So far behind, they're actually far out ahead.

The 39th most corrupt state government in the United States, link, has a poster child agency; the Public Regulation Commission.

A recent survey of PRC employees revealed an agency in big trouble, Terrel, link and link, and Nash, link, are way ahead in the coverage.

Employees paint the agency as a roosting place for a bunch of "incompetent political flunkies". The most damning statistic is the number of employees who believe that they cannot even report unethical behavior without becoming victims of retribution and retaliation.

Public Regulation Commission Chairman, Sandy Jones, reports, KOB TV link, that the surveys are the "starting point" to turn things around. He goes on to say, he wants to be on the "front end" of the problem not the tail end.

News flash Sparky, is too late to get on the front end of this scandal.

Jones promises an "internal investigation".

Should anyone be delusional enough to suppose that this means "heads will roll" as the mess gets cleaned up, I would remind them that the parts of the survey that named the names of the corrupt and the incompetent are still blacked out.

Stakeholder interests would be protected by an independent review; an investigation by an impartial third party who will go in and do a formal investigation, and then report the findings to the public record.

But, as we all know, there will be no independent review.

The good ol' boys at the UNM have just proved that they can
and will ignore any calls for any independent fact finding of
their individual character and competence.

It's just not the way they roll.

APS School Board heavy hitter, Paula Maes
called a spade a bloody shovel, wikilink, when she boasted
in a public meeting and on the record;

I will never agree to any audit that individually identifies
any corrupt or incompetent good ol' boys in the leadership of the APS.

None of them will. Ever.

And there you have it, in a nutshell.
We didn't get to "39th most corrupt" by accident.

We will never rise in that ranking for as long as the people who
get to decide whether there will be independent reviews are the
ones with the most to lose, if the reviews ever get done.

Locksley to get mentoring.

According to KOB TV, link, UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley has a mentor.

No word yet on whether mentors are being sought for Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales, who are every bit in need of mentoring as their coach.

The upset over the UNM leadership's decision to not allow
an independent review of their handling of the Locksley Gate
has died down. They made it through the news cycle unscathed.

They will get away with their incompetence and likely corruption, scot free, wikilink.

APS Board Meeting minutes not posted, again.

The APS Board of Education is meeting tonight. They will approve the minutes of the last meeting. The minutes are supposed to be posted, on the district's website for public viewing, for 24 hours before they are voted upon. They are not. This is a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

Also being approved tonight, the minutes for the October 21st meeting. By law, they were required to have been approved at the November 4th meeting, but were not.

So here you have it, not one, but two blatant violations of the law.

Don't like it? So what?
What are you going to do, sue them?

... good luck on that one.

"Redaction" rears its ugly head again.

Corey Pein, SFReeper points to some questionable redaction of public records, link.

The stink of it is; a government agency did a self survey.

Some of the survey answers are difficult to deal with, so
they decided to redact them all.

There in lies the problem; allowing people to redact their own
records, rather than submitting all public records to an impartial
process of ethical redaction.

It creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, and
the appearance of impropriety.

All public records belong to the public.

Some public records are excepted from surrender to public knowledge for good and ethical reasons.

Some are excepted for ass covering reasons.

We ought not to allow that.

Esquivel resents personal attacks.

In a recent letter to me,
APS School Board President
Marty Esquivel wrote that
I have "unfairly questioned
his integrity".

I will let readers be the judge.

The leadership of the APS, Esquivel being foremost, refuses to discuss executive and administrative role modeling of the student standards of conduct, in public, openly and honestly.

I have argued there are only two reasons that explain their ongoing refusal;

1. a lack of personal courage and/or
2. a lack of character.

Neither Esquivel, nor anyone else in the leadership of the APS has been able to offer any alternative explanation. In short, because there really is none.

Two weeks ago, Esquivel was asked to tell the truth about who it was that ordered my arrest at the last public forum, link.

He offered one response which did not address the question
at all. Now he is ignoring the question entirely.

That refusal, to step up and admit the truth and then accept
the consequences, speaks to his (lack of) integrity
far more loudly than I ever have.


"All wounds to honor are self inflicted." Andrew Carnegie

"A man is not dishonored, except by himself." unk




photo Mark Bralley

The APS AVID boondoggle.

I can report that my previous post, link, has been read in
APS' City Center, and in AVID headquarters in San Diego.

Not one of them apparently, could post a comment that would
controvert the argument that AVID is a boondoggle; the same
funding could have gone directly to students with real needs
and not to good ol' boys who need to travel on the tax payers'
dime.

There has been only one comment so far, from someone who
is apparently "in the know";

Follow the money trail....
There's funding from feds for these programs, there's local funding, mainly from CNM for this program, CNM gets state funding for this program, the kids only have to go to APS 1/2 day, but APS gets full payment for them in the per capita.
The program does have some good things for high-achieving students, but I believe the money that comes in legal kickbacks are the main driver for this program.

Any money spent on students who want to succeed and
who are willing to work hard in order to do so, is well spent.

Any money spent trying to prove that point, is wasted.

The best reason for opposing any tax hikes at all;

the number of tax dollars wasted or stolen, link.

Most people, I assume, would support taxes that actually do
some good, individually or collectively.

But how does one support those and that which really need
support, without as the same time funding waste and corruption?

The short answer is, one can't.
And that is why even worthwhile taxes are mightily resisted.

Somehow,
we need to end the culture of corruption and incompetence.

Clearly, it cannot be ended by those who will not even admit
that it exists; people like Candidate Diane Denish.

Scour her website, link. I defy you to find anywhere on her site,
any admission at all, of the existence of the culture of corruption
and incompetence in state government.

It would appear her intention is not to derail the gravy train,
but rather, just a change of engineer and riders.

Unacceptable; without qualification, exception or condition,
clearly, patently, categorically, absolutely unacceptable.

File under "C", for clueless.

Terri Cole, President and CEO of the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, told a task force Monday that food tax breaks haven't helped the very poor, link.

Perhaps "very poor" provides her some cover. If someone is so poor that they can't afford even to buy food or medical care, then yes, lower taxes on food and medical care won't affect them. Although, food has to be bought somewhere, even if it is later given away. Less food can be bought if seven cents out of every dollar is lost to taxes.

What about the "ordinary" poor, the ones who spend their entire income on food, shelter, and if they have anything left over, medical care?

Is AVID just another APS boondoggle?

Journal editors are on board the APS AVID train, link.
APS is spending a lot of money and intends to spend a whole
lot more, on a program called AVID, link, and link.

They are spending so much money, in these hard times, that
they haven't told us how much they've spent, or intend to spend
in implementing the program in the APS.

AVID, Advancement Via Individual Determination, has proved pretty conclusively that, if you can identify students who are willing to work really hard and make a number of other important sacrifices in order to graduate high school and go to college, and then give them a whole bunch of resources and individual attention, they will succeed.

It is roughly the same kind to straightforward approach that APS used to raise its graduation rate; they took those least likely to graduate (students who had already failed the first year of high school) and dropped them out of their sample.

The good news, a lot of folks from AVID get to travel all over the country at taxpayer expense, and lot of APS administrators (and some teachers, I suppose) also get to travel on the taxpayer's dime, to "trainings" in different fun to visit locales.

Don't get me wrong. If you can identify students who really want to succeed, and who are willing to work hard in order to do so, by all means spend some money on them.

Just don't spend a bunch of money trying to make it look like
rocket science.

"... announced crowd of 24,344 - many dressed as empty benches ..."

Journal reporter Greg Archuleta, link, seems to not believe
UNM about the number of people who attended the UNM/BYU
football game last Saturday.

Not surprising, nobody believes UNM about anything anymore.

Attendance at Lobo football games is down. Again, not surprising in so far as they have yet to win a game. Though, also at play, Schmidly, Krebs, Gonzales, Locksley Gate.

A number of fans have spoken out in on-line forums, saying that they were boycotting Lobo games in protest over the incompetence and apparent corruption brought to light in the Locksley Gate scandal.

The refusal to begin an immediate independent investigation of Locksley Gate by Richardson good ol' boy, Raymond Sanchez, President of the UNM Board of Regents, brought things to a head.

My dad would say, if there isn't a cover-up here, I'm a
Chinese sea cook.

The independent review, the one which UNM President Schmidly assures us would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Schmidly, Krebs, Gonzales, and Locksley, are not part of a cover up, won't be done. The only explanation; "no new information has surfaced" which would compel the review. Never mind that, the "old" information was more than enough to justify the review.

It's a shame, because the independent review would likely have saved taxpayers a whole lot of money.

The review results would likely have provided evidence enough to fire some of these people for cause. Now, if they are going to be tossed off the train in order to restore confidence and get fans back in the bleachers, (real ones, not the ones dressed like empty bleachers), they will get huge buyouts of their contracts, as is the custom when good ol' boys in New Mexico, are finally given the boot.

No. We would not.

Would care to explain to us, why you will not
swear that you will tell us the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth about the public interests
and about your public service?

No. I would not.


No. I would not.

No. I would not.


No. I would not.


No. I would not.

No. I would not.

photos
Mark Bralley

It's really too bad that UNM President David Schmidly isn't answering any more questions.

I would like to ask him at least one more.

Would you care to explain the exact circumstances under which important evidence remained "inadvertently un-copied" only to be "advertently copied", long after the original was supposedly destroyed?

What else could he say but,

No. I would not.

photo Mark Bralley

Doing the math on missing records in Locksley Gate.

From the editorial in the Journal this morning, link.

A new piece of evidence has turned up in the Locksley Gate investigation.

The "new" evidence points to a pattern of (implied) violence in the relationship between UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley and his Assistant Coach JP Gerald.

(UNM Regents President) Sanchez, meanwhile, says no new information has surfaced to warrant an outside probe — that despite the emergence of new notes from an interview with an assistant coach who said Locksley had threatened Gerald with physical violence in an earlier incident and that players felt responsible for Gerald being mistreated.

"The new information turned up around 5 p.m. Friday after UNM officials said they had inadvertently failed to turn over the back side of one of the witness accounts. They blamed it on a copying error."

Do the math;

"The new information turned up around 5 p.m. Friday ..."

A coincidence as unlikely as it is convenient; the evidence turned up at 5 pm on a Friday; a time and day widely recognized as the single best time to make bad news available to the press.

The "just found" document is the one they would most want to hide; proving not only a previous record of (implied) violence, but also that students had been folded into the scandal.

The missing evidence was on the back side of a sheet of paper that Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales, claim was destroyed long since. How could they now be able to surrender a copy of an "inadvertently not copied" sheet of paper that they claim doesn't exist? Or did Shannon Garbiso make back to back copies of her notes? this one backside somehow separated from the stack and remaining conveniently undiscovered by everyone until 5 pm last Friday?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

It is well past time to begin the independent fact finding that reports to the public record.

It is well past time to tell the truth.

It is well past time to hold Raymond Sanchez, David Schmidly, Paul Krebs, Helen Gonzales, and Michael Locksley, honestly accountable for their conduct and for their competence, even if they are good ol' boys.

... especially if they are good ol' boys.

Locksley, Schmidly, Krebs, and Gonzales "got to the result that they were looking for."

Everyday, I watch the furor over the Locksley Gate subside.
My fear is, like every other "gate", UNM leadership will simply
wait out the upset until no one cares anymore and then,
back to business as usual.

The Journal editors this morning, link, note;

(Schmidly and Krebs) seem to think silence will make it go away. Not likely.

The first point is on point, the second remains to be seen.

Good ol' boy logic is, everyday you don't lose, you win.
And the good ol' boys are winning; their silence likely will
make it go away. It has always worked before.

At the very least, it is unbelievably optimistic to suppose
it might play out differently this time.

The good ol' boys haven't lost. They will not lose until the
moment they knuckle under and begin an independent review
of their handling of the investigation of the "alleged" assault
by their Head Football Coach Micheal Locksley on a subordinate employee.

They will fight the first ever independent review of good ol' boy competence and character, tooth and nail.

There is no reason at all, to not begin the independent review,
one that reports to the public record, immediately, except to
protect the corrupt and the incompetent.

The reputation of the leadership of the UNM is in the toilet
according to any reasonable measure. That reputation, the
part where the community believes there is a cover-up afoot,
would be rehabilitated completely if the independent review
reveals what UNM President Schmidly has promised it would;
no cover-up.

If I were Schmidly, and I were telling the truth when I made
that promise, I would be fighting for the review that would
validate my claim.

It's fair to ask then, why is he obstructing the investigation
he would have us believe would clear his name,

except that it would not?

Teachers way behind in teacher evaluation.

In a Journal report this morning, the topic of evaluating teachers is broached, link. The report quotes a local teachers union president.

Albuquerque Teachers Federation President Ellen Bernstein said the union would be willing to tie evaluations to student performance if the policy is carefully written and if teachers are involved in writing it.

Why haven't they written a fair and honest evaluation plan already?

Isn't at least part of the idea of any professional organization; to police your profession?

And since I have the floor; why not think of every possible measure of teacher performance, not just student performance? Why aren't student evaluations of their teachers on the table?

Right away I suppose, someone is going to write; you're an idiot. How could you tie a teacher's career to the opinions of a bunch of kids?

I am not suggesting it as the only measure. Again, I would suggest measuring in every way possible, reflecting on every measure, balancing them appropriately, and then coming to a conclusion.

If a majority of a teacher's students have any complaint about a teacher, someone should look at that complaint and do something about it, even if that means negating that complaint for some good and ethical reason.

The teachers union should have figured this one out long ago.

If they had, perhaps they would not be perceived, inaccurately imho, as "protecting bad teachers" from the consequences of their "badness".

APS creates "new" past practice.

The APS BoE is having a meeting this morning.

Again, the minutes from the last meeting, will be voted upon
in order to approve them.

Again, the minutes are not posted on line. If there is any good
and ethical reason they are not posted, I cannot imagine it, and
nobody in the leadership of the APS has offered it.

Which begs at least one question;

How many times can you ignore past practice, before
ignoring past practice becomes a new past practice?

On a more practical level,

Why won't the leadership of the APS, post their agendas
and minutes on the internet, their former past practice,
where everyone can see them before they vote on them?

"Bystander effect" protecting UNM Regents

I googled; "bystanders do nothing".
I got 225,000 hits.

I was trying to find this story;

A famous case occurred in the early 1960, where Kitty Genovese was attacked and eventually murdered over a 45 minute period during which 38 people witnessed the attack and did not lift a finger to help in any way.

I wanted to use the story to illustrate my point about the number of people who are doing nothing about the rape of the public trust by the leadership of the UNM.

From one of those hits, link, I picked this;

When there is an emergency, the more bystanders there are, the less likely it is that any of them will actually help.

Pluralistic ignorance is where they assume nothing is wrong because nobody else looks concerned.

Bystanders go through a five-step process, during each of which they can decide to do nothing.

• Notice the event (or in a hurry and not notice).
• Realize the emergency (or assume that as others are not acting, it is not an emergency).
• Assume responsibility (or assume that others will do this).
• Know what to do (or not)
• Act (or worry about danger, legislation, embarrassment, etc.)

The Regents were asked to tell the truth.

They said, no.

If you google; "bystanders do nothing, you will now get
225,001 hits, because now we're up there too.

Who are you going to believe, the Regents or your lyin' eyes?

The emperors have no character.

Epic incompetence and likely corruption are right in front of your
eyes. The incompetence is admitted, the corruption is not, yet.

Yet the Regents say you now know, all you will ever know.
There will be no independent review of their competence and
their character. You will simply have to take their word on both.

The Regents just decided to not tell the truth about the Locksley affair.

It isn't just about whether this particular independent review
will get done, it is about whether any independent review,
of any affair, will be done ever, link.

This review will set a precedent. From this review on,
politicians and public servants will find themselves transparently
accountable to the people.

Which is precisely why the good ol' boys are dead set against it.

They insist, we "trust them" instead.

Monahan steps up, with a vengeance.

I, like many, have been reading
Joe Monahan's blog for years.

It has been my constant frustration that he, like so many other "reporters" was unwilling to bite that hands that feed him.

I reasoned that reporters who write pieces that hit politicians and public servants hard, paid for their brass by finding further interviews that much harder to find.

This morning, link, Monahan chimed in on the outrage that is the "investigation" of the Locksley dust up. He used words like; cronyism, and blatant politicization. He even called for resignations.

He pointed to Governor Bill Richardson's personal and political failure to step up.

He pointed to the failure of Lt Governor Diane Denish, self proclaimed "leader in ethics reform" to step up on the issue.

The only thing Monahan didn't mention, that I wish he had, was the need for an "independent investigation", and the on going refusal of any of the good ol' boys to get one going, link.

The independent investigation is the only proof that things have changed, that politicians and public servants actually are accountable to the people.

The absence of an independent investigation is instead,
proof positive that nothing has really changed at all.

Politicians and public servants are not accountable to the people for as long as we can ask legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service, and they can respond to those questions by saying;"I am not going to answer any questions."

What more proof could you possibly need that you have lost control over power and resources that are fundamentally your own, than that those who spend them can refuse to answer questions about how they are spending them,
and then get away with it?




photo Mark Bralley

On keeping one's eye on the ball.

Imagine you see misconduct in progress. You get the attention
of someone in charge and say, look!, and point at the evidence.

The person in charge, instead of looking at the evidence,
turns to you and asks, Why are you telling me?
What are you accusing them of?
Do you have some motive for reporting this evidence?
Who do you bump fists with?
What political party do they belong to?

Are any of them wing nuts? ...?

UNM Regents President Raymond Sanchez is not the only one who will not allow an "independent review" of the public interests.

Truth, we don't need no stinkin' truth.

Former politician now Richardson political appointee,
Raymond Sanchez says, there will be no independent review of the administration of the public trust and treasure at UNM.

He isn't alone.

UNM President David Schmidly says, sorry, its just not the way I roll.

UNM Athletic Director Paul Krebs echoes the sentiment, as does

UNM Human Resources Vice President Helen Gonzales.





I rather imagine Bill Richardson will be obstructing any independent review of the executive branch and its administration of the public trust and treasure.








Senate Majority leader Michael Sanchez finds the suggestion of an independent review personally insulting.










House Speaker Ben Lujan says, get back to me after we finish building a highway interchange next to my land.









Marty Chavez ain't going there.












Police Chief Ray Schultz isn't playing.












Marty Esquivel says,
no swingin' way.











Winston Brooks says,
not on my watch.











School board head honcho Paula Maes said it about as clearly as it can be said;

"I will never agree to any audit that individually identifies..."

corrupt or incompetent APS administrators or board members.

Name a single high ranking politician or public servant,
demanding an independent investigation of anything.

The cruelest truth, so far,
Mayor-elect Richard Berry
is not calling for one.


Apparently, the only people
who would actually like to see
some independent reviews
are the people.

The ones with all of the power and
none of the control.




photos Mark Bralley

APS Custodian of Public Records above the law?

A week ago, I emailed APS Custodian of Public Records Rigo Chavez, a formal request for public records. I seek all the public records of my illegal arrest at the November 4th board meeting.




This was the request, it was emailed to Chavez at 7pm November 4.

To: Custodian of Public Records, Albuquerque Public Schools
From: Charles MacQuigg, xxxxx

This constitutes a request for all public records surrounding my arrest at the November 4th Regular Board Meeting.

This request includes, but is not limited to the following;

* recordings of the incident; any type of video or audio recording devices in the board room, lobby and north parking lot.
* the APS Police Department incident report on the incident.
* every other record covered by the spirit of the NMIPRA.
* for any record covered by the spirit of the NMIPRA, and not surrendered; its full identity and, the specific exception to the spirit of the NMIPRA, that applies.

I prefer DVD for the electronic records.

I don't want another copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.
I expect the cleanest copy of all records, that I am entitled to under the spirit of the law.

Please let me know when it is ready to pick up.

According to the law, Chavez had three business days to respond.

In fairness, his response may be lost in the snail mail.
Chavez steadfastly refuses to use email, insisting instead
on the US Mail.

When asked why he won't respond to requests for receipt that accompany emails, and why he won't respond by email, he says, that's just not the way he rolls.

Neither Winston Brooks, nor Marty Esquivel will admit to
ordering the illegal arrest.

Public servants?

... hardly.




photo Mark Bralley

Government of the Regents, by the Regents, and for the Regents.

"The people" want an independent review of the handling of the Locksley affair by UNM President David Schmidly, UNM Athletics Director Paul Krebs, and UNM Human Resources Vice President Helen Gonzales.

The Regents are directly responsible for Schmidly's performance, and by logical extension, the performance of Krebs and Gonzales.

The good ol' boys have decided to not investigate incompetence and corruption any further than the investigation already completed by the incompetent and increasingly likely, the corrupt, themselves. Journal, link.

In short, the Regents are covering their own asses.

Public servants have an irrefutable obligation to respond to all legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service. They have an ethical obligation to respond to those questions candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

The Journal reports that Schmidly and Krebs refuse to answer any more questions. This after ending the news conference abruptly and with legitimate questions unasked and unanswered.

They refuse to answer any more questions.

And this is alright with everyone, because?

APS Audit Committee Meeting tonight in violation of the law.

The Audit Committee is scheduled to meet tonight and the
agenda is not posted on APS' website, a violation of past
practice of the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

Likely they would like to meet in "secret" in order to continue the cover up of the fact that the Audit Committee has no intention of reviewing and approving whistleblower complaints as is required by board policy.

Board Policy B.07.DD. An Audit Committee to review and recommend approval or action(s) ...(on)any employee whistleblower complaints.

Audit Committee Chair David Robbins steadfastly refuses to offer any explanation for denying hundreds of whistleblower complaints their due process. He will only offer, "we are not violating any federal laws."

In truth, due process is being denied to all complaints in order to hide the fact that due process is being denied to two complaints specifically.


One complaint alleged the Superintendent Winston Brooks is behaving unethically by refusing to create honest accountability for himself and other administrators and board members, as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

The other complaint is over Brooks labeling of the first complaint as a "nuisance complaint" and then closing it without due process.

Bottom line; no one wants to admit that administrators and board members have no intention of being held actually accountable as role models of the Pillars of Character Counts!; specifically, the Pillar of Trustworthiness which requires them to answer any legitimate question, candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.

I continue to maintain that these actions are consistent with a lack of courage and a lack of character of all involved.

"All involved" have yet to offer any other explanation at all.




photo Mark Bralley

So what' wrong with this response?

From Steve Terrel's Roundhouse Roundup, link,

” Denish’s chief of staff Josh Rosen wrote in a statement to reporters. “If a mistake was made, or even the perception is questionable, Lt. Governor Denish believes reimbursing the state is the responsible thing to do. That’s the high bar she has set and it’s the way she does business.”

What's wrong with the response

"If a mistake was made, or even the perception is questionable ..."

(except for the syntactical nonsense of the second half),

no admission of the error is made, only of "the possibility" of an error being made.

For the life of me, I can't understand why these people can't just say;

We made a mistake. We apologize for our mistake, we will
rectify the mistake, and we will try like hell to make sure it
doesn't happen again.

"If a mistake was made ..." Give me a break.

Why not just step up?




photo Mark Bralley

No blood, no foul?

In June of this year, it was revealed that Diane Denish had taken campaign contributions from two of the four men indicted in the Housing Authority scandals.

She decided to give the money to charity, link, according to her policy to not keep donations from contributors after they have been actually indicted for felony criminal misconduct.

Now it is revealed that more public money has been misspent, link.

She intends to "reimburse her government office." Actually, taxpayers.

Which begs at least two questions;

1. can mistakes be so small as to be inconsequential, and,
2. how many mistakes does one get to make, before
   the mistakes start counting, even if you give the money
   away, or pay it back when you get caught?

They are fair questions and should be answered before
too many more mistakes come to light, to be "undone"
by giving the money back.

Scarantino builds a case for zero tolerance in situations such
as these, link.

UNM had everything to gain and nothing to lose.

If UNM President David Schmidly, UNM Athletics Director Paul Krebs, and UNM Human Resources Vice President Helen Gonzales were telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, at their news conference last week, they had everything to gain and nothing to lose by beginning an independent review of their handling of the Locksley affair.

If one the other hand, they were hiding additional incompetence or corruption manifest in a cover up, then they had everything to lose and nothing to gain from an independent review.

Their choice was, no independent review.

And now the good ol' boys want to put all this behind them.

Not.

UNM Regents cover their asses.

KRQE reported tonight that UNM Regents have decided to
ignore the obvious need for an independent review of the handling of the investigation of the Locksley affair.

According to the KRQE report, UNM Regents President Ray Sanchez, says "no new information" points to the need for an independent review. In effect, if anyone can actually prove further incompetence or corruption, they will then investigate the possibility of further corruption and incompetence. huh?

What about the old information that points to the need;

• epic incompetence and
• an overwhelming public lack of confidence in the process?

Their news conference was ended by them, not by the fact that there were no more questions to ask. Questions like; why was the investigation left in the hands of a student, for almost two weeks?

UNM staff are apparently concerned that they are more likely to fall victim to a Locksley like assault by virtue of the fact that the investigative process inspires no confidence what so ever that another assault will not be met with the same incompetent response.

One mustn't be too surprised that the top level of good ol' boys would cover the asses of the next lower levels of good ol' boys.

This from a prior post on the culture of corruption, and from a more distant source, link;

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)

According to the Regents' website, link, they are responsible for;

... oversight of the functioning of the University.

By reasonable and logical extension, if the President of the UNM is a screw up, they are responsible, if he is corrupt, they are responsible. Therefore, they have a self interest in making sure there are no more revelations of either incompetence or of cover up and corruption. They're not just covering Schmidly, Krebs, Gonzales, and Locksley's asses,
they are covering their own.

How bad would the Regents look if an independent review
actually revealed what a lot of people believe that it would;
epic incompetence, cronyism, and a cover up?

An independent review revealing even more incompetence than UNM President Schmidly, UNM AD Paul Krebs, and UNM Human Resources Vice President Helen Gonzales have been willing to admit, especially any revelation of a cover up or corruption, would reflect badly on the Regents and their failure to oversee the best interests of the UNM and UNM stakeholders.

If David Schmidly is telling the truth, he should be screaming for the review that will vindicate him. I would. Who wouldn't?

What possible reason can there be to not do the review?
Why must that reason be kept secret? Why won't they tell us
the reason? Why won't they defend it?

Except to cover up more incompetence or corruption?

Q. What is really in play here?
A. The privileged class does not bend to the will of the great unwashed. They don't tolerate demands for independent review of their conduct and competence.

They are accountable to each other, and to each other only.

And don't you forget it.

How can Winston Brooks and Marty Esquivel claim that they are accountable as role models?

If they provide no place to file a complaint that they are not?




photos Mark Bralley

David Schmidly, still thinkin', one week later.

If you asked UNM President David Schmidly if he expected UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley to step up to honest accountability for what he has done,
Schmidly would say yes.

He would tell you as well, UNM Athletic Director Paul Krebs, is expected to step up.

He would tell you as well, UNM Vice President,Human Resources: HR Dept Administration Helen Gonzales is expected to step up.

He would tell you as well, that he himself, is not only expected
to step up, but that he already has.

He was asked to step up to his promise of transparent accountability, by means of an independent impartial review;
a review that will report to the public record.

There no reason not to conduct that review,
except to protect the corrupt and the incompetent.

Schmidly has admitted incompetence in significant width and depth.

He denies corruption in any width or depth.

But he can't make up his mind to do the only thing that will end conjecture about corruption.

Best case scenario at this point; the independent, impartial review team points to all the incompetency that Schmidly, Krebs and Gonzales already admitted.

That is the review result that would corroborate Schmidly's current story; admitted incompetence and, zero corruption.

The only downside, a comparatively meaningless amount of money that the investigation would cost.

For that pittance, the University's reputation is rehabilitated.
Any perception of corruption in the leadership of the UNM,
will be proved unwarranted; proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If Schmidly expects Krebs, Gonzales, and Locksley to step up to honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence, then Krebs, Gonzales, and Locksley, have a right to expect David Schmidly to show them what that looks like.

Members of the UNM Athletic Department, including
Lobo players; in fact, especially Lobo Players,
have a right to expect David Schmidly to show them what it looks like.

Stakeholders expect Schmidly to step up as a role model of honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence.

File under ironic; it was recently pointed out to me that,

in the entire handling of this issue, the only person whose word
is not being accepted, is the only one who gave his word,
on record, under oath, and under penalty of felony criminal perjury.

How long does UNM President David Schmidly have think
about this decision, before you will accept that his decision is made long since?.

There will be no independent review.

Why? because you can make him.



photo Mark Bralley

Limits? on the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, here emphasized in significant part;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Or, in practical terms;

The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education
shall make no "rule of decorum" abridging the right of the
people to petition the board and administration, for
a redress of grievances.

I am told that my petition of the leadership of the APS, during the public forum, was "disruptive", violated "rules of decorum", and justified my removal from the forum, against my will.

If you've a mind, you can watch the whole thing and judge for yourself, link. Click on Board of Education in the left hand column, then click on the archive of the November 4th meeting. Fast forward to 42:00.

I would argue that I was not disruptive at all. I took my turn at the podium, I did nothing to interfere with anyone's right to participate in the meeting. I said nothing slanderous or untrue. I did not raise my voice.

All I did was point to the truth.

What I said, made individual board members feel uncomfortable; embarrassed, ashamed, perhaps even disgraced.

They claim a right to write "a rule of decorum" that prohibits addressing board members individually. (note; Board President Marty Esquivel argued a policy against discussing "personnel matters". I was not discussing "personnel matters".)

Does anyone really suppose that, while writing the protection for the right to petition the government, they were protecting the right to petition only "government" in general, and not government individually?

When the First Amendment was written, protecting the right to petition the government, does anyone really suppose that they intended to protect that right, but only if by doing so, the government is not embarrassed, ashamed or disgraced?

Did they really intend to protect only those petitions that cast government in a favorable light?

If so what would be the point?

What is the point in protecting the right to petition the government, if the government has no responsibility to provide a good faith response to the petition?

Of what use the protection, if the government can arrest anyone who exercises that right in a manner that casts government in a bad light?

Not much, imho.

Is it time for moderate democrats to start looking at a moderate republican candidate for governor?

Watch her. Pay attention to her.

There is nothing to be afraid of, link.

Unless you're just dead set against transparently accountable government.

proven competence
proven character
proven courage

photo Mark Bralley

Scarantino's latest, and another opportunity to raise the level of the discourse.

Jim Scarantino has done it again; posted a report on the spending of federal stimulus funds, link.

And I find myself wondering if the response to this one will rise above those to the last.

Each piece of data is either true or false; opinion or fact.

Whatever else there is, there are topics of sensible and civil debate.

I believe it could be done without using the words republican or democrat. It certainly can be done without using pejorative words and photographs of wing nuts.

Build your argument, fine tune your case.

Write something you are proud of.
Proud enough to sign your name.

Write something that will make at least one reader say,
wow, I never thought of it that way.

APS could end this fight any time, you know.

David Robbins could explain the apparent discrepancy between Board Policy which requires him to "review and approve" whistle blower complaints and, his refusal to review and approve of even one.







David Peercy could explain why the
role modeling clause;
In no case shall the standard of
conduct for an adult be lower than
the standard of conduct for students,
was removed from the standards of conduct that apply to him personally. More importantly, he could explain why he will not conduct an open and honest discussion of their refusal to put it back.


Paula Maes could explain why she will "never agree to an audit" that would individually identify corrupt and incompetent school board members and administrators.







Marty Esquivel could explain why the impartial administrative standards and accountability audit he once demanded, is no longer in order.






Robert Lucero could explain why he tabled a motion before the board, which would have established a district policy requiring board members and administrators to answer legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service.

He could explain to students,
in words a child can understand,
why they are expected to respond to
a legitimate question by answering candidly, forthrightly, and honestly, and why they cannot expect him, to show them what that looks like.

Winston Brooks could explain why credible evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators has not been surrendered to the District Attorney for criminal prosecution.






Brad Winter could surrender a candid, forthright, and honest accounting of all of the spending at 6400 Uptown Blvd.









Linda Sink could explain why teachers have never been asked to list the support they need from the administration, in particular as that support applies to enforcing student discipline policy.







Lorenzo Garcia and Delores Griego could explain why students are given t-shirts that on their front and back read;

Stand up for what
you believe in

even if you're
standing alone

and why they can sit there now, and say nothing at all.

The Albuquerque Journal could end my fight with them as easily.

All they have to do is ask these public servants to answer these legitimate questions, and then report to voters what they find; and early enough for voters to hold these people accountable at their next election, next February.

Ironically, Journal Editor Kent Walz is listed among the
Directors of the NM Foundation for Open Government.
along side, Esquivel and Maes.

The same solution will end the fight with KOB, KOAT, and KRQE.

That Paula Maes heads the New Mexico Broadcasters Association and is personal friends with most of the heavy hitters at those stations, creates the appearance of an impropriety in their refusal to, investigate and report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.





photos Mark Bralley

Marty Esquivel sends threatening letter.

As previously reported, link, I was arrested again at a public forum during a school board meeting.

You needn't take anyone's word for anything; go to APS' website, link, click on Board of Education, click on the archive for the November 4th meeting, fast forward to 42:00 and see for yourself.

I was exercising my rights to free speech and to petition my government for redress of grievances.

I was arrested because Esquivel didn't like what I was saying. None of them do. They says it violates their "rules of decorum".

They have no right to create rules that limit the exercise of constitutional rights. It is against the law for them to do so. From the Constitution of the United States, here quoted in significant part;

Congress (the School Board) shall make no law ...
abridging the freedom of speech, ... or
the right of the people ... to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.

If Esquivel or any other board member thinks that they can prove that I have slandered them, they are free to file a complaint of slander, against me.

After the arrest, I wrote to APS Police Chief Bill Reed and asked a pointed question; who ordered you to arrest me? He forwarded the letter to both Esquivel and Superintendent Winston Brooks. Esquivel penned the response.

He began by dodging the question. He admitted the decision to ask me to leave was his. That was not the question.

If he admits that it was he who ordered the police to arrest me, he will be admitting to doing something he had no legal authority to do; give any order at all to the APS Police.

The APS Police Department does not report to the board (legally). They do in practice of course, and that is why the order to arrest me was obeyed. Whatever else it is, the APS Police Department is also a Praetorian Guard, wikilink.

Esquivel argues that I have no right to say anything that is "disrespectful". If you read the First Amendment, even in its entirety, you will find no indication that our founding fathers intended to tolerate only "respectful" petitions of the government.

Esquivel, et al, have written "rules of decorum" which seek to disallow petitioners from addressing board members individually. Again, there is no indication in anywhere in the First Amendment which would indicate that the writers intended only to protect broad petitions of government in general, while at the same time protecting government, individually, from that petition.

Esquivel spent nearly a paragraph rehashing his opinion on the reason why I continue to exercise my right to petition my government. My motivation, of course, does not play.

Again, I would refer you to the First Amendment itself, and the clear absence of any "motivational" requirements required of those who would enjoy its protection.

Esquivel doesn't want to answer legitimate questions in public and on the record. He is ashamed and embarrassed by the the answers. So he is bent on deflecting attention from the questions he does not want to answer, and the answers he does not want to acknowledge, that he must resort to attacking the messenger; or in this case, the "questioner".

He closes his letter by threatening to arrest me again or take "further action" if necessary.

Esquivel is acting like a punk.

His conduct is no better than a school yard bully.

It is lousy role modeling for students, staff and community.


And that is precisely the reason why he will not allow an open and honest discussion of executive and administrative role modeling of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

Meeting before last, he tried to shake my hand.
I told him, I had no interest in shaking his hand.

I felt a little bad about that because never before in my life,
had I refused to shake a man's outstretched hand.

I felt bad for awhile.

Now, not so much.




photo Mark Bralley

Why must we trust politicians and public servants to protect our resources?

Casino owners rarely are victims of theft.

It isn't because they hire trustworthy employees.

They simply design the system so even the most untrustworthy
employee can't steal their money.

They make it impossibly difficult to steal their money
without being caught.

It is not impossible for politicians and public servants to steal
tax dollars. Apparently, it isn't even hard.

It looks like all you have to do is grab a handful of blank checks,
and make them out to your self, link.

If you ask Senate Majority Leader
Micheal Sanchez if he will provide
casino security for tax dollars,
he will get all pissy with you
for impugning his integrity;

and then he will tell you no.

He will say it is unnecessary because
you can "trust" him.

Not good enough. Not even close.

When it comes to protecting tax dollars from waste through
corruption and incompetence, "trusting" politicians and public
servants runs a distant second to "casino security",

a far, far distant second.

In God we trust;
in politicians and public servants,
not so much.

If you ask Governor "Big Bill" Richardson if he has given cushy government jobs to cronies and contributors, I'm sure he will tell you, "No, trust me."

Now honestly and truly,
wouldn't you like to hear that
from a least one other person,

someone you really could trust?



photos Mark Bralley

Is it fair to say, hypocrite?

hypocrite;

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

There are a number bloggers and blog commenters who have
expressed outrage over the "mud slinging" by Jim Scarantino.

Marty Chavez threw much more mud, and far slimier mud,
than Scarantino.

It occurs to me that if a person were truly outraged about the
idea of mudslinging, if this were truly about mudslinging and
not about some other hidden agenda, their outrage would have
been expressed when Marty Chavez was running blatantly
dishonest ads.

So is there anyone now expressing their outrage, who can point
to a post or comment of their own, wherein they expressed any
outrage at all over Marty Chavez?

If there is anyone, let's give them credit for truly balanced
coverage.

If this is the first expression of their outrage, how balanced is
their coverage?

Aren't they just a bunch of hypocrites?