The Open Meetings Act, and the Inspection of Public Records Act

are proof that public servants have arranged it so that you
have to invoke the law, to get them to have to tell the truth.

Unacceptable.

Just as the public has a right to ask legitimate questions about
their interests;

public servants have a corresponding obligation to answer those
questions rather immediately, candidly, forthrightly, and
honestly.

No comment is not an acceptable response from a public servant
in response to a legitimate question about the public interests.


If you believe that, then you need to present yourself at
the APS public forum and join in the demand
for honesty from the leadership of the APS.


Or you can do nothing,
and enable the efforts of all public servants with something
they need to hide from you.


There is only one reason to hide the truth.

Darren White is a superb candidate

according to Rudy Giuliani according to Heath Haussamen link


No matter who says what else;

Darren White is a man who lacks the character and the courage to answer legitimate questions about his public service.

Any public servant has a responsibility to present themselves personally and answer legitimate questions about the public interests and about their public service.

Darren White is ducking that responsibility.

He is still trying to cover up APS' Peanut Butter Gate
and the criminal misuse of public resources under his
supervision.

How anybody could seriously consider voting for
a public servant who has "no comment" in response
to legitimate questions about his public service,

is beyond me.

It defies reason.

DA Kari Brandenburg ducking yet another question.

According to KRQE link

Lorraine Martinez is suing you (taxpayers).

The sheriff's department built a case against her for part in helping Michael Paul Astorga evade capture after the murder of BCSO Deputy McGrane.

According to KRQE;

"During the manhunt sheriff's deputies swarmed Martinez's Albuquerque house and the state Motor Vehicle Division office where she worked. Investigators said they found evidence that she provided Astorga with fake identification and other documents while he was on the run.
Martinez was charged with harboring or aiding a felon and was ordered by the court to stay away from her MVD, the scene of the alleged crime. She was eventually fired.

At the end of last year, the charges were dismissed because the case either was never taken to a grand jury or a preliminary hearing was not scheduled.

"They just simply filed the charges, arrested her, caused her to post bond, barred her from going to work and then neglected the case, dropped it," Martinez' lawyer Pennington said.

The sheriff's department didn't want to comment on a pending lawsuit but said stands by its allegations against Martinez.

On Wednesday the sheriff's department said it didn't know why the charges against Martinez were dismissed.

District Attorney Kari Brandenburg did not respond to a request for comment."

Neither will Brandenburg respond to questions about the evidence she is sitting on, of public corruption and criminal conspiracy in the leadership of the APS.

At some point those charges will be forfeit on shelf life issues as well.

Because public servants are permitted to refuse to answer
legitimate questions about their public service.

A privilege she and other senior public servants will enjoy
for as long as you continue to let them.

You have a opportunity next Wednesday to start the ball rolling,
by demanding that the leadership of the APS
present itself to the public for the purpose of responding
to legitimate questions

candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.

The rules of public forum

permit a group of people to stand at the podium together

while each uses their allotted two minutes;

speaking in what ever order they choose.

The rules of the public forum permit audience members
to stand up in support of their beliefs, as well.

It occurs to me that, I am a lightening rod

and people might not want to stand too close to me.


I have never asked,
nor will I ever ask anyone to validate me personally.

You don't have to associate yourself with me any way
in order to stand up and demand that

your public servants present themselves in person
to tell you the truth

when you ask them a legitimate question
about your power and your resources
and about their public service.


The issue really could not be made more clear.


You will either take back control over power and resources that are fundamentally your own,

or you will not,

and you will regret it
for the rest of your life.

The worst thing that any public servant can do

is everything they do in secret.

Why can we not expect public servants to sit still and answer legitimate questions about the public interests?

Why can we not expect them to answer those questions candidly, forthrightly and honestly?

and rather immediately.


Why not?

Bernalillo County "revives" ethics panel

According to an article in this morning's Journal link sub req

The county commission has appointed two new members to
fill vacate seats on the ethics board, which has been "dormant"
since 1999.

According to the article;

The five-member board is mandated by county ordinance but hasn't met for almost a decade. To get it going again, county commissioners on Tuesday appointed former county manager Juan Vigil and optometrist Francis Duffy Jr. to fill the remaining vacancies.

The seats were filled without informing stakeholders that the issue was even on the table.

County Commissioner Alan Armijo is quoted;

"The attorneys realized we didn't have anybody in place for (accepting and "... investigating complaints about employees or officials accused of violating the county's ethics code, which prohibits conflicts of interest, acceptance of certain gifts and use of public property for personal benefit.")."

No body noticed that there is not, and has not been an ethics panel since 1999.
No body noticed. It was finally picked up by "the attorneys."

And ethics reform is not really ethics reform anyway.
Looking at Armijo's statement, it becomes obvious that ethical reform doesn't mean picking any one of a number of legitimate codes of ethical conduct, and then simply establishing honest accountability to that standard.

In our culture of corruption, ethics reform means; identifying a few of the most egregious and indefensible examples of ethical misconduct, and then prohibiting them, and only them.

Faith in the ethics board is reasonable shaken by a closing comment from Armijo;

"The board will meet soon to approve resolutions outlining how it will operate. But after that, it might never meet again if there are no complaints filed ..."

Do you really suppose that there is no need to file any complaint of ethical misconduct by any county employee, on almost a daily basis? If complaints are not being filed, it is for another reason than the fact that there is no ethical misconduct in county government; this is after all New Mexico, which has a national reputation for its "culture of (political) corruption".

Has anyone looked for evidence of a "culture of fear of retribution and retaliation" against those who file complaints against their superiors? Is there whistle blower protection?

Jumping on board with her support for the ethics commission was County Commissioner, Teresa "don't hold my son accountable" Cordova who said; "I think it's always good to have measures of accountability."

Gee, ya think?

It is not apparently, a good idea to have absolute accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence, for county employees; in particular the high ranking ones.

Is there really no other candidate to sit on a county ethics board than a former county manager? What are the chances that a former county manager owes a few favors here and there? Is no one supposed to notice that one of the good ol' boys has been placed in charge of holding good ol' boys honestly accountable for their conduct and competence?

Talk about the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Apparently public confidence in the system doesn't play,
which explains why no complaint has been filed since 1999
and why the panel, after it's organizational meeting is likely to

"... never meet again."

If I won for you, a public forum; would you even go?

If by some circumstance, for the first time ever in public service
the leadership of the APS was compelled to stand still and
answer legitimate questions, candidly, forthrightly, and honestly

would you even go?

Would you stand up to Paula Maes and ask her how many tax dollars were lost or stolen do to the irregularities in the APS Financial Division; significant "irregularities" according to the Meyners Audit.

Would you stand up to Robert Lucero and ask him why he is not honestly accountable as a role model of the student standard of conduct.

Would you stand up to Delores Griego and ask her for an ethically redacted version of her participation in Grade Gate?

Would you stand up to Berna Facio and ask her how many tax dollars were spent on the boardroom at a time when fire safety inspections in schools were being ended to save money?

Would you stand up to Gordy Rowe and ask him why he is stepping aside for a Modrall lawyer (type)?

Would you stand up to Mary Lee Martin, who was on the board of education at the time the pillars of Character Counts! were endorsed as the standard of conduct for APS students,

and ask her; why did you vote to remove from your own code of conduct the affirmation of the importance of role modeling;

in no case shall the standard of conduct for an adult be lower than the standard of conduct for students.

Would you stand up to Marty Esquivel and ask him why he is not demanding a forensic audit of the APS Modrall relationship despite over whelming evidence that a great deal of unwitting taxpayer support of education has been used to engage in a great deal of very expensive litigation against the public interests?

Would you stand up and ask Winston Brooks why he is standing in the way of an administrative accountability audit of the APS?

Would you stand up and ask Winston Brooks;

Are you willing to be held honestly accountable as a role model of the student standard of conduct, even for the measly few hours a day you hold students accountable to that higher standard of conduct?

Or will I be the only one asking questions at that forum as well?


Will you even been there to listen to their answers?


By the way, I sent copies to Journal editors Charlie Moore and Kent Walz; a link to my post where I alleged that they have credible evidence of an ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS

and are refusing to investigate and report upon that scandal.

Further that they are refusing to investigate and report upon public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS

expressly to protect the corrupt and the incompetent in the leadership of the APS from exposure.


They were offered the opportunity to offer any other good and ethical reason for their failure to investigate and report upon the lack of standards and accountability in the leadership


and they chose not to respond.

At the very next public forum of the APS school board

I will ask the following question;

Will there ever be an honest to God public forum
where any legitimate question can be asked

and the leadership of the APS will respond
candidly, forthrightly, and honestly?

Their response will be to stonewall the question.

The only defense of an indefensible position is to hide it.
According to the student standard of conduct
people who stonewall are behaving unethically.

They are role modeling unethical behavior.

They removed from their own code of conduct the words;

in no case shall the standard of conduct for an adult
be lower than the standard of conduct for a student.

I would like to ask them why they did that.

And expect them to answer candidly, forthrightly, honestly,
and rather immediately.

If you're wondering why the phrase "candidly, forthrightly, and
honestly" shows up so often, it is because it is cut and pasted
from the student standard of conduct;

a nationally recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethical conduct;

the Pillars of Character Counts!


I think even U S Senator Pete Domenici
actually gave a rat's ass about Character Counts! a long time ago.

And Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez;
he used to give a rat's ass about Character Counts! too.



You have a little over a week to pick a side.
You pick a side when you don't pick a side.

Charlie Moore knows, so does Kent Walz

They know that there is an accountability crisis in the leadership of the APS, which is so grave that Governor Bill Richardson said;

the leadership of the APS has a state wide earned reputation for its lack of financial accountability.

Charlie Moore and Kent Walz know that the Meyners audit
revealed that a billion tax dollars a year are being spent;

• without adequate rules, and
• without accountability to any rules, and
• without keeping adequate financial records.

They know that millions of tax dollars have likely gone missing.

They know that subordinates in the APS financial division,who should have blown the whistle on the irregularities, but did not;

have been promoted to Director of Internal Auditing and Chief Financial Officer.

Charlie Moore and Kent Walz know that there is an accountability crisis in the leadership of the APS which is so bad, that Mayor Marty Chavez insists upon the right to appoint school board members of his own.

They know that the former Chief of the APS Police Department, Gil Lovato has said; if the truth ever comes out, there will not be a singe APS senior administrator left standing.

Charlie Moore and Kent Walz know that school board head honcha, Paula Maes has said, on the record, that she will never allow an audit of the APS that names the names of the corrupt and the incompetent.

They know that there is an obvious and incontrovertible need for an immediate full scale forensic audit of the public interests in the public schools.

They know that the leadership of the APS steadfastly refuses to begin the audit, and just as steadfastly refuses to explain, defend, deny, or even acknowledge their decision.

Charlie Moore and Kent Walz know that there is no explanation for their failure to investigate and report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS;

except in order to protect the corrupt and the incompetent in the leadership of the APS.

Charlie Moore and Kent Walz know they are betraying the public trust.

Charlie Moore and Kent Walz can offer no explanation for their failure to investigate and report upon public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS

except their own corruption and incompetence.

If we ignore bullies

If we teach our children to ignore bullies
we are teaching them to ignore bullying.

We are teaching them to stand there and do nothing
while bullies rape their friend with a broomstick.

As much as I do not want a child to be beaten up
better that than to have stood there and done nothing
during a rape.

Darren White cannot pass a vote of confidence.

If Darren White was the subject of a vote of confidence,
he would fail. This according to a number of opinions being
expressed in the blogosphere.

You cannot take very seriously, the "back side of blogs",
where people post anonymously, and the most angry
are the most vocal.

But it does raise the issue; and where there is smoke,
there is usually fire. And there is a lot of smoke in the backside
of blogs; smoke that indicates that there is a very real problem
in the leadership of the BCSO; a very real problem with
Darren White's leadership

Added to a previous failure to pass muster with his own
troops, a vote of "no confidence" by his subordinates
in the New Mexico State Police, the question becomes
even more viable.

Darren White could easily commission a vote of confidence
from employees in the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office.

A vote of confidence, that proved confidence,
would be invaluable asset in his run for congress.

It would prove that he learned from his previous failure;
it would prove that he is finally a leader of his troops
who enjoys the confidence of those he leads.

But Darren White will not conduct a vote of confidence,
he will not even discuss a vote of confidence,

because there are real reasons to believe that he would
once again, fail.

It may be happening, but it is prohibited.

The quote, attributed only to "APS" shows up above the fold
in this morning's Journal, as part of an article on the hazing
incident at Las Vegas' Robertson High School. link sub req

It would be naive to argue that there is a school district
anywhere in which rules are not being broken.
It's the nature of the beast; if there are rules, there are
children who will try to break them.

Looking at the issue in a broader context;
we see the "permission of prohibited behavior".

As an example; sagging. Sagging is the wearing of one's pants
low enough on the buttocks to expose underwear. It is a
popular practice that for the most part flies in the face of a
stated rule.

At one point, sagging was a violation of an expressed school
board policy. And yet, it continued at every middle and senior
high school in the APS.

This is not about sagging.

It is about adults laying down rules and children ignoring
those rules in plain sight; in manifest defiance of the supposed
authority of adults.

And they get away with it; without consequence. In the APS
the student intent to sag, was so intractable, that board policy
no longer prohibits sagging. The adults made a rule, the kids
said "no way" and the rule was changed or deleted.

Sagging is not the only example of the permission of prohibited
behavior in the APS.

The most important continuing example is; chronically disruptive
students. If you ask teachers to list the things that prevent
or disrupt an educationally efficient environment, they will
say kids breaking rules, not inadvertently, but deliberately;
kids who simply do not recognize the authority of adults.

APS teachers will not be asked about the permission of
prohibited behavior. There will be no survey that documents
the problem.

Because according to the negotiated agreement; administrators
have the responsibility to enforce school and district policies.

Teachers, of course, share that responsibility; they can't call
an administrator to their classroom every time a kid breaks a
rule. But the ultimate responsibility falls upon the principal,
and above him or her, a chain of command that reaches to
the office of the superintendent.

Ask a teacher, and you will find a breakdown in discipline
that is having a profound and adverse effect on education.
Test scores, truancy, drop outs, most every problem faced
by students and teachers, has its roots in the break down
of discipline in schools.

But teachers will never be asked, problems will never be
documented, because the buck stops on an administrators
desk. And administrators, and board members, do not
gather statistics that support doubt about how well they
are doing their jobs.

The leadership of the APS does not document their own
failures. For the same reason that they will not allow an
impartial audit of the entire leadership of the APS.

They are covering their asses.

And it is just "too bad" for teachers, students, and the
community. And, oh well.

Once a Modrall lawyer, always a Modrall lawyer

If at any time during a legal career, you are of the persuasion
that you (and your clients) can do anything that the law allows;

you have renounced honest accountability to the
APS Student Standard of Conduct, which requires one
to do more than the law requires, and less than the law allows.

The last thing this community needs on the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education is another Modrall lawyer; Jon Barela.

Yet another board member who will not stand up and hold
himself honestly accountable as a role model of the student
standard of conduct.

There is no reason to fill Gordy Rowe's empty seat
four months before an election, except to give Jon Barela
an incumbent advantage in that election.

There are only three kinds of ethical reform in government.

If we can agree to eliminate "accidental" reform as a viable
option;

we are left with two.

Ethical reform "by permission" is an oxymoron.
Those who benefit from public corruption and incompetence,
will never give their permission to end it.

Which leaves us with only; ethical reform "by demand."

And if ethical reform cannot be had by demand,
it cannot be had at all.

And if no one is willing to stand up and
demand ethical reform in government

it cannot be had at all.

What would Winston do?

According to KRQE link

When the superintendent of the Las Vegas Schools found out that there were credible allegations;

that while under school supervision,

a bunch of bullies held some little kids down and rammed broomsticks up their asses.


Superintendent Rick Romero met the returning thugs' bus in the parking lot.

The police were there.


Superintendent Rick Romero "... conceded that at the time
he told the officers this was an internal investigation and that
they were not needed.

I would hope that Winston Brooks is the kind of superintendent
who would have been the first person through the bus door
and then dragged those malicious assholes by the scruff of the necks, to the nearest police car.


In fact, Winston Brooks would probably meet the bus in the parking lot, an obvious obligation and photo op. He would be accompanied by the Albuquerque Public Schools Police. He would insist that there was no need for APS, BCSO, or the NMSP go get involved; that the APSPD had the whole thing under control.

The APSPD is a publicly funded, private police force.
The only one in the entire state.
It is accredited by no one. It is certificated by no one.
It reports directly to Winston Brooks and Paula Maes'
school board.

Winston Brooks would insist that the investigation be conducted by his own Praetorian Guard.

Imagine for a moment that one of those kids that were held down by a gang of bullies, while a broomstick was jammed up their ass

was your baby.


Would you be comfortable allowing Winston's cops to conduct the investigation?

The only reason why APS is the only school district in the state,
with its own publicly funded, private police force;
is so that investigations can be covered up; to hide the truth.

It was former APS Superintendent Peter Horoscak who said

"You can't just tell the truth,
you never know how someone might want to use it."

When APS Deputy Superintendent Michael Vigil was on his
way to jail for aggravated drunk driving; he insisted upon
being allowed to call Gil Lovato, the Chief of the APS Police Department.

Gil Lovato has since said, if he ever gets to court,
if the truth ever gets out,
there will not be a single senior APS administrator left standing.

All Winston Brooks has to do to absolutely refute all of this;

is to sit down at a town hall meeting and answer legitimate
questions about the public interests in the public schools;
all of them.

All he has to do is offer any commitment at all; that he
intends to hold himself accountable to the same standard
he enforces upon students;

candid, forthright, and honest.


He can't, and these allegations are proved,
beyond any reasonable doubt.

Beth Everitt actually promised an audit

When Beth Everitt was busy soft pedaling her "retirement",
at a news conference, she promised that she would cooperate
with any audit of the APS. link

"Everitt asked the board to seek an external audit of the APS administration's structure."

In fact, no audit of the leadership of the APS was ever done;
ever.

Nor will one be done; ever.

Because the leadership of the APS cannot survive an honest audit.

They cannot even survive a public discussion of such an audit.

Superintendent Beth Everitt could not.

Deputy Superintendent Tom Savage could not.

APS COO Brad Winter cannot.

APS CFO Gina Hartman cannot.

APS Director of Internal Audits Michael Kimbrell cannot.

No board member can.

But most of all, Paula Maes and her Modrall law firm cannot.


That is why Paula Maes looked us all in the eye, and said

I will never allow any audit that names names.

The biggest why right now is;
why are the media not saying even one word about any of this?


Does the President of the New Mexico Broadcasters Association
Paula Maes, have so much sway over the media, that
they will betray the public trust just to cover her ass?

Or is there another reason, that no one in the media is proud
enough of, to lay on the table for our inspection?

In a Special APS Board Meeting this morning.

A plan will be hatched to install Modrall good ol' boy Jon Barela
onto the school board.

It will give APS/Modrall's good ol' boy a running start in the
upcoming "election". He will enjoy an over whelming
incumbent advantage in the election. An advantage that he
will have done nothing to earn, except that he is one of the boys.

Like the process that saw Winston Brooks installed as
superintendent, the process will look like there are many
opportunities for "the public" to guide the process.

Like the process that saw Winston Brooks installed; the
process will end with the Board making the final decision.

In any process that ends with a board decision as the final step,
none of the proceeding steps amount to a hill of beans.

For all of the ballyhoo about public involvement in the
Winston Brooks hiring process, Winston Brooks never
found himself in a position where he actually had to answer
a direct question from the public. He is still not in that position.

Winston Brooks never had to answer a single legitimate
question about;

• administrative role modeling
• administrative standards of conduct and competence,
• administrative accountability to any standards at all, and
• an immediate impartial administrative accountability audit.

He never did, and he never will.

Not one of the "leadership" of the APS will answer even one
inconvenient question about the public interests, or about
their public service.

And, neither will Modrall good ol' boy Jon Barela.


And "the public" will never know what hit them.


Nobody ever said they weren't good at what they do.

But then, how good do they have to be,
for as long as the public are asleep at the wheel?

Now it turns out; Jon Barela is a Modrall lawyer.

link to the Journal archives, sub req

He returned to New Mexico in 1987 to practice law with
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk and
remained with the firm until joining Intel. (1993)

Jon Barela, the designated replacement for Gordy Rowe,
is a Modrall lawyer.

Modrall is the law firm making millions of dollars off taxpayers
litigating exception to the law for APS administrators and
board members.

Litigation that has cost tax payers so much money that APS
had its insurance premiums raised as the direct result of
excessive litigation costs.

Litigation that has cost tax payers so much money that
neither the APS nor Modrall will respond to requests for
the public records that show how much it costs.

The President of the Modrall, just happens to be married
to school board head honcho, Paul Maes.

No appearance of conflict of interest there!

What this all means is;
Paula Maes Modrall, is going to install one of her Modrall
buddies on to the school board.

For more than the next four years.

Never mind the scheduled election next February.

The empty seat on the school board does not have to be filled by appointment. It should be filled by election.

The election is only a very few months distant.
Less time than it took them to fill Beth Everitt's slot
with Winston Brooks.

And now they will select a person more powerful than
a superintendent, in a few weeks at best.

There is no need to fill the seat by any manner
except by election.

There is no need to fill the seat now,
except to give the good ol' boy from Modrall
an "incumbent advantage" in the next election.

There really is no hurry to fill the seat.

It isn't like the seat has not been vacant
for quite some time already.


What do you suppose the chances are that;

the good ol' boys in the APS, and
the good ol' boys at Modrall, and
the good ol' boys in local politics, and
the good ol' boys in the media,

couldn't get together,
and put one of their good ol' boys on the school board;

to help spend a billion tax dollars a year.

Which they would do, according to the Meyners Audit;

• Without adequate polices and procedures, and
• without adequate accountability, and
• without adequate record keeping.

Promoting two subordinates that should have blown the whistle
on the mess years ago, and did not
to the positions of APS Director of Internal Audits, and
APS Chief Financial Officer.

And then simply refusing to allow an independent forensic audit.
Refusing to discuss the audit.
Refusing even to answer legitimate questions about the audit.

Paula Maes said,

"I will never allow any audit that will individually identify
any administrator, like for example, Tom Savage."

She meant it. It has never happened. Even the Meyners Audit
didn't mention a single administrators name. Not even the
ones that the Meyners auditors said were spending more
than $50,000 at a whack "... without involving purchasing."

An audit will reveal millions of tax dollars lost or stolen;
or a miracle of biblical proportion.

Paula Maes Modrall cannot survive an audit.

And now she wants to put another one of her homies on
the school board, to help cover her butt.

What could possibly go wrong?


Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?


Foot note; On Tuesday, November 25, 08
I had the occasion to sit and talk with Jon Barela.
He indicated to my that he had taken umbrage at
my use of the word homie.

I concede that my use of the word was ill advised.
I offered Jon Barela my earnest apology in person,
and in public. link

Kari Brandenburg, I am told

has not prosecuted a single case of public corruption
in the entire time she has been our DA.

Is this true?

And if it is true,
is it because there is no public corruption to prosecute,
or is it because there is no prosecutor of public corruption?

Was there no public corruption and criminal conspiracy in
the Albuquerque Public Schools Police Department?

Or was there no prosecutor of credible evidence of
public corruption and criminal conspiracy in the leadership
of the APS (police department)?

Fair questions to ask, in light of the upcoming election.


It is unfortunate that Kari Brandenburg does not hold herself
accountable to any standard of conduct which would require
her to respond to legitimate questions about her public service

candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.

She, by her own deliberate choice,
does not hold herself accountable to a standard of conduct
which actually requires her to answer at all.


Interesting behavior from the senior most
law enforcement officer in the whole Rio Grande valley.