Janice Arnold-Jones earns another endorsement.

Rep Kathy McCoy has offered
her endorsement of
Rep Janice Arnold-Jones
for Governor.

In her endorsement,
McCoy pointed to Arnold-Jones
ability to "hit the ground running"
based on her extensive
Roundhouse experience.


Representatives McCoy and Arnold-Jones serve together on the Voters and Elections Committee where McCoy is the ranking Republican.

McCoy offered in her endorsement;

"As my colleague in the House of Representatives, I have been extremely impressed with her ability to analyze, comprehend and communicate complicated legislation.

She has been a champion of government transparency and election reform, including photo ID.

Representative Arnold-Jones courageously stands up to the Speaker of the House when rules are broken or, in some cases, completely tossed out the window.

Representative Arnold-Jones is able to cut through the smoke and mirrors we often experience in the legislature and is one of our best debaters. She knows how to cut through the bureaucracy in Santa Fe, or use it to her advantage when necessary.

“Representative Arnold-Jones interacts extremely well with the other side of the aisle in order to advance good legislation and always carefully weighs what effect it will have on New Mexicans. In other words, she is already uniquely qualified to be our next Governor.

It is my distinct pleasure to endorse her candidacy.”

photo Mark Bralley

Martinez backs off, Denish adds new twist to obfuscation of records requests.

The Journal reports this morning, that District Attorney Susana Martinez will back off her stand against allowing people viewing public records, to make their own copies of the records.

This will save the Democrat Party up to 50 cents per copy; the original demand was for 1 dollar per page, although the law allows only the actual copying cost to passed along to the person requesting copies.

In a related development, Lt Gov Diane Denish is "responding" to a records request from Allen Weh. His request is taking a long time to process because, according to Denish, it is "excessively burdensome". It is also taking a long time because Denish is taking time to "over redact" the records.

Some public records should not be made public for good and ethical reasons. The redaction process is clear. Most often, it is only a small part of the record which enjoys exception under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act . That small part can be, and should be, redacted; normally a black line through a name or some other specific and distinct information.

Denish has invented her own exception. According to the Journal, she argues that if a record contains information that is "non responsive to the request", but enjoys no other exception, it can be redacted as well. She is writing her own public records law.

Exceptions to the Act are clear, link, and do not include redacting parts of records which are "non responsive to the request". If the request were worded differently, the parts she wants to redact, could not be redacted because they are not protected under exceptions to the law.

There is no reason to redact "non-responsive" parts of records except to further delay the surrender of public records. All public records, whether they are "responsive" to a specific request or not, are still public records, and are still subject to surrender to public knowledge.

The simple proof; when the dust settles on this nonsense,
a request for public records could be filed. It would read,
opportunity to inspect and/or copy all public records
which were redacted according to the "non responsive"
standard.

The request would yield records which were formerly redacted but could not now be redacted, because they do not fall within any exception provided for under the law.

Denish is gaming the system in order to circumvent the law,
and, she would like to be the next Governor.

Haven't we had enough Governors who game the system
to avoid accountability to the law?

Sander Rue unresponsive

Senator Sander Rue wrote a commentary for Heath Haussamen, link, touting his Sunshine Portal.

I asked repeatedly in the
comments section of the post;

why do we have to wait one year
and four months, in effect
two fiscal years, before we see
the first ray of sunshine?


Either he isn't reading the backside of his own article, or he doesn't want to answer the question.

Normally, when someone won't answer a question, it is because they don't want people to know the truth, and they don't want to tell a lie on the record.

So they employ the only defense of an indefensible position, they try to hide it.

They stonewall.

Who is responsible for the delay?
Who needs time to cover their tracks?




photo Mark Bralley

e Schooling a threat to APS' model

There are three basic mechanisms used to present information to students;

1. their teachers can recite it to them, or
2. they can read it in a textbook, or
3. they can sit with a keyboard and a window to the entire universe of knowledge.

The leadership of the APS is fond of teachers and textbooks,
the enormous funding required to support them, and
the huge bureaucracy necessary to administer them.

Charter schools don't share those priorities, and have invested in the opportunities of e schooling. They are in some cases, on the cutting edge.

APS is at best, being dragged kicking and screaming into
the future of education.

APS has some e school programs. Rather than buy off the shelf
commercial e curricula, APS leadership decided to write create
their own. Not surprisingly, their product is inferior to many of
the readily available and thoroughly vetted programs.

The worst part of the whole situation is, the leadership of
the APS is trying to compel APS Charter Schools to adopt
APS' inferior e school software.

The charters are understandably upset.

The fundamental justification for the widely accepted concept of
charter schools, is control over curriculum. All public school
curricula must meet certain government standards.
Having met those standards, charters are free to design specific
curricula that meets their individual learner needs.

APS' interference in charter e school software is completely indefensible.

File this story under "a" for, Another story, you won't read about
in "education"section of the Journal.

Janice Arnold-Jones needs your help.

She needs more signatures to stay in the debate.

Because she didn't garner 20% of the delegate votes at the pre-primary, she has to turn in twice as many signatures as those who did. I thought she already had the necessary signatures, but apparently not.

There are reasons to give her your signature even if you intend
to vote for someone else for Governor.

What?

In the first place, if your candidate deserves to win, they will.
So it's not like you are betraying them by keeping their feet to the fire.

If Rep Janice Arnold-Jones is on the ballot, things will get talked about that won't get talked about otherwise.

Who else is better advocate for transparency than the person who brought webcasting into the legislature. New Mexico was the 47th state to begin webcasting, and it's not being done right; there still is no archive.

Who else is a better advocate using state employees to end the cultures of corruption and incompetence, than Rep Janice Arnold-Jones who said, before even the regular session began, that, we need to get state employees in front of legislative committees to expose the corruption and incompetence in state government.

No one else .

The character of the race
will be diminished greatly,
if Rep Janice Arnold-Jones
is not part of the debate and if the
issues she champions loose their voice.





If you think we deserve robust webcasting to an archive,
of every deliberative meeting about the public interests,
you need to keep her in the debate.

If you think state employees should be given the help they need to clean up the governmental agencies they work in,
you need to keep her in the debate.

Otherwise, it's going to be the same old, same old,
I'm gonna fix this, I'm gonna fix that, and nobody ever
really fixes anything at all.





photo Mark Bralley

NMRP; Gays not entitled to civil rights.

The Equal Rights Plank of the New Mexico Republican Party proclaims vigorous support of not only the letter, but the spirit of Civil Rights laws for different races, different genders, different handicaps, different religions, and different national origins.

They just can't see their way clear to granting civil rights to people of different "sexual orientations".

Civil rights are based on human rights. Gay people are being denied protection of their human rights.

And nobody seems to care. NMI was at the convention, the Journal was surely there. TV news was there. There must have been a lot of media there, and not one of them wrote that the NMRP delegates are a bunch of bigots.

And what about the candidates they endorsed?
Are they bigots as well? Is Colonel Allen Weh a bigot?
How did gays fair under his commands?

Is District Attorney Susana Martinez a bigot?
I haven't heard her say otherwise.

Is this a legitimate question to ask the front runners;

Are you about bashing gays, or do you thing the
Republican Party Equal Rights Plank should
protect people with different sexual orientations?

Opposing opinions "a cheap and juvenile prank".

An unknown number of delegates at the Democrat Pre-Primary Convention cast protest ballots against incumbent Rep Martin Heinrich by "writing in"Republican Jon Barela's name.

The actual number of ballots cast for Barela is being kept
secret by Democrat Party leadership.

The protesters believe that Heinrich is a Socialist who has lost touch with his party and, they are entitled to their opinion.

If "the system" allows them no means of dissent, then their dissent outside the box is not only legitimate, but critical to the process.

State Democratic Party Chairman Javier Gonzales doesn't see it that way.

"What a few fringe individuals who have a history of supporting Republican candidates did is nothing more than a cheap and juvenile prank."

OK, Javier, what ever.

"Zone of Tolerance" or "Culture of Corruption"

Monahan was busy handicapping the various candidates for state office this morning, link.

When he got to Secretary of State Mary Herrera, he addressed the probable effect that her current problems, hiding public records and allegations of ethical misconduct in her Office bordering criminal, might have on her effort to be re-elected.

He wrote;

Recent ethical charges leveled against Herrera aren't pleasant, but insiders say they don't violate what is a pretty broad "zone of tolerance" around here.

Another name for "a pretty broad 'zone of tolerance'" of ethical and criminal misconduct in the highest offices of state government is "a culture of corruption".

There is a culture of public corruption and incompetence in NM state government. You can call it a "zone of tolerance", but what it really is, is corruption and guilty knowledge of corruption. When public trust is the foundation, there isn't one wit of difference between those who are personally corrupt, and those who turn a blind eye to the corruption around them.

The highest ranking members of NM state government are,
in the words of Democrat State Senator Tim Eichenberg,
complicit or complacent, in the culture of corruption;
they are complicit in the corruption, or their complacency,
their "zone of tolerance", enables it to flourish.

Lt Governor Diane Denish would like voters to believe that
for eight years, there was simply nothing she could do about
the sea of corruption and incompetence swirling around her.

I think we should take her word for it.

We need a Governor with a narrower "zone of tolerance"
than Lt Gov Diane Denish's.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of
men living together in society, they create for
themselves in the course of time (a zone of tolerance
that enables it,) a legal system that authorizes it,
and a moral code that glorifies it"

Frederic Bastiat - The Law

We can accept neither complicity, nor complacency,
about public corruption and incompetence.

The culture of corruption, the zone of tolerance of it, must end.

It must end at once, and for all.

Herrera hiding more letters.

AJ Salazar was not the only subordinate to hand in a letter of resignation to Secretary of State Mary Herrera.

Apparently his letter was not the only letter to point to serious problems in the Office.

Which explains why those letters too, are being hidden from public knowledge feigning some boggle over what the law actually requires, according to NMI's Gwyneth Doland, link.

The sitting Attorney General, Gary King, the author of the Inspection of Public Records Act, says letters of resignation are
public records.


Herrera sez,
what the hell does he know.




photo Mark Bralley

Rep Anna Crook steps up with Janice Arnold-Jones

State Representative Anna Crook has joined the campaign.

Rep Anna Crook is serving her eighth
term in the legislature. Rep Crook
serves on the Taxation and Revenue
Committee with
Rep Janice Arnold-Jones.

Rep Crook pointed to the remarkable progress and momentum in Rep Arnold-Jones campaign in spite of the interruption of the regular and special legislative sessions.

She said Rep Arnold-Jones knows how to get the job done.

Rep Crook is the ranking Republican Gentle-lady. The ranking Republican male, Rep Keith Gardner, is endorsing DA Susana Martinez in the run for the Governor's seat.

I have never felt really comfortable with Gardner's commitment to transparency, it seemed a little hinky. He certainly wasn't making any waves over webcasting and archiving. Apparently he is comfortable with Martinez' agnosticism on the subject.

Rep Crook in contrast, can be found helping Rep Arnold-Jones keep camera pointed at the people's business during their committee meetings.

Rep Janice Arnold-Jones said.

“I am truly honored to have such an esteemed colleague endorse my candidacy,” “Not only is Representative Crook dedicated to serving the people of her district, she was my mentor on the Taxation and Revenue Committee.

I am proud to have her on our team.”

photo Mark Bralley

The Republican Party Plank; the one that didn't pass.

There was an amendment offered that would have stricken "sexual orientation" from the list of human conditions which the party will continue not only to disrespect, but flat out not tolerate.

The amendment was struck down nearly unanimously.

Let's say you were a conservative, looking for smaller
government and fiscal restraint, and at the same time,
let's say you were also willing to concede that any one of us
could have been born into a different set of shoes,

where does that leave you in the NMRP?

Why would you join a Party that wouldn't welcome your child?

How did "Allen Weh vote on that amendment?

How did Susana Martinez vote on that amendment?

Will gay Republicans ever be welcome in their Party?

Allen Weh continues to dodge assault allegation.

Colonel Allen Weh still has not
stepped up to allegations that
he lost his temper and physically
assaulted, link, a staff member of the
Bernalillo County Republican Party.

If he is unwilling to hold himself honestly accountable for his conduct and competence as a candidate, why in the world would anyone believe he would hold himself honestly accountable when the stakes are higher and the accouterments of power in Santa Fe include even greater immunity from accountability for one's conduct and competence?

And what about the leadership of the Republican Party,
are they willing to let what might well be a criminal assault
go unacknowledged, simply to win in November?

And that would set them apart from Democrats how, exactly?

Allen Weh has two choices;

• candid, forthright, and honest, and


• anything less than candid, forthright and honest.

... and one choice to make between them.





photo Mark Bralley

Party convention results, who cares?

Sure, it would have been nice to have come out on top.

We didn't. What now?

There is still the message;

Government should be transparently accountable
to the people.

It is still the most fundamentally important issue of all.

That is not a message you will hear from the folks who
run and attend pre-primary conventions.

The "Party of Transparent Accountability" doesn't even
have a governmental transparency plank in its platform.

Republican Party insiders, the heavy hitters that wield the power and resources, don't want anyone to take back the power they have usurped. They don't want anyone to end their illegitimate privilege any more than the heavy hitters in the Democrat Party want anyone to end their control over their political machines.

Pre-primary party conventions are about battling machines.

While there is a correlation between the power of a political machine, and the likelihood of it being able to install a candidate, there is no claim made that the process will identify the best candidate, only the one more likely to win.

Rep Janice Arnold-Jones would be a better Governor than Diane Denish, Susana Martinez, or Allen Weh.

The pre-primary convention process ignores that dimension.

In some respects, Janice Arnold-Jones is the better for the loss; birds of a different feather, don't flock together.

The most important things that Janice Arnold-Jones will do as Governor, will likely happen in a room adjacent to the Governor's Office. It accommodates an enormous round table.

The idea behind a round table, is to pretend co-equal influence at the table. In theory, no one sits at the head of the table.

In practice, added influence sits in the chair with the Governor in it.

Now imagine, seated around the table, twenty or so legislators with deeply held disparate interests.

The Governor is charged with ending the discussion in consensus.

Now imagine each of the remaining candidates sitting in the Governor's chair. How might things be different?

In the first place, if Janice Arnold-Jones is at the table,
you will be at the table as well.
The meeting will be robustly webcast to an archive.

Allen Weh will not webcast the meeting; he hasn't had a
single word to say, throughout the whole fight over webcasting.
Neither has Susana Martinez. Neither has Diane Denish.

Beyond that, the Governor is charged with facilitating the meeting.

If she has done a good job, people leave the meeting feeling that their side has been heard, the truth is on the table and, a reasonable compromise was reached.

Allen Weh cannot lead that kind of meeting. He has made it as clear as it can be made, he take his seat after first placing his baseball bat on the table in front of him.

Everyone will leave the table unsatisfied; even his "friends".

I don't know if Susana Martinez can draw consensus from opposing opinions or not. Same with Diane Denish. They are unproven in what might be considered the most important gubernatorial skill of all.

Many of Allen Weh's supporters tout his successful experience as a businessman. Susana Martinez' supporters sing praise of her success as a prosecutor.

Do we need business acumen in the Governor's seat?
Aren't the business principles involved, common knowledge?
Do we really need a rocket scientist of a business man?
Does anyone really believe that the cultures of corruption and
incompetence flow from the fact that there is no one in Santa Fe with business skills enough to end them?

And with respect to Susana Martinez' prosecutorial skills, does anyone really believe that the cultures of corruption and incompetence flow from the fact that there is no one in Santa Fe with prosecutorial skills?

The skill set that plays is legislative.

Diane Denish, arguably has a legislative skill set equivalent to Janice Arnold-Jones'. Others would argue that a ceremonial figure head, even if they occasionally cast tie breaking votes, hasn't the same experiential background as someone who has crossed the aisle on many occasions to create support for worthwhile legislation.

And then there is grace; an elemental personal trait,
utterly essential in consensus building.

The results of the pre-primary conventions don't tell the whole story, and anyone who bangs on them too loudly, does so because it's there only drum.

Rep Janice Arnold-Jones;

proven competence,

proven character,

proven courage,

and abundant grace.




photo Mark Bralley

It's National Sunshine Week

Heath Haussamen has posted a commentary by Sarah Welsh, link. She is the Executive Director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government.

She focused on the apparent successes in opening up NM state government. Yet she was forced to admit in her closing;

It still takes months, and sometimes years, to obtain important government documents or to overturn illegal closed-door actions. It also takes money, time and a big chunk of sanity.

However close we are, we are not close enough.
We are nowhere near done. We cannot rest on our laurels.

The fight is still on, the final battle is yet to be fought.

GOP picking on me, whines Denish.

The Journal reports "breaking news" this morning, link;
Republican Gubernatorial Candidates are "ganging up"
on Lt Gov Diane Denish.

Wow, imagine that, candidates seeking public office,
all attacking the person and policies they are trying to unseat.

"The expected Democratic nominee for governor, Diane Denish, played Charlie Brown in fundraising efforts last week, pointing out to potential donors that everyone seemed to be picking on her.

"I now have five — yes, five — Republican opponents. Instead of campaigning on their own ideas, most of them are running their campaigns on one central message: Attacking me ... attacking us."

Well, duh.

Denish's campaign spokesperson Chris Cervini noted;

"Nasty personal attacks like (Domenici's) only serve to remind New Mexicans why they're sick of politics as usual ...".

Domenici's "nasty personal attack";

"There are three things wrong with our state: a fiscal crisis, an ethical crisis and Diane Denish," "And these are all the same problem."

A fiscal crisis, an ethical crisis, and Diane Denish;
are New Mexico politics as usual.

I don't see their beef.

Susana Martinez' perspective on surrendering public records

Gubernatorial Candidate and District Attorney Susana Martinez is the subject of a backside discussion on Haussamen's site, on public records surrender, link.

One of her defenders argued;

"... she is doing what she thought was within the bounds of the law."

To begin with, I am not comfortable with one of the highest ranking members of law enforcement "thinking"she is following a law, that she might actually be breaking.

More fundamentally, her apologist expressed a disturbing philosophical premise; she can do anything to obfuscate the surrender of public records, as long as it's "legal".

That is a far different concept than a public servant surrendering every record that the law will allow.

There is no such thing as ethical reform that doesn't rest on the foundation of the fundamental ethic; truth telling;

as much as the law will allow.

Republican Party cover up?

Everybody seems to know about, but nobody
seems to want to talk about, an altercation between
Colonel Allen Weh and members of the
Bernalillo County Republican Party staff.

There are allegations of a "physical attack".

I think there is truth being hidden.

There is a fine line, determined according to due process,
between the truth that should be told and
the truth which is rightfully hidden from stakeholders.

If there is wrongfully hidden truth in the leadership of the
Republican Party of New Mexico,
they ought to be held accountable for it.

Otherwise, we are a Party sanctioning wrongful cover ups
as well.

And, there really is no difference between the Parties.

The truth needs to come from retired
Marine Corps Colonel Allen Weh.

Will he raise his right hand, perhaps put his hand on a bible,
and promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, (so help him God),
and then tell the truth about his conduct that afternoon.

Will he hold himself honestly accountable as role model for his "troops"?


Is Governor Weh going to be
manhandling state government
employees?

Should state government
employees be afraid
of their Governor?





photo Mark Bralley

DA Susana Martinez way off base on Inspection of Public Records compliance

Haussamen reports this morning, link, on a tussle between District Attorney Susana Martinez and the Democrat Party. The Dems claim she "hiding" records, though they have actually inspected all of the (tens of thousands of) records they asked to see. The disagreement centers around making the copies they want.

The devil, as usual, is in the details.

In the first place, DA Martinez apparently ordered her records custodian to sit and watch as the records were being inspected. At some point, the watcher is accused of telling the requester, he was "a pain in the ass".

There is no reason for a records custodian to sit and watch an inspection; in particular if they are allowed to harass the requester. If nothing else, it is intimidating. If they are really concerned that a record might be stolen, simply surrender the records in an electronic format; they could scan the document themselves, in less time than it takes to add it to the stack to be inspected, and later re-file it. Simply pull it, scan it, re-file it. It would actually save money. If there is a need to actually handle an original, then move to the more cumbersome process.

If the requester were allowed to scan records, there would no point in stealing one. Yet Martinez chose to disallow scanning or photocopying. According to Haussamen;

"Martinez said her office didn’t allow the party to bring its own scanner or camera because she wanted to ensure the documents were in their entire and true form when they left her office."

This argument is nonsense.

If a requester wants one page of a two page record, does Martinez seriously intend to force them to pay to copy both pages?

If they then, throw the unwanted copy in a trash can,
is she going to make them pick it out and take it anyway?

And, how does a scanner or camera produce an "untrue"
form of a document? If an "untrue" document could be
produced, of what use would it be in comparison with the
"true" document?

The real reason the record holder wants to do the copying, is to make two copies; one for the requester, and one for their lawyer, who will then know which records will be used against his client's interests.

Haussamen reports;

Phil Sisneros, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, said scanners and cameras should be allowed. The public records act, he said, “requires the custodian of public records for a public body to ‘provide reasonable facilities to make or furnish copies of public records during usual business hours.’” “This office’s position is that this provision permits a requester to use his or her own equipment to make copies of public records,” Sisneros said.

Though that position is eminently logical, Martinez argued that the literature, the Attorney General's Compliance Guide, doesn't spell it out exactly enough; she wants a court decision.

Clearly a choice is being made; make it easy for the public
to inspect and copy public records, or, make it difficult.

There is no reason to make it difficult,
except to discourage further requests.

Susana Martinez should reexamine her position.

Democrats cheered Herrera, at the Dem Convention

despite the current outrage over
allegations that she used the
Secretary of State's Office
for politicking.

Steve Terrell interviewed
a few delegates about
Sec of State Mary Herrera's
misconduct and whether it
should count against her in
the election. link.

"... several delegates interviewed said they doubted it would play out that way.

"What politician doesn't do politics in the office. Come on!"
one man said, laughing."

Many of the delegates, if asked, would proudly admit,
they went to Manny Aragon's big send off to prison party,
or wished they had.

And yet, we are supposed to believe that electing Democrats,
is going end the culture of corruption.




photo Mark Bralley

Journal editors take their turn at charter bashing

The Journal editors surfed the third wave in the campaign to diminish the standing of charter schools in the community, link.

They would like to encourage your upset over the fact that one charter school superintendent and principal, is making too much money.

They would not like to encourage your upset over APS Supt Winston Brooks' 1/2$M golden parachute.

In fact, according to their record,
they don't even want you to know about it.

"I see nothing"

"I for one will not enforce any rule on my campus.
The referral fairy always runs away with the referral.

I will not enforce the "dress code" or no kids in the hall, or
no I pods, or no jet cards. I'm finished being APS' fall guy.

They hang us out to dry on a regular basis.

No more chances APS. You can make all the rules you want.

I see nothing"

The greatest consequence in writing rules they have no intention of enforcing, is that the "leadership" push good staff members into positions where they feel like the staff member, who wrote the above comment in response to my post on the APS cell phone policy, link.

It would be simple to quantify and qualify this problem
by surveying those they expect to do the enforcing.

Precisely why the issue was not addressed in their survey.
It never has been addressed in a survey, and
it never will be addressed in a survey.

Four real choices for Governor. One stands out.

Doug Turner lacks the gravitas.

Pete Domenici lacks the charisma.

There are four; Lt Gov Diane Denish, District Attorney Susana Martinez, Representative Janice Arnold-Jones, and retired Marine Corps Colonel Allen Weh.

For me; the choice is based on three elements; competence, character, and courage.

Though I am a conservative, I would support a liberal with competence, character, and courage, before I would support a Republican who lacked any one of them.

A rising tide lifts all boats. There is no legitimate agenda, conservative or liberal, that does not move forward on the day that the people, liberal and conservative, regain control over power and resources that are fundamentally their own.

Regaining control begins with transparent accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence for politicians and public servants within their public service.


Competence;

Representative Janice Arnold-Jones record is self evident. Point to an example, where in her public service, she dropped the ball. Or, admit to her competence.

I believe, none of them is more competent to be governor,
than Rep Janice Arnold-Jones.

Character;

Rep Janice Arnold-Jones can stand again, on her record. Point to an example, where in her public service, her character was found wanting. Or, admit to her character.

Courage;

If they gave medals for courage in the Roundhouse, Rep Janice Arnold-Jones would wear one for carrying the first web camera into the legislature. Point to her cowardice or, admit to her courage.


Rep Janice Arnold-Jones brings
something else to the table.

She brings it in an abundance,
she brings more to the table
that all of her opponents combined;

grace.





She can bring the best people together from both sides, and extract from them the best solutions to the problems in government. She, and they, will find the ground in the middle, without wasting time and without the puffery.

She has a goal; government that is transparently accountable to the people.

She can achieve that goal without a baseball bat.

In fact, she can achieve that goal because
carrying a baseball bat to a negotiating table,
would never occur to her.



If government doesn't work,
no legitimate agenda moves forward.

When government does work,
every legitimate agenda moves forward.




photo Mark Bralley

Momentum will keep Rep Janice Arnold-Jones in the race.

A lesser person might have called it quits today, but not
Rep Janice Arnold-Jones.

District Attorney Susana Martinez had a great day.

Colonel Allen "I'm no Mr. Congeniality "Weh
had a better day than he should have.

And, Janice Arnold-Jones came in third.

Third, despite the fact that when the legislature was in session, not only could she not solicit campaign contributions for more than a month, but just as importantly, she obviously couldn't be campaigning for delegates.

It bears noting, I have not seen Susana Martinez in a debate with Janice Arnold-Jones. Let's see them together a few more times before we vote.

The fourth and fifth candidates are going nowhere;
one lacks the gravitas, the other the charisma, to be elected.

Third will become second, when people start thinking about
whether as uncongenial a Governor as one can imagine,
can really point a baseball bat at corrupt and entrenched
politicians and public servants and expect them all to turn tail.

They'll fight at every turn. They will override his vetoes
with the largest majorities in legislative history,
just to show him whose boss.

It will also dawn on people, that Weh hasn't said a word during his campaign about robust webcasting to an archive, or about public records, or about Open Meetings.

He's not accustomed to subordinate review, or to negotiation.

The words "open meetings" are an anathema to the Colonel;
open meetings aren't his long suit, link.

Amid all this, the Republican Party decided
it was going to torment gays for at least another election cycle.

And last but not least, the "party of transparent accountability"
does not have a transparent accountability plank in its platform.



The best thing I can say about the whole day?

Rep Janice Arnold-Jones
still has some fight left in her.




photo Mark Bralley

They just don't make it easy to be a Republican

The day began around 8:45;
I, on my way to crash the Central Committee Meeting.
I wasn't on their guest list.

Up until this morning, Central Committee Meetings were closed to stakeholders.

It was probably during a closed meeting of the Central Committee, that the following party rule was endorsed and adopted, link.

NMGOP Party Rule; 1-2-1. PARTY MEMBERSHIP/PARTICIPATION

A. Party Membership: Any qualified voter In New Mexico whose properly registered Political Party affiliation is "Republican" shall be considered a member of the Republican Party of New Mexico and of the Republican Party of the County in which the voter is so registered and is eligible to participate in Republican Party affairs in accordance with these Rules.

B. Participation: It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all Republican voters in Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible.

I took a copy of it to show to anyone who asked to see my "invitation".

A lot of people wanted to see it, and nobody liked it.
I just kept working my way up the chain of command.

I hold no grudge against anyone who obstructed my entry into that closed meeting. Each of them was just doing what they were told to. Most of them had no idea what to do with me and were more than happy to pass me along to someone else.

I ended up in Ryan Cangiolosi's lap.

I explained what was going on, and showed him the rule.

He agreed without hesitation, to enforce the rule on my behalf.

I couldn't help but think what would have happened if Allen Weh was still the party chair. I probably would have left with my invitation rolled into a tight cylinder and stuffed where the sun don't shine. I'm a big guy, but he's a combat hardened Marine with a baseball bat.

It was made clear that I was allowed in according to my standing as a member of the Republican Party and not as a member of the press. I pointed out to them that the press has a right to be there as well, they just choose not to press it.

Later in the morning, Cangiolosi asked if the frankly boring meeting met my expectations. I told him I hadn't really seen it all because I had to be elsewhere to register for the convention. It didn't appear to me that they did anything at all worth hiding. Which begs the question; then why hide it?

The whole thing was being videotaped from the back of the room, so if they had wanted to webcast it, they could have. As far as I know, they did not.

At the end of the day, amendments to the party platform were brought to the table.

If the process would have allowed it, I would have argued for a transparent accountability plank.

The process of course, doesn't allow spontaneous participation. The process is designed to allow its control by the party heavy hitters.

Consider how much trouble Rep Janice Arnold-Jones had getting amendments on the table when Colonel Weh was the Party Chairman, link.

I digress.

There was an amendment offered that would change their Equal Rights plank:

We support vigorous enforcement of the letter and spirit of Civil Rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, handicap, religion and national origin.

It would have added "sexual orientation".

There was a motion immediately made and seconded, to table the amendment.

The motion to table the amendment passed nearly unanimously.

I, the gentleman seated next to me, and maybe a hand full of others were the only ones who yelled no!

The Republicans will shun gays for at least another election.

Which brings us back to the participation rule

B. Participation: It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all Republican voters in Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible.

unless you choose to be born gay.

APS cell phone survey results.

According to the cell phone survey recently conducted by the leadership of the APS, link,

We now know (assuming the figures are accurate) two facts.

36% of survey participants identified themselves as "staff".

80% of survey participants thought it was OK for "staff" members to take cell phones away from kids who are using them in violation of a rule they will describe as "stupid".

What we don't know, is what percent of staff members will actually take phones away from kids, shouldering a burden that is not insubstantial.

My guess is, it will be very few.
The rule will be left to others to enforce.

And once again, we will reinforce the belief in students that
just because something is against the rules, doesn't mean you
can't go ahead and do it anyway, and without consequence.

Don't forget that according to Supt Winston Brooks,
students who deliberately disobey adults,
are committing the least serious of misdemeanors.

You cannot just simply pass a rule,
knowing that it will not be enforced.

If it isn't a hill you're ready to die on,
don't make it against rules you are obligated to enforce.

Remember sagging? It used to be against school board policy. The kids did it anyway, they still do, and school board policy was relaxed to accommodate the push back from students.

Students ended up determining the policy.

Because the leadership of the APS wrote a policy
they would back up.

This is not about sagging. It is not about cell phones.

It is about negligently allowing, or knowingly permitting,
prohibited behavior and about the damage that does.

Ordinary citizens shouldn't be taxed, says the Governor.

Gov. Bill Richardson
has articulated his reservations
about signing a food tax saying,

" he doesn’t want to balance the
budget on the backs of ordinary
citizens.





It strikes me that "ordinary citizens" should be sharing the burden, more or less equally, not being excepted from it.




photo Mark Bralley

Pot calling kettle, black.

the Journal's Hailey Heinz beat School Board President Marty Esquivel's drum loudly when she reported Esquivel's claim that Scott Glasrud is being "disingenuous" in using a particularly flattering method of calculating drop out rates.

Yet Esquivel sees no problem with APS math, which allows students who have already failed the ninth grade,
simply disappear from the list of their cohorts when graduation rates are calculated.

The kids demonstrably least
likely to graduate, are dropped
out of APS' drop out math, link,
and he thinks Glasrud's math is sketchy?

Wake up, dude!




photo Mark Bralley

The leadership of the APS is simply too busy

to talk about what the APS student standards of conduct are, and about whether or not they are honestly accountable as role models of them;

yeah, that's it.

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

How long does it take to decide whether or not that statement
will be placed back into the code of conduct that first applies to

School Board President Marty Esquivel, and then to

school board members, and then to
Supt Winston Brooks, and then to
administrators, and then to
teachers, and then,
and only then,

to students

How many APS senior administrators does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

It is the school board's obligation and responsibility to write district wide policies.

For example, they might decide that they want to,
as a matter of policy, ban student cell phone use.

It then becomes incumbent upon the administration,
to create a procedure for implementing the ban.
It is described in what is called a procedural directive.

In a normal world, the board would inform the superintendent of their new policy and charge him with the implementation.

The supt would tell some underling; "write a procedural directive, run it by the board". And it would be done.

In APS, the process is not nearly so simple

It requires the "use" of a number of administrators over many, many hours.

(I am not going to go through and repair all of the line breaks, chalk it up the fact that they could offer up the document in a user friendly format, and choose not to. It is presented here so you can fully appreciate its scope. If you really want to read it, you're far better off going to the link ) Note; the link used to work, it no longer does.

Consider for a moment, how much this 1250 word document cost taxpayers.

How many dollars did unwitting taxpayers fork over,
thinking they were buying education for 89,000 of their
sons and daughters,
to be used instead, to write this;

The superintendent shall carry out, through procedural directive, the policies established by the
Board of Education. Procedural directives shall specify required actions and reflect the detailed
arrangement under which the district operates. Procedural directives and policies shall be the
responsibility of the superintendent's designee.
Changes in policy shall require approval by the Board of Education. Procedural directives shall
require approval from the district leadership team and may be taken to the Board of Education
for review only.
Policy/Procedural Directive Process
Once an issue has been raised and it has been determined by appropriate parties that a
policy/procedural directive must be created or changed, the superintendent shall appoint a
leadership team member responsible for the policy/procedural directive if there is not a position
title already designated as responsible.
•
The leadership team member shall work with the policy analyst to identify all current district
documentation regarding the policy/procedural directive.
•
The leadership team member in charge of this area may appoint a committee, if necessary, to
work on the policy/procedural directive. The policy analyst shall be a standing member of any
committee appointed to work on a policy/procedural directive.
•
The initial meeting of the committee shall discuss the policy/procedural directive and identify all
the necessary changes or additions needed. It shall be the responsibility of the policy analyst
provide all relevant federal and state statutes that correspond to the policy/procedural directive
in addition to National School Board Association and New Mexico School Board Association
suggested language. This language shall be modeled, if appropriate, for any corresponding
district policy/procedural directive.
•
The leadership member designee shall write a draft of the policy/procedural directive in the
approved format of the district.
•
It shall be the responsibility of the policy analyst to research all cross references and
classifications for the policy/procedural directive. The policy analyst shall check language for
legal concerns in the policy. The policy analyst shall also act as a liaison with leadership and
department directors who may also be affected by the policy/procedural directive and bring any
concerns to the committee. A copy of the draft shall be provided to the committee for
discussion.
•
The drafts of the policy/directive shall be sent to the committee no later than 72 hours prior to
their next meeting. Members of the committee shall be responsible for review and language
changes to the draft policy/procedural directive and shall bring those suggestions to the
committee for discussion.
•
There shall be a limited number of meetings of the committee after the initial meeting, unless
additional meetings are deemed necessary by the majority of the committee.
•
The final draft of the policy/procedural directive shall be completed upon the final meeting of
the committee.
•
The leadership team member responsible for the policy/procedural directive, the policy analyst
and any other appropriate district personnel shall take the final committee draft of the
policy/procedural directive to the superintendent for approval.
•
If there are significant changes from the superintendent, the leadership member responsible for
the policy/procedural directive may call a special meeting of the committee to address the
superintendent's concerns if deemed necessary. It shall be the responsibility of the policy
analyst to author any changes made by the superintendent. Once these concerns are addressed,
the leadership team member responsible for the policy/procedural directive, the policy analyst
and any other appropriate district personnel shall take the final draft back to the superintendent
for approval.
•
Upon approval • of the superintendent, the policy analyst and leadership member shall take the
Development of Policies and Procedural Directives
Policy & Procedure Policy Page 1
draft to the leadership team for review and possible changes.
It shall be the responsibility of the policy analyst to author any changes agreed upon by the
leadership team. If the leadership member responsible for the policy/procedural directive
deems it necessary, the policy/procedural directive shall be taken back to the original committee
and/or leadership team for review.
•
After review from the leadership team, the policy analyst shall take the policy/procedural
directive for a legal opinion.
•
The policy analyst shall serve as the liaison between the district's attorney regarding all polices
and procedural directives. The policy analyst shall take any changes from the attorney to the
leadership member and superintendent for discussion and change. These changes will only go
back to the original committee and/or leadership team if the leadership member and
superintendent deem it necessary.
•
The policy/procedural directive shall be taken to the District Policy and Procedural Directive
Work Team for review and approval as soon as possible.
•
The policy analyst shall create the action memo with recommendation from the leadership
member responsible for the policy.
○
The final draft of the policy/procedural directive must use tracked changes and be
presented both in a physical and digital format to the Board Services Office.
○
Only once the final draft has been approved by the attorney and the Board Office shall the
policy/procedural directive become an agenda item for Board of Education review. The policy
analyst shall act as a liaison to the Chief Academic Officer's Executive Administrative Assistant
and the Chairperson of the Policy Committee for inclusion on the Policy Committee agenda for a
courtesy review of the procedural directive by the Board of Education and action if a new or
revised policy is included.
•
The Board of Education shall review the policy/procedural directive during an open meeting.
The policy analyst shall present the policy/procedural directive to the Board of Education in
conjuncture with the leadership member responsible and any other appropriate staff. If the
Board of Education has significant changes, the leadership member may call back the original
committee to rework the policy/procedural directive.
•
The leadership member and the policy analyst may confer with individual board members
previous to the board committee meeting, but shall identify changes a board member makes so
they can be discussed at the board committee meeting. Only upon approval by the majority of
the members of the board shall these changes be adopted.
•
If the Board of Education approves the policy/procedural directive with changes, the policy
analyst shall be responsible for authoring these changes and they shall be completed previous to
the policy/procedural directive being placed on the consent calendar.
•
The policy shall be approved by the Board of Education. The procedural directive shall be placed
on the leadership meeting agenda as soon as possible following adoption of the policy by the
Board of Education.
•
An action memo shall be required for the leadership team adoption of the procedural directive.
This action memo shall be prepared by the Board Services Office. The action memo shall be
signed by the superintendent and the leadership member responsible for the procedural
directive.
•
Once the policy and procedural directive have been approved by the appropriate parties, the
Board Services Office shall be responsible for posting the new material to the Albuquerque
Public Schools website and maintaining a physical and digital copy of any relevant
documentation.
•
The leadership member responsible for the policy/procedural directive shall have the
responsibility of conveying any changes to all appropriate departments and departmental and
school site administrators.
•
Administrative Position: Board Services Executive Director
References:
Board Policy Cross Ref.: B.03 Suspending or Revoking Policies
B.13 Policy Adoption
Policy & Procedure Policy Page 2
NSBA/NEPN Classification: CH, BGE, CHC, BGA, BGC, CHA, CHB
Approved:
Policy & Procedure Policy Page 3
Flow Chart
Thursday, March 11, 2010
2:52 PM
Policy & Procedure Policy Page 4

Reform is impossible without a showdown

Simply put, there are at least two kinds of politicians and
public servants;

1. those who would have government that is transparently accountable to the people, and
2. those who would not.

Those who would not, have a distinct advantage in the fight.
They enjoy the luxury of being able to hide their indefensible
position instead of having to defend it.

They can use their power and privilege to hide public records.
They can use it to close meetings. They can use it to deny
robust webcasting of deliberations of the public interests.

If there ever were a fight,
if every single Senator and every single Representative
could be compelled to get up out of their seats, and
move to one side of the room or the other,

they would lose.

No one will stand up on the wrong side of the room.
If they do, they will not have the opportunity
beyond November 4, to do it, ever again.

A showdown is fatal to their interests.

Good wo/men can find themselves protecting bad wo/men out of some misplaced loyalty. But, the culture of corruption cannot end, except by exposing the corrupt. There is a reluctance to ending their immunity.

Many will forfeit their good names and some, their jobs.
Some will loose their liberty.

I say, tough shit.

They should have thought about that before they starting
stealing our money and betraying our trust.

They have usurped control over power and resources that
belong fundamentally, to the people.

They will not give it back. We must take it from them

... at a showdown.



We cannot simply give them the very thing that corrupts them absolutely;

absolute power, sans absolutely transparent accountability.

Esquivel and the Journal, back for round two.

APS School Board President
Marty Esquivel is looking for
payback. He, and the rest of
the leadership of the APS
looked pretty bad, coming out
of the NMPED "mediation",
wherein their attempt to
exert undue influence over
the APS charter schools,
was soundly rebuffed.



APS Supt Winston Brooks
was so infuriated by the
drubbing he took,
he left the meeting
yelling obscenities and
"accidentally" bumping into
one of his critics.






Esquivel and his Journal cronies, would like the public to be outraged at charter school Supt and Principal Scot Glasrud. (no link was provided today's Journal attack)

Glasrud earns a good salary, perhaps too good, who knows? There has never been any kind of open and honest discussion of executive and administrative salaries in public education. To suggest that his salary goes beyond the pale, is difficult to justify in the absence of any obvious line that he might have crossed.

It is worth noting that, Glasrud's salary only became an issue after he handed the APS brass their asses at the NMPED meeting.

Glasrud's salary isn't the point; this isn't about his salary.
If this was really about salaries and perks, why isn't the
Journal reporting on Winston Brooks' half million dollar
golden parachute, given him by Esquivel, et al, after a
series of meetings that were closed to the public?

Nor will the Journal investigate and report upon Esquivel's
abdication as a role model of the student standards of
conduct, or upon Brooks' abdication either.

Nor will the Journal report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS, nor upon suppressed evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators, nor upon the trust and treasure being squandered at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

The Journal is being very selective in what they investigate and report upon. They are outraged at Glasrud's salary, but not so outraged about worse outrages in the leadership of APS proper.

The Journal is inordinately interested in discrediting charters,
while at the same time under reporting the very real ethics and
accountability issues in APS senior administration and school board.

This is all very disappointing and frankly, more than a little frightening.




photos Mark Bralley

Bregman to represent Herrera

Attorney Sam Bregman
has been hired, apparently,
to help SoS Mary Herrera
escape the consequences of
the misconduct outlined in
AJ Salazar's letter of resignation.

In typical Bregman style,
he didn't refute or rebut any
of the specific allegations that
have been made against his client.

Rather, his defense so far hinges on getting people to believe that Salazar, unhappy over being disallowed a few days of annual leave, decided to end his $100k per year career in the Office by making up a bunch of false allegations about what he has seen there.

Right, Sam, and a pint of Häagen-Dazs serves four.




photo Mark Bralley

There is one other possibitity; ok, two

There is one considerable problem with calling an Extraordinary Session of the Legislature; it can be hijacked.

I don't see that as a problem.
The worst case scenario is that we know their names.

It would be "impossible" to hijack it anonymously;
someone has to stand up somewhere and say
"Let's do this other dumb ass thing, before we legislate
transparent accountability to meaningful standards of conduct
and competence for politicians and public servants."

He will be on the record obfuscating real ethical reform.

If we can't stop him, we will at least be able to tell voters his name. Hell, we'll "link" to archives of robust webcasting; we'll show voters incontrovertible proof of the betrayal of the trust
that has been placed in them.

After the November election, they won't be a problem anymore.
And then we will have a legislative session whose sole purpose
is to create for us, the state government we deserve.

The other possibility is that the Senators and Representatives that have the character and courage to call for a show down on reform, will simply present the number of signatures necessary to convince the Governor to call a Special Session, with a three item call;

1. standards, and
2. accountability, and
3. transparency limited only by the law.

The threat of hijacking is removed.

The third possibility, is that they,
the Republican Candidates for Statewide Office,
promise the one thing that really can be accomplished on the day after they are sworn in; a call for a Special Session of the Legislature.

The promise is the least promising; the difference is the same
difference as between talking the talk, and walking the walk.

Some how, some way, some day (before the next election), the character and courage of this legislature must be tested, before they run for re-election.

Senator Kent Cravens steps up

Senator Kent Cravens
became the second legislator
to sign on with the idea of an
Extraordinary Session,
the sole purpose of which is;
end the culture of corruption.

He has joined Senator Rod Adair
in the breach.

To be honest, Cravens doesn't share entirely, my enthusiasm and optimism over the possibilities of the session and what might be accomplished.

He is worried that it could be easily blocked, spoiled with too much extraneous legislation submitted by legislators eager to muddy the waters, and the possibility that the Governor might veto anything they come up with anyway. He is though, unafraid of giving it a shot.

I argued, we don't need to win the fight,
we just need to pick it,
so that legislators are compelled to pick a side;

• those who speak up in favor of a bold move to end the culture of corruption and incompetence, on the one side, and
• everyone else, on the other.

If the fight occurs before the November elections, those who hide from the question, or who obfuscate the process, can be identified for voters, and they can be held accountable in the November elections.

Cravens is a Republican, and he is running for Lt Governor.

Transparently accountable government shouldn't be a party issue, but in New Mexico, apparently it is.

So far, not a single Democrat has indicated their willingness to lock themselves in the Roundhouse, and to not leave until they have written high standards, inescapable accountability, and transparency limited only by the law.

Two then, have stood up, Senators Adair and Cravens.

The ball is rolling. The more names on the list, the more pressure will be put on the remaining legislators to pick a side in the fight, either by signing their names, or by hiding from the question in the hope it will all blow over.

You can if you want to, email your legislators and encourage them to step up an join the fight against public corruption and incompetence in state government. You can email them from here, link. Tell them that you want them to step up and join the fight, and further, if they don't, you will not vote for them in November.

It takes only a couple of minutes. I just emailed mine; Senator Cisco McSorley, and Representative Sheryl Williams-Stapleton.




photo Mark Bralley

it's the entrenchment, stupid

I rarely use the words Republican and Democrat because they seldom play in the issues that are important to me. Nevertheless;

Democrats need to be removed from NM state government; not because they are Democrats, but because they are members of an entrenched party, an entrenched political machine; entrenched corruption and incompetence.

That issue will not be addressed by electing more Democrats.
That would only prolong the problem.

Will the Republicans who replace them, them become entrenched themselves?

Socrates thought so; "... absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Of course they will. Despite what you read on the backside
of Democracy for New Mexico, Republicans are human,
with human weaknesses.

The trick is, this time we pay attention,
and don't let it happen.

Legislative competency testing

If the legislature was charged with making public corruption and incompetence impossibly difficult to hide,

1. if they were charged with writing standards of conduct and competence that are unequivocal and meaningful,
2. if they were charged with establishing accountability to those standards that is inescapable,and
3. if they were charged with creating transparency in government, limited only by the law,

could they?

Are they up to it, are they competent enough?

Do they have character and courage enough?

If they aren't, if they don't, shouldn't we know about it
before they run for re-election in November?

If they can't pass that test, they will avoid having to take it.
If they can pass the test, there is no reason to not take it.
There is no reason not to demand that the test be undertaken.

Extraordinary Session; all eyes on standards, accountability, and transparency. Lock the doors. No one leaves til it's done.

Or not. Sadly it is up to them, and so far,
only one has agreed to tested,


Senator Rod Adair.
a Republican.




photo Mark Bralley

Secretary of State Herrera loses battle over letter.

Secretary of State Herrera did what she could to keep A. J. Salazar's letter of resignation secret from stakeholders. When you read the letter, link, you will understand why.

Her effort was doomed from the start; not only is it a public record, subject to law, but a copy was already in the hands of the Journal. She should have just surrendered it to anyone who asked.

She didn't though, and as a consequence, has been subject of widespread criticism and derision, and the letter is out now anyway.

You now have the opportunity to read the letter yourself, and decide for yourself, whether there was ever any real doubt about whether it was a public record subject to the NMIPRA.

The NMIPRA does provide for redaction. There are names named in the letter. I am not a lawyer; I don't know whether the names should be redacted or not. But even if they should have been redacted, the redaction would be limited to a black line through the name, not the suppression of the entire letter.

There are a number of problems raised here. Most of the problems exist because public servants can hide the truth according to their whim, and without consequence.

Even if this got to court, and Herrera was determined to have not followed the law, there would be no penalty for her personally. Even if penalties are levied, they are levied against tax payers and not against the individual politician or public servant who has secreted records in violation of the law.

We need to reform the process for redacting and surrendering public records. The notion that the people with the most to hide, are permitted to redact, or hide, records is nonsensical. It is akin to letting the accused in any trial, decide which evidence will or will not be submitted to the jury.

Self redaction of (incriminating) public records, is utterly unjustifiable.




photo Mark Bralley