Vote Tuesday! Preferably against Trumpism

Please vote Tuesday. 

This election is important. Mr. Trump is so dangerous in so many ways, his Republican enablers are so deferential, and there's so much at stake, that a Democratic majority in the House is essential. 

So, please, vote for our wonderful, home-grown Xochitl Torres-Small.

Even with local races, it's important to ask why Republican candidates don't speak out against Trump. Do they blind themselves to Trumpism's dangers, see it clearly but accept it to accomplish certain ideological goals, or simply lack the courage to speak out? Trump is making a last-ditch effort to deepen white Christian male privilege, and to “save us” from the modern world by simply denying its realities. He shows open contempt for Mexicans, Muslims, and women. Do we want local leaders who find that acceptable?

One local Republican leader told me, “I haven't spoken out on President Trump, because I'm focused on the County. I didn't speak out against President Obama, even when I disagreed with him.” That sounds reasonable; but we all have a duty to speak out when our national leaders are dangerously wrong. If someone I supported behaved as badly (and dangerously) as Trump, I'd have to speak out. Having helped empower him, I'd try to limit the damage.

A philosophical difference permeates the local races: shall we use the power of government to make our state or county as good as possible, for all of us – or strictly limit government's activities, even starve government as Republicans are doing nationally?

I'd choose the former, so long as we can pay for beneficial programs. So would most Democratic candidates. Local Republicans have deepened this divide by running folks who aren't just somewhat conservative but extremely so. (Exceptions include John Zimmerman and Kim Hakes. Ben Rawson is a closer call.)

In several state races, the Republican candidates are disastrous: Steve Pearce, who consistently puts his extremist ideology before state and national good; PRC candidate Ben Hall, whose record is beyond spotty; and Pat Lyons, who wants to recover the Land Commissioner position where he once did so much harm. Why trust any of them – when we can vote for the extremely appealing Michelle Lujan-Grisham, Steve Fischmann, and Stephanie Garcia Richards?

Our Republican former sheriff, Todd Garrison, seeks to regain the office he nearly destroyed during his Seeberger episode, while the thoughtful Democrat Kim Stewart has both experience and smart, modern ideas. (Allegations that Stewart would take away deputies' long rifles or disband the SWAT Team, are just plain false.)

Lynn Ellins should win his county commission race, and likely will. He truly knows county government and the law, and works well with others. I'd prefer Karen Trujillo to Kim Hakes, although Hakes seems sensible and good-humored on the dais. (I just think Karen has a better understanding of their district's needs.)

Although I have a good working relationship with Ben Rawson, he seems to lack the vision to make our county the best it can be for all its citizens. Although he emphasizes constituent service, he (and county government) dropped the ball on fire-fighting, sending insurance rates skyrocketing; and he resisted the UDC, an effort at coherent planning. (The last-minute Talavera uproar over trailers, which the county handled just fine, didn't have to be so last-minute.) Relative newcomer Shannon Reynolds holds more moderate views that are more in tune with a majority of District 3 voters. 

In any case, vote!

                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, 4 November 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air both on KRWG and on KTAL (101.5 FM / www.lccommunityradio.org)]

[Voting against Trumpism is a basic duty this year -- even for folks who understandably wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the system.  As I've mentioned elsewhere (see earlier posts, including http://soledadcanyon.blogspot.com/2018/10/please-vote-our-tattered-democracy.html ), Trump is doing more damage than we could have imagined, and a Democratic House majority is probably essential to maintaining our country in anything like the form it should be.]

[I've also touched at times on some of the local and state races: 
If Kim Stewart's combination of experience and modern ideas aren't enough reasons to vote for her as sheriff, glance again at these past columns concerning Todd Garrison.  (From  Questions about a Surprising Hire by the County Sheriff on 2 March 2014 to Lawsuit against Many of us Crashes and Burns on 30 August 2015, you can read the sad saga by searching "Seeberger" on my blog or just clicking here.  The misery Garrison caused the majority of employees with his Seeberger fixation was astonishing -- and heart-wrenching, if you happened to be airing that story publicly and talk to deputies suffering under Garrisonburger.  (And don't forget the contributions of Garrison's would-be undersheriff, Curtis Childress.  It was Stewart's investigation of his racist drawings that led to (or contributed to) her firing, which jurors later concluded was wrong enough that they gleefully ordered the county to pay her a big judgment.  See Jury Orders Dona Ana County to Pay (17 July 2015)) 
If Steve Fischmann's consistent consumer advocacy, record of integrity, and mix of business savvy and awareness of the urgent need to radically increase our use of renewable sources of electricity aren't enough for you to want him on the PRC, contemplate Ben Hall's record contemplate Ben Hall's record.  (And I may have just scratched the surface.)
Incumbent state legislators Nathan Small, Joanne Ferrary, Rudy Martinez, and Doreen Gallegos have worked hard and thoughtfully for our community's interests, and our state's, and deserve re-election.  To varying degrees, the Republican Party has made these choices even easier by running extremists.  Similarly in the District 33 race between newcomers Micaela Lara Cadena and Charles Wendler, she's a sharp young progressive with good ideas and he's somewhat of a Tea Party Republican with a strong ideology. I voted for her.
Lynn Ellins should and will win, but if you're a new resident or a forgetful one, take a look at this moment in our past, when Ellins recognized constitutional truth and acted, as county clerk, in a way the Supreme Court then agreed our constitution required regarding same-sex marriage: County Commission Knocks One out of the Park (1 September 2013).]

[County Commission Chair Ben Rawson has his good points.  However, his vote last year to fire Julia Brown (Julia Brown's Firing Was Foreseeable but Abrupt --  April 2017) has already led to a huge payment to Ms. Brown in settlement of her lawsuit.  (Rawson had the grace to apologize to her immediately.  I happened to be sitting at the table with her and county staff when he did, during the break after the vote, and wondered a little about what was in his mind.)  Too, I don't agree with his consistent and sometimes misleading trashing of the nascent bus system.  (Commission Ducks Transit Issue -- Citizens Shout "Shame!" -- 14 May 2017  )  I also didn't agree with the rightwing position the county (definitely including Ben Rawson) took regarding a union issue.  The deputies union consistently won in arbitration, trial, and appeal, and the County's intransigence cost us more money in legal fees and perhaps interest.  (County and Deputies Union -- 29 October 2017)   I also questioned the Commission's move to add an extra step that could slow down opposition to El Paso Electric moves to raise our rates, although the Commission's justification wasn't wholly unreasonable. (Did the County Commission Just Do El Paso Electric a Favor? 2 April 2017 )  I'd also note that while 70 to 80% of the citizenry supported designating the Organ Mountains / Desert Peaks National Monument, and the City Commission voted unanimously in support of that designation (opposed vigorously by Steve Pearce), when Trump's administration threatened to reduce the monument, Mr. Rawson was "the lone holdout" when the County Commission voted 4-1 to support keeping the monument intact -- as reported by the Sun-News on June 2017.  
Rawson works hard.  He knows the rules and procedures.  He's a very reasonable guy to talk to.  But Shannon Reynolds barked like a watchdog about the fire insurance issue, well before I got interested and well before the Commission did anything; and his views would appear to be more in line with those of the district's voters.]

[Finally, Probate Judge Diana Bustamante has done a good and professional job in that office, and should be retained.   This is not an ideological or "political" office; she has four years of experience and knowledge; and to unseat her should require her opponent to show some misconduct or serious mistakes on or part or propose some brilliant innovation in how to run the office, which he couldn't do and hasn't done. He's also a newcomer, who moved here in 2014 from California, and I don't know that he speaks Spanish or knows the country very well. ]

A Bit of Democracy?

The County Commission got a redo on rural buses Tuesday – and did what seems the right thing.

Last meeting, dozens who wanted to speak didn't get the chance.

Tuesday turned into a rather wonderful moment. More than three dozen people spoke, including bus-riders speaking Spanish, several elected officials, and dedicated non-profit leaders. None opposed transit. We marveled at the variety of speakers, the power of their words, and the moving human stories. 

A 27-year Anthony resident recalled being pregant and unable to reach doctors in Las Cruces or buy medicine: “This service is very important to me. Please don't take it away!”

A lifelong county resident, Dr. Leti Mora, recalled that as a child in the 1960's she suffered severe eye problems requiring numerous surgeries. She used an old county bus service to reach doctors. Unfortunately, the bus ran just once a day. She and her mother had to spend a whole day in Las Cruces waiting for the return bus. During their long absence, her father suffered a stroke in their home. Had they returned earlier, he might have been saved from such complete paralysis. 

A 97-year-old man thanked the drivers, said “God Bless” everyone, and sweetly called for unity. 

State Senator Jeff Steinborn noted that 39% of our county's children live in poverty, compared to 22% nationwide.

City Councilor Gill Sorg said we needed the buses “for the poor, so they can rise out of poverty.” State Representative Nathan Small said that funding transit “would leave a better legacy,” adding, “If it's not working the way it should, make it better.”

The previous meeting was highly unpleasant. This was less so. Credit the passion of people who were angry they couldn't speak at the last meeting; but credit also the new county commissioners: they listened courteously to a parade of people hoping to preserve the buses. Chair Isobella Solis, disagreed with the speakers, but heard them out. For an hour and forty minutes. 

After lunch Billy Garrett moved to reinsert the transit $350,00 into the preliminary budget. John Vasquez seconded it, but noted he's still not persuaded that the buses are efficient and effective. (He'll give folks a chance to convince him, from 10-11 a.m. daily at the Ledesma Center, at 5745 Ledesma Drive.) Ramon Gonzalez joined them for a 3-2 vote. 

Folks for or against transit should visit Vasquez. All of us should thank Vasquez and Gonzalez for their willingness to be persuaded by their constituents.

The naysayers – Ben Rawson and Solis – advance two basic arguments: that the voters' rejection in 2016 of a tax increase to fund a $10 million bus system tied commissioners' hands, at least ethically; and unspecified mismanagement or inefficiency. If management problems got you defunded, several county departments would be gone already. The Commission should discuss its questions / complaints / suggestions with the transit board, and seek improvement – not blow up the whole thing.

And it's dishonest to claim the 2016 vote controls. If the voters had rejected a special tax to buy DASO $5 million worth of training cars and protective vests, would the commissioners have rejected Tuesday DASO's request for $350,000 for that? No. Nor should they. Many who voted against the tax because of cost might recognize the need to support a more modest system and see how it grows. Even Solis says she's not against public transit.

I'm glad our commission voted to spend $1.75 per person next year – less than the price of a cup of coffee these days – on a really worthy effort. I hope they stick to that.

                                                       -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, as well as on the newspaper's website the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.]

[This is the announcement on the county's website regarding Mr. Vasquez's daily "Coffee with the Commissioner" sessions.  I'll go one morning this week.]

[Folks concerned about the buses should probably mark 25July on their calendars.  I've no reason to think commissioners will change their minds on this; but it happens.]

Commission Ducks Transit Issue -- Citizens Chant "Shame!"

Tuesday's county commission meeting started with Commission Chair Isabella Solis urging citizens to respect commissioners and ended with citizens chanting “Shame!” 

At issue: should the County provide $350,000 toward continuing bus service throughout the south county?

The transit folks were to make a presentation. The chamber was full of people wanting to speak. Suddenly none of this was permitted.

The Chair asked for a motion. Commissioner Garrett made one. Some thought Commissioner Gonzales, whose district includes many who use the buses, would second. He didn't. Meanwhile Commissioner Vasquez had disappeared – apparently to avoid facing the issue. (He hasn't yet explained.)

An unseconded motion dies. No vote. No discussion. No public comment. Gonzales stayed silent. Vasquez stayed away. Garrett tried to withdraw the motion, to permit discussion. Commissioner Rawson said the commission should move on. 

The room erupted in shouts of “Shame! Shame!” I went to the microphone to urge the commission, if it wanted respect, to extend respect – by letting folks speak. 

Solis is right: we should show commissioners respect – or at least civility. “Civility” and “courtesy” differ from “respect.” Respect is something we feel. I respect the commissioners for taking on a tough job and for hoping to do right. I respect Garrett and Rawson for standing up and defending their positions when asked. When newer commissioners duck questions, I can't respect that. I hope they learn better soon. Meanwhile, we should express our disappointment courteously. Courtesy should be mutual.

I'm appalled that the commissioners simply refused to hear their constituents. Garrett called their conduct “disrespectful, whatever your position.” Some came from the south county, at some inconvenience. Bus dispatcher Leticia Lopez said, “I hear the cries of need every day from people who ride the buses.” She described a lady from Mesquite with two children, whose mother was dying of cancer in Juarez. They take the blue line to Anthony, the purple line to El Paso, then the metro to Mexico. “Before us, she had no way to go even to Anthony.”

Commissioner Gonzalez, these are your people. You coached many of them. You taught them history. You requested their votes as an upstanding man who cared about them and their communities. 

I haven't heard good reasons not to listen to the bus company. Rawson says he opposes the measure because “the voters rejected it.” Voters rejected $10 million to start something – not $350,000 to keep something going, with the state paying more. (Further discussion on today's blog post.) The buses seemed a good idea, seem to be gaining riders, serve a need, and have drawn funding from other sources. Our poorer citizens need transportation – and our rural areas have plenty of poor people.

That doesn't mean the system is perfect! I hear meaningful criticisms and questions, not just from commissioners. But elected commissioners should face this issue like grownups, listening to the arguments, asking appropriate questions, and making reasonable decisions. (They probably should approve the funding but suggest improvements.) 

Whether the bus company and its riders are right or wrong or some of each, sticking our fingers in our ears and running away, as Vasquez and the others did, is not fair or meaningful consideration of an issue. (Vasquez has scheduled three community meetings this week.)

Proponents note that the requested amount is only $1.75 per county resident. I'm delighted to pay $1.75 so that residents of the South County have low-cost transportation to schools, jobs, medical facilities, and family. Friday I sent a check for $17.50. That should cover me -- plus Rawson, Solis, Gonzalez, Vasquez, Enrique Vigil, and four neighbors.

                                                        -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 14 May 2017, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website -- and a spoken version airs on KRWG a couple of times on Wednesdays.]

[Further reflections on "respect," and Chairperson Solis's request for it: as I mentioned, I feel we ought all to be civil and courteous to each other as much as we can; but I'd urge the Commission to gather respect by conducting business with more apparent thought, more openness and transparency, and more consideration (and respect) for constituents.   As the Sun-News recently editorialized, government is an open, loud, and sometimes messy business.  Commissioners should not have run from reporters, immediately after sacking Julia Brown a few weeks ago.  They should have faced those reporters, even if fear of a lawsuit would limit what they could say to explain their action.  They should have listened to the citizens who'd come to speak on transit, and to the transit folks, either during initial public comment or when the agenda item came up.  They should have listened both because they might have learned something (as Commissioner Vasquez has said he did when riding the buses and talking to folks, which was a good thing on his part) and because people who've come all that way to speak on an issue that matters to them deserve that respect.  If (as some fellow commissioners believe) Solis had prior knowledge that there'd be no second, she should have permitted such discussion during public comment; if she didn't know, then when the agenda came up and she discovered the fact that these folks would be tricked out of their chance to talk to their commissioners, she could have and should have allowed discussion then.  And Commissioner Rawson should not have encouraged her to move on.  Yeah, it would have cost an hour's time; but that's part of what commissioners get paid for.]

[The column mentions that District 5 Doña Ana County Commissioner John L. Vasquez has scheduled three community meetings to address issues of constituent concerns.  Here's further information:
Meetings are scheduled at 6 p.m. on Monday, May 15, at the Doña Ana Community Resource Center, 5745 Ledesma Drive in Doña Ana; then Tuesday, May 16, at the Radium Springs Community Resource Center, 12060 Lindbeck Road; and finally, Wednesday, May 17, at  the Village of Hatch Community Center, 837 Highway 187 (West Hall Street) in Hatch.
Commissioner Vasquez has invited New Mexico State Sen. Jeff Steinborn and State Representatives Rudy Martinez and Nathan Small to each of the meetings.
Here, he's doing something he should do.  I hope the three are well-attended.]

Julia Brown's Firing Was Foreseeable, but Abrupt

We're seeing officials jump into high positions and take immediate and drastic actions based not on observations made in their new posts, but on ego or ideology, or what they've heard (or covertly promised) before taking office.

In Washington, that could destroy the fabric of our civil society – or worse. 

In our county, we'll survive the sacking of County Manager Julia Brown. 

I've criticized Brown. I've praised her. So has at least one commissioner who voted to fire her. 

Last fall, I criticized the old commission for extending her contract by three years. The next commission might fire her, as Sheriff Vigil was urging. One year seemed more prudent. But the extension didn't put us on the hook for the whole three years. There's a six-month severance package. Brown was an at-will employee. Terminable for no reason. So long as her civil rights weren't violated, which a lawsuit may explore, we'd owe six months' salary not years'. The commission also sought to raise her salary over three years to be comparable to salaries of similar county managers in New Mexico. 

A critic of that decision could argue that tripling her severance package from two months to six, while perhaps fair, was “very disrespectful to the incoming commissioners – and the voters.”

I've criticized Vigil for threatening to get rid of Brown. But I'm not sure her firing was entirely his doing. I'd heard some complaints about Brown unrelated to Vigil. So had commissioners. Also, Vigil has repeatedly urged the commission to drop its appeal of a court decision upholding a union arbitration. (I think I agree with him. Deputies deserve raises. Soon!) The case has been on the agenda for several closed sessions. If Vigil completely controlled three commissioners, maybe the commission would have done his bidding on that by now.

Firing Brown was abrupt and ill-considered, but no great surprise. The three new commissioners almost fired Brown in February. Apparently the new commissioners had decided on that before taking office, but Vasquez changed his mind. Therefore the commission told Brown it would evaluate her. Brown responded by proposing some items she thought reasonable to include in a performance review. The commission never even responded – except by firing her. (Only Billy Garrett dissented Tuesday.) 

It's wrong to fire someone without an evaluation, barring some very serious misconduct. Ms. Brown committed none. Running our county is complex, particularly coming in, as she did, when some extremely bad management had created distrust and torpedoed employee morale. Commissioners say Brown was stellar at much of what she did, but could have improved on some points. That calls for evaluation and clear direction – not an abrupt firing.

Several – including a couple of courageous DASO employees – spoke up for Ms. Brown Tuesday. No employee criticized her. A DASO employee called the firing “political corruption at its finest,” and Deputy County Clerk Lynn Ellins called it “insanity.” Sadly, the three new commissioners made no explanation, then fled like frightened rabbits from reporters. Had they nothing to say in their defense? At least Ben Rawson faced questions. And (despite his vote) thanked Ms. Brown for all she's done.

We'll be paying for this in many ways, including a probable retaliation claim. We may not get such a skilled replacement.

Afterward, Brown lunched at Mariachi's. Returning, she was startled by an atrium full of county employees greeting her by cheering loudly and clapping, as she received a big bouquet flowers. (See Patrick Hayes's video.) The sight of employees publicly cheering the person their bosses had just fired speaks eloquently: she will be missed.

                                                               -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, 30 April 2017, as well as on the newspaper's website the newspaper's website and KRWG's website, and a spoken version will air Wednesday on KRWG Radio.]

[I note in the column that I've both praised and criticized Ms. Brown.  Less than two years ago, I tended at one time to think she should either be terminated or be given an evaluation including some strong comments on certain points.  However, I have come to understand why commissioners value her professionalism.  But I also know that some folks see Brown's ouster as the first shot in a civil war within county management.]

[People often ask me whether Ms. Brown is likely to win if she files suit.  I answer that I'm not her lawyer, and that there's a lot I don't know.  Speculating as an outsider?  As an at-will employee, she'd have little basis for a simple employment claim, unless they violated a required step in reaching their decision.  With other county employees, I'm pretty sure such a summary action, without first evaluating the employee and giving her an opportunity to improve, would violate the personnel manual, which is taken by courts as a term of employment.  (I should note that Ms. Brown was evaluated twice prior to the seating of the three new commissioners; and that I'm hearing from various sources that although she was orally advised of the commissioners' views, she was given no written evaluation.)  You follow procedure.  I doubt there's any such thing in her contract.  She can be fired at will, just as Trump can fire Flynn.  Or the Sheriff can fire his undersheriff.  And that's true for a reason: it's a political office, and the elected officials can choose whom they want to manage the city or the Defense Department.   The wisdom of a particular firing is a political issue, assuming all required procedural steps were taken and no contractual promise broken.

However, just because you can fire someone for no reason doesn't mean you can fire someone for an illegal reason.

One example is the Whistleblower Act.  I've worked on a few such cases.  Even if someone is an at-will, or even a temporary employee hired to teach or clean for a year, with no legal right to being re-hired the next year, you can't fire (or decline to re-hire) that employee because he reported to the police or your board or the newspapers that you'd embezzled $100,000 or ordered employees to pour mercury in the river.   (Ironically, a suit on those grounds has been filed against the County by some Sheriff's Department employees Ms. Brown disciplined or terminated.  They have counsel who are very experienced at pursuing employment claims against the County.)  

Similarly, even if you could fire someone for no reason, you can't fire someone because s/he's of a certain ethnicity or in retaliation for making claims on her own or others' behalf of ethnic or sexual discrimination.  

But to appraise anyone's possible claim, a lawyer needs to ask a lot of probing questions and then often do some legal research.  I won't speculate just now on whether Ms. Brown will sue or how that lawsuit might go. She's a lawyer herself, and I'm sure she's been consulting some lawyer who specializes in employment claims -- other than Daniela and Bret, who will be saying bad things about her as part of their work for other clients.   If she files a complaint, I'll look at that before opining.  For now, I'll merely hope that the commissioners ultimately select an able and experienced county manager.  And that Ms. Brown enjoys her retirement. ]  

Did County Commission Do El Paso Electric a Favor?

El Paso Electric made an interesting announcement recently: its plan to request a rate hike in 2018 in southern New Mexico will be delayed.

It's going ahead as planned in El Paso; but not here.

We owe gratitude to Merrie Lee Soules, Positive Energy Solar, Allen Downs, Rocky Bacchus of One Hour Air-Conditioning, and Steve Fischmann; but also to the City of Las Cruces and the County of Doña Ana. All those folks filed as intervenors in EPE's most recent cases; they questioned and rebutted EPE's “facts” with a clarity the PRC wouldn't have managed without them; and EPE apparently doesn't want to see them again real soon.

So when you pay your electric bill each month, thank these folks that it isn't higher.

Sadly, the County Commission moved to make it a little harder for the County to intervene next time around – and there's always a next time with EPE. A publically-traded corporation exists to make a profit. The current system means EPE gets paid off for capital expenditures. So EPE will do its damndest to built new power plants on very flimsy excuses.

Tuesday the Commission passed a resolution under which each time there's a new rate case, it'll require a vote by the commission to intervene. That sounds innocuous enough, and maybe it won't be a problem; but it's odd. These are 4,000-page cases. I'm doubting the commissioners will wade through that.

The general interpretation of Tuesday's action was that it was meant to pull County Manager Julia Brown's chain. The effect is that if EPE's timing is tricky or it can influence a couple of commissioners, our county commission will fall silent when the utility tries to rip us off.

Commissioner Billy Garrett said the intervenors saved county residents $7.5 million recently. He and Brown pointed out that in complex rate cases things change rapidly, and that Tuesday's change could cause the County to miss important deadlines. I completely agree.

Interestingly, when Garrett proposed an amendment, under which the Commission would have been informed in detail every two weeks and could instruct Brown accordingly, Commissioner John Vasquez (who had proposed the resolution) saw the wisdom in that. Three others didn't. Commissioner Ben Rawson then moved Vasquez's original version, which passed 4-1.

The three new commissioners want to send Brown a message – but their chosen method could end up costing us money. One observer said Rawson might be trying to use the anti-Brown sentiment to help tilt the playing field to ease the utility's course. But Rawson, who voted for the 2015 resolution delegating the matter to Brown, said that when he asked about one matter there was confusion among county management about whether or not the County had intervened. Thus he felt the commission should tighten up control.

It seems sad, coming just days after folks at a Progressive Voters Alliance meeting had congratulated some of the intervenors, including the City and County. I hope the commissioners weren't acting in concert with the utility. I wonder if EPE will spend considerable sums to influence the results of local elections here. Electing commissioners and councillors who'd back off this intervention business could be real profitable.

Meanwhile, the Commission also looks poised to let Bowlin's sell fireworks. I hope Vasquez and Isabelle Solis recuse themselves from that vote. They might mean well, but collecting $2,500 in campaign money from Bowlin's, then voting for a dumb measure that would benefit Bowlin's, wouldn't look real good. 

During a local election in a rural county, $2500 is a lot of money. I hope EPE won't be asking what it buys.

                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 2 April, 2017, and also on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  KRWG also broadcasts a slightly shortened spoken version twice on Wednesday.]


[With regard to EPE's situation and rate-hike requests, see also Steve Fischmann's recent column
published in the Sun-News several days ago.  Some of the intervenors prepared a summary of issues with El Paso Electric.   This is the summary from February.  As that summary notes,

"EPE is a sophisticated, publicly traded corporation valued at nearly two billion dollars.  It has enormous resources at its disposal and a shareholder expectation that corporate managers will maximize profits. This is what EPE is doing, relentlessly and without shame, in every position it takes throughout the regulatory process."

Maximizing profits is, of course, exactly what a corporation's job is.  So EPE's highly-paid lawyers and press people are doing their job, full-time, to spin stories their way and camouflage or ignore facts that don't fit their version of events.  That's what they are supposed to do.   Meanwhile the PRC is not necessarily a group that will investigate fully and discover the well-hidden holes in EPE's reasoning.  The PRC does have staff; but it's important than when a $2 billion corporation is spending time and resources to make things look one way, we ought to have at least someone to examine the corporation's version of events and point out errors that could save customers money.  We'd sure like the County to continue participating in that effort.]

[With regard to Commissioners Soils and Vasquez and the fireworks issue, I do not mean to cast aspersions.  I'm not accusing them of anything.  I do not contend that they are legally required to recuse themselves.  On the other hand, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask public servants to go above and beyond the minimum legal requirements with regard to ethics.  I understand we'll never consistently get that level of ethical conduct from folks running for higher office; but we could try to ask it of local office-holders.]

[NOTE: Allen Downs has pointed out that while my column "focuses on County intervention in rate cases, but the point we interveners tried to make at the County Commission meeting is that it is important for the County to be involved in the cases that precede a rate case. It is during these other cases (renewable energy, Energy efficiency, IRP, CCN) where the decisions to spend money are made.  By the time a rate case rolls around most of the spending decisions have been made and the issue being decided is which expenses can be charged to rate payers and which rate group will pay what share of the increase (in the last rate case it was also determined that rate payers should NOT pay some of the expenses EPE was asking for, thus reducing the overall increase amount)."  In other words, the issue is much wider than merely rate cases; and (in my view) the fact that there are a variety of other varieties of cases, some of which may superficially appear insignificant, heightens the importance of allowing for the more flexible procedure in which the County can intervene without a formal commission vote.  County manager must report at each meeting of any intervention-related developments.  Commission retains control, of course.  If the commission disagrees with an intervention, it can vote to withdraw the intervention, limit it to particular aspects of the case, or simply not to file any substantive papers after the notice of intervention.  Much safer.]

Our Sheriff Should Concentrate on the Sheriff's Office

My intense study of DASO, including interviews with most everyone I could talk to, leaves me with further questions. 

One is whether Sheriff Enrique Vigil is violating NMSA Section 29-7-6.1 requiring new sheriffs without “a certificate attesting to completion of a basic law enforcement training program” to “complete an administrative law enforcement training program” within twelve months. Vigil apparently looked into taking a course, but there's no record he completed an appropriate law-enforcement course. He may now be contending that his training as a U.S. Marshal many years ago exempts him. Is he right? Or breaking the law? I've asked the appropriate state agency for its interpretation of the statute. No answer yet.

Are the people unhappy with Vigil and Undersheriff Ken Roberts a small group of malcontents, as management suggests, or a departmental majority, as the “malcontents” assert? I can't say, but I've had exactly one person contact me to speak up for management, and quite a few on the other side. There are a lot of complaints by a lot of good current or former employees. Still, being numerous doesn't make them right.

In any case, the existence of large numbers of angry people, inside DASO, ex-DASO, or dealing with DASO, isn't a good sign. Vigil and Roberts have rightly fought for higher pay for deputies. (I applaud them for this.) It seems significant that, despite that advocacy, they are not nearly so popular as Vigil appeared to be less than a year ago seems significant.

Should Vigil (as some friends have advised him) jettison Roberts as undersheriff? Could he then turn his remaining two years as sheriff into a success? We'll see. One knowledgeable source told me recently, “the complaints I'm hearing now are mostly concerning the Undersheriff.”

Most all the top law-enforcement people are gone and/or unhappy. Vigil-Roberts has stripped DASO of experienced command staff, exposing the county to potential lawsuits and citizens to less certain protection. (See my columns January 29 and February 5 (SWAT incident), Sheriff Vigil's on February 5, and my comment on his column.)

Meanwhile, Sheriff Vigil is said to have aspirations to run more than DASO.

Vigil said that in January 2017, with a new county commission, County Manager Julia Brown would be gone quickly. (Brown says that shortly after a conversation with Vigil, she received an unsigned note warning her she'd be gone soon.)

Vigil then did a lot of politicking. He contributed to the defeats of former commissioners Wayne Hancock and Dr. David Garcia. People tell me he was of major assistance in new Commissioner Ramon Gonzalez's victory over Garcia. Vigil clearly campaigned against Hancock, whom Isabella Solis beat in the Democratic Primary. John Vasquez ran successfully for the seat vacated by Commissioner Letitia Benavidez. I don't know Solis, but she doesn't strike me as a pawn of Sheriff Vigil. Vasquez certainly strikes me as an independent person, a war veteran and a political progressive who has a strict sense of right-and-wrong and is likely to act on it. 

The holdovers are Billy Garrett (another bete noir of Vigil's) and Ben Rawson. They don't agree with each other much; but I believe they both know that the County ought to be run by the commissioners.

I've criticized Ms. Brown sometimes. More often, I've been quite impressed with her. She should stand or fall on her merits, not because Sheriff Vigil finds her presence inconvenient. (Note Vigil's winless record in lawsuits against the County.) The Commissioners should take the necessary time to figure this out themselves.

As for Sheriff Vigil, he'd do well to concentrate on the job to which we elected him.

                                                       -30-

[The above column appeared this morning in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 12 February, as well as on the newspaper's website and the KRWG-TV website.  I've since learned that at Tuesday' County Commission meeting Ms. Brown's contract will be reviewed.]

[After writing the column, I learned something further that had me shaking my head again.  I'd omitted statements that Vigil and Roberts planned to fill the higher positions within DASO with cronies from elsewhere.  It was a prediction that could prove inaccurate.  

Then a couple of days ago, someone from DASO called me.  A memo had been circulated saying that, by the way, openings for promotion to captain and major had been posted -- about ten days earlier, the previous Monday -- and would close in about ten days -- the following Friday.  They were also advertised externally.  It'll be interesting to see how that goes.]

[Undersheriff Roberts responded in today's (Sunday's) newspaper to my column last week on the SWAT incident.  (I haven't found his column on-line yet, or I'd include a link to it.)  It's well-written, and sounds good, and I wish he'd deigned to respond to me in person.  However, there are points in it I don't understand.  Several sources said eight people were on the scene.  Roberts says there were "23 available DASO staff members on the shift."  That's different.  He proclaims: "It is always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but those who are at the scene aren't afforded the same clarity when making critical decisions that are matters of life and death."  

I agree; but it's precisely the folks on-scene, in their written reports, who criticized Roberts (who was not on the scene).  Other current or former DASO personnel and a national expert seconded those criticisms.  I'm just sharing them with the community, after checking everything out as best I could.

Interestingly, too, the official story seemed to change a little after my first of these three DASO-related columns appeared. 

I remain, as Mr. Roberts suggests, "an ardent advocate for civil rights protections, [and] against excessive use of force or a militarized police force."  However, I am also for reasonable protection of the public and the police themselves.  A lot of people who know more than I about this subject felt that DASO didn't provide that as well as it should have on this occasion.]

[On  purely trivial note: In their responses, both Kiki and Ken start with my full name, "Peter Powers Goodman," as if they find it significant in some way, or amusing.  Which is fine.  It does sound a little funny.  My mother chose my middle name to honor one of her twin brothers, Perrin and Powers.  Powie was the more mischievous and adventurous of the two.  Soon after their service in Europe during World War II, Powie died in a car accident.  I arrived a year or two later, or maybe just a few months.  Powers himself was so named because a dozen generations earlier, 14-year-old Walter Powers had come to this country from Scotland.  In 1648, I think.  Generations with the last name Powers followed, mostly farming but also teaching, and serving in wars, down to my great-grandfather Clarence Powers, in Fort Fairfield, Maine.  Powers was my maternal grandmother's maiden name.  If any of that amuses the Sheriff and the Undersheriff, or seems relevant in rebutting my columns, they're welcome to use it as they like.  It's public information.  As to me, I don't often think about that stuff, but if I do think about it, I wear that name proudly.]

Fitting the County Commission's UDC Meeting into a Busy Day

I rush from the County Commission UDC meeting to take my 86-year-old friend to the doctor. 

My friend was an NMSU professor here for thirty years. In 1965, he briefly made Cruces famous, when he and some other locals made a low-budget feature film, in days when only Hollywood made features. AP ran a national story on him. Now he shuffles into the doctor's office, unknown.

“Beautiful mountains,” he says, pointing at the Organs. (I could do a column on people's first reactions to the Organs.) He first saw them in newspaper articles NMSU professor Newman Reed sent after NMSU offered him a job. (When Reed started here, Solano still had cattle-gates.) 

Thinking cattle-gates reminds me of the UDC, which so many worked so hard to make the best it could be. Others tried to sabotage it, saying it's imperfect (which, like anything human-made, it is) and should be tabled, left to the next commission. “Left to die,” they mean. If they really meant improvements, then amendments could do that. Why would we want new commissioners to spend hundreds of hours, or make Planning & Zoning and scores of citizens repeat endless hours of hearings, to make unspecified small improvements? 

After the doctor, I take my friend to the bank. From the parking lot on Telshor, I let the western mountains on the horizon catch my eye. I'm glad I returned to live under this vast sky. 

A realtor told the Commission he'd heard a lot of talk about democracy, and that the UDC shouldn't be passed. He didn't really explain what was wrong with it, except that it was “restrictive.” Reasonable restrictions, while they may protect citizens, can be inconvenient for realtors.)

So I said more about democracy. The county worked on this thing for years. I feel like people have been inviting me to UDC meetings since I was about seven years old. There were countless public-input meetings throughout the county. The P&Z held lengthy, detailed meetings – some of which my wife attended, hour after hour, watching the sausage get made. Right up to the end, staff and the P&Z were making recommendations responding to public input. The P&Z made recommendations. The elected Commission acted. Commissioner David Garcia, who always seems painfully earnest about trying to do what's right, ensured that key questions concerning affordable housing and grazing rights were aired, heard from numerous citizens, then cast the deciding vote. Yep, democracy.

I stop for supper at the Co-op, a democratic institution which is celebrating its 40^th year. I'm thinking about time and change and our varied roles over time in a place we call home. Tuesday the huge Commission Chambers were filled today. Forty years ago, when I was a reporter, the commission (just three commissioners then) met in the old courthouse, in a small room with hardly a dozen chairs. No one contemplated a UDC – or a county nearly so populous! Everything east of Tortugas Mountain was desert where we dirt-biked. Retired City Manager Robert Garza was a mischievous kid. Saturday we watched his son help NMSU beat UNM. 

My wife joins me at the Co-op. She talks and laughs with staff, hugs some of them, listens. Earlier she spoke passionately at the Commission meeting. After the UDC passed, she stood talking at length with people who'd opposed it, listening to their arguments, hoping to facilitate better communication between them and County staff.

We all do the best we can. The Commission did its best. We all owe thanks to the departing commissioners, even if we sometimes disagreed with them.

                                                   -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, 18 December 206, and on  the newspaper's website, and will appear presently on the KRWG-TV website.]

[I wasn't happy with this column.  Maybe trying to mix things that don't mix so well: a brief account of the County Commission meeting on the Uniform Development Code and a more impressionistic portrait of a day that seemed to feature a couple of things I think about now and then, the varied roles we perform in our community in a given day and the changes in our roles and relationships over long periods of time in a particular place.  The latter fit in with part of what I wanted to say about the UDC, while the former was just something my day seemed to thrust into my thoughts.  (Before dawn I was writing a fictional scene set in 1968, a scene in which one character, listening on radio to the Chicago Convention, concludes that the only way to stop the Viet Nam war would be to start assassinating high public figures; riding to pickleball, I spent 20 minutes counseling a legal client, then spent another ten minutes talking with a second client before I got to play; I enjoyed pickleball; then I listened and even got up a couple of times to speak about the UDC; then I was sort of a caregiver for my friend; then I supped at the Mountain View Co-op, to use up the hour before my KTAL Radio board meeting.)  
Driving my friend around helped make me think about changes over time.  He got here in 1959, I think.  More than a half-century ago.  I arrived 20 years later.  He was a professor, married, with a daughter and soon a son as well.  At 40, he had never camped in the wilderness or ridden a motorcycle, although a few years later those became the focus of his life.  He got divorced.  We rode dirt bikes around outside our small town, and street bikes across the country.  He retired and became a hermit on our land at the southern end of Sierra County, building a modest home himself, for perhaps $5,000, and living out there without electricity or indoor plumbing or paved road for 24 years, until health mandated the move back into town.  Now he no longer drives, or walks very far.  His mind's still sharp, though, and he's still funny.  Friends and former students still enjoy hanging out with him, making a trip with him to the grocery store much more a pleasure than a chore.  Too, he was always an open, generous sort, inspires the same attitude toward him now.
An incident at the Co-op illustrated the change theme too.  An acquaintance joined me briefly.  Thinking about the idea of a column about people's first glimpses of the Organ Mountains, I asked about his.  He recounted a visit here in the early 1990's to his brother.  That reminded me that although I'm not sure I've ever actually met his brother, about 45 years ago we were seeing the same woman (who was actually married to someone else) for a short time.  I thought about how much that all mattered at the time, and about the fact that now I can't recall her name.  
And a community changes over time too.   This one is no longer what it was in many memories; but the populous county we are now, with all sorts of development all over, probably needs a UDC.
At any rate, sometimes a piece of writing can combine a couple of very different elements in a way that sheds a little more light on both.  I don't think I managed that here.  Sorry.]

Let's Listen to Each Other!

Too many people treat politics and government like a football game.

My team is my team no matter what. So what if the tight end attacked a 90-year-old man? They're the 'Niners, man.

Politics oughtta be different. Local politics above all. We're neighbors. But some people see everything in black and white. Or red and blue. 

Someone on Facebook called Julia Brown “the worst county manager ever.” I disagreed. I've criticized her in columns, but she's smart, and I suspect she's hard-working. (I lack enough first-hand information to decide how I'd vote on extending her contract; but with the imminent change of commissioners, a three-year extension doesn't seem wise. An outgoing school board did that with Stan Rounds, which upped the cost to the public when the next board told Rounds to take a hike.)

When I replied that Brown definitely wasn't “the worst county manager ever,” someone said I was in favor of her because we both went to PVA meetings (I usually do. She was there once or twice to announce something.), and that I believed everything Billy Garrett told me.

I like and respect Billy Garrett. He's a smart guy, knows a lot about local government, and works incredibly hard as county commissioner. But I've disagreed with him strongly and publicly. 

Commissioner Ben Rawson's political views differ strongly from mine. I didn't vote for him. I'm appalled by some of what he says, and how he says it, but he appears to listen to his constituents. 

Barack Obama seems a smart and caring fellow with an astonishingly good temperament for the Presidency; but I've disagreed strongly with him on many issues, notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and thought he relied too much on Wall Street types for advice on repairing our economy. I like that he's tried to avoid the pitfall of prejudging every foreign-policy situation based on ideology or a personal agenda; but recognize that such an approach can slip into uncertainty and lack of direction.

We're all imperfect. We're human. I try to listen to everyone with an open mind and make up my mind based on evidence. I still get things wrong sometimes.

Of course, some politicians make this hard. Reading Steve Pearce's recent op-ed about Rick Riscoria acting heroically in the World Trade Center fifteen years ago, I thought “I actually agree with Pearce about something!” Unfortunately, he segued into a partisan and misleading rant claiming that Obama created ISIS. Does he really not remember that the Bush administration lied about Iraq to start a war – and Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle, who should have known better, went along happily? I was disappointed, but not surprised, that instead of mourning our dead, Pearce turned a solemn subject into a dishonest bit of self-promotion.

And the temper of the times disfavors thoughtfulness. If you advocate better understanding between police and the communities they serve, you're labeled a cop-hater – even if you have friends in law enforcement and work with law enforcement officers every week. (Count me as one who thought it stupid and tasteless for Hillary to say that Donald's supporters were “deplorables.” Preferring Clinton to Trump doesn't require me to agree with all she says.)

I wish the paper could print this column without my name. Maybe we should read all newspaper columns without knowing who wrote them until we've finished reading. If we read the words, and assess the words, rather than spotting someone's name and going into attack mode, maybe we'd find some middle ground.

Think of it as working together to keep the stadium from falling down on both teams.

                                                          -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News and possibly other newspapers this morning, Sunday, 18 September, and on the newspaper's website (where someone has already advised me that I am a pathetic columnist who is destroying the county) as well as KRWG-TV's website.]

[None of the above means I don't plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, don't think Donald Trump poses a unique threat to our democracy, or don't hold to values that tend to emphasize social concerns over pure capitalism, freedom over conformity or repression, as well as candor, openness in government, and the like.  I just get uncomfortable dismissing whole groups of people, or ignoring them.  I actually believe in free speech as central to our democracy, and in free, fair, and open discussion of ideas as a way to get to truths which may not be quite what anyone thought they were before the discussion.] 

[Locally, we cannot afford to let differing political opinions become feuds.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't each fight for what we believe is right.  I sure do.  But why should someone's unappetizing beliefs blind me to the good that person does or the laughs we have in the midst of disagreeing -- or the fact that I may learn something from him or her?  That's why I found the duplicitous municipal recall effort so unfortunate.  It crossed some line between disagreeing on facts and courses and used flat-out lies and vicious tactics.  I feel the same about "attack ads" that try to win election by last-minute false and scurrilous newspaper ads.  But I still can't afford not to take my best shot at civil discourse with the people responsible for those.
I've seen a couple of recent examples of folks from different places on the political spectrum working together: after an employee in the County Clerk's Office committed crimes, Deputy City Clerk Scott Krahling reached out to Russell Allen and other Republicans to participate in a committee to look at procedures in the office and see whether additional safeguards might be usefully implemented; and a similar bipartisan committee has worked on getting out the vote.  Some of my Democratic friends understandably criticized that, but it was probably a sensible move.  In advocating a Detention Center Citizens Advisory Committee, I found that it was championed on the Commission by Billy Garrett, but Allen and other conservatives, who are generally skeptical of governments and in favor of citizens getting a look at things, also favored the creation of the committee.]




 

I'm Voting for Beth Bardwell

I live in District 3, where the County Commission candidates are Beth Bardwell and Ben Rawson. Karen Perez ably represented us, but had to quit because her professional work situation changed.

This race presents a clear choice.

Bardwell is a lawyer who has worked for the City of Flagstaff and the Navajo Nation, and practiced labor law. After seven years as a lawyer, she went back to school at NMSU for a Masters of Science in Biology (1999). Since then she's been working to conserve freshwater and rivers in this area through water policy reform (at the local, state, and federal levels) and on-the-ground restoration work. She worked with EBID to create the state's first public-private partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to develop a cooperative, market-based environmental water transaction program on the Rio Grande in southern New Mexico. She's also worked with Audubon and the World Wildlife Fund's Chihuahuan Desert Program.

Rawson, placed in his seat by Governor Susana Martinez, had limited relevant experience. Son of a conservative businessman and former State Representative, Rawson, 31, had been general manager of his father's company for ten years. His political experience before last August was limited to working as an intern during and after high school in N.M. Governor Gary Johnson's office and some work for Michigan Governor John Engler's office while Rawson was in school in Michigan. He has been a County Commissioner for a little more than a year.

I should to add that I like both candidates. If Rawson were facing a weaker Democratic candidate, I might vote for him. I have the impression that despite his lack of experience and the common belief that Martinez and his family had ambitions to see him in higher office, he's taking his work as Commissioner seriously. On less “political” issues, he's not hard to work with and he tries to collaborate in reaching consensual solutions.

But he's facing a superstar. Bardwell has extensive and very relevant experience. We're in a water crisis, and she knows water issues. She's spent 15 years trying to convince all sides to cooperate in finding mutually acceptable ways to conserve water and preserve a living environment. A law degree and legal experience aren't everything, but they ain't dog doo. And she has the kind of low-key personality that contributes to consensual solutions.

I'll post Sunday on my blog the answers each gave to a set of questions I asked. I won't discuss those here except to say that after Rawson mentioned that there was not yet a published budget, I asked about that. Another commissioner said Rawson didn't understand the process, because the budget doesn't get published until it's approved. The same commissioner said Rawson had been kind of an obstructionist on some issues.

Bardwell has been doing for decades the kinds of things a good commissioner might do: dealing with public issues, often issues in which citizens or companies have conflicting but legitimate interests, and finding the best result for the public.

Rawson has undoubtedly learned some business skills. Running the business, he's presumably learned something about making a profit. As a Commissioner he has focused largely on infrastructure and on budget issues, both of which are important. From what I've seen of him at public meetings and in private discussions, he's friendly, has a sense of humor, and seems to listen.

In short, both candidates seem personable and well-intentioned; both seem friendly, and concerned about constituents' needs; but Bardwell's politics appear more appealing to the majority of their would-be constituents, and she has an admirable wealth of experience and hard-earned wisdom we'd be foolish not to make use of.
                                                      -30-

[The foregoing column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, 21 September.  It states myopinion.  In my view, Ms. Bardwell has incredibly valuable experience, and I also agree with her more generally on political issues.]
[I also wanted to offer side-by-side answers by the Rawson and Bardwell, without editorializing, to a few specific questions I thought might bring out their differences. Below, I've quoted their answers as accurately as possible.


As briefly as you can, why should a resident of District 3 vote for you?
[Ben Rawson:] I provide a needed balance on the commission. I am excited to be serving the residents there. I see government as service. That means responding when people call. I also like working on projects and getting them done. I know what it takes to run a business. I was born and raised here, and have my kids here, and want it to be a better area for them to stay in, hopefully.
[Beth Bardwell:] I think I have a breadth of experience and skills that lends itself well to local government. And my values and philosophy – I'm interested in social equity, fairness, and opportunity – Professionalism in government and transparency.




What's a telling fact about your opponent that should give a voter pause for thought?
R: I'm probably going to stay away from that one. The only thing that I would say is that I believe we already have her perspective well-represented on the Commission. I don't see any big character flaws that would cause someone not to vote for her.
B: I think that his unwillingness to meet his fellow commissioners half-way, or find common ground with the other commissioners, concerns me, because at the end of the day all you can do is what you can agree with fellow commissioners on.




What's a key question a reporter should ask your opponent?

Rawson Q: What different perspective would you bring to the Commission? I think it should represent all segments of the community.

Bardwell A: What I bring is, I'm very thoughtful and balanced. I'm willing to do the homework and gather input from a diverse set of stakeholders, and based on that try to find a path forward. Regarding the second point, having ideological viewpoints is less urgent than finding common ground, being pragmatic, and moving forward.


Bardwell Q: You talk about the increase in overall budget and the importance of budget oversight. What departments, services, or other costs to you want to cut? Or, what has the Commission done during the past year that you felt was not fiscally responsible/?
Rawson A: We've gone 24 million we're spending this year that we're not bringing in. We passed a budget last month, without seeing it. I'm the only one who voted against it. We still can't see it. There's something wrong with that.
I'd also say we're doing a lot of studies where there's an earlier study that's maybe three years old. We should be implementing the first study, not doing a new one already.




You've been a County Commissioner for a year: looking specifically at your record during that year, what in that record would you say particularly recommends you to a District 3 voter? [asked only of Commissioner Rawson:]
The Foreign Trade Zone, which used to be just Santa Theresa and the West Mesa. The FTZ allows manufacturers to come in and not have all the usual costs and fees on pieces of the product they're going to make. They still have state fees, but not the federal fees.




What would you say is the most serious issue the County faces right now – and how should we deal with it?
R: I'm going to mention two.
First of all, jobs and the economy are something we have to focuson. Looking at the City of Las Cruces last year, there were 200 new jobs. With all the high school graduates we have, there are no jobs, and they have to go somewhere else. We need a change of mind-set. I'll give you an example. Near the new Union Pacific tracks, there's a company that wanted to store train cars till they're ready to go on a truck. Staff turned them down because staff wanteed 30% of the area landscaped, because it was parking lot. It's out in the desert, and there's a water scarcity such that it doesn't make sense to water things. So, yes, that's what the book says, but . . .
Secondly, infrastructure. It's not as sexy as building something new; but we have roads and dams deteriorating, and we have to get a handle on that. Anyone in business knows that proper maintenance will save you a lot of money in the long run. We have dams deteriorating, and have to prevent things from occurring such as the floods in Vado.
B: There are a lot. And the problems are complex. If they were simple solutions, we'd have figured them out by now. But the leading problem is poverty in the County.




What should the minimum wage be in this county, and why?
R: Well, not trying to duck the question but I think that should be dealt with on the federal level. The City may go to $10.10. Suppose the County did the same. Then there'd be cities, such as Anthony, where it'd be different on opposite sides of a street. If it were national, or even if El Paso was also on board, it wouldn't be so bad. I will say that I don't think the $10.10 will impact local businesses here the way some have said in the media.
At the same time, the County would have problems. There are three levels of park techs under $10.10; so if you want to keep three levels, two have to go up to even more than $10.10 right away.
B: If the County could set up a ballot measure, that'd be best. It's important that we provide our residents with a liveable wage. There's lots of evidence that increasing the minimum wage is an effective way to decrease poverty and at the same time benefit the economy. It tends to rais employee performance, which helps offset the increased expense to a business. I understand small business's concerns, but I believe that raising thw minimum is right.
Now, if the city raises the minimum wage, the County should follow suit.


[Note: With the following questions, I specifically asked each candidate for a very brief answer – yes or no, then why or why not in a sentence or at most two. For the most part they complied; and if their answers seem simplistic of brief, please blame me not them.]


New Organ Mts. / Desert Peaks National Monument: good or bad for us?
R: Neutral. Our one challenge is dam maintenance. We need to work with them on the rules and regulations to make sure we can still get up there to work on those.
B: Good for us – it puts us on the map, valuing and prottecting our valuable resources and unique landmarks. I do believe it will increase tourism and bring in additional revenue for the County without impacting land use by ranchers.




Our water problem: how serious is it and what can county commission do about it?
R: It's getting more and more serious. Probably the best help is a desalinization plant at Santa Theresa, although that could be more a CRUA issue than a County issue.
B: Over the long term, it's very serious. The County Commission can provide leadership in identifying strategies and opportunities to secure a sustainable supply, whether through a desalinization plant for Santa Theresa and the border area or looking at our growth patterns and how we can reduce our water footprint.


Public Transportation and related GRT vote?
R: Well, we have a pilot project going through the end of December; and with a pilot project, that's to determine what the need is and how to fill it. Therefore I think the GRT increase is premature. I mean, if we're getting 1,000 a month passengers, that's about 30 per day. Maybe we should just hire three taxi drivers each day. What I mean is, we need to have a closer idea of the actual need.
B: I support it. I believe that it is a strategic investment in the county – integrated regional transit system will revitalize rural communities, attract new industry, and be a powerful economic engine for the County.


Capping interest rates: yes or no? Why or why not? If so, at what level?
R: I voted in favor of that. We're capping interest rate and fees. It would be better just to cap the interets rate and allow a fee on top of that for small, short-term loans. For example, if someone borrows $200 for four months. That means the company makes only $6 profit for making the loan. The 36% sounds high, but it isn't when you break it down.
B: I support it. I agree with the current proposal to ask the State Legislature to cap it at 36%. It'll help keep local low-income families stay afloat, and put more dollars in the local economy.


What Lynn Ellins did regarding marriage? What the New Mexico Supreme Court did?
R: Very bad. Not because of the marriage issue, but because of how he did it. We're a county of laws. He chose to stop following the law the way his predecessor had done and numerous county clerks around the state were. Then what about the NM Supreme Court? Neither good nor bad. We're there.They had the right. Personally I'm a little disappointed in the outcome, but I recognize that that's the direction the country wants to go on, and that's ok with me.
B: I support it. It's important to address inequality at any level of government, and that was a courageous act, and resulted in the very first shift in the state's views and laws on entitlement to marriage - - and who's entitled to declare their love for someone else through the act of marriage.


Tell me some political figure or philosopher from the past whom you feel is underrated. Not Washington or Lincoln, but someone who's maybe overlooked, who doesn't get as much attention from us as he or she should?
R: In the political world, we all have our ideas, but we still have to work together. I'd say Mark Twain, because he was very witty, he gave thought-out responses, and he injected some humor. Sometimes we get so serious that we forget to work with each other. So Mark Twain, and also the baseball player, Yogi Berra. They both kept the humor in things and worked well with other people.
B: Jimmy Carter. I think he was maligned and put in the back quarters of history as being a poor president, but in my opinion he was trying early on to deal with some issues we're grappling with today, such as energy efficiency. He was focused early on the right issues.