Friday, December 22, 2006

You Talking To Me? ...Can You Hear Me Now?

What’s wrong with this picture?

Nothing today for this city employee talking on his cellular phone while driving. However, City Councillors Isaac Benton and Ken Sanchez have introduced a piece of legislation changing the city traffic code; § 8-2-1-24 Driver’s Prohibited Acts.

“It shall be unlawful for any person to: Drive a vehicle while talking on or otherwise operating a hand-held cellular phone. Calling 911 while driving a vehicle in order to report the need for roadside assistance, an emergency or a crime being committed shall be exempt from this provision.”

Using a hand free microphone and earpiece would be acceptable, Benton said, on KOB-TV’s Sunday morning talk show, “Eye on New Mexico,” hosted by Dennis Domrzalski and Nicole Brady on Dec. 17. However, that is not what the section reads. The words, “or otherwise operating a hand-held cellular phone,” do not establish that exception. Because there is one listed exemption, to call 911 about a roadside emergency or crime, then any other exemptions also need to be listed.

Domrzalski invited me to appear on the program; but cellular phone use while driving is not my issue. Attorney Paul Livingston had the red light and speed cameras covered the week before. The issue of due process, for red light and speed traffic offenses caught on cameras, are my issue. Livingston is pursuing several cases in state district court challenging the entire Safe Traffic Operations Program or the City’s STOP ordinance.

So what’s wrong with this picture?

A cellular phone is a radio that functions like a telephone. A police radio, unlike a cellular phone, requires an officer to physically push a transmit button to open the microphone.

Police officers, while on routine patrol, are required to do a number of things simultaneously, while operating their police vehicles.

On occasion, officers are involved in high-speed pursuits. One of the most critical things an officer has to do during these hazardous pursuits is to stay in constant communications, broadcasting location, direction and speed so other officers may intercept and apprehend the offending driver. Consider an officer virtually talking on a cellular phone at a hundred mph while running red lights and weaving through traffic.

No exemption is in this ordinance for cops, taxi drivers or any number of people who rely on radio dispatching.

Benton and Sanchez are considering withdrawing the section as a traffic offense and applying the newly favored nuisance abatement theory, citing that the courts are overloaded.

The City’s nuisance abatement theory for greater enforcement is not to increase the number of Metropolitan Court judges, but to bypass the entire legal judicial process altogether.

Domrzalski and Brady challenged Benton and Sanchez on the due process question of using a City administrative hearing officer rather than the Metropolitan Court and Benton responded that an offender could give his excuse to the officer who stopped them and the officer had the discretion to handle the matter on the street by not issuing a citation. The councillors clearly have no understanding of the concept of independent judges assuring due process in this country.

Benton and Sanchez are also trying to determine the penalty. Sanchez favors a $50 fine while Benton thinks $100 is appropriate.

There maybe no need for this provision, as there is plenty of good law already on the books. Take for instance, § 8-2-1-13 Careless Driving.

(A) Any person operating a vehicle on the roadway shall give his full and entire attention to the operation of the vehicle.

(B) Any person who operates a vehicle in a careless, inattentive or imprudent manner, without due regard for conditions of traffic, weather, and roadway, grade, corners, width of roadway, and all other attendant circumstances, so as to endanger life, limb, or property of any person, shall be guilty of careless driving….

When I was president of the police officers’ association, 20 years ago, computer aided dispatching was just coming into use.

Voice communications takes up a lot of time and repetition of messages eat up precious moments. The small screen would display text and it reduced radio use. That allowed for more time for voice communications, especially for emergencies.

I was concerned with the fact that officers would hear the message alert and then look down at the screen to read the text, even while driving.

I could perceive the possibility of accidents because of the distraction caused by viewing the computer screen.

There was, and still is a traffic code section: § 8-6-18 Restriction on use of Television.

“It shall be unlawful to operate any motor vehicle equipped with a television screen of any type upon which images may be projected or shown, if such screen is within the normal view of the operator of the vehicle.”

I asked the assistant city attorney, assigned to the department at the time, what the city’s position would be if an officer, distracted by the computer, were to be involved in an accident?

The city attorney’s office produced a letter that shocked me, and I don’t shock easily. It said that the computer screen was not, as the traffic code defined, a “television screen of any type upon which images may be projected or shown, if such screen is within the normal view of the operator of the vehicle.”

Thereby, an officer would not be liable, should he or she kill or seriously injure someone in such an accident.

I am not aware of any serious accidents involving officers being distracted by their computers, though I’ve followed one or two who have weaved down the road having their head directed at the screen.

Today’s technology has gone way beyond where it was two decades ago. There are Global Positioning Satellite devices, DVD players and radios to name a few. Cellular phones are just another. Statistically, the leading distracter identified in causing accidents is the driver’s leaning and reaching for something.

Let’s not forget eating, drinking, talking, arguing, singing along with the music, using electric shavers and applying make-up as things, we as drivers have all witnessed and maybe even engaged in, that we know have caused distractions.

OK, for those who can’t handle cop humor, turn away now!

The old line among cops about driver inattention was; do you know why women put on their mascara at traffic lights? They don’t have any balls to scratch.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Got a Couple of Seconds?

What’s wrong with this picture?

This is a still image taken off my TV screen of KOB-TV’s Sunday morning talk show, “Eye on New Mexico,” Dennis Domrzalski and Nicole Brady hosting Albuquerque Police Chief Ray Schultz and lawyer Paul Livingston on Dec. 10 as they discussed red light and radar cameras at 11 city intersections.

Schultz indicated that he hoped that drivers’ behavior would change so much that it would bankrupt the cameras and that they would no longer pay for themselves.

Has anybody bothered to look at the theory of traffic control? It has a few concepts that seem overlooked and definitely not capitalized upon when it comes to red light cameras.

The first concept is that traffic control is meant to keep all users of roadways safe. Therefore, no one may enter an intersection when someone is already in the intersection or about to enter, whether legally or not.

When we look at the data of accidents caused by vehicles running red lights, we find that it is not the vehicle that is a fraction of a second late. It is the vehicle that is really late that poses the real danger. When cross traffic, passing through the intersection, at the posted speed limit strikes or is struck by the vehicle running the red light, is where such accidents cause the dangers that the cameras are suppose to eliminate.

I believe that the majority of vehicles caught entering the intersection after the change of the traffic control signal light from yellow to red is recorded within a fraction of a second.

So what’s wrong with this picture?

Consider a couple of seconds.

In sitting through several sessions of the city administrative hearing officer’s red light hearings, one of the most common themes repeatedly heard is the complaint of the short period of time that the cautionary yellow light is illuminated. Three to three and a half seconds at 30 to 35 mph, seems an inadequate amount of time for drivers to stop.

One second: add just one-second of time to the yellow light.

Two seconds: Change the red to green cycle to hesitate just one-second and do not turn on the camera until the cross traffic signal changes to green.

I predict bankruptcy in… about… wait for it; two seconds!

For those who think adding two seconds to the entire cycle will extend their traffic commute; don’t add the time, subtract it from the green time and give it to the yellow.

If it is the actual intent of the mayor, chief and traffic control division to reduce the number of serious accidents at intersections, instead of just generating revenue as they bypass the judicial process for traffic offenses, then adopting two additional seconds certainly can’t hurt.

In my travels around the country and in other parts of the world, I have observed this and other traffic light sequencing schemes; including turning on the yellow light while the green is still lit before going solid yellow and the adding red to the yellow for a couple of seconds before going solid red.

You’ve heard of the one-stoplight town; here is a one-stoplight country. This is the only stoplight in Victoria, on the island of Mahe, the capital of the Seychelles Islands, in the Indian Ocean. At this stoplight, a yellow light is shown prior to the end of the red, just like a yellow light is shown prior to the end of the green.

It just goes to show you, that there are other ideas out there and they work.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Checkered Flag and Case for Al Unser Sr.

What's wrong with this picture?

This is Al Unser Sr. in happier days; it was early June 1970. It was Unser’s homecoming after his first Indianapolis 500 victory. He was given a police escorted parade from the Sunport to his West Central home.

Unser is with his family; daughters Debra Ann, 9, Mary Linda, 10, Alfred, Jr. “Little Al,” 8, partly obscured by his mother, Wanda, and Mary, “Mom Unser” is in the front passenger’s seat. Yes this is before the mandatory seat belt laws.

In my Sept. 7 posting, mgbralley-whatswrongwiththispicture.blogspot.com/ 2006/09/unsers-on-unser.html, I analyzed the potential case of the Aug. 9 arrests of Unser Sr., and his brother Bobby by Bernalillo County deputy sheriffs.

Unser Sr.’s case came to trial this week, lasting two and a half days and resulting in a six-person jury acquitting him on the two misdemeanor counts of; resisting/obstructing an officer and obedience to police officer.

A couple of things peripherally are disturbing about this case.

According to reports in the Albuquerque Journal and television news accounts, Albuquerque Police Officer Sam Costales, a 23-year veteran, testified, in uniform, under a defense subpoena. In his testimony, he said he had set up a roadblock at Central Avenue and Unser Boulevard, during a stand off with an alleged carjacker, that called for a SWAT operation and ended when the man took his own life.

Costales was joined by a number of both uniformed and plain clothed deputies in setting up the roadblock. In addition to marked units, there were at least two unmarked sheriff’s cars on scene.

Costales testified that the deputies who had arrested Unser Sr. were rude and behaved unprofessionally. He heard deputies yelling and swearing at Unser, all at the same time. Costales said he informed his lieutenant the next day.

After Costales testified, Sheriff Darren White, left, called APD Chief Ray Schultz to complain. White’s complaint took two forms; that White had not been notified that Costales would testify for the defense and that he had testified in uniform.

Schultz told the Journal on Thursday, that he was ordering an internal investigation. He said he did not know Costales was going to testify.

So what's wrong with this picture?

Sheriff White has again shown his arrogance and disdain for the law.

This was a high profile court case that followed a high profile arrest. White and his administration failed to analyze the events and actions of the deputies.

The information was readily available; I found it easily enough to make my posting. I used the press and television reports of the day and obtained and reviewed the reports filed by the deputies themselves. The most telling of these were the police reports. They openly explained what they did wrong, though they neither meant to, nor realized that they had done so.

Officers do not routinely inform their chain of command that they have been subpoenaed by a defense attorney to testify in a criminal case, nor should they have to.

The test is simple; does the officer have a fact that would assist a judge or jury in finding the truth? It matters not whether they testify for the prosecutor or defense; what they actually are testifying for is the legal system.

To suggest that an officer has an obligation to inform his department before testifying, just because the subpoena comes from the defense, implies that an officer maybe asked to shade their testimony, or may not tell the truth or that the truth will embarrass the department. In this case, the embarrassment belongs to the sheriff’s department.

As a part of the legal process, called discovery, both the prosecution and defense are entitled to know what evidence and testimony will be used during the court presentation. There should have been no surprise to the prosecutors, and by extension, to White’s administration, as to Costales’ testimony.

As to Costales’ wearing his uniform to court; some of the deputies wore their uniform while they testified. The idea that by being a defense witness prohibits Costales wearing his uniform is an attempt to lessen the perception that a uniform brings to the individual. There is a power inherent in the uniform; it connotes and represents the authority of government and truth is one of those expectations.

If White thinks it is inappropriate for Costales to have worn his uniform to court, just because he was called by the defense, then it would also be inappropriate for deputies to have worn their uniform’s to court when called by the prosecution. APD’s standard operating procedures indicate that uniforms are an appropriate dress for Metropolitan court. Does White wish to diminish Costales’ authority?

White told the Journal that he could not see how an internal investigation could be witness intimidation. However, it was White’s call to Schultz, left, that triggered the possible intimidation.

John Walsh, APD’s spokesman, also told the Journal that an internal investigation could not be witness intimidation because Costales was excused as a witness.

Walsh conveniently forgets that there is another trial; Bobby Unser’s case is scheduled to go to court in January. All the same players will gather again and no doubt Costales will again be called upon to testify. Walsh, speaking on behalf of the police administration, should be careful that his spin comment does not constitute witness intimidation.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The Face of Censorship!

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

This is Paula Maes; she is president of the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education.

She chaired the Dec. 6 regular meeting of the Board where a topic that had received much local, national and international media attention over the weekend was about to be discussed during the public comments section. It was going to be a sparring match worthy of four or five rounds in the ring.

On Nov. 31, there was an incident at Rio Grande High School involving Principal Al Sanchez. Sanchez took 15-year-old Fidel Maldonado Jr., off school grounds without parental approval, to his local barber to have his head shaved.

Maldonado Jr. is a Silver Gloves boxer. In anticipation of an upcoming bout Maldonado Jr. had “505” sculpted on his otherwise shaved head. The zero was shaped like the Zia sun, as depicted on the state’s flag. The boxer has had his hair cut this way, before every bout since he was 10. New Mexico’s area code is 505 and is worn as a sign of state pride by some local boxers.

Sanchez presumed the “505” had some association with gang symbolism; he consulted the on-campus Bernalillo County Sheriffs’ Deputy, who indicated he thought it was gang related. Sanchez apparently told Maldonado Jr., he could be suspended or he could go to the barber and have his head shaved.

Sanchez would not allow the student to call his father and took him to his barber, Jake Maestas, at John’s Hair Design. Maestas, shown left, refused to cut the hair and gave Maldonado Jr., his phone to call his father, Fidel Maldonado Sr.

Maldonado Sr. talked to Sanchez, told him not to cut his son’s hair and to return him to school. He then filed a report with APS administrators.

Sanchez, who was not at the meeting, faced disciplinary action for his conduct. He had not been in school because he took medical leave, citing stress from the publicity. APS spokesman Rigo Chavez said Sanchez was disciplined, but could not reveal what action was taken, because of privacy rules in personnel matters.

There was a group of more than 20 Rio Grande High School parents and students present to offer verbal support for the principal. The first speaker, Parent Teacher Organization President Clara Gabrielle, attacked the character and reputation of the Maldonado family and when finished, she was met with thunderous applause from her group.On the other side of the room was the Maldonado family, their lawyer Paul Livingston, barbers from John’s Hair Design and other supporters.

Board member Leonard J. De Layo, Jr., left, objected to hearing comments about a personnel matter that would be handled by the administration. It is something the board is specifically prohibited from involvement.

Other members of the Board including Vice President Miguel Acosta, center, and Robert Lucero, right, suggested that the board had an obligation to hear from parents, students and the public about their concerns. They went on to say that during public comments, it was the Boards’ position that they have a "duty to listen," but that they could not engage in a public discussion; it was an opportunity for the public to air whatever they wanted. The admonition against emotional displays and personal attacks was made again.

Maes requested an opinion from the Boards legal advisor, Art Melendres, left, who suggested that the Board might want to revisit it’s policy on public comments at a future policy meeting, but for the moment might wish to continue.

Some of the speakers showing their support for Principal Sanchez; they called for no disciplinary action, if he is found to have acted improperly.Some of the speakers supporting Maldonado Jr., called for recognition that the young man had done nothing wrong; was a dedicated boxer and had no time or interest in gang activity. After the public comment section of the meeting, the Maldonado party was accompanied by a couple of Albuquerque Public School Police officers until they left the property.
So what’s wrong with this picture?

This is Maldonado Jr., who won his boxing match and shaved the 505 off his head before returning to classes Monday.

According to the APS Student Handbook, outlining the Board’s formal policy, a student can be suspended for the following reasons: weapons, arson, drug dealing or distribution and acts of violence.

Principal Sanchez exceeded his authority by threatening suspension for an incident that did not allow for suspension. It constitutes an unfair dealing with a student and violates the employee standards of conduct, “to set good examples in conduct, manners, dress and grooming.” When Sanchez took the student to the Deputy Sheriff, he further violated that policy on interrogation of students and when he removed him from campus, he not only further violated policy, but also might have strayed into criminal activity.

“That’s like false imprisonment, to me,” Maldonado Jr., told KOB TV.com, according to a posting by Reed Upton. He may be right.

Rio Grande High School’s PTO president, Gabrielle, left, said that the police report did not indicate Sanchez had harmed the boy. The Journal reported Tuesday, that they could not get a copy of the police report because of a claim of an ongoing investigation.

A call to APS Police Chief Gilbert Lovato went unanswered; I filed an inspection of public records request with the school police for the report Friday. It would be available Monday, APS spokesman Chavez said. When I talked to Chavez late Friday about the incident, he did not reveal any information. He was evasive in his answers and I reminded him of his duties as a public information officer. I should not have to know the answers to questions for him to simply verify. His obligation was to provide information, even when the question was, “What's happening?”

My question was much more specific. However, he was not forthcoming with the information he knew that I sought. He did have my number, so he could inform me of where I could pick up the police report, but he did not call when he learned the details of my outstanding question.

The police would not have indicated that his son was injured because no APS police officer took a statement from either father or son, Maldonado Sr., said, after hearing Gabrielle give a TV interview to KOB’s Shelton Dodson after the public comments.

The APS police report was delivered through Chavez’ office of community relations as the custodian of records. No other copy of the report was delivered through that office.

The report does not list an offense, but instead is classified as an incident/information report. The status of the event is closed. The report lists Maldonado Jr., as an APS student and Maldonado Sr., as a parent. The principal’s name does not appear in the “subject/victim/suspects/persons/businesses" portion of the report’s face sheet.

Through simply following this story in the newspapers and occasionally being awake for a local TV newscast, one would also know of the existence of at least four or five other witnesses to this event who were not identified or interviewed by officials. They include the assistant principal who brought Maldonado Jr., to Sanchez and three witnesses at the barbershop, two of whom made statements during public comments.

As a former police officer and state certified instructor, who taught report writing at the police academy and having worked in the Records Section of the police department for several years, this report raises several questions.

APS police did not take this matter seriously and did as much as they could to minimize the event. The report, taken by Officer K. Santillanes, does not accurately reflect either the complaint being lodged or the facts that occurred.

We don’t know all of the facts that occurred because of the lack of any meaningful effort by the officers, from doing their duty, by even contacting all the parties involved. Though Maldonado Sr. completed a victim/witness statement form for Sheriff’s Deputy B. Felmler, neither Maldonado Jr., nor Sanchez, made a verbal or written account of the incident. Santillanes and Felmler have an obligation to do a complete investigation. It is never too late to do the right thing and assign this case to a competent investigator for a thorough follow-up and a forwarding of their findings to the District Attorney for review.

The inaction of the reporting officer, in not even listing the principal’s information in the proper portion of the report is indicative of nonfeasance. This report is not the product of any investigation.

How did Gabrielle get to see a copy of the report before the meeting, when the Journal was told it was unavailable because there was an ongoing investigation?

Conclusion: Cover up!

DeLayo did not object to statements of support, but said he did not think negative comment should be heard. His objection to allow for public comments, to; criticize, support or defend anyone, runs counter to the Board’s own mandate. “The Board shall provide an opportunity for citizens to be heard regarding their concerns, complaints, or commendations during public forum at each regular meeting of the Board of Education.”

During the public comments, De Layo left the room, pausing briefly to speak with Melendres.

The public participation policy statement ends with, “Complaints about individual employees will not be heard.” This sentence is an absurdity. The Board meetings are the only public forums available to citizens to express themselves about their schools. Many times, citizens simply want to be heard. The Board has established its own rule that they will not comment or engage speakers. Complaints about individual employees cannot be prohibited. The fact that the Board members do not deal directly with personnel issues does not mean that they and the community should not be aware of such issues. There is no better place to be heard than at the public podium.

Maes, as the president, seen above with Board Secretary Mary Lee Martin and Board Member Birna Facio, unilaterally ordered that the video unit of APS not air the public comments section of future Board meetings. “I moved the public comments to before the meeting starts,” Maes said in a telephone interview. "The County Commission does the same thing."

When asked how that squares with existing Board policy, “B.10 Public participation at Board meetings…,” Maes said she didn’t know; she would have to talk to legal counsel and get back to me with an answer on Monday. As of posting Wednesday she had not called to update with the legal opinion.

APS Board meetings are video taped and then delivered to KNME that airs them on TAL-Net, http://www.knmetv.org/education/talnet.php3, according to Joanne Bachmann Associate General Manager at KNME-TV.

TAL-NET is the Teach and Learn Network, operated by KNME 5, http://www.knmetv.org/ and is one of three Public, Educational and Government Access cable TV stations. TAL-NET is broadcast locally on Comcast channel 96.

The other two stations are Public Broadcasting Channel 27, http://www.quote-unquote.org/ and GOV 16 http://www.cabq.gov/govtv/index.html.

Channel 27 provides citizen produced programming paid for through a five percent franchise fee from Comcast's. gross revenues.

This is Mike Trujillo, an independent producer and a member of the Board of Directors of Quote... Unquote, Inc. He also videotaped the public comments at the APS Board meeting. Trujillo invited the Maldonado family and lawyer Paul Livingston to be guests on his show, Zero Hour Squared at 9:00pm Fridays.

Channel 16 airs City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County government produced programming with the emphasis on airing City Council and County Commission meetings along with selected board and commission meetings.

Does Maes' statement that the County Commission does the same thing, cause your mother's voice to echo in your mind? “If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you follow?” Just because the County Commission does wrong, doesn't allow APS to jump also.

What Maes, as well as the Bernalillo County Commission, misses is that when a quorum of the governmental body comes together, that is a "meeting" according to the State’s Open Meetings act. They are acting illegally if they hold public comments prior to the drop of the gavel.

Maes, along with the County Commission, are now trying to skirt the law and the intent of the public comments portion of meetings. That intent is to allow citizens to speak, but just as important is for viewers to hear what their fellow citizens have to say.The concept of free speech is revolutionary in origin; there are several ideas at play. Taxation without representation; it is the duty of governing bodies to listen to the electorate and citizens. The theory of the revolutionary day was that an informed electorate was better equipped to form their opinion when they had open access to public meetings and newspapers. The theory is just as valid today; although there are more media and means of expression than newspapers and pamphlets.

City Councillor Brad Winter, who is APS’s executive director for facilities and support operation, told me at the APS meeting that governing bodies should just let the people speak. The City Council is now contemplating moving its public comments portion to the end of its meetings, Winter said.

Governing bodies in our area simply do not want public involvement and are desperately trying to find ways to avoid following the law.

Censorship seems the easiest way.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Can We See Laura?

What’s wrong with this picture?

First Lady Laura Bush came to Albuquerque to campaign for incumbent Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson on Nov. 3. However, this is about all you could see of her, as she sped by protestors in her mini-motorcade.

Does this sound vaguely familiar? It should. ”It’s déjà vu all over again,” as Yogi Berra once said.

This opening is based on the same opening of my June 17 posting, “Can We See George?”

The conclusion was the same: “No… you can’t see Laura either.” That is unless you are associated with people who say only nice things about Wilson's campaign.

Two days before the First Lady’s visit, I covered the Nov. 1 opening of the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service’s newly consolidated Albuquerque Service Center for the Human Capital Management Office. I learned of the event from a non-campaign related governmental source.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, New Mexico’s senior Sen. Pete Domenici and senior Rep. Wilson, along with Undersecretary Mark Rey, who is in charge of the Forest Service, spoke at ceremonies at the newly established office.
In Domenici’s remarks he skirted the non-partisan line.

“So let me say that this is also a good time because it’s a time just before an election and everybody is clearly anxious and working at, to see who’s going to win and to work hard to see that next Tuesday reflects in each of our states the will of our people,” Domenici said. “That will be an exciting event. My hope, that many of you will be participating, even though you are not long lived New Mexicans, you will find that politics in New Mexico is truly not a spectator sport; it’s far more than that. You really get into it all the way. And that’s what you’re going to find here.”

“Having said that, good luck to you Heather in your up coming election,” Domenici said.

After photographing the USFS opening, I went to the New Mexico Republican Party headquarters to talk with Executive Director Marta Kramer. I had tried to reach her by phone but was redirected into a go-nowhere-fast terminal telephone loop. I thought if I could speak with her face-to-face, then I could get a schedule of Republican Party campaign events. Little did I know!

When I arrived at Party headquarters, there was a press conference about to start. The receptionist, seeing my camera, directed me back into the main room where the press was gathering. I said I had come, wanting to talk to Kramer, but the receptionist pointed to Communications Director Jonah Cohen who was standing in the lobby, talking on his cell phone.

I identified myself by name, as a university journalism student, a personal blogger, and a freelance photographer, with Joe Monahan.com as one of my clients.

Cohen said, "We (the New Mexico Republican Party) don’t like Joe Monahan.com, because he suggested that we’re racists." Cohen told me that if I wanted to photograph in my role as a journalism student, or personal blogger, I was welcome to stay. I told him that no one dictated with whom I associated or how my journalistic efforts were directed.

I asked Cohen if I still could speak to Kramer. He had me wait in the lobby as he went back into the bowels of the office. I could hear him talking to Kramer, just around the corner. She exploded, saying that we will have nothing to do with Monahan or anybody working with Monahan. “Get him out of here,” she said. Cohen returned, before he spoke, I told him I heard and left.

At the press conference, Domenici called on the Secretary of State to hire an independent auditor to canvass the upcoming election, according to a Party press release. “’All New Mexicans, whether Democrats, Republicans, members of the Green Party, Independents, every last voter in New Mexico must have confidence that their votes are going to count,’ said Senator Domenici. ‘I would respectfully request that the Secretary of State immediately commit to an open and transparent state canvass with the media and interested parties in attendance.’”

What really irritated me was that in 1970 I had photographed for Domenici's campaign when he ran for governor, but lost to Bruce King. Now, I'm considered persona non-grata.

It now seems that Republican Party bureaucrats and supporters of Wilson had come to dislike Joe Monahan.com, and in particular, its editor and namesake, Joe Monahan. They dislike him so much that they attempt to discredit and demonize him, and by direct association, to also discredit and demonize me. Maybe I shouldn’t take things so personally; however, in this case I have.

There is that old saying, “Don’t argue with fools; someone might not know the difference.” However, there comes a time when even I must risk being foolish because in the public square, as James Madison proposed that bad speech or wrong ideas must not be censored, but challenged by more speech, not less speech. Wilson's campaign and other Republican supporters and operatives engaged in efforts to demonize Monahan included: Whitney Cheshire’s The Wednesday Morning Quarterback, http://www.wednesdaymorningqb.com, Mario Burgos’ http://www.marioburgos.com/ and New Mexico for Sale.org, http://www.nmforsale.org.

Whitney Cheshire, president of Cheshire Communication Strategies, posts a political blogspot, The Wednesday Morning Quarterback and in 2003 produced a related Web site for New Mexico Victory.com, http://www.nmvictory.com.

She managed Republican Steve Pearce’s successful 2002 primary campaign for U.S. House of Representatives for New Mexico’s District 2.

According to her online biography, Cheshire served as the 2004 and 2005 communications director for the Republican Caucus of the New Mexico House of Representatives during the legislative sessions. In the 2004 election year, she was communications director for New Mexico's Bush-Cheney 04 re-election, and provided communications assistance to the Republican National Committee and New Mexico Victory.

Cheshire was campaign manager for Albuquerque City Council candidate Mike McEntee’s successful run in 1997.

In 2000, Cheshire campaign managed a State Senate race and was State Representative John Sanchez’ press secretary in his unsuccessful 2002 gubernatorial bid against Bill Richardson.

In an Oct. 16 posting of The Wednesday Morning Quarterback, Cheshire reported what she later claimed to be a scoop; that Republican Senate candidate Dr. Allen McCulloch was involved in a two-car accident that injured six people in the other car. “We’re told that there was no one at fault – the accident caused by weather and bad road conditions,” she wrote.

One need not be a law enforcement officer to recognize the extreme spin applied by Cheshire.

Accidents are not without fault. In this case, McCulloch exceeded a safe speed for the bad weather and road conditions. The posted speed limit was voided by the rain and hail. The fact that the vehicle the candidate struck was reported to have pulled to the side of the road attests to the severity of the conditions. McCulloch was reported as telling investigators that he was talking on his cell phone when his car hydroplaned off the marked roadway.

Weather and bad road conditions did not cause the accident; they contributed to it. Accidents are the culmination of a series of events and in this case, once the investigation was complete, McCulloch was cited with careless driving. Once the accident happened, McCulloch apparently helped rescue the injured from the other vehicle.

I’m neither condemning nor judging McCulloch. However, I am questioning Cheshire’s spin tactics in trying to protect him and his probable responsibility for the collision. Do you remember how the Republicans loved Chappaquiddick?Cheshire openly attacks Republicans who do not agree or join in lockstep with her view of what the party must be!

In her Oct. 17 blog, Cheshire attacked Monahan and Republicans who question the direction of the current Party leadership.

“If there were anybody with LESS credibility to bash the state GOP, we don’t know who they’d be…Maybe former Gov Dave Cargo? Anybody remember the last time he said ANYTHING good about a Republican who actually took up the fight for the Great Elephant?

BUT! We won’t give up on Joe Monahan. If there’s a less credible GOP BASHER out there, he’s sure to find them…”

There is something reprehensible, about attacking a lifelong Republican, a former two-term governor, and a loyal and a dedicated Party member. Cargo sees his party in more moderate terms than the current leadership. However, that is no reason to savage him and again, by association, those of us who sometimes tend to believe as he does.

I have known Cargo since 1967 and have photographed him over the years. I don’t always agree with him. However, I respect his right to say what he thinks. Despite our occasional differences, I have also have agreed with him. I like him as a person, and I have done legal battle at his side.

Cheshire and others chose to label Monahan a “Dem blogger,” just because he posts information that comes, most likely, from Democrats or from Republicans that do not hold the same sense of the Party that she and those for whom she is fronting do.

She has condemned Monahan for working as a spokesman for a group that has a member who is a high dollar contributor to one of the political action committees of current State Attorney General and Democratic candidate for N.M. Congressional District 1, Patricia Madrid.

Cheshire suggests that there is something wrong with the ability of people to hold more than one conflicting idea in their mind at a time.

There is a phrase I have heard from within the “new Republican Party:” that some individual members are not Republican enough. I know what those who say it mean: you don’t think exactly as I do. It seems that the “Big Tent” isn’t big enough to hold more than one elephant, or idea, anymore.Name calling, labeling and demonizing is a long held practice of a faction of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. It’s best exemplified by the late and infamous Wisconsin Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy with his unsubstantiated claims of communists in the federal government during the beginning of the Cold War era, in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Instead of attacking ideas, attack people, is the new mantra. Kill the messenger!Mario Burgos writes under the title, “Clear thinking and straight talk from the top of a mountain.”

By early January 2004, Burgos had announced his intention to run for incumbent four-term Republican State Legislator Ron Godbey’s District 22 seat. Godbey, representing the East Mountain area of Bernalillo County, didn’t appreciate the intentions of the young, 34-year-old newly arrived transplant, originally from New York City.

According to his blogs' biography, Burgos has lived in more than a handful of locations, including Ecuador and California. Godbey called him “one of Mickey's Boys." Godbey was referring to then Republican National Committeeman Mickey Barnett, who had been a legislator and earlier led the struggle to control the state’s Republican Party -- previously chaired by John Dendhal.

On the last day of the 2004 legislative session, Godbey rose in the chamber to announce that due to his wife’s ill health, he would not seek reelection.

Burgos was then an unsuccessful primary candidate, running against two other Republicans. He garnered only 40.3 percent, against 50.3 percent for Kathy McCoy and 9.60 percent for Charles Mellon.

In reporting the primary results, the Albuquerque Journal indicated that Barnett, who represented the far right-wing of the Republican Party, had supported four candidates for legislative seats. Barnett said that he, “believes in competition, or ‘the marketplace of ideas.’"

Barnett, who is an Albuquerque lawyer, is shown here, left, when he worked as a legislative assistant for newly seated Sen. Domenici in 1973. He is with Press Secretary Grace Marie Prather and the Senates’ Republican Policy Committee photographer Arthur E. "Scotty" Scott, looking at photographs of the second Nixon inaugural ceremonies.I originally ran into Scott, when I was in junior high and living in Arlington, Va., in the mid '60s. During the summers, I would explore the U.S. Capitol building. Deep in the bowels, on the Senate side, I came upon an open door, emitting the fragrances of darkroom chemicals, the buzz of photo equipment and the sound of fresh prints dropping off a rotating drum print dryer. Every inch of available wall space was covered with 8x10 black and white prints of United States senators, mostly in staged pictures. There was only one spot that had no prints; it was a blackboard and cork bulletin board covered with times, dates and locations of upcoming events. This was "Scotty’s" domain.

Scott was willing to talk to me about what he was doing. I had little respect for shooting the grip and grin, the traditional staged handshake publicity photos, so popular in that day and earlier. He had an occasional picture of un-staged events on Capitol Hill documenting an actual news or historical situation. I had little regard for the fact that he was still using a 4x5 Speed Graphic and fill flash for illumination; but there was no arguing with the beauty and quality of the final prints. I knew instantly that 90 percent of his work was boring and mundane. However, the other 10 percent of the time, he had a catbird’s seat to history.

The impact of his historical and news work was filed in the back of my mind, only to creep forward into my work later. The pictures of the USFS dignitaries and of Cargo, above, are throwbacks to Scott's influence.

Barnett‘s office manager, Justine Fox-Young, was successful against incumbent Bob White. Incumbent Republicans, State Rep. Larry Larranaga, of Albuquerque, seen here as a guest political commentator with Monahan during his 2006 KNAW FM's election night coverage, and Sen. Gay Kernan of Hobbs. Both Larranaga and Kernan were re-nominated.

McCoy was unopposed in the general election and after the primary Gov. Bill Richardson appointed her to fill out Godbey’s unexpired term. Burgos is rather prickly about the issues and when Monahan pointed out the Burgos-Barnett effort to attack a staunch opponent of the Barnett-Dendhal faction of the state’s GOP, Godbey, Burgos claimed:

“Wait a second Joe. I ran in the 2004 primary for House District 22, the seat formerly held by Ron Godbey -- my neighbor at the time. The thing is, I didn't run against Mr. Godbey because he didn't run. As was widely expected at the time, he retired due to his wife's health issues and then moved back to Texas. So, the 2004 race was between Representative Kathy McCoy, Charles Mellon, and myself.

However, I can tell you that Mickey Barnett did not 'spearhead' anything in my race. He did give me a $200 contribution, and although it was greatly appreciated, it was a very small amount compared to the $20,000 plus raised and spent in the race.

So Joe, how about you stop peddling that story? It's getting a little old.”

Burgos conveniently rewrites history, for he announced before Godbey dropped out.

On the 2004 primary election night, Barnett attempted to downplay his involvement according to the Journal, giving full credit to the successful candidates.

Though the Journal had previously reported Barnett’s involvement in backing the four candidates, they backed up the claims with analysis from their “political experts," University of New Mexico political science Professor F. Chris Garcia and pollster Brian Sanderoff.

"Mickey Barnett and the governor clearly had influence in these elections," Sanderoff said, according to the Journal’s election wrap-up.

Burgos further attacked Monahan for his sourcing, or more accurately, what Burgos claims, is a lack of sourcing.

In one particular incident, the first Wilson-Madrid debate, held at Congregation Albert Sept. 17, Monahan relied on a television news account for reporting a quote.

The candidates were asked, “Have you ever used illegal drugs and do you support the legalization, including medical marijuana?” Madrid, who had previously admitted to use during her college days asked, “Is this the question that is suppose to kill the campaign?”

The moderator said the question had jumped out of the basket at her.

"Well I grew-up, I went to college in the '60s…" Madrid said, as her words were drowned out by the laughter that filled the room.

When given the opportunity to ask Madrid a direct question, Wilson asked about an upcoming event put on by the New Mexico Black Political Action Committee, where the Rev. Al Sharpton was scheduled as the keynote speaker.

"Sharpton is a racist, anti-Semitic, rabble rouser. So what I want to know is why doesn't it bother you to stand next to him when he endorses your candidacy for the Congress?" Wilson asked. The question made me cringe because of its racial and ethnic implications and the appearance of pandering to a religious group that has felt the sting of Sharpton’s own racial and ethnic attacks.

Madrid answered that she had accepted the invitation, was unaware of Sharpton’s role when she accepted, and Sharpton had not endorsed her. She added that she was going to stand next to blacks, especially in light of the arrogant response of this (the Bush) administration to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

"You accepted the invitation - I did not!" Wilson told Madrid in her rebuttal, "You are judged by the company you keep."

Madrid reiterated that Sharpton had not endorsed her candidacy.

The TV station had edited the “Is this the question that is suppose to kill the campaign?,” with Wilson’s Sharpton question, and Monahan relied on it in his posting.

I failed to proofread his posting until the morning, but I wasn’t the first to inform him of the error. Monahan changed it immediately and posted a correction the next day.

Burgos would make as much of this event as he could. He condemned Monahan for not being present. He also was irritated by the selection of the photograph of Wilson I took that was used in the next day’s post. Burgos Wrote:

“That's right, the man with the 'inside line' to everything political in New Mexico came up with his indepth political analysis by watching the evening news. He didn't even have enough decency in the process to check out the whole debate which is streaming on this site before making his ‘political analysis,’” Burgos wrote of Monahan. “If he had, Monahan would have realized how ridiculous it was to put the pictures he chose to represent Heather and Patsy on his site. Watch the first few minutes of the candidates on stage, and you'll see:
1. Patsy licking her fingers
2. Doing weird things with her tongue (cotton mouth?)
3. Looking down to see if her stool is showing
4. Primping her hair

But hey, I guess whatever makes the boss happy.”

In his blog, Burgos attacked Madrid’s personal mannerisms, characteristics, idiosyncrasies and foibles, but specifically he picked on her physical height and the fact that she uses a step to stand on because podiums are made without much consideration of the height of speakers.

The queen of England is also short and she also stands on a step at podiums. Once, while visiting the White House, an aide forgot to put the step behind her podium when she and the president met the press. Maybe you saw the picture taken of her. It showed the top of the podium, two microphones and her large hat.

Burgos’ bias blinds him. He sees Madrid in nothing but negative terms while not being able to see any of Wilson’s own flaws.

I was present at the debate; I heard what was said and took measure of the room. I also captured Wilson’s expressions, in what I saw as a nastiness emanating from her during her attacks on Madrid.

As a still photographer, that’s my job; I respond to emotions in front of my lens. It’s not about supporting one candidate over another. It’s about capturing the sense of the person and of the room. It is the definition of the age-old question of what is news? The old adage of man bites dog… The difference between what is said and what is done.

Consider what would be a most compelling image a photographer might capture, yet one of the most difficult. I offer the fear that most humans’ have of being bitten by a poisonous snake. How fast can a rattlesnake strike its victim? A successful photograph of it would be the instant before the rattler sinks its extended fangs into the flesh.

Burgos’ take was that Wilson won this first debate hands down. He believes that Wilson’s question of Madrid’s acceptance at the Sharpton event was proof of her victory in the debate. Yet the question was the snakebite. The photograph was capturing that event. He can’t have it both ways. She struck: it was captured. Burgos can’t complain that the image should have made her look nice in the very act he says was victory. The nastiness of the question; was just that, nastiness.

In 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon met Sen. John Kennedy, in a televised presidential candidate debate. People who heard the event on the radio were sure that Nixon won; they heard an articulate, knowledgeable, better-prepared Nixon. However, those who watched the debate rated Kennedy the winner. Nixon had bad makeup, needed a shave and was visibly sweating. Kennedy’s interaction with the audience was obvious.

My take was that the Madrid-Wilson debate was as close to a draw as it could get. Madrid stumbled a couple of times, but Wilson came off as condescending, pompous, arrogant and superior.A couple of comments by Wilson: brought her own credibility into question “I live my life based on an honor code that I learned at the United States Air Force Academy: We will not lie, steal or cheat - nor tolerate among us anyone who does,” and "You are judged by the company you keep."

Wilson’s company has not always been stellar. Now I don’t believe that persons who have been in public service most of their adult life are going to have lived a monastic existence. Madrid was a lawyer, a state district judge and attorney general. Many of her contacts have not been with the most reputable people. Wilson was an Air Force Academy graduate, officer, was Director for European Defense Policy and Arms Control and was a member of the National Security Council. She negotiated with people who had their finger on the Soviet nuclear button. She served as Secretary of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Family Department before being elected to Congress. Her contacts have also been fraught with less than the most honorable of people.

Why Wilson would not be willing to sit down with someone with whom she does not agree, like Sharpton, and take the opportunity to discuss their differences, makes me believe her rhetoric is disingenuous.

Madrid survived by a whisker. However, in the Oct. 24 televised debate on KOB-TV, the outcome was clearly different. Madrid imploded on a couple of occasions. Wilson was not flawless, but came off better. That is the topic of a forthcoming blogspot.

There is also an irony that should not be overlooked. From Aug. 12, when I first photographed Madrid at a Democratic rally, she was almost paranoid of my camera. She asked several times if I worked for Heather’s campaign to take those awful pictures of her that were used in the negative TV commercials and fliers. I told her no, but she didn’t seem to believe me. This is the photograph I took at the end of her question when Madrid arrived at Congregation Albert for the debate. This was the photo I suggested be used if she had won the election.

At the end of the Oct. 9 Madeline Albright event, her son, Giancarlo Messina and I had a conversation while Madrid did an interview with Bloomberg Television. She again asked if I was photographing for Heather. “No Mom, he’s with Monahan,” Messina said. After that, things were different; Madrid still seemed leery of the camera, but no longer visibly paranoid.

Burgos is a skillful researcher, though he relies on public statements as reported, mostly in the Albuquerque Journal. He has a command of the language and the art of rhetoric. However, he seems to have limited ability to place his thoughts in any rational context.

In his Oct. 19 blog posting, Burgos suggested that Monahan follow a standard. “It's called the Bloggers' Code of Ethics.” He wrote, as he linked to it. The irony of his comment was that the code of ethics was nothing more than a total plagiarized copy of the Society of Professional Journalists’ document. The only difference is that everywhere the word journalist(s) appears, it is replaced with blogger. The first dictate of the code is; “Never plagiarize.…”

Burgos is often on the edge of outright plagiarism himself, by lifting multiple paragraphs from Journal articles. Even though he then links to the original source, he clearly does not understand the limits of plagiarism and that merely linking after copying, does not make his work appropriate.

I have not detected any acknowledgement of any possible weakness or flaw in the positions he supports. He comes off as an all knowing, 24-7, all Heather - all the time, rabid chauvinist. Not the female chauvinist, but the Napoleonic.

Burgos does not practice what he preaches. He does not, himself, follow the "Bloggers' Code of Ethics.”

I admire him for taping the first debate. Madrid had refused to appear in a live televised debate before early voting started. Burgos streamed his videotape on his site using "You Tube" on the Internet, a couple days after the event. Though I applaud him for taping the event, his hand-held camera technique was amateurish and nauseating, not because the topic was sickening, but the jerky and unmotivated zooming was. He counter emphasized how he looked at the candidates. His political leaning motivated his poor in-camera edits, not allowing the actual content to dictate his camera work. This makes for an ineffective communications product.

KRQE Television 13 had three cameras and set up lights to record the entire debate to be aired at a later date. The moderator was one of their anchors, Deanna Sauceda. However, KRQE never aired the debate. At least Burgos and I agree that it is unacceptable for a candidate to demand conditions that don't allow for the widest possible audience to hear their positions.

Burgos is currently basking in his proverbial “15 minutes of fame” as he has found a niche as a local political pundit, representing the far right, on the left-right verbal ping-pong weekly TV talk shows. He has appeared on KNME’s “The Line” and as seen above, KOB’s “Eye on New Mexico.”New Mexico for Sale.org, www.nmforsale.org, is a blogspot hosted by the New Mexico Republican Party and written, in part, by Jonah Cohen, communications director for the New Mexico Republican Party.

I have no problem with the existence of citizens using the power of the internet to put forward their beliefs, whether as random thoughts, gossip, political blogging, or in a more traditional form of journalism.

About 10 years ago, I was approached by a former elected Republican official who had read one of my op-ed pieces published in the Journal that was critical of, then first-term Mayor Martin Chávez. The Republican offered to pay me to ghost write for him. Because I wanted to maintain my own thoughts, and I was not willing to be assigned to write someone else’s opinions, I passed. Now there is weblogging and obviously, other Republicans have now found their propagandists.

The Democrats have their own cheerleading squads; however, they did not attack me and their Party and campaigns allowed me access. The next day, I contacted the Wilson campaign office and asked to speak with Communications Director Enrique Carlos Knell, Wilson’s official house and campaign spokesman. He was unavailable. I asked to talk to someone handling press passes for the Wilson-Bush rally the next day. I was told that the Wilson campaign was not handling press passes but New Mexico Victory was. I called NM Victory and was directed to “the White House.” I was given the number of Chad Von Luehrte. When I spoke with Von Luehrte, he requested information for credentials; specifically my name, date of birth and social security number to be forwarded to the Secret Service for a background check.

This is standard procedure and has been a routine that I have gone through since, at least 1968, when I covered Republican Vice Presidential candidate Spiro Agnew.

The next day, Von Luehrte called and told me that my name had passed the Secret Service background check, however I was not considered an “accredited” member of the press and would not be issued a pass. I asked him who had removed my name? Von Luehrte would not name the person, but said it was neither the White House nor NM Victory.

I informed Monahan, who at that moment was on the other phone with State Republican Party Chairman Allen Weh. Weh told Monahan that he knew Von Luehrte as a local Republican volunteer who probably was tasked with the administrative duty of gathering the information for the White House. Weh said the State Republican Party was not responsible for removing my name from the list and he would do what he could, when he got to the rally site, to assist in getting me access. Weh assured Monahan that the Party was not adverse to him, or his blogspot and would support facilitating my photographic access.

I arrived at the rally site and was directed by a Forest Service officer I had met two days earlier to a Forest Service parking lot across from the warehouse location at the Journal Center on Masthead St. in Northeast Albuquerque.

As I approached the media check-in table, a Secret Service agent confronted me and asked if I had press credentials. I told him that I was to meet the state chairman who was going to rectify a misunderstanding over the credentials. The agent walked me to the check-in table and introduced Von Luehrte, who asked what I was doing there because he had told me earlier I was not accredited and would not be issued a pass.

It took several moments to get him to even be willing to listen to me. I told him that Weh was going to speak with him about the matter. Von Luehrte said he did not know Weh. He told me to wait; said he would look for him and then went into the building.

While Von Luehrte was gone, Republican gubernatorial candidate John Dendhal and his wife, Jackie, arrived, and I photographed them. The Secret Service Agent confronted me again saying I was going to have to leave. I told him that the matter was not yet resolved. He hesitated and said that I could wait but could not take pictures until I had a press pass.

Von Luehrte returned saying he had not found Weh. The Secret Service Agent also returned and told me I had to leave the property. He said I could wait across the street until the matter was resolved.

I walked across the street to my vehicle and was soon approached by a Forest Service Law enforcement officer who immediately said that he knew I was a retired police officer, but I was going to have to leave. I had not made my retired status as a police officer an issue; he raised it. I explained the situation and said I was told to wait across the street until Weh was consulted.

He asked me to prove that I was a member of the press. I told him that neither the City of Albuquerque nor the State of New Mexico issued press credentials anymore, but I could show him professional membership cards from the National Press Photographers Association and the Society of Professional Journalists. I also showed him my UNM ID card telling him I was a currently a journalism student. He reluctantly accepted them. He then told me that he could evict me from the government-controlled parking lot, but he would let me stay as long as I didn’t take any pictures. I asked him under what theory of law he thought allowed him to prohibit me from photographing in a public place?

He said because I was on the government’s parking lot without a White House approved Bush-Wilson Rally press pass, I could not take pictures and that I could not even take pictures from the public sidewalk or street because my truck was in their parking lot and that it wouldn’t be fair to the photographers who had credentials. I quit! His reasoning defied any attempt to make logical sense.

Sen. Domenici arrived; I didn’t take his picture. Chairman Weh arrived and was approached by Von Luehrte and the Secret Service agent. There was some conversation with a couple of different groups of men. Weh approached me and asked if I was Monahan’s guy. I said he and I were associated; that I didn’t work for him, but with him.

Weh said he had tried to straighten things out, that it was not the State Party that had stricken my name from the list, but it was the Wilson campaign that would not issue accreditation to me. He said he had no power or influence over them.

We shook hands and I left. I was escorted out of the area by an Albuquerque police car that had been waiting for me, parked on Masthead. As I drove away, I pulled in behind a parked car. The officer spoke over his PA system, telling me I had to continue out of the area. I went to the corner of Jefferson and Masthead, parked and photographed the mini-motorcade as the First Lady passed several blocks away.

On election night, at the Republican victory party, I was greeted by name, by Wilson’s campaign spokesman, Knell. He recognized me, though I did not recognize him, having never met him. He said he had heard that there was a problem with credentials at the Bush-Wilson rally. He wanted to assure me that it had not been the Wilson campaign that had struck my name. As far as he and the campaign were concerned, I was welcome to cover the event, he said.

So what’s wrong with this picture?

During the New Mexico congressional District 1 televised debate, when Madrid said that campaign contributions only bought access, Wilson made a very emphatic statement that all New Mexicans had open access to her without having to pay for it. Not true.

The actions of agents of the federal government, the Secret Service and the Forest Service law enforcement officers, in their statements prohibiting my photographing at a public event without possession of a government controlled press pass, not only is a measure of denial of access, but is also a license. The basic tenent of the free press phrase of the First Amendment was quashed that day and governmental censorship raised its ugly head.

Other analysis:

When a political party denies open access to their candidates and incumbent office holders, they expose their true intentions to not uphold their prospective or existing office’s oath to the Constitution. To do so is for them to become an “enemy within.”

What does accreditation even mean, and who gets to grant such accreditation?

In 1978, I was assigned to the chief of police’s office with the public information officer. At the time, PIO Bob Fenton was rewriting the Standard Operating Procedures on police press relations. I successfully argued with doing away with police issued press passes. It is not governments’ role to determine, or formally recognize, which citizens are or are not members of the press.

You, my readers, are the ones who grant me accreditation.

New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan.com relies heavily on unnamed sources that he calls alligators. Monahan’s use of these sources allow for a broader dissemination of information than there would be if he followed the more traditional news gathering methods associated with mainstream news media.

Traditional journalistic methods call for the identification of sources and confirmation of their information. Monahan’s blog doesn’t; but he lets his readers know that up front. He allows his readers to exercise their own intelligence. The information is similar to listening to the gossip at the office water cooler.

Inherent in Monahan’s approach is a reality; democrats are more open in their discussions of their internal politics than are republicans. Republicans are more disciplined in their open criticism of fellow party members. They often follow Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."

To some, and in particular to the hard-core Republican bloggers, this reality is perceived as a demonstrated bias directed against them. These bloggers have no problem disregarding Reagan's 11th Commandment themselves; while within the leadership, there is a wish to enforce the edict. However, much like Reagan, the reason was to keep criticism of being heaped on those in power. Monahan makes clear what he is doing. In working with him, I have gained some insight to his approach as a blogger, a journalist and political analyst.

Politically, Monahan is an independent. His professional history is that of a radio news reporter.

I met him around 1978 and have been acquainted with him off and on since.

From 1979 to 84, Monahan was press secretary to Republican Manuel Lujan, seen here, the first representative from New Mexico’s Congressional District 1, on Capitol Hill. When Monahan returned to New Mexico, he continued his radio and television news career and then also became a consultant, with several political clients over the years.
Knowing this, I choose to work with Monahan, and I wouldn’t if I thought he had an expressed and/or an overt bias.

I had contacted Monahan this spring, offering him access to my extensive archives of state political figures and offered to capture images of current political figures for him. At the time, Monahan passed. After posting theblueflyer.com Web site and this blog, he called, and we talked about providing photographs of the top post-primary candidates. He said he recognized that allowing campaigns to provide formal handout portraits might not be the most telling, and he wanted to bring the flavor of the campaign trail to his readers.

Monahan admits that he is not the most visually oriented journalist, and he and I have the classic photographer-editor differences. I want all my pictures run, and I want them run big. As an editor, he has space constraints and doesn’t always want to use a picture, even though it’s available in his archives.

Monahan is about as good an editor as I have worked with. He listens. As the season went along, he started using pictures of the events rather than just the ear-to-ear mug shots.

I wouldn’t lend my work or name to the three aforementioned bloggers because of their overt bias. I am sure that in the future I will support candidates and photograph them in their efforts to be elected. If history is any indication, more of those candidates will be Republicans than Democrats. I am an equal opportunity employee, just as I am an equal opportunity critic.

Now, about Weh and Knell; whom do I believe? Who struck my name? I think each man believes that they told me the truth. I think they believe in open access; however, one or both men were lied to, or were unable to learn the truth and didn’t realize it. I believe my name was stricken on orders of an overzealous Party bureaucrat, who either would not admit it to Weh or Knell, or lied, to either one or both of them.

As I wrote in my Sept. 14 posting, “Matt Farrauto,” the Republicans seem to also have their own abusive 900-pound gorilla, though it may not actually weigh 900-pounds, doesn’t sleep wherever she wants, nor has young ones disturbing her rest.

For the record: Monahan posted 52 pictures of mine during election season. Twenty-eight of those pictures were of Wilson and Madrid. Thirteen photos of Madrid, two that were duplicated and 13 of Wilson, none duplicated. He also ran one picture twice, of the two candidates together at the Congregation Albert debate.

I covered 22 events, 14 exclusively Democratic and four exclusively Republican. There were two events that included candidates from both parties. I went to one event at the scheduled time for Wilson, but she had attended earlier and had already left. I generated five images from two TV events.

In spite of the closeness in numbers, I would have wished to have a greater choice of images from Wilson events. To my readers, I apologize for not having very much material from the Republican side of this political season. It wasn’t for a lack of trying. No Republican campaign may accuse me of not being fair or balanced when they stonewalled, refused to return calls, misdirected me and failed to update their own websites, for a lack of coverage. None can tell you that they had notified me and that I failed to show up.

Monahan’s site may have visually had a Democratic leaning, in spite of the attempt to equalize the image count. That doesn’t make him a “Dem blogger” as Cheshire, Burgos and Cohen insist. The lack of coverage belongs solely to the Republicans.

Enough of this foolishness!