Nothing from Esquivel

APS School Board President Marty Esquivel wrote a letter
suspending my right to petition my government, until I meet with him and the Chief of his Praetorian Guard, Steve Tellez.

Yesterday, at approximately 2 pm, I emailed him, asking for information on how to set up that meeting.

So far, he has not responded.

The showdown will come before the next Audit Committee meeting; where he and others, are trying to keep their denial of due process to whistleblowers, off the table and secret from public knowledge.




photo Mark Bralley

Alb Journal feigns outrage.

To read them tell it, the Journal is outraged at the handling of public records at the UNM, link, and NM Tech, link.

They have expressed no outrage, feigned or otherwise, over
the mishandling of public records in the APS.

How is this story not newsworthy? ??

APS Supt Winston Brooks is scheduled to accept a
Dixon Award for his efforts to use legal loopholes,
technicalities and legal weaselry, to hide public records
of a 3 1/2 year long cover up of an investigation of
felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of the APS
and in their Police Department, link.

The only way it makes sense, is that the Journal is
in on the cover up.

The records which are being hidden, are the tip of the iceberg
that if thawed, according to former

APS Police Chief Gil Lovato,

"... would not leave a single
senior APS administrator
left standing ..."




photo Mark Bralley

Locksleygate Part Deux; JOURNAListic malpractice?

There are a number of problems with the manner in which public records have been handled in Locksleygate Part Deux.

The public record in question is a video recording of an encounter between UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley and a local sportswriter. There are allegations of misconduct.

The only remaining incontrovertible evidence of the encounter, apparently, is a recording taken from a security camera in the bar where the exchange took place.

The DVD became a public record when it was placed in the hands of public servants within their public service.

It came, at that point, public property. Subject to ethical redaction of course, but a public record (public property) at that instant. *(exception has been taken with my take; see comment.)

The leadership of the UNM gave a Journal reporter access to the recording that was denied to all other journalists. The Journal reporter accepted the differential treatment, link;

"... UNM showed the video to a Journal reporter,
he was told it would not be available to any other media ..."

The government doesn't get to decide who gets the scoop;
much less who gets exclusive access to public records.

UNM Athletics Director Paul Krebs took it upon himself to dispose of the evidence by giving it back to the bar.

Krebs story is that he

"... has not denied any media outlets the video ...".

By which he means, he has not said; "I deny your request to see the video;" a true but wholly dishonest representation.

In truth, they were absolutely denied the video when
he placed it outside their reach. He absolutely has denied
media outlets the video.

The Journal quotes Krebs;

"... the reason the school chose to show it to Archuleta,
and no one else, was "because Greg was our beat writer.

So what, I don't care if he is their beat writer; the government does not decide among reporters. All members of the press share equal protection under the Constitution to exercise their human right to be the press. If there are too many reporters and too little room, it is the press who decides who will participate directly and on the behalf of the others.

The leadership of the APS does not have the authority to selectively credential the press, and neither does the leadership of the UNM.

Krebs continues;

We thought this might be a potential story that might
get blown out of hand, like it appears to be.

So, if I am understanding Krebs correctly; if the story is a "big one", their right to selectively credential the press is all the more justifiable.

No Krebs, it is not.

Finally from Krebs a statement that is false on its face;

We gave the "potential story" to the Journal "... in the interest of full transparency, to take a look at it, and you guys have."

Except that now we know the story was not given to the Journal at all, it was given to one reporter with the understanding that no one, even from the Journal, would get to see it.

It was given to the one person, perhaps in the whole city, most beholden to the UNM for future "access", and therefore under the most pressure to write with a pro-UNM bias.

What do you call a sports beat reporter with no access,
... an obituary writer.

"Full transparency" my aching ass.

All of this begs a fundamental question; if the recording of Locksley is in fact, exculpating, why is everyone trying to hide it? Why won't the bar owner protect Locksley by surrendering the DVD? Why didn't UNM put it up on YouTube when they had the chance?

And a few other questions beside;

Where are the consequences?
Where is the accountability?
Where is the justice?

Where is the independent audit of executive and administrative
standards and accountability at the UNM, that UNM President
Schmidly and Regent Ray Sanchez want some much to avoid?

Where is the independent audit of executive and administrative
standards and accountability in the APS that Supt Winston
Brooks and School Board President Marty Esquivel
want so much to avoid?

UNM mishandles public records, again.

If you read the Journal report, link, on an incident involving the embattled UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley, you likely will be no closer to knowing whether or not there was any real misconduct involving Locksley and a local sports reporter.

However, it is crystal clear, from reading the report, that UNM has mishandled public records again.

If the Journal is to be believed, UNM had in its possession a videotape of the incident. As soon as it took possession of the recording, it became a public record.

UNM took the record, showed it selectively to the media, and then supposedly got rid of the record though there were already other legitimate requests made to view it.

One cannot pass public records like a hot potato in order to suppress them.

Well, actually one can.

If one is arrogant enough to believe one is above the law
and beyond consequences for incompetence and corruption,
one can ignore the law. Especially if one has a gaggle of
lawyers underwritten by public support of "education" who
are willing to manipulate the law in every conceivable way
to litigate personal exception to the law for powerful politicians
and public servants.

There is no penalty or consequence for mishandling public records; at least not one that will be paid by anyone but innocent taxpayers.

It is past time to review the NM Inspection of Public Records Act, the Open Meetings Act, and any other open government regulations, and provide in them, serious consequences for public servants who play games with the public's right to know the truth about the spending of their power and resources.

Robbins chastised for "misleading public"

APS Board Member David Robbins was chastised by a number of experts after making scientifically unjustifiable claims about the ineffectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of venereal diseases, specifically AIDS.

In a Journal report, link, Robbins is accused of likely increasing the spread of disease (among APS students) by discouraging the use of condoms.

Robbins continued to insist that his belief is based on "studies"; studies he continues to refuse to cite.

Enough of David Robbins. It is time for him to resign from
the School Board and spend more time with his family.




photo Mark Bralley

Robbins mixing religion and government

School Board Member David Robbins has an agenda he would like to force upon stakeholders. In apparent accordance with his religious views, he would like to ban the distribution of condoms to APS students.

The whether or not of condom distribution is worthy of discourse, but not based upon religious conviction. That question aside; his position is based on nonsense.

He grabbed a little press in the Journal this morning, link. He argued;

"... condoms do not stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases because there are pores in the latex that are larger than disease organisms."

His view is contradicted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, whose official position is;

"Even HIV, which is among the tiniest of STD (sexually transmitted disease) organisms, cannot pass through a latex condom."

Robbins, clearly not a scientist, argued;

"Folks, the AIDS virus can get through a condom very easily."

He pointed to studies, that he chose to not cite, claiming;

those "...studies have contradicted this claim",

and he said

" ... holes in latex are the reason balloons deflate over time."
(emphasis added)

O M G!

Forget for a moment the obvious flaw in his apples and oranges argument; the premise that balloons are the same as condoms, both in their materials and manufacture, and in the manufacturing standards that apply to them.

Robbins, clearly not a scientist, has not done the math;

An AIDS virus is 90 nanometers in diameter, link.
A nitrogen molecule is 300 picometers in diameter, link.
A nanometer is 1000 times larger than a picometer.
90 nanometers equals 90,000 picometers.
90,000 divided by 300 equals 300.

An aids virus is 300 times larger than a nitrogen molecule.

Robbins balloon "theory" denies the existence of holes in a balloon between .3 and 90 nanometers in diameter. I didn't bother to do the calculations for oxygen, carbon dioxide and other "air" molecules as nitrogen alone accounts for nearly 4 molecules of every 5 in air.

Since he did not cite a source that corroborates his ridiculous claim, we must assume it is substantiated only by his faith.

Faith, which he should not be introducing into the decision making process by the School Board.

He then went on to threaten the very existence of school based health clinics

" ... if APS cannot control what happens in its school-based health clinics, namely whether birth control is available to students, that the district should not have such clinics at all."

Never mind any other good they may be doing or services
they may be providing.

In a display of hypocrisy to pile upon his display of ignorance;

"Robbins e-mailed pro-life activists before Wednesday's meeting, telling them the issue would be discussed and that they could speak during public forum."

Robbins at least as often as any other board member, has routinely opposed the open expression of dissent during public forums; going so far as to arrest so called "dissidents".

He wants people to show up at the forum to back his abstinence position, but woe unto anyone who steps up to question his laughable math.

They will be dispatched in short order.

And so should Robbins by means of a voter recall.




photo Mark Bralley

Robbins deceives stakeholders

School Board Member David Robbins was on New Mexico Now; KIVA 1550, link, yesterday.

He was there to drum up support for his cause; sexual abstinence in APS students by means of condom denial.

I asked him a couple of questions on other subjects; one about role modeling, the other about his denial of due process to whistleblowers.

His answers were (deliberately) deceptive. I think he lied.

The first subject was the abdication of the leadership of the APS from their obligations and responsibilities as role models of the Student Standards of Conduct. They recently removed language from their own code of conduct which had read;

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

Robbins had made a promise to voters during his campaign for election, that he would fight to restore the role modeling clause to the APS adult standards of conduct. By any reasonable measure, he has not "fought" for the restoration at all. At most, he has broached the subject on maybe a couple of occasions. He claimed during his interview, that he was standing alone against the rest of the board with respect to restoring a role modeling clause. I don't believe him.

The second issue had to do with the denial of due process rights to whistleblowers. School Board Policy is clear; the Audit Committee (which Robbins chairs) is charged with review and approval of any (all) whistleblower complaints. They have not reviewed and approved even one complaint.

In his defense, Robbins claimed that Federal law prevents any open meeting review of individual complaints, in so far as, privacy rights would be violated. His argument is a red herring; no one has asked for open meeting review. The Audit Committee adjourns into private Executive Session all the time; Robbins is well aware of that. His red herring is categorically dishonest.

David Robbins is untrustworthy.

Robbins claimed a prior engagement and left before the conversation was finished. I challenged him to come back with as many board members, administrators and lawyers as he could fit into the room, to continue a candid, forthright and honest exchange of questions and answers.

He won't of course, because in addition to being dishonest, he is also a coward.

I pointed out to him once, that there are only two reasons for APS leaders to refuse to step up as role models of the Student Standards of Conduct;

1. a lack of character and,
2. a lack of courage.

He agreed.

And now he is a role model of both.

He, and any other board member who will not pledge honest accountability to the same standards of conduct that they establish and enforce upon students, deserve to be recalled.



photo Mark Bralley

Waiting on Melendrez

The leadership of the APS is trying to suppress the results of investigations into public corruption and incompetence in their police department. In response to a request for public records, APS' Custodian of Public Records Rigo Chavez informed me that, on the advice of their attorney, every word of every investigation is a "matter of opinion" and exempt from surrender under the NM Inspection of Public Records Act. They are not of course; at most some, a very few of them, might be. The law clearly requires the respondent to redact only the words excepted by the Act, and then to surrender the rest, rather immediately.

Such a redaction would not protect the leadership of the APS from the exposure of their incompetence and corruption. So they will pretend they don't understand the law and that, they really can hide entire documents.

It has been nearly a month since NMFOG's Executive Director Sarah Welsh wrote a letter to Chavez asking him to reconsider their denial. She contacted him by phone yesterday, about the fact that APS has not responded to her email, or to my follow up request.

Welsh was informed that APS/Modrall lawyer Art Melendres is "reviewing" the FOG objections.

APS is not very candid, forthright or honest about anything, so it would be very difficult to determine how much taxpayers are paying Modrall and Melendres to "review" the letter and then to comply with law that is abundantly clear on its face.

The law will not prevent Melendres and the leadership of the APS from drawing this out for ever; certainly past the upcoming school board elections. It is important to them to keep the truth from voters until after the election.

In my first complaint about NM FOG's handling of this request so far, I take exception to the fact that Welsh indicated she will give them another 10 days/two weeks to resolve their boggle over simple and straightforward law before taking the next step, whatever that might be.

In so far as; "Justice delayed is justice denied." Gladstone
I would rather that she and NM FOG be more insistent.

This is but one more example of the shameless conduct of the leadership of the APS and their lawyers in mockery of the law. They and their legal weaselry will keep public corruption, incompetence, and involvement in felony criminal misconduct by senior APS administrators secret from voters until after their cronies, like School Board President (and open government lawyer) Marty Esquivel have been re-elected to positions from which they can cover administrative asses for another four years.

The Journal will aide and abet them in their effort to cover up the scandal that they, themselves, first reported, link.

Mark my words, the election will come and go without a single investigation or report by the Journal on

• the corruption in the APS Police Department,
• the abdication of senior APS leadership as role models of the Student Standards of Conduct,
• the need for independent standards and accountability audits, or
• the ongoing denial of due process rights to whistleblowers.

photo Mark Bralley

Dixon Award winners dis the NM FOG

The surrender of public records of investigations into public corruption and incompetence in the APS Police Department, link, is being obstructed by the leadership of the APS.














They, Winston Brooks and Marty Esquivel sit at the desks
where the buck stops for hiding public records from public knowledge.

They are claiming that every single word of every single investigation of the scandal in their police department is a "matter of opinion" and therefore not subject to surrender under the law.

The argument at the very best is no more than legal weaselry;
used to hide the ethically redacted truth from stakeholders
without fear of consequence; any fines and or penalties will be
paid by taxpayers, not by them.

Fortunately for the leadership of the APS and their lawyers,
there is no consequence for feigning ignorance of the law.

The Executive Director of the NM Foundation for
Open Government Sarah Welsh wrote a letter to

APS Executive Director of
Communications (and
Custodian of Public Records)
Rigo Chavez pointing directly to
the fallacies in their position.

As far as I know they have ignored her letter.

If they are in fact, ignoring her letter, they dissing the very folks who gave Esquivel a Dixon Award last year, and who will give Brooks one this year; the Dixon Award honors people who defend open government.

The irony will reach a crescendo next month when Brooks
stands up at an awards banquet and accepts the formerly
prestigious award for fighting for transparency in government,
after spending his day hiding public records of corruption
and incompetence in his Praetorian Guard; a publicly
funded private police force; accredited by no one, certificated
by no one, and accountable to no one, except Winston Brooks
and Marty Esquivel.

Neither can summon the character and the courage to tell he truth, about the corruption in their Police Department, nor about independent audits, or about executive and administrative role modeling of the Student Standards of Conduct, nor about the denial of due process to hundreds of whistle blowers.

Yet both have stood up, or will stand up, and accept an award
in honor of the character and courage they have (supposedly)
manifest in their fight for honest accountability in government.

The Dixon Award for Abject Hypocrisy;
somebody must be spinning in his grave.

The media will be there of course, to report upon the award,
not upon the scandal.



photos Mark Bralley

Brooks admits years long (deliberate) deception of the public

In a surprisingly candid,
forthright and honest statement
in his monthly Journal column,
APS Supt Winston Brooks
admits to deceiving stakeholders
for years by misrepresenting the
truth about the districts "magnet"
schools.

The statement, quoted in significant
part, is not taken out of context or
misrepresented in any way.

Brooks admitted to the (deliberate) deception of the public
in order to enhance APS' image in the community.

The subject of his column was "choices" offered within the APS. He wrote;

"For years, we told you (the community) we had "magnet"
schools, when in many cases, our offerings weren't all
that different or special ..."

I cannot begin to imagine what prompted him to tell the truth about that deception. He certainly hasn't given any indication that he, or anyone else in the leadership of the APS, is prepared to be as candid, forthright and honest about other important issues;

• spending at 6400 Uptown Blvd, or
  
• the corruption in the APS Police Department, or
• APS' obfuscation of public records requests, or
  
• the ethics and accountability scandal and the need for an independent standards and accountability audit in the leadership of the APS, or
• the denial of due process to more than 200 whistle blower complaints, or
• the abdication of the leadership of the APS, as role models of the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

Perhaps it was no more than an inadvertent slip of the tongue.

The Journal, likewise, has not given any indication that it intends to investigate or report candidly, forthrightly or honestly, on even one of these other issues. This even in light of the Journal's obligation and responsibility to fully inform voters in anticipation of the upcoming School Board Elections.




photo Mark Bralley

Brooks contemplates obeying the law

There are statistics available that speak to the quality of individual teachers. APS collects that data, Journal, link.

It has not been made public.

APS Supt Winston Brooks and School Board President Marty Esquivel are trying decide whether to make the data available to the public.

Never mind that the law requires the surrender of an ethically redacted version of that data, upon demand and rather immediately.

Two Asst Supts now at Rio Grande

The leadership of the APS has now stationed two of their most senior administrators at Rio Grande High School; Assoc Supt Diego "Dickie" Gallegos, and Chief Academic Officer Linda Sink.

APS Supt Winston Brooks has appointed two of the most senior administrators in the district both, to Rio Grande High School. This in the hope that any school can be fixed by the application of the "right" administrator.

If by the end of the semester, the average student has not made one semester of progress, it is fair to conclude that Brooks hypothesis is wrong; the "right" administrator is not the right answer.

Maybe then he will empower the district's more than 5,000 teachers who between them have more than 70,000 years of teaching experience, and allow them to participate in the making of decisions to address the obstacles we face in educating APS students.

In the meantime, their appointments beg a question;
how can APS survive without two of its most senior administrators? If both were working 40 hour weeks on meaningful tasks before, how can they just take on another full time job? Were they not fully occupied before, in exchange for their $100K+ salaries?

If as he stated, Gallegos was just "sliding under the radar", link, he had some spare time on his hands. But what about the district's Chief Academic Officer?

If the Journal is to be believed, link, Sink said; "... other administrators will help her with her duties as principal and CAcadO."

Which begs another question; were those other administrators not busy with their own 40 hours a week worth of meaningful work?

How do they still have administrators who aren't already busting their asses 40 hours a week?

Has there been no belt tightening 6400 Uptown Blvd?

How many other administrators at the Central Office have a lot of free time on their hands?

For as long as Supt Winston Brooks and School Board
President Marty Esquivel can prevent an independent
efficiency and effectiveness audit, we will have no idea.




photo Mark Bralley

APS to test administrative theory at RGHS

There is an old saw that goes like this;

"There is no one of us as smart as all of us."

It serves as the basis for one of the most fundamental tenets
of decision making;

involve stakeholders in decision making
that affects their interests.

At Rio Grande High School then, it could be argued,
the best decision making model would allow stakeholders
to participate meaningfully in the process.

The leadership of the APS has a different take;

there is no group of stakeholders, no matter how large,
that is smarter than the "right" administrator.

Rather than empower stakeholders, they will continue their
search for the "right" administrator.

This will be his third stab at finding the "right" administrator for the job at RGHS.

In the selection of the new permanent principal, Brooks will pretend to empower stakeholders. According to the Journal, link;

"As for parent involvement, Brooks said the district will form an interview committee of parents, teachers, students and district administrators."

Sounds like empowerment doesn't it?

It is followed by, what teachers call, the weasel clause.
After the "selection process" he will appoint whomever
he wants. All he has to do is to ask for a list of candidates
long enough to include his choice.

Every rule or regulation that the leadership of the APS writes, that empowers stakeholders, contains a weasel clause that revokes the empowerment at the whim of any administrator.

The most infamous example of the weasel clause can be found in the APS Student Behavior Handbook. The handbook has within it; Mandatory Minimum Consequences. They represent the district's commitment to teachers that, if teachers will accept the burden of enforcement of the school and district's discipline policies (actually an administrative responsibility), the miscreants will receive a consequence that is of some consequence. The teacher or staff member will not take a recalcitrant student to the office, only to see him/her immediately released with a warning that "if they do it again, there will be consequences!"

Too many administrators are loathe to enforce meaningful consequences upon even chronically disruptive students because those students and their parents, usually start making waves rather that accept the responsibility and the consequences for their misconduct.

So, they added to the handbook, a weasel clause which reads (in significant part)

Nothing in the following (the handbook, including the
"Minimum Mandatory Consequences) is intended to
prevent a principal or other administrator from using
his/her best judgment with respect to a particular situation.

There are minimum mandatory consequences except when
an administrator prefers to take a less bumpy path. Then,
their "best judgment" does not require explanation or
defense, and is not subject to review; it is simply their ""best" judgment".

When ever the leadership of the APS makes a promise, one is
well advised to look for the weasel clause, the one that reads,
we promise to do this unless we (administration) decide we
want to do something else instead.

Should there be any doubt that Brooks lacks respect for stakeholder sentiment; consider that he has come right out and told stakeholders that their 600 petition signatures (a huge number), did not move him to remove the embattled principal. It was instead, "... a whole combination of other things ..." (none specified) more important than stakeholder sentiment to moved him to his conclusion.

His latest appointment to the school, Asst Supt Linda Sink echoed his sentiments, link, saying; "It certainly wasn't because of the parents" that the former principal was finally removed.

So Brooks will use the "final decision" to appoint a principal
that is willing to spin the truth; APS' top appointment priority.

Community members will participate in process believing that they are part of the decision
making process, when in fact, Brooks will appoint whomever he wants.

Martinez stepped up, no one noticed, not even Martinez

If the Journal is to be believed, link;

DA Susana Martinez said she would try to increase penalties for government officials who are guilty of corruption and promote greater government transparency by having state board and committee meetings webcast and archived online.

Heath Haussamen, link, reported that Martinez, speaking in Cruces,

"... had talked about increasing penalties for corruption-related crimes and promoted several transparency measures ..."

So how are the candidates stacking up on their potential to
actually end the culture of corruption in Santa Fe,
at once, and for all?

Martinez would raise penalties for public corruption.
Lt Gov Diane Denish would as well,

On that issue; it's a wash.

It's the "transparency measures" where they part company.

Martinez has spoken out at least two times now on webcasting of the deliberative process of government to a searchable archive.

Denish has not.

Martinez has stated that she supports independent audits of governmental agencies on order to ferret out corruption, incompetence, and the practices that enable them.

Denish has not.

Martinez would have the state redistricted by an impartial commission.

Denish would not.

Martinez would make government transparent, now.

Denish will get around to it someday.

There is a stark contrast here, Martinez is willing to actually clean out the cockroaches with large doses of actual sunlight now; Denish is hoping no one will notice that her beloved Sunshine Portal doesn't open for another year.

Martinez is willing to end the gerrymandering,
Denish would like to give the Dems another opportunity
to tilt the playing field to the Party's advantage.

Martinez has the high ground here, but for some reason,
will not make it a campaign issue.

Perhaps it's because she says things, but doesn't really "get" them.

Heath reports that, Martinez thinks there are more important things than transparency. Specifically;

"Battling corruption starts at the top, and as governor, I would set a tone that is very different."

She thinks the battle starts when we elect a governor
with a "different tone".

She is wrong.

The battle against corruption starts when somebody comes
up with a plan to end corruption and then carries out
that plan.

A promise to execute a plan "as Governor" is meaningless
without any actual plan.

The plans can be vetted now. The plans should be vetted now.
The plans must be vetted now;
before the election.

Martinez has a plan; shining light on the corruption and
incompetence, starting now.

Denish does not; her plan is for the light to shine "later".

Martinez should be pounding Denish on her lack of a plan that will not only end the culture of corruption in Santa Fe, but will expose the currently corrupt and incompetent before they can cover their tracks. Expose them now, in order to hold them accountable for their corruption and their incompetence.

But she isn't pounding Denish over their plans.
Perhaps she doesn't know what she has.
Or perhaps it is just a bunch of talk,
she doesn't really plan to walk.

Dishonesty, dba the "lack of transparency" is fundamental to
all public corruption. The corruption ends when the lights
finally come on.

She with the plan with the most lumens, wins.

Birds of a feather ...?

Lt Gov Diane Denish has divested herself from a campaign contribution from the now disgraced Educational Retirement Pension Fund Chair Bruce Malott, link. Though, apparently,
Denish has not see fit to return money from "his company".

This is not the first time Denish has bought her way out of connections to folks whose corruption has been publicized, link.

Of course, on a fundamental level, is it wrong to judge people by the company they keep.

That said, an awful lot of people agree that,
you are known by the company you keep.

And if you hang out with a lot of corrupt people, and take money from them according to their interests in getting you elected, people will rightly wonder if you too, are corrupt.

And then vote for someone, anyone, else instead.

It is time to clean out the Rot in the Roundhouse by electing people who are not part of the entrenched and corrupt party in power.

In this case it happens to be Democrats; not because they are Democrats but because they are the party in power and have been the party in power for long enough to be corrupted by the power they wield (without accountability).

Esquivel demands respect, gives little

"Open government" lawyer and School Board President Marty Esquivel showed his true colors last night at the public forum.

School Board Policy and past practice provides two minutes to every citizen who chooses to petition their government at the Public Forum, on any subject.

The first thing Esquivel did was to announce he was not going to recognize anyone who came to speak on any issue except the mess at Rio Grande High School.

His unilateral decision violates school board policy and past practice.

Then he announced that, because of the number of people wanting to exercise this precious and constitutionally protected human right, he was going to cut their time in half. There is no good and ethical reason that public forum cannot go beyond 30 minutes. They have never granted extra time to anyone because there were so few people signed up.

Another violation of School Board Policy and past practice.

Then he announced that, he was going to give preferential treatment to two citizens; head of the line and as much time as they wanted. Neither is ethically entitled to more than their fair share of the time.

Yet another violation of School Board Policy and past practice.

Finally, I notice that when Esquivel called on men, he would address them as Mr. Whomever. In stark contrast, when he called on women, he called on them by their first names. Why are men are entitled to a modicum of respect while women, apparently, are not?

Discrimination based on sex is not only a violation of School Board Policy but of one of a group of policies identified as Foundations and Basic Commitments. Right.

Esquivel needs to be held accountable for his disrespect for First Amendment Rights and School Board Policy.

But don't hold your breath.




photo Mark Bralley

Modrall Sperling, and the APS

It is often suggested, and I am often asked, about suing the leadership of the APS over their many illegal arrests and the other harassment, retaliation and retribution I suffer at their hands.

On a philosophical level, I am opposed to the idea that one should have to sue their government for justice. Government should be guaranteeing justice, not denying it. And once you find yourself suing your government, the cause is already lost. Also, one mustn't forget that when you sue the government, your opponent has the wealth and power of an entire nation at its disposal in litigating the demise of the cause and the complainant.

On a practical level; when you sue APS you do battle with lawyers from Modrall Sperling, link.

In my experience, their lawyers are the kind of men and women who give lawyers a bad name; unprincipled, mean, and despicable people.

If William Shakespeare were still alive, he would write, link;

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers;
let's start with those from the Modrall.

The joke should read;

Why are Modrall lawyers better than rats for laboratory experiments?

Because there are things rats just won't do.

Do you know a lawyer? Ask him or her to describe litigation with Modrall. It will not be complimentary.

APS should not even be doing business with this kind of people. Yet until very recently, Modrall and the APS School Board were related by marriage; the President of Modrall and the President of the School Board.

Many lawyers will not litigate against them. APS has hired
the best law firms all over town, the effect of which is that,
according to conflict of interest ethics, they can not then
represent anyone trying to hold an APS administrator or
Board Member accountable for their conduct or competence.

Modrall's budget for litigation is unlimited. They enjoy a large bore pipeline directly to unwitting taxpayer support for the "education" of their children.

Those same taxpayers are paying recently raised premiums for APS' insurance from United Educators based on APS' extraordinarily high expenses for litigation; well in excess of comparable school districts.

Modrall makes so much money off taxpayers via the leadership of the APS, if you ask how much, they won't answer.

Once, in Judge Valarie Huling's Court, I was pointing to evidence that Modrall lawyers were deliberately deceiving her. She said;

"It's not my job to determine who is telling the truth",

or words to that effect.

Their influence is everywhere.

They even have one of their lawyers on the Executive Committee of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, while other Modrall lawyers are billing to litigate exception to the NM IPRA and NM OMA for APS administrators and board members.

All this, to avoid telling stakeholders the truth about

• the corruption in the Police Department,
• the need for a district wide standard and accountability audit,
• their abdication as role models, and
• their denial of due process to more than 200 whistleblower complaints.

In short, I have no faith in the Justice System when Modrall lawyers are around.

There has to be another way.


PS; it has been suggested that the use of the oft quoted line
from Shakespeare could be conceived as a threat; it is not.
I have never threatened any of these folks, not even their
Modrall lawyers. Nor do I condone, nor would I support
using Modrall lawyers in laboratory experiments (except
with their fully informed consent).

Banned from Board Meetings

APS School Board President Marty Esquivel has taken it upon himself to ban me from attending any future meetings of the APS Board of Education.

Standing behind the letter from Esquivel, his Praetorian Guard, 15 of who had nothing better to do at the time (a two month period when almost $200K worth of laptops disappeared from the APS) than take turns blocking my access to the Board meeting.


Turning away from the camera, Chief Tellez, the newest commander of the Praetorian and the most recent to offer no comment, as to why his Police Department has not finished "investigating" corruption and incompetence that happened 3-1/2 years ago, link, though statutes of limitation on felony criminal misconduct involving APS senior administrators, have expired.

Esquivel wrote that the revocation is "... based on concerns for the safety of not only board members but of APS employees ..."
He pointed to no evidence to support his concern.
Nor can he, nor will he be able to, ever.

Everything thing I have ever done that might be used to support his unfounded claim, has been recorded either on audiotape or videotape. I stand proudly on my record. I have done nothing illegal, nor have I done anything unethical. I have done nothing that I would not do again, proudly, in front of any of the thousands of students that I have trained in the tenets of Character Counts!, the APS Student Standards of Conduct.

Esquivel can summon neither the character nor the courage to hold himself honestly accountable as the senior most role model of the Student Standards of Conduct.

Nor can even one other member of the leadership of the APS.

The threat that I represent to him, and to the rest of the leadership of the APS, centers around my efforts to get their corruption and incompetence on the table for open and honest discussion.

He wants to hide the fact that the leadership of the APS has abdicated as role models of the Student Standards of Conduct.

He wants to hide the fact that the APS Police Department is suppressing evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators.

He wants to hide the fact that he and the rest of the School Board are denying due process to more than 200 whistleblower complaints.

He wants to hide the fact that any impartial, independent audit of executive and administrative standards and accountability, will reveal that neither he nor any other senior administrator is honestly accountable even to the law; the lowest acceptable standard of conduct.

It's all about hiding the truth from stakeholders.

And in that regard, he enjoys the support of the Albuquerque Journal and its steadfast refusal to investigate and report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

If there is another reason to hide the truth, except the lack of character and the lack of courage, he would point to it. He cannot. All he can do is, use his publicly funded private police force to bar me from meetings wherein I can point to his lack of character and courage.

He should be ashamed; he is not.
He is a bully, a thug, and he is completely unashamed.




photos Mark Bralley

Esquivel calls for investigation

If the Journal is to be believed, link;

"School board president Marty Esquivel ... wants an independent party to examine the events and decisions ... that led up to ...." the snafu at Rio Grande High School

On its face, this sounds like a good thing; famous open government lawyer, Dixon Award Winner and School Board President Marty Esquivel is calling for an independent investigation.

If you didn't know better,
Esquivel looks like one of
the good guys.











Scratch a little deeper.

He is not calling for an independent investigation that will report to the public record. He is not calling for an investigation that goes to the highest levels of responsibility. He is not demanding individual identification of corrupt or incompetent administrators or board members; this in apparent deference to Board Member Paula Maes who said she would "never agree to any audit that individually identified" corrupt or incompetent administrators and board members.

He is not demanding a district wide independent investigation of standards and accountability. (In fairness, he actually did make that demand once; then Paula Maes set him straight.)

He is not demanding any investigation into the School Board's denial of due process to whistleblower complaints.

He is not demanding any investigation into executive and administrative role modeling of the Student Standards of Conduct.

He is not demanding any investigation into public corruption and incompetence in APS' Praetorian Guard.

In my opinion, you don't
have to scratch very deep
at all before you find,
just another thug
abusing the power
entrusted to him.

He not one of the good guys.
He's just another one of the
good ol' boys.

He's a thug.




photos Mark Bralley

Of what good is the NM FOG?

We are about to find out.

I am trying to find the ethically redacted truth about public corruption in the leadership of the APS; specifically, but not limited to, the APS Police Department.

The leadership of the APS, Future NM FOG Award Winner,
APS Supt Winston Brooks and Former NM FOG Award
Winner, School Board President Marty Esquivel
are trying to keep me, and you of course, from getting to the truth, ever.

Their last response to me was that, the results of an independent investigation into the corruption in the APS Police Department was a "matter of opinion" and therefore, not one word of it is subject to surrender according to the rules of the NMIPRA and Modrall's utterly unmitigated legal weaselry.

I have asked the NM FOG to step up and hold their "award winners" accountable the law. (Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall during that discussion?)

NM FOG Executive Director Sarah Welsh, in a recent conversation, and in response to my suggestion that she was part of a group of people including at least a few of questionable integrity, pointed out correctly, that she should be judged by what she does and not by what they do. As I wrote before, fair enough.

In response to my request for help from the NM FOG, she has emailed the following arguments to the leadership of the APS;

1. Since this denial determination was made, the New Mexico Court of Appeals issued a very instructive ruling in Cox v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety et al, (attached) clarifying the ‘personnel matters of opinion’ exception in IPRA. The Cox ruling narrows the exception in 14-2-1A(3) to only those documents ‘generated by the employer or employee in support of the working relationship between them.’ In this situation, the requested investigative report was generated by an outside entity; therefore, the report does not contain APS opinions (in APS’ capacity as Mr. Lovato’s employer) and is not exempt from disclosure. Presumably, APS commissioned this report (with taxpayer money) in order to gain an objective assessment of the facts so that it could formulate its opinion about Mr. Lovato’s suitability for continued employment. While that official opinion may be exempt from disclosure, the factual reporting that informed it is not. I would also note that the Court anticipated that the release of citizen complaints against police officers could bring negative attention to the officers. But it found that that concern is not a basis for shielding the complaints from public inspection under 14-2-1A(3). In accordance with First Amendment principles, the Court opined that the police agency (or in this case, the district) could balance any false allegations against employees with the truth, by releasing the full results of the internal investigation.

2. Even if we were to accept that some of the information in the report does represent official APS opinions that would be exempt under NMSA 1978 § 14-2-1A(3), it is unlikely that the entire investigative report contains only such matters of opinion. There must be some factual information therein, and under NMSA 1978 § 14-2-9A, the records custodian is required to separate the two types of information and make the nonexempt information available for inspection. I would note that Bernalillo County did exactly this recently when it published the final report (with some redactions) of a commissioned personnel investigation.

3. Finally, information that is exempt from disclosure in 14-2-1A(3) is not confidential; withholding is discretionary. IPRA’s policy of providing the “greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees” directs public agencies to err on the side of openness. While there sometimes needs to be a balance between that mandate and individual rights, this denial strikes no such balance – it errs on the side of full non-disclosure. Given that the investigation in question deals with alleged violations of the public trust, the public has a strong interest in accessing as much information as possible about the final result – for example, to make sure that any missing public funds were recovered, that offending employees were held accountable, and also in order to protect itself from hiring those offending employees in another government capacity.

I have followed up with a reiteration of my Request;

REQUEST TO INSPECT PUBLIC RECORDS

8/18/2010

To: Rigo Chavez, Records Custodian
Albuquerque Public Schools

From: Charles MacQuigg


I have been told that the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government has emailed you their position on your refusal to allow me to inspect and or copy, public records of the various investigations of corruption in the APS Police Department.

Consequently; I am reiterating my request.

I demand an opportunity to inspect and or copy, all (ethically redacted) public records including results of investigations into corruption in the administration of the Albuquerque Public Schools, in particular, but not limited to, the corruption that was revealed in the Journal Article of February 11, 2007, link.



I demand an acknowledgment that you have received this request at your earliest opportunity; in contrast to the maximum delay allowed by law.

I demand that you respond, at least, by email.

I demand the surrender of the (ethically redacted) records in an electronic format, not hard copy.

And, we will see what happens.