Wanna Know What the Constitution Says? -- Try Reading It!

The next time a columnist or letter-writer wants to tell us what the U.S. Constitution says, s/he should read it – and maybe examine its context and history.

Randy Lynch's column, “The Constitution Is Not a Living Document,” sparked this revolutionary suggestion. 
 

He wrote: “Our nation was founded by honorable men who understood that they were imperfect and limited. It’s part of why they made it clear that our rights come from God and not from any document or government.”

This belief that the U.S. Constitution grounds our rights in religion is wishful thinking. Without mentioning “God” the Constitution insists that religion not dictate our political decisions. No “establishment of religion.” “No religious Test shall ever be required” for any public office. Our founders knew the word “God.” They even used it to make the Declaration of Independence sound less revolutionary. No one imagines they omitted it from the Constitution because they fell asleep or weren't paying attention.

Mr. Lynch cited the Constitution's “purpose to limit government, not expand it” as a bedrock principle. Indeed, the founders inserted checks and balances among the three branches, and they focused federal power on subjects like interstate commerce that needed federal control. 
 

But the basic purpose of the new Constitution, despite limitations on government, was exactly opposite to what Mr. Lynch seems to assume. Upon winning independence from a distant and dictatorial king, the founders set up a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation. It failed, miserably. They met in Constitutional Convention to strengthen the federal government and make it more “vigorous.”

Mr. Lynch mourns Justice Scalia, opining that “Focusing on results instead of our foundational principles will lead us away from the rule of law.” But when the chips were down (as in, for example, Bush v. Gore) Justice Scalia's great fault was doing exactly what Mr. Lynch bemoans. Scalia's much-vaunted originalism and states' rights principles went out the window when they cut against important results he wanted to reach.

Mr. Lynch criticizes SCOTUS for changing or broadening its interpretations of certain rights, contrasting this with what he seems to assume was the clear the time-honored certainty of 2^nd Amendment protections.

Rights to contraception and abortion are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The Court interpreted the liberty interest and 9^th Amendment rights made applicable to the states by the 14^th Amendment. Ironically, in Roe v. Wade the Court did just what Scalia and Lynch would have wanted it to do: Justice Brennan discussed at length how the law treated abortion at (and before) the time of the Constitution!

Meanwhile, until recently the Court had rejected “2^nd Amendment gun rights” as we now understand them. Nineteenth Century cases held that the Constitution didn't protect the individual's right to bear arms against state interference. A 1939 case upheld a gun-control law absent “evidence that [a sawed-off shotgun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” Even in 1997 the majority didn't seem to recognize that gun control might violate the Second Amendment!

Thus, the expanded gun rights Lynch applauds came about in rather the same way as (though a little more slyly than) clearer recognition of women's rights to decide what to do with their own bodies. Both are contemporary interpretations of old words.

A principled “strict Constructionist” might disagree with Griswold and Roe v Wade, but would be at least as startled by the sharp change in judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment. 
 

How profusely the weeds of convenient misinterpretations grow, how passionately believers espouse them, and how easily dispelled they are by facts!

                                                             -30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 20 March, and will appear later this morning on the KRWG-TV website.]

[The column contains links to the U.S. Constitution and to Mr. Lynch's column in the Sun-News.  I'm not hiding the ball.  The Constitution says what it says.  And it doesn't say our rights or politics are grounded in religion.  It trumpets quite the opposite: that your religion may influence your political views, but not the conduct of our government!  Couldn't be clearer.  Our founders didn't even put God in the oath of office.  You just swear or affirm you'll follow and obey and defend the Constitution.  
I can't quite figure out why so many Tea Party acquaintances suppose otherwise.  What they often say when I point out God ain't in the Constitution is, "But they mention God in the Declaration of Independence!"  Well, yeah.  And although I haven't examined the history, I can guess why, as a lawyer.  Rebelling against Great Britain was a big deal.  Britain didn't like it.  Other empires might see it as a danger.  Even among the populace on our side of the pond, I've often heard that about a third favored Revolution, about a third were Tories, and about a third didn't much care or didn't know.  If that's remotely so, mentioning God was a no-cost effort to make what the rebels were doing more acceptable to some of the doubters.  "You're usurping the King's powers!" "No, our rights come from God!"  "Oh, I see."   But it's clear: when they were organizing the government, setting up a system for the ages, God had no place in it.  Wisely, I think, since so many have such different concepts of God.]  
 
 

Stuff I Don't Understand

What sense does any of this make?

Why should state legislators who oppose abortion because they contend that a fetus is already a full-human person, and will feel pain if a woman aborts a pregnancy, object to that woman being educated about and able to obtain contraceptives that would obviate the need for either an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy? Why do folks complaining that we spend too much to feed and clothe poor women's proliferating offspring oppose making sure those poor women understand and can afford contraceptives?

For that matter, should anyone be allowed to oppose abortion who hasn't adopted at least three unwanted children? Shouldn't folks who advocate increasing the burden of unwanted children be required to pitch in to deal with the problem?

Why are conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives, flocking to support an egomaniac with a slew of divorces and bankruptcies in his background?

Why are folks who supposedly care about families so unconcerned that the scientific community, as measured by peer-reviewed papers, is nearly unanimous that there's an urgent need (if it ain't already too late!) to act to mitigate the environmental damage we're doing to our kids' and grandkids' futures?

For that matter, when the Koch brothers and oil-and-gas organizations trot out the same obfuscation tactics against climate-change that the tobacco industry turned to in desperation, often using the same P.R. minions as front-men and front-women, why are people so slow to see through them?

Why don't their constituents see through legislators who are well-paid by private prison profiteers and duly push for draconian sentencing laws that even criminologists and cops now see are wrong?

Why do folks who supposedly want to balance governmental budgets push for more costly wars and longer costly prison sentences while decreasing governmental income by pushing tax breaks for corporations and the super-rich? 

For that matter, why do many of those folks oppose having their states legalize and tax marijuana?

Why are people who purport to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ the loudest advocates of un-Christian conduct toward poor immigrants?

Why do folks who purport to value life and children say we should leave kids in orphanages rather than allow them the love and care of gay couples who want them? 

Why do some folks think that taking wildlife refuges away from the public to have them destroyed by private profit-makers somehow helps the public?

Why do some folks, who claim to honor freedom and the U.S. Constitution, favor restrictions on people's freedoms regarding speech, privacy, and their own bodies, but argue that the least regulation regarding guns is unconstitutional? 

On the other hand, how do others, who've read about Prohibition and lived through the fruitless and wasteful “War on Drugs” outlawing marijuana, suppose that although those prohibitions didn't work (while eroding respect for law and increasing respect for law-breakers), outlawing all guns would somehow work just fine?

I don't have answers. I do suspect that folks get too trapped in their ideologies to consider and analyze facts in a careful way. Quite probably, a great numbers of citizens, distracted by television and making a living and raising children, just don't care. Or don't care enough to study any issues.

I do have a final question. We are not in Congress. Or the state legislature. We citizens aren't being paid off by corporations. Why don't we talk to each other? Why don't we communicate honestly instead of behaving like armed camps in a war zone, sniping snidely at each other but never risking human connections with folks we don't agree with? 

                                                             -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 14 March, is up on the newspaper's website under "Opinion", and will appear shortly on the KRWG-TV website  [click "News" then "Local Viewpoints"] -- so please feel free to comment here and/or on either of those sites.]

[There are also a few things I do understand, including (I think) the appeal of Donald Trump.  Many people are angry about many things.  Trump stands up and says, "I'm pissed off!"  A whole lot of people shout, "Right on!" without really assessing whether his (largely feigned) anger arises from the same sources as theirs.  Further, he offers easy answers.   People like that.  They forget or fail to notice that he can't explain even superficially how he'd accomplish any of what he promises.  Further, the field of contestants in the Republican race is even less appealing than usual: Rubio is a pretty face saying whatever seems likely to go over well, a cipher, really; Cruz is the most single-mindedly self-promoting member of the U.S. Senate, a body of men and women notoriously un-shy about tooting their own horns; Kasich seems reasonable and at times even sweet-natured, but unexciting, particularly to the Republican "base."  I'd prefer either of the two leading Democrats; without question; though with concerns there too.  But those concerns pale beside the severe damage electing any of the leading Republicans would do.]
[14March note: just read this interesting column by Paul Krugman offering a more perspicacious view on why we shouldn't be surprised by Donald Trump.]
[14March note: just read this Bloomberg News report on the many reasons Republican U.S. Senators don't much care for Ted Cruz.  Many show his exceptional self-obsession.  Some could be viewed as saying less about him than about the Senate Republicans; but even the tamer ones show a man more obsessed with presenting himself as he wants to be seen than with reality, pragmatics, or the convenience of others.  I get it, a few could just mean he's strictly tied to his convictions; but you kind of want someone a little different as President.]

Sheriffs Hire Interesting Top Assistants

I've voiced strong (and warranted) criticism of the county's Human Resources Department; but there are reasons to have HR. 

The previous sheriff hired someone with an interesting record but no law enforcement experience. Sheriff Garrison admired him. Many deputies didn't. They complained. I wrote several columns. Eventually he left, though on his way out he sued everyone in sight, including me. (A year later the nonsensical lawsuit was dismissed.)

Sheriff Vigil hired a suspended lawyer as his right-hand man. The NM Supreme Court decision upholding his suspension makes one wonder how a competent HR specialist would view the hire. (Practicing law is not among his duties.) 

The court wrote of “a deeply troubling mosaic of ethical misconduct” that included “repeatedly violat[ing] his duty of candor to the court,” “dishonesty to the Court [and] lack of candor to others” including “a false statement” to a life insurance company, and “frivolous claims.” The lawyer, Dennis Montoya, stipulated to the facts.

In one case, a man died when a tire failed. He was survived by his girlfriend, who apparently had substance-abuse problems; their son, three years old; and her daughter. Montoya allegedly ignored the son's legal rights. He told courts that the girlfriend was the decedent's widow, which wasn't true. (There was a possible argument that she might have been the man's common-law wife in Utah.) Montoya allegedly told courts that the decedent was the father of the girlfriend's daughter. A great deal of money that should have gone to the son went to the troubled mother, inappropriately. 

Meanwhile, “several federal judges in separate proceedings publicly reprimanded Montoya for numerous, well-documented ethical lapses. . . . While it is rare for even one federal judge to single out and publicly admonish an attorney, several federal judges found it necessary to reprimand” him. The violations included filing a motion as “unopposed” when he knew it was opposed; filing an Age Discrimination suit alleging his client was 40+ and refusing to dismiss the case when he learned she was just 35; “he altered deposition testimony to favor his client”; and “he brought many frivolous claims and filed many frivolous motions in the federal courts.” (I'll try to include a link to the opinion in my blog post today.)

Mr. Montoya, who was running for the Court of Appeals at the time, says the Supreme Court was politically motivated. He was running against a Richardson appointee, and nearly won. At the start of the campaign, there was one complaint, from the judge he was running against. Then many more charges came in, timed to maximize harm to his campaign. He says the charges from federal cases went back as far as six years; and he adds that while federal judges have an obligation to report ethical misconduct that should be disciplined, the judges had not previously reported these incidents.

He says he “never claimed I never made mistakes” but that the Court's action, in vetoing a settlement agreement (in which his reinstatement was automatic, rather than subject to difficult conditions) and writing such a strongly-worded opinion, was political revenge. (I've found Montoya smart, forthcoming, and cooperative.)

I'm not on either side in the civil war between the sheriff and county manager. I see right and wrong on both sides. 

I do know some excellent deputies. They should have the tools and time they need. I hope the county manager and sheriff won't lose sight of the ball because they're concentrating on squabbling, or on avenging perceived slights; and Sheriff Vigil shouldn't undermine his own credibility as an advocate for his men by creating unnecessary rancor.

                                           -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 6 March, and will appear shortly on KRWG-TV's website.  I invite comments -- here, on the newspaper's website, or on the KRWG site.]

[There's also a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion in "an unfortunate case of poor lawyering by Mr. Montoya.  Seventy-five year old John Smith sued the City of Las Cruces.  Smith heard noises, went outside, saw a lot going on, and asked an officer if something was wrong.  No answer.  He was told instead to go back inside.  The old man mumbled, "Well that just beats me, a man is not able to find out what happens in his front yard.  (In fact, there was a suicidal man with knives on the sidewalk.) The cops battered the old man, took him to jail, , after which he went to a medical center with two sprained wrists, contusions, and a back strain.  He sued.  City officers moved for summary judgment, saying they had qualified immunity against a suit.  The opinion says Smith's lawyer, Montoya, didn't really respond, so the court granted defendants summary judgment -- "though, as the court says, that doesn't mean Smith lacked "a meritorious case.   It is to say only we will never know, because clients like Mr. Smith are usually bound by their lawyers' actions -- or, as here, inactions.  Sometimes that means good cases are lost by bad lawyers, a lamentable cost of our legal system."]

[I should stress that I'm not equating Mr. Montoya with Mr. Seeberger.  I'm a bystander, with a healthy curiosity about what will turn out to be the reason(s) Mr. Montoya was placed on Administrative Leave a while back, apparently without a clear account of why.  That seems to be the new style of the County Manager -- as if county business were military or industrial secrets such that anyone suspected of anything had to be hustled out of the building instantly and not spoken to by anyone.  I'd also question having the "investigation" done by a lawyer who represents the county in litigation.  Nothing illegal about that, so far as I know; but it'd probably not seem fair to me if I were the target of the investigation.   Too, when Ms. Brown puts people on Administrative Leave for a lengthy period, you and I pay those people's salary for the period, while getting no useful work from those people.  When she hires a law firm to investigate, we might be paying $100 or $200 per hour -- essentially, I fear, for someone to find adequate support for an action she's already decided on.  Well, it's only money.  Ours.]

[Meanwhile, is it true she's also engaged an "expert" to prove the county sheriff's office is overstaffed?  I keep meaning to send in an IPRA Request on that subject, and maybe will add one regarding the contract with the investigating lawyer, to find out how much he's being paid?  I'll also call her and try to ask her, but she doesn't always answer or call me back.]

[Meanwhile, the county's expenditure of more bad lawyer-money (I mean the money's badly spent, not that the lawyers are bad; it'd be unfair to conclude that just because they lose) trying to get the judge in the Kim Stewart case to overrule the jury's award of damages?  Unsuccessful.  Judge Marci Beyer said no last week, in a six-page opinion.  I'd characterize it as saying not only "no" but "hell, no", albeit in courtesy and appropriate legal language.  One big selling point the county's lawyers pushed was that one of the jurors had hugged Plaintiff Kim Stewart afterward.  Unfortunately, what that says to me isn't that they were pals or the juror came to the case with prejudice, but rather that the appalling conduct of county officials created a certain sympathy in jurors for someone who they felt stood up against that conduct.  I sat through almost the whole trial in the Jorge Granados case a couple of years ago, and interviewed jurors on the way out, and they were saying things that sounded a lot like the hug in this case.  They told me to thank him for standing up.  
To lead with that as a major argument why the jury award should be reduced is understandable legally but kind of amusing in a human sense.  Or just plain sad.  
I'll analyze the case in more detail in an upcoming column, and add a link to the opinion; but the three or four arguments offered by the county's outside counsel didn't look like winners when filed and don't look like winners now.  But the county -- or, more likely, the New Mexico Association of Counties -- will likely pay these or another set of lawyers to dress up those arguments for the Court of Appeals.]
 

Fight for "Customer Choice"

Help save us all money!

El Paso Electric (EPE) wants a humongous rate increase: initially $8.6 million, dropped to $6.4 million.

Recently, a hearing examiner's proposed decision (PD) recommended giving EPE about one-tenth of that, $640,000.

That was good. Credit intervenors, including U.S. Congressional candidate Merrie Lee Soules, One-Hour Air-Conditioning, and our City, County, and Attorney-General. 

But the PD, apparently a huge victory for customers, would actually be a devastating and expensive loss if allowed to stand! 

The relatively “small” overall increase is actually a huge increase to residential customers and a decrease for some large customers. Worse, most of the residential increase is to a “customer charge” that even the smallest customers pay, regardless of usage. Our poorest citizens get hit hardest.

Part of the reason we get hosed, and big companies get a decrease, is that they have a Time of Use rate and we don't. EPE determines rates mainly based on customers' “peak usage”; but while big customers can cut back to save on peak, EPE discourages residential customers from decreasing their peak-time usage. EPE doesn't give them a clear signal that shifting usage will save money. 

Each of us needs to write or call the PRC seeking “Customer Choice.”

Intervenors have proposed a wholly voluntary Customer Choice pilot program limited to 4% of EPE's customers. Customers could use less energy at peak times and save money, the way large users can. Demonstrating that we could adjust our usage would help both our wallets and our environment. 

Why would EPE oppose Customer Choice? Because if EPE can keep “peak usage” very high, it can sell the PRC on the idea that EPE needs to build additional huge (and wasteful) power plants so as to be able to supply the “peak usage” needed on the highest-usage day of the year. If usage gets evened out more, there's no such excuse. 

We're talking big money: EPE says it will build $1.1 billion in new assets over the next five years, possibly raising rates 40% – all to hit the “peak usage” need that doesn't have to occur! We're also talking urgency: EPE will file its next rate increase in early 2017.

Only by implementing the Customer Choice pilot program NOW can we help stave off this madness, by showing that many customers, if allowed, will choose to save money by washing and drying their clothes at a non-peak usage times. If we can't implement it now, we can't demonstrate that it works in time to forestall huge capital expenditures by EPE for unnecessary new power plants that we'll be paying for for decades.

It's a mystery why the hearing examiner proposes to deny us Customer Choice. The pilot program would be a small, sensible effort to gather accurate information. EPE might not want accurate information that could show its additional power plants would be a waste of money; but why should the hearing examiner or the PRC – our employees – oppose it? 

The PD claimed that there wasn't sufficient detail in the record; but Intervenors supplied huge boxes of data, including four years' worth of analysis, extensive data, and a detailed rate schedule!

The County Commission – led by Chairman Wayne Hancock and Billy Garrett – gave county attorneys clear orders to fight this; the City is doing the same. Please add your voice to the chorus!

My blog post today has further information and the Commission's address; but at least email and call Commissioner Sandy Jones at (505) 827-4531 / Sandy.Jones@state.nm.us. 

Ask that we be allowed to show what we can do. We need Customer Choice.

                                                           -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 28 February, and will appear later on the KRWG-TV website.  You may comment directly on this blog-post, on www.lcsun-news.com by clicking on Opinion and looking for this column, which will be under a different headline;, or by clicking on News then Local Viewpoints on the KRWG site.  I welcome comments, questions, and criticism.]

Please write:
Public Regulation Commission
1120 Paseo de Peralta
PERA Building
P.O. Box 1269
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Please call or email :
Karen L. Montoya    (505) 827-8015   KarenL.Montoya@state.nm.us
Patrick Lyons            (505) 827-4531   Patrick.Lyons@state.nm.us
Valerie Espinoza       (505) 827-4533   Valerie.Espinoza@state.nm.us
Lynda Lovejoy          (505) 827-8019   Lynda.Lovejoy@state.nm.us
Sandy.Jones               (505) 827-8020     Sandy.Jones@state.nm.us

Tell them "Customer Choice" makes sense for EPE's customers -- and for the environment -- and that it's only fair!

Mr. Jones is "our" Commissioner.  I'd suggested calling him, if you just call one; and if you send an email, direct it to him but "cc" the others.
[You might also "cc" County Commission Chairman Wayne Hancock and/or Mayor Miyagashima, to express support for their interventions, which helped decrease the rate increase 93% from what EPE filed for.]
[But the PD retains or even strengthens the unfairness of EPE's rates.  And I can only tell you that the closer you look, the worse EPE's conduct here smells!]

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.

 

Would you trust these folks?

Imagine someone wants you to invest in a big company. 

“Who's your internal auditor?” you ask.

“Milton was, but he kept reporting embarrassing facts. We fired him. Some allegation of misconduct.”

“Who replaced him?”

“A very experienced lady, two or three years ago, but she took one look and quit within a week.”

“Who replaced her.”

“No one yet.”

“Well who's your risk manager?”

“Was Fridenstine, but he got crossways with our attorney. Wondered whether it was right for our in-house attorney to also be our outside counsel, paid separately. And other stuff. He's gone.”

“Who are your internal investigators?” 

“We had two, Kim Stewart and Lupe Quezada. Working under the attorney so he could control them.”

“And?”

“Well, a jury awarded Kim a million bucks because we fired her after she made an embarrassing report about Curtis Childress. She was pesky that way. Lupe's still there. She's good, but the grand jury got hold of a report she did on jailer Chris Barela. We often go around her now. Use an outside investigator. Costs extra, but it's not my money.”

“Which investigator?”

“UIS, but sometimes they're a little too objective, so we're switching.  Maybe we'll try a law firm - make sure reports come out right.”

Sound familiar? The “big company” is Doña Ana County. And I wouldn't invest if I didn't have to.

This situation is wrong. As one employee told me Wednesday, “If an auditor says 'This isn't quite right,' you're not supposed to tell him to go pound sand. That's how you get sued.” The employee had called about problems at the County.

As I started to have coffee with him, my cell-phone rang. Unfamiliar number. “Hi, I'm Jane, I work at the County. We talked once a long time ago, do you have some time right now?”

Employees say that if management doesn't like you, you get suddenly told you're on administrative leave. Ask why, and you're told: “You'll find out, an investigator will contact you.” Maybe the employees exaggerate; but how would we know, as things stand now?

County management has had serious problems for years. The commissioners made what looked like a good move by hiring Julia Brown; but it hasn't worked out. They should face up to that. (Folks act like Leticia Benavidez was some nut case for being the only commissioner who voted not to extend Brown's contract; but as one employee said, “Leiticia's the only one who ever worked at the County and knows the shenanigans that go on.” 

Commissioners (for good reason) have limited power. They have none over elected officials like Treasurer David Gutierrez or Sheriff Kiki Vigil. They have little over the County Manager.

Before Ms. Brown, management acted badly, morale was terrible, and Commissioners trusted management too much. Now under Julia, management seems to be acting badly, and morale is terrible. 

There needs to be an auditor. There needs to be a way for employees to complain without the complaint going through the County Manager. And Ms. Brown should probably be gone.

On a happier note, there's Wally. Wally plays pickleball with us. He came from some tiny Texas town. I think his wife was his high-school sweetheart. Wally's so popular that Meerscheidt Rec Center staff brought out a surprise cake for his birthday Wednesday. We sang to him, but Wally still kept beating our butts. Hard shots, precisely aimed. It was his 81^st birthday.

                                                       -30- 

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, February 14  and will appear shortly on KRWG-TV's veb-site under News-->Local Viewpoints]

[The County may well have a good excuse for each of the events above: firing or driving away Duran and Fridenstine and Stewart, etc.  But the pattern - including apparent inaction as far as filling positions -- seems awfully suspicious.]

[As to whether Brown is getting revenge on enemies, I can't fully say; but certainly it's convenient for her to have Dennis Montoya (Sheriff Vigil's right-hand man in disputes and discussions with her and HR) out of the way.  Maybe he deserves it.  Two investigators who'd been working on the investigation of Barela (and ultimately Brown herself) are also gone.  These are not the only example.  Maybe each of her non-friends against whom action has been taken deserves the action; only time will tell, I guess.  Or a series of judges and juries will.),]

[I do feel I should add, again, that the County Commissioners have surprisingly little power.  Laws wisely implemented to protect against political interference necessarily restrict them.  As the embarrassing Mr. Gutierrez, our County Treasurer, proudly proclaims in a column in this morning's Sun-News, they can't do anything to him for his admitted misconduct.  Similarly, with regard to personnel the Commissioners can only hire and fire the County Manager.]

Update on Earlier Sunday Columns

This column is an update on several past columns about matters as to which there have been recent developments worth mentioning.

A December 2014 column concerned initial efforts to build a non-profit community radio station in Las Cruces. Since then, it has acquired a name (K-TAL, aka “Que tal?”); a studio location; some money to help get on the air, and a lot of new volunteers. At a recent meeting we heard from many talented and enthusiastic people who want to help make this happen. Some of them have extensive radio experience or other great backgrounds. The next few months should see us acquiring the necessary equipment, setting up the studio, raising more funds, getting some interesting shows from elsewhere, and starting to train local folks to create and air a wide variety of interesting shows. 

An October 2015 column outlined why we should set up a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) concerning the detention center. Recently the County Commission directed the County Manager to put together a proposal. The CAC must be independent of the Commission and seen to be independent. I''m hoping that in addition to Commission appointees we see members appointed by LULAC, perhaps the NAACP, the mental health treatment community, and others. If you have suggestions, write Julia Brown or watch for announcement of a work session on the subject.

A more recent column hoped the authorities would act appropriately to evict Bundy and friends from the Malheur refuge in Oregon. To some degree, that's happened. Sadly, one fellow was shot when he reached for a pocket with a gun in it, although I've wondered if he meant to hand in his gun but just didn't make that clear to the authorities. But he'd said he wouldn't be taken alive. Those captured should face appropriate charges.

Overall it's a little depressing to glance back. Columns about lawsuits by former County employees (two big jury verdicts) and by alleged victims of detention center mismanagement (e.g. Mr. Slevin)? More such lawsuits are coming, with one set for trial in March, I think. Some of the alleged bad actors seem to find a strong champion in Julia Brown. I don't know why. I've written columns about alleged misconduct by Detention Center Director Chris Barela; but while charges have been filed and a grand jury will take a look at him shortly, delay let the statute of limitations run out on some charges. (I state no conclusions about whether or not he should or will be convicted. Depends on the evidence. He's got a real good defense attorney.)

I've written a lot about what seems to me excessively acrimonious politics, and about the influence of outside oil and gas interests, and even the Koch Brothers; but although the dishonest recall campaign failed a year ago and PAC attacks on Mayor Miyagashima failed to dissuade many citizens from voting for him, money in politics is a problem we haven't solved and probably can't; and the acrimony grows to absurd proportions with the national examples of Donald Trump and the other clowns vying for the Republican Presidential nomination. Politics is way too influenced, if not controlled, by money.

And HJR9 could help the corporations destroy the U.S. as we know it, by triggering a potentially disastrous constitutional convention orchestrated by ALEC.

And one very sad local note: I've written columns praising Chope's. One included an image of the matriarch, Lupe Benavides. A great lady. Her death this week is sad for Chope's, for La Mesa, and for all of us. 

But her life exemplifies how much good one person can do.

                                                          -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 7 February, and will appear later this morning on the KRWG-TV web-site (News --> Local Viewpoints).]

[Guess I should add two updates from this morning's Sun-News: the County Commission will vote Tuesday morning on a resolution asking County Treasurer David Gutierrez to resign, as my previous column  did; and February 16 will be Miguel Silva Day in Las Cruces and probably Dona Ana County.  There'll be a ceremony at 10 a.m. at Klein Park.]

[It's a beautiful, sunny morning here.  Cold, but warmer than it has been.  Bird-baths only lightly frozen this morning.]
          * * *        ** *        * * *        * * *        * * *        * * *        * * *        * * *
          strong morning sunlight.
          cat springs, mouse dead.  soon the cat
          will follow the mouse
          -- as will i, later the sun.
          who will notice our passing?