Did UNM AD Paul Krebs know that Shannon Garbiso is a student?

The only thing that UNM brass admitted about Shannon Garbiso, Dept Human Resources Rep: Athletics Admin,
while they were throwing her under the bus at their latest
news conference was, she is not a "trained investigator".

Well, that's not the half of it.

According to UNM's website, link, the principle investigator of the
Locksley affair for almost two weeks, is a UNM sophomore.

Did UNM HR VP Helen Gonzales know Garbiso is a student?
If she did, was she being disingenuous in admitting that she's
"not a trained investigator". Should Gonzales have been more
candid, forthright and honest, and continued to admit that,
Garbiso is not only not a "trained investigator", she apparently
is not trained in Human Relations, UNM Policies, or in the
law surrounding the destruction of Public Records.

And why would anyone think that she would be; she's just a kid.

Did UNM AD Krebs know that when he put a student in charge of the investigation? Is that why he put her in charge of the investigation?

Just two of a number of questions that would be answered if and when, an impartial independent investigation is ever undertaken.

But, don't hold your breath.

Locksley scandal investigation would be precedent setting.

When is the last time you heard of an independent, impartial,
and honest investigation of a good ol' boy oligarchy?

There is a reason they insist upon conducting the
investigations into their own wrong doing, themselves;
they get to maintain control over the truth.

There is a reason state government leaders won't fund the Office of the State Auditor at levels that would allow the Auditor to expose public corruption and incompetence fully.

There is a reason why when credible allegations of felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators surfaced, link, they investigated themselves.

Three years later, and long after statutes of limitation on felony criminal misconduct have expired, they are still hiding the the truth from criminal prosecution.

There is a reason why when UNM President David Schmidly
is asked if he will begin an honest and impartial investigation of
his handling of the Locksley affair,

his response means no.

UNM Pres David Schmidly, "still thinkin'"

UNM President David Schmidly
when asked if there would be an independent, impartial stem to stern investigation of the the Locksley affair said, no decision has been made.

He implied that, they had actually been considering whether to do the redeeming investigation.

When asked to go ahead and make the decision Wednesday, at the news conference, he declined.

Schmidly doesn't have to actually say no. He has the luxury of
saying nothing at all. Saying nothing means no investigation, but
will protect him from the criticism he will face if he is candid,
forthright and honest about his real intention.

The decision could not be more simple.

The financial considerations are infinitesimal.

The opportunity to rehabilitate the University's severely tarnished reputation is huge.

There really is no downside.

Unless they really have not told the truth, the whole truth and,
nothing but the truth.

In which case, the downside will be considerable.

For a time, I was alone in calling for the independent investigation. Two days after I asked, Journal sports reporter Rich Wright joined me in calling for the investigation to begin, link. And now the editors have jumped aboard as well, link. They wrote;

"(UNM) needs to pay for an independent examination of both the incident involving the coaches and the subsequent investigation(s). The university needs to commit in advance to give the investigator carte blanche, full access to all witnesses and to everything already compiled from both investigations. And it needs to commit in advance to make the findings public.

There really is no one at all standing against the investigation except, those with something to lose if the investigation is ever under taken.

And they are not really "standing" against it.
They are in hiding, "hunkering down in their foxhole",
waiting for the storm to blow over. And then, as Schmidly
indicated, they will just "move along".

Expect that neither Schmidly, Krebs, nor Gonzales will
show up in any venue where they can be asked about the decision they will not make.

It's just not the way they roll.




photo Mark Bralley

Diane Denish has some 'splaining to do.

There are two possibilities;

1. there is a culture of public corruption and incompetence in New Mexico State Government or,
2. there is not.

If there is a culture of corruption,
why won't Lt Governor Denish
admit that it exists?

I mean come on, how can she claim
she is going to end it, if she won't
even own that it exists?






If there is not a culture of corruption
in Santa Fe, why won't Diane Denish
rehabilitate the reputation of the
Richardson/Denish administration,
by assuring us that it just ain't so?

Also needing some 'splaining;
the rebuttal she offered to
Jim Scarantino's report.

Jim Scarantino reported that Diane Denish had spent a certain amount of public money taking pictures and creating Christmas cards, link.

In her rebuttal video, link, you will see Denish sidestep the issue of the creation of the cards completely and instead, introduce two red herring; the printing and mailing of those cards. She proved that she had paid for both of those with her own money.

She called Scarantino a "patent liar" for suggesting that she had used public funds for printing and mailing. Except that,
he had suggested no such thing.

The rest of her response consists of an ad hominem attack on Scarantino, and the folks he bumps fists with.

Do we want a Governor who cannot tolerate political opposition?

Do we want a Governor who when asked,
did you chop down the cherry tree?
dodges the question and attacks the questioner?

These are legitimate questions.

If they are not, somebody ought to be able to 'splain
why they're not.




photos Mark Bralley

Who in the hell is Lee Roy Lucero?

I know him only in that, he posted an hominem attack on my blog.

I had asked UNM President David Schmidly two questions;

1. Will you begin an outside investigation?, and
2. Why were police not involved in investigating criminal misconduct?

Journal reporter Rick Wright reported on it. For reasons known only to him, he chose to describe me as a "bellicose blogger". I don't know Wright from Adam's off ox, so I haven't a clue what drove his need to attack me personally. Maybe he was just going for a simple rhyme as a prop for his prose.

In any event, Lee Roy Lucero has weighed in;

"Bellicose? I think Rick is giving you way to much credit.
I would say you are nothing more than a vulture trying
to pick away at the bones...

Check the clock sir your 15 minutes is up."

Lucero did not point to any reason why I should not have asked the questions, or that the questions should not be asked.

Instead, he attacked me personally.

I regard this as vindication; proof that whatever I have written,
is at least correct enough that my critic cannot point to any
substantive error.

When Lee Roy Lucero pushed "publish, he likely did so
assuming that he will have hurt my feelings. He is wrong.

Thank you sir, for your ad hominem attack and for
the vindication it implies.

I would offer up a Bralley of Lee Roy Lucero
but I'm pretty sure he doesn't have one.

What has Lee Roy Lucero ever done, to which,
anyone might want to pay any attention at all?

Oh yeah, maybe there's a mugshot.

"Errors" in the Scarantino piece.

Jim Scarantino put up a report on spending by Lt Governor
Diane Denish, link.

A couple of "errors" have been brought to my attention.

The first had to do with Christmas cards. Scarantino wrote;

• "... take Christmas pictures and write Christmas cards ..."
• "... work on Christmas cards ..."

Those were the only two references I found to Christmas Cards.

Denish's rebuttal, link, said that because she paid for the
printing and mailing, that Scarantino had lied in pointing
to the creation of those cards.

I don't think she made her case; she has not successfully
refuted his allegation. In fact she did not address his specific
allegation at all. Rather, she brought in a red herring as the
foundation for an ad hominem attack.

Scarantino wrote;"... opinion polling ..."

Denish supporters argue that is was a policy poll, not an opinion poll.

The title of the report was;

New Mexico Children's Cabinet Public Opinion
Survey on Children's Issues.

The title seems to corroborate Scarantino's allegation, though
no substantive point is made.

Questions not yet asked or answered in the exchanges of name
calling and pigeon holing;

1. Did Denish do anything wrong in using tax dollars to create Christmas cards?
2. Did Denish do anything wrong in using tax dollars to gather input via an opinion poll, on major problems facing New Mexico's children?

On the first, I would like to hear more in order to make up my own mind. In any case, who cares? How important is the answer in the overall scheme of things? There are more important fish to fry. If that is the worst thing she ever did, a case has not been built that she wouldn't be a good steward of tax dollars.

I am disturbed though, by Denish's denial of that specific allegation, which was a denial of something that was never alleged, a red herring diversion and, a bunch of ad hominem attacks on the messenger, rather than his message.

On the second, although Scarantino got the terminology right, I don't see a problem with the opinion polling, and Scarantino didn't build a case that there was.

Please notice how this whole "debate" can take place without labeling or name calling.

I have reason to believe there is a cover-up at Jimmy Carter Middle School.

You will recognize the school's name as the workplace of a
teacher who was reported recently to have admitted to
raping one of her students.

An allegigator of mine alleges that, she was under intense
administrative evaluation long before the rape.

If she was, who is accountable for failing to protect students?

The immediate questions are;

• were there preexisting and identified problems with this teacher and if so,
• has the leadership of the APS admitted that they were in fact, aware of those problems?

I am given to understand that
APS' Executive Director of
Communications Monica Armenta told stakeholders attending a meeting at the school, that the administration of the APS had had no indication that there were problems with this teacher.

I am also given to understand that currently, a number of students at Jimmy Carter Middle School are so out of control, they are interfering with the educational process at that school. I am told a large part of the problem is a lack of administrative presence.

It appears that both problems are being covered up.

Which begs the question; do stakeholders in Jimmy Carter Middle School in particular, and in APS in general, know the truth about the administration of their public schools?

There is reason to believe they don't.

A recent audit by the Council of the Great City Schools revealed that administrators routinely falsified crime statistics to protect the reputations of their schools.

It was recently reported that the leadership of the APS was no longer even compiling crime statistics.

If you ask them to point to a time, a day, and a place where
they will sit and answer legitimate questions about
the public interests and about their public service,
their response means no;
no they will not, tell the truth.

And there's nothing you can do about it.

The recent School Climate Survey, offers conclusive proof of the lack of truth telling by the administration at site level.

I have no way of investigating any of this.
I can't even get them to tell the truth about spending at
6400 Upyours Blvd.

It is a shame that the legacy media have no apparent interest
in digging too deeply into the ethics and accountability scandal
crippling the administration of the APS.

But somebody should investigate. Don't you think?




photo Mark Bralley

Journal steps up, demands Independent Answer to questions about the handling of the Locksley affair.

In the Journal this morning, link, Rick Wright reamed me for being bellicose and guilty of delivering a 45 second soapbox diatribe before getting around to asking a "valid and pertinent" question;

Will there be an independent investigation of
the handling of the Locksley affair?

Wright agrees with the need for an outside investigation.

UNM's image is in the toilet. Many people really believe
that there is something being covered up.

KRQE's Jessica Garate, after stating that they had lied
to the local press, asked straight out if there were going to be
any consequences for the botched investigation.
Their response to her question meant, no. Everyone involved
will get a "second chance".

If Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales are telling the truth
about a cover up, an independent investigation will exonerate
them. They should be demanding an independent corroboration.

UNM President David Schmidly, Athletic Director Paul Krebs, and HR VP Helen Gonzales freely admit to a myriad of mistakes. Yet they insist that it is up to them to decide which mistakes will be admitted and whether anything will be done about them.

That Schmidly still "has not made a decision" is a pretty good indication that he has.

When the question is;
do you intend to tell the truth,
any answer except yes, means no.

Hesitation, usually means no.

None of them has any intention of allowing any impartial, independent investigation of their handling of the situation.

UNM has nothing to fear, except the truth.

sidebar;

bellicose; inclined or eager to fight.
diatribe; sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism.

Yeah, I can roll with that.

Wright would rather I be ashamed or embarrassed I guess.

Perhaps he feels personally wounded by my ongoing insistence
that the Journal itself, is part of a cover up.

A cover up of the ongoing refusal by the leadership of the APS
to commence an "outside investigation"; an independent
investigation of the ethics and accountability scandal
in the leadership of the APS.

I will assuage the damage to my ego by reflecting on the number of people who came up to me immediately afterward and expressed their appreciation for what I had done. I was asked to speak on radio afterward. The host told his listeners there was nearly a standing ovation.

Often, though not often enough, people do come up to me and
express their appreciation for my effort. It sustains me when
I have to put up with those who would rather attack me than
tell the truth about whatever it is that I am pointing to.

During the conversation on the radio, the discussion came around to the need for torches and pitchforks. He asked if I was willing to cause a demonstration.

Well, yeah.

But somebody else has to show up or, I just look stupid.





photo Mark Bralley

Scarantino vs Denish, separating the wheat from the chaff.

Consider the current dispute between Jim Scarantino and
Lt Governor Diane Denish. Scarantino is unhappy with some
spending by Denish, link, Denish is unhappy with the way
the spending was characterized, link.

If there is a winner, it is not an obvious winner.

There is a obvious loser; anyone searching for information
upon which to base their upcoming vote.

The responsibilities of the fourth estate to keep the people informed about their government and their governors, have been ignored.

Newspapers, in particular if they bill themselves as "newspapers of record", have the most enforceable obligation to fairly inform. In reality, that obligation cannot be enforced at all, even upon newspapers of record. They are standards without enforcement.

As far as most blogs go, they represent the individual opinions of the blogger. I would argue that they have a responsibility to be fair and honest, but that responsibility is even less enforceable than the responsibilities of newspapers.

UPDATE TO THIS POST

The following two paragraphs are unfair to Jim Scarantino. The error I though I saw, was not an error at all. My error was in assuming that Scarantino had spoken to the issues of printing and mailing, the issues Denish took issue with, and upon closer inspection I find he only alleged that some one had "worked on Christmas cards.

I apologize to Jim Scarantino for my careless error, I have learned from my mistake, and I will try very hard not to make this kind of error again.

This particular dispute began with what is essentially a fact sheet published by Scarantino. Apparently, at least one of the facts is wrong. The "mistake" was characterized by Denish as "a patently false lie." No evidence has been presented that leads to that conclusion; it could well have been an inadvertent error, far different than a lie.

It is fair to point out, the longer Scarantino waits to correct his error, the more the "inadvertent mistake", begins to look like a lie.

Scarantino laid out a bunch of examples of spending. It is clear that he thinks some money was spent inappropriately. He does not point to a violation of law or ethic. Yet it is fair to say that he wants to create that impression.

Denish's "defense" spoke to the one error (not an error per the UPDATE) in Scarantino's report, and to the insignificance of the amounts in question. That particular argument is specious unless a line can be drawn between significant and insignificant spending. No line has been drawn because no line can be drawn. All spending, in any amount, is fair game for consideration and the drawing of conclusions.

Even Denish supporters come away with no justification for, or even any real understanding of, the spending.

Other than that, she offers only an attack on the messenger.
Unless the credibility of the messenger plays, and it rarely does, attacks on the messenger are red herrings intended to draw attention from the message.

In the end, even careful readers are wondering if Denish actually did anything illegal, unethical, or even imprudent. Neither Denish nor Scarantino has done much to settle that important question.

And again, the real losers are voters being denied the
information they need, to cast their votes intelligently.

We simply have to do something to raise the level of the
discourse. We have to stop the name calling, the pigeon holing,
the innuendo, and the attacks on the messengers.

In an environ with few standards and even less enforcement,
it is apparently up to readers to create their own standards and
provide the enforcement, themselves.

Kill Scarantino, to hell with the message.

Jim Scarantino wrote that Diane Denish has misspent federal funds, link.

UPDATE

In the following sentence, I refer to a mistake Jim Scarantino made in his report. The mistake was mine. I thought, incorrectly, that Scarantino had reported"working, printing, and mailing" Christmas cards. In fact, Scarantino only reported "working" on the cards. That allegation was not refuted. "Printing and mailing" were refuted, but since Scarantino had never brought them up, the defense amounts to nothing but two red herring. Scarantino had it right.)

One specific charge that Scarantino made, has apparently been"refuted".

The one "mistake", was offered up as "a lie", and as proof that
the messenger is a liar, lacking credibility.

Right up front, people are throwing the word liar around a little
too freely. Lying requires an intent to mislead.
Lying requires deliberation; an inadvertent mistake is not a lie.

That said, we need to look at each allegation individually,
to see if Scarantino's report has any more "errors".

It is fair to ask about each of his allegations;

• is it accurate?
• what law is violated? and/or
  
• what ethic is violated?

And then all Denish has to do is to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

In the end, there will be "x" number of facts which Scarantino reported accurately, and "y" number of facts reported inaccurately. The proportion of x to y, will speak to his "reliability" not his credibility. If there is evidence that his mistakes were deliberate, that evidence would speak to his "credibility". Who he bumps fists with, does not.

Instead of stepping up to all of the allegations and debunking
them, Denish tore Scarantino a new asshole instead.

The overwhelming majority of what Denish offers up in
defense of the allegations, is nothing more than bad mouthing
Scarantino, and his associates.

Classic kill the messenger.

This is about the message, it is not about the messenger.

Scarantino's credibility does not play. He has laid facts on
the table and each fact stands on its own. Each is true or false
on its own. Who laid the facts on the table, doesn't make any
difference. Neither does the reason he laid them there.

UPDATE

The second mistake I made. I mistakenly believed that
Diane Denish had not been upfront with surrendering all
the records Scarantino had asked for. She did; and I had
it wrong. I offer my apology to Diane Denish for this
regrettable error. I will try very hard not to be this careless
again. I wish I had not written;

Denish did not offer up a candid, forthright and honest
accounting of the spending of the unallocated funds.

Lets look at the books, all of them.

Then we'll see who's right, who's wrong, and who knows,
we might even find someone actually lying.

Here's the link. The interviewer is Peter St Cyr.
The clip is from a New Mexico in Focus taping.

On the hiring of David Schmidly's son.

This is a repost of a piece October 18, 2009.


The Journal has an article this morning about the caliber of the
candidates that the UNM President's son "bested" in the hunt
for a brand new $94K a year job at UNM. link sub req

Brian Schmidly had some serious competition for the opening
for Associate Director of Sustainability at the UNM.

According to the Journal, Schmidly was hired by Physical Plant Director Mary Vosevich. Vosevich said that Brian Schmidly was the most qualified and that his family ties had no effect on her decision. President Schmidly said he had nothing to do with his son's hiring.

He obviously had nothing to do with his son not being hired, either.

The older Schmidly had a responsibility to the UNM that, at best, he ignored. Co-incidentally, or not, it worked out just great for his son.

Among the qualifications for the job; seven years of direct experience. The UNM President's son is getting credit, apparently, for being a student and a member of a family of educators.

"He's been around higher education all of his life, certainly, as a student. His family has been in the educational field for years"

On the damage done by the "apparent conflict of interest",
Staff Council President Loyola Chastain said;

"This is another demoralization issue for the staff at UNM"

There is damage done by the appearance of a conflict of interest.

It is not potential damage, it is not possible damage, it is actual damage. It is actual damage done by UNM hiring practices which either do not prohibit creating the appearance of a conflict of interest, or which were not followed in the hiring practices that create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In either case, stakeholders lose, UNM employees lose, the credibility of the leadership of the UNM loses.

People will bitch for awhile, and then Brian Schmidly will assume his new job, anybody who created any real static will be dealt with, and the good ol' boys will have won again.

So much for government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It has been given short shrift again in favor of government of the good ol' boys, by the good ol' boys, and for the good ol' boys.

... and their offspring.


David Schmidly has not yet begun an impartial, independent review of the entire process surrounding the Locksley, Gerald matter.

It's looking more and more like he won't.

No good reason really, except that you can't make him.

The rest of the picture.

I now have a link to my arrest at the school board meeting.
link, click on Board of Education, click on "video" for the
November 4, 2009 meeting.

It happens in less than two minutes, between 42:00 and 43:50.

I was arrested for what I was saying.

I suggested that, David Robbins could step up as role model of the Pillars of Trustworthiness, by telling the truth about why hundreds of whistle blower complaints were being denied due process by his audit committee.

According to specific school board policy, the audit committee is established in part to "review and approve whistle blower complaints".


They have not reviewed one.

I suggested that Paula Maes, tell the truth about her resistance to any audit that individually identified corrupt and incompetent administrators.

At a policy committee meeting, right after Marty Esquivel identified the need for an impartial administrative standards and accountability audit, Maes announced that she would never agree to any audit that individually identified any corrupt or incompetent administrator or board member. Esquivel has not mentioned the audit since.

I suggested that Marty Esquivel tell the truth about the need for an independent and impartial administrative standards and accountability audit.

See Maes






I suggested that Winston Brooks tell the truth about evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators that has not been surrendered to the District Attorney for prosecution.

Nearly three years ago, the was a huge scandal in the APS Police Department. The Chief lost his job over it. There was felony misconduct, and the evidence of that misconduct has not been turned over to law enforcement. Statutes of limitation have already expired.

I suggested that Brad Winter tell the truth about spending at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

The leadership of the APS has steadfastly refused to surrender a candid, forthright and honest accounting of all of the spending at their City Centre. Nor will they tell the truth about spending on the board room.

That was the last suggestion I was able to make before being arrested.

These are legitimate questions and
they deserve good faith responses.

Of what use is the right to petition your government,
if the government can arrest you for delivering it?




photos Mark Bralley

What more proof do you need?

You have lost control over power and resources that are
fundamentally your own.

Politicians and public servants cannot be compelled to answer
legitimate questions about how our power and resources are
being spent and, about their public service?

Politicians and public servants don't end new conferences,
the press does.

The questioning period has not ended until every legitimate
question has been asked and answered,
candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.

Of what use is, a right to petition one's government,
if the government doesn't have accept the petition?

No mention of an independent investigation.

The Journal ran three stories this morning, on the fallout over the Locksley situation.

They even quoted, though inaccurately, my question about why no agency of law enforcement was asked to investigate any of the allegations.

Their most grievous omission was of my original question;
will you begin an independent investigation of the entire fiasco?

Despite the facts;

• it would cost pennies, comparatively, and
• the investigation, according to UNM President David Schmidly, would exonerate him and his staff on charges of a cover up, and that
• that finding would completely rehabilitate the University's reputation as far as the appearance of a cover up,

Schmidly so far, is pretending he didn't hear the question.

So is the Journal.

Why not begin an impartial, independent investigation that
will report to the public record, except that, that investigation
will reveal administrative incompetence and corruption,

which they really are trying to cover up?

Arrested at a public forum, again.

There will be an argument over whether I was actually "arrested" during the public forum at the school board meeting. Judge for yourself, link, click on view video of November 4, 2009, fast forward to 42:00 to 43:50

From Black's Law Dictionary;

Black’s Law Dictionary is the definitive legal resource for lawyers, law students and laypeople alike. Edited by the world’s foremost legal lexicographer, Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary is known for its clear and precise legal definitions, substantive accuracy, and stylistic clarity — making it the most cited legal dictionary in print.

According to Black; 6th edition

Arrest; to deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority.

Taking, under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him, to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. State vs Ferraro NJ. People vs Wipsler Ill.

Arrest involves the authority to arrest, the assertion of that authority with the intent to effect an arrest, and the restraint of the person to be arrested. Village of Hoffman Estates vs. Union Oil Co. of California in Ill.

All that is required for an “arrest” is some act by the officer indicating his intention to detain, or take person into custody and thereby subject that person to the actual control and will of the officer; no formal declaration of arrest is required. Commonwealth vs Brown, Penn Supreme Court.

Warrantless arrest; seizure of a person without warrant but based on probable cause that he has felony. May also be made for commission of misdemeanor amounting to breach of peace in presense of officer. Wong Sun vs. US Supreme Court

I was arrested for standing up at the forum and offering the leadership of the APS the opportunity to stand up as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct, specifically the Pillar of Trustworthiness.

I asked, or would have asked, by name;

David Peercy,(not there, had he been there) tell the truth about why his policy committee was not discussing role modeling of the student standards of conduct.

David Robbins-tell the truth about why hundreds of whistle blower complaints were being denied due process before his audit committee.

Paula Maes-tell the truth about her unwillingness to agree to any audit that would individually identify corrupt and incompetent administrators.

Marty Esquivel-tell the truth about the need for an impartial, independent administrative standards and accountability audit.

Winston Brooks-tell the truth about evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators, that has not been surrendered to the DA's Office for prosecution.

Brad Winter-tell the truth about spending at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

Linda Sink, (arrested before I had the chance to ask for) tell the truth about two findings in a recent Council of the Great City Schools audit;

• there is a culture of fear of retaliation and retribution in the APS, and
• administrative evaluations are subjective and unrelated to promotion and step placement.

Robert Lucero (arrested before I had the chance to ask for) tell the truth about why students are expected to respond to legitimate questions by answering candidly, forthrightly and honestly, and he is not.

Lorenzo Garcia/Delores Griego (arrested before I had the chance to ask for) tell the truth about the fact that students are required to model and promote the Pillars of Character Counts! and they are not.

These are legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service.

They refuse to answer them under any circumstance.
They are even willing to illegally arrest anyone who insists
upon asking them.

What ever else the APS Police Department is,
it is a Praetorian Guard; a publicly funded private police
force at the beck and call of the leadership of the APS.

Hue and cry, once the law, now against the law.

It used to be that if you saw a crime, you were required to help to apprehend the criminal, wikilink.

In common law, a hue and cry, "a horn and shouting", is a process by which bystanders are summoned to assist in the apprehension of a criminal who has been witnessed in the act of committing a crime.

By the statute of Winchester, (1285) it was provided that anyone, either a constable or a private citizen, who witnessed a crime shall make hue and cry, and that the hue and cry must be kept up against the fleeing criminal from town to town and from county to county, until the felon is apprehended and delivered to the sheriff. All able-bodied men, upon hearing the shouts, were obliged to assist in the pursuit of the criminal ... It was moreover provided that a hundred that failed to give pursuit on the hue and cry would become liable in case of any theft or robbery.

Those who raised a hue and cry falsely were themselves guilty of a crime.

And now its against the law if you do, link.

The "bad guy" "... had taken it upon himself to chase
(the real bad guys), inciting the incident that led to the shooting.

Update; the judge dismissed the charges.

What, do you need to be hit in the head with a brick?

For myself, I do not think these tax dollars were spent well,
link. I hesitate to trust her with billions of dollars more.

The best indicator of future performance, is past performance.



UPDATE; I have just received an email from my friend Peter St Cyr. He writes that Scarantino's report is misleading and that a closer look at the truth will paint a different picture.

Before I wrote, I did a cursory internet search and found no rebuttals of Scarantino's piece, by Denish or anyone on the D flavored blogs.

In fairness, after rereading the Scarantino report, it looks
fair to say, he gives impression that most of the grant was
spent inappropriately, when in fact it may only have been
a small part. Not that that in particular makes a huge difference.

I have enough respect for St Cyr's opinion, that I will for the time being, retract the impression I intended to create with my post. I still think the Scarantino piece warrants a read.

If I am wrong, I am wrong, and I will accept responsibility for
what I wrote and the impression I intended to create.
If Denish writes a rebuttal I will link to it.

Otherwise we are back to using federal tax dollars to pay for
chauffers and go-fers.

Schmidly fails confidence vote, overwhelmingly.

Duke City Fix, and KRQE and UNMToday and a Bralley
to keep the facts straight.

Schmidly asked for a "second chance" today.

Wouldn't it be his third?

Let's not lose sight of the fact, when he was asked to commence
an independent, impartial investigation of the entire incident,
his response so far, means no.


This is the part that really drives me nuts. How do they keep
getting away with pretending they haven't heard the demand.


Perhaps what we need is a few thousand people standing
around the President's Office and chanting;

au-dit! au-dit! au-dit! au-dit! au-dit! !!

until we're satisfied that the process has begun irreversibly.

Oh and, the last time the faculty had this guy by his short and
curlies, they let him get away, link.

Stakeholders have been given a second chance.

I doubt there will come a third.

Schmidly, "I have not seen any direct evidence of a cover-up"

Which begs the question; what about indirect evidence?

The straightforward response would have been;

"There is no cover up.

We have told the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth.

On my honor"

The more specific the answer to a general question,
the more likely it is that hairs are being shaved,
and the truth along with them.

When the question is, will you tell the truth? any answer except yes, means no.

There was a press conference today regarding the Locksley-Gerald dust up.

You could cut the skepticism in the room with a knife.

Jessica Garate from KRQE called them liars to their faces.

UNM President David Schmidly
says he wants transparency.

He says they are telling the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yet when I asked him if he would begin an impartial investigation of the handling of the entire matter, an investigation that will report to the public record, his response meant, no.

His actual words were, "I haven't made a decision on that yet."

My follow up was, would you care to make one now?

His actual answer was, "no"
he would not.

He says the leadership of the UNM would be completely vindicated if an honest audit were done. Yet he won't begin the audit. To save a few thousand dollars. Krebs and Schmidly make more than the audit would cost, every single day.

Even for a day like today.

Paul Krebs was asked why no incontrovertible records were
created. His answer was, because there is impending litigation.

Which means, it is OK to suppress the truth, if the truth can be
used against you later, by some poor schmuck suing for justice.

UNM President David Schmidly actually mouthed the mantra
of good ol' boys in trouble; it's time to move on.

No need to hold any of the good ol' boys actually accountable for
their misconduct and their incompetence. Let's just move along.

This is not old news. Right now, right this minute,
the truth is not being told.

Move on?

I don't think so.




photo Mark Bralley

UNM "hiding" public records of Locksley dust up.

There is more coverage this morning in the Journal, surrounding UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley's "alleged" "assault and battery" on an assistant coach.

I can't establish a link to a telling side bar. It has to do with written witness statements that contradict the story that UNM has been telling. It reads;

These (witness) statements, made public by the University of New Mexico, contain some missing passages, and parts at the bottom of each page are faded and difficult (impossible) to read. The Journal was promised clean copies Tuesday, but university staff later said they were unable to get the original documents in order to provide clean copies.

This is typical public record surrender. I have seen it from the leadership of the APS on a regular basis.

1. You make a request for a public record.
2. The record is retrieved and a xerox copy is made.
3. The original is "lost", and a copy is made of the copy,
4. the first copy is then "lost".
5. The copy of a copy continues until the copy is illegible.
6. That copy is then finally surrendered, according to "the law".

If you want to do anything about it, you have to sue. Their lawyers are free to them, taxpayers foot the bill. Your lawyer will be anything but. The process will drag out until the surrender no longer poses a threat to the good ol' boys.

It is wrong. It is bullshit.

They are going to get away with it because they really are not
honestly accountable to any standards of conduct at all,
not even the law.

"Disciplining kids takes 'leadership'"

reads the title of a front page article in the Journal this morning; link.

An "expert" is coming to town to speak on (student) discipline.
The expert opinion is that kids need leadership, they need role models.

The Journal will not report, on the front page or on the last,
that the leadership of the APS steadfastly refuses to be held
honestly accountable as role models of the APS Student
Standards of Conduct.

Nor will they report that the leadership of the APS will not even discuss, openly and honestly, the issue of executive and administrative role modeling of student standards of conduct.

The one being "newsworthy" apparently, the others, not so much.

Go figure.

Complicit, complacent, or just too damned scared?

When ever anyone suggests that Diane Denish should have stood up against the culture of corruption, there are those whose immediate retort is always the same; Denish gets a bye because she was legitimately afraid of Big Bill.

gofdisks is the latest, here from a thread on Democracy for New Mexico, link.

That is because Richardson would have destroyed her vindictively and she would not be running for office now.
Everyone was/is afraid of El Jefe for very good reason. That is how politics is done in Mexico and strong man politics was what the New Mexican people wanted and understood. It works during prosperous times and there is plenty of favors to hand out. It does get things done and no doubt, some good things got done for the state by a man of action. It worked great for our state and we did have a good run. The time was right for a leader like our Governor and now it is time to pay the piper.

I have a problem with a bye born of fear.

The greater the danger, the greater the courage it takes to step up to it. That courage separates the leaders from the pack.

Confucius argued,

to know the right thing and not do it, is cowardice.

Those who point to the pressure Denish was under,
and use it as an excuse for not stepping up, are pointing to
manifest cowardice.

This is not what we need in a Governor.

Who's to say she isn't going bow under the weight of Speaker of the House Ben Lujan?

Has she voiced any opposition to moving a highway interchange closer to his land, link?

The best indicator of future performance is past practice.

No charges have been filed against Diane Denish personally.

With respect to all of the criminal and ethical misconduct in the Richardson administration, Lt Governor Diane Denish offers only;

no charges have been made against me.

Is it so much to ask, to ask her to add;

... because none are warranted.

Has anyone ever heard Diane Denish actually admit
there was "pay to play" in the Richardson administration?

Or would that be, confess.

The good and decent folks in state government.

My opposition are fond of arguing that I have argued that there is not a single decent, hardworking, and honest person working in Santa Fe or in the administration of the APS.

I have not, ever.

The most sweeping statement I have actually made is;
there are two kinds of politicians and public servants;

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

I first stated that long ago. I stand by it still.
Open always, to any substantial objection.

What about the good and the decent politicians and public servants? What about them?

By enabling the corrupt and the incompetent, we dis-enable the good and the decent.

We own them more than we are giving them.

We owe them a work environment where promotions are earned.

We owe them a work environment where they can report corruption and incompetence, without feeling retribution and retaliation.

We own them a place where they can report misconduct, knowing their complaint will see due process. Due process according to an impartial system, powerful enough to hold even the most powerful, accountable for their conduct and competence. Powerful enough to hold them accountable, even against their will.

It is not up the powerless to enforce standards upon the powerful.

It is the responsibility of power to police itself.
The first legitimate use of power is to protect that power from abuse, by anyone, ever.

We owe the good and the decent, freedom from temptation.

Human nature being what it is, most, if not all, human beings are for sale if the temptation is great enough. We take good and decent people and lay huge amounts of money on their desks; huge amounts of money that nobody is keeping track of. Why?

Argue if you want that, government employees are extraordinarily immune from temptation. The the remaining few, still deserve freedom from temptation.

A hundred dollar bill, lying on a table in state government,
represents temptation. Most who see it calculate the risk-benefit
of picking it up and keeping it.

The risk- benefit calculation is the manifestation of temptation.

A hundred dollar bill, lying on the table within the administration of a Casino, does not represent temptation. No risk-benefit calculation is done because the odds are infinitely long. A casino employee has better odds of winning a Powerball than getting away with stealing that hundred dollar bill.

Absolute certainty of being caught, divided by 100 dollars is zero. Absolute certainty of being caught divided by a gazillion dollars is, still zero. It's like infinity. Infinity divided by any number still equals infinity. Absolute certainty of being caught is absolutely fatal to corruption and incompetence.

Why tempt good and decent people by placing them in positions of temptation every hour of their day?

Except to the benefit of the corrupt and the incompetent.

Unequivocal standards, inescapable accountability.

All we lack is the will.

Likely, Diane Denish will be the next Governor of New Mexico.

Who then, more than she, has an obligation to be candid,
forthright and honest, about the culture of corruption
in state government?

There is some disagreement whether there is, or is not,
a culture of corruption in state government; a culture that
tolerates and enables personal corruption and incompetence.

At the very least, there is that widespread and deeply held misperception.

It which case it is the responsibility of the next governor,
to address that misperception and to rehabilitate the reputation
of her government.

It is up to her to give New Mexicans her word that, their perception of a culture of corruption, is unfounded.

Or, it is up to her to describe the culture of corruption that really does exist, candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.

Corruption exists in only two circumstances;

1. darkness, and
2. under the protection of the abuse of power and privilege.

If the next governor is going to end the culture of corruption, she will have to have a plan that shines light on the administration of public resources and power. Transparency limited only by the expressed will of the people, fully informed.

If the next governor is going to end the culture of corruption,
she will have a plan that provides impartial accountability,
powerful enough to hold even the most powerful accountable;
powerful enough to hold her accountable,
even against her will.

Light ends darkness, honest accountability ends the abuse
of power and privilege.

Will Governor Denish fight for transparent accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence for politicians and public servants, within their public service?

Or will she argue, they already exist;
there is no culture of corruption?

Or will she continue to pretend,
she still doesn't hear the question?




photo Mark Bralley

The culture of corruption.

I am astonished that there are those who would argue there is no culture of corruption in New Mexico State Government. So I have gone looking for definition. It is surprisingly hard to find. Perhaps like pornography, it is hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

I would ask those who disagree about the culture of corruption in Santa Fe, to undertake two tasks;

1. define the term, listing its important elements, and then
2. point to any essential element that is missing from the culture of state government in New Mexico.
   

For the purposes of defining terms, I offer the following which is copied nearly verbatim, edited for brevity, from "Culture of Corruption: The Corruption of Culture" link.

Let us first define "culture of corruption" by its popular conception, which is: corruption persists and is so prevalent because most in the bureaucracy and the general public condones and/or tolerates it

Corruption dis-empowers the people. Ordinary citizens are discouraged to file complaints or officially register their dissent because one needs financial and temporal resources to do this. (In more serious cases, one needs a private army.) The inability to contest or the regular fruitlessness of actions against those in power lead to apathy and passivity.

With the elite government officials, corruption is in a more sophisticated style. These involve grandiose schemes and happen in luxurious venues. It takes the form of influence peddling, rent seeking, and/or lobbying. The transactions are then legalized as these are translated into MoAs, executive orders, administrative orders or republic acts. As the deals are legalized, charges of corruption take the defensive position.

The culture of corruption exists and is nurtured by the political and economic elites of society. Their political and/or economic status is their passport and visa to power. Personal gains earned through the abuse of their political and economic status is their commonality. This is the reason why, even if they hate each other, they have to protect each other. (emphasis added)

I would reiterate; one cannot solve a problem, while at the same time, denying its very existence.

The widespread public perception of a culture of corruption in Santa Fe does damage, whether is is justified or not. It needs to be disputed if it is not real.

If it cannot be disputed, then we must stop pretending it doesn't exist. If we don't end the pretense, we cannot end the problem.

So is there a culture of corruption in state government, or is there not?

It is an important question and should not be ignored in the discourse surrounding the election of our next governor.

Richardson owns up, finally.

In the Journal this morning, and on various blogs, Governor Richardson is finally admitting there will be "revenue enhancements" enacted during the upcoming legislative session.

I am bugged because everyone else has known, admitted, and pointed to, this inevitability all along.

Which means either,

• Richardson truly cannot figure out how spending, revenue, and budget balancing work, or
• he was being deliberately misleading in offering previous assurances that taxes would not be raised.

Clueless or truthless?

Neither works for me, nor for the citizens of New Mexico.

Loyalty above all else, except honor.

I was there. I heard exactly the same thing Mark Bralley heard. Bralley was sitting on Senator Tim Eichenberg's left, I on his right. There is no "allegedly said", "supposedly said", "might have said", or "reportedly said"; the quotes Bralley attributed to the Senator, are absolutely accurate.

Eichenberg said Lt Governor Diane Denish was complacent or complicit in the "pay to play" corruption in Santa Fe.

I was so taken by the rhyme, I wrote it down immediately; complacency or complicity. I was also incredibly moved by the apparent courage of a man who was willing to tell the truth despite obvious pressure to toe the party line. Blogger Monahan spoke to that pressure this morning;

Imagine if Denish is elected and she has on her desk the 2011 legislative redistricting bill. She might have had a red pencil out for Eichenberg's swing senate district.

Monahan's conclusion;

A day after he was busted on the blogs ..., freshman ABQ Dem State Senator Tim Eichenberg was doing a quick backtrack over his comments ... After major heat resulted from the heresy, Tim came with this:

I don't think Eichenberg was "busted". His ballsy and spot on take, was "reported". Monahan writes that Eichenberg took some major heat. No doubt he did. But he didn't "back track". Nor did he "back off", as NMI's Matthew Reichbach reported.

Terrel got it right;

"But notice he's (Eichenberg) not retracting his remarks nor is he challenging the accuracy of the initial report by photographer/blogger Mark Bralley."

Senator Eichenberg appears to be "mending fences" rather than have Denish and others retaliate against him. Understandable, but at least little disappointing.

Eichenberg wrote in part, in response to the furor;

"As Lt Gov Diane Denish continues the fight to bring meaningful ethics reform to Santa Fe, I will proudly vote for her proposals to make government more transparent and accountable to the taxpayers. She can lead New Mexico into the future and there is no doubt in my mind who I will vote for in November.

He should vote for any proposal to make government more transparent and accountable to taxpayers. They all should, democrats and republicans both.

I am surprised and a little disappointed though, Eichenberg wrote there is no doubt in his mind that he will vote for someone for Governor, who has been complacent or complicit in one of the most egregious betrayals of our trust in our government in recent times.

Many of our problems have roots in this blind party loyalty.

We all would be far better off if legislators could vote their conscience, vote issues up or down on their merits, not on fear of being redistricted out of existence.

One of the most widely offered excuses for Denish's failure to stand up to Big Bill Richardson, was the prospect of being destroyed in retaliation.

Fear of retribution and retaliation is part and parcel of a culture of corruption. A culture, in which or about which, Diane Denish truly is, complicit or complacent.

Do we really need another Governor, no one will stand up to, out of fear of retribution and retaliation?




photo Mark Bralley

Mayor-elect Richard Berry is a busy, busy man.

Mayor-elect Richard Berry may be too busy to read the whole 168 pages of information that surround the Ethical Public Service Act, link.

A bunch of talented and dedicated people spent thousands of hours volunteering to write it. Imho, they did a good job. If it passes, the public interests will advance.

The Chavez era City Council rat-holed the ethics reform legislation for reasons that are self evident.

I don't expect Berry to take a side,
I just want him to put it on the table for open, honest, and public discussion.

How long could that take?

How long should that take?




photo Mark Bralley

Ethics reform will not be on the agenda when the legislature convenes.

Because they don't want to.

And you can't make them.

Arguably, ending the culture of corruption will be
the most important thing that they do.

It should also be the first.

"There is no culture of corruption in Santa Fe."

So there I was, trading jabs with "no for turner" on the Democracy for New Mexico site, link, when out of the blue, s/he wrote;

There is no culture of corruption in Santa Fe.

I am firmly of the belief, there is. But I am willing to reexamine that belief. Where, exactly, does this train leave the track?

Wikipedia, link, avers that a culture is;

the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices
that characterizes an institution, organization or group

"no for turner" writes; the shared set of values and practices in Santa Fe, are not corrupt.

by which I assume s/he means, again from the wikipedia, link, there is in Santa Fe, no

dysfunction of a political system or institution in which government officials, political officials or employees seek illegitimate personal gain through actions such as bribery, extortion, etc

So is the culture of corruption real or imagined?

It is enough that stakeholders believe that there is corruption and incompetence in their government.

There is a practical test;

when the headline reads, another public servant found guilty, is anybody surprised?

If nobody is surprised, it is because they have accepted that
there is public corruption in Santa Fe.

Deniers argue; if there is corruption, there would be convictions.

The arguement is specious; it is based on the assumption,
the law actually works.

In a practical sense, whether a reality or a misperception,
it is a distinction without a difference; both need to be cured,
and the cure for either is the cure for both.

"no for turner" continues;

It is the job of the AG, the state auditor and the legal system to monitor government actions, not the LG. That's why we have a US attorney. Get it?

by which I assume s/he means, it is unreasonable to expect the Lt Governor to stand conspicuously against the entrenched corruption and incompetence.

It is not only the job of the Lt Governor to stand up conspicuously against public corruption, it is the job of every politician and public servant.

I simply can't imagine how anyone could be at the same time,

• intending to end the culture of corruption, and
• unwilling to admit one exists.

How can a problem be solved at the same time its
very existence is being tacitly and/or overtly denied?

I think that it is important for political candidates to acknowledge,

1. either there is a culture of corruption in Santa Fe or,
2. there is a widespread perception of a culture of corruption and incompetence in Santa Fe.

That said, I would be highly suspicious of anyone who says
this is all public misperception.

I would be even more suspicious of anyone
who won't talk about the "culture of corruption" at all.

Has Diane Denish ever taken a real stand against corruption?

With all the hoopla regarding State Senator Tim Eichenberg's frank observation about Lt Governor Diane Denish's tacit or overt approval of the culture of corruption, I went looking for any evidence I could find that Denish has actually fought against it.

I even searched Denish's own website, link.

I reread the ethics reform proposal she unveiled last July.

I could not find the word corruption, much less even the acknowledgment, there is a culture of corruption.

Even Denish's recently established Efficiency Hot Line, does not invite the exposure of "corruption", the single greatest inefficiency of them all.

Where does she stand on the Ben Lujan Highway Interchange, link? The answer, she hasn't said a word. Is she complacent or complicit in that particular outrage?

Even Brian Colon's defense of Denish, following Eichenberg's
frank revelation, doesn't speak of corruption, much less of the culture of corruption. Scour Colon's website, link, you will not find the word corruption. You will not find any acknowledgment at all, that there is a culture of corruption to be overcome.

Is it important; does it mean anything that they won't use the
word, corruption, or the phrase, culture of corruption,
that no Democrat will?

Yes, it does.

How can you solve a problem while at the same time,
pretending it doesn't exist?




photo Mark Bralley

Complicit, complacent or what, exactly? Surprised?

Diane Denish and the culture
of corruption in Santa Fe,
have been living together
for eight years.

When did she even use
the words;
culture of corruption?




photo Mark Bralley

"Complacent or Complicit" Eichenberg holds Denish accountable for "pay to play" in Santa Fe.

Mark Bralley, link.

In so much as, you pick a side when you don't pick a side,
you can't be that close to that much corruption
for that long, do nothing, and then claim
not to have picked a side.

"I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!"

Bart Simpson, Michael Locksley, Paul Krebs.

There is an oddly un-linkable headline, top of the fold story,
in the Journal this morning; "Fans are Howling".

The gist; fans don't think that Head Football Coach Michael Locksley and UNM Athletic Director Paul Krebs have told the truth about Locksley's assault and battery on an assistant coach.

The controversy was re-fired by a recent ESPN story, link.

It appears fans believe neither Locksley nor Krebs has told them the truth.

Their concern is justified.

The closest thing to a real investigation was conducted behind closed doors, with witnesses interviewed one a time in a room with at least two people whose interests were in covering UNM's ass. There was someone from UNM's Human Resources, and at least one lawyer who works for UNM. There was no tape recorder and no court reporter. There will be no transcript to review. The lawyer took"notes", though I'm certain they will argue the notes are "work product" and therefore exempt from public records requests. Bottom line, no incontrovertible record was made of who said what.

If anyone wants to hold the good ol' boys accountable for not following up on any allegation made during the UNMHR interviews, and the good ol' boys want to dispute it, there will be two people who can testify that they "have no specific recollection" that what ever was said, was ever said, against one person testifying what was said, was said.

Though there are credible allegations that Locksley choked his assistant, UNM Human Resources did not address the issue of "choking", "because the word "choke" did not appear on the police report".

Locksley denies the "choking", insisting he only tried to "grab" his assistant's collar. Six grown men either battering, being battered, or so concerned by what they were witnessing, they tried to hold the combatants back, and all the while Locksley was only trying to rearrange his assistants collar. Right.

We are to believe that "nobody saw any punches thrown". Apparently the assistants lip was split (there are photographs) accidentally by something besides a "punch" while the assistant's disheveled collar was being straightened.

It's like Krebs' statement, no one testified that they saw a punch being thrown.

Let's not forget, at one point, it was Krebs' final decision,
that Locksley would receive a verbal reprimand
as the consequence of his misconduct.

Are stakeholders entitled to an AD they can trust?

Are they entitled to a Head Football Coach they can trust?

Are students entitled to good role models?

Even if Paul Krebs did not tell the truth, he will suffer no consequence. UNM lawyers will argue that he "did not actually lie, he just didn't tell the truth" and, the law does not require truth telling.

The good ol' boys he works for will not hold him accountable for not telling the truth, in no small part because they expected him to not tell the truth. Protecting the image of the UNM Football Program is more important than truth telling. It is the whole premise for Public Information Offices. Their job is not to tell the truth, it is to spin the truth to the maximum extent allowed by the law. The law allows a lot of spinning.

The Journal reported markedly decreased attendance at the usual Lobo fan haunts. They reported that a number of fans have finally had enough, and no longer want anything to do with Paul Krebs, Michael Locksley, or Lobo Football.

It all seems more than a little unfair to Lobo football players,
who could probably use a little support from fans right now.

Assistant Coach JB Gerald will sue.
It will be settled out of court.

The amount of the the settlement will be kept secret
according to "the law".

Locksley will not have to pay the settlement from his
three quarters of a million dollar annual salary.

You will. You will pay also for his lawyers and Gerald's.
Their bills will be substantial.

The settlement amount will kept secret even from
the people who are going to pay the bill.
It's none of your business.

And of course, "it's all perfectly legal".