and courage to hold oneself
honestly accountable to a code of ethical conduct.


A week from Friday,
by a vote that could be as bad as 5 to 2 against,
the Pillars of Character Counts! will be rejected
as the standards of conduct for the adult role models
of students who are themselves expected to be role models of
honest accountability to the Pillars of Character Counts!


If they get away with it,
it will be because no one stood up to stop them.


Refusing to investigate and report upon this scandal,
is the worst thing the Albuquerque Journal has ever done.
And when the Journal goes teats up like so many
other newspapers, they for one, will deserve it.




photos Mark Bralley

Turns out; Marty Esquivel is famous.

I was reading Monahan this morning. link
He mentioned Marty Esquivel's name and gave us a link.



It appears that Esquivel is
a famous first amendment
and open government lawyer.








You will recall that,
the first amendment provides constitutional protection for
the human right to freedom of speech.

And then he watched me being illegally arrested by
APS' Praetorian Guard for standing quietly
against the furthest wall in the back of the board room
wearing an elephant mask.
(Links to the first time and to the last.)

I was standing there waiting for him to explain to us,
why he will not be held honestly accountable
as a role model of the Student Standards of Conduct.



Abraham Lincoln wrote;

If you want to test a man's character,
give him power.

photo Mark Bralley

David Peercy just doesn't want to tell the truth.

On the table; a motion to restore the role modeling clause
to the APS Employee Standards of Conduct.

It would read as it used to;

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

APS Policy Committee Chair David Peercy is opposed.
He says the policy is fine the way it is. He says restoring the
role modeling clause would add nothing to employee standards
of conduct, that isn't already there.

Read the APS Student Standards of Conduct. link

Read and reread the Pillar of Trustworthiness.

Note that, according to that standard of conduct;
"not lying" is not enough.

"Simply refraining from deception is not enough."

The words used to describe "telling the truth" include;

• integrity
• reliability
• loyalty
• sincerity
• genuine
• candid
• forthright
• frank
• honest

The words are used to describe concepts the likes of;

• ethically justifiable
• legitimate expectation of trust
• the obligation to volunteer information that others need to know
• expressing the truth as best we know it
• presenting facts to the best of our knowledge;
  without trickery or duplicity, precluding all acts that are
  intended to deliberately mislead; such as half truths, or
  stonewalling

Misleading and deceptive communication and conduct is
specifically and expressly prohibited.

Students are told; they choose not to tell the truth
at the forfeit of their good character.

David Peercy says;

G.14 EMPLOYEE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

Employees of the Albuquerque Public Schools shall serve as
positive role models for students and set good examples in
conduct, manners, dress and grooming.

APS expects each employee to maintain the highest
standards of conduct and act in a mature and
responsible manner at all times. (emphasis added)

Employees must not engage in activities which violate federal,
state or local laws or which, in any way, diminish the integrity,
efficiency or discipline of the District.

... says it better.

David Peercy says adding;

In no case shall the standard of conduct for adults,
be lower than the standard of conducts for students.

... adds nothing to the Employee Standards of Conduct.

David Peercy says that the powerful and absolutely unequivocal language in the Student Standards of Conduct, about telling the truth, falls far short of;

APS expects each employee to maintain the highest standards
of conduct and act in a mature and responsible manner
at all times.

What in the hell does "maintain" high standards mean anyway?
Does it mean anything even remotely like;

honest accountability?

Does it mean anything even remotely like;

Accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and
competence by means of an impartial system
powerful enough to hold them accountable
even against their will?

David Peercy says the standards
of conduct that apply to administrators
and board members, that at best
require only "not lying",
are just fine the way they are.








Without a doubt,
Paula Maes will agree.











And so will Robert Lucero.
He has already killed one
truth telling motion before
the board.






Standing against them;




David Robbins will
continue to stand up
for the restoration of the
role modeling clause.








With the support of Lorenzo Garcia.














And Delores Griego.












Marty Esquivel apparently,
will cast the deciding vote.

One would hope that he can find
the character and the courage to
cast his vote in the interests of
87,000 of our sons and daughters
who are students in the APS.







Winston Brooks, if he had a
vote, would vote against honest
accountability to a nationally
recognized, accepted, and
respected code of ethical conduct.





He is hoping like hell that he isn't the first superintendent
in the entire history of the APS, to find himself honestly
accountable as a role model
of the Student Standards of Conduct.



If we really want students to grow to embrace character
and courage and honor,
someone has to show them what character and courage and
honor look like.

All that is necessary for evil to prevail in the world
is for good men to do nothing. burke

If ever there was a moment of truth, surely this is it.
It would be a shame if you missed it.

7:30 am, April 17, 2009.

Copy this post, post it somewhere.
Help spread the word; the Journal won't.

Update; since this was posted, David Robbins has backed off the issue of restoring the role modeling clauses, Lorenzo Garcia has not pushed the point and, neither has Delores Griego. As of this writing, October 8, 2009, not a single member of the leadership of the APS will stand up and demand an open and honest discussion of role modeling and the student standards of conduct.




photos Mark Bralley

APS' Carole Smith and DeeDee Stroud; betwixt a rock and a hard place.

Carole Smith and DeeDee Stroud are APS senior
administrators who are paid by the APS to be advocates for
Character Counts!

They know better than most, about the importance of role
models in character education.

They also know that the leadership of the APS is doing every
thing they can to avoid being held honestly accountable as
role models of the Pillars of Character Counts!, which happen
to be the Student Standards of Conduct.

The leadership of the APS is trying to decide whether to put
a role modeling clause in their own standards of conduct.

The clause would read;

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

If they add the clause, they will be honestly accountable to a
nationally recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethics.
So they are doing everything they can to avoid adding the clause.

The rock;

Smith and Stroud have a moral obligation to stand up
in defense of the Pillars of Character Counts!;
an appropriate standard of conduct for students, and by
extension, for administrative and executive role models
of the Student Standards of Conduct. They have a
moral obligation to stand up at a board meeting and tell
their bosses to restore the Role Modeling clause to their
standards of conduct.

The hard place;

If Smith and Stroud stand up for what they (supposedly)
believe in, and remind their boss, Winston Brooks that
he has an obligation to step up as a role model of the
Pillars of Character Counts!, by holding himself
honestly accountable to those standards, it will likely
cost them their cushy jobs in the Uptown Complex.

If their commitment to, and belief in, Character Counts! is
genuine, it must suck to be Carole Smith or DeeDee Stroud
right now.

cc Smith and Stroud upon posting.