Rio Grande Theatre Is a Valuable Community Resource

I'm glad I'm not a city councillor deciding who should run the Rio Grande Theatre.

Instinct tells me that it should not be Philip San Filippo; so do others' observations; but I'd want to ask some hard questions of Kathleen Albers, too.

San Filippo deserves a separate column. He's about to take on an important economic development job for which his past experience doesn't seem to qualify him. He's an experienced salesman, a tourist-development guy, but he's no economist and may not have done economic development. He recently said we'll be real busy because of the Spaceport. I hope he's right. I hereby offer to bet him $100 he ain't. (Two years ago, calling Spaceport America “the Kitty Hawk of the Future,” he predicted we'd see the next space flight here within two years. I hope his proposals for what he'd do with the RGT have more solid foundations.)

I don't think this battle started as a power grab by Mr. San Filippo. I believe that when City Manager Stuard Ed first met with the Doña Ana Arts Council, DAAC complained a little too much about its situation with the theatre. Ed walked away thinking DAAC wanted out. Then Ed invited San Filippo to submit a plan. DAAC folks say Ed heard what he wanted to hear. Maybe. I think DAAC (whose supporters say it adds significant funds to the $120,000 it gets from the city each year to run the theatre) hoped to improve its deal with the city. But I wasn't in the room.

Also, some third-parties unrelated to the city administration have significant complaints about DAAC. Folks I know and trust but can't identify here.

Economic development isn't the main purpose of a community theatre. Being a widely-used community resource that helps us be the best we can be is. Like the plaza, the theatre need not make a profit; but neither should we waste our money.

History should matter in this decision. DAAC saved the RGT, which might have disappeared like St. Genevieve's Church. DAAC did a lot of fund-raising. The community stepped up. Former DAAC Board Chair Keith Whelpley speaks of the beautiful community spirit he and others experienced. DAAC spent a lot more energy, imagination, and money than the City did making sure there's a Rio Grande Theatre to argue about today.

But the City has every right to ask DAAC to live up to a contract. If both parties agree on something, both should respect that agreement. I don't know how businesslike things were before. It wouldn't be fair suddenly to demand letter-perfect performance of a contract where that hasn't been demanded before. Unless there's been fraud, the City Council probably should extend DAAC's contract for a year, but instruct Ed to negotiate fairly with DAAC and specify expectations. “Fairly” means with respect for both taxpayers' economic interest and DAAC's important contribution to this community resource. (Let's also note the probability that imminent road construction downtown will sabotage RGT attendance.) Further, if San Filippo or anyone else has good ideas, share 'em! We all want the best for our community – and especially for the arts.

The City should also, without undermining DAAC, create a way for critics of RGT management to voice their concerns without fear of negative consequences. I'd also suggest a diverse contingency-planning committee to consider all aspects of the theatre's future. I'm not saying DAAC will fail. Nor that San Filippo definitely couldn't step in successfully in 2018 or 2019. I'm saying that if DAAC doesn't pan out and the CVB alternative doesn't look promising, we can't just punt.

                                                 -30-

    
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 16 April 2017, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website KRWG's website; and KRWG Radio will air a spoken (and slightly condensed) version twice on Wednesday.]

[A friend I spoke with about this stuff said, "I'm glad you're writing a column about this."  I quickly replied, "I'm not."  Too many people I like and trust are on different sides of this fight, with strong views.  Unfortunately I don't always mince words, either.  So I'll probably be losing a bunch of friends over this one.  City officials frustrated by dealings with DAAC, and other critics of how the arts group is run, will feel disrespected; folks in the DAAC camp will be annoyed that I haven't hewed to anyone's line, but just tried to articulate my imperfect view of the facts.  That view starts with certainty that the highest and best use of the theater is as a community institution, not as a part of some economic-development scheme -- although the theater should be able to assist in that efforts as well.  At the same time, the City has the right and obligation to try to make sure the Theater is well run.]


[NOTE [17April2017]: It was saddening to attend the City Council meeting mentioned in the column.  A few hours before the meeting, DAAC sent the Council a letter withdrawing from consideration for a contract extension.  Several councillors were quite troubled, while others were not.  It was not clear whether, if the council had urged DAAC to reconsider and continue its management of the Rio Grande Theatre, perhaps with a slightly larger financial contribution from the City, DAAC would have considered that.  It was not clear to me.   It was not clear to Mayor Ken Miyagashima, who expressed disappointment at this turn of events and asked DAAC's board chair the question I was wondering about.  She said she was just one board-member and didn't know.  (Later, a source pointed out that given the way certain city employees and conducted themselves toward DAAC, it would have been insane to go forward working with city officials.  Some from the arts community booed Mr. San Filippo as if he were Kevin Durant returning to Oklahoma City as a Golden State Warrior.)  
So a somewhat disappointed city council, including some who stated they'd have voted to extend the DAAC contract another year but seek the kind of clear communications advocated above, voted to accept DAAC's withdrawal.   CVB will run the RGT, at least for a year.  Councillors may well consider the kind of planning committee (or citizens' board) suggested above, which could provide some oversight as well as doing the sort of contingency-planning I recommended.  It was clear that some of them, while not inclined to beg DAAC to reconsider, were uneasy about CVB as the new manager, at least without clear instruction from the City Council -- for which purpose there likely will be a work-session at an early date.
Anyway, it seemed sad.  To me and others, including several councillors, some of whom spoke of necessary "healing."  We all owe DAAC our thanks.  We may miss DAAC.  Above all I was left with the certainty that all parties, including this columnist, could have done better in this situation.]

D.A. Writes the Cops a Blistering Letter

Why can't local law-enforcement agencies work more closely together?

The Sun-News recently reported that Detective Irma Palos has sued the City. She's the case agent who investigated Tai Chan, accused of murdering a fellow Santa Fe sheriff's deputy. (His first trial ended in a hung jury last May.) Palos alleges male police retaliated against her for helping bring to justice Detective Michael Garcia, the sex-crimes investigator jailed for sex crimes, and for telling a lawyer about sexual banter male cops allegedly subjected women to. The alleged retaliation includes denying her resources necessary to investigate the murder case.

Those events raise many questions, but one is: why didn't someone tell District Attorney Mark D'Antonio, who's prosecuting Chan, that his star witness was saying her investigation was compromised?

Tuesday D'Antonio wrote LCPD Chief Jaime Montoya that neither LCPD nor Palos “informed the D.A.'s office of the detective's legal action.” He called that “deplorable and devoid of any rational thinking.” He added that Palos's lawsuit suggests “possible police corruption, obstruction of justice, and the mishandling of a major case involving the alleged cold-blooded assassination of a police officer.” D'Antonio says the Sun-News story March 28 was his first notice of Palos's allegations. (A confidential source says the D.A.'s Office learned of the problem earlier in March.)

If you're Palos, another detective working on the Chan case, or the police chief or city attorney, how in the *#*# does it not occur to you that, gee, maybe you might want to tell the D.A. there's this ugly stuff out there the defense lawyers might try to use against him? 

I asked. No answer. Montoya said, “I'm not going to get into that,” he said, adding that he'd just received the DA's letter and would be discussing it with the DA and with his detectives. 

You might ask if this was a confidential personnel matter; but the October filing made it public. You might point out that Palos's allegations are merely allegations. Why bother the D.A.? But these allegations, whether valid or not, could seriously harm the case. They undermine police credibility. Used well in cross-examination, they hurt Palos as a witness. “Didn't you testify under oath that you did a great investigation?” “Haven't you now alleged under oath that your investigation was compromised?” “How can the jury trust you?” Indeed, Chan's lawyers are asking the court to let them use the material.

I also asked Montoya about the alleged retaliation. He said little, citing the lawsuit; but the City has denied Palos's charges and is fighting the lawsuit. Montoya said, “Cultural issues and sexism are something we address every day, not only in our training but in managing and mentoring employees. A hostile work environment is completely contradictory to our values as a department.” Garcia's conduct occurred before Montoya became chief. 

We shouldn't prejudge Palos's lawsuit. We should hear the evidence. D'Antonio notes in his letter that without further information he neither credits nor discredits Palos's allegations. 

But I see no reasonable explanation for not informing the prosecutor. Among other problems, if the alleged obstruction kept exculpatory information (even minor facts) from being given to defense attorneys, that alone could jeopardize the case. 

Further, obstruction of justice is a crime! Whether I hide stolen silverware from the cops or the police are screwing around because they don't like a detective, it's potentially criminal conduct. Who's investigating that? If no one has, the D.A. will. But October 2014, or even October 2016, would have been a better time to investigate possible malfeasance than April 2016. Chan's retrial is set for May 8.

                                              -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 9 April 2016, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website; and KRWG Radio will run a recorded and shortened version twice on Wednesday.]

[One thing I lacked space to add was that this occurred in a context of inadequate communications and cooperation between or among law-enforcement agencies here.  For one thing, last I heard the Doña Ana Sheriff's Office still hadn't agreed to cross-commissioning, although LCPD and the State Police have asked for it and I think the D.A. favors it.  In addition, prosecutors would like to be informed more quickly and fully when a murder occurs, and even visit the scene.  Further, some DASO deputies and LCPD detectives reportedly feel their job is over when they've delivered the case to the DA -- and aren't easily found for follow-up investigation and interviews. 

One issue is the same one we all saw fairly often on "Law and Order": cops and lawyers are seeking the same result, but with different roles and different rules.  Both want the bad guys put away; and, at least theoretically, both want the not guilty not jailed; but whereas cops have to locate and arrest the subject, the lawyers have to complete a very complex obstacle course called a trial.  Trials have complicated and sometimes arcane rules of evidence, the prejudices and sympathies of judges and jurors, the unpredictability of jurors, and detailed procedural rules designed to keep the playing field somewhat fair.

The cop, at one extreme, gets the bad guy in jail and goes out for a drink, satisfied.  Law says s/he's supposed to help with the prosecution, but some cops think that's the lawyers' job.  What the hell did they go to law school for, and there are too many additional bad guys out there to waste time talking to additional witnesses or going back to verify some loony idea an assistant prosecutor dreams up.  And some of them loathe and evade the laws about searches, confessions, and what-not.  Plenty of popular movies establish that most of us would be tempted to do the same as the cops.

But the lawyer knows .  S/he has very clever and well-educated people called defense lawyers waiting to pounce on any error, to thwart the prosecution; and as we all know, that prosecution has to convince a dozen strangers it's righteous, beyond a shadow of a doubt.]

D'Antonio's letter (sent Tuesday) was blistering.  After advocating "unity and mutual respect between law enforcement entities" as essential elements in protecting the public," he noted a "strained relationship between our two offices" which "leads to unproductive and ineffective law enforcement. This prevailing attitude has culminated in the failure of LCPD to notify my office and I of crucial information in the prosecution involving a murdered police officer."
He added:
The current police culture of shifting the blame for poorly-investigated cases, compounded by disgruntled police officers, has led to inadequate investigation and sloppy police work.  It must come to an end.
. . . 
The recent situation involving the Tai Chan Murder case, in which you intentionally refused to share critical information in a pending and active prosecution with my office, is outrageous and an affront to justice in our community.  We have attempted to work closely with  the case agent, Detective Palos, and have done everything in our power to present the best case possible.  The fact that neither Detective Palos, nor any representative from LCPD, informed the DA's office of the detective's legal action, filed in October 2015, is deplorable and devoid of any rational thinking.  The facts of the suit suggest possible police corruption, obstruction of justice, and the mishandling of a major case involving the alleged cold-blooded assassination of a police officer.  I will not credit or discredit Detective Palos' allegations without more information.  I need to immediately review the results of a thorough internal investigation.  Although I was never informed that such an investigation took place, I must assume that such an inquiry was conducted since the allegations were filed in October of last year.  What makes matters worse is, as of today's date, April 4, 2016 m at 11:00 a.m., despite the news coverage, I have not been notified of the incident by your or by any official.  Please explain that to the public.
No matter what the evidence reveals, the facts are important to the prosecution of the Chan case. . . . Your department's failure to disclose any information in this matter in a timely manner has made our prosecution more difficult.  In addition, you have provided defense counsel alternative methods to attack the State's evidence.
. . . [T]he defense team representing Mr. Chan has filed newly-conceived motions attacking the evidence and testimony in the upcoming trial.  Since, to date, you have yet to notify me of any investigation regarding the allegation of misconduct and the denial of investigative resources, I am unequipped to properly and intelligently respond to any defense motions filed based on Detective Palos' allegations.  If I do not receive a full and complete debriefing and report on the investigation and its results, I will conduct my own investigation into the matter.  

Friday, well after I sent in the above column to the Sun-News, City Manager Stuart Ed responded, acknowledging receipt of the letter to Montoya and adding: 

In my capacity as Las Cruces City Manager, I have direct oversight of the Chief of Police and Las Cruces Police Department. This is the first I have heard of these issues. While I am grateful you have made me aware of them, I confess it is disappointing such issues were not vetted and resolved at the lowest levels possible with my involvement through open discussion and the courtesy of a frank and honest face-to-face dialogue sooner.
You have my assurance I will do everything in my power to bridge the apparent communication gap between your office and the Police Department. To that end, I propose facilitating process improvement meetings between you and Police Chief Montoya to insure all lines of communication, professional courtesy, and service to the community remain steadfast and responsive and that our Police Department
works in close partnership with your office at all times.
I believe we have a well-led Police Department and have complete faith and confidence in Chief Montoya and his leadership. I know both he and I are eager to vet and correct any operational issues between our two organizations. I am confident we can successfully address any and all concerns and come to a resolution that insures our community continues receiving responsive case investigation and
prosecution services from both the Police Department and the District Attorney's Office. Let us begin with open and honest dialogue at the top between you, myself,and the Chief of Police. You have my assurance I will shepherd this important partnership in my capacity as City Manager.

Ed's letter is calm and constructive, neither apologizing profusely nor fanning the flames by undue defensiveness; but it doesn't answer D'Antonio's questions.  It does say the City will reach out to the D.A.; and obviously we should all, with the possible exception of Chan's defense counsel, hope that happens soon and leads to a full and frank exchange of information about Palos's allegations -- as well as improved cooperation on future cases.

Rio Grande Theater

The City Council heard suggestions last month that it toss the Doña Ana County Arts Council out of the Rio Grande Theater and put the Theater in the hands of the Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Fortunately, the Council didn't seem to warm to that idea.

I watched movies in that theater forty years ago. In 1998, when Allen Theaters finished using it, granddaughters of the original owners wanted to preserve and protect the place and possibly restore it. They gave their half to the Arts Council, which bought the other half. The idea was to create a community facility that would also house the Arts Council. 

The Arts Council raised $3.2 million, and dealt with demolition, construction, and asbestos problems. The Arts Council has operated the Theater. Several years ago, $250,000 in state money was available. A governmental entity had to be the fiscal agent. The City said it could do that only if it had title to the place. Thus the Arts Council deeded this $3 million cultural asset to the City, to get the $250,000 to help keep operating it, with an unwritten agreement that the Arts Council would continue having its offices there. Later, after a general tightening up of rules on non-profits being housed in municipal facilities, the City contracted with the Arts Council to run the place. The contract made clear that the Arts Council wasn't getting a free ride. 

Now there's a proposal to toss out the Arts Council. Aside from the unfairness of that to the Arts Council, and those who donated money, the issue highlights a deeper question of who we want to be.

The Theater is a community resource. It's a major part of making and keeping this a community. It presents events the whole community can enjoy. That's important. Not just to artists and patrons, but to the City. Creating a community people enjoy, where they're stimulated culturally, is not insignificant to drawing visitors and even businesses concerned about their employees. 

The Theater might never be self-sustaining. Such theaters elsewhere generally are not. With just 450 seats (compared to 2,000 at El Paso's Plaza) our Theater can't bring in big acts at reasonable ticket prices. The City shouldn't view the Theater as a potential profit center, any more than our parks or plaza are. It's a major contribution to quality of life with a price tag kept reasonable by ticket sales – in a building the City obtained free. Judging it as a profit center guarantees “failure” and probably the sale of the place.

The CVB folks at the December work session didn't appear to know much about running a theater. I don't. The Arts Council now does, having run one for years, meeting a variety of challenges and learning a lot of important lessons.

I'd say that the ideal solution is for CVB to work with the Arts Council on this, in a true partnership giving us the best of both. The Arts Council has extensive knowledge. If CVB has ideas that can help bring in more people or more dollars, great!

Tossing out the Arts Council ain't right. The Theater is a gathering place where we see a variety of local performers – plus unusual and interesting performances from elsewhere. City Manager Stuart Ed calls it “a unique and beautiful asset” that helps distinguish Las Cruces from other communities.

Having heard citizens passionately defend the Theater, Ed said, “I'm very appreciative of all the input from the community.”

Ed says Cruces won't break its contract with the Arts Council; but that contract is renewable July 1. A February 13^th work-session will discuss the issue.

                                                                    -30-

[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 22 January 2016, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG-TV's website.]
 
[Not everything of value has to be a money-maker.  I'm all for performance measurement and accountability; but these need to be reasonable, and tailored to the circumstances.  Here, there's a lot the Theater does and will do that has value without turning a monetary profit.  As, again, our parks don't.  Expecting the Theater to be a money-maker is probably nonsensical, unless city officials know something the rest of us don't (or want to set up a "failure" that would justify them in taking it over to "fail" in their turn); but expecting it to provide shows and performances and lectures and events of interest, and trying to keep an eye on costs, certainly sounds reasonable.]