Another Sad Case at DASO

Imagine you're a young cadet in the Doña Ana Sheriff's Office Academy. 

 

You're an army reservist, having made it through basic training. You're being consistently called lazy. You're the only cadet being told to suck your thumb and asked to repeat various tasks after completing them. “Why me?” you wonder.

You are the only black cadet. 

 

On June 5, after an incident, you tell the instructor, Frank Kaiser, that you feel you're being discriminated against because you're African-American. The County's strong anti-discrimination policies require Kaiser to report your allegation immediately to H.R. for independent investigation. Instead, he sends you home and tells you to go see Undersheriff Ken Roberts the next morning.

Roberts asks why you made your claim, then interrupts and tells you that you're history. Gone. He says all your fellow cadets want you gone, and that Sheriff Vigil has approved the termination. You wonder how he talked to so many people so fast. Maybe you wonder if having a DASO officer “investigate” your complaint about a DASO officer is entirely fair. 

 

The above is from legal pleadings in Johnson v. Doña Ana County. Plaintiff is Tederick Johnson. His lawyer is Ben Furth. (Furth is an experienced employment lawyer who also represents Julia Brown against the County.)

Here we go again. 

 

I'd love not to be writing about another dumb move by Vigil and Roberts. I'd love not to be wondering how much we will pay for this one. Obviously I'd also like to learn some day that this was not motivated by racism. I want to believe we're better than that.

Johnson may have been a lousy cadet. Maybe he deserved to be canned, though apparently DASO didn't plan to terminate him on June 4, then did immediately after he alleged discrimination. Suddenly DASO concluded he wasn't deputy material. Officially he was fired for insubordination, which the Complaint calls “pretextual” – a cover story for racism. The County will likely claim Johnson cried racism to avoid or delay being fired. 

 

Whatever the facts, it was not Roberts's province to investigate them. Even if there was no racism, Roberts's conduct seems arrogant and imprudent. 

 

Once someone raises allegations of racism, sexual harassment, or retaliation, the matter must be handled by someone as neutral as possible – for the sake of both the organization and the individual. The County fired Johnson before investigating his complaint. (The County admits the firing occurred June 6 and that Johnson's supervisor reported the EEOC complaint June 6. The County claims it started the investigation before firing Johnson, but admits it finished investigating afterward.

Both Kaiser and Roberts were required to: (a) report the allegation immediately to HR; and (b) request that the employee fill out an internal EEO complaint, or fill one out for him. Failure to do so would subject Kaiser and Roberts to disciplinary action.

I called County Counsel Nelson Goodin, who said no one would comment on the pending litigation. 

 

I've no idea whether Johnson should or shouldn't be a deputy; but Roberts seems to have ignored mandatory procedures he must have been familiar with. Whether the reason was laziness, arrogance, prejudice, or to cover up questionable conduct by Kaiser, Roberts's mistake is likely to cost us more money. (A friend asked after the Slevin case why the County couldn't go after the employee whose conduct cost us so much. We can't.)

When will DASO learn to follow the law?

                                                    -30-

[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 10 December 2017, and also on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on KRWG Wednesday and Saturday and on KTAL on Thursday.]

[I've little to add to the column, except that the immediate response has been some positive comments from insiders.  People in the know are concerned about DASO, and say the Vigil-Roberts regime has done real damage to the department.  It's unfortunate.  I think Kiki Vigil meant well would have liked to do a bang-up job running and improving DASO.  He hasn't.  I'm not expert in law-enforcement matters, but I'm hearing that morale and response times are down; and a lot of officers who seemed pretty capable are gone, something I wrote a few columns about quite awhile ago.]   

[I should reiterate that I'm not presuming to decide whether or not racism was the basic reason for Mr. Johnson's firing.  That'll be up to a jury, if the case doesn't get settled first.  However, I don't understand, and will be interested to see the explanation offered at trial, why DASO had to act so precipitously.  What would we have lost, except a few extra days or a couple of weeks of continued pay to this cadet, by responding appropriately?  Any schoolkid would know that having Roberts send a crony along to interview all the other cadets could not be a fair inquiry and couldn't help but muddy the waters for any independent investigator later.   You send a cadet packing -- justifiably or not -- and then send an officer around to tell the cadets about the controversy and ask who's side they're on, the terminated cadet's side or the side of the instructor who could get another cadet or two terminated, uhh, gee whiz.   That's why we have procedures in place.   If -- as I expect the County to argue -- this guy was under-performing and tried to fend off termination by alleging discrimination, then recognize he might find a lawyer and handle his case by the book.  Why react as Roberts did and help the guy make his case against you? 
The unseemly rush to get Mr. Johnson off the payroll seems particularly odd when I keep hearing that Vigil and Roberts have had an experienced officer on administrative leave for many months.] 
 

Animal Village NM Wins IPRA Case

Reports of a $90,000 judgment against the County prompt reflections on New Mexico's Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA). 

Animal Village NM (AVNM) Executive Director Sunny Aris showed a quiet heroism in persevering when she felt IPRA required the County to let AVNM see certain records. 

AVNM is a small dog-rescue outfit from Alamagordo that had rescued dogs from two horrendous sites in Doña Ana County in 2015. AVNM fed and cared for the dogs, took them to veterinarians, and found folks to adopt many of the dogs. But AVNM lacked important information on the dogs. In addition, AVNM questioned how well Animal Control was doing its job, when such sites continued to exist. County personnel alleged that AVNM had jumped the gun, was interfering with an investigation, and/or was making a big profit. (Some of those dogs are still in recovery at Animal Village.) The charges went national, and AVNM got a lot of hate mail. 

Ms. Aris served an IPRA request on the County. When she came to Las Cruces to inspect documents in November, 2015, many documents she suspected (or knew) existed were not included. Unsuccessful in obtaining those documents, she filed a court petition in December, 2015. After the County hired a lawyer to fight the petition, she found one too. [Full disclosure: Law Office of Peter Goodman represented AVNM.]

In January 2017, District Judge Mary Rosner issued an opinion – after four court hearings, much legal paperwork, and hundreds of lawyer hours. Judge Rosner's Final Order called the County's delivery of public records “tortured, untimely, and inadequate by any definition.” She rejected the County's many legal arguments, and stated that it shouldn't have taken such an arduous battle to get public records to a no-kill animal shelter. (Because of the long fight, most of the judgment goes to attorney fees and reimbursement of costs.)

I hasten to add that while admitting no guilt, the County has tightened up its procedures for IPRA responses, particularly those involving documents from multiple departments. While “not in full agreement with Judge Rosner's Order,” the County has not appealed. 

New Mexico's Supreme Court has rightly called IPRA essential to a democracy. It is our government. We vote. To vote wisely, we must be informed. We are entitled to the fullest possible knowledge of officials' conduct, including access to public documents. Under IPRA, when citizens request public documents, government offices must provide them. There are sensible, narrow exceptions: for example, you can't get attorney-client communications, certain documents in personnel files, or law-enforcement records that would reveal confidential sources or methods. 

The government must respond within three days. Inspection can be delayed if the documents are voluminous or hard to find; but if the government denies inspection of any documents, it must specify in writing the reasons (and identify the officials who decided to deny documents) and describe the documents generally. This gives the requester notice and helps her decide what to do. IPRA provides special damages if documents are withheld and no such writing is provided.

Importantly, IPRA allows not only actual damages (usually small) but attorney fees. That means that in a clear case even someone with limited funds like AVNM can fight injustice. 

I applaud Ms. Aris's dogged persistence. And while IPRA requests cause extra work and shouldn't be made frivolously, aggrieved citizens should know that there can be justice at the end of the day. Even a very long day.

And to remind public entities which may need reminding that New Mexico's Inspection of Public Records Act means what it says – and our capable judges will enforce it.

                                                              -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 26 February, 2017, and also appears on the newspaper's website and KRWG-TV's website.  Here's Diana Alba Soular's Sun-News story on the judgment -- which even got picked up by some Yale Law School blog and the National Freedom of Information Coalition.] 

[This column was  harder to write than some.  I wanted to write it because of its message concerning IPRA, but did not want to write it because of my personal involvement in it.  Didn't want to brag.  (And, after all, when the law and the facts favor your client's case, a lawyer ought to be able to prevail; and I regret not being sufficiently imaginative or eloquent to convince the opposition to settle this case a year ago.)  Definitely didn't want to stick it to the County, which has now dealt with the situation in a positive way by improving procedures to prevent a recurrence and by foregoing an appeal, which would have been a silly waste of public money.  (Credit County Attorney Nelson Goodin for the improvements.  Don't know whom to credit for the wise decision not to appeal.)   Above all, did not want to seek further cases and clients.  

I wrote and sent to the Sun-News an earlier version of this column.  Although I was trying to go easy on the County, I still got too much into the weeds of the case.  Things happen in litigation that aren't pleasant; other things happen that are perfectly normal but feel unpleasant to some participants; and the whole thing is not a process I'd wish on anyone.  Avoid litigation if you reasonably and honorably can!  At any rate, I woke up one morning determined to rewrite the column to get the focus back where it belonged, on IPRA and the fact that little guys can win IPRA cases when they're in the right, even if public entities have plenty of lawyers and resources.]

[Also wanted to make clear that Animal Village NM didn't make a killing on this.  People read $90K and think that's something, but the bulk of this award went to attorney fees and to reimbursing costs paid out by Animal Village NM or by me.  I'm sure there's still a strong need for donations to help with dog-rescuing and keeping dogs in food and vet services.]

[You work on something like this because it seems the right thing to do, and you expect maybe it'll help locally; but you sure don't expect folks anywhere else to pay much attention; but someone just sent me a partial list of freedom-of-information websites mentioning the case and/or posting a link to Diana's story (although I haven't gone to all these to confirm that, and assume they didn't add any new information):

https://www.law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/fourth-estate-final-check  Yale Law School

http://www.nfoic.org/ National Freedom of Information Coalition

http://ctfog.org/past-essay-contest-winners/  Connecticut Freedom of Information Coalition

http://foift.org/court-cases/ Freedom of Inf Foundation Texas

http://kssunshine.us/resources-2/ Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government

http://njfog.org/online-resources/ New Jersey Foundation for Open Government

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article133984004.html  Wa.

http://foioklahoma.org/resources/open-records-act/model-letter-for-records-requests/

Freedom of Information Oklahoma

http://wycog.nfoic.net/  Wyoming Coalition for Open Government

http://njfog.org/basics/  New Jersey Foundation Open Government

How Bad Will It Be?

We're in deep manure.

Fortunately, I live in Doña Ana County. Trump's snake oil didn't sell here. We elected good people to the statehouse: Nathan Small, Angelica Rubio, Jeff Steinborn, Rudy Martinez; and, finally, Joanne Ferrary beat the Doctor! We defied oil companies and banks. 

But millions of voters were sufficiently angry or distressed to toss the U.S. Government in the toilet. They had reasons. (Had Clinton won, I'd still be urging both parties to take seriously the disaffection expressed in votes for Bernie and Trump.) 

People knew Trump was an unqualified wack-job. But they disliked Hillary and “the Establishment.” They wanted to punch both in the nose. They liked Trump for being a bull in a china shop; but they (and we) live in that china shop. 

What happened? Polls weren't rigged. Trump's polls and Fox News also indicated Trump was losing. Some voters dissembled. They held their noses and voted for Trump, but weren't comfortable saying so. Others decided late.

Most Trump voters I know are neither racist nor stupid. I talked to several, though most avoided saying how they'd vote. Some were women. One was a Hispanic friend I play pickleball with. He doesn't hate anyone (except me when I win) but has family working the border. Some religious friends said God uses even bad people for His purposes. I suspect some cast a “protest vote,” comfortable that Trump wouldn't actually win.

People voted less for Trump than against Washington – and Hillary, the wrong candidate. Thirty years of conspiracy theories and partisan attacks on her didn't help; but the distrust runs deeper. Her husband had an almost pathological need to be loved or admired. Great politician. Hillary was reserved, private. Running for President meant being someone she wasn't. People sensed that. (Al Gore was smart and qualified, but uncomfortable following the family's political tradition. George Bush was unqualified, but comfortable. People liked and trusted him. As with Romney, folks never warmed up to Hillary.)

It's ironic. Clinton isn't particularly dishonest, for a politician. Trump's rarely in the same zip code as the truth. 

Misogynism was probably involved. A man who mocks and gropes women won handily among men. And Comey's October Surprise probably pushed Trump over the top. A previously ethical guy who may live in infamy. But in a complete democracy, with no electoral college, the narrow popular-vote winner (Clinton) would be hiring cabinet members.

One important takeaway is the deep divisions between city folk and country folk, blue counties and red. Wholly different realities. We need bridges!

Our country and the world will suffer, ruled by an impatient narcissist who knows nothing about government. Will he do crazy things or just let himself be guided into bad policies by the very right-wing advisers he trusts? (His own instincts aren't ideologically pure.) Generations will have to live with his Supreme Court justices and ostrich-like view of climate change. Putin will play him like a Stradivarius. Will our children emulate his greed and discourtesy? 

Trump talked as if he'd bring back criminal libel laws, to control the press. Which you'd figure our Constitution would prevent, but with a Republican Congress and a Trump Supreme Court?

I hope and believe Trump won't be historically bad. Hitler was elected too. By angry people who didn't all share his racism and paranoia. I don't think Trump's quite such a hater; and our democratic traditions are deeper than Weimar Germany's.

Still, November 8th was a nativist step back from tolerance and understanding. Voters struck back against corporate globalism; but the corporations will do fine. 

New Mexico is my refuge. But I'm scared.

                                            -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, November 13, 2016, as well as on  the newspaper's website  and on KRWG-TV's website.  I welcome comments, criticism, and questions here or on those sites.]

[My working title for this post was "How Bad Will It Be?", and I'm in a rush this morning, so I'll stick with it; but I don't really answer it in the column, because obviously I can't.
I do say it won't be Hitlerian.  Trump doesn't have Hitler's long-standing political resentment.  He doesn't hate ethnic groups the way Hitler does.  But he did exhibit prejudice against blacks in his businesses. And he has obviously found it convenient as a political candidate to say horrible things about other ethnic groups.  But I think it comes more from expediency than from deep-seated hatred.  He's not obsessed.  
Unfortunately, he comes to the Presidency with a unique sort of power: very few debts, even to other Republicans, and a victory that clearly was his own, not the party's.  The conventional Republicans who loath him mostly didn't give him a lot of help, and both he and they know that, so he has some independence.
He's closest now to some of the really farthest-out right-wing people on the spectrum. That's whom he may trust.  And that bodes ill.  But his own politics are more moderate, to the extent that he's thought about politics at all.  Yeah, he loves the rich and powerful; but his attitudes on gays and abortion and other social issues were moderate before he started seeking the Republican Presidential nomination.  Will he hunker down with his Alt-Right advisers or execute yet another change?  Does he secretly hope for the approval, admiration, and respect of the political pros the way he once hungered for respect from the upper-crust New Yorkers when he moved from Queens into Manhattan against his father's advice? I think he'll be more agreeable to letting them run a lot, so long as they genuflect and express their awe of him as a Great Man.
Either way, it'll be bad: time's running out on doing anything about the climate, and whether he pals around with Breitbart or Ryan we won't do anything for another four years; the Supreme Court will get worse and be worse for at least a decade; gays will lose out big-time, if Pence has anything to do with it, as he likely will; women's rights are likely to suffer, although we can hope his family may neutralize some of the right-wing influences on him in that area. 
Further, his election will encourage the haters among us.  I've heard women, immigrants, blacks, gays, and Muslims express their fears, and those fears are more than reasonable.  I share them.

Sadly, Trump will exemplify for our kids greed and arrogance. Most people who loathed Obama's policies recognized his personal grace and decency. Most people who voted for Trump recognize his negative personal qualities.]

[I mentioned the oddity of religious folks supporting Trump, and their explanation that God will use him.  I've never gotten a very clear answer from anyone when I ask how they know God plans to use Trump for good -- as opposed, say, to the devil using him for evil.  But I've been given plenty of examples of people who weren't the greatest in different ways (Churchill being a drunk before God used him to save England; Lincoln something undesirable, I forget what, before being used to save the Union; also the Apostle Paul (who wanted to kill Christians, at first), Cyrus in the Book of Isiah.  Or Samson, or Gideon.  One friend wrote me in a facebook message that "When God chooses one, they are changed and captive to fulfill his will. We all have shortcomings and some worse."  Well, Trump's shortcomings exceed those of most folks, but nothing God can't deal with -- if He chooses to.  He might decide we deserve what we get because we responded to a campaign based on hatred and intolerance and threats of violence.  Or he might have been trying to warn us with Trump that he wanted to use Hillary -- also a very imperfect person, as most of us are -- for His purposes, despite her shortcomings.   I'll try again to figure out how we can tell who God means to use.]

[The analogy of this election to Gore-Bush.  I do think personal connection moves a lot of voters, who either don't care about the issues or care more about feeling good about saying "That's my President."  The Gore-Bush difference was enlightening:Gore came from a powerful political tradition, and went into it as another might go into a family business; but he was never fully comfortable with it, kind of like the pre-med students I knew in college who really wanted to be poets or actors but couldn't cross their parents; and it showed, he seemed awkward somehow.  George Bush was a reformed alcoholic, the son no one had ever had any hopes for, the "good guy" who'd never make anything of himself, and when he ran for President he was surprised and happy to be emulating (even surpassing) his father's political success, when everyone had thought Jeb might do that.   A lot of folks found him charming, but couldn't relate to Gore.  Bush, like Reagan, seemed more open and friendly and comfortable to be around.  Trump, in a different way, was too.] 

Someone asked me election night "How do we get through this?"  First, by waiting to see how things go.  Second, by not letting our political grief affect our daily lives too deeply.  Also by being alert, watchful, and prepared; by keeping in closer touch with people with good hearts; by being ready.  If there's a contradiction there, sorry.  Life is full of those.  Like cancer, this will pass.  Or it won't.  Either way, we will do the things we can do to treat it (speaking out, despite undoubted efforts to shut us up; attending more diligently to making things better in our wonderful state and wonderful town until we can do something to help our wonderful country) and try to live each moment the best we can, without thinking about the sword hanging over our heads.  

For others' reactions, everyone from Garrison Keillor to Coach Popovich has screamed "Aww, fuck!" in more elegant language than that. New Yorker editor David Remnick calls Trump's ascension An American Tragedy, and closes:

"It is all a dismal picture. Late last night, as the results were coming in from the last states, a friend called me full of sadness, full of anxiety about conflict, about war. Why not leave the country? But despair is no answer. To combat authoritarianism, to call out lies, to struggle honorably and fiercely in the name of American ideals—that is what is left to do. That is all there is to do."

I also particularly liked Aaron Sorkin's [creator of West Wing] letter to his daughter.  Though, speaking of daughters, one friend told us that while she was excited about the local victories of our friends, her three-year-old daughter said, "Mommy, it's okay to feel happy and sad at the same time."

Also see Michael Moore's Five Point To-Do List or recover Michael Moore's Five-Point Morning After To-Do List on Facebook

A Vote for Merrie Lee Soules is a Vote for Southern New Mexico

U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce's extremism is out-of-step with his constituents, while Merrie Lee Soules promises us vigorous, competent, and thoughtful representation in Washington. 

Mr. Pearce consistently lets his ideological views outweigh our interest. He helped shut down the government, costing taxpayers at least $20 million*, simply to make a political statement he knew would fail, although Pearce poses as a prudent fiscal conservative. Even most Republicans in Washington can't stomach the nuttiness of Pearce and the “Freedom Caucus.” [* A friend informs me I was too kind to Pearce here, and that the official estimate by the Office of Management and Budge was that this senseless shutdown in 2013 cost us $2 billion.]

For someone who's taken an oath to defend the Constitution, he's way too cozy with the Bundys and others who oppose Constitutional federalism, sometimes violently, and put their personal interests above the public's.

The well-armed Bundy Bunch took over Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon last year. Already in default on public grazing leases, the Bundys wanted the refuge “returned to the state” so ranchers could do as they wished with it. (The group's slogans about freedom reduce to grabbing ranchers' freedom at the expense of birders', hikers', and environmentalists' freedoms.) That Malheur was federal land -- with authorities trying to balance the interests of campers, hikers, hunters, ranchers, and environmentalists -- meant nothing, because the Bundys loath the U.S. Government.

So, it seems, does Pearce, who voiced sympathy with the takeover: "[P]eople in the West are furious. They're furious going into this situation. We're fed up." (But he said he was “not taking sides on the Bundys”!)

In 2011, Pearce backed Otero County's dangerous and futile challenge to the U.S. Government's Constitutionally granted power to manage federal lands. Otero County threatened to “treat” 1,500 acres of National Forest, and to arrest any U.S. official who interfered.

Wyoming had unsuccessfully made the same weak argument to U.S. appellate courts in 2002. But Pearce egged these guys on, echoing their contempt for the U.S. Government and the Constitution. The U.S. sensibly caved on a minor point to avoid threatened violence, then won handily in the courts. Pearce irresponsibly boasted of his participation and encouraged “other local areas” to emulate Otero County – days before the Court of Appeal summarily trashed Otero County's legal arguments.

These are odd positions to take when you've sworn allegiance to the United States. The quaint legal positions of the Sovereign Movement make little sense and have been rejected by the courts. Even the Bundys, now being tried for their crimes, are mighty silent about their ideology. If I were a misguided “patriot” facing criminal charges, wonder how I'd feel about Pearce egging me on from the safety of the sidelines – then making political capital out of my passion?

Pearce's politics also trump his decency: Trump disparages Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, and Pearce has called Trump's comments on women “horrid,” yet Pearce supports Trump. He tries to save face with his constituents by claiming he doesn't “endorse” Trump, but merely “supports” him – whatever that means. More double-talk.

He says he can't support Hillary Clinton because of Benghazi. Pearce and his conservative pals cut budgets, endangered diplomats' security, then made Clinton their scapegoat.

Merrie Lee Soules is forthright, hard-working, and constructive. She's already fighting for us: her intervention in the El Paso Electric rate case helped save us millions. 

Soules brings progressive values and decades of real-world business experience to the possible job of representing us in Congress. She'll carry Las Cruces, and may appeal as well to politically moderate businesspersons who might be ready to exchange Pearce's costly shenanigans for a more thoughtful, evidence-based approach. 

Let's elect someone who'll fight for us, not banks and oil companies; who combines progressive values with business sense; and who weighs evidence rather than obeying ideological biases.

                                                        -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News and other newspapers today, Sunday, October 16, as well as on the newspaper's website and  on KRWG-TV's website.  I welcome comments, questions, and criticism here and/or on those sites.]

[I should note that I left messages for Mr. Pearce early Monday, inviting him to comment for the column, but never heard back from anyone.  There are questions I'd have liked to ask him, and I'd have liked to give him an opportunity to address what obviously seem to me problems with his candidacy; but his previous comments on these matters are a matter of record.]

[I mention the Otero County incident.  Otero County -- perhaps with reason -- disagreed about forest management.  That was a matter within Federal discretion.  Some in Otero County disputed that, even disputed Federal jurisdiction, and threatened to take action -- which could have led to violence.  The Feds compromised by allowing Otero County to take down some trees in a public "kickoff event," but only within a small area where the Feds had already marked some trees to be taken down.  This avoided potential violence while the case moved swiftly through the courts.
Pearce left no doubt where he stood: in a piece published in The New Mexican on September 26, 2011, he urged other local governments to "follow Otero County's lead so as to regain an alleged 20,000 logging jobs he claimed were lost when the spotted owl was listed as an endangered species."  His piece explained the law and the facts in somewhat idiotic fashion:

1. Despite the unambiguous Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, Pearce pontificated that "I  have continually said that forest management can only be done successfully if local government is an equal with the federal government."
FACT: The Supremacy Clause, for easy reference, reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives . . . both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

In short, legally the local government is not an equal to the federal government with regard to managing public lands.  The Constitution says so pretty clearly, adding that people in Pearce's position must support that Constitution.

2. Pearce wrote, "Recent events in Otero County prove that local governments are more than capable of managing their lands.  Their plan was legal and . . . initiated what will hopefully be the renewal of the timber industry in New Mexico . . . If we can get local governments to take the initiative and tell the federal government that enough is enough."
FACT: Some of his pals and allies threatened violence.  Had the Federal Government been less patient, people might have died or been injured.  Perhaps innocent people would have been hurt.  Showing more good-sense than Pearce and his pals, the Feds agreed under pressure to let Otero County officials do a symbolic "kickoff" in a one-acre parcel where the Feds had already marked trees for cutting.  Then the Feds quickly consulted the courts.

3. Pearce added "[T]he U.S. Constitution specifies which powers are given to the federal government.  The 10th Amendment of the Constitution states that all powers not given to the federal government belong to the states and to the people.  The right to determine how the forest should be managed belongs to states, counties or the people.  It is a local issue that directly affects our homes, our communities, and our safety."

FACT: Four days later, the 10 Circuit Court of Appeal rejected these arguments on summary judgment.  That means the court didn't even have to bother with an actual trial.  Pearce's legal arguments were that lame.  He should have known (must have known?) those arguments weren't an accurate statement of the law, because the 10th Circuit had tossed out exactly the same arguments in a 2002 case where Wyoming sued the U.S. (showing more cool-headed judgment right there than Pearce and his pals did), claiming the right to vaccinate elk to protect local herds of cows from bruccellosus.   The 10th Circuit explained that the Supremacy Clause means what it says.
So the question remains, why did Pearce incite and encourage all this anti-governmental rhetoric, which wasted court time and resources and could have wasted a few lives, when he must have known it was all legally frivolous?  (I assume he knew that because I give him credit for being smart enough to talk to a lawyer; but perhaps I err.)]

[Pearce also backed the recent Malheur Refuge takeover, at least implicitly.

It's worth recalling the "cause" that the Bundys and Pearce used to justify action: local ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond had set a fire to protect their land from an approaching fire, and had thereby damaged federal land (and endangered firefighters they knew were nearby).  Mandatory sentence for their conduct was five years' imprisonment.  A friendly judge reduced Dwight's five years to three months (and reduced Steven's I forget how much), which federal courts later rejected.
I loathe mandatory minimums.  Reading the account, it's easy at first to sympathize with the Hammonds; but the 2006 fire was their second known arson, as they had also started a fire (on federal property or their own, depending on whose view you buy) that burned 139 acres of public land.

Further, the elder Hammond apparently had assaulted a federal refuge staffer in 1994; had made death threats for years against refuge managers; repeatedly violated terms of permits and moved herds across the refuge without giving the requisite advance notice; often allowed his cattle to trespass on refuge streams for days, trampling new willow trees that crews had just planted; and evaded serious jail time only because of the intervention by the local Republican congressman.

In January 2016, Pearce voiced sympathy with the takeover, without actually condoning it: "[P]eople in the West are furious.  They're furious going into this situation.  Now I'm not taking sides on the Bundys.  I think that's a sideshow.  I think the Hammonds are the ones who have been badly treated, and that's what we're expressing in the West.  We're fed up."  It's worth noting that the tone and substance are sympathetic with the Bundy's, who are at that point committing crimes against the U.S. Government Pearce supposedly serves; and "I'm not taking sides on the Bundys" states flatly that he refuses to take the side of the U.S. Government against criminals. (Note that he did not say "I'm not taking the Bundy's side" or "I'm not taking sides with the Bundys.")

On January 7. 2016, Steve Pearce released a statement on the Malheur Refuge takeover stressing that "we understand their frustration with increasingly heavy-handed federal agencies that continue to violate the rights of hardworking American farmers and ranchers.  He stated that he did not condone the takeover; but as far as I can tell, he certainly didn't urge the out-of-state ranchers to abandon their illegal control of the Oregon refuge. 

At a NM Cattle-Growers Association meeting, a Pearce ally said of these eventa, "Two men accidentally burned 140 acres of tumblewoods and they are in prison in Oregon for five years mandatory for setting the fire." Pearce himself spoke moments later, saying "we are in a fight for our lives," adding that the government will not and cannot secure the border, they do not desire to secure it, and they have not secured it."
[FACT: the border protection is working much better than it did in the past.]]

[Few sane citizens realize there's actually a "Sovereign Movement" which holds that for some arcane legal reason having to do with the paperwork ending the Civil War, elected county sheriffs are actually the highest legitimate law-enforcement officers in the nation.  (Some county sheriffs tend to like that idea, and I learned about this stuff while I was looking into our previous sheriff's hiring of a gentleman named Seeberger.)


[If I were a Bundy cohort, or misguided patriot, pleading guilty to a crime, how would I feel about Steve Pearce egging me on from a safe spot on the sidelines -- then making political capital out of my passion and anger?]

As a citizen of this Congressional District I'll vote for Merrie Lee Soules with great delight.  She's so superior to Pearce that one friend of mine, after witnessing their recent debate in Las Cruces, said he "almost felt sorry for Pearce."  She's a longshot.  Pearce has an abundance of money from banks and oil and gas companies and the National Rifle Association.  But each vote counts.  And Pearce's support for Trump, who appalls even most Republicans, ought to weaken his credibility, particularly here.

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.]




 

August in the Desert

The desert comes right up to the doors of our home, and often inside.

This week we've removed from the house a scorpion and a vinegaroon – the vinnie, thrice.

Twice recently we've found vinnies mating at our front door. Neither our presence nor our cameras disturbed them. 

We like vinegaroons. Since they eat scorpions, millipedes, and roaches, I guess we're allies. Although they look fearsome, they mean no harm to us, as we mean none to them. 

Rattlesnakes are more of a mixed bag. Theoretically, they assist us in the war against the pack rats. But they seem a little lazy this year. (The coyotes who also consume pack rats, seem to be on vacation.) We seem to have reached an unspoken truce with the rattlers. When we meet, they do not coil and rattle and we do not necessarily move them. 

We used to move them miles away. This year we just say hello and wish them a nice day. One forced the point a little, by hunting in our front entry. I moved him (or her) down into the arroyo, near the goat pen. I've seen them furious at the indignity of being caught and dropped in a garbage can. This one never rattled. He remained silent as I carried him to the arroyo. Even when I released him he expressed no anger. 

Dancing beak to beak ?

Meanwhile the hummingbirds are performing their late-summer aerial battles. At dawn and dusk, or when it's cloudy and windy, threatening (or promising) rain, they are especially manic. Fortunately they are so absorbed in their bickering that they ignore the white-bearded figure with the camera.

Roadrunners also visit now and then. For several days a young one, whom we called “Dino” for his resemblance to a dinosaur, hung around. He was not at all shy. (Youthful innocence?)

Twice this year we've had testudinate guests for a couple of days. Early one morning there's a tortoise. We ply her with water (which she lolls in with childlike delight) and greens (which she ignores), talk to her, and shoot her portrait, delighted to welcome her; but the next day, toward in late afternoon, she continues (need I say slowly?) on the mission she briefly interrupted. She's going somewhere, for some reason known only to her, and will not be enticed to stay.

My camera is delighted also by bumblebees on the purple flowers of the Texas sage, “flame” dragonflies perched on the yucca. It likes the hesperaloe's quirky shapes, and the bright reds of ocotillo blossoms (a while back), and the whiskers on yellow birds-of-paradise. 

Meanwhile the rains arrive, belatedly, with light shows a 1960's rock band would envy and thunder reminiscent of Rip van Winkle; and when it ain't just teasing, and the heavens drop us an inch of rain in an hour, the earth welcomes the rain like alover returned from the wars. Cactus blossoms go crazy, in a variety of hues.

The closeness between our lives and these natural cycles is a key delight of living in southwestern New Mexico. Too, as a writer, though I don't mind mixing it up with politicians and other humans, it's these other creatures who really interest me.

I wish I could speak effectively for them, for the natural world we threaten to destroy with our greed, arrogance, and carelessness. I wish I left less of a trace on this earth than I do, and that I could write with sufficient clarity and power to make my neighbors pause. God told Adam and Eve to take care of this Earth, and we are failing miserably. God has kindly filled our current existence with unmistakable warning signs that we have fouled our nest and may soon have done so irreparably; but like the flood victim clinging to his soggy rooftop, spurning helicopters and rescue boats in the certainty that God will provide, we expect Him not only to warn us, but to spare us from the consequences of our carelessness.

Vinnie, are we worth it?

                                                -30-

Moonfall with ocotillo and hummingbird

[The column above, unillustrated, appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News and perhaps other newspapers this morning, Sunday, 28 August.  It's also up on the newspaper's website and will presently appear on KRWG-TV's website as well.  I invite comments, questions, or criticism here or on those other sites.]

[I've spent more time than I probably should have in posting below a bunch of images from the past couple of weeks.  (The moonfall above is of course a composite of three separate images, shot within moments of each other one recent morning.  Cameras can't get all those guys in focus at once.)  Some others, like the turtles we saw a month or so ago, I'd like to add in later, if I get the time.]

Yellow butterfly on anithacanthus

Tarantula

Tarantula

A Recent Rainbow

A Recent Rainbow - artsy version

The Lecture

Dove at Dawn

Sometimes a Sentry . . .

These are three consecutive exposures of the same basic sunset, first one shot at 300 mm., then progressively wider angles; and at first glance each seemed to call for a different treatment.  I'll experiment further with them, and with some of the images above, when I get time!