Should the County Put Armed Officers in Gadsden Schools?

Should DASO place officers in Gadsden Schools, and at what cost? County Commissioners MAY face those questions at Tuesday’s regular meeting.

I write “may” because this story keeps changing.

Initially, GISD Superintendent Travis Duffy requested 27 new officers, offering to pay for their salaries, but not benefits or higher insurance premiums.

Additional officers and special training add to DASO’s administrative burden. There are health insurance, perhaps pensions, and many hidden county personnel/administrative costs. Citizens and commissioners should have a ballpark figure for those costs.

It appeared that the county and GISD might be rushing toward a deal in which county taxpayers would provide GISD a benefit without being fully reimbursed. IF we’re to do that, citizens and commissioners should know the details, costs, and risks.

Dempsey says the deal has “evolved:” it concerns 3-5 officers, GISD will pay for their training, and may pay for insurance-premium increases. Dempsey says GISD is “pretty committed to making this work.” County officials who deal with risk aren’t so enthusiastic.

Dempsey says any premium increase would be negligible, given that deputies are already insured when they wear weapons and deal with the public daily. Others say that dealing with children presents more and different problems. Some county officials shudder at the added liability risks. One noted that three high school football players could surprise and overpower an officer and take his gun.

“Special needs” kids, such as those on the autism spectrum, can be easily aggravated and [over]react impulsively, perhaps triggering an officer’s overreaction. “We might be putting kids in harm’s way, rather than protecting them. We need a full discussion on training, and whether or not to have guns in schools,” says State Representative Joanne Ferrary.

The ACLU strongly opposes the idea, noting that “armed officers stationed in schools neither prevented nor stopped ‘active shooters’” in Columbine High and elsewhere. Many large school districts have decided against guns in schools. The ACLU adds, “Places of learning are not security zones or criminal justice institutions, and they should not be staffed that way.”

Our sheriff, County Commissioner Shannon Reynolds, and Ferrary all doubt armed school resources officers are effective. Stewart calls it “false security. People go in with automatic weapons, and one person with a gun is unlikely to stop them.” She adds that schools tend to use them as disciplinary tools, threatening to sic the SRO on kids – like mothers telling their children “Wait ‘til Daddy comes home.”

If the ACLU is wrong, both the Gadsden School Board and the Dona Ana County Commission (and parents/citizens) should be fully comfortable with why they would put armed officers in schools. Then, they should make clear how much helping GISD will cost the county, and be comfortable with the costs and risks.

Others question why the county manager recommends including this in the budget but denying Stewart special officers she requested: e.g., certified drone deputies, without which DASO’s six drones are useless; a deputy in dispatch, because of new technologies; and a CALEA manager, essential to keeping DASO’s CALEA certification. She also needs a public information person.

These issues get mired in bureaucratic rivalries, and I’d hope the commissioners exercise independent judgment.

At my deadline, I suddenly learned that Sheriff Stewart has withdrawn her request. Little she wanted was approved; and the six school officers were approved at deputies’ wages, though they’d not be deputies or certified.

So the commission may face these issues Tuesday.

                                                – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 23 April 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]

[This column rewrote itself several times: the initial issue was urging the county to make sure it identified all the extra costs and risks it was incurring, so as to make sure citizens and commissioners were okay with the facts. It seemed back-burner; but then it seemed more urgent. Meanwhile, the numbers of proposed school resource officers declined. Then the Sheriff withdrew her request, as discussed above. I had no chance to ask Mr. Macias if he intends to bring up the issue anyway, and whether or not that’s procedurally dicey. Meanwhile, the larger issue of whether inserting guns ins schools is wise overshadows the accounting issues.]

Jordan, Thomas, and Kacsmaryk Eat Away at our Democratic Institutions

Right-wing office-holders keep blowing up the norms of good government and democracy.

Just this month, consider Jim Jordan using a congressional committee to try to sabotage the Donald Trump “hush-money” trial, revelations of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s secret acceptance of millions of dollars in fun and travel from a rich Texas conservative, and a Texas judge’s bizarre decision that his political preferences can take an FDA-approved drug off the market.

Justice is blind. Ideally, judges and justices are independent, and maybe somewhat honest. Thus, they’re supposed to report gifts they receive.

Clarence Thomas has accepted millions of dollars of gifts – for example, a $500,000 trip one year, taking the donor’s jet to Indonesia and then island-hopping on the donor’s huge yacht, and other such trips – from billionaire Harlan Crow.

Thomas’s ethics are minimal. He’s declined to recuse himself from cases his wife is directly involved in and cases on issues she gets paid to lobby for. He reported only one gift from Crow, many years ago. Usually Thomas ignores complaints; but this one worried him enough that at least he offered a lame excuse, that, early on, someone said he didn’t have to report gifts from close friends. Crow is an influential conservative Thomas met as a justice, and the gifts are huge.

By comparison, when I started writing Sunday columns I refused to let anyone buy me lunch or coffee except friends I’d known for decades.

The Senate will belatedly try to tighten the rules, and Thomas says he’ll report future gifts; but will Chief Justice John Roberts do anything?

Federal District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk gave the judiciary system another jolt while undermining the FDA’s reliance on science to approve drugs.

Our safety depends on the FDA basing decisions on science, not politics and ideology. I’m sure there are some close calls; but consider mifeprestone. The FDA studied scientific data and reached a conclusion that experience has validated. In 23 years on the market it has proved extremely safe and more than 99% effective.

However, Judge Kacsmaryk doesn’t approve of abortions. Mifeprestone can be used to end pregnancies. Therefore he’s suspended sales, although the order is stayed pending appeal. The same day, a a judge in Washington State reached the opposite conclusion.

Meanwhile, as we all know, a Manhattan grand jury has indicted former president Donald Trump on 34 felony counts related to paying Stormy Daniels to keep quiet. Since Trump reimbursed Donald Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer” what Cohen paid Daniels, and Cohen was convicted criminally for his role in the scheme, Trump’s indictment is legally reasonable. Maybe he’s not guilty of any criminal conduct. There’s a well-known way to establish that: litigate the case and, if you can’t get it dismissed on pretrial motions, let a jury decide. That used to be called “the American Way.”

Instead, a congressman known for evading subpoenae from congressional committees, Jim Jordan, has (a) subpeonaed a former prosecutor, (b) sought secret grand jury materials, and (c) wasted a bunch of money holding hearings in New York City designed to undermine Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s credibility. Jordan is flagrantly placing a fat thumb on the scales of justice. And we’re footing the bill.

Even the conservative 5^th Circuit appellate court won’t uphold Kacsmaryk’s dangerous ruling. Public pressure reversed the Tennessee Legislature’s unprecedented expulsion of two Black progressives. But give these termites a chance, they’ll eat what’s left of our democracy.

                    – 30 –

 

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 16 April 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website on the newspaper's website, and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]

[It may make sense to be more specific about just how bad Kacsmaryk’s mifeprestone decision was, in basic ways:

> a key requirement for any lawsuit is “standing,” which required the people bring suit must have suffered actual injury because of the law. Here’ plaintiffs were doctors who “might have to treat a patient who’d taken the drug.”

> with regard to lack of safety, Judge says FDA didn’t follow procedures to ensure safety, when 23 years’ experience has confirmed safety. By contrasts, a way higher percentage of Tylenol users go to the ER than mifeprestone users.

> He dredges up the Comstock Act “leud and lascivious” language that was used in the 19^th Century, before birth control was discussed in polite company, but makes no sense in 2023. Is medicine pornographic? Amazingly, this is the same law Margaret Sanger had to battle more than a century ago.

> The judge used “unborn humans” to refer to fetuses, and even said they were sometimes “inaccurately” called fetuses! This is a weak effort to establish constitutional rights (such as free speech and freedom of religion) for fetuses. As he’s a mere district court judge, he’s off base citing a concept neither statute nor the U.S. Supreme Court has even recognized. ]

[With regard to Clarence Thomas, stories duly recite that Crow’s company hasn’t had a case before the Court during this time, but Crow is associated with the American Enterprise Institute and ___, and perhaps other entities, that frequently file big lawsuits, and Thomas has voted for their positions on every such lawsuit that has reached the Supreme Court. Even if Crow and Thomas never discussed issues that reached the Court, how could thirty years of receiving goods and services (in some years, valued at more than your annual salary) from someone NOT have a little influence on you? How would we feel if a district court judge paid, say, $100,000 a year was secretly getting $120,000 trips and gifts annually from the Homebuilders Association, or the Chamber of Commerce, or George Soros? ]

[These folks are doing a great job of weakening key institutions we depend on. I might not mind if they were attacking our systemic economic inequality and the conservative hogwash that suggests such inequality is natural or inevitable, and that our wealthy corporations and individuals have nothing to do with it. But, sadly, they buy whatever the moneyed class is selling, uncritically. ]

© Peter Goodman

A Las Cruces City Council Meeting -- and Accountability for All

April’s first city council meeting was quite a ride!

I hoped to urge the council again to schedule a work session to consider a Citizens Police Oversight Commission. (City officials said we should make our CPOC proposal more specific, so we drafted a model ordinance to get conversations started. The mayor, or four councilors, could place it on the agenda.) Miyagashima had promised a work session then reneged. He also insisted no four commissioners wanted the work session.

Meanwhile, I heard that conservative critics had made sexist remarks about the women councilors, while the critics claimed councilors were arrogant and laughed at one speaker. (Video neither shows nor disproves that latter; it’s focused on citizens when they speak.) Numerous conservative social media posts urged fellow citizens to speak out against the council, while councilors and their supporters told friends about the attacks on them.

Public input took hours. Critics toned down their comments, disavowing any sexist intentions. Councilors said that they welcomed debate. Folks thanking the councilors greatly outnumbered the critics. The day’s agenda and councilor comments illustrated the range of matters the council studies and decides, few of which involve the “culture wars” issues that angered critics.

Critics were upset that the council recently renamed Squaw Mountain Drive something less demeaning. “Squaw” is on some federal list as insulting. Whether it’s sufficiently hurtful to enough people to warrant the change is open to discussion. But the critics’ argument that only street residents’ views should matter is weak. Residents should be heard; but if the debate concerned “N-word Avenue,” no one would suggest letting residents decide. Too, citizens elected each of these councilors over conservative opponents.

Some “Catholic but not Roman,” from T or C, amazingly full of hatred for a supposed follower of Jesus, fumed over New Mexico health facilities assisting victims of Texas’s draconian new abortion law. (“Murdering babies!”) He shouted about his faith, as if convincing us of his sincerity were the issue. He sounded just as passionate in his faith as Ossama bin Laden or any Taliban official; but we separate church and state.

The councilors were treated to an outpouring of love and respect. If any had mocked citizens in March, they didn’t do so April 3.

Hours later, four councilors indeed requested a work session on the CPOC and police accountability. Two volunteered to help arrange expert speakers from cities with successful CPOCs. The Mayor now backtracked (again), saying “I can’t just call a work session,” and suggesting the idea first be vetted by legal staff and one of his committees that meets privately. Councilor Tessa Abeyta stated that she wasn’t one of the four, but reminded the Mayor that the city charter says four councilors can put this on the schedule.

The Mayor said secret advisory boards (not capable of doing a CPOC’s work) and OIR, the out-of-state agency the City contracts with, would suffice. (CPOCs offer advantages OIR can’t. In some cities OIR reports to the local CPOC.) One councilor commented that shifting an important transparency issue to a secret committee didn’t sound right.

Afterward, I’m told, Mayor Miyagashima had a new objection, demanding to know in advance how much a CPOC would cost. That’s a reasonable question he hadn’t really raised before – and one that obviously will depend on what form of CPOC the council might resolve to adopt.

I hope he listens open-mindedly at the work session. Meanwhile, congratulations, councilors.

                                                   – 30 ---

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 9 April 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]

[People ask me when the CPOC / police accountability work session will be. I don’t know. I fear the mayor will toss some procedural roadblocks in the way. I expect the council to surmount them. I believe we will have a work-session. If it includes accounts from places where CPOCs are working, it will not only rebut the “Those never work!” objection, but perhaps help us focus on what provisions and procedures tend to help a CPOC have a meaningful effect on law enforcement.

A part of that is some mix of actual power and some buy-in among law enforcement professionals. We need an institution that listens to folks on the street but is fair to police officers; that has the authority to obtain documents or testimony but the collective wisdom to assess evidence carefully.

A tall order, yes! But better than not trying.]

 

Mayor's "State of the City" Speech Glorifies Past but Ignores LCPD Problems

Mayor Ken Miyagashima gave his “state of the city” speech without mentioning the crisis in police accountability.

Ken took a slow, stately victory lap, recalling old times and accomplishments. He reminded us that his election followed the city council’s questionable approval of annexation of six square miles of land with 30,000 projected residences on it. This “unfettered expansion,” and fears of its impact on citizens, led to a focus on “Smart Growth,” a principle he said was ridiculed at the time. We have become a more sustainable and humane city, while staying financially sound. Ken’s finishing his fourth term.

He said repeatedly that our city is strong.

He did not mention that our city has had way more than its share of questionable police shootings.

I say “questionable” because I know enough about what police face to avoid jumping to conclusions; but on some, the City has spoken. We paid the family of Amelia Baca, shot nearly a year ago, $2,750,000 to settle only their state case, while the federal case continues.

For the pleasure of making Antonio Valenzuela dead, the city paid $6,500,000 changed some policies, and terminated Officer Christopher Smelser’s employment.

Jonathan Strickland survived being shot under circumstances that may or may not have justified the police conduct. Noted civil rights attorney John Burris thinks enough of the Strickland case that he’s representing Strickland against the city. But the city has substantive legal defenses. This case might go to trial.

Sources say the fatal shooting of Presley Eze will cost us a bundle. (I have no opinion: while stealing beer isn’t a capital offense, resisting arrest with your fists limits police options. You don’t get to bully a clerk and punch a cop, then just drive on to California.)

By its actions, the City necessarily admits the seriousness of the problem. The sums the city has paid out are not “nuisance” settlements paid to save on attorney fees. But the city government so far has resisted even seriously considering a citizens police oversight committee, or some similar means of improving police accountability.

Mayor Ken deserves credit for some significant past accomplishments, but should also be held responsible for resisting serious efforts at police accountability.

Appropriately, Ken opened the speech with a moment of silence for migrants who died in a fire in a camp in Juarez the previous day.

He offered no moment of silence for Amelia Baca. (I would not suggest a moment of silence for Valenzuela or Strickland; but neither did Valenzuela deserve to be dead.)

Ken can banish blemishes from his speech; but he will be remembered as much for the present failure (or refusal) as for past successes.

One accomplishment Ken mentioned was setting the minimum wage. And he deserves credit. But he voted for a watered-down version, at the 11^th hour. CAFé initiated a petition for a referendum. Enough citizens signed. Legally, council’s options were to enact the proposed ordinance as written or hold the referendum. Instead, seeking compromise, councilors watered it down. Ken, in a rather moving moment, explained that he’d opposed it until he helped his son with a homework assignment to create a workable budget for a family of four on a set income. Realizing he couldn’t do it, without adding a second job, opened Ken’s eyes.

That Ken rationally examined the evidence, with an open mind, then decided. Where is he now, when we really need him?

                                                            – 30 --

 

[The above column did not appear Sunday, 2 April 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, because I screwed up sending it in, but should be on the newspaper's website, and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]