Reform Las Cruces's Initiative Process

City officials should include the initiative process among the city charter amendments the Las Cruces City Council will consider shortly.

In 2014, the process of raising the minimum wage satisfied no one. Business leaders complained that proponents were really motivated by the political desire to get the issue on the ballot. Proponents said businessfolks ignored the issue for months, then requested “dialogue” just for delay. Then the council flouted the City Charter. The Charter was not specific on what happened next, and councilors could ignore it with impunity.

We need change.

First, require proponents to present the ordinance to the city council before gathering signatures. Give the council 45 days to act. Let councilors discuss the merits of the ordinance. Let the city attorney provide legal advice regarding the form of the ordinance and conflicts with other laws, to ensure that any resulting ordinance will be effective. Let everyone discuss possible compromise versions.

The proposal would get a full airing, with all parties heard. The community might reach a consensual solution, rather than experience a divisive signature-gathering process and special vote. Proponents might accept a reasonable compromise rather than make huge efforts for a slightly better version of their ordinance.

But compromise would not be required. Proponents would still decide. Absent an agreement within 45 days, proponents could freely gather signatures. Everyone would have more complete knowledge; and voters would understand the issues more clearly. The vetting should make the ordinance that much stronger.

The Charter is clear that, given sufficient signatures, the council must either adopt the requested ordinance or schedule a popular vote. Without change. The voters dictate to the council.

In 2014, some huffy councilors insisted deciding such issues was their prerogative. That obeying the clear meaning of the Charter would be abdicating their duties.

Amend the Charter to state what should be obvious: that an initiative-induced ordinance should last more than a day. A council required to adopt it April 1 can't rescind it April 10, mocking the citizens.

But if councilors must adopt it, how long must they leave it unchanged? The Charter shouldn't require that an ordinance that damages the us must stand forever -- or until another initiative undoes it.

Provide that: (a) during an initial period (six months? nine? 12?) the council couldn't rescind or substantively amend the ordinance except based on changed circumstances (including that the ordinance isn't working or has very negative side-effects); (b) during a second period, (until eighteen months after enactment? A year? Two?) the council could amend or rescind, but opponents of the change could challenge the proposed change, arguing circumstances hadn't changed; then (c) after two years, or perhaps three, the council would be as free to amend or rescind the ordinance as with any other ordinance.

This would respect an ordinance demanded by the people without locking us into a bad result.

During, say, the first nine months the council could only rescind the ordinance only after filing a declaratory relief action in district court stating their intention and allowing opponents to argue that no changed circumstances or disastrous results justified overturning the people's will. From nine to 24 months, the burden would shift: the council could act, but if opponents filed a court action challenging that, the council would suspend the effective date of its action. After two years, the council would have full discretion, as usual.

We have voter initiatives for good reasons. The council proved in 2014 that it will ignore the people's will and render those initiatives pointless. Will the council now accept some check against such abuse of power? 

                                                         -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 18 June 2017, as well as on the newspaper's website the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website -- and KRWG will broadcast a spoken version of it at various times this coming week.]

[The Council meets Monday (19June) at  .m., and will discuss (without public-input, I'm told, because this is a first reading) amendments dealing with the recall process some folks tried to misuse a couple of years ago.  As I was pretty involved in the battle to prevent that misuse, I'm naturally happy to see the council take up improvements to that part of the Charter.  My view is that we should tighten the rules to make abuse more difficult, but not completely abandon the recall provision; but I'll deal with those issues in a later column or blog post.]

Mending the Fence  [copyright 2012 pgoodmanphotos]

 

Minimum Wage Redux

The first stage of the local minimum-wage hike has not created the disaster opponents predicted.

The petition-mandated ordinance called for an initial raise from New Mexico's $7.50 to $8.40, then in two more stages to $10.10. To soften the impact on businesses, the Las Cruces City Council stretched out the process, so that the minimum wage rises again in January 2017, then to $10.10 January 1, 2019. 

Whether that amendment was wise or unwise, it violated the City Charter, which required the council to pass the ordinance unchanged or let all citizens vote on it.

The Council also directed a July 2016 “interim report,” and received it Monday.

City figures tended to show growth in the GRT (independent of rate hikes) and building-permit values. The figures did not purport to be precise, or to separate out different causes and effects. Critics said that there was more growth in El Paso than here (implying that our higher minimum-wage hindered Las Cruces) and that $8.40 is below the $8.50 the business community proposed in a belated compromise effort during the petition/initiative process. Pic Quik owner Oscar Andrade predicted many small businesses will go under next year because of the minimum-wage hike.

The vast majority of those speaking to the council on Monday praised the hike and urged the Council to “stay the course.” The council heard sometimes moving testimony from low-income workers whose lives the wage hike has improved. One anonymous server, whose letter was read by a retired minister, said that since she's now getting a small weekly check to supplement her tip income, she can take her kids to the swimming pool and even buy each an ice cream cone.

I'm no economist. I thought the protestations in 2014 were exaggerated, and I hope they are now; but we shouldn't lose sight of the value local business owners create. Although they often get well rewarded for owning a business, they create jobs and provide some appealing features of local life. (Where would I be without Milagros, Spirit Winds, Toucan, the Mountainview Market Co+op, Coas, Caliches, Mascitelli's, Al's, The Big Picture, Habañeros, La Nueva Casita, Cafe de Mesilla, a host of Farmers' Market vendors, and other local businesses?) Further, when people are collecting donations on behalf of non-profits or causes, many visit local businesses, and some business-owners give generously.

Unfortunately, some local businesses also funded the vicious and misleading campaign to recall city councilors who tried to follow the city charter on minimum-wage. Those businesses deserved to face negative consequences; we are all, myself included, either too forgiving or too lazy for our own good; but then, it is a small community. We can hope some of the recall advocates learned from the defeat of that effort and the (admittedly narrow) success of progressive candidates in the 2016 election. Minimum-wage was a discussion point, and the candidates who were more enthusiastic about raising it tended to prevail.

I hope businesses will back off from supporting reactionary and divisive local candidates. (Another campaign as vicious as the recall effort would deepen the political chasm. Many of us would no longer be able to find a bridge to local businesses that supported such efforts.)

But I also hope those of us with more progressive views won't write off such local businesses prematurely.

For the moment, congratulations to CAFé and the volunteers who gathered signatures, and to the councilors who followed the City Charter. It's hard not to be moved by the expressions of gratitude we heard Monday. 

 

Together, I hope we can keep all the expressed fears from coming true.

                                                           -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 17 July 2016, and will appear presently on the KRWG-TV website.]

Can't We All Just Get Along?

We'd all like a more civil and cooperative local government. We're neighbors, members of a community, and we ought not to ape the Washington gridlock.

How?

First, we need to be able to talk with each other – and listen to each other. We should learn to make clear that in rejecting someone's argument we don't reject him or her – and to recognize that disagreeing with us doesn't make someone an implacable enemy. Few people, if any, are purely evil, and neither wanting a living wage for workers nor believing we can afford to pay a living wage sounds evil.

Randy Harris's “Great Conversations” is a helpful model. In the minimum-wage debate, councilors dragged it in so late that many perceived it as just part of a scheme to delay the initiative (which it would have done). I'd have liked to see Randy called in earlier: we could have used a face-to-face, candid, fact-based discussion by all sides on what level of raise was right and why. Candid but civil.
Maybe the City should routinely utilize some form of Great Conversation. Not a work-session, where councilors and mayor sit high above us. More human, interactive.

On the other hand, recall is a tool to use very sparingly. We generally shouldn't use it merely because we disagree with someone. I disagree strongly with many officials' votes and actions, but I'm not shouting “Recall!” (I'd reserve recall for officials like David Gutierrez, who've seriously misbehaved.)

Now, some local businessfolk, after calling lifelong resident Sarah Nolan an outside agitator, have hired a young fellow from Illinois, Jeffrey Isbell, to run a campaign to recall three councilors. Isbell, 28, lives in Illinois, where he reportedly (a) ran for Williamson County Commissioner in the 2012 Republican primary, finishing a distant 4^th with 314 votes (5.16%!), and (b) still has an outstanding court judgment against him from an unpaid $1,573 debt. He's not even a registered voter here, but has been hired to tell us how we ought to run Las Cruces.

Isbell's anonymous bosses will spend a lot of money, probably blanket the media with ludicrous attack ads, and perhaps even win. Meanwhile they'll waste a lot of public money, destroy the political fabric of Las Cruces, and divide the town. (It's no wonder that so far they're keeping their names out of it. Paying some fellow to do their dirty work.)

It's ironic that (so far as I've heard) CAFé hasn't moved toward recalling anyone, even though certain councilors are trying to violate the spirit, and arguably the substance, of the City Charter, and thwart what they've admitted is the public will. (The initiative/petition process mandated the Council enact the ordinance without change, and councilors did so while proposing substantive changes – and still propose to seriously weaken it before the ordinance ever takes effect.) Greg Smith shouldn't even be voting on the minimum-wage issue because of a pretty basic conflict of interest, but I'm not advocating recall.

Recall means a special election, which costs money. If the recall succeeds, and someone new is placed in office, the other side could soon circulate another recall petition. We could have an endless series of unproductive elections. Simmering tempers would explode. But what does some kid from Illinois care? Somebody will pay him for his labors, and then he'll go somewhere else. Maybe Maryland, to organize against marriage equality.

I applaud the Mayor's comment, that although he often disagrees with the counselors, he stands with them against recall.

If we come so close to blowing ourselves up over the minimum wage, how will we solve even more important problems we face, such as water?

                                             -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 23 November.]

[This recall effort is embarrassing.  The people who are actually behind it are too ashamed to put their own names on it.

[Mayor Ken Miyagashima's comments on Facebook were blunt, correct, and perhaps courageous.  Miyagashima himself is a small businessman who has doubts about the wisdom of raising the minimum wage above $8.50 any time soon.  Since he crafted a compromise a while back (keep the ordinance as it is, except to include notice that the council will reconsider the issue next July), he has resisted a variety of subtle and not-so-subtle moves by councilors to delay the ordinance's January 1 start-date.
To the newspaper story about the recall effort, he commented on Facebook: "I don't know who this organization is, but this is wrong!  You might as well add my name to this recall because I stand with my colleagues -- Sorg, Small, and Pedroza, we may not always agree, but we work out our differences.  I will be helping raise money for them (councilors) and will openly campaign for them (councilors) to retain their seats!"
Good for him!] 
[This might be a good time to mention -- as I will often if the recall silliness persists, because recall proponents are already telling untruths about their targets -- that the three councilors are competent, honorable, caring, thoughtful, and hard-working representatives of their districts who've been elected and re-elected in those districts.  (Recall proponents will depend on a huge influx of cash to defame the three, because (a) all three have served their districts well and (b) by all accounts, the issue -- minimum-wage hike -- is popular with the people. (Other councilors said so when deciding not to let a vote of the citizens happen on this.
Nathan Small is a smart, friendly young fellow who's been incredibly active representing his district on the council and representing the City in Santa Fe and Washington.  Olga Pedroza, a lawyer, has brought legal acumen and thoughtful questioning to the council meetings.  Gill Sorg has worked well beyond the call of duty, particularly in examining critical issues such as water.  Mr. Isbell, on one of his many radio appearances this week, appeared to mock Sorg for regarding climate change as an important issue we mustn't ignore.   Fine, but a vast majority of climate scientists and a noticeable majority of voters agree generally with Sorg.  I've found all three councilors to be honest and caring -- as well as very diligent and competent.] 

[Although the column mentions that Isbell's a stranger here, I don't mean to suggest for a moment that being from elsewhere bars someone from commenting on our politics here.  As a civil rights worker down South, I never saw the point in people calling me an "outside agitator."  Some folks loved me and some folks hated me, without even knowing me; but to me the point seemed, "Am I right?"   However: (a) the folks who hired Isbell have been railing against "outsiders" for months; (b) there's a lot he doesn't know, and he got many details wrong while talking on the radio this week; and (c) when he used phrases such as "We did . . ." or "We thought . . ." in discussing events that took place months before he could spell "Las Cruces," he sounded a little false.  But let's listen to him.  Closing our ears because he's an outsider is silly.  On the other hand, if he just doesn't make much sense, . . .]

[Truly, what we're seeing is one more battle between big money (likely much of it from the outside) and local people.  One hears the recall group has funds in the six figures.   That would be an absurd amount for a local city council race in southern New Mexico.  Meanwhile the three councilors were all elected by their constituents.   Few complaints have been heard from those constituents.  The three favored lowering the minimum wage and federal approval of the new National Monument.  Polls showed the latter was very popular with the people here, and the councilors who didn't like the minimum-wage ordinance noted it was petition driven and conceded that if they let it go to a vote of the citizenry, it would win.  So other than the business community, there's been little in the way of negative views of these councilors.  There's been the usual carping from the folks who opposed them, but nothing more.  So money from the Chamber-of-Commerce and from elsewhere, plus the misleading ads it'll buy, is pitted against the decency, diligence and good records of the the three councilors.]

[The message from the people financing this, who are too craven to identify themselves, is simple: vote against us and be prepared to spend untold hours and any money you might have opposing a well-financed campaign of character assassination.  That's a steep price for trying to help improve your community!]

Update: Minimum Wage Machinations in Las Cruces

I suppose I should be grateful that Mayor Ken Miyagashima engineered a compromise in which the City Council won't immediately eviscerate the petition-mandated ordinance it enacted to raise the minimum wage.

But I'm still troubled.

I'm troubled by a City Councilor who says she canceled her newspaper subscription when she got elected, so as not to be influenced. This attitude reminds me of certain religious proselytizers who used to stop and chat while I gardened. They frequently recommended books to me, but when I once recommended one to them, they replied, “Oh, no. We already know the truth.”

If I were a City Councilor I'd be interested in what others had to say, particularly others whose views I didn't generally share. I'd scan “Sound Off” daily.

I'm troubled by a City Councilor who takes very questionable positions and, when questioned, doesn't respond to the substance of the question but complains he's being threatened and cloaks himself in inspirational quotations.

Does it bother you that you're the major advocate for violating the City Charter to mute the minimum wage hike, when your wife's job is to lobby government officials for the Restaurant Association, which desperately wants to keep the minimum wage down? 
 
“George Washington said, 'It's better to be alone than in bad company.'”

I think the councilor drew the distinction that his wife lobbied state legislators – and presumably had nothing to do with her employer's op-ed against the minimum wage hike here. Then it surfaced that his wife had been leading a petition drive in Albuquerque regarding tipped wages. So maybe municipalities are part of her job description.

“My only regret is that I have only one life to lose for my country.” (No, he didn't say that. Yet.) I still think he's sincere, though misguided. In his place I'd have a hard time maintaining objectivity, though from uxoriousness, not financial interest. I'd also recognize that voting on a healthy-food issue would undermine public trust.

It troubles me that when a councilor asked if the council might get sued for violating the City Charter, the City Attorney blandly assured him “No.”

Charter says “If there are enough petition signatures, enact the ordinance unchanged or let the people vote.” Councilors, acknowledging a popular majority would vote “Yes”, enacted the ordinance – while laughing up their sleeves about eviscerating it next week.

That Charter language sounds pretty mandatory. But it doesn't say explicitly that we can't immediately repeal the ordinance the people lawfully ordered us to enact.

But does the Charter provision mean anything? It's a way people can bring something to the Council's attention so the Council can use its discretion.

Gathering thousands of signatures seems excessive, for just that. And why does the Charter provision start, “The people shall have the power . . .”?

Arguing the City's position in court might work. Might. But the City Attorney dismisses casually the possibility that a neutral judge might notice how completely the City's action violated the spirit and intent of the Charter, note that even while enacting it the councilors were giggling about repealing, and order some remedy.

Do we want that kind of legal advice for Las Cruces, the kind that ignores serious risk to tell the majority what it wants to hear?

Does Las Cruces want that kind of publicity? A dozen minimum-wage workers suing a council that's playing tricks on its citizens and trying to slither through a possible loophole?

I am grateful to Miyagashima that we may not have to test conflicting legal views in the courts.
But in the long run, he did the anti-$10.10 camp the best favor it could have asked for.

                                                              -30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, 2 November.]
[After I'd written this column, I finally managed to speak with City Attorney Pete Connelly.  The conversation was courteous on both sides, but distinctly unilluminating.  I noted I'd heard him answer "No" to the question about whether the City would get sued for violating the City Charter if the counselor's eviscerated the ordinance.  He confirmed that his view was that the Council had the authority to repeal the ordinance.  I asked him what, if that were so, the City Charter provision meant.  He said the City Charter was very clear that the petition-mandated activity was finished once the council enacted the ordinance, leaving the Council free to do as it wished.  I noted that gathering signatures, etc., was a lot of work, and asked whether he supposed anyone would put the provision in the Charter and not intend that the ordinance survive more than a few days.  (I referred to "getting six million signatures, and he got kind of stuck on that, repeating it two or three times in a questioning tone, so I changed my phrasing to "a bunch of signatures" or something, but I still didn't get a meaningful answer.) He told me he hadn't written the Charter.  I told him I disagreed, and thought the City would likely have gotten sued if it immediately repealed the ordinance -- and that the case would be an interesting one, not the slam-dunk for the city that he purported to believe it would be; and I asked him to imagine I argued that the charter provision would be rendered meaningless by his interpretation, and asked what he'd say on the subject if pressed by a judge.  He reiterated that in his view the City Council had the authority to repeal the ordinance if it wanted to.  Recognizing the futility of further questioning, I urged him to have a nice day, and he reciprocated.
Don't assume he hasn't anything to say.  He may be playing it close to the vest, in case the council does end up eviscerating the ordinance and  someone does sue.  He may just not like me very much, a feeling I suspect is growing common in city government just about now.  He may have been in a hurry to go home, as it was nearly 5.  He may think I might end up as a lawyer adverse to the City in this mess. Or he may realize he doesn't have a very good argument on that point.  
His view would ignore the spirit and clear intent of the Charter provision.  It would render the procedure outlined by the Charter meaningless, a nullity.
He could still argue that even so a court should not act to do justice, because of practicalities and because the minimum wage issue is political.]
[The work session on 27 October was interesting.   The councilors made a spirited defense of themselves against charges they had conspired.  I don't know that they did conspire.  I've tried to avoid making unwarranted accusations.  But they just don't get the part about a breach of the people's trust.  I'd love to hear one of them explain coherently why they have the right to ignore the intent of the City Charter.  Their legal argument is based on the apparent fact that no one thought to explicitly state the obvious.  That could win or lose in court.  But their argument that immediately repealing or eviscerating the ordinance would reasonably strike most citizens ad a breach of trust?  I haven't heard much argument, except that they were elected to use their discretion -- which is exactly what the City Charter forbade them to do in this situation.]

A Businessman to Listen To

Edward Filene must be turning over in his grave at the attitudes of both the National Chamber of Commerce and the local version.

A famous and successful store in Boston, Filene's was founded in 1881 by William Filene, German-Jewish immigrant from Prussia. Sons Edward and Lincoln took over in 1891. Inheriting the store in 1901, they became two of the nation's best-known businessmen in the early 20^th Century.

Edward quickly earned Filene's a reputation as a customer-oriented store, but he was also a pioneer in employee relations. He instituted a minimum wage for women, profit-sharing, the 40-hour work week, health clinics, and paid vacations. He encouraged formation of the Filene Cooperative Association, maybe the earliest American company union. Most businessmen objected violently to engaging in collective bargaining or arbitration with their workers, and sometimes the violence was real and bloody. Filene, earlier than most, recognized that the workers were not his. He also helped pass the country's first Workmen's Compensation Law in 1911.

He was a founder of the Boston, U.S., and international chambers of commerce.

Of course, he was unusual. According to a friend, “He had a great distaste for material things, lived very modestly, never owned an automobile, and was scrupulously careful about small expenditures, all because he felt that he was a trustee for the money that he had earned and that the trustee-ship involved turning his accumulations into the greatest possible disinterested public service.”

In the 1930's, he cooperated with FDR, unlike most wealthy men. He believed that mass production, mass distribution, and worker purchasing power were the answer to economic depression. Roosevelt called him “an analyst who was able, by mathematical calculations, to make plain to us that our modern mechanism of abundance cannot be kept in operation unless the masses of our people are enabled to live abundantly.”

Henry Ford also saw that if he paid workers reasonably, he got better work – and his employees could buy cars from him.

Our business community lacks that vision.

Sadly, today's national Chamber of Commerce is a mouthpiece for the reactionary view on any issue.

The local Chamber didn't deign to discuss the minimum wage initiative with CAFÉ while there was still time to negotiate.

The Chamber also opposed the proposed new National Monument, a highly popular proposal that looked likely to help us economically. Years of discussions involved compromise with a variety of voices.

Yet in the final months, the Chamber submitted a guest column to the Sun-News calling for “cooperation” and “an issue agreed upon locally.” Proponents thought that's what they'd painstakingly worked out.

The guest column claimed there were “no provisions for BLM land releases for the future growth of Las Cruces.” But the areas close to Las Cruces, where such development might reasonably occur, weren't part of the proposal. Did they imagine housing developments on top of Las Uvas or the Robledos, or at Kilbourne Hole? There's ample room for such growth as we're likely to see – or should see, in an arid desert where we're already overtaxing our water supply.

After six years of community discussion built tremendous local support, the Chamber said “Wait, we need to discuss this.”

Shortly before CAFÉ had to finalize its wae proposal, a friend told me the Chamber now wanted to talk. He said the Chamber recognized something was going to happen, and wanted to help shape it. That seemed reasonable, if belated; but soon afterward another Chamber guest column rejected the increase and offered no alternate proposal.

Instead, the Chamber found three friendly city councilors and quickly got an inferior ordinance passed. (Remind you of Steve Pearce's clever effort to confuse monument supporters by proposing very minimal protection after years of opposition?)

I'm no expert. But Greg Smith's recent suggestion that increasing the minimum wage was a cause of the 2007 recession is nonsense. Dangerous shenanigans by banks, investment companies, and mortgage companies created highly risky investment vehicles and an overheated housing market full of bad loans. Officially, the main cause was “widespread failure of financial regulation.” No authority I've read mentions the minimum wage.

Economists don't agree that a wage increase will kill business. But I have good friends who own businesses in town and are strongly opposed to CAFÉ's proposal. I don't know that the proposal is perfect. I wish the business community had engaged in a meaningful dialogue while there was time for improvements.

The City Council vote was a perfectly legal tactic to confuse voters and defeat the CAFÉ initiative. It may succeed. But it was unfortunate. In spirit, the business community reminded me of a kid I knew who used to kick over the Monopoly board if he seemed to be losing.

William Filene, a founder of the National Chamber, would have had coffee with Sarah Nolan and tried to work out the best solution for workers, business owners, and the community.
                                                                -30-


[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, 6 July.]


[In the column I mentioned two Chamber guest columns.   Earlier, I drafted but didn't finish a response to the one on the proposed minimum wage hike, and have added a bit of that draft below:

Chamber of Commerce President Bill Allen's recent guest column in these pages was disappointing. A mutual friend had me kind of expecting something reasonable.

Allen nowhere indicated a desire to work things out. He asserted blandly that no one would oppose a “reasonable” hike; but he never gave anyone a hint what he or the Chamber might consider “reasonable.” 

Rather, he took an extremely pessimistic view on the legitimate issue of how the hike would affect small, local businesses. 

Worse, he started talking about “outsiders.” Sorry, Bill. I remember being a civil rights worker in the Mississippi Delta. Fayette County, Tennessee. The white folks, startled by the nascent efforts of local blacks to free themselves, shouted about “outside agitators.” I was indeed an outsider, but we'd come in because local folks wanted and needed us. So “outsiders” has a tinny sound in these old ears, Bill. Suggest you stick to rational arguments on substance. Hell, Jesus and Buddha were probably outsiders in most of the towns and villages they visited; doesn't undermine the wise words they often spoke. 

It also strikes me if that “outsiders” label is a jab at CAFE, because it is not a purely local organization, then it applies to half the businessfolk in town, because McDonald's, UPS, Farmers' Insurance, Hobby Lobby, and the like are not purely local organizations either. They're huge international corporations that exist to make money for shareholders. If we close our ears to local members of CAFE, which at least exists to try to do good, then surely we oughtn't to listen to local employees or franchisees of business corporations, whose charters say nothing about trying to do good.

(Personally, I'd listen to everyone. But then, I'm an outsider. Moved here initially in 1969. Not sure about Mr. Allen.  But maybe we should just listen to J. Paul Taylor, Billy Garrett, Merrie Lee Soules, and Gary Esslinger.  And Robin Westbrock, when she starts talking.)]