They just don't make it easy to be a Republican

The day began around 8:45;
I, on my way to crash the Central Committee Meeting.
I wasn't on their guest list.

Up until this morning, Central Committee Meetings were closed to stakeholders.

It was probably during a closed meeting of the Central Committee, that the following party rule was endorsed and adopted, link.

NMGOP Party Rule; 1-2-1. PARTY MEMBERSHIP/PARTICIPATION

A. Party Membership: Any qualified voter In New Mexico whose properly registered Political Party affiliation is "Republican" shall be considered a member of the Republican Party of New Mexico and of the Republican Party of the County in which the voter is so registered and is eligible to participate in Republican Party affairs in accordance with these Rules.

B. Participation: It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all Republican voters in Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible.

I took a copy of it to show to anyone who asked to see my "invitation".

A lot of people wanted to see it, and nobody liked it.
I just kept working my way up the chain of command.

I hold no grudge against anyone who obstructed my entry into that closed meeting. Each of them was just doing what they were told to. Most of them had no idea what to do with me and were more than happy to pass me along to someone else.

I ended up in Ryan Cangiolosi's lap.

I explained what was going on, and showed him the rule.

He agreed without hesitation, to enforce the rule on my behalf.

I couldn't help but think what would have happened if Allen Weh was still the party chair. I probably would have left with my invitation rolled into a tight cylinder and stuffed where the sun don't shine. I'm a big guy, but he's a combat hardened Marine with a baseball bat.

It was made clear that I was allowed in according to my standing as a member of the Republican Party and not as a member of the press. I pointed out to them that the press has a right to be there as well, they just choose not to press it.

Later in the morning, Cangiolosi asked if the frankly boring meeting met my expectations. I told him I hadn't really seen it all because I had to be elsewhere to register for the convention. It didn't appear to me that they did anything at all worth hiding. Which begs the question; then why hide it?

The whole thing was being videotaped from the back of the room, so if they had wanted to webcast it, they could have. As far as I know, they did not.

At the end of the day, amendments to the party platform were brought to the table.

If the process would have allowed it, I would have argued for a transparent accountability plank.

The process of course, doesn't allow spontaneous participation. The process is designed to allow its control by the party heavy hitters.

Consider how much trouble Rep Janice Arnold-Jones had getting amendments on the table when Colonel Weh was the Party Chairman, link.

I digress.

There was an amendment offered that would change their Equal Rights plank:

We support vigorous enforcement of the letter and spirit of Civil Rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, handicap, religion and national origin.

It would have added "sexual orientation".

There was a motion immediately made and seconded, to table the amendment.

The motion to table the amendment passed nearly unanimously.

I, the gentleman seated next to me, and maybe a hand full of others were the only ones who yelled no!

The Republicans will shun gays for at least another election.

Which brings us back to the participation rule

B. Participation: It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all Republican voters in Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible.

unless you choose to be born gay.

APS cell phone survey results.

According to the cell phone survey recently conducted by the leadership of the APS, link,

We now know (assuming the figures are accurate) two facts.

36% of survey participants identified themselves as "staff".

80% of survey participants thought it was OK for "staff" members to take cell phones away from kids who are using them in violation of a rule they will describe as "stupid".

What we don't know, is what percent of staff members will actually take phones away from kids, shouldering a burden that is not insubstantial.

My guess is, it will be very few.
The rule will be left to others to enforce.

And once again, we will reinforce the belief in students that
just because something is against the rules, doesn't mean you
can't go ahead and do it anyway, and without consequence.

Don't forget that according to Supt Winston Brooks,
students who deliberately disobey adults,
are committing the least serious of misdemeanors.

You cannot just simply pass a rule,
knowing that it will not be enforced.

If it isn't a hill you're ready to die on,
don't make it against rules you are obligated to enforce.

Remember sagging? It used to be against school board policy. The kids did it anyway, they still do, and school board policy was relaxed to accommodate the push back from students.

Students ended up determining the policy.

Because the leadership of the APS wrote a policy
they would back up.

This is not about sagging. It is not about cell phones.

It is about negligently allowing, or knowingly permitting,
prohibited behavior and about the damage that does.

Ordinary citizens shouldn't be taxed, says the Governor.

Gov. Bill Richardson
has articulated his reservations
about signing a food tax saying,

" he doesn’t want to balance the
budget on the backs of ordinary
citizens.





It strikes me that "ordinary citizens" should be sharing the burden, more or less equally, not being excepted from it.




photo Mark Bralley

Pot calling kettle, black.

the Journal's Hailey Heinz beat School Board President Marty Esquivel's drum loudly when she reported Esquivel's claim that Scott Glasrud is being "disingenuous" in using a particularly flattering method of calculating drop out rates.

Yet Esquivel sees no problem with APS math, which allows students who have already failed the ninth grade,
simply disappear from the list of their cohorts when graduation rates are calculated.

The kids demonstrably least
likely to graduate, are dropped
out of APS' drop out math, link,
and he thinks Glasrud's math is sketchy?

Wake up, dude!




photo Mark Bralley

The leadership of the APS is simply too busy

to talk about what the APS student standards of conduct are, and about whether or not they are honestly accountable as role models of them;

yeah, that's it.

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

How long does it take to decide whether or not that statement
will be placed back into the code of conduct that first applies to

School Board President Marty Esquivel, and then to

school board members, and then to
Supt Winston Brooks, and then to
administrators, and then to
teachers, and then,
and only then,

to students

How many APS senior administrators does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

It is the school board's obligation and responsibility to write district wide policies.

For example, they might decide that they want to,
as a matter of policy, ban student cell phone use.

It then becomes incumbent upon the administration,
to create a procedure for implementing the ban.
It is described in what is called a procedural directive.

In a normal world, the board would inform the superintendent of their new policy and charge him with the implementation.

The supt would tell some underling; "write a procedural directive, run it by the board". And it would be done.

In APS, the process is not nearly so simple

It requires the "use" of a number of administrators over many, many hours.

(I am not going to go through and repair all of the line breaks, chalk it up the fact that they could offer up the document in a user friendly format, and choose not to. It is presented here so you can fully appreciate its scope. If you really want to read it, you're far better off going to the link ) Note; the link used to work, it no longer does.

Consider for a moment, how much this 1250 word document cost taxpayers.

How many dollars did unwitting taxpayers fork over,
thinking they were buying education for 89,000 of their
sons and daughters,
to be used instead, to write this;

The superintendent shall carry out, through procedural directive, the policies established by the
Board of Education. Procedural directives shall specify required actions and reflect the detailed
arrangement under which the district operates. Procedural directives and policies shall be the
responsibility of the superintendent's designee.
Changes in policy shall require approval by the Board of Education. Procedural directives shall
require approval from the district leadership team and may be taken to the Board of Education
for review only.
Policy/Procedural Directive Process
Once an issue has been raised and it has been determined by appropriate parties that a
policy/procedural directive must be created or changed, the superintendent shall appoint a
leadership team member responsible for the policy/procedural directive if there is not a position
title already designated as responsible.
•
The leadership team member shall work with the policy analyst to identify all current district
documentation regarding the policy/procedural directive.
•
The leadership team member in charge of this area may appoint a committee, if necessary, to
work on the policy/procedural directive. The policy analyst shall be a standing member of any
committee appointed to work on a policy/procedural directive.
•
The initial meeting of the committee shall discuss the policy/procedural directive and identify all
the necessary changes or additions needed. It shall be the responsibility of the policy analyst
provide all relevant federal and state statutes that correspond to the policy/procedural directive
in addition to National School Board Association and New Mexico School Board Association
suggested language. This language shall be modeled, if appropriate, for any corresponding
district policy/procedural directive.
•
The leadership member designee shall write a draft of the policy/procedural directive in the
approved format of the district.
•
It shall be the responsibility of the policy analyst to research all cross references and
classifications for the policy/procedural directive. The policy analyst shall check language for
legal concerns in the policy. The policy analyst shall also act as a liaison with leadership and
department directors who may also be affected by the policy/procedural directive and bring any
concerns to the committee. A copy of the draft shall be provided to the committee for
discussion.
•
The drafts of the policy/directive shall be sent to the committee no later than 72 hours prior to
their next meeting. Members of the committee shall be responsible for review and language
changes to the draft policy/procedural directive and shall bring those suggestions to the
committee for discussion.
•
There shall be a limited number of meetings of the committee after the initial meeting, unless
additional meetings are deemed necessary by the majority of the committee.
•
The final draft of the policy/procedural directive shall be completed upon the final meeting of
the committee.
•
The leadership team member responsible for the policy/procedural directive, the policy analyst
and any other appropriate district personnel shall take the final committee draft of the
policy/procedural directive to the superintendent for approval.
•
If there are significant changes from the superintendent, the leadership member responsible for
the policy/procedural directive may call a special meeting of the committee to address the
superintendent's concerns if deemed necessary. It shall be the responsibility of the policy
analyst to author any changes made by the superintendent. Once these concerns are addressed,
the leadership team member responsible for the policy/procedural directive, the policy analyst
and any other appropriate district personnel shall take the final draft back to the superintendent
for approval.
•
Upon approval • of the superintendent, the policy analyst and leadership member shall take the
Development of Policies and Procedural Directives
Policy & Procedure Policy Page 1
draft to the leadership team for review and possible changes.
It shall be the responsibility of the policy analyst to author any changes agreed upon by the
leadership team. If the leadership member responsible for the policy/procedural directive
deems it necessary, the policy/procedural directive shall be taken back to the original committee
and/or leadership team for review.
•
After review from the leadership team, the policy analyst shall take the policy/procedural
directive for a legal opinion.
•
The policy analyst shall serve as the liaison between the district's attorney regarding all polices
and procedural directives. The policy analyst shall take any changes from the attorney to the
leadership member and superintendent for discussion and change. These changes will only go
back to the original committee and/or leadership team if the leadership member and
superintendent deem it necessary.
•
The policy/procedural directive shall be taken to the District Policy and Procedural Directive
Work Team for review and approval as soon as possible.
•
The policy analyst shall create the action memo with recommendation from the leadership
member responsible for the policy.
○
The final draft of the policy/procedural directive must use tracked changes and be
presented both in a physical and digital format to the Board Services Office.
○
Only once the final draft has been approved by the attorney and the Board Office shall the
policy/procedural directive become an agenda item for Board of Education review. The policy
analyst shall act as a liaison to the Chief Academic Officer's Executive Administrative Assistant
and the Chairperson of the Policy Committee for inclusion on the Policy Committee agenda for a
courtesy review of the procedural directive by the Board of Education and action if a new or
revised policy is included.
•
The Board of Education shall review the policy/procedural directive during an open meeting.
The policy analyst shall present the policy/procedural directive to the Board of Education in
conjuncture with the leadership member responsible and any other appropriate staff. If the
Board of Education has significant changes, the leadership member may call back the original
committee to rework the policy/procedural directive.
•
The leadership member and the policy analyst may confer with individual board members
previous to the board committee meeting, but shall identify changes a board member makes so
they can be discussed at the board committee meeting. Only upon approval by the majority of
the members of the board shall these changes be adopted.
•
If the Board of Education approves the policy/procedural directive with changes, the policy
analyst shall be responsible for authoring these changes and they shall be completed previous to
the policy/procedural directive being placed on the consent calendar.
•
The policy shall be approved by the Board of Education. The procedural directive shall be placed
on the leadership meeting agenda as soon as possible following adoption of the policy by the
Board of Education.
•
An action memo shall be required for the leadership team adoption of the procedural directive.
This action memo shall be prepared by the Board Services Office. The action memo shall be
signed by the superintendent and the leadership member responsible for the procedural
directive.
•
Once the policy and procedural directive have been approved by the appropriate parties, the
Board Services Office shall be responsible for posting the new material to the Albuquerque
Public Schools website and maintaining a physical and digital copy of any relevant
documentation.
•
The leadership member responsible for the policy/procedural directive shall have the
responsibility of conveying any changes to all appropriate departments and departmental and
school site administrators.
•
Administrative Position: Board Services Executive Director
References:
Board Policy Cross Ref.: B.03 Suspending or Revoking Policies
B.13 Policy Adoption
Policy & Procedure Policy Page 2
NSBA/NEPN Classification: CH, BGE, CHC, BGA, BGC, CHA, CHB
Approved:
Policy & Procedure Policy Page 3
Flow Chart
Thursday, March 11, 2010
2:52 PM
Policy & Procedure Policy Page 4

Reform is impossible without a showdown

Simply put, there are at least two kinds of politicians and
public servants;

1. those who would have government that is transparently accountable to the people, and
2. those who would not.

Those who would not, have a distinct advantage in the fight.
They enjoy the luxury of being able to hide their indefensible
position instead of having to defend it.

They can use their power and privilege to hide public records.
They can use it to close meetings. They can use it to deny
robust webcasting of deliberations of the public interests.

If there ever were a fight,
if every single Senator and every single Representative
could be compelled to get up out of their seats, and
move to one side of the room or the other,

they would lose.

No one will stand up on the wrong side of the room.
If they do, they will not have the opportunity
beyond November 4, to do it, ever again.

A showdown is fatal to their interests.

Good wo/men can find themselves protecting bad wo/men out of some misplaced loyalty. But, the culture of corruption cannot end, except by exposing the corrupt. There is a reluctance to ending their immunity.

Many will forfeit their good names and some, their jobs.
Some will loose their liberty.

I say, tough shit.

They should have thought about that before they starting
stealing our money and betraying our trust.

They have usurped control over power and resources that
belong fundamentally, to the people.

They will not give it back. We must take it from them

... at a showdown.



We cannot simply give them the very thing that corrupts them absolutely;

absolute power, sans absolutely transparent accountability.

Esquivel and the Journal, back for round two.

APS School Board President
Marty Esquivel is looking for
payback. He, and the rest of
the leadership of the APS
looked pretty bad, coming out
of the NMPED "mediation",
wherein their attempt to
exert undue influence over
the APS charter schools,
was soundly rebuffed.



APS Supt Winston Brooks
was so infuriated by the
drubbing he took,
he left the meeting
yelling obscenities and
"accidentally" bumping into
one of his critics.






Esquivel and his Journal cronies, would like the public to be outraged at charter school Supt and Principal Scot Glasrud. (no link was provided today's Journal attack)

Glasrud earns a good salary, perhaps too good, who knows? There has never been any kind of open and honest discussion of executive and administrative salaries in public education. To suggest that his salary goes beyond the pale, is difficult to justify in the absence of any obvious line that he might have crossed.

It is worth noting that, Glasrud's salary only became an issue after he handed the APS brass their asses at the NMPED meeting.

Glasrud's salary isn't the point; this isn't about his salary.
If this was really about salaries and perks, why isn't the
Journal reporting on Winston Brooks' half million dollar
golden parachute, given him by Esquivel, et al, after a
series of meetings that were closed to the public?

Nor will the Journal investigate and report upon Esquivel's
abdication as a role model of the student standards of
conduct, or upon Brooks' abdication either.

Nor will the Journal report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS, nor upon suppressed evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators, nor upon the trust and treasure being squandered at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

The Journal is being very selective in what they investigate and report upon. They are outraged at Glasrud's salary, but not so outraged about worse outrages in the leadership of APS proper.

The Journal is inordinately interested in discrediting charters,
while at the same time under reporting the very real ethics and
accountability issues in APS senior administration and school board.

This is all very disappointing and frankly, more than a little frightening.




photos Mark Bralley

Bregman to represent Herrera

Attorney Sam Bregman
has been hired, apparently,
to help SoS Mary Herrera
escape the consequences of
the misconduct outlined in
AJ Salazar's letter of resignation.

In typical Bregman style,
he didn't refute or rebut any
of the specific allegations that
have been made against his client.

Rather, his defense so far hinges on getting people to believe that Salazar, unhappy over being disallowed a few days of annual leave, decided to end his $100k per year career in the Office by making up a bunch of false allegations about what he has seen there.

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




photo Mark Bralley

There is one other possibitity; ok, two

There is one considerable problem with calling an Extraordinary Session of the Legislature; it can be hijacked.

I don't see that as a problem.
The worst case scenario is that we know their names.

It would be "impossible" to hijack it anonymously;
someone has to stand up somewhere and say
"Let's do this other dumb ass thing, before we legislate
transparent accountability to meaningful standards of conduct
and competence for politicians and public servants."

He will be on the record obfuscating real ethical reform.

If we can't stop him, we will at least be able to tell voters his name. Hell, we'll "link" to archives of robust webcasting; we'll show voters incontrovertible proof of the betrayal of the trust
that has been placed in them.

After the November election, they won't be a problem anymore.
And then we will have a legislative session whose sole purpose
is to create for us, the state government we deserve.

The other possibility is that the Senators and Representatives that have the character and courage to call for a show down on reform, will simply present the number of signatures necessary to convince the Governor to call a Special Session, with a three item call;

1. standards, and
2. accountability, and
3. transparency limited only by the law.

The threat of hijacking is removed.

The third possibility, is that they,
the Republican Candidates for Statewide Office,
promise the one thing that really can be accomplished on the day after they are sworn in; a call for a Special Session of the Legislature.

The promise is the least promising; the difference is the same
difference as between talking the talk, and walking the walk.

Some how, some way, some day (before the next election), the character and courage of this legislature must be tested, before they run for re-election.

Senator Kent Cravens steps up

Senator Kent Cravens
became the second legislator
to sign on with the idea of an
Extraordinary Session,
the sole purpose of which is;
end the culture of corruption.

He has joined Senator Rod Adair
in the breach.

To be honest, Cravens doesn't share entirely, my enthusiasm and optimism over the possibilities of the session and what might be accomplished.

He is worried that it could be easily blocked, spoiled with too much extraneous legislation submitted by legislators eager to muddy the waters, and the possibility that the Governor might veto anything they come up with anyway. He is though, unafraid of giving it a shot.

I argued, we don't need to win the fight,
we just need to pick it,
so that legislators are compelled to pick a side;

• those who speak up in favor of a bold move to end the culture of corruption and incompetence, on the one side, and
• everyone else, on the other.

If the fight occurs before the November elections, those who hide from the question, or who obfuscate the process, can be identified for voters, and they can be held accountable in the November elections.

Cravens is a Republican, and he is running for Lt Governor.

Transparently accountable government shouldn't be a party issue, but in New Mexico, apparently it is.

So far, not a single Democrat has indicated their willingness to lock themselves in the Roundhouse, and to not leave until they have written high standards, inescapable accountability, and transparency limited only by the law.

Two then, have stood up, Senators Adair and Cravens.

The ball is rolling. The more names on the list, the more pressure will be put on the remaining legislators to pick a side in the fight, either by signing their names, or by hiding from the question in the hope it will all blow over.

You can if you want to, email your legislators and encourage them to step up an join the fight against public corruption and incompetence in state government. You can email them from here, link. Tell them that you want them to step up and join the fight, and further, if they don't, you will not vote for them in November.

It takes only a couple of minutes. I just emailed mine; Senator Cisco McSorley, and Representative Sheryl Williams-Stapleton.




photo Mark Bralley

it's the entrenchment, stupid

I rarely use the words Republican and Democrat because they seldom play in the issues that are important to me. Nevertheless;

Democrats need to be removed from NM state government; not because they are Democrats, but because they are members of an entrenched party, an entrenched political machine; entrenched corruption and incompetence.

That issue will not be addressed by electing more Democrats.
That would only prolong the problem.

Will the Republicans who replace them, them become entrenched themselves?

Socrates thought so; "... absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Of course they will. Despite what you read on the backside
of Democracy for New Mexico, Republicans are human,
with human weaknesses.

The trick is, this time we pay attention,
and don't let it happen.

Legislative competency testing

If the legislature was charged with making public corruption and incompetence impossibly difficult to hide,

1. if they were charged with writing standards of conduct and competence that are unequivocal and meaningful,
2. if they were charged with establishing accountability to those standards that is inescapable,and
3. if they were charged with creating transparency in government, limited only by the law,

could they?

Are they up to it, are they competent enough?

Do they have character and courage enough?

If they aren't, if they don't, shouldn't we know about it
before they run for re-election in November?

If they can't pass that test, they will avoid having to take it.
If they can pass the test, there is no reason to not take it.
There is no reason not to demand that the test be undertaken.

Extraordinary Session; all eyes on standards, accountability, and transparency. Lock the doors. No one leaves til it's done.

Or not. Sadly it is up to them, and so far,
only one has agreed to tested,


Senator Rod Adair.
a Republican.




photo Mark Bralley

Secretary of State Herrera loses battle over letter.

Secretary of State Herrera did what she could to keep A. J. Salazar's letter of resignation secret from stakeholders. When you read the letter, link, you will understand why.

Her effort was doomed from the start; not only is it a public record, subject to law, but a copy was already in the hands of the Journal. She should have just surrendered it to anyone who asked.

She didn't though, and as a consequence, has been subject of widespread criticism and derision, and the letter is out now anyway.

You now have the opportunity to read the letter yourself, and decide for yourself, whether there was ever any real doubt about whether it was a public record subject to the NMIPRA.

The NMIPRA does provide for redaction. There are names named in the letter. I am not a lawyer; I don't know whether the names should be redacted or not. But even if they should have been redacted, the redaction would be limited to a black line through the name, not the suppression of the entire letter.

There are a number of problems raised here. Most of the problems exist because public servants can hide the truth according to their whim, and without consequence.

Even if this got to court, and Herrera was determined to have not followed the law, there would be no penalty for her personally. Even if penalties are levied, they are levied against tax payers and not against the individual politician or public servant who has secreted records in violation of the law.

We need to reform the process for redacting and surrendering public records. The notion that the people with the most to hide, are permitted to redact, or hide, records is nonsensical. It is akin to letting the accused in any trial, decide which evidence will or will not be submitted to the jury.

Self redaction of (incriminating) public records, is utterly unjustifiable.




photo Mark Bralley

Esquivel renews attack on charter schools

A few weeks ago, the leadership of the APS got spanked by State Auditor Hector Balderas, link, over audit irregularities primarily involving charter schools. They responded by grossly overstepping their authority by demanding an immediate surrender of certain bookkeeping records under threat of revocation of their charters.

The Secretary of NM's Public Education Department stepped in to mediate/referee/guide them to a peaceful resolution of the dispute. The hearing didn't go well for APS' leadership; APS Supt Winston Brooks was so chagrined by the ruling, he lost control while leaving the meeting, link; embarrassing himself and the district.

Well, apparently, School Board President Marty Esquivel can't take "grow up" for an answer, and he wants some payback against one of the charter school principals who handed him his ass at the NMPED meeting.

Now he and his cronies at the Journal, have launched another attack on charters principal and superintendent, Scot Glasrud, link. Esquivel thinks Glasrud is making too much money.

The truth is, it is none of Esquivel's business how much Glasrud makes; that is between Glasrud and his stakeholders. They, by way, could not be happier with his success at three charters he heads.

It is telling that Esquivel, and his Journal cronies, think the newspaper is the proper place to discuss Glasrud's salary, but not the place to discuss openly and honestly, the half million dollar golden parachute, link, he and the APS Board have provided for Winston Brooks .

The Journal and Esquivel tried to downplay Glasrud's success at the charters; pointing to different demographics. Yet if you correct for the demographic differences, Glasrud's schools still out perform equivalent APS schools by a substantial margin.

Esquivel is throwing rocks from a glass house; the ongoing ethics and accountability scandal, the suppression of evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving APS administrators, widespread failure to educate, widespread student discipline issues, his own abdication as the senior most role model of the APS Student Standards of Conduct, unacceptable drop out rates, and widespread failure to make Annual Yearly Progress in many APS schools.

A friend shares the following;
If the law doesn't support you, pound on the evidence.
If the evidence doesn't support you, pound on the law.
It neither the law nor the evidence support you, pound on the table.

Esquivel would do well to concentrate on the real problems in the APS, and forget about trying to take Glasrud down a peg or two; he is clearly out of his league.




photo Mark Bralley

New Mexico Attorney General Gary King,

in one of the greatest
understatements of all time,
said;

"We must keep moving forward
in the fight against corruption."

Yet, his own house is not in order.

I have filed a complaint with the NMAGO alleging that the leadership of the APS is breaking the law by using its own publicly funded private police force to investigate felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators, link, and then withholding the evidence from the District Attorney still, even long after statutes of limitation have expired.

I think it is fair to say, I've gotten squat from his Office, by way of help in even exposing the truth about the scandal, much less holding APS Supt Winston Brooks and School Board President Marty Esquivel accountable for their parts in it.

The line between the truth you can and cannot get from his Office is not a clear line. It is not drawn at everything the law allows, and it is unenforceable.

If he is not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the public interests and about his public service (subject to due process and the law) and he cannot be held accountable for that failure, accountable under an impartial system over which he has no undue influence, and powerful enough to hold him accountable, even against his will,

he has a little moving forward to do, himself.

There is a fundamental ethic. It is truthtelling.

If you are not accountable to a system that requires truthtelling,
in contrast to the legal system which only prohibits telling lies,
you are not honestly accountable to any system of rules, at all.



photo Mark Bralley

What have they got to lose?

I am trying to get a few Senators and Representatives to step up and pick a fight over ending the culture of corruption.

So far, I have not heard from 41 Senators, and 69 Representatives.

Senator Rod Adair has stepped up; he is willing to sign his name on the call for an Extraordinary Session of the Legislature, whose sole call is to do whatever can be done to make it impossibly difficult for politicians and public servants to escape accountability for their corruption and incompetence.

I am engaged in an off the record discussion with one Representative. He is concerned about;

• the likelihood that enough legislators will actually step up, and sign the petition for a call, and
• the likelihood that the mission will be subverted by those who will take advantage of the "open-endedness" of an Extraordinary Session,by flooding it with legislation, resolutions, and memorials that are not germane to ending public corruption and incompetence, and that
• any attempt to pick this fight, if unsuccessful, will be used against those who pick it, in their next election, and finally,
  
• the argument that is as old as it is specious, "you can't legislate ethics in people."

On the last point I agree, but then that is not the intention of legislation creating ethical standards and enforcing them, any more than the point of legislation creating legal standards and then enforcing them, has the intent of making people law abiding (in their hearts).

Whether a person is law abiding or not, whether they are ethics abiding or not, is an entirely separate issue from whether or not we can create meaningful standards of conduct and competence, and then hold them accountable when they are not.

The Representative also expressed the belief that the corruption and incompetence can be ended by working within the process. I reminded him that working within the process did not prevent the culture of corruption from emerging, has not prevented it from being brought to an art form, and it has done precious little to mitigate it, much less end it.

Until a way can be found to end a culture of corruption without individually exposing the corrupt, (wo/men of great privilege and power) it will not end. They will never act to expose their own corruption and incompetence. They will never hold themselves honestly accountable for their own conduct and competence. It would utterly defy everything we know to be true about human nature, in particular, about human weakness.

It is this, that Socrates was writing about when he first penned; "absolute power, corrupts absolutely."

If we work "within the system", any corruption ending legislation, if among its effect would be the individual exposure of the corrupt and the incompetent, will die in Senator Linda Lopez' Senate Rules Committee, like every one before.

It borders upon delusional, to suppose that it will be different in the next session. The system cannot be repaired from within. It was Albert Einstein who pointed out

"The significant problems we have cannot be solved
at the same level of thinking with which we created them."

The next level above "the system" is the people.

The people have the ability to end the culture of corruption,
politicians and public servants do not.

If this falls through, and Adair is the only one who steps up,
what price will he pay for having been so bold?
Will his opponent in the next election, point to this commitment and somehow use it against him?

How? Does his opponent really say, vote for me, not for him, because he once signed a call to create an Extraordinary Session , the sole purpose of which was to end the Rot in the Roundhouse?

Or will he shunned by those legislators who would rather continue their culture of power and privilege in government, a culture that enables all of the corruption and incompetence to prevail?

The real question is;

could legislators move us from national laughing stock, to shining example of transparently accountable government, even if they wanted to?

If they can't, if they haven't the character or the competence,
then we need a whole new bunch of legislators who can.

If you concede that the answer is yes, they can end it
if they want to, the next question begged is;

why won't they?

What have they got to lose?

Janice Arnold-Jones dominates Quay County straw poll.

Quay County delegates to the Republican Party Primary Convention, sought direction from those attending their monthly meeting of the Quay County Republican Party.

The straw poll they conducted,
gave Rep Janice Arnold-Jones
a resounding win;
more than 70% of ballots cast.








The sole objection to her candidacy has always been, she is "unknown".

Yet it appears that among those who get know her, she is a favorite, and a worthy contender.

It becomes then, just a matter of getting the word out.




photo Mark Bralley

Rod Adair is the first to respond;

every one else will be among the last.

I issued a personal challenge every single state legislator
(subject to the limitations of the legislative website, link)
to call themselves into an extraordinary session
for the purpose of ending public corruption and incompetence.

Senator Rod Adair
is the first
to pick up the gauntlet.

Mr. MacQuigg:

The idea of an extraordinary session has already been tried—just at the end of the regular session on February 18.

It actually requires 26 senators’ signatures, which was not a problem—there were probably more than 30 of us who signed the petition. The problem was in the House of Representatives, which needed 42 signatures. They could not get more than 25.

The same situation exists today: the Senate could probably easily meet the requirements of an extraordinary session, but the House will not come close to doing so.

I hope this helps.

Rod Adair
State Senator
R-Roswell
Chaves & Lincoln Counties

I hope there's still a copy of the petition lying around somewhere.

I would like to know which of them had the character and the courage to sign their name, and which did not.

Every single Representative is up for election in 8 months.

This is an election issue.

I say, if their name isn't on the petition,
we should vote them out of office.

The petition could play as soon as the Primary Conventions this weekend.

Several Candidates are sitting legislators and whether their names are on this petition or not, counts.

Their character counts; their courage counts, and
their competence counts.




photo Mark Bralley

What of the 25 and the 42?

It will take 26 Senators and 43 Representatives to call an Extraordinary Session to end the cultures of corruption and incompetence in State Government.

It would be a shame if we could only find 25 Senators and 43 Representatives with character and courage enough to show up to the rumble, link.

Which begs a question;

How many of them have the character and the courage to sign up anyway, link, as a matter of principle, knowing they will probably lose?