Some Thoughts on Primary Election June 4

Early voting is in process throughout our county, overseen by our able and experienced County Clerk Amanda Askin. Primary Election Day is June 4.

Since her race is one of the few contested ones: Askin does a tough job well, and seems committed to openness in government. It’s an age of election challenges, with losing candidates scouring the evidence for wrongdoing by her. They found nothing. Further, she seems to have handled these challenges with the right mix of competence, confidence, courtesy, and compassion. Voters chose her over challenger Andrew Ostic in 2020. Her four years of stellar work don’t suggest a change.

I wrote at more length (in last week’s column) about why we should re-elect Angelica Rubio. That’s my district. Angelica has done well, and Gabe has no record.

A tougher call for me is District 53. Both men are friends. Each is a appealing in a different way.

If I were hiring someone to set some state agency’s policy, I’d likely hire Jon Hill. He’s better educated and we likely agree more closely about issues. His minimal campaign budget comes from Climate Cabinet, individuals, and himself. Incumbent Willie Madrid’s larger budget now has more oil companies mixed in with unions and individuals.

But voters in several communities are making this hire. The position is representing them, and Willie’s has long experience there and works well with those constituents. They likely know better than I who would represent them best. Those communities haven’t always elected Democrats. We’ve worked with Willie through a loss and wins. I’ve no confidence that Jon would be more likely than Willie to be elected in November. Yes, I’ve found some of Willie’s votes disappointing. I can’t endorse Jon over Willie. District 53 voters know all this, and should vote as they feel is right.

The district attorney’s race is important. I voted in 2020 for Gerald Byers, now the incumbent, but have also criticized him (see 9/26/21 column). Initially, Shaharazad (Shari) Booth and Ramona Martinez announced runs to succeed him. I wished only one had announced. Then Doña Ana County Manager Fernando Macias got sacked and jumped into the race.

I’ll vote for Booth. If I didn’t, I’d likely vote for Martinez. Both bring qualities we could use in a District Attorney. Other lawyers I know agree. However, without polls or expertise, and noting the low turnout so far, I’m guessing Mr. Macias will win.

Fernando has tremendous ability, charm, and political savvy, and a unique range of experience, though he’s not specifically a prosecutor. (My only case before Judge Macias was a delightful: in an adoption case for a gay couple adopting a child from another country, Macias let the kid sit up in the Judge’s seat, banging the gavel for photos.) However, both Macias and Byers have management styles that present problems. When I’ve left jobs, I hope my former co-workers haven’t felt about me as some do about Mr. Macias at Third Judicial District Court (where the judges voted to replace him as Chief Judge, and he soon departed) or the County (where the Commission chose to say “Adios!”, others had complained to me about him, some citizens blamed him for certain questionable decisions, and I’m doubting Sheriff Kim Stewart shed any tears. Some friction comes with the territory, politics; but we’ve seen more than that here.

Despite so many unopposed races, please do vote. And vote in November.

                                       – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 26May, 2024, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website and on KRWG’s website, under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM, streaming at www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[Not a lot to add to this one: Rubio has represented us admirably.  There's no reason to change.  If there were, Duran would be an appealing young man about whose values and political beliefs I'd have grave uncertainty.]

[Is he being used to beguile us into voting against our own values? Given how content District 35 voters are with Rubio, one wonders why wealthy business folks are pumping money into Duran’s campaign. A conservative friend says it’s concern about public safety; but I see no brilliant proposals on that subject coming from Duran. It’s a more complex issue than most folks realize, involving as it does constitutional issues, practical issues, and values. I wouldn’t pick a legislator solely over that one issue, particularly because a single legislator has little impact on that issue; and I see folks in charge doing a lot right now to try to confront that problem [which, of course, is national in scope], such as a special legislative session, work on fixing the competency problem, a new NM Supreme Court clarification on bail reform. (On “Speak Up, Las Cruces!” we’ll discuss a state pilot program set to start its trial run in our judicial district June 7. That radio show is on KTAL-LP, 1015 FM, 8-10 a.m. Wednesday, June 5, repeating at 2 pm. We’ll talk with judges, criminal lawyers, and county officials how the program should help in a key issue, which is how to make sure that, where feasible, we provide treatment and other services to addicted or mentally addled defendants, rather than automatically just incarcerate them.]

[You can review the campaign finance records I mentioned (and others) yourself at our secretary of state’s website or at http://www.followthemoney.org/.]

[First, you can vote at the County Office Complex on Motel Boulevard and at various satellite locations. Early voting ends after Staturday, June 1. A list of satellite and election day sites and voting times is available here. 

Most of our local legislators are running unopposed, as are the members of our Congressional delegation who are on this year’s primary ballot. (Most do have serious Republican challengers awaiting them for the general election.) ]

Looking at NM House Dist. 35: I prefer Angelica Rubio's Consistent Performance to the Uncertainties of Gabriel Duran

District 35 State Rep. Angelica Rubio is a hard-working, dedicated, highly progressive state legislator. I’m in her district.

Rubio grew up in poverty. Her parents spoke only Spanish. She first ran for public office in 2016, winning the District 35 seat as a relative unknown. She had helped lead CAFé’s successful push to increase the minimum wage in Las Cruces. She has repeatedly won re-election and gained such respect that Republicans didn’t even nominate anyone against her this year.

Gabriel Duran, seems a nice young man Last year, he ran for the City Council against Johana Bencomo. On radio, he sounded less knowledgeable and appealing than Bencomo, but far stronger than the third candidate. Mutual friends who supported him suggested we have coffee. We did. We share a fondness for the San Francisco 49ers. He seemed an affable and positive young man, maybe a little too concerned about touching all the political bases. I suggested he get involved in city affairs in some other capacity before perhaps running again. I suspected, though, that there was money behind him.

Now he’s challenging Angelica in the Democratic primary. He became a Democrat about six months ago, presumably to qualify for our primary. Is he a Democrat at heart? Or hoping we’ll vote for someone who doesn’t share our values?

Rubio exudes integrity. She’s experienced and effective. And tough. As a friend remarked recently, she’s an independent thinker, one of the few state legislators who thinks outside the box. She works things out and then acts, sometimes courageously. We District 35 voters, have appreciated that.

I like Gabe, but see nothing in him so remarkable that it’d warrant unseating a proven lawmaker.

Although Duran claims to be a Democrat whose in workers’ corner, the bulk of the $27.261 funding his campaign is from business owners, business associations, wealthy conservatives, and even Republicans.

Wealthy businesswoman Marci Dickerson and five of her entities combine for $11,000. Dickerson’s S&W Investments contributed to two candidates: $10,700 to Republican District 36 candidate Kimberly Skaggs and $2,500 to Duran. Another of Duran’s biggest contributors was “50 State DMV” – a business owned by Skaggs. Duran also got $2,500 each from former PRC Commissioner Sandy Jones, former PicQuik owner Oscar Andrade, who gave an eloquent speech to city council opposing the minimum wage. Dickerson, Skaggs, and Andrade provided 60% of Duran’s campaign budget so far.

Who backs a candidate matters. It matters even more when he or she is relatively unknown, with no public accomplishments and no public record to admire or criticize. Gabe promises vaguely to ensure everyone is covered by health care, but Angelica has worked for that. Gabe promises to “support workers’ rights” but his backers include strong opponents to Las Cruces raising its minimum wage, while hers include carpenters’ and plumbers’ unions. He claims to be for better health care, but got $1,000 from Lifepoint, owned by one of the more voracious private equity firms savaging our healthcare. I doubt Lifepoint supports rigorous government oversight of hospitals. Duran’s contributor list isn’t full of people who fight for the average citizen, for workers, for equality, or against draconian laws on women’s health.

Rubio’s top contributors are conservation groups, educational groups, and labor unions, the NM Trial Lawyers Association, “Everytown for Gun Safety,” and a lot of citizens, including former federal prosecutor Peter Ossorio.

So – a strong, reliable progressive voice or an unknown supported by conservative business owners?

                                   – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 19May, 2024, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website and on KRWG’s website, under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM, streaming at www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[Not a lot to add to this one: Rubio has represented us admirably.  There's no reason to change.  If there were, Duran would be an appealing young man about whose values and political beliefs I'd have grave uncertainty.]

[Is he being used to beguile us into voting against our own values? Given how content District 35 voters are with Rubio, one wonders why wealthy business folks are pumping money into Duran’s campaign. ]

[You can review the campaign finacne records I mentioned (and others) yourself at our secretary of state’s website or at http://www.followthemoney.org/.]

 

Troubles at Alma d'Arte (Part II)

Embattled Alma d’arte Principal Adam Amador says he’s been in eight school districts in the past 12 years. Is that good or bad?

In Amador’s defense: he rose from a difficult childhood, including some ethnic prejudice, to earn a doctorate in education from NMSU; Alma had experienced years of difficulties before he arrived last year; and he’s improved the art program, I’m told.

However, . . .

Kids, parents, teachers, co-workers, and even a board member say he threatened or tried to bully them. Many claim Amador retaliated against them over even small differences. Amador has banned parents and former teachers from the school grounds. (A coworker in Lordsburg said Amador tried to ban her from his elementary school, before the superintendent told him he couldn’t.) Some workers have filed legal complaints and some families have consulted lawyers. Former board member Cynthia Wise characterized Alma’s environment under Amador as “Dictatorial. And hostile.”

For a year, Michele Trujillo has sought from Alma a special education plan for her diagnosed son. She so testified to the New Mexico Public Education Commission. Recently, Amador removed her son from class to a private area where an unidentified woman asked him whether his parents drank, or hit him, and other intrusive questions. Now he’s more scared to go to school. Amador won’t say why. He won’t even identify the woman. Trujillo has filed a grievance.

Teacher Kayla Myers, now with New America School, taught social studies at Alma d’arte. She worked with students on a state “Innovative Zone” grant that required student input. The students most wanted a social worker or psychologist. Some mental health professional. Students helped her write the grant and present it. They won the entire $200,000 grant, which was to hire a mental health professional, keep Ms. Myers at Alma, and help fund other needs. What a thrill that must have been for the students!

Amador vetoed the plan, for reasons unknown. Because it wasn’t his? Myers kept trying to discuss with him her employment situation. Amador kept ducking her, not returning calls. (Another source describes Amador and his assistant seeing Myers outside, hoping she wouldn’t come in, then Amador going into his office, to which Myers wouldn’t be admitted.) That stalling forced her to take a different job. “He ghosted me out of my job.” Leaving the kids she loved “broke my soul.”

One of her students was Malachi. He wanted the mental health pro, knowing he was often depressed. After Amador’s veto, Malachi told Myers it confirmed that adults just wouldn’t listen. “My voice doesn’t matter.” His mother has publicly blamed Amador for Malachi’s suicide, adding that Amador has bullied Malachi’s brother since. Alma still has no mental health pro. Amador reportedly banned Myers from Malachi’s vigil.

Early in my research, I visited Amador. (Without first advising me, he taped our conversation.) More recently, having learned more, I hoped to ask about parents’ specific complaints. My several messages were ignored.

Many question Amador’s commitment to truth-telling. Carlsbad High paid a $50,000 settlement to a parent who claimed Amador had defamed her. (To save space, I’ve moved details to my Sunday blog post.) I’ve observed or heard of an unusual number of situations where his account of something completely contradicts someone else’s. One recent example was startling.

Bottom line? Sadly, I’d bet on Amador to exacerbate Alma’s difficulties and earn some parents and former Alma teachers some financial compensation.

                                               – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 12May, 2024, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and will shortly be on the newspaper’s website and on KRWG’s website, under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM, streaming at www.lccommunityradio.org/). It’s the second in a series of two columns offering my opinion on Alma d’arte.  I have also posted a copy of an Alma boardmember's letter of resignation.]

[Researching these two columns was saddening.

Alma is a school. A special school. A school for kids who feel drawn to art. I’m talking to kids who go there or went there, and their parents, and folks who teach there or recently did, as well as others who care about the school.

To see it torn apart is no fun. I also met a few parents who are angry at the “Save Alma” group and simply want the noise to stop. They see that the controversy is divisive harming Alma in the public eye. They mostly support Dr. Amador. They didn’t approve of his calling the police after a board meeting, with one noting that calling the cops created another unappetizing headline about Alma and that the offense, use of profanity by a student at the meeting, was exercise of free speech. But they say he’s brought structure and increased resources, and they generally support him.

It was particularly strange one night to hear a student, right after a meeting, tell me that he had used to feel safe at Alma, despite his sexuality, but felt afraid of Amador, then be introduced to a half-dozen students who obviously appreciated Amador, with some saying that although they’d formerly felt bullied because of their sexuality, they felt safer under Amador. They may be the “favored group” of students that others complained about; but they sounded quite sincere to me. (I also wondered at kids’ capacity for bullying each other, which is no news, and about how much more vicious and hurtful that must be in a world where there’s more gender diversity than I could have imagined in those dark ages when I was 12 or 14.)

I also believe Amador would like to do the right thing. He wishes he were the genial, caring but stern principal he purports to be. I hope he grows into that potential version of himself.

However, I need to add the information about the Carlsbad incident I mentioned in the column. In Carlsbad, a parent complained unsuccessfully to Principal Amador, then to the school board, about his treatment of her son. Later, she heard that Amador was claiming she had called him “a dumb Mexican.” She stated she’d said no such thing. As a district judge, she’d have to be not only prejudiced but idiotic. Her son was standing in the kitchen with her during the call. (Sure, a son might perjure himself for Mom.)   She passed a lie detector test with an unusually high score. The school board paid mom $50,000 to avoid a trial verdict.   Amador still says she said it, “and a whole lot more before.” (He also told me he had offered to his lawyer that he would take a lie-detector test.)

Obviously I wasn’t there, and can’t know who’s telling the truth; but if I’d been on the Governing Council, I’d probably have tried to talk to someone, maybe the person who was head of the Carlsbad School Board during Amador’s year there, during the hiring process. (Ironically, two board members and the Carlsbad judge were all Republican candidates for office in 2022.)]

[To all the mothers of kids at Alma, or dismissed recently from Alma, here's hoping Mother's Day 2025 will feel more peaceful.]

[To wake up and see that it is May 12^th always make me smile. I can’t see this date without recalling that on May 12^th, 1956, when I was a nine-year-old kid who’d become obsessed with baseball the previous year, passionately rooting the beloved Brooklyn Dodgers to their first-eve World Series victory, my father took me to Ebbets Field for the first time. Carl Erskine pitched a no-hitter.  

I had no idea that the Dodgers would abandon us after the 1957 season, breaking our hearts, and that in 1960 the field would be demolished.]

Re: Alma d'Arte: a resignation letter

[ This post follows my recent Sunday column regarding Alma d'Arte and anticipates my next Sunday column, completing discussion of Alma.  The first discussed the board.  I can't fit documents into my 570-word Sunday columns, so here's a public document I gained access to that seems quite relevant to the discussion.  

It's the resignation letter, from Alma's Governing Council, of respected NMSU professor Cynthia Wise, who was the GC's VP.  It was effective four months ago.   I'll excerpt some passages first, and discuss them, then copy the whole thing into the body of the post.  Dr. Wise had joined the Governance Council in 2021.

With copies to Dr. Adam Amador and two NM Public Education Department officials, she wrote:

I can no longer be part of a Council and school whose leadership blatantly and willingly disregards Open Meetings rules, maintains and condones an antagonistic relationship with parents (going so far as to ban parents from the campus), and enacts policies that are in violation of existing state, Governing Council, and school policies resulting in the “voluntarily withdrawal” of a significant number of students.

That's strong language, and she goes on to discuss the facts supporting that language, and her concerns. 

Specifically, she provides evidence of the GC's disregard for details of the Open Meetings Act and proper procedure. 

She then adds, (a) that, knowing the bylaws required development and adoption of a strategic plan by the GC, the GC has repeatedly resisted doing that; (b) For two years, the finance committee has not made a report to the full GC -- and the membership of that committee hasn't been publicized to parents, citizens, or even the full GC; and (c) the chair (at that time, Kim Skaggs) violated a bylaw regarding professional and courteous conduct by mocking other board members who chose to abstain from voting on items.

Notably, too, she criticizes the failure to give kids  who are being "disenrolled" hearings, as required -- and notes that she's been told that more than 40 Alma students have suffered that fate.  

Much of this is consistent with what others have said during my investigation.

I should note that I inquired of one of the PED officials copied on the letter, seeking information on the Alma GC's obligations, and she said that the GC is in process of correcting information regarding changes in the board and that four of the six have completed their required training and the other two are working on that.  Also, more recent postings of minutes and agendae appear to include backup, such as the actual items being voted on. ]

The full letter is:

To: Kimberly Skaggs (president)
CC: Dr. Adam Amador, Alma d’arte
CC: Melissa Brown, NMPED
CC: Martica Davis, NMPED
From: Dr. Cynthia Wise (vice-president)
Date:  December 20, 2023
Re: Resignation

 

Kimberly,

It is only after considerable thought, prayer and with heavy heart that I submit my resignation from the Alma d’arte Governing Council (GC). Pursuant to the bylaws the effective date is January 22^nd, 2024 – the date of our next regularly scheduled meeting.

I can no longer be part of a Council and school whose leadership blatantly and willingly disregards Open Meetings rules, maintains and condones an antagonistic relationship with parents (going so far as to ban parents from the campus), and enacts policies that are in violation of existing state, Governing Council, and school policies resulting in the “voluntarily withdrawal” of a significant number of students.

Concerns:

·         More than once, I’ve raised an issue about meetings not being properly posted (see Article III of the Governing Council by-laws). The Council has been told by the CAO that the school (administration) doesn’t have access to the Alma d’arte webpage – yet failed to present the council with a proposal to adopt an emergency policy regarding public notices, nor an emergency plan to reinstate the website.  Issues with the website have been raised by the GC to the current and previous CAO for more than two years without resolution. We were told by the current CAO that “people” (not necessarily the public) were referred to the school’s social media sites where notices were to be posted… but even that hasn’t occurred consistently. Most recently the council was told the school does not have access to those sites either, even though the CAO managed to quickly post something saying a meeting was occurring the night of the 11^th approximately 4 hours before the meeting (outside the legal requirement). Agendas weren’t posted pursuant to the act and haven’t been for months. Those people who did attend the meeting were not provided supporting documents though, in recent meetings we’ve been asked to approve policies that impact students, staff and parents. We’ve been told parents get the information via email – but in the very same breath we’re told parents are not responding to emails. Additional, public comment has been reduced by the president from 3 minutes to 2 minutes per speaker further limiting parental engagement with the board. This was done without discussion with the whole Council. When a special meeting was called for January 8^th and asked about the ability to put a notice in the newspaper of record – I was countered with the price of such a notice.

·         In June I advised the CAO and the Council of the need to hold public hearings regarding school discipline and attendance policies (see emails dated 5/20/23 & 6/27/23 - Section 22-5-4.3 NMSA 1978). No such policies have been presented to the Council for changes. And, even though the CAO sent an email to parents on 12/4/23 with the attendance policy adopted by the GC 11/3/20, the administration has been voluntarily withdrawing students (we have been told more than 40) in direct conflict with this policy. Even when parents emailed the GC regarding this issue and supporting documentation, the president failed to schedule a public hearing.

·         On December 8^th, the GC was presented a student handbook for approval at the December 11^th meeting. It was put on the agenda as an action item, not an item for public comment. The handbook, which we’d been told the CAO had been working on since July (and had been a floating item on the GC calendar for months), was unchanged from the 2017-2018 handbook – so much so that it still included a welcome letter from a former interim principal who had not been at the school in more than 4 years. The handbook contains several discrepancies and policies that conflict with others being proposed and some already enacted by the CAO absent of GC approval.

·         I am concerned that despite a review of the GC bylaws on at least two occasions over the past three years, the Council has not developed nor adopted a strategic plan (see Article I of the bylaws). In fact, to my knowledge, there has not been a strategic planning committee appointed since I took office in August 2021.

·         The finance committee has not made a report to the full GC in at least two years. The membership of that committee has also not been made public, even to the full GC.

·         Finally, I call your attention to that section of the bylaws regarding conduct: “All members of each GC committee shall conduct themselves in a professional manner with courtesy and respect toward each other and toward all who have business with the committee.”  On more than one occasion I and other/previous members of the council have been disrespected and ridiculed when I/they chose to abstain from voting on an item. Not only was this tolerated by the chair, it was perpetrated by the chair.

 

I joined the Alma d’arte Governing Council with a sincere desire to help improve the school and the academic performance of Alma’s students who come from already marginalized backgrounds. Unfortunately, I feel I can no longer be effective.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Cynthia Wise, PhD
Alma d’arte Vice President