APS School Board in Hiding

The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education is making monumental decisions in secret.

Part and parcel in the hiring of the next superintendent, are two issues that the board does not want discuss in public;

1. What will be the new standards of conduct for students? and
2. Will they have adult role models of (honest accountability to) those standards?

That the board is trying to make these decisions in secret from stake and interest holders begs at least one question; why? Why are they in hiding?

The obvious answer is; they do not want to be held accountable for the decisions they have made.

They fully intend to;

1. Lower student standards of conduct*, and
2. Provide for students, no adult role models of actual accountability even to the significantly lower standards of conduct.

*Currently, APS students are expected to “model and promote (honest accountability to)” a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct. Replacement standards remain unspecified.

There will be no executive or administrative role models. The board’s position is manifest in their removal from their own standards of conduct, a role modeling clause which had read;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for adults
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

Within the last week, they decided to not include “role model” in their list of “desirable characteristics” of the next superintendent.

Were the character and courage of the board not placed in doubt by these decisions, that doubt is laid to rest by their efforts to keep the whole thing secret.

Until they are formally lowered, student standards of conduct require candor, forthrightness and honesty in response to legitimate questions. It is this requirement in particular that the leadership of the APS wants to abjure.

The courage of the board, collectively and individually, is brought into question by their efforts to make these decisions in secret.

Kent Walz and the Journal’s relentless refusal to investigate and report upon the ethics, standards and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS is not borne of cowardice per se, but of corruption.

Walz and the Journal (and the NM Broadcasters Assoc affiliates KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV are integral in the cover up of corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS.

Were they not, they would report that APS school board members and senior administrators are in fact, honest to God accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and competence within their public service.

Qui tacet consentire videtur,
ubi loqui debuit ac potuit

He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken
and was able to, is taken to agree — Latin proverb

APS Scandal Journal Coverup

The entire leadership of the APS is abdicating en masse, their duties and obligations as the senior-most role models in the APS.

Facts; the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education (over the years) has;

Unanimously resolved to establish ethical standards of conduct for students. They resolved as well, to provide adult role models of honest accountability to those higher standards of conduct.

Voted to remove the role modeling clause from their own standards of conduct. The clause had read;

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

The board refuses to defend that decision. They refuse to discuss openly and honestly, their ongoing refusal to replace a role modeling clause in their own standards of conduct.

Every year since, school board policy, in the student handbook, has read;
students are expected to “model and promote (honest accountability to) the Pillars of Character Counts!...”;
a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct.

There are double standards of conduct in the APS; higher standards of conduct for students than for their senior-most role models.

Student are told their character depends on their willingness to expect more from themselves than the law requires, and less than the law will allow.

In stark contrast; consequent to unlimited funding for litigation, legal weaselry and cost-is-no-object legal defenses, school board members and senior administrators are arguably unaccountable even to the law; the lowest standards of conduct acceptable to civilized human beings; the standard that every higher standard is higher than.

Wednesday last, the APS school board refused to add “role model” to their list of the “desirable characteristics” in their next superintendent; the senior-most administrative role model in the entire school district.

Wednesday next, they will vote to erase from school board policy, any expectation that students hold themselves honestly accountable to higher standards of conduct than the law.

It will solve their problem of double standards of conduct in the APS.

Were there any doubt about this being a reflection of their own character and courage, that doubt ends with their refusal to discuss any of this in open and honest public meetings.

There are no inconspicuous role models; the concept is oxymoronic.

If we want students to grow into adults who embrace character and courage and honor, someone is going to have to show them what those look like.

They are called role models.



The Albuquerque Journal, Kent Walz in particular, know these facts. They have know about them for as long as they have been part and parcel of the cover up of felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of APS’ publicly funded private police force (2007)

The Journal, and KRQE, KOAT and KOB TV, steadfastly refuse to investigate and report upon the ethics, standards, accountability and role modeling scandal in the leadership of the APS; even to report that there isn’t one.

Even to report that school board members and senior administrators are in fact, honest to God accountable to meaningful standards of conduct.

Which of those is not newsworthy?

Sacrifice being the currency of commitment, any commitment to ensuring that APS students are helped to develop their good character will be measured in sacrifice.

Contact the Journal. Demand their investigation and report on ethics, standards, accountability and role modeling in the leadership of the APS.

Demand to see the results before the next superintendent is hired.

APS Student Standards of Conduct to be Lowered

There are in the APS, double standards of conduct. According to School Board Policy and the APS Student Handbook; students are expected to “model and promote (honest accountability to) the Pillars of Character Counts!; a nationally recognized, accepted and respected Code of Ethical Conduct.

School board members and senior administrators are arguably unaccountable even to the law; the lowest standards of conduct acceptable to civilized human beings.

There are three ways out their hypocrisy;

1. They can continue to stonewall; refusing to discuss openly and honestly, their ethics, standards, accountability and their obligations as role models of accountability to the same standards of conduct that they establish and enforce upon students.

2. They can raise their own standards of conduct to equal those they expect from students. They can replace the role modeling clause in their own standards of conduct; in no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

3. They can lower student standards to standards low enough that they are willing to role model accountability to them.

New Mexico Broadcasters Association affiliate stations, KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV similarly refuse to send their “investigative” reporters to expose the scandal, or to report that there is not one. To wit; APS board members and senior administrators are actually, honest to God accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and competence within their public service.

They could raise their own standards of conduct.

They choose the third alternative. On Wednesday the 12th, at a Policy and Instruction Committee Meeting beginning before most people get off work, and during which public input will not be allowed, the APS school board intends to remove the language that establishes higher standards for students and consequently of course, for their senior-most adult role models. Had they any.

At their last meeting, Wednesday the 5th, the board made a deliberate decision to not add “role model” to their “desired characteristics” in their next superintendent.

Those who we rely on to report the news will not.
If they show up at all, they will not report upon what they witness.

APS Custodian of Records; hysterical!

I have been trying for two months to find out;

1. how many teachers are working for the APS, and
2. how many years of experience they have between them.

Two months later, the best that the Custodian of Records/Communications Specialist can do, seriously, the very best they can do is to refer me to the salary list for everyone who works for the APS.

I am apparently supposed to sift through the list all 12,142 of them ferreting out and counting teachers. LOL

The Custodian of Records claims there is no record of accumulated years of teaching experience. Odd, since every year, the district is reimbursed by the state specifically for the years of teaching experience for which they compensate teachers.

Else, districts would hire inexperienced teachers to keep district costs down.

It reminds me of the time I asked for a videotape of a board meeting. They played it on a TV somewhere and taped it with some crappy camera and produced a copy of that. Funny they are.

The whole thing stops being funny when you thing about the fact that the Custodian of Records is;

• a public servant
• on the public dime,
• goaded on by administrators 
• on the public dime
• egged on by lawyers eager to litigate
• on the public dime.

Eager to bank more of the Operational Fund; money that could, should and would be spent in classrooms were it and the public trust not being squandered in courtrooms instead.

There is an ethics, standards, accountability and role modeling scandal in the leadership of the APS. Or they could prove that there isn’t.

They could point to;

Ethics and standards high enough to protect the public interests in the public schools, and to

Honest to God accountability to those ethics and standards,

Visible enough to serve as models for staff and students to emulate.

There aren’t those. Obviously.

The Emperor has no clothes.

"Republican party would love the opportunity to execute gay people."

wrote Democrat party leader Charles Alexander Weimer; link.


Someone else first wrote;
we are a divided country but not a sharply divided country.
Clearly s/he wrote that long ago.

If it can be agreed; the divide needs to be bridged in the interests of the country, then it should be noted that the greatest obstacle to repairing a sharply divided country is the inability to engage in civil discourse. Nothing is settled by a shouting match of name calling, hyperbole and outright lies.

America is being encouraged to abandon civil discourse by "leaders" like Weimer. It is scary to read that Weimer once played a role in childhood development link.

Begging a question; development in what respect?
Better at using deliberately misleading language to advance
personal and political interests? Isn't that called lying?

Nothing is to be gained by exacerbating the divide. Nothing.

The fight with radical Islamist terrorists is a fight to the death.

If there is any doubt about whether one is or is not in a fight to the death, the surest way to resolve that doubt is to ask those with whom you are fighting;
"are we fighting to the death?"

If your opponent declares over and over again,
"of course we are fighting to the death"
so are you, in a fight to the death;
never mind any of your feelings or controverting misconceptions.

Fights to the death end in one of two ways.

If one or the other opponent does not realize, believe or fight like they are in a fight to the death, the death that ends the fight will be theirs.

The math all but does itself.

Public corruption in the APS; the media cover up

The public corruption;

the leadership of the APS is spending the Operational Fund without restraint, to subsidize cost-is-no-object legal defenses for school board members and senior administrators.

The operational fund dollars are taxpayer dollars that should, could and would be spent in classrooms were it and the public trust not being squandered on litigation and legal weaselry.

The spending decisions are made in meetings in secret, of which no recordings are permitted, and without oversight*. *Subordinate oversight is not oversight; it is an oxymoron.

It is all part of an ethics, standards, accountability and role modeling scandal in the leadership of the APS.

A scandal the Journal is covering up.

Were the leadership of the APS honestly accountable to the law, much less to higher standards of conduct than the law, the Journal would report it. Why would they not?

In the face of so many school board, bond issue, mill levy elections and superintendent searches, they would be remiss to not report that to stake and interest holders, to taxpayers and to voters.

Were the leadership of the APS honestly accountable to any standards of conduct at all, they could point to those standards and then point to the due processes by which they can be held accountable to them.

Ayn Rand argued that refusing to face an issue suggests that the worst is true.

The worst is true.

And that is why neither the leadership of the APS nor of the Journal will engage in an open and honest defense of their conduct or the relentless refusal to investigate and report upon it.

Paula Maes a former APS school board heavy hitter, whose family made a ton of money off APS litigation and legal weaselry, is also the President and CEO of the New Mexico Broadcasters Association.

The local affiliates, KRQE, KOAT, KOB TV coincidentally find themselves aligned with the Journal; unable or unwilling to face the issue of public corruption in the leadership of the APS.

The media cannot be relied upon to tell the truth; the whole truth and nothing but the ethically redacted truth. It is as sad as it is shameful.

APS teaching experience a big secret; why?

On Tuesday November 12, 2019, an effort in earnest was begun to find the answers to two questions;

1. How many teachers does APS employ? And
2. How many years of teaching experience have they accumulated between them all?

As of this morning, the data has not been made available still; 19 working days later.

The request has been bouncing around the leadership of the APS.
For some reason, no one will simply answer the questions.
No one will identify anyone who will.

The request ended up on the desk of APS Custodian of Public Records. The request was denied on the basis that a request for information is not a request for records and is therefore lies in some other bailiwick.

The request for information could have been forwarded to an APS Communications Specialist who could at least help move the request along. It was not.

It wasn’t necessary because, the Custodian and Communications Specialist are one and the same person.  Yet nearly a month after asking, the data remains secret. Why?

The information bolsters a compelling argument for empowering educators in the decision making process.

It is hard to argue that people who have accumulated among them, literally tens of thousands of years of teaching experience, much of it in APS schools, have no place at the table where decisions are made.

It would be at least a little bit harder to argue that, educators, having between them 67,554 years of teaching experience, have no seat at the table where decisions are made; the one sounding less like an opinion than the other.

Perhaps there is a disturbing experience drain among APS teachers that needs to be covered up.

Who knows?

More importantly perhaps, why don't they know?

Why must the superintendent search continue in indefensible secret?

The APS School Board is planning a number of meetings during which they will separate the wheat from the chaff among candidates for the next superintendency.

Far too many of them will be held in secret from stake and interest holders.

The Open Meetings Act provides for the need for some part of some negotiations to be held in secret.

There are at least two ways that the leadership of the APS can comply with the law.

One way would be to role model the standard of conduct to which they hold students accountable; trustworthiness. The standard compels candor, forthrightness and honesty. It requires doing “more than the law requires and less than the law allows”.

The leadership of the APS interprets open government differently. If they have a public record that they would rather not produce, if they have a meeting that they would rather not open to public scrutiny, they will produce or open only those that they have been compelled to do by a court of competent jurisdiction.

School board members have basically two responsibilities; writing school board policy and hiring the right superintendent to enforce them.

When voters hold school board members accountable at election, is based on the policies they created and the superintendents they hired.

If the most important part of selection process takes place in secret from voters, how are they to hold school board members accountable for their performance in those meetings?

This coincidentally, is just what they have in mind.

If the very worst thing a politician or public servant can do, is anything they do in unjustifiable secret from the people whose power they wield and whose resources they spend, they must have a powerful need to continue to try to get away with it.

APS Superintendent Search; Phase Two

There will be two phases in the APS board’s search for their next superintendent that involve “public input”.

The first phase ends with the last of several public fora around the district, the purpose of which is to gather community input on hiring criteria in order to create a “superintendent profile". The profile will then be used to select the new superintendent.

Rather than to suggest that the data gathered is meaningless; that it will not move the needle one iota in the board’s selection of the next superintendent, it will be left up to those whose should be able to defend the utility of the data, and to point its actual effect on decision making.

By way of illustration, consider the number of expensive bus tours around the district that the leadership of the APS has taken and their abject inability upon their return, to point to a single thing they learned on the ride, that they should not have already known.

The final opportunities for stake and interest holders to participate in person in the selection of their next superintendent will be in March or April of next year. The board promises; that (after a number of meetings in secret during which the finalists will be actually selected) there will be several community forums during which people will meet and listen to the individual APS superintendent candidates.

They further promise; “You will be able to submit questions …”
Do not suppose that you will be able to ask any candidate a specific question.

If, for example, you want to ask;

Are you willing and able to stand up as a role model of honest accountability to the same standards of conduct that you will enforce upon students?

your question will not survive the filtering process. It will not be asked in an open and honest public meeting.

The board further promises; you will able “to provide your input on the candidates. Written input from audiences will be provided to members of the Board of Education for its consideration".

If you think that the board’s “consideration” of a legitimate question will include a candid, forthright and honest response, you would be wrong.

If, for example, your written input includes the question;

Why will you not be held honestly accountable to the same standards of conduct that you establish and then enforce upon students?

they will not respond.

Try as you may, the selection process for the next superintendent will not contain an open and honest public discussion of ethics, standards, accountability and role modeling in the leadership of the APS.

It is the elephant in the room.

It is the third rail APS’ effort to mislead stake and interest holders.
If they touch it, they’ll vanish in a puff of smoke.

APS Superintendent Search; the need for secret candidates

The leadership of the APS is trying to add more secrecy to their search for a new superintendent. They want to keep secret, the names of people who want to be considered in their selection of APS’ new superintendent. They argue; a better field of candidates will emerge if they are allowed to apply without telling the people around them what they are doing.

It is fair to ask, better for whom exactly?

Consider for a moment, the field of candidates who will apply, but only if they can do so in secret from people who trust them.

Their only defining characteristic; the only thing that makes them different from otherwise willing candidates, is their manifest willingness to betray the trust of stake and interest holders in order to advance their own interests.

The fundamental question of course; why would the leadership of the APS be looking for a superintendent with a proven record of their willingness to betray the trust of stake and interest holders; except to help them cover up their own betrayal of trust of stake and interest holders?

The leadership of the APS does not want the truth to be known about executive and administrative ethics, standards and accountability. Are they looking for a superintendent willing to keep secrets?
They refuse to discuss in an open and honest public meeting;

• double standards of conduct in the APS resulting from the board’s unanimous abdication of their obligations as the senior-most role models in the district, of honest accountability to the same standards of conduct that they establish and then have enforced upon students, 

• their wanton spending of the operational fund on cost-is-no-object legal defenses for school board members and senior administrators, in order to buy for them in unjustifiably expensive settlements, admissions of “no guilt”, regardless of guilt. The effect of which is, they arguably unaccountable even to the law.

And finally one is compelled to ask about this editorial, if the editors are really so honestly outraged about the APS school board’s effort to keep more secrets, why are they so unwilling to investigate and report upon why the board’s very existence depends on increasingly more secrecy?

Can they really not connect the dots?

Or are there other interests at play?

Character counts in politics and public service

Lest the object lesson go unnoticed;

the law as it applies to (powerful) politicians and public servants is inadequate to protect the people’s power and resources from abuse.

The term “higher standards” means higher standards than the law; the lowest standards of conduct acceptable to civilized human beings.

People of character, by definition, expect more from themselves than the law requires and less than the law allows. They accept honest accountability to higher standards of conduct.

Most people believe that politicians and public servants are actually accountable to higher standards of conduct than the law. The rest believe that they should be.

The simple truth is; powerful people with unlimited tax dollars to spend are not accountable to higher standards of conduct. They are arguably unaccountable even to the law. If they can use tax dollars to buy admissions of “no guilt” regardless of their guilt, are they really accountable to the law?

The problem with enforcing higher standards of conduct than the law is that they cannot be enforced in courts of law. That’s why the county sheriff has not produced public records according to the spirit of the law.

Is a county sheriff spending tax dollars on litigation and legal weaselry actually accountable to the law? Is he doing something “illegal”?

Similarly, the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education cannot be held accountable to higher standards of conduct. They cannot be held accountable for their character.

The superintendent they are about to hire? S/he will be also; unaccountable to higher standards of conduct than the law. S/he will not be held accountable for their character.

So who the bad guys here; the politicians and public servants who exploit weak laws to their advantage, legislators who won’t write laws with teeth, or the people who place no import on character when voting for people in whose hands they will place their power, their resources, and their trust that neither will be abused?

“Synergists” need not apply for APS Superintendent

For the purpose of this essay, a “synergist” is a person who is capable of, and willing to, create and maintain synergy among APS employees. Synergy defined as; the creation of a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Synergy and the model of the leadership of the APS are irreconcilable.

The power structure is pyramidal. At the top, a handful of “experts” who have control over power and resources entrusted to the leadership of the APS. As decision making power and resources trickle down toward the base they are absorbed.

At the base of the pyramid and holding the whole thing up, thousands of school based personnel; including teachers and teaching assistants having among them nearly 100,000 years of teaching experience, most of it in Albuquerque public schools, and with no real decision making power and no resources to underwrite the decisions they are allowed to make.

There can be no such thing as synergy without first there being the delegation of power and resources toward the “parts”.

The APS has at least once before, tried to empower school based personnel and community members. School communities formed committees called School Restructuring Councils. They failed when participates realized they were decision “advisors” not “makers”. Whatever effort is made to delegate power always comes with a proviso; if the council and the principal disagree, it is the administrator whose fist pounds the table last.

APS policy with respect to shared decision making has always included what many teachers refer to as a “weasel” clause. Currently it can be found in the APS Student Handbook and reads;

Nothing in the following is intended to prevent a staff member, teacher, principal or other administrator from using his/her best judgment with respect to a particular situation.

What it means in practice;

Nothing … is intended to prevent … an administrator from using his/her best judgement in a particular situation.

That becomes a problematic when for example; a staff member or teacher feels that a student’s misconduct is criminal and should be referred to a legitimate law enforcement agency. The administrator’s “best judgement” will be that it is better for all concerned if no record is made or kept of criminal misconduct.

Administrators have neither to explain nor defend their “best judgement”; it is what it is.

It should come as a surprise to no one; powerful people in control vast resources are not inclined to share either. In particular, they are disinclined if there is potential that the sharing cannot be rescinded at will.

More than anything else,

• the APS needs a superintendent who can create synergy and

• the current leadership of the APS needs to make sure that never happens.

APS Board of Education; when push comes to shove

The pressure is on; the situation is critical; urgent; 
the time has come for action, even if it is difficult.  Wiktionary (derived)

The Albuquerque Public Schools is about to end as a matter of policy; district-wide efforts to help students develop and maintain character.  They are about to formalize their abandonment of students to their own devices when it comes to character.

Push has come to shove.

The APS school board promised, albeit it a quarter of a century ago, that the core curriculum would “give explicit attention to character development… “ And further “that materials, teaching methods, partnerships, and services to support school programs shall be selected, in part, for their capacity to support the development of character …”

United States Senator Pete Domenici, a founding father of Character Counts!, had just delivered a $30K grant to the APS. APS and Albuquerque’s commitment to Character Counts! drew national attention. Albuquerque and Roswell touted nationally recognized flagship programs.

Since, they have reneged; their promise abandoned.

District-wide, the core curriculum does not give explicit attention to character development. In fact, it gives none. Materials and teaching methods are not being selected according to their capacity to support the development of character.

The Pillars of Character Counts! as standards of conduct, have been forsaken by APS leadership.

The Pillars can now be found in two places; central in a decal that adorns the fenders of APS police cars, and tangentially in school board policy. According to the APS Student Handbook, students are expected to “model and promote” honest accountability to the Pillars of Character Counts!

The APS school board is about to remove from school board policy and the student handbook, that last evidence of their abdication of their function, duties and obligations as senior role models.

Previously, school board standards of conduct enjoyed a role modeling clause . When the clause became inconvenient , they voted unanimously, deliberately, with malice aforethought, to erase from their standards of conduct, that clause and with it, any noteworthy, observable mention of their commitment and obligations to service as role models.

The APS Board of Education is covering up double standards of conduct in the Albuquerque public schools. They will not consider open and honest public discussion of their own ethics, standards and accountability as the senior most role models in the entire school district.

There is a cornerstone of role modeling; that is visibility. If the leadership of the APS cannot bear to be candid, forthright and honest about the ethics and standards to which they are willing to be held accountable, what can be said about their ethics, standards and accountability?

The resolution made by the board in 1994 is still binding. It has been neither rescinded nor amended. Promises don’t expire. The standards of conduct that the board establishes and enforces upon students require facing the person who’s trust you are about to betray.

Stake and interest holders who believe that students in Albuquerque public schools should be encouraged to embrace accountability to higher standards of conduct than the law cannot simply allow this disgrace to take place without opposition.

An open and honest public discussion of the 1994 resolution is crucial. A candid, forthright and honest expression of the willingness of the leadership of the APS to serve as the senior-most role models in the district is fundamental to their service as role models.

The leadership of the APS cannot defend their deliberate decision to remove their role modeling clause. They cannot defend their position on executive and administrative ethics, standards and accountability.

They cannot defend their refusal to reconsider the 1994 resolution; to amend, rescind or recommit themselves to it.  They cannot defend their stubborn resistance to discuss the the resolution in front of stake and interest holders.

On some night in January or February , the APS school board is going to vote to remove any mention of the Pillars of Character Counts! from the APS Student Handbook.

The next day will be a day too late to do anything to stop them.

This issue cannot be discussed without discussing the Journal’s part in the cover up; the aid and abet given to the leadership of the APS by Kent Walz’ Journal.

The only defense of an indefensible position is to hide it; to evade the question.

The Journal is hiding the scandal.  Search their site for an investigation, any investigation ever, any report ever, on ethics, standards and accountability in the leadership of the APS.  The absence of truth-telling on so important an issue is not accidental.  It is deliberate, with malice aforethought.

The leadership of the APS and the Journal are favored in the meeting next February.  Their interests will be served by inconsequential attendance.  That; the proximate result of a widespread lack of knowledge of the meeting and its consequence.

Therefore; there is a need for those who believe in the need for candor, forthrightness and honesty from the APS board of education and, who feel a commitment to stand up in support of what they believe in to insist upon;

• an open and honest public discussion of the 1994 resolution.  
• candor forthrightness and honesty with regard to the replacement in administrative and executive standards of conduct, of the role modeling clause.

That insistence must fall upon the Journal as well as the board. Insist that the Journal give that meeting and the issues at stake, the attention that they deserve.  Insist at every possible opportunity.

Else; nobody will show up to protest the erasure of the last of the evidence against them. Nobody will know it even happened in a meeting the Journal will never report upon.

Someone else first wondered;

If not you then who? If not now, then when?

The time to stand up and be counted is now.

The right time to do the right thing is right now. unk

Nowhere in this report is APS' entire "wish list"

I responded to a Journal article on APS' legislative wish list.  This post represents an expanded version.



The failure to provide even a link to the list in its entirety, is symptomatic of the lack of candor and forthrightness that pervades the APS/Journal and stakeholder relationship.

The leadership of the APS tries regularly; to get the legislature to legitimize APS’ publicly funded private police force.

They need to become a legitimate police department in order to get out from under the MOU with the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office.

The Memorandum of Understanding prohibits the leadership of the APS and their police force from investigating felonies. They are required to surrender evidence and investigations to either APD or the BCSO. (Perhaps others, I don’t know; it’s irrelevant)

The restriction, on the commissioning of APS police officers by the BCSO, became necessary when, in the mid-2000s, the APS police investigated their own felony public corruption and then hid all the testimony and evidence from legitimate law enforcement agencies including the District Attorney.

Their cover up continues to this day. It is underwritten in meetings in secret where the operational fund and the public trust are squandered on lawyers, litigation and legal weaselry in their so far successful effort to keep the relevant public records secret from public knowledge.

The records you’re looking for are; any that demonstrate that the leadership of the APS ever turned over to any legitimate law enforcement agency, the entirety of evidence and testimony of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators.

A problem the Journal knows about; has known about all along; and relentlessly refuses to expose.

APS Students Greatest Obstacle to Success

Scores on standardized tests are one thing; they are not the only thing.

Public schools producing “graduates” not so much as they are producing “community members”. In the bluntest terms, public schools are turning out good community members and not-so-good community members.

Obviously, there are students who graduate from the APS as trustworthy, responsible, respectful, caring and fair good citizens. The point is, the “leadership” of the APS can claim no credit.

By the leadership of the APS’s absolutely deliberate decision, there is not, and there will not be ever, any district wide effort to address character development in the more than 80,000 of this community’s sons and daughters in APS schools.

To educate in the mind and not in the morals is to create a menace to society.

Theodore Roosevelt

Students who are committing armed robberies in APS schools today, will be committing armed robberies in Albuquerque tomorrow.

The greatest obstacle facing APS students today, in their path toward becoming contributing community members, in their effort to become adults who embrace courage and character and honor, is the abject absence of even a single senior role model who will show students what those look like.

The leadership of the APS steadfastly refuses to engage in an open and honest public discussion of their obligations as role models. 

The refusal to face an issue is to confirm that the worst is true 

Ayn Rand derived

“Do as I say, not as I do”

every kid's parent

Every generation expects the following generation to be the first generation to hold themselves accountable to higher standards of conduct than their adult role models.

The greatest obstacle facing APS students today is the abdication en masse of APS’ senior-most role models.

The second greatest obstacle facing APS students, is the Journal's steadfast refusal to blow the whistle on the role modeling scandal rotting the leadership of the APS

Is the APS Board of Education Trustworthy?

There are two standards of conduct in the Albuquerque Public Schools. School board members and senior administrators are (not really) accountable to the law; the lowest standards of conduct acceptable to civilized human beings.

Student standards are far higher.

School board policy requires student to “model and promote” honest accountability to a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct.

According to APS student standards of conduct; in order to be worthy of trust (a characteristic that students are taught, is important) they must be “honest”. And, not just every once in a while.

Student standards read;

Honesty in communications is expressing the truth as best we know it and not conveying it in a way likely to mislead or deceive. There are three dimensions:

Truthfulness. Truthfulness is presenting the facts to the best of our knowledge. Intent is the crucial distinction between truthfulness and truth itself. Being wrong is not the same thing as lying, although honest mistakes can still damage trust insofar as they may show sloppy judgment.

Sincerity. Sincerity is genuineness, being without trickery or duplicity. It precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading.

Candor. In relationships involving legitimate expectations of trust, honesty may also require candor, forthrightness and frankness, imposing the obligation to volunteer information that another person needs to know.

School Board President David Peercy and the board reject student standards as their own. They have abdicated their duties and commitments as the senior-most role models in the district.

Not only do Peercy and the board refuse to replace the role modeling clause* in their own standards of conduct, they refuse to discuss their refusal in an open and honest public meeting.

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

APS students are expected to be worthy of trust.

Their seniormost role models? … not so much.

Dr. David Peercy’s boggle

David Peercy is the President of the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education.

He is doing everything in his power to prevent an open and honest public discussion of ethics, standards and accountability in the leadership of the APS. He has been for as long as he has been on the board.

In part, his expressed resistance is based on his belief that he is already accountable to standards of conduct that are higher than the standards of conduct he and the board have established for students.

He is yet to address the issue that the school board’s own Code of Ethics, by their free admission, is utterly unenforceable.

Peercy writes;

Being a role model indeed means that employees, including board members, are in fact held to a higher standard of conduct than those persons (eg students) who would benefit from the role model. That is the requirement for all APS employees.
He cites; GB2 Staff Standards of conduct. https://www.aps.edu/about-us/policies-and-procedural-directives/policies/g.-personnel/gb2-staff-standards-of-conduct

Let’s take a look.

According to GB2, (here quoted in significant part), Peercy claims he

“… shall maintain the highest standard of conduct and act in a mature and responsible manner at all times”.
“… shall maintain appropriate professional behavior …”
“… shall serve as positive role models for students and set good examples in conduct, manners, dress and grooming”.

According to the standards of conduct to which the school board holds students accountable, students

shall be trustworthy

• Honest in communications; expressing the truth as best they know it
• Sincere; precluding all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs of leave impressions that are untrue or misleading
• Candid, forthright and honest
• Keep their promises and avoid bad faith excuses

That is only scratching the surface of one of the six Pillars.

On their face, the student standards of conduct are obviously higher that adult standards of conduct per school board policy.

Sadly, there isn’t one whit of difference between the highest standards of conduct and the lowest, if neither can be enforced.

Open letter to the APS Board of Education

Dear School Board Member,

David Peercy is want to claim that he and you are honestly accountable to higher standards of conduct than students. Despite repeated requests, he is unwilling or unable to point to specific language substantiating his claim.

The following is one of six standards of conduct that school board policy requires students to “model and promote”. As a central theme in Character Counts!, accountability must be read into modeling and promoting. School board policy requires students to “hold themselves honestly accountable to” a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct.

This Pillar comes from a booklet called “Making Ethical Decisions” published by the Josephson Institute; the home of Character Counts!. There should be multiple copies in the school board office or the office of the supt. Your lawyers probably have copies.

The booklet represents the closest thing the district has to “student standards of conduct”. The Student Handbook is written at college level difficulty cannot be reasonably considered student standards of conduct. If there is a better document to cite, by all means do.

I have taken the liberty of highlighting pertinent information worthy as context in your decision whether to revisit the 1994 resolution and, the board’s removal of a role modeling clause from their own standards of conduct.

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

There are double standards of conduct in the APS. The spending of the operational fund on cost-is-no-object legal defenses renders school board members and senior administrators arguably unaccountable even to the law; the lowest standards of conduct acceptable to civilized human beings.

The refusal to host an open and honest public discussion on so important an issue as role modeling and ethics, standards and accountability is inexplicable in the context of the standards of conduct that you establish and have enforced upon students.

Grateful for your time and attention

ched macquigg





TRUSTWORTHINESS

When others trust us, they give us greater leeway because they feel we don’t need monitoring to assure that we’ll meet our obligations. They believe in us and hold us in higher esteem. That’s satisfying. At the same time, we must constantly live up to the expectations of others and refrain from even small lies or self-serving behavior that can quickly destroy our relationships.

Simply refraining from deception is not enough. Trustworthiness is the most complicated of the six core ethical values and concerns a variety of qualities like honesty, integrity, reliability and loyalty.

Honesty

There is no more fundamental ethical value than honesty. We associate honesty with people of honor, and we admire and rely on those who are honest. But honesty is a broader concept than many may realize. It involves both communications and conduct.

Honesty in communications is expressing the truth as best we know it and not conveying it in a way likely to mislead or deceive. There are three dimensions:

Truthfulness. Truthfulness is presenting the facts to the best of our knowledge. Intent is the crucial distinction between truthfulness and truth itself. Being wrong is not the same thing as lying, although honest mistakes can still damage trust insofar as they may show sloppy judgment.

Sincerity. Sincerity is genuineness, being without trickery or duplicity. It precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading.

Candor. In relationships involving legitimate expectations of trust, honesty may also require candor, forthrightness and frankness, imposing the obligation to volunteer information that another person needs to know.

Honesty in conduct is playing by the rules, without stealing, cheating, fraud, subterfuge and other trickery. Cheating is a particularly foul form of dishonesty because one not only seeks to deceive but to take advantage of those who are not cheating. It’s a two-fer: a violation of both trust and fairness.

Not all lies are unethical, even though all lies are dishonest. Huh? That’s right, honesty is not an inviolate principle. Occasionally, dishonesty is ethically justifiable, as when the police lie in undercover operations or when one lies to criminals or terrorists to save lives. But don’t kid yourself: occasions for ethically sanctioned lying are rare and require serving a very high purpose indeed, such as saving a life — not hitting a management-pleasing sales target or winning a game or avoiding a confrontation.

Integrity

The word integrity comes from the same Latin root as "integer," or whole number. Like a whole number, a person of integrity is undivided and complete. This means that the ethical person acts according to her beliefs, not according to expediency. She is also consistent. There is no difference in the way she makes decisions from situation to situation, her principles don’t vary at work or at home, in public or alone.

Because she must know who she is and what she values, the person of integrity takes time for self-reflection, so that the events, crises and seeming necessities of the day do not determine the course of her moral life. She stays in control. She may be courteous, even charming, but she is never duplicitous. She never demeans herself with obsequious behavior toward those she thinks might do her some good. She is trusted because you know who she is: what you see is what you get.

People without integrity are called "hypocrites" or "two-faced."

Reliability (Promise-Keeping)

When we make promises or other commitments that create a legitimate basis for another person to rely upon us, we undertake special moral duties. We accept the responsibility of making all reasonable efforts to fulfill our commitments. Because promise-keeping is such an important aspect of trustworthiness, it is important to:

Avoid bad-faith excuses. Interpret your promises fairly and honestly. Don’t try to rationalize noncompliance.

Avoid unwise commitments. Before making a promise consider carefully whether you are willing and likely to keep it. Think about unknown or future events that could make it difficult, undesirable or impossible. Sometimes, all we can promise is to do our best.

Avoid unclear commitments. Be sure that, when you make a promise, the other person understands what you are committing to do.

Loyalty

Some relationships — husband-wife, employer-employee, citizen-country — create an expectation of allegiance, fidelity and devotion. Loyalty is a responsibility to promote the interests of certain people, organizations or affiliations. This duty goes beyond the normal obligation we all share to care for others.

Limitations to loyalty. Loyalty is a tricky thing. Friends, employers, co-workers and others may demand that we rank their interests above ethical considerations. But no one has the right to ask another to sacrifice ethical principles in the name of a special relationship. Indeed, one forfeits a claim of loyalty when he or she asks so high a price for maintaining the relationship.

Prioritizing loyalties. So many individuals and groups make loyalty claims on us that we must rank our loyalty obligations in some rational fashion. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable, and ethical, to look out for the interests of our children, parents and spouses even if we have to subordinate our obligations to other children, neighbors or co-workers in doing so.

Safeguarding confidential information. Loyalty requires us to keep some information confidential. When keeping a secret breaks the law or threatens others, however, we may have a responsibility to "blow the whistle."

Avoiding conflicting interests. Employees and public servants have a duty to make all professional decisions on merit, unimpeded by conflicting personal interests. They owe ultimate loyalty to the public.

The Journal can’t report the truth; here’s why

There is an ethics, standards and accountability crisis in the leadership of the APS.

If the Journal starts reporting on the crisis now, they will have to report that is has been going on for decades. Readers will wonder; then why are we just reading about it now?

The Journal doesn’t have a good answer for that one.

At one point, Journal heavy hitter Kent Walz and APS school board enforcer Marty Esquivel conspired to give the now disgraced former APS Supt Winston Brooks a coveted hero’s award for transparency. link

The Journal doesn’t have a good answer at all.

Ergo, the Journal will continue to keep readers in the dark.