Oma on Board

Modrall lawyers signed off on Esquivel's banning letter

To begin, APS School Board President Marty Esquivel, his lawyers, the rest of the Defendants and their lawyers object to calling Esquivel's unlawful restraining order a "ban". This though the only other guy to put his name on it, called it a "ban letter" when he enforced it in person, link.

In any event, before the letter was delivered to me, Esquivel has admitted it was delivered to at least two Modrall lawyers, Art Melendres and Zachary McCormick.

When asked what their advice was, Esquivel hid behind "attorney-client privilege" and "attorney work product doctrine". It is worth pointing out that privilege and doctrine "allow" Esquivel to hide the advice he was given; neither "requires" him to hide it.

What might the advice have been? Taxpayers have a right to know, because they paid for it.

Did Modrall advise Esquivel that what he intended to do was unconstitutional, and their advice was to not do it? Did they advise him that though unconstitutional they could make sure he got away with it, if he got caught? Did they advise him that it was constitutional, in which case, should they be held accountable for their bad advice?

There are many more legitimate questions than answers. Why do Esquivel and his lawyers need to hide the truth about the advice he was given? "Why", not "how"; we know how, we don't know why.

Why won't Esquivel tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the ethically redacted truth, about the public interests and his public service?

In my experience there is only one reason to not tell the truth, and that is to avoid the consequences of so doing.

photo Mark Bralley

Esquivel and his lawyers didn't answer the question.

I'm trying to find out if APS School Board President Marty Esquivel enjoys any oversight in his spending of tax dollars on his own legal defense. He doesn't appear to be following the applicable rules, link; rules that appear to apply to everyone else but Esquivel. There is the appearance of a conflict of interests.

I would like to know if he and the other defendants in the complaints I've filed, enjoy any oversight at all, in the spending of tax dollars in their own defense.

When I asked the board and APS' Director of Communications Rigo Chavez a couple of basic questions, link, those legitimate questions became the subject of letter from Esquivel, by and through his lawyers who are making God only knows how much money litigating against the public interests, to me and mine. The gist of the letter was; because I am suing public servants, I am no longer entitled to their public service. I continue to help pay the salaries of information officers and I cannot ask them for anymore information. Really?!

My questions, they say, will be handled promptly and appropriately through the "formal discovery process". Trust me; there is nothing "prompt" about the "formal discovery process".

In any case, they didn't answer the question;
do Marty Esquivel and the rest of the defendants in my complaints, enjoy any oversight over their unbridled spending in their own defense?

The dollars they're burning, are "operational funds"; funds which if they weren't being spent litigating exception from the law, would be spent in classrooms and on students. Are they entitled to a "cost is no object" defense no matter how guilty they are?

The appearance of a conflict of interests could not be more obvious.

The appropriate response to the appearance of a conflict of interests, according to any standards of conduct higher than the law, is to acknowledge and defend it; candidly, forthrightly and honestly. That according to the standards of conduct that Esquivel establishes and enforces upon students, but not on himself.

I can't get APS to tell the truth about the oversight over spending of public power and resources.

Maybe the establishment media could, but they won't. I have asked the Journal, I've asked KRQE, KOAT and KOB to ask the question and they won't.

They. following the example set for them by the leadership of the APS have not offered to defend, deny, or even acknowledge the basis for their relentless refusal to ask a legitimate question about the public interests.

They offer no explanation other than my surmise; the leadership of the APS and the establishment media are in cahoots.

photo Mark Bralley

Drawing a line on truth telling

The Albuquerque Police Department is re-drawing the line on truth telling. More specifically, they are re-drawing the consequences for not telling the truth.

In fundamental sense they are the same, when you adjust the line on one, the line on the other moves in pursuit. Lessen the consequence for misconduct, increase the number and frequency; it's human nature.

Something is said about how one regards misconduct, in the consequences they provide for engaging in it. One of the reasons there are greater consequences for murder than shoplifting, is to send the message that we take murder more seriously than shoplifting.

There are those who believe that lying is like all other misconduct in that there are degrees of lying. There are not. A statement purported to be the truth is either the truth, or it is a lie. Beyond that, there are of course varying degrees of consequences according the "seriousness" of the lie - whatever that means.

There are people, in particular a lot of young people, who think a lie is a "white lie" according to its seriousness according to the liar. In effect, it is alright to lie about little things. Those are not white lies.

A lie is a white lie when it is told for the benefit of someone other than the liar. Telling your grandmother her less than wonderful pumpkin pie was wonderful, could be a white lie. Lying about stealing as little as one penny is not.

When I was teaching Character Counts! to APS middle-school students, the message was; trustworthiness was unique among the Pillars of CC! in its either/or-ness.

In fairness for example; you might observe that someone behaves more fairly at some times than at others. They might be more caring, respectful, responsible, or better citizens on some days than on others. You can imagine someone being more or less fair, caring, responsible, respectful, or a good citizen.

There is no such person as "kind of" trustworthy, or "mostly" trustworthy. A person who cannot be trusted all of the time, cannot be trusted any of the time. A person showing themselves to be unworthy of trust one day, are just as unworthy of trust the next.

As an aside; it is possible to repair trustworthiness, but its requires unique circumstances; real temptation and testing of the moral courage necessary to overcome it. Those circumstances may occur tomorrow; they may never occur. That's why it is so critically important to protect one's trustworthiness.

Nowhere is it more important to draw the line on lying, than in teaching children where that line is. Nowhere is it more important to draw the line on lying, than in schools.

With the drawing of the line, comes the responsibilities of role models to toe that line; to show students what it looks like to hold oneself honestly accountable to the standard. The importance of the concept is underscored in the relentless retelling of a fable about George Washington's manifest courage in holding himself accountable to standards of conduct which require telling the truth.

Telling the truth is different from not lying. The lowest standards of conduct prohibit lying. Any highers standards of conduct, require telling the truth as their fundamental premise.

The leadership of the APS wants to hide the truth. They need to hide the truth. Their very survival depends upon hiding the truth. They cannot survive the telling of the truth about the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS. They are doing everything they can to avoid being held accountable to any standard of conduct that requires telling the truth to stakeholders.

They have gone so far in that respect, as to abdicate from their duty as role models by removing the role modeling clause from their own standards of conduct. It once read;

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

The Journal thinks APD's adjustment of consequences is newsworthy, link, but finds the utter abandonment of truth telling standards by the leadership of the APS, is not.

Why is truth telling important in the APD, but not the APS?

It's almost like the Journal is covering for APS School Board President Marty Esquivel, former board member David Robbins, Supt Winston Brooks, Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta, Director of Communications Rigo Chavez, and APS Police Chief Steve Tellez.

Almost like?

photo Mark Bralley