Sam Bradley, County Commission candidate

How will voters regard county commission candidate Sam Bradley, who left a high-powered academic post after a university committee’s report accused him of consistent misconduct? 

 

Bradley seeks the Democratic nomination for District 4. Republicans here have sometimes used vicious and misleading ads against progressive candidates. Won’t they have fun with a host of news stories about alleged sex, lies, and drunkenness?

Bradley says, "I have never been accused of sexual harassment or anything like that.” The January 2013 Texas Tech University report said, “Graduate Student 2 . . . said she was in a vulnerable place which Sam Bradley knew about and took advantage of. She felt she had to respond to him because she was in his class. He told her that he wanted to have a physical, sexual relationship with her, that he was going to leave his wife, and that he wanted to marry her. . . . that he sent her sexually suggestive emails about her body and what he wanted to do with her. . . . He had kissed her in his office once. This had been going on for several months. GS-2 said it made her sick, and she wanted it to stop.” 

 

Bradley denies misconduct, and says GS-2 initiated the sex-related communications.

The report concluded Bradley “engaged in inappropriate relationships” that violated policy, and “engaged in generally unprofessional behavior on numerous occasions that was embarrassing to Texas Tech.” Investigators interviewed at least 20 witnesses and reviewed many documents. 

 

Bradley says the witnesses weren’t under oath, and that some hated him. That seems likely. His then-wife shared with GS-2’s husband some of the inappropriate communications, and he went ballistic. Witnesses also said Bradley was inappropriately close with a male student (“B”), and that when B broke up with his girlfriend, Bradley started seeing her. One source told me B was on “a vendetta” against Bradley. (Bradley denies going out with B’s ex.)

Bradley says that he forced Texas Tech to pay him good money to leave – and that he didn’t yet know about the written report, which he calls “a very good hit job.” He says if he’d known, he’d have refused TTU’s offer and fought. But that won’t stop opposition leaflets from quoting freely from it.

“[A]lmost every individual interviewed had concerns about other unprofessional behavior [by] Bradley. . . . [T]here were numerous references to his getting drunk with students, getting drunk at conferences and requiring students to drive him . . . and look after him when he was drunk.” “Every faculty member interviewed [said] said “Bradley’s relationships with students, even if not necessarily a conflict of interest, were much too familiar and unprofessional.”

It’s too bad. Bradley is a sharp and able progressive who speaks well. (There’s a notable dissonance between his advocacy of “me-too” accusers generally and the allegations regarding his conduct.) 

 

I’m less concerned about the report about than about how it’s used, how the voters view it and how Bradley handles it. If he files on March 10^th, then wins the Democratic primary, maybe he can survive the General Election. 

 

When I asked him about this stuff on radio, I got bluster and legal arguments, with no visible contrition or concern for how his conduct affected students he mentored. That was disappointing. On the telephone, Friday, he was more thoughtful. He denies misconduct, but says he should have immediately rejected GS-2’s personal communications.

The election could be interesting.

                                                     -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 23 February 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's site.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM, Las Cruces Community Radio, and is also available on KRWG's website.]

[My initial, abortive effort at writing this column I'd have titled "A Tale of Two Sinners," because getting plunged into the sordid details of the TTU Report, and talking to Mr. Bradly about it, kept reminding me of recent conversations with a friend who was involved in sort of a sex scandal, and kind of dropped from sight.  That friend has picked up the pieces of his life.  His wife, particularly deserves great credit. But he has learned from what happened, knows himself a little better because of it, and can express remorse.  Mr. Bradley is mostly at pains to attack the reliability of the report, or argue details here and there, or establish that he's in general a good guy with a strong character.  I hope he is.  
Bradley attacks the veracity of the report.  I wasn't there.  He certainly had some admirers and supporters.  But it's hard to read that report and not feel that he did things he ought to regret. (As have all of us, to varying degrees!)  For example, although the administrators at TTU (who'd apparently regarded him as a star, with one saying he'd initially accepted Bradley's explanations) seem to have concluded that with GS-2 (whom everyone agreed was a troubled, "fragile" young woman), Bradley denies he initiated anything and says he regrets responding to her instead of telling her "I don't think you meant to send this to me."  Reading her statements on it, it's clear that she participated, from some mix of feeling flattered and knowing he was a big professor in the department, and that she regrets the harm that she and Bradley did to her fiance, then husband.  And feels ashamed.  Bradley sounds as if he's in denial.  Bottom line, even accepting his version of events, it's hard to imagine that most folks wouldn't feel some contrition for the way his conduct affected GS-2 and her fiance/husband; and, yeah, he was a man in authority.  My instinct, certainly, is that he hasn't come to terms with that inside.]

Because many who voted for Donald Trump love our country and the ideals of freedom that made thirteen colonies revolt, I can’t help but try to articulate the danger Donald Trump poses to what we all love.

He sounded great on radio recently, smoothly mocking Democrats by complimenting them on creating the impeachment case “from nothing.” You’d never realize that the non-partisan General Accounting Office investigation had concluded that Trump’s Ukraine fiasco broke the law. Trump spoke persuasively of his “perfect” conversation with the Ukrainian President – although his own people immediately tried to hide the phone call’s summary to protect him. The call was part of a months-long effort to force Ukraine to announce a baseless “investigation” of Trump’s then-major political opponent. 

I admit I’ve never liked Trump. But even if a president stood for policies I liked, and values I embraced, I hope I’d reject him or her wholeheartedly if s/he were endangering our judiciary, our Separation of Powers, our Bill of Rights protections, and so much of our government, including the State Department and FBI. 

Trump says only lily-livered Democrats criticize him. But John Bolton, his hand-picked National Security Advisor, ridiculed the Ukraine episode as “that drug deal,” refused to participate, and says Trump is lying about it. General John Kelley, who provided adult supervision to the inexperienced Trump, says he believes Bolton.

The impeachment witnesses were respected, long-time diplomats (including highly-decorated war veteran Vindaman), plus Trump’s own Ambassador Sondland. Sondland contributed big bucks to get Trump into the White House.

U.S. Senator Mitt Romney was a Republican presidential candidate. And is deeply religious. He broke ranks and voted to impeach, on one count, explaining that Trump’s deeply repugnant conduct forced him to.

This week Trump sacked several witnesses, and threatened more. For testifying under oath before Congress. Probably truthfully, since contemporaneous documents supported their testimony and lying could have meant prison. Meanwhile Trump improperly denied investigators access to witnesses and documents.

Trump not only sacked folks for telling the truth, but interfered with the sentencing of his pal Roger Stone. Federal prosecutors recommended 7-9 years, Trump screamed, and the Department of Justice slunk back into court to suggest lighter sentences – as the four prosecutors resigned from the case. Even Nixon recognized that such conduct was completely wrong.

Trump does things U.S. leaders have never done. Things Putin, Stalin, Hitler, and Franco were infamous for. Things that directly contradict our rights as U.S. citizens.

We have freedom of speech. Our courts are independent of the Executive Branch. Most states prohibit sacking someone for whistle-blowing or trial testimony. Absent national security issues or disloyalty, we WANT people to speak out candidly, and testify truthfully. Dictators or corrupt city bosses interfere to get a crooked crony off, or misuse the law to punish people who criticize them. That ain’t the U.S. as our founders conceived it. John Peter Zenger must be barfing in his grave.

Attorney-General William Barr, once a principled conservative lawyer, has licked Trump’s boots throughout. Trump congratulated Barr for recommending a lighter sentence for Stone. Friday Barr announced that Trump’s improper and bullying tweets are making it impossible for Barr to do his job. 

I share the skepticism about established politicians. Much is wrong with our system. I too have wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the federal machinery. But now we all need to face the fact that Trump is a dangerous con man.

                                                            – 30 --

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 16 February 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's site.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM, Las Cruces Community Radio, and is also available on KRWG's website.]

[A friend who gently chides me for such things points out that to some degree Trump is not a departure from previous presidents but a somewhat grotesque exaggeration of faults many of them had in common.  He writes:

Your point is well taken:  Our current president is remarkably bold in his contempt for the rest of us.  Yet, he is just a brazen example of our history. . . . Trump is a total insult to honesty, decency and compassion.  He's only the latest in a long line of similar souls.  His predecessors just had better manners."

Certainly I didn't mean to say no president ever did more modest versions of what Trump does, or that none took some very wrong actions but were smart enough to avoid the prying eyes of journalists or reformers.  But my point is, that we mostly [with sad exceptions around the Palmer Raids, the 1932 Bonus Army, the post-WWII Red Scare, and the reaction to the civil rights / antiwar movement in my own time] have tried to respect our civil liberties and Bill of Rights.  Nixon was a smart lawyer who knew the rules, and though he secretly broke some, he would not have openly done what Trump does. My friend -- or Trump's friends -- might argue that there's something healthy and welcome about the very openness of Trump's lawbreaking.  He did try to hide the Ukraine extortion, but mostly he doesn't limit himself to quietly whispering to Barr that Roger Stone is a pal who was helping Trump's cause, he bleats like a stuck pig on Twitter and berates his enemies and those of his friends who let laws and civil liberties stand in the way of attacking those enemies.  That's not an unreasonable argument.  Yet when blatant intimidation of witnesses, manipulation of justice, and abuse of legal processes to punish those who speak out become accepted norms, I think maybe we lose something, even if the dictatorial process is less hypocritical.]

Thoughts on New Mexico's Emergency Firearms Protection Order Act

New Mexico’s proposed Emergency Firearm Protection Act, raises some tough questions and some easy ones.

Easy is whether or not the 2^nd Amendment prohibits it. Nope. From 1789-2008, the U.S. Supreme Court read that amendment as not protecting individual (non-militia-related) gun ownership. When the Supreme Court (wrongly, I’d say, but it’s done) created an individual right, striking down an extremely strict prohibition on guns in Washington, D.C., the Court made clear that the right was not unrestricted. The Court stated that restrictions based on mental health or felonies, or on the types of weapons involved, would still stand. 

 

Does the 4^th Amendment prohibit it? Tougher call. Do the procedures allowing at least a temporary state taking of property comport with due process requirements made applicable to states by the 14^th Amendment? The ACLU opposed Rhode Island’s 2018 measure, until the legislature tightened the standard for granting a petition, created penalties for providing false evidence of a threat, allowed only law enforcement to file petitions, required concrete evidence, and granted the right to legal counsel in hearings.

 

Tougher still are several value judgments that balance the rights of frightened family members against the rights of a gun owner they believe is dangerous to self or others.

As introduced, EFPA allowed “family” to petition the court to remove guns, and defined “family” to include ex-wives, former in-laws, and persons the gun-owner has had a child or an intimate relationship with. Opponents said that definition invited frivolous, even perjurious accusations. Proponents pointed to the laws against perjury. Opponents countered by asking how often perjury laws really get enforced in such situations. 

 

An amendment watered down the senate bill so that only police officers could petition – as in Rhode Island. But male-dominated law-enforcement agencies have too often shortchanged women who complained that their male companions were dangerous. Further, what should a battered spouse or ex-spouse, reasonably fearing for her or his life, do in rural New Mexico, given that sheriffs around the state have said they’ll refuse to enforce the law? We could add a provision allowing battered spouses to sue sheriffs to make them do their jobs; but who in that position is likely to sue? 

 

Ironically, by refusing to apply state law, the sheriffs (who misread constitutional law) may force the Legislature to strengthen EFPA in ways that gun enthusiasts (quite reasonably) don’t like!

As written, the bill allows an initial order to issue ex parte, with no advance notice to the respondent. Then the court sets a hearing within 15 days, and the respondent (but not the petitioner) could ask for a postponement. I’d say the respondent should also be able to move for an expedited hearing. If s/he wants the gun(s) back, and has a good case that there’s no unusual danger, s/he should be allowed to make that case and recover the property, sooner rather than later. 

 

So how do we protect against real threats without trampling the rights of responsible and mentally sound gun owners?

I wish each side listened more to the other. We can and should prevent some tragedies by enacting some form of this bill; but due process is essential to democracy. 

 

I hope gun owners, those who know guns best, will participate in refining the bill, not just shout, “I love my gun!” – and that proponents of the law won’t assume everyone who raises a civil liberties question is an NRA member. 
            --  30 -- 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 9 February 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org) and will be available also on KRWG's website.]

[I started this column before the Senate amended and passed the bill.  I haven't read the full revised version yet.  Here's an Albuquerque Journal editorial of today's date.]

[Make no mistake: I do favor the bill, as well-refined as possible with all rights and interests in mind.  I feel sorry for folks who see every effort to protect against gun violence as part of a plot to confiscate everyone's weapons.  Other gun enthusiasts point out that improvements in diagnosing and treating mental illnesses are important.  I thoroughly agree -- and agree that we need the long-unopened Triage Center here; but that should NOT be an excuse for complete inaction with regard to gun safety and appropriate legislation.  It's like telling me I shouldn't repair my car's steering because I also have a flat tire -- or, more, like trying to help an old friend who's drunkenness and cocaine addiction have cost him job, family, and health -- and he's an ex-athlete who's now obese, lonely, and depressed.  He could benefit from getting back in the gym, from talking with a shrink, from finding some job, and from finding new friends and a lover.  Would you tell him, say, not to bother with the gym because the job and lover are more important, when going to the gym could improve his energy level, his appearance, and his self-image -- and his prospects, and might even bring him into contact with potential new friends or a lover?   Life is complex, and sometimes a problem we probably can't truly solve can be treated by a combination of steps, none the total answer but all of them contributing.]
[So long as they're constitutional, too, some provisions in the bill as to which people disagree can always be tried, then amended or deleted as experience teaches us.]

 

Why We'll Celebrate Giovanni Day

Sunday we visited La Cueva, where Giovanni Maria Agostini (“el Ermitario”) lived 150 years ago.

Giovanni apparently was born to Italian nobles, studied for the priesthood, did not take vows, and spent many years walking through Europe and the Americas. He arrived in New Mexico at 62, after walking with the wagon train of Eugenio Romero (related to J. Paul Taylor, soon to be 100) and lived on a hill (now called Hermit’s Peak) northwest of Las Vegas. 

 

He came to Mesilla to consult lawyer Albert Fountain, then took up residence in La Cueva, up near Dripping Springs. The Barela family (forebears of Mesilla’s current mayor) warned him it was dangerous. He promised to light a fire each Friday evening to let them know he was all right. On Friday, 17 April, 1869, there was no fire. Antonio Garcia, who used to transport sick people to La Cueva so Giovanni could heal them with local herbs, led a group to investigate, and found Giovanni dead, with a knife in his back. His murder, like Fountain’s, went unsolved.

My ears luxuriated in the silence of the hermit’s cave, a healing silence in which, for the first few minutes, the din we take for granted in our daily lives reverberated in my head, expanding to fill the silent cave, then dissipating. As the silence took possession of me, I contemplated Giovanni and wished that each year we would celebrate 17 April.

“As a day of silence? A day of meditation?” my wife asked. Sure. A day of quiet. A day for reflecting on the vastness and beauty of our earth; on the many diverse paths that formed us and brought us here. On God or chance or karma. On whatever led that huge rock to settle exactly there, as many of us seem to have settled in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. 
 

A day to appreciate Giovanni’s contemplative nature, piety, healing, and love of our natural world. 

 

A day to honor the wondrous beauty that surrounds us here, however we choose to do so. A day to share that wonder, without carping that this one doesn’t believe everything I believe, or that that one supports political figures anathema to me. A day when we don’t divide ourselves by concerns that our neighbor doesn’t share our religious or spiritual beliefs, ethnicity, skin color, or sexual identity. A day to share our gratitude for what we have, without arguing about Who or what has given it to us.

Even if I believe you are poisoning our Earth and killing off species, and you believe I am killing nascent lives that will turn into children if all goes well – if whosever house was on fire, would we not form a bucket line? If our boat were sinking, would we not all shut up and bail? Well, our boat is sinking in a cesspool of selfishness, greed, lies, and ideological fervor. Let’s bail.

I suspect that’s what Giovanni would want us to do, so let’s pause each April 17^th to celebrate Giovanni, who loved our mountains, lived and healed where we walk, and is embedded in local history. He preached Catholic sermons, but belongs to all of us.

We have plenty of passionate rallies and marches are about protesting each other. Let’s share Giovanni Day, celebrating our mountains and land and culture and silences. Together. Who knows, we might learn to like each other.

                                                          – 30 --

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 2 February 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air Wednesday and Saturdya on KRWG and Thursday afternoon on KTAL, 101.5 FM Las Cruces Community Radio, and is available on the KRWG website.]

[I plan at least to go up to La Cueva as early as I can on 17 April, which I think is on a Friday.  Spend a little longer up there.  Maybe beforehand remind a few others it's Giovanni Day.  Or el dia del ermitario.  Imagine having the patience to spend so long in the cave, mostly alone.  Few of us these days can bear being alone even for a few hours!  Aside from the spiritual dimension, I suspect one MUST develop a little self-knowledge and some amount of inner peace by doing so.]