Miguel's Tree

Walking on Mesquite Street toward Klein Park I meet City Councilor Greg Smith. He's wearing a black suit and a black bow tie – and flip-flops. No socks. I compliment him on the discordance. He says later that Miguel always wanted him to go to a city council meeting in flip-flops. Greg doubted they communicated the right gravitas for the occasion; but today he'd wear them.

In Klein Park, I see many familiar faces. Several of Miguel's relatives introduce themselves. There's coffee and plenty of cookies – and a large bow-tie in a big tree, waiting to be unveiled.

People mostly know each other. I see Irene Oliver-Lewis, whom I've known for nearly a half-century – and I'm an outsider. Many of these people grew up here. “This was our park,” someone says. “We were kids. It didn't even have grass then. We were into xeriscaping before there was xeriscaping.” Another family-member points out that Mayor Klein's daughter-in-law is present, and that Klein too was a devoted public servant.

The morning progresses, as someone puts it, “on Miguel's time.” Not precisely punctual.

Jeff Sutton, Miguel's brother-in-law and a pastor, speaks for awhile. He mentions the Biblical importance of trees, like the one we are dedicating to Miguel. He notes that Miguel's parents named him Miguel Gabriel, for two angels. And as a minister of God he asks God to send those two angels down to this tree, so that whenever someone, perhaps a youngster with issues, sits in the shade of this tree contemplating a problem or decision, Angel Miguel will assist. His words – upbeat, in a way – are exactly right. 

I shoot photographs while I listen. Portraits of the faces, some with funny hats. Many folks present have intricate relationships with each other, as deep and natural as the lines on their faces.

Mayor Ken Miyagashima arrives. He tells a funny story about Miguel and a pal painting “Publisher's Clearinghouse” on Miguel's white van and stopping at people's homes. 

The Mayor speaks, and I think he means what he says. But of course I think of the irony: months ago, the two battled for the position of mayor. Two men with deep roots in this community. Two men undoubtedly ambitious but also determined to improve our community.

I can't help recalling the PAC (Treasurer: Congressman Pearce's brother) that viciously attacked Ken. An ugliness

brought by greedy outsiders with more dollars than decency. It hurt Ken. And while I won't allege that the ugliness killed Miguel, it pained him – as did the feeling that fellow citizens might think he caused it. Unfairly, I believe.

Miguel, in a friend's words, “worked very hard to run a campaign that would go by without him saying anything negative or disparaging Ken, or doing anything that would interfere with their friendship. Even when I tried to talk him into criticizing Ken.” The PAC attacks happened despite Miguel – and may have contributed to the size of Ken's victory margin.

Leaving, I pause to say hello to Ken, who's talking with a lady I don't know. She tells me she's the one who posted a comment on my blog post concerning her own suicidal thoughts the weekend Miguel died. Today she's approached the mayor offering insight into the city's mental health services. A client's view. “Miguel gave me the courage to do that,” she says. Ken mentions having her speak with a mental health advisory committee. He gives her his cell-phone number. They're still talking as I leave. 

Maybe the Angels are already on the job.

                                                  -30-

Wearing a hat for Miguel, with a tag -- and the Organ Mountains!

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 21 February, and will appear later today on KRWG-TV's web-site as well.  (A month ago, my column Death Saddens and Instructs Us discussed Miguel and his death.)  Below, additional images from Tuesday's unveiling of the tree:]

Miguel -Farmers' Mkt. 2013

 

 

 In these five images, the bow-tie gets unveiled.

 

Death Saddens and Instructs Us

Forever, he is bicycling past me, wearing a huge, goofy hat and that huge, infectious grin, as if it is always a beautiful Saturday morning in Las Cruces. He is waving. I can't quite hear what he's saying, but his joy needs no words.

He was a playful man. His grin really was infectious. He brought to Dick and Sherry Thomas's 50^th wedding anniversary masks, funny hats, false noses, and costumes – and a photo booth in which guests could take their own pictures. This generated much silliness – and strips of snapshots that still make us smile. Saturday mornings at the Farmers' Market, he used to ride up to us, with unruly hair, a funny hat, and colorful striped socks. Then he didn't, any more.

He was a serious man. He served on both the county commission (as a Republican) and the city council (while a Democrat). He served the public well. He cared – about people and government. He was also a dedicated member of the dancers out in Tortugas.

He was a troubled man, in pain. He flew like a condor coasting on wind currents high above us, then fell into dark, deep pits of depression with steep walls. He suffered from bipolar disorder. He still called himself an alcoholic, although he hadn't taken a drink for a very long time. Asked how he was, he invariably answered, “Blessed.” His tone and steady eyes gave the word a little extra stress, as when someone depresses the piano pedal that elongates a note. He was grateful to feel blessed. 

He was a family man. I saw it in his face when his brother, former mayor of Deming, was dying of cancer. He loved and admired his brother, and was deeply affected by his brother's death. He also had a strong awareness of the past. He co-founded the Day of the Dead celebration in Mesilla and often made altars to honor those who'd gone before. 

I enjoyed our lunches, at which we laughed and talked intensely. We didn't always agree, but who does? Now, of course, I wish there had been more lunches. I wish that after the election I'd tried harder to spend time with him. 

Many of us are wandering around in a daze, full of grief and regrets.

We ask “why?” but even his closest friends don't know. Yes, he was emotionally fragile. Yes, he took losing the mayoral election hard. We citizens discuss elections, respecting both the winning and the losing candidate; but to the loser it's necessarily personal. It's not Houston's football team losing to Kansas City. It's you, alone, boldly putting yourself out there, then feeling that your community has rejected you. 

The loss hurt; but he seemed to be slowly coming to terms. Then everything overwhelmed him.

Some of this doesn't usually go in eulogies; but it's real. It was part of him. Illness shouldn't define his life, but neither was it shameful. Others should be as open as he could be. 

He was a brave man. To become the wonderful guy and caring and successful public servant he was, he overcame extra hurdles. Insidious ones. That magnifies his achievements. Maybe, too, his struggles strengthened his compassion for others. 

Our regrets can't help him; but could each of us be a little more perceptive, a little more proactive, a little less shy with other friends and co-workers whose hold on life is fragile?

Maybe that's what he's saying from the bicycle: “I'm at peace, but a little extra warmth could help others you know who are in pain.” 

Thank you, Miguel!

                                                       -30- 

[The column above is slated to appear in the Las Cruces Sun-News tomorrow morning, Sunday, 24 January, and will appear later in the morning on the KRWG-TV website under News-->Local Viewpoints.]

[ I wrote this pretty much immediately upon hearing the sad news.   Although we tinkered with it thereafter, I felt very strongly that it should be as it is -- but worried that friends or family who thought otherwise might feel hurt or offended.  As I mention in the column, I not only care about accuracy but don't see the sorts of struggles the column alludes to as shameful or unmentionable.  If anything, recognizing them should increase our respect for Miguel and perhaps might help friends make sense of what he did.]  

[Not mentioning Miguel's name (except his first name in the last line) was also intentional.  In part, I felt that not having to mention it was a sign of respect.  Everyone (in our County, at least) will know whom I'm talking about without my having to identify him.]

[He was a great guy.  We also disagreed about a couple of political issues.   We both loved Las Cruces -- and also the Tortugas danzas -- in our different ways and based on our different experiences and relationship.  Above all, I treasured someone who really appreciated people, spent a lot of time trying to improve local government here, and could talk seriously with you or make you laugh.] 

[I should also mention that Rob Yee and Kari Bachman climbed Tortugas Mountain and set up an altar there to Miguel.  We think he would have liked that, given his own preoccupation with the dead, and his having built more than a few altars himself.  I mention it partly to make sure that folks mourning him are aware of the option (for expressing their grief or respect) of climbing up there and visiting the altar, perhaps adding to it.]

Post-Election Reflections

Las Cruces voters got it right this week. Kudos to candidates, canvassers, and voters – on both sides. Special congratulations to Mayor Ken Miyagashima for a resounding victory. 

But let's not dance in the streets just yet. The closeness of the council races sent a message to both sides: we must work harder at talking with each other and collaborating. Conservatives and the Chamber of Commerce lost the election; and the recent recall efforts, plus misleading personal attacks by an outside PAC, have alienated many uncommitted voters. Progressives should note that two council seats were decided by 18 and 11 votes, respectively. Slightly better decisions by candidates or their backers could have changed the outcome. 

Further, the outside PAC could be back next election with a bigger budget or smarter operators. (The super-PAC attacks made some voters vote against PAC candidates, but undoubtedly led others to worry about PAC-alleged scandals. I'll leave it to Steve Pearce to figure out whether the attacks ultimately helped or hurt PAC-favored candidates.) Conservatives could have won Tuesday. (Since I'm not a Republican campaign consultant I won't suggest how.)

The PAC further damaged the community's ability to move forward as a community. Not something Pearce or Mack Energy cares about, obviously. If I were Miyagashima, I'd be sorely tempted to tell some PAC allies to put their requests and ideas where the sun don't shine. Fortunately, Miyagashima will surmount any such temptations. 

Progressives and other citizens must go forward working as collegially as possible with folks they disagree with. I don't say blind ourselves to the fact that some people mean us no good. I do say that with our eyes open we should work with everyone we can, without pride in our “victory” or our supposed righteousness. None of us is always right about everything. Nor is anyone I've met always completely wrong.

If we can talk honestly across the ideological divide, we will find some areas of agreement; where we disagree, groups can understand each other better, perhaps avoiding misunderstandings and personal animus, (Understand others' assumptions. Confront others' arguments without rejecting the persons, the neighbors, making the arguments.) Together, we may be able to hammer out workable compromises. Ultimately, we all want to improve Las Cruces, although we differ on how to do that and on precisely what constitutes improvement. 

Above all, this is a community. If it degenerates into armed camps, perpetually at war, we all lose. And although each “side” may blame the other's close-mindedness and arrogance, we might dp better to glance inward for a moment and see how we can each improve our own tolerance, open-mindedness, communication, and genuinely cooperative attitude.

Examples? Conservatives complain the City is tough on businesses. If that means businesses don't want any safety and health regulations, I'd say too bad. But if it means city officials drag permit processes out unreasonably, because they enjoy power or because inaction is safe when you're unsure what to do, or because they think councilors are anti-growth, we all need to try to change that.

Another: how much and what kind of growth would be best is a fair but complicated question. We all need better information about water, for example. How much is there? How bad is it? And what would be the actual costs and harms of trying to improve water quality? All sides should collaborate on gathering information – and on educating each other honestly about the facts. Assuming mindlessly that all growth is good or bad won't cut it.

Staying in perpetual campaign mode would expand that leak in the bottom of the rowboat we all share.

                                                         -30-
[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 8 November in the Las Cruces Sun-News -- which, coincidentally, also editorialized on the same subject from a somewhat similar point-of-view.]  It will also appear on the KRWG-TV website today.]

 [If I didn't make it clear enough: 
"Yo, conservatives: you lost, despite a Congressman and a PAC and $100,000.  The city council majority is what it is -- and even if you win Olga's and Gill's seats two years from now, you likely won't have a majority.  Deal."
"Yo, progressives: you damned near lost two council seats -- and 49% of the voters did not vote for Mayor Miyagashima.  That means someone other than the Greater Chamber and the Tea Party may have had some issues with you.  Deal."
Some progressives feel as if it's like the gridlock in Congress, where folks urge both sides to compromise, but the Republicans won't/can't because of Pearce and his ilk, extremists who'd rather make a point to their wealthy supporters than run a country in some sane fashion.  Is that true here?  The way to find out is to treat complaints or critical questions with respect and a cooperative spirit.  Where some legitimate problems turn up, try to deal with them non-ideologically.  Where not, shrug and go on to the next issue.]

[Everyone asks me "Why does Pearce hate Miyagashima so much?" or "Why do these guys care about who's a city councilor in Las Cruces?"   Obviously I don't know, although I doubt Pearce particularly hates Miyagashima and I doubt he was involved in detailed discussions of the nearly-libelous mailings by the PAC.  I do believe he wants a more Republican / conservative Las Cruces, and is working to make it happen.  The Congressman from Hobbs lost last year to a professor's wife (now, sadly, widow) who had never held public office.  I don't mean to belittle her, because I like and respect her; but if I were a five-term U.S. Congressman who kept losing the biggest city in my district to unknown Republican opponents, I'd probably want to urge Hobbs to get a little more progressive.  Don't know as I'd do it the same way, but that's why I'm not holding any elective office and am highly unlikely to seek one!]

[But it isn't just Pearce -- or, in his interest, Mack Energy.  From a recent piece by "Money in Politics Reporter" Paul Blumenthal in the Huffington Post:
     :
"Super PACs have also played key roles in city elections for mayor and city council members across the country this year. . . . 

"A debate over the development of a toll road in Dallas led businessmen involved in city council races to create opposing super PACs. Wealthy businessmen including billionaire Harlan Crow, oilman Ray Hunt and investor Al Hill Jr. made five-figure donations to For Our Community, the pro-toll road super PAC. Coalition for a New Dallas, the anti-toll road super PAC, received $150,000 from Trammell Crow Jr.

"Small cities are not immune to super PAC involvement either, as two northern New Jersey cities found out in 2015.

"In Little Ferry, New Jersey, a group called Focus on Families is circulating flyers attacking Mayor Mauro Raguseo. “These fliers are ridiculous in their attacks, and I think the people of Little Ferry know that,” Raguseo told The North Jersey Record. The biggest problem is that Focus on Families has not filed a single disclosure report detailing who its funders are.

"Just slightly to the west, New Jersey Future First, a super PAC run by a Democratic Party consultant, got involved in a Republican township council primary election in Parsippany, New Jersey. The super PAC's involvement was confusing to residents at first, and especially to the officials it targeted.

"The group stated that all of its funding came from America’s Future First, a 527 group registered with the Internal Revenue Service. That confusion was cleared up when America’s Future First disclosed that its donors were Fairview Insurance Agency and Adams, Rehmann & Heggan Associates. Both companies held contracts with the city’s government, and the council members they opposed were critical of the contracts.

. . .
"Super PAC involvement continues even further down-ballot: Lately, billionaires can be found influencing races for school board and district attorney in Louisiana.

In short, it's the new political reality: money dictating to politics in U.S. towns more directly than it had since more than a century ago.]

Pearce Super-PAC Muscles into Municipal Election - Why?

Why is a PAC backed by Steve Pearce attacking Las Cruces candidates with misleading ads? In trying to influence the city election, why did it not even register as a PAC with the city? And why do monied interests elsewhere want to influence city council elections? 

Las Crucens should care who's mayor here. Las Crucens should care who's on the City Council. County residents, myself included, have reason to care too.

But why should oil-and-gas interests from Hobbs tell us how to vote here? Why should a super-PAC attack local candidates such as Kasandra Gandara and Ken Miyagashima?

“GOAL West PAC” has a Hobbs address. Pearce has donated some of his excess campaign funds to the PAC, and his brother Phillip is its Treasurer. 

Many citizens have recently received the PAC's mailers. 

So far, the content is pretty lame. For example, Kassanda Gandara is a mother (son a veteran, daughter in med school) who started as a PTO member fighting for her kids, and also became a social worker – but the oil-and-gas PAC calls her “a lifelong bureaucrat.” (To me, a “bureaucrat” shuffles papers. A social worker affecting people's lives, like a law enforcement officer or doctor, does something more, even if employed by the public, (As Pearce is.) Another mailer uses a funny picture of Mayor Miyagashima and talks about “lipstick on a pig.” (Las Cruces is the “pig”; the “lipstick” means comments that Las Cruces is a great place to live. Which I think it is.) The mailer blathers about “small business” without suggesting any real ideas – except that we shouldn't increase the minimum wage.

It's negative campaigning. By ousiders with money. Based on the old premise that if you repeat something long enough people will eventually believe it. And it could get uglier right at the end.

I don't much want Steve Pearce telling me whom to vote for. I don't give a rat's posterior what Pearce or his brother has to say about Ken Miyagashima. It even seems a little arrogant that no one even bothered to use the available legal methods to obscure Pearce's connection with the PAC a little, to make at least some effort to blunt the naked truth that Steve Pearce figures he can tell us whom to elect to local office.

This is the same Steve Pearce who played chicken with shutting down the government and helped cost us all billions ($1 billion in interest alone) merely to make abstract ideological points. Same Pearce who's ex-military but has a miserable record on veterans' issues. Same guy who's trying to cut back on public lands because they're inconvenient for the interests who fund his campaigns – and because he thinks government should be minimized at every turn, no matter how that harms us.

Ironically, the PAC blames Miyagashima for southern New Mexico's economic problems; but who could have done more in recent years to improve New Mexico's economy: Miyagashima (with one vote on a city council) or Steve Pearce and his ally Susana Martinez? Hi, Steve! 

If I lived in the City I'd be tempted to vote against the Pearce candidates, Miguel Silva and Eli Guzman, just to send Pearce a message. (There are other reasons.)

Guzman and fellow Chamber of Commerce endorsee Hall stiffed the Las Cruces Sun-News candidate forums. They preferred to avoid probing questions from journalists but let the Chamber (or Pearce and his big-money folks) send out misleading flyers attacking their opponents. You can't ask a flyer hard questions.

A vote for Guzman, Hall, or Van Veen is an implicit approval of running for office that way.

                                                          -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 1 November, and will also appear later today on the KRWG-TV website.]
[I wrote this while traveling, and sent it in Tuesday, and of course lots has been published since then on this subject.  This is simply politics at its worst: an oil company and a few rich folks, all from far beyond the borders of our county, paying to spread misleading attack ads against local candidates here.  It's a hate-group ultimately controlled by Hobbs's U.S. Congressman, Steve Pearce, who's developing an interesting habit of trying to meddle in local politics.  Sad.  Sadder if it succeeds in outweighing the will of the actual citizens of Las Cruces.  Should add fuel to the anti-Pearce fire in Las Cruces next year; but as I recall, he lost the Las Cruces portion of the 2014 vote to a gutsy, hard-working neophyte.   Folks here generally see him for what he is already.]
[For the record: I hope Miyagashima wins re-election.  I don't always agree with him, but I've found him reasonably candid with me and I think the City is generally doing some good things -- and getting attacked viciously for it.  I like Miguel personally; but I see no reason to believe he'd be a better mayor than Ken; his charter-breaking misconduct (along with other councilors) regarding minimum wage doesn't entitle him to a promotion, and the big bucks and energy of the super-PAC and the Chamber of Commerce on his behalf suggest he'd be their mayor, not the people's.  Ms. Montoya-Ortega seems a nice lady, possibly well-intentioned, and if she indeed wants to help Las Cruces perhaps she'll get more involved in local government and politics than she has been in the past.  She has shown no experience, education, or new ideas that should excite anyone about the idea of making her mayor. 
District 1? Kasandra Gandara, whom I haven't yet met, seems the far stronger candidate than Eli Guzman, whom I've only spoken to on the phone.  Gandara has done good things as a social worker, eventually got promoted to oversee a five-county region, and started as a mother fighting for her kids' education.  Guzman is personally appealing, as a local kid teaching martial arts, but he reacted badly to the effort by city codes enforcement folks to ensure that the new dojo he was building would be safe.   Further, it's hard not to assume that based on his loud opposition to freedom of choice for women wouldn't lead him to help with efforts to initiate a local anti-choice vote along the lines of the one that wasted time and money in Albuquerque.  (I hear such an effort is likely, but don't actually know so for a fact.)  
District 2? This is the closest we have to a reasonable race.  I'd vote for Greg Smith.  Reluctantly, because his conduct regarding the minimum-wage issue was not to his credit and his failure to speak out against the recall effort more vigorously was a failure to stand up for Las Cruces when it counted.  However, he does really care about improving Las Cruces, has done some things to actually improve it, and has the energy and experience to continue making a real contribution as councilor.  Philip Van Veen strikes folks (including me, during our one brief conversation) as more thoughtful than some of the Chamber-of-Commerce candidates; but I've seen and heard nothing from him that suggests he'd be anywhere near as useful and productive a councilor as Smith has been.  It's also not clear to me that he cares about aspects of the city other than making things easier for businesses and developers, or has the experience or perspective to do much good.  Maybe.  But Greg Smith can be counted on to think hard and work hard on a variety of issues that come before the council.
District 4: Jack Eakman has the background and perspective to be a very good councilor.  If the alternative is a Tea Party denizen who loathes Obama, loves Pearce, and didn't even dare show up to visit with Sun-News journalists, there's no serious alternative.  (Voting for Gilbert Vasquez would be a wasted vote, since he'd be legally precluded from taking office.) ]

Notes on City Election Candidates

Making Las Cruces “business friendly” and eliminating “red-tape” are catchy slogans, but could mean things most voters wouldn't agree with.

If business-friendly means encouraging businesses, particularly small and local ones, that's great; but if it means surrendering decision-making to business or eliminating health and safety requirements, it'd be unwise.

Both mayoral candidate Gina Montoya Ortega and Council candidate Eli Guzman (District 1) have complained about their experiences with building permits – although others say the City is very cooperative.

Guzman was altering a building to house a dojo, without a permit. A codes officer spotted work and required a permit. Guzman reportedly wasn't happy. A City source says officials tried to work with him, but found him uncooperative.

Guzman says City officials were “unfriendly,” but denies the incident is why he's running. He also says his strong anti-abortion views have nothing to do with his candidacy, although someone made a video available in which he talks about that. He says that as a native he knows Las Cruces well and cares deeply about it. 

If Guzman really didn't know he needed a permit, he may not be too savvy about municipal affairs; but if he knew and ignored the requirement, that's not a good sign either. Electrical mistakes can cause fires – and a balcony with too low a railing could cause injury.

Republican Steve Caldarazzo entered this race because he didn't realize business was supporting Guzman. I asked him whether the 2010 tax lien against him and his 2012 bankruptcy indicated he'd manage our money well.

To his credit, Calderazzo was frank. He says he's worked diligently to improve, regrets his mistakes, and has learned from them in ways that would make him a better councilor. However, he's tried to withdraw.

I like both Ken Miyagashima and Miguel Silva personally. Both initially opposed the minimum-wage hike. Miyagashima's study led him to change his mind. Silva stuck to the Chamber of Commerce line. 

The city charter mandates that a petition-driven ordinance must either be passed as it is or put to a citizen vote. Silva voted to pass the ordinance while intending to violate the charter by weakening the ordinance very substantially.

The third mayoral candidate, Montoya Ortega, criticized both. She disagreed with Miyagashima on the raise; but she says that unlike Silva, she would have voted for a city-wide vote on the issue. Let the people decide, “because ultimately they'd pay for it.” 

She said in a video interview that we should invest in the city's children. She knows there are programs, but thinks there should be more. She apparently doesn't share the view that all government is bad and said that on this issue she didn't join in criticism that the City spent too much money.

She reportedly called the paperwork to enter the race “nerve-wracking.” Being a councilor and balancing competing opinions on sometimes complex issues ain't no picnic. 

Richard Hall (District 4) presents himself as the typical far-right conservative. Just before filing, he posted: “All I want is: Obama, gone; borders, closed; language, English; . . .” He also advocates mandatory welfare-screening. When Florida tried that, a lot of money was wasted on testing but very few welfare recipients tested positive. The public paid to hassle poor people pointlessly. 

Hall also criticized the council because Picacho is dead. Interstate 10 killed Picacho. Before I-10, West to East travelers had to use Picacho and Valley. It's nothing this council did!

If there's more to Hall, he's keeping it secret. He ducked the Sun-News Editorial Board (as did Guzman) and the candidate forum at City Hall, and hasn't yet returned my phone calls.

                                            -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 18 October.]

Space precluded saying more about any one of the points raised in the column.  Meanwhile, this week folks in District 1 started receiving circulars paid for by a Steve-Pearce-related Super PAC of which his brother Philip G. Pearce is Treasurer.  In line with the "pro-business candidates are Republican fronts" theme, GOAL West PAC circulated pro-Guzman fliers opposing Kassandra Gandara.  A friend emailed me:

I just received a campaign circular opposing Las Cruces District #1 candidate Cassandra Gandara.  It comes from outside funding: GOAL West Pac, P.O. Box 2694, Hobbs, NM 88241.  We now have outside money meddling in district-level elections.

A vote against Guzman is a vote against Pearce's PAC.

The candidates for Mayor of Las Cruces are incumbent Ken Miyagashima and challengers Miguel Silva and Gena Montoya Ortega.  I understand Montoya Ortega hasn't voted in Las Cruces city election since 2007.  If true, that speaks to a lack of genuine interest prior to her decision to be a candidate. If I lived within city limits I'd cast my vote for Ken.

In District 1 (now represented by Miguel Silva, who's running for Mayor instead), Kassandra Gandara looks best to me -- by far.  She'd be my choice if I lived in District 1.   Guzman is superficially appealing -- a native Las Crucen teaching martial arts --- but worries me for the reasons discussed in the column.   Calderazzo was refreshingly candid when we spoke, but aside from differences of political opinion I'd want him to put some years of solid accomplishment between his 2010-2012 financial problems and a run for the council.  Bankruptcies are perfectly legal and can result from bad luck; but they do hurt someone, particularly where, as here, the amount available to pay creditors is $0.00.

In District 2, incumbent Councilor Greg Smith faces a challenge from burglar-alarm salesman Philip Van Veen. Smith is an experienced Councilor who's done some positive things.

In District 4, Jack Eackman, Gilbert Vasquez, and Richard A. Hall are all candidates.  I'd likely vote for Eackman if I lived in District 4.  He's an independent thinker and has a wealth of useful experience.    However, I know little about Vasquez.

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.]

Minimum Wage Machinations

Painstakingly, following the City Charter's requirements, CAFE and volunteers gathered thousands of valid signatures on a petition to increase the minimum wage. The Charter gave the council only two choices: enact the ordinance as it stands or reject it and let the citizenry vote.

In September, acknowledging that a popular vote would favor the ordinance, a 4-3 City Council majority enacted the ordinance immediately.

The same four had earlier enacted, when they realized CAFE would have the signatures, an ordinance calling for a much smaller hike in the minimum wage. Now city government threw a red-herring into the path, asserting a need to “reconcile” the ordinance with the earlier contradictory one. Under New Mexico law, the later ordinance effectively repealed the earlier. City officials abandoned “reconciliation.”

Three of the four also spoke of quickly watering down the ordinance. That's not what the City Charter contemplated. It would be illegal. It would be such vile chicanery that it would thoroughly destroy citizens' trust in the Council. It would also spark a lawsuit that would exacerbate tensions, cost the taxpayers unnecessary money, and probably result in a court order against the City. City might have to pay plaintiffs' costs and/or legal fees, too – all for the convenience of the business community.

Thus we hope those Councilors didn't mean it or will rethink taking any such action.

Watching the 6 October council meeting, I wasn't sure the message had quite gotten through yet. There was again talk of using the Council's discretion and wisdom – which is exactly what the Charter directed the Council not to do under present circumstances.

There was also a suggestion that one Councilor should recuse himself. The law states: “A Legislator or public officer shall treat [his or her] government position as a public trust. . . . A public officer or employee shall be disqualified from engaging in any official act directly affecting the public officer's or employee's financial interest.” (full provision reprinted on my blog post today)

The Councilor – who's respected and who'd mentioned the problem himself at an earlier stage – is married to a lobbyist for the Restaurant Association, which has taken a strong position against the ordinance. She's not an engineer or a secretary or a Human Resources Director. Her job is to influence government officials to act in ways her employer approves of.

No one questions his ethics or hers; and I believe that once the Councilor has studied the law more carefully, he'll insist on recusing himself.

Some of his allies replied by threatening to demand Councilors who'd gathered signatures for the ordinance recuse themselves. With all due respect, that's a wholly different situation.

Having a strong view on something, even speaking publicly on it (as Councilors have do on many matters) is very different from having a personal individual financial interest in the result.
This is a legislative, not a judicial, decision. Councilor Miguel Silva, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity at a recent zoning hearing, recused himself recently when he had no financial interest but shared the Tortugas Pueblo's distaste for commercial development near Tortugas Mountain. That was proper.

A councilor or state legislator usually need not recuse when s/he has expressed an opinion or volunteered to help grow public support for something. (A judge should, or at least offer to.)

The view some expressed from the dais is dead wrong, legally and logically. It would mean that a candidate who got elected to the Legislature while demanding pension reform, better veterans' benefits, or a Campaign Finance Law would have to take no part in the discussion of the issue once s/he got elected. That ain't the law. Nor should it be.
                                                       -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 19 October.]
[I've spent a lot of time looking into this issue.  I dashed off a column when the City Council adopted the ordinance on 8 September.  Then I realized the Sun-News was going to editorialize on Sunday and Steve Fischman had penned an op-ed piece for Sunday's Sun-News, all of us expressing similar concerns, so I wrote on something else instead.  Later I wrote and abandoned a second column.  In response to questions in an email from a prominent citizen who's less sympathetic to the minimum wage hike sought by CAFE, I did some legal research on the City Charter and on the New Mexico statute regarding construction of statutes or ordinances.  I also spoke with Councilors, the City Manager, the City Attorney, CAFE, and others.  So here's a supplement to the column -- with apologies for its length.  I wanted to touch on a variety of points different people have raised.]

The initiative petition:
The relevant City Charter provision is 8.06:

Sec. 8.06. Initiative petitions; action by council.

When an initiative petition has been finally determined sufficient, the council

shall promptly consider the proposed initiative ordinance in the manner provided

in Article II. If the council fails to adopt the proposed initiative ordinance

in its entirety within sixty (60) days after the date the petition is finally determined

sufficient, it shall promptly submit the proposed ordinance to the voters

of the city.

That's  pretty clear: the City Council can adopt the ordinance in its entirety or promptly submit the proposed ordinance to the voters.

At least, that's what I would argue if I represented some minimum-wage workers aggrieved by the council's action.

The council would argue, through its lawyer, "Well, we did adopt it.  That makes it an ordinance on our books.  And we can amend or repeal ordinances, including that one, at our discretion.  City Charter doesn't specifically say we can't."

Well, we'll see.  One problem with the city's position is that it reduces the initiative provision in the charter to a bad joke.  That is not a result an unbiased judge would care to approve, on a challenge by citizens the citizens the charter was written to protect.  

I won't discuss the legal arguments more deeply here, because dispensing free legal and tactical advice to the City isn't necessarily part or my job description.  There's an outside possibility some folks (not CAFE) might ask me to make those arguments more formally.     

Statutory Construction and "Reconciliation"
Let's start with the law, which seems pretty clear.  (One note, though: these rules are mostly for courts or agencies dealing with a statute (or ordinance), having to interpret the legislature's (or city council's) words, and doesn't purport to direct the legislature or city council to do anything at all.)
 

N. M. S. A. 1978, § 12-2A-10

§ 12-2A-10. Irreconcilable statutes or rules

A. If statutes appear to conflict, they must be construed, if possible, to give effect to each. If the conflict is irreconcilable, the later-enacted statute governs. However, an earlier-enacted specific, special or local statute prevails over a later-enacted general statute unless the context of the later-enacted statute indicates otherwise.

B. If an administrative agency’s rules appear to conflict, they must be construed, if possible, to give effect to each. If the conflict is irreconcilable, the later-adopted rule governs. However, an earlier-adopted specific, special or local rule prevails over a later-adopted general rule unless the context of the later-adopted rule indicates otherwise.

C. If a statute is a comprehensive revision of the law on a subject, it prevails over previous statutes on the subject, whether or not the revision and the previous statutes conflict irreconcilably.

Note that this (a “Uniform Statute” enacted in New Mexico) is intended to guide judges and others construing statutes. The “harmonize” language means that where possible a judge should construe apparently constricting statutes in a way that harmonizes them. I don’t know that it means to suggest or require that the Legislature (or, here, City Council) do anything to “reconcile” statutes. Further, one might reasonably question where such “reconciliation” would be legal in this particular case, where the later statute was enacted under the City Charter’s explicit mandate that the council enact the petition-driven ordinance or put it on the ballot – no third option. 

Annotations to statutes are often helpful.  Here, century-old precedent confirms that this principle of statutory construction has been the law in the New Mexico for a very long time.  It's difficult to see just why it was used in an apparent attempt to delay operation of the minimum wage ordinance.

 

Under “Repeal by Implication” several Annotations support our view:

• “In absence of repealing clause expressly designating the prior enactment to be abrogated, no new statute will be allowed to sweep away existing legislation unless its terms are such that the new and the old cannot stand together consistently.”
• “Where later of two statutes having same object and relating to the same subject is repugnant to earlier statute, earlier statute is impliedly repealed to extent of repugnancy, even in absence of a repealing clause.”
• A statute may be repealed without being referred to by a subsequent statute on the same subject, when the last statute is wholly irreconcilable with the former and both cannot stand together.”
• “Though repeals by implication are not favored, yet courts declare them in cases where the last statute is so broad in its terms and so clear and explicit in its words as to show it was intended to cover the whole subject, and, therefore, to displace the prior statute.”
• “”Repeal by implication is not favored, butan earlier law is necessarily repealed by implication when it is absolutely irreconcilable with a later law.”

I quote so many to stress that this is no novel concept.  Too, the second annotation suggests that the Mayor's recent insistence that CAFE should have included a clause repealing the hastily-enacted $8.40 ordinance isn't really supported by the law.

Should someone have repealed the $8.50 ordinance more formally? 

My view is, not necessarily, although it would have been cleaner.

The parties keep pointing fingers at each other on this one.

The CAFE ordinance language existed, at least in draft, before the Council enacted the $8.50 red herring in a desperate effort to stave off the $10.10 ordinance.

City councilors say CAFE should have included a repeal provision in the ordinance.  CAFE supporters says the language was shown to the City Attorney, and approved, and that maybe if there was any such requirement he should have told CAFE.  

That doesn't matter a hell of a lot, except that it was another effort by some of our councilors and the business community to generate a technicality and then try to use that technicality to block the minimum wage.

Fact is, (1) I don't know that there was such requirement, but (2) if there was such a requirement it would seem that the City Attorney could reasonably have mentioned it to CAFE in connection with the language of the $10.10 ordinance (if the $8.50 ordinance existed by then) and (3) if there was such a requirement the City Attorney might reasonably have thought to inform the council of it and ask if he should prepare an ordinance repealing the $8.50 ordinance in time for the Council to consider the $8.50 repeal along with the $10.10 initiative ordinance.  Maybe he did.  All we can say is that IF (as $10.10 minimum wage opponents have argued recently) there was such a requirement, then either the City Attorney or the Mayor or the Councilors, or all of the above, kept silent and lay in wait to trick their own citizens out of the fruits of their petition-gathering labors.

New Mexico law on recusal

Again, here's the statute, the Government Conduct Act:

§ 10-16-2.  Definitions.

F. "financial interest" means an interest held by an individual or the individual's family that is: (1) an ownership interest in business or property; or (2) any employment or prospective employment for which negotiations have already begun;
H. "official act" means an official decision, recommendation, approval, disapproval or other action that involves the use of discretionary authority;
L. "substantial interest" means an ownership interest that is greater than twenty percent

10-16-3
A. A Legislator or public officer shall treat [his or her] government position as a public trust. [S/he] shall use the powers and resources of public office only to advance the public interest and not to obtain personal benefits or pursue private interests.
B. . . . shall conduct themselves in a manner that justifies the confidence placed in them by the people, at all times maintaining the integrity and discharging ethically the high responsibilities of public service.

10-16-4. Official act for personal financial interest prohibited; disqualification from official act; providing a penalty.  
A.   It is unlawful for a public officer or employee to take an official act for the primary purpose of directly enhancing the public officer's or employee's financial interest or financial position.  Any person who knowingly and willfully violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a fourth degree felony and shall be sentenced pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978. 
B.   A public officer or employee shall be disqualified from engaging in any official act directly affecting the public officer's or employee's financial interest, except a public officer or employee shall not be disqualified from engaging in an official act if the financial benefit of the financial interest to the public officer or employee is proportionately less than the benefit to the general public. 

I think no one contends that 10-16-4A applies; but 10-16-4 very well might.
The law does not differentiate between a councilor and his or her spouse.  So in essence, imagine that the councilor's day job is as a lobbyist for an association that vigorously opposes the $10.10 minimum wage.  Enactment of this wage, by state, county, or municipality, is a sort of failure for that lobbyist.  Denying the raise, by any means, would seem a success.  That being so, ought the councilor to be voting on the issue?  I do not see how.  Inevitably there is the appearance of impropriety, even if the councilor could separate mentally his two obviously conflicting and obviously important goals.

 

How Did We Get Here?
CAFE and its allies diligently followed the City Charter.  They worked on this for more than a year, quite publicly.
The Chamber of Commerce said no minimum wage hike was appropriate.  None.  Even late in the game, when a City Councilor said the business community was ready to talk and I thought briefly about trying to facilitate a dialogue, the Chamber again stated publicly that no raise at all should be enacted.
Had the Chamber of Commerce respected CAFE and the process, and public opinion, it might have engaged in a more meaningful dialogue with CAFE and had some influence on the ordinance.
Yeah, after CAFE had finished its work and the ordinance was on trace for either enactment or a spot on the November ballot, the Chamber and some councilors suggested CAFE should go back to the bargaining table, thereby losing its spot on the ballot.  I can see where CAFE wasn't interested in that idea!
Meanwhile, the Council keeps asking for more data.  There's plenty of data.  Plenty of positive examples.  Prominent local economists don't view raising the minimum wage as some disaster, but tend to think it's ultimate results would be positive for the local economy.

Where Is This Going?
Obviously I don't know.
I do not think that all four (Mayor Miyagishima and three councilors) will be so daft as to make major changes to the law, which resulted from an expression of popular will under the Charter.  That would lead not only to a lawsuit but to a situation that would spill over into all kinds of unrelated issues.  Essentially, the City Government would have acted so dishonestly, and so contrary to popular opinion, that it would be difficult for people of good will to trust or work with those folks. 
If even one of the four has a functioning conscience, the council will make no changes at all; and that's true also if the councilor who likely should recuse himself does so.
Most likely, the four will agree on what they consider to be some minor changes.  Create some exceptions for small businesses or even a specific type of business.  That would be technically improper and illegal, in my view, but whether minimum wage proponents would see it as worth suing over is another question.  In fact, CAFE and others might even agree with some minor tinkering of that sort.  (I understand that the ordinance, although it appears basically sound, could have the effect of helping chain bookstores in their competition with a local bookstore, Coas, which I very much like, and might help Starbuck's against Milagro's, whereas I much prefer the local coffee house.  If there's a constitutional way to avoid that, or a fair way to mute the effect, I'd be inclined to support it.  But I'm not CAFE.  Nor am I a minimum-wage worker.)
But changing the $10.10 or the time-frame would lead to disaster..