Special deal for Marty Esquivel?

When APS administrators or board members get sued, they are represented by law firms that have responded to a Request for Proposal for legal services, link.  The RFP delineates compensations and expectations of the firms which will share in a lot of money - the exact amount unavailable.

One of the requirements of law firms is to provide "case analysis".  You will find the requirements beginning on page 24, section 4.4.4.  Part of it reads as follows, and then get better;

Within thirty (30) days following receipt of a case, counsel shall prepare a comprehensive initial report for APS and/or its designated representative to contain a comprehensive written analysis. This analysis shall provide the initial evaluation of the case, including a brief synopsis of the facts to include any exposure in the case, identification of strengths and weaknesses, damages, plaintiff’s injuries and similar. Counsel shall also provide an initial impression of liability and identify the pertinent statutes and the case law expected to affect the outcome of the litigation including any precedent setting issue.

There are reasons the board is folded into decisions regarding litigation; good reasons.

Imagine you had a superintendent bent on hiding evidence of felony criminal misconduct involving senior administrators.  You might well imagine him telling his lawyers; I don't care how much money you have to spend, I want you to litigate for me, an exception to the law, and to any consequences of my incompetence and corruption.

You might well imagine his lawyers being willing to tap into a large bore pipeline to "operational" funds in order to fund whatever cost is no object legal weaselry that will get their client off the hook.

The requirement that the case be explained to the board provides a fundamental check and balance.  In theory, when they hear the truth about our imagined superintendent's plight and the money he intends to spend to escape scot free, they might express some unwillingness to simply "go along".

School board oversight is the only mechanism that prevents public power and resources from being spent against the public interests.

The analyses are presented to the board in a meeting in secret.  They did it last Wednesday night where the agenda for the regular meeting included;

Consideration for Approval to Convene in Executive Session Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act NMSA 1978 (§ 10-15-1 (H)(7)) for the Purpose of Discussing Pending Litigation Albuquerque Municipal School District No. 12, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, NM v. Sidonie Squier, Case No. D-202-CV-2012-08666 (Action)

I have noticed, the board has never retired into secret to discuss my case.

Yesterday, I made two inquiries; one of the board manager and one of the APS Communications Director Rigo Chavez.  I asked the board manager if the board had ever retired into secret to discuss my case.  I received no reply.

I asked Chavez if APS School Board President Marty Esquivel's contract with his lawyer, and the contract between the rest of the board and their lawyers in the litigation against me, included the requirement of presenting a case analysis to the board.

I was told they did not.

School Board enforcer Esquivel

So where is the oversight over Esquivel?  Can he spend however many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars he wants, in his effort to escape the consequences of his own incompetence and corruption, without oversight?

Esquivel's lawyer sent a letter to my lawyers insisting, I shouldn't ask Rigo Chavez for information because I'm suing him.

I can't ask his boss, APS Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta because I'm suing her.

I can't ask her boss, APS Supt Winston Brooks because I'm suing him.

I can't ask his boss Marty Esquivel or the board because I'm suing them too.

Esquivel's lawyer went so far as to suggest that I shouldn't be asking questions of the board manager either, because I'm suing "the board".

It's classic APS; the first thing they do is clamp down on the truth.

As a result, important question remains unanswered; have special arrangements been for Esquivel, does he enjoy different rules for playing the game?

Apparently, the number one rule, provide oversight, has been quietly abandoned; what others?

The fundamental rift between me and the leadership of the APS is, I am in favor of more oversight.  I am in favor of so much oversight that it is made impossibly difficult to hide public corruption and incompetence.

Esquivel et al would have less, considerably less, including the oversight-less litigation in defense of his own interests at the expense of the public interest, in blatant disregard for the board's Code of Ethics, link, the first of which reads;

Make the education and well being of students the basis for all decision making.

If the truth about Esquivel's case is being hidden from the board, in particular if the truth is being hidden from the new board members, it represents an epic breech of faith.

Journal Editor Kent Walz

Almost as big a breech of faith as the establishment media's relentless refusal to investigate and report upon the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.




photos Mark Bralley
Walz photo ched macquigg