I'll take that bet!

Some sniveling piss ant wrote a lengthy ad hominem attack as a comment on my post; "Anonymous" couldn't sleep last night. I chose to not publish the comment because it failed to include even one specific challenge of any fact or logic in the post. And, I am under no obligation, legally, ethically, or morally, to publish ad hominem attacks.

S/he did offer to make a bet, albeit anonymously and therefore meaninglessly. S/he claimed a willingness to bet that

School Board
Member Paula Maes
never said;

"I will never agree to any
audit that individually identifies
any ..." corrupt or incompetent
APS administrator or board member.

So "anonymous", put your money where your mouth is;
any amount (I would suggest a minimum of $100.00
to make it worth my while to pry the public record loose
from the leadership of the APS) and name an independent
third party to hold the wagers and to adjudicate the bet.

S/he is free to "respect" your cowardly need to hide your identity through out the process.

I look forward to you putting your money where your
mouth is and honoring the bet you proposed.

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

Update; "Anonymous" has responded; she will not be putting her
money where her mouth is; no mention of the bet she proposed.
According to the tracking software, she has read 32 posts
on this blog in the last two days and is still unable to point
to a single error in my facts or flaw in my logic. Her relentless
ad hominem attacks provide her vindication of all that I have
written in at least, the last 32 posts.





photo Mark Bralley

Esquivel's plan

School Board President, open government lawyer, and thug, Marty Esquivel has "revoked" my First Amendment rights to attend and participate in School Board meetings. He did so by means of a letter that is being enforced by a new compliant and corruptible Chief of Police Steven Tellez who is backed up by a whole bunch of police officers that at some point swore to defend the Constitution of the United States

and who now find themselves facing the wrong way on the steps leading to a school board meeting.

It is becoming apparent that Esquivel never intended to offer "due process" at a meeting to "restore" my Constitutional rights. Instead he will illegally order sworn police officers to deny the exercise of the rights of dissidence, until hell freezes over.

APS Police Officer Rohlf in a video grab I took of him "defending the constitution" by telling me that not only was I not going to be able to use my ticket to the Eldorado HS Gubernatorial Forum, but that if I didn't leave campus entirely and immediately, he was going to take me to jail. (the date stamp on the photo is incorrect)

The Constitution in the hands of the leadership of the APS;
in good hands, or what?

"Anonymous" couldn't sleep last night.

So s/he went to my blog, read post after post after post, and then posted an ad hominem attack on each of them. Not one of them contained a challenge of my facts or logic.

Normally, unless they are completely beyond the pale, and in the interests of full disclosure, I go ahead and publish them. Then I post my appreciation for their ad hominem attack.

For what ever reason these cowardly (they always post anonymously) pathetic piss ants have taken to disliking me, the clearest path to discrediting me would be to point to an error that I have made. They can't, so they attack me instead.

Lately, at least one of them is very worked up over my objection to School Board President Marty Esquivel's use of the APS Praetorian Guard to stifle my dissent. S/he writes that it is an appropriate use of government resources to deny me the opportunity to exercise my rights to free speech and to petition my government.

Anonymous is ignorant. If s/he had even a basic understanding of civil liberties, s/he would understand that First Amendment protection was written to protect people exactly like me, from the abuse of people exactly like them.

As offensive as they can sometimes be, the ad hominem attacks are like manna to me; their inability to point to errors in fact or logic sustain me in my belief that indeed, I have it right;
Esquivel is wrong to hide the truth about;

• obstructing an independent audit of internal controls in the APS, and
• denying due process rights to hundreds of whistle blowers, and
• the leadership of the APS abdicating as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct, and
• covering up of corruption in the APS Police Department of the involvement of senior APS administrators in felony criminal misconduct.

And further that, I have it right;
Mayor Berry is wrong on not requiring PIOs to tell the truth as opposed to spinning the truth to the advantage of their bosses.

• Public Information Officers have an obligation to answer any legitimate question about the public interests, candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

In addition to his or her ignorance, s/he is mind numbingly naive. S/he wrote last night, that if what I was arguing was actually true, the media would be covering the story. The Journal, for example, is covering up the cover up of corruption they reported, link. Neither KOAT, nor KRQE, nor KOB will investigate or report upon any of the four credible allegations listed above.

S/he can assign neither meaning nor importance to the fact that neither Esquivel nor Mayor Berry has denied the substance of either argument.

When the question is;

will you tell us the truth,
the whole (ethically redacted) truth and
nothing but the truth?

any answer except yes, means no.

It's a "personnel" issue

When public servants are dismissed or reprimanded, little information about the dismissal or reprimand is made available to tax payers.

Certainly, politicians and public servants enjoy the same rights to privacy as citizens; I have argued that premise many times.

It can also be argued, the people have a right to know what is being done with their power and their resources. Indeed, at some point, citizens have the right and ultimate responsibility to hold politicians and public servants accountable for their conduct and competence within their public service.

For example; we hold hold the County Manager accountable for his conduct and competence indirectly. If we think he is doing a bad job, we fire (at election) the County Commissioners who appointed him. If the County Manager keeps secret, the details of his conduct and competence (claiming; it's a personnel matter,) how are we to hold him accountable through the County Commissioners who appointed him and continue to support him.

The line between privacy and the right to know is unclear.
More importantly, it is unexamined.

Consider the recent dismissal of our Inspector General, Janet McHard, link.

If ever there was a position of "champion of the people" the position of Inspector General would be in the running. According to the city's website, link;

Accountability is key to maintaining public trust in our democracy. Inspectors general at all levels of government are entrusted with fostering and promoting accountability and integrity in government.

Our champion apparently enjoyed the support of the City Council and Mayor Berry.

Never the less, she was dismissed this week by the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations.

The Office Director, Carmen Kavelman offered that she was dismissed because she could be; she was in a probationary period and "... had no protection against termination." Beyond that, it is all a big mystery; "Kavelman said she couldn't provide details on why McHard no longer worked for the city. "

As far as we know, McHard may have been terminated for investigating one of Kavelman's friends. I am not suggesting that this is the case, only that we have no idea what the truth is, and therefore conjecture is a reasonable remaining alternative.

It is time for a public discussion of the boundary between "right to know" and "right to privacy". The line needs to be drawn clearly and unequivocally, and reflect the interests of those whose servants are being hired and fired without their input.

Rushing to a degree

If the Journal is to be believed, link, the Republican Candidate for State Land Commissioner Matt Rush has told folks he has an Associates Degree.

The stink of it is; though he is only one course away from his Bachelors Degree, he doesn't actually have his Associates Degree.

Lubbock Christian University Registrar Janice Stone said, "Most likely he has all of the qualifications for the Associates Degree ..." but never asked for it.

Rush maintains that he was certain that he did have the degree.

We should take his word for it.

Unless we have a reason to believe that he intended to deliberately deceive voters (by making a claim that was so easy to disprove, an astoundingly stupid act,) we should take his word for it.

Which begs another question; how many "honest mistakes"
can a person make, before his credibility suffers?

One is probably OK, though that will be up to individual voters.

Many more than one, and his credibility becomes "fair game"
for anyone who cares to take a shot.

Why did Barela call 911?

In the Journal this morning, link, we read that Congressional Candidate Jon Barela called 911 because he was being followed (by a Democratic Party employee). I put the employee part in parenthesis because there is no indication that he knew who was following him.

There is indication that he did not feel physically threatened. In fact, if the Journal is to be believed, Barela was "calm" when he called 911 and "... said he did not feel physically threatened" and "the attempts to "fluster and intimidate" him ... "failed miserably."

One cool cucumber, he.

Now all he has to explain, is why he called 911,
a number normally reserved for the exclusive use of people
who do feel intimidated and physically threatened.

Questions? We ain't answerin' no stinkin' questions!

The Journal reports this morning, link, that the leadership of the UNM is not going to answer any more questions about the latest Locksley dust up.

UNM Athletics Vice President denied that UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley ever told Journal reporter Greg Archuleta that he would be the only member of the media who would be allowed to watch a videotape of the incident between Locksley and a Daily Lobo reporter.

"We are emphatic that we didn't say that," UNM Athletics Vice President Paul Krebs said ..."

Except that, Archuleta has a digital recording of the interview with Locksley confirming that is exactly what Locksley said.

The recording reveals that Locksley also boasted that his friend, the own of the bar where the incident took place, "... ain't givin' it to nobody else."

Now the UNM, backed into a corner, has taken the same position it took to end Locksleygate Part 1, they refuse to answer any more questions.

UNM President David Schmidly has managed to stay out of the affray so far; conspicuously absent at a time when in a "the buck stops here" kind of a way, he should be stepping up to make sure the truth is told. He still has not responded to requests for an impartial investigation of his handling of Locksleygate 1, which included a referendum by the Graduate and Professional Students Association demanding same.

UNM has disposed of the videotape; a public record. Despite the contrary opinion offered by NM Foundation for Open Government Director Sarah Welsh there may well be a violation of the law concerning the retention of public records.

We will never know, I suppose, because these particular public servants think they can get away with refusing to answer legitimate questions about their public service and about the spending of the people's power and resource.

The sick truth is; they can.

Independent review slams Insurance Division

"Auditors for a national accrediting organization reviewing the New Mexico Division of Insurance this spring found an inexperienced, marginally trained staff often incapable of performing in-depth analysis of insurance filings, according to a June 24 draft report obtained by The Independent", link.

I am supposing that before the review, few outsiders, i.e., the people, had any idea how bad things were/are. I further suppose, independent reviews of other Divisions in state government would reveal similar problems.

The conclusions we can draw are;

• there are problems in state government which will not be revealed by existing mechanisms in state government; there is no meaningful self-examination, and
• there needs to be outside examination on a regular basis.

Gubernatorial Candidate Susana Martinez told members of Rep Janice Arnold-Jones' Saturday morning group, she would support independent audits of every agency of state government.

Lt Gov Diane Denish has offered no such commitment,
nor as part of the culture in Santa Fe; an insider,
is she likely to.

This is precisely the "reform" the feckless Governmental Restructuring Task Force should be creating, but is not.

APS; "practicing" waste

One wouldn't think the APS has to "practice" wasting money,
but they do.

Blogger and photojournalist Mark Bralley and I filed with the APS, a couple of requests for public records. We are investigating irregularities surrounding the gubernatorial debate ranging from needlessly empty seats to civil rights violations.

APS Custodian of Public Records Rigo Chavez surrendered about 400 pages of records today.

According to the Compliance Guide, link, published by the Office of the NM Attorney General,

B. COPY FEES
A records custodian may charge reasonable fees for copying public records. ... Unless otherwise allowed by law, any fee charged by a public body may reflect only the actual cost of copying, ..." (emphasis added)

If Chavez is to be believed, the charge he levies, 50 cents per page, represents APS' "actual cost".

Therefore, the stack of paperwork in front of us today, cost taxpayers $200.00. APS could have bought maybe four textbooks for the money he spent making needless copies.

Rather allow ourselves to be ripped off by paying almost ten times the going rate for copies, we ran them through a scanner instead.

We have no further need for the $200.00 worth of copies he made. The APS will now pay to dispose of the paper, raising the cost to taxpayers even further.

We asked Chavez to surrender the records in electronic format; send them to us directly in electronic format, rather than sending them, needlessly, to a copier instead.

He refused.

When asked why, he explained; "It is not our practice."

It is also not his practice to use the return receipt function on emails to acknowledge that he has received them.

It is also not his practice to respond to any request by email, preferring instead to spend more tax dollars and time using snail mail.

There is no rule, no regulation, no policy which requires him to print copies of public records, or refuse to acknowledge email requests, or to use email instead of snail mail. He does so, simply because that is his "practice."

His "practices" serve no good and ethical purpose. In fact, they serve only one purpose; to harass people who file requests for public records from the leadership of the APS, by making the process as cumbersome as it can be made.

He brings a whole new meaning to the term; "public servant."

Speaking of wasting resources, Bralley and I were greeted within moments of our arrival at Chavez' office by the leadership of the APS Praetorian Guard; a Deputy Chief, a Lieutenant, and a Sergeant who demanded;

"Weren't you given a letter telling you to stay out of this building?

I informed him;

"No, as a matter of fact I was not. I have been banned from school board meetings, and this is not a school board meeting."

"Oh", he acknowledged, and they left; looking, I would suppose, for donuts, or perhaps for other dissidents to harass.

More money wasted, as is their "practice".




photo Mark Bralley

Policical operatives; running, and ruining, the campaigns

The interests of the people could not be more clear; they want the candidates to sit down and talk about the issues. I can't imagine there is a single voter who wants more negative ads.

Yet the candidates seem to not hear the people.

Instead they hear only their political operatives whose only
advice seems to be; you can win if you continue to deluge voters with wall to wall negative campaign ads.

Any voter, of any political party, who is at all tuned in, realizes that a candidate who cares nothing about what the people want during the campaign season, will care nothing about what constituents want after the election.

Susana Martinez and Diane Denish are like two prize fighters afraid to come out of their corners because the might get hit. So there they sit, waiting for the other to stand up and trip over something, so they can then run out and claim a victory.

No matter how you look at it, it is pathetic.
We deserve better, much better.

Their blatant disregard of the people's interests should count against them. It would, if only there were a forum where that subject will ever come up.

There isn't, so brace yourselves for a deluge of attack ads and a continued disregard for your needs; and then in November, vote for the lesser of the two evils.

Of what, is Esquivel afraid?

APS School Board President Marty Esquivel has it all;

• lawyers, the Modrall Law Firm,

• guns, his very own Praetorian Guard,the APS PD

• and money; unlimited, unwitting support from taxpayers who are think their taxes are being used to educate their kids, when instead, they are being used to litigate exception to the law, for the leadership of the APS.

If he also has right on his side,
why will he not argue his case;
why will he not defend his illegal
restraining order?

Why won't he tell us from where,
he gets the authority to issue a
restraining order?

School Board Policy states
very specifically that school board
members have no authority except when acting as a board.

The board didn't issue this
restraining order, Esquivel did.

Why won't he defend his use
of a publicly funded private
police force, unaccredited,
uncertificated, and un-
accountable to anyone but
the leadership of the APS,
to illegally deny me the free
exercise of my First Amendment rights?

If I had actually done anything wrong, why didn't he get a legal restraining order?

Why won't he defend his position?

Why, except that his position is indefensible?
Why, except that he cannot find the character and the courage to hold himself honestly accountable for his conduct and competence within his public service?




photos Mark Bralley

Still no meeting with Esquivel and Tellez

Still, I have heard nothing from APS School Board President Marty Esquivel regarding the setting of a meeting that he insists must precede "reinstatement" of my right to attend board meetings and to petition my government.

Accordingly, I have written to him yet again;

Mr. Esquivel,

I am at a loss to imagine a reason you cannot set up a meeting with Chief Tellez in a timely manner, beyond your own lack of character and/or courage. Is there another good and ethical reason about which I might write?

I remind you of the words of William Gladstone who wrote;

"Justice delayed is justice denied."

But then you already knew that, right?

macq

PS Still waiting also, for your reply on the appearance of a conflict of interest regarding;

1. your public service as a school board member, and
2. your defense of Bruce Malott, and
3. your connections to Malott's accounting firm, Meyners + Co, and
4. their various accounting contracts with the APS

A reader offers a fifth; (I am unaware of the circumstances related to this issue, I merely pass it along as a "reader service")

5. and your deal to sell your land to aps for their soccer field. You know, the one that cost 1 million to build then 800,000 to fix.

" “She is a Texan,” Denish said."

“She is a Texan,” Lt Gov Diane Denish said, in an interview with the Rio Grande Sun, link.

She offers that as a good reason to vote against DA Susana Martinez for Governor.

And I find myself wondering how prejudice and bigotry like that, is any better or different, than arguing that people should vote for against Martinez because she is Hispanic, or a woman, or short, or any one of a number of other descriptors that buoy prejudice and bigotry, but don't speak at all to legitimate political issues.

Is Susana a Tejana?

Who cares?

Shame on anyone who would cast their vote on so pathetic a basis.

And shame on Diane Denish for feeding that kind of prejudice and bigotry.

Berry's credibility seriously undermined

At the risk of iterating the abundantly obvious, Mayor Richard Berry is the face of his administration. When the discourse surrounds transparency in his administration, it is he who will be held accountable.

His credibility is being undermined, seriously.

It began with a simple and legitimate question asked of the Alb Fire Department pio Melissa Romero;

Who are the gentlemen in this photograph?

Rather than answer that simple and legitimate question, Romero demanded that the question be justified.



The situation was then
brought to the attention
of pio T J Wilhelm,

who is yet to respond.








The next desk upon which the issue landed belongs to Mayor's Office pio Chris Huffman-Ramirez, who, rather that admit that the Fire Department's pio had made a mistake, argued that the question had not been asked by a "real journalist" and began an utterly incredible discourse on who is, and who is not, the "press" and the differential treatment that that premise justified, link.

The issue was then laid, simultaneously on the table of two more pios, Tito Madrid and Ellen Tenenbaum.

Neither of them has chosen to respond.

We are left with Mayor Berry standing up at a news conference and saying;

"... our track record is pretty darn good. People ask us a question and we're pretty good at giving them a straight answer.

We're really making an effort towards that."

I call "bullshit". Five pios were handed a legitimate question, and not one of them chose to respond candidly, forthrightly, and honestly. We are five out of five.

Romero, still, has not identified the two public servants photographed within their public service.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive”.
Sir Walter Scott

photos Mark Bralley

More PIO disappointment

Mayor Richard Berry's pio Chris Huffman-Ramirez maintains that there are people in the Berry administration who have the authority to decide who is, and who is not, a member of the free press according to the First Amendment.

He has implied, but will not come right out and state, that he is one such.

His standards, in order to "qualify" for First Amendment protection; one has to "own a printing press" (or work for someone who does) or a "broadcast license" (or work for someone who does).

In fairness, Huffman-Ramirez has graciously given his permission for me to

"freely express my opinions on my blogspot" though he'll "... leave news reporting to the professionals who have been trained and educated to do so."

My follow up questions regarding training and education prerequisites , remain unanswered.

Because, according to him, I am not entitled to the "extremely responsive treatment" afforded to "real" journalists; he referred me to the pios who serve the great unwashed - "constituents".

So I wrote the following email to Director of Constituent Services Tito Madrid and Citizen Contact Center Division Director Esther Tenenbaum;

Esther Tenenbaum, Division Director, 311 Citizen Contact Center,
Tito Madrid, Director of Constituent Services, Office of the Mayor,

Ma'am, Sir,

I have been in contact with Chris T Ramirez, Director of Communications, Office of the Mayor.

He has informed me that "the city" claims the right to "credential" members the press, over and above the credentials provided under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I have asked him to identify the person(s) who claims the authority to decide who gets "credentials" and who does not; in order to sort out who gets ""extremely responsive treatment" from Public Information Officers and who has to contact one or the other of you instead."

If you can then;
1) who in city government claims the authority to decide which of the press is "credentialed" and which is not? and
2) by what standards is that decision made?

I am grateful for your time and attention,

ched macquigg

Neither has extended the courtesy of even acknowledging the receipt of my request.

Add two more names to Berry's list of pios who are doing a great job of "telling the truth" as opposed to "spinning" the truth.

Were this not so deeply disturbing on so many levels, and
were it not so philosophically indefensible on any level,
it would be funny.

Instead, it is simple scary, very scary.




photo Mark Bralley

T or C rejects e-mail records requests

Truth or Consequences City Commissioners voted to reject requests for public records which were submitted via email.

That's all good, except that a state law was passed last year, specifically addressing the issue of email requests, and makes them good as gold.

The guy that taxpayers pay to advise the Commission on legal matters, T or C's City Attorney Jay Rubin, was "unaware" of the new law.

The Commission apparently intends to "revisit" "inconsistencies" Tuesday next.

The Journal Reporter Rene Romo,wrote link;

"Rubin said he believed the rule change was adopted out of concern that some e-mailed requests might be lost in transmission. (He apparently offered no scientific explanation for the wayward electrons.)

But TorC resident Brad Grower, who, like several other local gadflies, has filed a variety of public records requests with the city in recent years, said he believed the measure was aimed at making it more difficult for residents to obtain public records ... (and) was "guaranteed to discourage the pursuit of information regarding actions taken by local city government." (emphasis added)

I have written to Romo and asked for an explanation of the use of a pejorative term like "gadflies" to describe folks who have filed a "variety of public records in recent years".

Update; Rene Romo has responded to the email in which I asked about the use of a pejorative term; "gadflies", of which, I am one.

"Ched: Not at all. I say, sincerely, that I consider gadflies to be a critical part of any well-functioning community or society, since they are usually the ones asking pointed questions, taking a closer look at otherwise seemingly mundane issues that could reveal serious problems ..."

I feel better now.

Berry points to two bad apples.

A little more on the question; "Who do the PIOs work for?

The question was asked of Mayor Berry;

Can PIOs be expected to tell the truth as opposed to spinning it?

Berry did a little spinning of his own in his response.

Here's a little sound bite that Mark Bralley captured; link.

What is interesting here, is that Mayor Berry, in his response points to Chris Huffman-Ramirez and T.J. Wilhelm as PIOs who will tell the truth.

TJ Wilhelm was emailed the details of the incident with Fire Department PIO, Melissa Romero refusing to identify from this photograph, two senior fire department officials on the job.



Wilhelm hasn't responded either.

And these two guys are examples of the "good" PIOs?

OMG!




photos Mark Bralley

"Senior Gator" all wet

Blogger Monahan often quotes people who don't want to be quoted personally. For reasons of their own, they chose to not attach their names and reputations to their comments.

In some cases, maybe many, considering the retribution and retaliation that are part and parcel to public service in New Mexico State Government, their anonymity is fundamental to their very survival. In the rest of cases, anonymity serves only to protect the "gators" from having to defend the nonsense they write.

Monahan ranks his "gators" between "senior" and "wall leaner". If I have not grasped the scale accurately; I will bow to controverting fact.

It was a "senior gator" then, who argued on Monahan's blog this morning;

"Denish can and should take credit for being part of (everything good that happened in the Richardson/Denish administration)."

Señor Gator then goes on to tout

"Denish's" accomplishments including pre-kindergarten, improved teachers' salaries, tougher DWI laws, the spaceport, the defeat of the Tortilla Tax ... etc, etc."

What the senior gator has not noticed is;
Lt Diane Denish cannot have it both ways; either she gets a bye on her crime fighting and corruption busting because she (her Office) is feckless and largely ceremonial,
or
she is a mover and shaker in state government, in which case she has to explain why the corrupt and incompetent in state government are not moving (in their pants) and shaking (in their boots) in fear of being exposed and held accountable for their corruption and their incompetence.

So, no, senior gator, whomever you are, Denish cannot point to any of the good done in the last eight years, just like she can't point to the bad; it's all in her "rear view mirror".

btw; If there is any empirical evidence at all, that pre-K is anything more than government daycare, with only temporary benefit to graduates, (the advantage disappears entirely by the third grade), no one has pointed to it; not even Denish, without whom "it would not exist."

Mr Esquivel

I have heard from School Board President and open government lawyer Marty Esquivel.

He has indicated that "(we) will be in touch" regarding the meeting he insists must take place before he will call off his Praetorian Guard and their efforts to deny me access to board meetings and to my right to petition my government.

To which I responded;

Mr. Esquivel,

I am disappointed that you are not willing to actually schedule the meeting that you insist must precede the "reinstatement" of my right to petition my government.

macq

PS. On another issue, I am wondering if you are willing to make a candid, forthright and honest statement for the record on the subject of the apparent conflict of interest regarding;

1. your public service as a school board member, and
2. your defense of Bruce Malott, and
3. your connections to Malott's accounting firm, Meyners + Co, and
4. their various accounting contracts with the APS

Berry's integrity stained by aide

Integrity is the correlation
between one's words and
one's actions.

Mayor Richard Berry
would have stakeholders
believe that he is all about
transparency.

Pursuant to that end,
he held a news conference
awhile back to celebrate
the birth of River City's
own Sunshine Portal.

His words would have
listeners believe he wants
stakeholders to know the truth about the spending of their power and their resources.

I readily concede that the Sunshine Portal is a huge step forward.

Yet, it does nothing about the most sinister aspect of transparency in government; public information officers (lower case). More people will go to a pio to get a specific question answered, than will visit the city website, no matter how easy it is to surf.

The question is; when a stakeholder goes to a pio for the truth, will s/he get it?

Let's face it, pios are not hired to serve the public; they are hired to serve their bosses.

I will offer an example for no purpose except as a single illustration. I do not intend to argue, nor would I ever argue, there is no such thing as a pio who will respond to any legitimate question, candidly, forthrightly, and honestly.

I will aver, I have not yet met that particular public servant.

A local blogger and photojournalist was writing a tribute piece to firefighters and youngsters who would be firefighters, link. For color in the piece; a photograph of two senior firefighters sitting in a car.

This is not about what they were doing, sitting in the car.

Bralley asked the Fire Department PIO to identify the men in the photo. She refused; unless and until he justified the "goodness" of his interest.

The question was a legitimate one, and the response should have been candid, forthright, and honest. It was not.

That was the question I was trying to articulate to Mayor Berry during the Sunshine Portal news conference. He did not answer the question well, in no small part because I did not ask the question well.

So, I went back to the Mayor to see if I could rephrase the question in order to fine tune the answer. I found out that you can't just ask the Mayor a question; you must first make your way through a line of defense manned by pios.

I get it. If the mayor is doing his job, he doesn't have time to respond to every question being asked, even the legitimate ones.

But if he is going to hire people to answer in his stead; he is reasonably responsible for their (lack of) candor, forthrightness, and honesty.

Enter one; Chris T. Huffman-Ramirez, Berry's Director of Communications and a pio.

It was through him that I was compelled to ask my questions(s). They were legitimate questions and he did not respond to them candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

Which means Mayor Richard Berry did not respond to them candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

One such question;

Will he (Berry) provide for a venue where a complaint can be filed against a PIO who is obfuscating the telling of the truth?

... pios like the Fire Department PIO and like the mayor's
own pio; Chris T. Huffman-Ramirez?

Huffman-Ramirez ignored question completely.

Another such question;

Who should command the loyalty of a Public Information Officer; the public or the public servant?

Huffman-Ramirez' answer to that question;

"... this Administration has a great track record with our local media. In fact, this Administration could argue that we are one of the most transparent municipalities in the nation. Mayor Berry has a very clear philosophy that City employees working in any capacity, PIO's included, understand that ultimately taxpayers are our boss and we work for them.

Candid? Forthright? Honest?

Not!

And now to the really disturbing part. Huffman-Ramirez revealed that in the eyes of the Berry administration; the press (despite a constitutionally protected human right tor be "a free press" with or without the government's consent, approval, or recognition) can be divided into to groups;

"credentialed local and national media", and
"constituents"

The First Amendment, quoted in significant part reads;

The Berry Administration "... shall make no law ...
abridging the freedom of ... the press."

Mayor Richard Berry does not have the authority to credential the press any further than they are already credentialed by the First Amendment. And Chris T. Huffman-Ramirez does not have the right to decide who and who is not a member of the press.

Who is he to say

"... our team of public information officers are extremely responsive to our credentialed local and national media." (emphasis added)

and everyone else can go suck eggs?

When I asked Huffman-Ramirez;

"... who (he) thinks has the authority to credential anyone beyond the credentialing provided by the first amendment, and further what standards s/he applies?"

he would not respond.

He would answer the question neither candidly, nor forthrightly,
nor honestly.

And neither will, apparently, his boss Mayor Richard Berry.

By means of a side/endbar; I once asked Richard Berry if, in the absence of any of the leadership of the APS willing to do so, was he willing to step up as a role model for the 90,000 students in the APS, of the APS Student Standards of Conduct?

He was not.

photos Mark Bralley

cc Huffman-Ramirez upon posting;
should he care to respond, refute, or rebut.