Just so you know it's not just me.

I have often written about APS' culture of fear of retribution
and retaliation; first openly acknowledged in an audit of the
APS by the Council of the Great City Schools.

Now a local teacher and blogger, Scot Key, link, acknowledges
same;

"Right now we have a situation where a large majority of
those practicing public education oppose something,
but are afraid to really say anything for fear of retribution."

How important are role models?

In the following post, you will find a reposting of a compilation
of quotes by author Ayn Rand. One bears closer focus, and is
the one that comes to my mind when people turn their backs on
their obligations as role models.

It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men
when you abstain equally from praising men's virtues and
from condemning men's vices.
When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that

neither the good nor the evil may expect anything
from you

- whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

When we abstain from praising students who manifest
courage and character, and when we abstain from providing
consequences to those who do not, which of those students
do we encourage, and which do we betray?

Ayn Rand Revisited

Revisiting a compilation of Ayn Rand quotes, first published
in January, 2007.

The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it.

Thought does not bow to authority.

The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.

It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men's virtues and from condemning men's vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you - whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.

The precept: Judge not, that ye be not judged ... is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.

There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.

To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true.

"Ethical" means what, exactly?

One cannot read about government or laws without coming
across the word "ethical". "Ethical" reform was a big topic
during the last legislative session.

"Ethical" behavior is expected of public officials; the title of
NM State Statute 10-16-3 reads;

Ethical Principles of Public Service.

Within the Act, it is written;

Legislators, public officers and employees shall conduct
themselves in a manner that justifies the confidence
placed in them by the people, at all times maintaining
the integrity and discharging ethically the high
responsibilities of public service.

So what does "ethical" mean. I have asked everywhere;
nobody knows.

I finally got a response from the Legislative Council Service.
They should know; they are the folks who do the research and
actually write the bills that legislators then pass or defeat.

They wrote;

New Mexico is a plain language state, and in the case of
10-16-3, no definition of "ethical" or "ethically" is given.

As stated in the statutes:

12-2A-2. Common and technical usage. (1997)
Unless a word or phrase is defined in the statute or rule
being construed, its meaning is determined by its context,
the rules of grammar and common usage. A word or
phrase that has acquired a technical or particular meaning
in a particular context has that meaning if it is used in that
context.

Now, imagine that you are trying to enforce this statute upon
a public official. That public official will be defended by a bevy
of lawyers who are paid handsomely to litigate in defense of the
corrupt and the incompetent, against the public interests.
What will those lawyers do with loose language?

To whose advantage does the confusion work; the average
citizen, or the corrupt public official?

Submitted as proof; although this particular statute is at
least as old 1978, and perhaps even older, there has never
been a single prosecution under that law; to the delight of
public servants without ethics, and to the dismay of the
average citizen who is getting screwed on a daily basis.

What ever ethical means overall,
at the very least, perhaps we can all agree that it means;
telling the truth about the spending of our power and
our resources.

You caaaaaaaannnnn't make me!

How is it that, public servants cannot be compelled to point to
some set of unequivocal standards, and then hold themselves
honestly accountable* to those standards?

*"Honestly accountable" as defined in the most enforceable
terms. "Honestly accountable" defined as meaning
circumstances under which it is made the most difficult for
the corrupt and the incompetent to weasel out of accountability
and the consequences of their corruption and their incompetence.

And, why aren't those unequivocal standards for public service,
standards that are higher standards than the law?

The "law" represents the lowest standards of conduct that
civilized people will abide.

The "law" doesn't even require public servants to tell the truth
about how they are spending our power and our resources.
The law allows them "no comment".

The "law" is inadequate to the need.

If we must "trust" them with control over our power and our
resources, then they must hold themselves accountable to
standards of conduct which prohibit betraying our trust.

There is no "law" against betraying our trust.

David Peercy responds.

David Peercy is the Policy
Committee Chair. He is the
person most responsible for
preventing a public discussion of the
restoration of the role modeling clause
to the Employee Standards of Conduct.

He, more than any other person in
the leadership of the APS, is preventing
and open and honest discussion of
administrative and executive
role modeling of the student standards of conduct.

The clause reads;

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

Peercy has copied me, a letter that he wrote in response to
a letter that he had received from one of his constituents.

Thanks for your concerns.
Let me provide some thoughts for your consideration.

(1) Mr. Robbins Proposal
First, it is important that you understand that I do support what is right to do. Second, I do not believe the language of Dave Robbins suggested proposal would add value to what we already have, and in fact may suggest conduct of less value than what we already have. That clearly would not be the right thing to do.

To suggest that our adult behavior be something that "measures up to a minimum of the standards of students" is unacceptable to me. We should in fact aspire to a much HIGHER standard, such as what is stated in the current policy as "APS expects employees to maintain the highest standards of conduct " and also "...shall serve as positive role models for students". These statements apply to all employees and all relationships - adult to adult as well as adult to student. Any suggestion that we need only be as good as or slightly better perhaps than what we expect of our students is not acceptable to me, nor should it be acceptable to you.

The existing policy and the extensive procedural directive information is much more comprehensive and specific about expected code of conduct and behavior in any such APS relationships - the board, administration, teachers, staff, students, parents, and community - than the additional words that Mr. Robbins suggested. And the existing policy language requires a much higher expected behavior and code of conduct than the additional words that Mr. Robbins suggested. I believe Mr. Robbins would agree now that we have presented that information, although the intent of Mr. Robbins' suggestion is clearly understood and in particular there may still be opportunities to improve the existing policy.

(2) Policy and Procedural Improvements
That said, I do believe, as was stated in the meeting, that our existing policies and procedural directives can be improved. That improvement process has already been initiated, actually prior to my involvement. There may be better ways to phrase and improve the existing policy in which you are interested, and that will be reviewed. There are some changes to other policy areas that are needed for clarification as well as ensuring we meet changes to legal requirements of the federal and state laws as well as the State PED. Such changes are reasonably normal since regulations and legislation as well as our own community expectations tend to evolve over time, .

(3) Litigation and Law Suits
The context for this board discussion was in terms of the overall side effect that I'd like to see due to improved policies, procedures, and the implementation of those procedures. With improvements and effective implementations, it is expected that there might be fewer reasons why anyone would need to seek remedies outside of the normal processes for conflict resolution. The result won't be zero litigation, but such litigation is costly to the district and to reduce that cost would be a worthy result. The context of the board discussion was not to ensure that any changes did not "cause" lawsuits, but rather that such changes would be value-added and hence reduce such lawsuits.

Reducing litigation is of course not the primary goal of our policies and procedures improvement, but hopefully a good side benefit. Part of the "right thing to do" is to be consistent with what is legally required - that in itself is a policy requirement.


Thanks again for your concerns. I will do the best I can to ensure that our policies, procedures, and implementations are improved and effective. I'm sure you heard in the board discussion that the administration is clearly in support of that effort.

Sincerely,
Dave Peercy

And my specific objections to Peercy's claims;

1. Peercy writes; Any suggestion that we need only be as good as or slightly better perhaps than what we expect of our students is not acceptable to me, nor should it be acceptable to you.

The truth;
the proposed language creates a floor, not a ceiling.

Peercy writes as if the role modeling clause read;

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

It does not of course, so his claim that restoring the clause
somehow lowers the expectation for adults, flies in the face
of the reality which is, it raises the standard for adults.

2. Peercy writes; ... the existing policy language requires a much higher expected behavior and code of conduct than the additional words that Mr. Robbins suggested. (which) "... in fact may suggest conduct of less value ...

There are no higher standards of conduct than ethical
standards of conduct.

The student standards of conduct represent a nationally recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethical conduct. The simple truth is that the standards for adults don't come close. I would challenge Dr. Peercy to point to even one "...existing policy and the extensive procedural directive ..." that comes anywhere close to an ethical standard of conduct.

In particular, I would like to point out that the student standards
of conduct require truth telling, and further that, Peercy
cannot point to any place in the standards for adults that
requires anything more than not lying.

Feel good language like; highest standards of conduct " and also "...shall serve as positive role models for students"
is completely unenforceable because it does not point to any specific definition. Nowhere will you find written, the meaning of "highest standards" or "positive role modeling".

On the other hand, student standards do point to a written document with unequivocal and explicit definitions link, and therefore, are enforceable.

The truth is; Dr. Peercy cannot point to any place in APS rules,
regulations, policies or procedures that even come close
to measuring up to the six Pillars of Character Counts!,
period.

By any reasonable measure, student standards of conduct
are higher standards by far, than adult standards.

3. Peercy writes; With improvements and effective implementations,
it is expected that there might be fewer reasons why anyone would need
to seek remedies outside of the normal processes for conflict resolution.

One of the strongest arguments in support of the Pillars of
Character Counts! is that with respect to litigation and lawsuits,
adherence to the Pillars of Character Counts! absolutely
eliminates the need for any litigation at all. The Pillars require
all participants to pursue a principled resolution of any dispute.

A principled resolution guarantees a fair resolution, and renders
litigation unnecessary except in the pursuit of an unfair resolution.

The only reason APS litigates is to prevent a fair resolution of
disputes, and to make Modrall lawyers wealthy.

In my own case, a principled resolution of my complaint would
have cost tax payers far less in the long run, than it cost to pay
Modrall lawyers to prevent that resolution.

Were one looking for the biggest difference between the
Student Standards of Conduct, and the Employee Standards
of Conduct, it is that; the Student Standards of Conduct
require honest accountability to those higher standards,
and the Employee Standards of Conduct do not require
honest accountability to any standard of conduct at all,
even the law.

The bottom line;
the refusal to restore the Role Modeling clause to the
Employee Standards of Conduct, is indefensible.

And, David Peercy's refusal to entertain any kind of public
discussion of the restoration of the Role Modeling clause to
the Employee Standards of Conduct, illuminates his
intention to avoid circumstances where he can be compelled
to defend his indefensible positions, or where any of his claims
can be questioned.

cc Peercy upon posting.




photo Mark Bralley

Learning from the Courthouse Scam.

Journal editors ask this, this morning. link

How can future government construction projects
be made, if not fraud-proof, then at least more
fraud-resistant?

Editors pointed out that, during a recent sentencing hearing,
a lawyer tried to minimize his client's role in the scam, by
placing it in a larger context; scams at Metropolitan Detention
Center, the state District Courthouse and the University
Hospital expansion. The lawyer did not elaborate on those
scams, and they will never be prosecuted because statutes of
limitation have expired on the criminal activities.

So what? Those scandals should be investigated, thoroughly,
regardless of whether criminal charges can be brought or not.

Editors point out that the Courthouse scandal was not a freak
occurrence, similar scams abound. The only reason that this
particular scam came to light, had nothing to do with system
safeguards.

A court appointed forensic accountant dug up evidence that
routine government audits of government construction projects
did not, and can not. The "supposed" safeguards of tax dollars
did not threaten the thieves in any manner that gave them pause.

The editors conclude by offering that;

"... thorough postmortem of those projects added to what was divulged by the courthouse case could provide a blueprint to better methods of preventing, detecting and rooting out corruption."

Here is the blueprint;
forensic audits of all government spending projects.

For a very small percentage of the total project cost,
a fraction of a percent overall,
every project could be forensically audited at its conclusion.

Who in their right mind, is going to become involved in a
conspiracy to steal tax dollars,
if the likelihood of getting away with it, is zero?

If Manny Aragon and the rest had known up front, that
there was going to be a forensic audit at the end,
would they have stolen the money anyway?

I doubt it.

Role modeling has been left off the Policy Committee Meeting agenda.

I have to admit to some surprise that
David Peercy has left the role modeling
debate and vote, off the agenda for the
April 17th, Policy Committee meeting.
link

It appears to be an effort to avoid a
debate and a vote that will individually
identify board members who are
not willing to step up as role models of
the Student Standards of Conduct.

It appears to be an effort to avoid individually identifying
board members who lack the character and the courage to
hold themselves honestly accountable to standards of conduct
that require truth telling as opposed to not lying.

It appears to be an effort to hide from stakeholders,
the truth about administrative and executive role modeling of
the Student Standards of Conduct.




photo Mark Bralley

APS facing technology position cuts

According to the Journal, link, budget cuts will force APS to
cut technology positions. They are the folks who teach and fix
computers in schools.

Assistant APS Superintendent Diego Gallegos said,
"From a resource standpoint, we didn't have enough
resources to have technology teachers at every school in
the district."

Journal reporter, Andrea Schoellkopf, goes on to report,

Montezuma Elementary Principal Deb Detorie said
she considers the instruction "a life requirement."
"Twenty-five percent of my kids come from a home that
doesn't have a computer."
We're not teaching them the world if we're not teaching
them how to navigate the Net.""

At the same time, APS has managed to scrape together enough
money, to give Monica Armenta three more non-teaching
staffers in her beleaguered "Communications" division. link

Go figure.

New Mexico Secretary of Education, Veronica Garcia weighs in on role modeling.

Radio Journalist and Blogger, Peter St. Cyr, link,
recently attended a bill signing with the Governor.

PED Secretary Veronica Garcia was there, and St. Cyr
took the opportunity to ask for her opinion on the subject of
APS' School Board's upcoming decision about whether to
step up as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

Garcia was quick to point out that the decision was entirely
up to the local board. However she was quoted as saying;

"There are many districts that Character Counts!
applies to both the adults and the kids.

And, it seems that if we want to be good role models for
children, that we would have similar values that
we all adhere to ..."

I can't help but to agree.

I have contacted her office in an effort to find out which
districts apply Character Counts! standards to both adults
and students.

Perhaps if we can figure out how they compelled their leadership
to step up to the challenge, we can make our leadership step up
as well.

92% of our kids are "satisfied with my own ethics and character."

According to a survey done by the Josephson Institute. link

Yet; when asked about their own behavior in year preceding the survey;

56% admit to having lied to their parents, about something significant, two or more times.

37% admit to having lied to their teachers, about something significant, two or more times.

19% Copied an Internet document for a classroom assignment, two or more times.

38% Cheated during a test at school, two or more times.

62% Copied another's homework, two or more times.

11% Stole something from parents or relatives.

8% Stole something from a friend.

15% Stole something from a store.

38% Had done things in violation of their religious belief.

56% Think that "all or most" of the people they know, would list them among the most ethical people they know.

There is a disconnect.
They admit having done unethical things,
yet 92% are satisfied with their own character.

When asked why they misbehave, most kids will tell you;

"Everyone else is doing it."

Everyone else being primarily, their adult role models.

APS School Board is in a boggle;

Should we step up as role models,
or not?

Character Counts!
or not?

Governor RIchardson's 2006 Task Force on Ethics; Recommendations

2006 report link

This is the second time a task force has pointed to the need
for an Ethics Commission.

And yet, Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez,
among others, steadfastly refuse to create one.

Which begs the question;

Why even bother to put together Task Forces on Ethics,
if their recommendations are going to be ignored?

Marty Esquivel on; the character of APS Board Members

A new issue of the APS Perspective is out; link.

School Board President Marty Esquivel penned a piece,
in which he wrote;

"I am pleased and excited with the content of
the board members’ character ..."

In truth, the content of board members' character is
yet to be tested; they are about to decide whether
the Pillars of Character Counts! are standards of conduct
that apply to them, or just to students.

The actual content of board members' character will be manifest
on Friday April 17th, when they decide whether they will
hold themselves honestly accountable as role models of the
Student Standards of Conduct.

Restoring to their own standards of conduct, the phrase;

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

now that, would show some real character.

Governmental Conduct Laws feel good.

There is widespread and deeply rooted corruption in
NM State Government.

There are laws in New Mexico, against public corruption.

Yet, there is still corruption in NM State Government.

Are governmental conduct laws just feel good legislation?

Monahan reports this morning, link, that the charges filed
against PRC Member Jerome Block and his father,are;

"... the first substantial public corruption charges AG
Gary King has produced from a state grand jury since
taking office in 2007."

Dave Maass of the Santa Fe Reporter, link, reports that
NMAG King's office has identified 20 violations of NM
Sunshine Laws (NMIPRA and OMA), and yet;

King has not penalized a single agency for OMA/ IPRA
violations since taking office.

In my own experience; when I asked the clerk of the Second
Judicial District Court, how many prosecutions has taken
place under the Governmental Conduct Act, she replied;

"None. I guess it has never been necessary."

I have never had a single governmental agency actually
surrender a public record (against their interests) despite
the fact that their denials clearly violated the requirements
of the NM Inspection of Public Records Act.

Someone else first observed;

You can't fight city hall
(and their droves of lawyers, litigating against the
public interests, and on the public dime)

even with a book full of (feel good) laws on your side.

If government were as transparent as technolgy will allow

it would mean the end of governmental waste of our power and
our resources.

Why isn't government as transparent as technology will allow?

Except to protect the people who are wasting our power and
wasting our resources.

John Trevor's cartoon isn't funny.

John Trevor has a cartoon in the Journal this morning. link


The cartoon is only funny if you accept the premise;

that even though we have passed a law that opened
conference committee meetings to public knowledge,
the folks who we must trust to obey the law, will instead
ignore it.

Which begs at least one question;

Why in God's name,
would you accept that premise?

Public servants and telling the truth.

Clearly we would be better off if our public servants were
required to tell us the truth.

So far, they have not seen fit to write a law that
requires them to tell the truth.
They have only written laws which prohibit telling a lie.

There is not a single one of our public servants who is
honestly accountable to any standard of conduct
that requires them to tell the truth.

With one exception;

the public servants who run the APS,
are currently accountable to a standard of conduct
that requires them to tell the truth.

Unless, on Friday, April 17th, they decide not to restore
the role modeling clause to their own code of conduct.

At which point, not even these senior most role models of
the Pillars of Character Counts!; a standard of conduct
that specifically and explicitly requires truth telling,
will be accountable anymore, to a standard of conduct
that requires them to tell the truth.

Government has morphed.

When the founding fathers wrote it,
our government existed to serve the people.

The judicial branch now serves the interests of lawyers.

The executive branch now serves the interests of oligarchs.

The legislative brand now serves the interests of legislators
and special interests.

Our government no longer serves our interests,
because we no longer have any control over it.

Public servants tell us how they will spend our power and
our resources; with or without our accord.
Without even the consideration of our accord.
Our accord, no longer plays.

What more proof could you possibly need,
that you have no control over your government,
than that you can ask a legitimate question about the spending
of your power and your resources, and be told

"It's none of your business."

Unless it is under our control,
our government is not our servant,
it is our master.

Defining "ethics".

There are as many definitions as there are mouse clicks
following a google search. Most are distinctions without a
difference. Most fall back on simple, intuitive explanations;
what is "right" or "good".

People who would not have accountability to any code of ethics,
understandably focus on the vagary. And then they cite the
vagary as the compelling flaw in "legislating ethics".

It might well be that an all encompassing definition cannot
be found.

Perhaps it would serve us to focus on a single issue at a time.
We need to look not at everything ethics means,
but on what it means at the very least.

At the very least, ethical means honest.

Honesty happens to be the issue that provokes the most
resistance. For the most, people do not want to be honest,
because being honest exposes them to the consequences
of their choices and their conduct.

It is not Character Counts! that Winston Brooks is afraid of.
He is afraid of having to tell the truth.
He is afraid of the consequences of telling the truth.

So what does "telling the truth" mean? What is "the truth".
The truth is the actual state of a matter, the reality, the actuality.

In my experience, those who would seek to split those hairs,
are not looking for a definition of truth, but rather
are looking for an excuse to not tell the truth.

APS students are expected to tell the truth;
to the best of their knowledge, candidly, forthrightly,
without deception, without creating beliefs or impressions
that are untrue. They are expected to volunteer information
that they know another person needs to know, even if they
have not asked for it.

Either the truth belongs to all stakeholders, or
the truth belongs to a few who will then share it
as suits their personal best interests.

If the leadership of the APS are accountable to the same
standards of truth telling as students, the truth belongs
to stakeholders.

If the leadership of the APS are accountable to any other
standard of conduct at all, the truth belongs to them.
Stakeholders have to prove their right to know the truth,
often in court, before it will be shared with them.

Winston Brooks wants not to be held to a standard of
conduct which requires him to tell the truth.

The leadership of the APS wants to control the truth,
in order that it can be spun their interests.

It doesn't require an entire "communications" division to
tell the truth. A communications division is justified only by
the need to "spin" the truth.

The bottom line;
If one is accountable to a code of ethics, they are required
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.*

Winston Brooks and the leadership of the APS will oppose
honest accountability to any standard of conduct that requires
them to tell the truth, even while holding students accountable
to standards of conduct that do.

And shame on them for their hypocrisy.

And shame on them for their unwillingness to tell the truth.


*There are a very few exceptions which are specifically and
explicitly provided under the law. There are no other justifiable
exceptions.

Disengaged learners.

There is no such thing.

Disengaged learning is an impossibility, it is oxymoronic.

To suppose that the greatest single learning barrier by far,
can be addressed by "Raising the Bar" link, is ridiculous.

It is driven by the mindset;

You can make a horse drink bad tasting water
if you offer it to him in a deeper bucket.

And, serves only to draw attention from the real problem;
disengaged students.