Communication has two meanings;

I have been wondering how Winston Brooks can continue to
point to "communication" as a area he intends to improve;
while at the same time refusing to answer legitimate
questions about the public interests. The disconnect is
thundering.

I have concluded that the problem is my own.
When I think of communication, I think of a dialog;
two people reacting to each other in a conversation.

It turns out that "communication" has two meanings.

One includes an exchange of information or thoughts;
the other; simple dissemination of information and thoughts.

If you examine the communications of the APS with the
community, you will find that to the leadership of the APS,
communication means they will disseminate information.

But they will not participate in any exchange of information
or ideas.

They will not, for example, hold a simple town hall meeting
there to answer legitimate questions about the public
interests in the public schools.

Winston Brooks talks a lot about improving communication
with the the community; when what he means is
communication to the community.

He will never answer questions. Questions like;

Why are you not accountable as a role model of
the student standard of conduct,
for even the 6.5 hours a day that you
enforce that standard upon students?

Is it because, that under the student standard of conduct,
communication to the community, instead of
communication with the community, is unacceptable.

Because it is unethical.

Because it is dishonest.


Stakeholders have a right to know the truth.


Winston Brooks, and the rest of the leadership of the
APS, believe that the truth is theirs to parcel out as
suits their interests.

As former APS Superintendent Peter Horoscak put it;

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

Stakeholders have a right to the truth
no matter how they might want to use it.

And Winston Brooks will cover all of that up by raising
the dissemination of information to a new height; parents
and the community will be better informed than they
have ever been; a worthy step forward in "communication";
but still not the real deal.

And, it will keep the dogs at bay, while he continues to hide
the fact that neither he, nor any other member of the
leadership of the APS, has any real intention of being
candid, forthright, and honest with stakeholders.

Winston Brooks can spin with the best of them.

I would encourage stakeholders to watch the broadcast of
the latest board meeting at 5 pm today on TalNet,
channel 96.

You will see Winston Brooks spinning the results of NCLB
testing.

The test is balance.

It would be as wrong to point only to the failures that the
NCLB testing revealed, as it would be to point only to the
successes.

I would say that Winston Brooks failed to maintain that
balance, that he "spun" the truth. You can judge for
yourself.

The telling evidence, is that while Winston Brooks says;
"We will make no excuses." for the NCLB shortfalls,

he also offers no explanation for them.

By offering "no excuses" he also offers no opportunity for
stakeholders to understand what policies and personnel
are responsible for the failure.

If the failure is not the result of failed policies and personnel,
then how can new policies and new personnel rectify the failure?

There is a disconnect.

Winston Brooks is not being candid, forthright and honest
about NCLB failures.

In light of that that lack of candor, forthrightness and
honesty; how can we believe anything he says, ever?

"Trust that man in nothing,
who lacks conscience in anything."unk

"They have all been very, very successful at what they've done."

APS board member Robert Lucero, in the Journal, link sub
in defense of Brad Winter's and Linda Sink's promotions.

Lucero had similar glowing reports on Beth Everitt, and
Tom Savage, and even on the now thoroughly disgraced
Gil Lovato.

APS stakeholders are routinely mislead by people like
Robert Lucero, about the quality of the leadership of the
APS.

If the leadership of the APS is so good, why is APS doing
so badly?

If Brad Winter did such a good job as the head of
Maintenance and Operations; why do APS schools have
such crappy roofs?

Does anyone but Robert Lucero think that Brad Winter's
decision to end school fire safety inspections in order to
fund an unjustifiable new boardroom, is an indication of
being very, very successful?

I would like to point to at least one thing that Brad Winter
has been very, very successful at; keeping the cost of the
new board room secret from stakeholders.

Winter has also been very, very successful at keeping a
candid, forthright, and honest accounting of the money
he spent at 6400 Uptown Blvd, secret from stakeholders
as well.

Robert Lucero himself has been very, very successful
at kissing administrators asses, and at misleading his
constituents about the quality of the administration of
the public trust and treasure, by the leadership of the
APS.

... very, very successful.

Infighting on the APS School Board

Board member Dolores Griego is unhappy with APS hiring
practices. According to an August 5, 2008 Journal article

"The color of APS does not reflect the color of people
that it serves," Griego said in an interview.

Griego was publicly spanked by several board members
including Paula Maes, Marty Esquivel and Robert Lucero.

Esquivel read into the record, a letter that he had written
to Winston Brooks, taking issue with Griego's charges;
and offering what are apparently controverting statistics.

Paula Maes was quite exercised in her attack on Griego's
position, quoting extensively from the resumes of several
high ranking administrators.

Robert Lucero went so far as to demand an apology from
Griego.

Griego claimed that the August 5, article by Journal reporter
Andrea Schoellkopf had twisted her words. Although
as Schoellkopf points out in her article in today's Journal
link sub, after Griego claimed to have been misquoted,
she went on to defend the substance of her allegedly
misquoted remarks.

Mary Lee Martin, despite the manifest rancor and hurt
feelings, declared that everything was just hunky dory
and we have nothing to worry about, as the board and
superintendent are a tight knit team working for the
benefit of stakeholders.

I think if you take a look at the broadcast version of the
board meeting, you will see that Mary Lee Martin
is mis characterizing the solidarity of the board.

TalNet is scheduled to broadcast the entire meeting at 5 pm
today. channel 96 link

"Good ol' boys"; friends or foes?

I have for some time, been trying to raise some alarm over
the fact that the APS is run by a good ol' boys club.

Without much success.

I have been doing some internet research on "good ol' boys"
in preparation for writing this essay. I have found the words
to a Willy Nelson song, and not much else.

"Good ol' boys" is a concept that apparently means
something to everybody, but perhaps not the same thing
to anybody.

There are generally two meanings. In the south, its
meaning is positive. To be referred to as a good ol' boy
would be a compliment.

The other meaning is more sinister, but shares a
fundamental aspect; good ol' boys likability.

What ever else gets one into a good ol' boys club,
you don't get in if people don't like you.

A lot of people liked APS' Tom Savage. He was a very
likable guy.

So when one suggests that Tom Savage was a good ol' boy
who put the interests of other good ol' boys before the
public interests, you run up against the "friends of Tom"
who may in fact know very little about the specifics of the
allegation, but will vigorously defend their friend.

There are people who call me a lot of names.

To some, I am a "crazy old fart."

Not because of the lack of substance to my criticisms of
good ol' boys, but because I am criticizing their friend.

Beyond that, what characterizes a "good ol' boys club"
and what difference does it make?

The most important characteristic of a good ol' boys club
is that the "rules" that would bind them, were they not
good ol' boys, do not bind them.

Good ol' boys are accountable only to other good ol' boys.

Self exception to the rules, is the real problem with
good ol' boy organizational structures.

For the most, the rules are appropriate and should be
followed, how ever personally inconvenient. If we allow
privileged people to self except themselves from the rules,
what is the point of the rules?

It is at least statistically possible that you might be able
to find a good ol' boys club that puts the public interests
above their own.

But your discovery would fly in the face of human nature.
Human nature is such that we have found an irrefutable
need for rules, and for honest accountability to those rules.

You cannot file a complaint against any member of the
leadership of the APS which is guaranteed a principled
resolution; an impartial adjudication based on agreed
upon principles.

Every complaint is heard by another member of the
good ol' boys club. Even if one takes their complaint
to the legal system; one finds only a different good ol' boys
club, with the same disregard for accountability to the rules
as one finds in the leadership of the APS.

Any one who picks a fight with a good ol' boy,
has picked a fight with all of them.

If the leadership of the APS is not a good ol' boys club,
they would be able to show stakeholders;

1. meaningful standards of conduct and competence, and
2. an impartial system that guarantees their accountability to those standards, even against their will.

The leadership of the APS can show you neither.

Because the APS is run by a good ol' boys club.

And if you are looking for the most fundamental cause of
all of the failures of the APS, you have found it.

Product quality falls in institutions where good ol' boys
except themselves and their friends from accountability
to meaningful standards of conduct and competence;
as surely as night follows day.

The organization of good ol' boys needs to be dismantled.

It needs to be replaced by an organization that will hold
itself honestly accountable to meaningful standards of
conduct and competence.

If you want to know if a particular APS administrator or
board member is a member of the good ol' boys club;
ask them if they will support an immediate full scale
forensic audit of the entire leadership of the APS.

If they say, yes; they are not a good ol' boy.

If they answer no; they are a good ol' boy.

Any answer except yes, means, no.

The change will not take place, except past the vigorous
resistance of those who's careers will end upon an audit;
the only real proof that they can offer to stakeholders
to prove that they are actually willing to be held accountable
for their records as public servants.

"... we're not making any excuses ..."

Winston Brooks said it several times, Marty Esquivel said
it at least once.

They were talking about the apparently bad results
of recent standardized testing; under the NCLB.

The leadership of the APS is making no excuses for their
apparent failure to do what stakeholders expected them
to do.

Which is just another way of saying that they have no
intention of talking about the problems and personnel.

The leadership of the APS is making no effort
to identify any of the policies or personnel
responsible for the failure.

They would like instead, to move forward.

It makes a difference that they will never look back.
It makes a difference that they will never honestly audit
their own public record.

As long as the top priority is self exception from honest
accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and
competence,

there will always be unsolved problems. There will always
be failure.

It makes a difference that they refuse to be held accountable.

It makes a difference that they stonewall legitimate questions.

It makes a difference that they refuse to be candid,
forthright and honest.


It makes a difference.

What more proof do you need that you have lost control
over power and resources that are fundamentally your own

than when a public servant refuses to answer legitimate
questions about the fate of your power and of your resources?

The terms of public service are the prerogative of the public
and not of the public servant.

Public servants do not write the terms
of their public in-servitude.


We are the master.


We are simply too afraid to crack our whip.

It is difficult to crack a whip from a groveling position.

If nothing else, it looks ridiculous.

Problem solving; in the dark, or in the daylight

Given that the APS has problems, and given that there are
people who will be working very hard to solve those problems;

the most important remaining question is;

Will they do their work in the dark or in the daylight?

Who cares? What difference does it make,
as long as the problems get solved?

The problems came about, as a direct result of the lack of
transparency in the APS. Every problem, every failure to
solve every problem, happened in the dark.

APS is a dark institution.

Darkness creates problems. Darkness exacerbates problems.

The overriding interest in maintaining the darkness cannot
be explained,

except by an overriding interest in protecting those whose
record of public service cannot survive the light of day.

If the problems get solved, it will be only coincidently.

The problems, the solutions to the problems, should be
the number one priority.

For as long as the true priority is cover good ol' boys asses,
the problems that are caused by corrupt and incompetent
good ol' boys, will remain unsolved. There will continue to
be corrupt and incompetent public servants who are
promoted to positions of great power, simply because they
are good ol' boys.

No one in the leadership of the APS has ever gone on the
record and denied that the APS is run by good ol' boys.
No one ever will. It would like standing up and denying
the existence of gravity.

Tom Savage was the king of the good ol' boys in the APS.
Brad Winter is the new king.

Peanut Butter Gate; the public corruption and criminal
conspiracy in the leadership of the APS (police dept)

was a direct report to Tom Savage.

The current scandal in the APS Finance Division;

• the failure to write financially sound policies and procedures
• the failure to enforce the policies and procedures they did have, and
• the failure to keep records complete and detailed enough to send anyone to jail

were direct reports to Tom Savage.

Tom Savage was never held accountable for any of it.

Per Paula Maes orders; Tom Savage's name never came up.

He, like Beth Everitt, was retired with honors.

Brad Winter will not stand on the record and explain why
he canceled fire safety inspections in schools and then
spent the savings on a completely unjustifiable new
school board room.

Brad Winter will not even surrender a candid, forthright
and honest accounting of the spending; either on the
board room, or at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

Brad Winter was just promoted.

So were the good ol' boys; Gina Hickman and Michael Kimbrell,

• who worked in the APS Financial Division,
• who were or should have been aware, of the problems that were only revealed in the Meyners Audit, and
• who did nothing.

Gina Hickman is now the Chief Financial Officer.

Michael Kimbrell is now the Director of Internal Auditing.

Nobody, not APS, not Meyners, will answer simple legitimate questions;

1. were laws broken, and
2. were millions of tax dollars lost or stolen?

You ask the question, they refuse to answer.

How can public servants simply refuse to answer legitimate
questions about the public interests?

For as long as the top priority is to protect good ol' boys,
to except them from honest accountability to meaningful
standards of conduct and competence;

the problems will never really be solved.


Does it make a difference whether Winston Brooks intends
to work in the dark, or the daylight?

What do you think?

More importantly, what are you willing to do about it?

APS; the public perception

Perception is reality, according to the perceiver.

There is a public perception of the APS;

• that is it failing to do an adequately good job of educating 90K young Albuquerqueans, and
• that there is corruption and incompetence in its leadership.

The perception rests on a solid foundation.

Every single impartial audit of the various divisions of the
APS, has revealed substantial administrative failures;
the audit of the M&O, the audit of the Police Department,
the audit of the Financial Division, being just the last three.

The former chief of the APS Police Department, Gil Lovato
said;

if the truth ever gets out, there won't be a single senior
APS administrator left standing.

Albuquerque's mayor, Marty Chavez said;

the lack of accountability in the APS is so grave as to
warrant changing state law in order to allow
the mayor to appoint school board members.

New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson, in a bid to gain
tax payer support for the APS, had to apologize first for
what he described as;

a state wide earned reputation for
its lack of financial accountability.

This in not my perception. It is the perception of virtually
everybody who is paying any attention at all.

And the people, upon whom we must rely,
to remedy the perception,
will not concede on the record, that it even exists.

That says something about the manner in which the problem
will be solved.

That says something about the quality of the fix.

That says something about the likelihood that the
problem will resurface.

It all says something.

Winston Brooks wants to change public perceptions of the APS

... just not by being candid, forthright, and honest with
stakeholders.

During the public forum at last night's school board meeting
I suggested that there is a public perception that the
leadership of the APS is so riddled with corruption and
incompetence, that they could not survive an honest audit.

And that the quickest way to change that perception would
be to do an audit, showing stakeholders a clean bill of health.

There wouldn't be a clean bill of health of course, because
the leadership of the APS is riddled with corruption and
incompetence;

if if were not, the audit would be the most effective $100K
publicity repair that they could ever do.

Winston Brooks could not look me in the eye for the
entire two minutes; neither could Marty Esquivel, my
representative on the board. Paula Maes doesn't look up,
nor does Robert Lucero. Gordon Rowe rarely pays attention
to anything that's going on, and Berna Facio fades in and out.

Mary Lee Martin and Delores Griego looked me right
in the eyes for the entire two minutes. One might assume
that they were paying attention, and would one might
hope that they would act on what they heard.

The choices are simple, yet difficult.

Public perception is that the leadership of the APS is
corrupt, incompetent, and unwilling to be honest about the
issue; that they are unwilling to clean their own house.

Conducting an impartial audit would reveal all or most of
the problems, which would be an immediate and severe hit
to the image that Winston Brooks and others would like the
district to have.

At the same time, it would prove that they are willing
at least, to be honest about the problems.

Instead, they will pretend that the issue of an audit has
never come up; they will stonewall; the only defense of an
indefensible position.

Their refusal to even discuss the audit publicly cements
the perception that they have something to hide.

And for as long as they are hiding something,
the public perception of the leadership of the APS
will be that they are unworthy of our trust,
and unworthy of even one more passed mill levy or bond
issue.

This chicken will come home to roost.

There will be an audit, eventually.

The argument against an audit is an indefensible position.

There is only one reason to avoid an audit, and that is to
hide the conduct of those who will be exposed by the audit.

The audit will be postponed for as long as possible.

The longer the audit is postponed, the more problems
can be fixed before the audit exposes them.

The leadership of the APS will (try to) insist that the audit
be only of current practices and personnel, and no
investigation of conduct and competence before the fix.

They will insist that no names be named.
School Board head honcho, Paula Maes has said as much,
straight out.

"I will not allow an audit that identifies
individual administrators, like for example,
"Tom Savage."

You might ask, OK as long as the problems get fixed, who
cares about an audit?

They want to fix the problems without inconveniencing
any of the good ol' boys. Covering up will still be the
top priority.

The fixes will come unfixed.

Unless they are willing to conduct an audit that names
names, they are not willing to be held honestly accountable

• to meaningful standards of conduct and competence
• by an impartial system powerful enough to hold them
  accountable even against their will.

And are unworthy of our trust
and of any further investment of our trust or our treasure
in their corrupt and incompetent administration of the APS.

Today is the day

There will never be an opportunity for you to have a greater
positive personal impact on the APS,

than for you to show up at the board meeting today.

5pm, 6400 Uptown Blvd.

even if you don't actually stand up for what you believe in.

Marty Esquivel is a hypocrite.

According to the Journal, link sub helpful
Marty Esquivel is so concerned about parental misconduct
at sporting events, that he has created a plan;

"The plan: increase the visibility and uniformity of APS
standards regarding fan behavior." ... codes of conduct
for spectators and parents. ... parents and athletes
will be required to sign a copy of the rules,
saying they will comply."

A rule which is already on the books; already addresses
the issues. The rule comes from the student standard of
conduct and reads; respect.

The Student Standard of Conduct requires that
students treat others with respect.

Parents could be required, while attending student athletic
events, to obey the student standards of conduct.
It is a perfect plan for so many reasons;
role modeling being one of the most important.

Esquivel expects parents to sign and obey the "new" rules.

Unreported in the article; the fact that Esquivel and the rest
of the board have already refused to be held accountable to
the existing student standards of conduct.
They removed from their own standards of conduct
the phrase that read;

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

Marty Esquivel is not accountable as a role model
of the student standard of conduct. Neither is any
other member of the "leader"ship of the APS.

There is not a single member of the leadership of the APS
who will explain, defend, or even acknowledge their
abandonment of the student standard of conduct, and
of their responsibilities and obligations as role models.

But t(he)y will go ahead a write another set of rules
that apply to others, but not to themselves.

Instead of an over arching set of standards that apply to
everyone and every situation, Esquivel wants rules that
apply only in certain situations. He will be excepted from
accountability to the new standard except when he
happens to be attending an athletic event.

T(he)y want no attention called to the student standard of
conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!
the higher standard of conduct from which the leadership
of the APS is in hiding.

And now Esquivel wants new wording, and he wants it
to be enforced - just not on him or any other APS "leader".

No matter how you slice it, Esquivel expects more from
others, than he expects from himself.

He will enjoy the same success that everyone else who
has tried the; "Do as I say, not as I do" brand of role
modeling;

... none.

It is a complete waste of time.

Except, for awhile it will keep attention off of the existing
standards of conduct, the standards that he and the board
have secretly renounced.

cc Esquivel upon posting

Winston Brooks' wants to change public perception

According to the article in the Journal link sub helpful

From the Journal article;

"We need to be out there in the community
trying to change public perception," Brooks told a
group of about 30 that included legislators,
community leaders, APS administrators and others.

The public perception is that the leadership of the APS
are unwilling to hold themselves honestly accountable
to any meaningful standard of conduct.

The cure to that perception is a successful audit.

If the APS passed an impartial full scale forensic audit,
the public perception of the APS would be entirely transformed.

Winston Brooks' refusal to begin the audit,
coupled with his refusal to even answer questions
about the audit,
only reinforces the public perception that he is excepting
himself from honest accountability to any meaningful
standards of conduct and competence.

Just like every body else in the leadership of the APS.

Their reputation is an earned reputation.

They won, when you gave up.

I have been fooling around on KOB topix forum. link

It offers some gratification in terms of immediate feed back.

There as here, I am trying to talk people into getting off
their asses, and into exercising their right to petition their
government.

This is what I get back;

I, along with a group of concerned parents, have spent many, many hours going to meetings with APS and other elected officials regarding our issue. We have been lied to, and APS never followed through with any of their promises of getting back to us. Until we clean up APS (which I think may be impossible), I am through trying to fight them. What good would an audit do? They would hire who they wanted and pay them big bucks. Maybe Monica Armenta has another relative who needs a job. I have no answer on how we clean up the corruption at APS.

School board meetings are a charade. I've been there, it's a waste of time. No one demands anything of APS. They do as they please, bottom line. Nothing will change until we get decent people on the board.

Until and unless there is a forensic audit of those in the towers of power, I will vote NO! I will not sit home on the couch, I will go to the polls and vote NO! No more money for the elitist pigs.

Stop funding them.

just say no. Spend what you got better.

It's one thing to get your ass kicked in a fight,
it's a whole other thing to no show the fight 'cause
you might get your ass kicked.

wtf people? I'm not asking for your first born.

All you have to do is go to the public forum;
30 minutes max.

They're only winning because
you won't fight back.

A White lie?

Is it permissible for a public servant to tell a white lie?

If you ask a child what a white lie is; you will find that
"small" lies are white lies. If you lie about stealing a piece
of gum, it is a white lie.

And they are wrong.

According to the standard of conduct that the leadership
of the APS enforces upon 89,000 of our sons and daughters;

a white lie is a "lie" that can be ethically justified.

On the order of; "lying" to your grandmother about how
much you enjoyed her pumpkin pie.

The test;
again according to the APS Student Standard of Conduct
If the person to whom you lied, finds out about the lie,
would they feel you had lied in their best interest.

Clearly, we are talking about a different standard of conduct than "the law".

A white lie, under the law, is pretty much any thing your
lawyers are willing to litigate; and they are willing to
litigate any thing.

Which bring us to;

Should public servants be held accountable to
a higher standard of conduct than the law; the lowest
acceptable standard of conduct in our society?

Because public service is smothered in direct references
to accountability to a higher standard of conduct,

most people believe that public servants are accountable
to a higher standard of conduct than the law.

They are not.

Under the law, APS and Modrall cannot be compelled to obey
the law which requires them to

"... discharge ETHICALLY
the high responsibilities of public service."
New Mexico State Statute 10-16-b-3

Should we hold public servants accountable to a higher
standard of conduct than the law?

I would argue yes.

Because we are required to trust them.

If they are asking for our trust, we are entitled to hold
them accountable, at the very least, to a standard of
conduct that requires trustworthiness.

The leadership of the APS will not hold themselves
accountable to a standard of conduct that requires
trustworthiness.

If they could actually be held honestly accountable
to a standard of conduct that required trustworthiness,

we would be able to hold them accountable for being
untrustworthy;

• by refusing to answer legitimate questions about the
  public interests and about their public service, and
• by refusing to begin an impartial full scale audit of the
  administration of the public trust and treasure
  by the leadership of the APS, and
• by their steadfast and unrelenting refusal do be candid,
  forthright, and honest with stakeholders,
  in any form of town hall meeting.

We cannot hold them accountable to any standard of
conduct that requires trustworthiness,
and which provides honest accountability for untrustworthiness.

The leadership of the APS in unaccountable to any standard
of conduct at all, except under circumstances that they
control.


We could hold them accountable personally,
but only by a large enough demonstration.

There is some number of people, which if they demanded
in person, an immediate full scale audit of the entire APS,

they would see their demand met.


If you think an audit is in your interests,
you will need to defend your interests.

There is a need for you to stand up for what you believe in.

You can do that by participating in a demonstration
coincident with the next school board public forum;
Wednesday, August 6, 2008, at 5pm.

In the million dollar Susie Rayos Marmon Boardroom
that your tax dollars bought.

And in the administrative offices at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

You should see what they done with the place.


The more people that participate in the demonstration
the more likely it is that there will be an audit
that will end corruption and incompetence in the
administration of the APS.

There is no legitimate agenda that does not move forward
on the day that the audit begins.

It is a threat only to the corrupt and the incompetent
in the leadership of the APS.

They win if you do nothing.

I am not saying these people are evil,
but when Edmund Burke wrote;

"All that is necessary for evil to prevail in the world,
is for good men to do nothing."

these are the people he was writing about.

You can do nothing;
or you can at the very least, go to the meeting.

Déjà vu all over again

The Journal reports that the county wants to buy the old
Petroleum Club building. link sub helpful.

The purchase is justified by "making life easier for "certain"
people "some" of the time."

According to the article, the county will get the building
"for free" for at least a few years because tenet leases
will cover the mortgage payments.

"The county also has offices spread across three other
Downtown locations and wants to consolidate them in
one location, County Manager Thaddeus Lucero said.
People who want to file certain records now have to
visit more than one building for some land transactions,
he said.
Lucero said rental income from the tenants already in
500 Marquette, including law offices and accounting
firms, would cover the annual debt payments for
a few years."
(emphasis added)

The déjà vu part comes when you remember that this was
exactly the same argument given to stakeholders when APS
bought itself fancy new digs in the heights - renters will
pay the bills so taxpayers won't have to.

APS now has no paying renters and the apartments in the
sky are bulging at the seams with the "chosen" administrators
and their myriad underlings.

Déjà vu all over again, again.
Manzano High School was flooded by rain over the weekend;
again. It was flooded by rain almost exactly a year ago.

Why was this taxpayer investment not protected from
the most recent rain? Who was responsible for reacting
to the last flooding by preventing this one?

You will never know, because there is not a single
administrator or board member in the entire APS who
is required to provide a candid, forthright and honest
answer to a legitimate question like;

Why are taxpayers going to have to pay for
a second hardwood gym floor for Manzano HS
in as many years?

Darren White's colleagues would rather elect Martin Heinrich

Democracy for New Mexico, link, reports that county
sheriffs in the 1st Congressional District have come out
in support of Martin Heinrich, rather than Darren White.

According to Democracy in New Mexico;

"Valencia County Sheriff Rene Rivera appeared Saturday at a Valencia County welcoming event for Martin Heinrich. In his endorsement, Sheriff Rivera said, "I've been in law enforcement for over 19 years fighting against crime and drugs. Martin Heinrich was tough on crime on the Council, and I know he's the right partner in Congress to help keep our streets safe. That's why I'm endorsing him."

"We need Martin Heinrich in Congress," said Sandoval Sheriff John Paul Trujillo in his statement of endorsement. "This is the year to send the right representative to be our man in Congress, our voice for New Mexico law enforcement. Martin Heinrich will fight for critical legislation, like the COPS program. President Bush has succeeded in almost completely defunding COPS, but Martin will fight for the grants and funding law enforcement needs."

Santa Fe Sheriff Greg Solano endorsed Martin Heinrich earlier in the general election, but released an official statement of endorsement today. "This was not a hard decision – supporting Martin Heinrich and endorsing his candidacy," said Sheriff Solano. "I will always support my fellow sheriffs and members of law enforcement, but this year I know the best man to represent us in Congress is Martin Heinrich."

Coming from Darren White's fellows, these endorsements
carry some weight and cannot be good news for the White
campaign.

Torrance County Sheriff Clarence Gibson, a Republican,
was not mentioned in the report.

School Board Meetings

Regular school board meetings are held on the first and third
Wednesdays of each month.

They are held at a time and in a place, inconvenient to the
over whelming majority of stakeholders;

• during the workday, 5pm, and
• at the Uptown Administrative Complex, 6400 Uptown Blvd, immediately south of Coronado Center.

School board meetings used to be held in the evening,
and at rotating school sites through out the district.

You should really plan to attend;

take a look at what the leadership of the APS can do when
they "need" a million dollar new board room,
and can save money for it,
by ending fire safety inspections in schools, and letting
the students at Susie Rayos Marmon ES work in old
dilapidated portable classrooms; stretched three times
past their life expectancy.

Approval to Remove the Index of Action from Board Minutes

Even after reading this proposed action by APS' school board
I cannot tell you what they are talking about.

The gist of it, is that they want to produce a smaller record
of the board's business than now exists.

link

They justify the removal by pointing out;

Due to advancements in technology and access to the
internet, all actions are posted in the meeting minutes
online.

I would like to point out that the agenda for the meeting
where this decision will be made, link, does not include
a copy of the minutes from the previous meeting,
which will be accepted by a vote at this meeting.

So much for advancements in technology.

UPDATE: it is 3:22 and the minutes have magically
appeared on the agenda on the APS website.
Apparently Diogenes' six has at least a little effect on the APS.

APS School board to sell $134M in bonds

The agenda for the meeting next Wednesday afternoon
includes a board approval of the selling of bonds to finance
school construction and maintenance.

There are two aspects that are of concern to those who will
be taxed in order to pay off the bonds;

1. what interest rate will tax payers pay on the bonds
2. will the money be spent efficiently and effectively

No where in the agenda or in the documentation provided
to you by the leadership of the APS link
is there mention of the interest rate that you will pay.

The omission may be legitimate; perhaps it is negotiated
at the very last minute; I don't know.

What I do know is that taxpayers will pay a higher
interest rate than they would be paying were there not
the chaos and corruption and incompetence in the
APS Financial Division.

If you were a bond buyer, would you want to but a bond from an institution

• with "inadequate financially sound policies and procedures,
• with an institutional disregard for what policies and procedures that there are,
• which has created more "appearances of impropriety" than you can shake a stick at, and
• which has failed to keep adequate financial records on the spending of a billion dollars a year?

You are paying a higher interest rate than you would be paying, were APS not run buy a bunch of incompetent and corrupt good ol' boys.

Despite his (empty) assurances about "transparency"
Winston Brooks' administration is no more transparent
than any before, and is no more transparent than the goo
from the La Brea tar pits.

More importantly, you have no reason to believe that the
$134M tax dollars will be spend efficiently and effectively.

You have no reason to believe that they will be spent
honestly, legally, ethically.

What you do have, is an administration which refuses to
have its efficiency and effectiveness impartially audited.

What you do have, is a school board president ordering
that there will be no audit that individually identifies
the corrupt and the incompetent in the leadership of
the APS.

Why hide from an audit, if there is nothing to hide?


What you do have, is a cub reporter, Zsombor Peter,
who can't understand why any of this is newsworthy.