As promised, here's the good stuff:

The preceding page began:

"The Commissioners must lead by example————"

The PRC let reporters in to view super-thick binders with copies of a couple hundred survey ethics survey, like this one. Most were not redacted. Indeed, most responders didn't bother to offer suggestions at all. Nearly half of the employees who got surveys didn't fill them out, for whatever reason.

According to the PRC's new spokesman Gerald Garner Jr:

Of the 265 surveys distributed, 127 were completed...Approximately 30 of the completed questionnaires contain redacted items. The redactions were made because they contained anonymous personal criticisms of individuals at the NMPRC.

Judging by the tone and content of many handwritten responses, some of the harshest criticisms were likely directed at high-level managers and the PRC's elected commissioners. That's not much of a surprise, but specific allegations of unethical conduct are what's of public interest here—and those are precisely what the PRC has chosen not to disclose.

Some series, if vague charges did make it past the PRC's black pen.


Assault, embezzlement, sexual harassment, campaign law violations—is that all you got?

I'll post more after the cut. Keep refreshing!


There's that F—K word again...



Most employees seemed to "pass" the ethics quiz. But there were a good number of bone-headed responses suggesting some compasses had gone the fritz.

This one, I'm guessing, was a joke.



In case squinting doesn't help, the question asks whether it's ethical if "An employee of a regulated entity asks you out on a date."

The responder wrote in, "If she is sexy and good looking."

Tonight, I'll leave you with the following rant, which begins, "You cannot CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR OF ANYONE FROM BEING A SINNER TO A SAINT..." and concludes by suggesting targeted firings to boost "moral" [sic].