2023's Las Cruces Mayoral Candidates

Tuesday, November 7, Las Crucens will elect a mayor, using ranked-choice voting.

I hope we’ll elect someone with relevant knowledge and an open mind, someone tolerant and progressive, with whom I agree on at least some issues.

Kassandra Gandara is by far the best choice. She’s a social worker with extensive experience in our city government, and a committed progressive. We disagree strongly on certain issues. (She has an unduly rosy view of the police and our water future.) But she studies issues carefully and with a relatively open mind. She’s a dedicated, caring, and innovative public servant. She’s been a moving force in some key reforms, such as LITE.

No other candidate measures up.

Her toughest competition is probably former Fire Chief (and assistant city manager) Eric Enriquez. Note that the Firefighter’s Union has endorsed Gandara. Enriquez’s has experience; but a city councilor makes policy. I probably should list him second after Gandara.

But I’ll put Alexander Paige Baca Fresquez second. He lacks experience and hasn’t a chance; but he’s a serious, thoughtful young man who studies the issues and has some sensible views.

At the other extreme, several candidates are wholly unqualified and/or highly conservative. One, former County Commissioner Isabella Solis, might be downright dangerous. That’s. In her “PRAYER CALL FOR NEW MEXICO,” Solis says, “The Lord is a warrior . . . I declare a beachhead is established this day . . . from which an attack can be launched. . . . Father, it's time for the Church to get Spiritually violent! [and] reverse the evil in our state. I decree that God has anointed us.”

That’s inconsistent with our constitutional church/state separation. It’s also bizarre. What if your mayor says God told her to do A, but God told other councilors to do Z, and some councilors aren’t much into God, or worship a different one? Since she thinks her ideas are God’s, how does one argue? Compromise might seem sinful to her. Compromise matters in local government. Her prayer adds, “ We no longer tolerate a governor that supports abortion and is ok with a satanic temple.”

Gina Ortega, Mariah Hernandez, and Mike Tellez should be listed above Solis, if you get that far, because they’re probably at least sane.

But Tellez, disappointed in his 11.5% vote percentage in the 2019 mayoral election, had the NM Republican Party file suit, claiming unfair vote-counting. Two courts dismissed it. The Court of Appeal has rejected the appeal. Does Tellez think he lost the election through fraud? Does he contend that voter fraud cost Donald Trump the Presidency? Has he apologized to County Clerk Amanda Lopez Askins?

Ortega told the Sun-News that, if elected, she’d refuse to resign as County Assessor. The City Charter mandates that no mayor may serve in another elective post. I see no reasonable legal argument supporting her. Refusing to resign would mean she couldn’t take office. However, I think she admitted to us on radio that if forced to choose, she’ll choose the mayoralty. I don’t think she should be mayor; she’s too pro-business; but she loves Las Cruces and believes she’s right, and seems a better choice than Solis, Tellez, and likely Mariah Hernandez, who may be running mainly because she’s angry at the City. For its stupid handling of the Hernandezes’ effort to open a strip club.

So: Gandara, Fresquez, Enriquez, Ortega . . . But whatever your views, please vote!

                                      – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 15 October, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newapaper’s wbsite (sub nom Here's How I'm Thinking about them Mayoral Candidates in Las Cruces), as well as on the KRWG 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 / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[I should mention that because of the local importance of this election and the fact that there were so many candidates led us to schedule a full hour-and-half for our candidate forum on “Speak Up, Las Cruces!” Three candidates joined us, and suffered our inept questioning: Councilor Gandara, Mr. Fresquez, and County Assessor Ortega. Three apparently ignored the invitation: Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Tellez, and a Mr. Hernandez (about whom I could learn nothing on-line). Ms. Solis accepted, informally confirmed her planned participation to my co-host, then sent a last-minute email to him that she couldn’t make it because she had a conflict. Mr. Enriquez, I understand, accepted the invitation; but he neither joined us in our discussion nor advised us of his change of heart. I think the word for that is either boorish or chickenshit, depending on his motivation. It doesn’t offend me, but neither is it a positive indicator in his desire to convince us he should be our next mayor. I appreciate the thoughtful participation by Gandara, Ortega, and Fresquez.

An advantage of appearing is the chance to explain things others might not ask about. I thought Ms. Ortega’s statement about trying to be Cruces mayor and County Assessor simultaneously was fatuous, but on radio she conceded that, if necessary, she’d quit as assessor. Similarly, I wanted to ask Tellez about his failed lawsuit – or, more precisely, the state Republican Party’s lawsuit over his failed candidacy in the nonpartisan mayoral election four years ago. Maybe he had a reasonable explanation. I wanted to offer Ms. Solis an opportunity to explain to voters her [bizarre, in my view] PRAYER CALL from which I quoted in the column. But she didn’t show.]

By the way, although there’s a link in the column, here’s that PRAYER CALL, reprinted [the bold-face and underlining was my form of note-taking], to make sure no one thinks I unfairly cherry-picked quotes out of context:

PRAYER CALL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO! By Isabella Solis I am honored to be on this prayer call. We welcome you, Holy Spirit, into NM and this call Today. Today, we established once again that NM is the Supernatural State. I declare the Power GRID of the Holy Spirit in NM has been ignited with Holy Spirit! There is a wildfire spreading readily ignited and difficult to extinguish. The term wildfire is a term used especially in warfare. It is spreading with great speed from our state to the nation. We are dealing with two god-system, good and evil, light and darkness. "The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is his name. "Exodus 15:3 The Lord will march out like a mighty man, like a warrior he will stir up His zeal; with a shout he will raise the battle cry and will triumph over his enemies." Isaiah 42:13 I call forth a battling anointing and the breaker anointing and anointing to build into NM and the nation. Father, I declare a beachhead is established this day, taking a position on a beach taken from the enemy by landing forces from which an attack can be launched. We are breaking through and beyond - Father to liberate our cities and our people. Lord, your Kingdom come, and your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven Superimpose Heaven on earth! Father, you said in Job 22:28, You shall decree a thing, and it will be established for you; so light will shine on your ways. We declare a Kingdom Revolution! In the day of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. Father, it's time for the Church to get Spiritually violent! To Love Passionately and SHIFT GOVERNMENT. In Esther 9:1, on the day the enemy of Jews hoped to have power over them, the reverse occurred, and the Jews instead had power over those who hated them. We take our Authority over the enemy and reverse the evil in our state. I decree that God has anointed us to hear his voice, and we decree his purposes and Shift things through Kingdom Authority. Father, in Job 14:8-9 you said its roots may grow old in the ground and its stump dies in the soil, yet at the scent of water [scent of rain] it will flourish and put forth branches like a plant. Father revival is changing the hearts of man, but an AWAKENING LORD will change the Heart of a Nation! We declare the awakening to shift our state at the scent of rain. Father, I thank you Today that we will have a GENERAL of RIGHTEOUSNESS appointed to Govern the State of New Mexico, and the Ecclesia will be established. We no longer tolerate a governor that supports abortion and is ok with a satanic temple to be invited into our territory in any way, shape, or form. We are taking back our land for His Name Sake! In Daniel 7:21-22 you said, [Daniel kept looking, he was watching] "I kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and overpowering them until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the HIGHEST ONE, and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the Kingdom! Father, Daniel was seeing in that DAY! He sees it. This is for us Today, too. We are in that TIME!! It's time for the Church to take dominion/possession. Thank you, Lord that you continue to look for people to partner with you. I declare we will take possession of the Kingdom in NEW MEXICO! Every unrighteous policy/law in Santa Fe [means Holy Faith] is destroyed. Jeremiah 1 says I have appointed you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant! Father, we legislate from a place of Victory! Today we declare our state will flourish and grow its economy and education system; crime will cease, restoration of families, unification of the body of Christ; and I declare faith to arise in our Navajo Nation and Pueblos! Not only for faith to arise but to recall the prophetic word by Billy Grahams, the "Sleeping Giant is Awake" It is time we HONOR one another! It is about Honor, Honoring our First Nations! I pray the POWER GRID of the Holy Spirit to light up our state as an atomic bomb going off in the supernatural realm, our Command and Chief impacting the atmosphere so that His government, the Ecclesia, will be established in the State of NM! Superimpose Heaven on Earth on this day! An arrow has been released to impact all the other states going forth through this nation, Declaring the Righteousness of our King in the land! For His Name .]

[At any rate, the more I think about it, the more Gandara the only real option.]

 

I Loathe Hamas and Netanyahu -- Did 80+year-old Decisions Set their Course?

Hamas’s slaughter of 2,000 Israeli civilians is appalling, indefensible, and likely counterproductive.

I sympathize with the victims – and with the Palestinians suffering the Israeli retaliation. Palestinians lost their homes when stronger forces gave Israel half their land. Since then, Israel, and would-be Palestinian freedom-fighters have used and abused the Palestinian people.

Any sane person must sympathize with the Jews as things stood in 1945; The Jews needed a homeland; but Palestine wasn’t empty. Yet I have beloved friends whose lives would be what, without Israel?

Could partition have worked? What if both sides hadn’t been so fervent about their respective superstitious spiritual systems, and so intolerant? Some Zionists sought a socialist nation in which anyone could live free. Not Netanyahu.

Criticizing Israel isn’t necessarily anti-Semitic. Many Jews don’t approve Israel’s actions. Much of Israel’s conduct can be justified by security concerns. Much probably cannot, including letting folks “settle” in areas Israel doesn’t own, then allowing settlers to do as they like, and backing them militarily, further eliminating Palestinian homes.

Internally, Netanyahu’s return to leadership, despite corruption, has been disastrous. Cementing the “settlement” process helped provoke Hamas’s attack. His war on the Israeli Supreme Court was so repugnant that citizens and army officers protested in unprecedented numbers. Some say the internal conflict over Netanhahu’s dictatorial conduct helped undermine Israel’s ability to foresee and blunt the Hamas attack.

Hamas has no mandate from the Palestinians: since 2007, Hamas has ruled without elections, and apparently with little concern for the welfare of the average Palestinians who will suffer for its madness. Hamas knew its spree of violence would make Gazans’ bleak lives more miserable. Israel says “Leave!” – but they can’t.

A Republican recently noted how much Donald Trump and Joe Biden need each other. He thinks Trump’s criminal trials will eliminate Trump in 2024, bringing down both Trump and Biden. Politically, voters’ dislike/distrust for each has kept the other from sinking further. A new Republican face might force the Democrats to urge Biden to retire.

Do Netanyahu and Hamas need each other? Threats from Hamas and Hezbollah generate enough fear for Israelis to let Netanyahu into office; and Israel’s heavy hand grants Hamas some respectability among its subjects. Meanwhile, what was Palestine in 1946, with some small areas of mainly Jewish settlement, shrank to less and half its size in 1947, shrank further in 1967, and has since diminished to almost nothing.

Interestingly, Netanyahu apparently has approved extensive funding of Hamas by Qatar, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority. I’m no expert, but that doesn’t currently look like a great move for Israel. It may be good for Netanyahu.

I think our government too often lets Israel lead it around by the nose. I loathe Netanyahu’s extremism, and don’t excuse Israel’s apparent excesses; but the Hamas attack is appalling, in size and style.

One other odd thought: I think often of the 1890s Ghost Shirt Dances, magic-based effort at rebellion by some tribes against the U.S., long after the U.S. had vanquished the tribes. It had no chance – but folks got convinced that if they did the dances and wore the ghost shirts, bullets couldn’t kill them.

I wonder if Hamas’s vile attack, obviously motivated by anger that Israel and Saudi Arabia are finding a rapprochement that’s more important to the Saudis than the Palestinians are, is all the more violent because Hamas is closer to oblivion than we realize.

                                                     – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 15 October, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, as well as on the KRWG 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 / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[ I feel awkward writing about this, because I know so much less than so many people do. Yet I couldn’t not, because I felt such sorrow for everyone. And, I suppose anger – but directed in so many directions and aimed even at decisions made and actions taken almost a century ago. While so many other public issues have seemed so clear – the War in Viet Nam was both unjustified and unwise, segregation was both stupid and unconstitutional, individuals should be allowed to marry someone whose color differs or whose gender is the same, pursuing the kind of love and companionship we all deserve – and we could see how to take our best shot at others, notably the balance between hardcore capitalism with all its manifest evils, and pure socialism, which not only can be inefficient but seems too often to lead to some supposedly well-intentioned dictatorship.

I have never felt the Middle East could be “solved.” It seemed clear that a “two-state solution” was the best option, but was being sabotaged by both sides; and that both sides’ judgment was badly clouded, and their capacity empathy limited, by fervent belief in their only slightly different superstitions. That is, religion prevented rational conduct on both sides, while religious extremists too often held sway. And each side could legitimately point to a long list of bad things that had been done to it.

Was there ever a chance? Jews deserved a homeland, and the world had treated them terribly; but Palestine was occupied, mostly by non-Jews, despite a few Jewish settlements. (When fellow WWII pilots asked my father, a Jewish atheist, if he was thinking of flying in the possible war between Jews and Palestinians, he replied, “On which side?” acknowledging the fact that some people would be treated unfairly to help more powerful folks try to make amends for the unfair and horrible treatment of another set of people.

Hamas’s conduct is wrong. Whichever “side” you favor, vicious attacks on civilians are not approved conduct in a war; and the way it was done was especially vicious; but who can say that Israel has not (and will not, now, in response) treated civilians horribly. Most of the European world, just as it once gave Jews the short end of any available stick, now considers Palestinian civilians less significant than Israeli civilians. And Israel now owns or controls most of the land that once was Palestine.

Meanwhile, I care very much about some Israelis.

So my column may have been more of a long, sustained, cry of distress than “analysis.” ]

[Having said that, I do know that Netanyahu is bad news for Israel, Hamas is bad news for Palestinians, and extremists have probably made a two-state solution absolutely unworkable.]

Thoughts on an Unusual Indictment

Last Tuesday, hours after a Las Cruces police Officer shot a civilian, New Mexico Attorney-General Raul Torrez indicted Officer Brad Lunsford for voluntary manslaughter in shooting death of Presley Eze in 2022.

Eze took a beer from a gas station without paying for it, and allegedly mocked the gas station attendant, who called police. When Eze refused to identify himself, Lunsford and another officer pulled him out of the car. Eze resisted being handcuffed. In the ensuing fight, Mr. Eze was doing pretty well. But then, with Eze on the ground, but grabbing hold of one officer’s taser, Lunsford shot Eze in the back of the head.

A jury will decide whether this qualifies as voluntary manslaughter.

At first blush, charging Mr. Lunsford seems the right call, particularly given a recent change in the jury instructions regarding justifiable homicide by police. (Too. The charge is voluntary manslaughter, not 2^nd degree murder.)

But I won’t try to guess how I’d vote if I were a juror. That’s a different standard, and I haven’t seen/heard all the evidence.

You charge someone when guilt of the legal offense looks more likely than not that he or she committed the legal offense and should be tried. Conviction requires certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.

These were split-second decisions. A bystander’s video shows Eze and the cops on the ground, Eze apparently facing downward but but still struggling – and holding that taser. Prosecutors note that he didn’t use the taser. Defendant will say that Eze was attempting to use it – threatening to disable Lunsford instantly, which would have allowed Eze to grab Lunsford’s gun. The fight looks two on one; but the City will say that Eze falling on top of the second officer put that officer out of the fight with a concussion. This is not Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd.

Some folks wonder why this took so long, or wonder why Attorney-General Raul Torrez hasn’t charged the officer who shot Amelia Baca, who wasn’t even fighting with him. Others will say Exe fighting with the cops means don’t second-guess them.

I’m more interested in what happened inside LCPD and our city government. I believe, based on confidential sources, that the city’s lawyers had told the city manager that the City could have significant liability in the lawsuit brought by Eze’s family. Perhaps by coincidence, both the city attorney and the city’s outside lawyer were gone soon afterward. (Litigation counsel was elevated to U.S. Magistrate Judge.) City Attorney Jennifer Vega-Brown’s departure surprised her friends and associates, some of whom said her frankness about this case was a cause. A long, strange silence ensued.

The Eze case is another reason we must improve police accountability – with or without a criminal conviction. Jared Cosper may evade criminal charges for shooting Amelia Baca, because she was holding two knives pointed at the ground, and they’re “deadly weapons.” Still, no experienced law officer I’ve shown that video to feels at all comfortable with Cosper’s conduct. And better preparation could have avoided the Valenzuela choking.

With Tuesday’s shooting, I credit Interim Police Chief Story for holding a press conference less than 12 hours after the shooting, to share at least some information with the public. We likely won’t see video until all witnesses have been interviewed, so no witnesses are influenced by those videos, perhaps unconsciously.

Our police do much right; but Las Cruces needs civilian help.

                                                                     - 30 - 

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 8 October, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, as well as on the KRWG 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 / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[ City-related sources have told me that both then-City Attorney Jenifer Vega-Brown and outside counsel warned the City that it could have serious liability in the Eze case. I was even told that expressing that opinion was why the City fired Vega-Brown. (Although the timing was about right, I can’t opine on why she was fired, or caused to resign.) Asked soon after her departure, Vega-Brown declined comment, and neither confirmed nor denied what I’d heard. I do know that her departure surprised friends and co-workers, and it appeared that she didn’t have a next job lined up, though I’ve heard she soon got a good one.

Outside counsel Damian Martinez, then in the process of being appointed U.S. Magistrate, also declined comment. So we can’t know what he said to the City about the Eze shooting. I do know from personal experience in another case that Martinez was professional and cooperative, representing his client appropriately, but not taking weak positions for it. He seemed a straight shooter with his client. Whatever he thought about the Eze shooting, he’d have said clearly to the City, rather than just saying what city management wanted to hear.

It may be coincidence that both lawyers were gone soon afterward. But if the allegations about Vega-Brown’s departure are accurate, that’s unfortunate. ]

[By the way, we’ll continue candidate fora this week on “Speak Up, Las Cruces!” on KTAL, 8-10 a.m.: this Wednesday co-hosts will talk with Las Cruces school board candidates for Districts 1 (8:30-9 a.m.) and 5 (9 – 10); and on 18
October will spend a full hour and a half (8:30 – 10) with the Las Cruces mayoral candidates. We think these fora are particularly important because the city uses ranked-choice voting. ]

 

 

Homelessness Is a National Epidemic

I don’t love everything the Las Cruces City Council does. I advocate much stronger steps to improve the Police Department and its accountability. I yammer about the City’s defective obedience to the Inspection of Public Records Act. Once when I spoke, Councilor Tessa Abeyta treated me the way far-right Republican Congressfolk treat Merrick Garland.

But let’s play fair. If we really want to improve our community, not just make political points, it helps to know who at least influences what.

We are not seeing homelessness because we’re unusually nice to unhoused folks or because we live somewhat near an international border. Our warm climate and open spaces compound the problem, but the nation is experiencing an epidemic of homelessness.

The reasons aren’t secrets: we have chosen not to spend enough money on affordable housing; unlike other developed nations, we’ve chosen a healthcare system in which healthcare is not a right, many citizens lack health insurance, and others are just a catastrophic injury or illness away from homelessness. (42% of U.S. citizens who receive cancer diagnoses spend their entire life savings within months.) While modern life tends to unsettle many of us, our society takes less care of the mentally ill or the demented than it should. Large numbers of citizens live from paycheck to paycheck, subject to eviction if an unusual expense – even a dead car – devours the rent money.

Most of what citizens suggest at council meetings is unconstitutional, otherwise unlawful, and/or impractical.

“Buy ‘em a ticket for Los Angeles and throw ‘em on a bus!” echoes the Medieval solution: people act weird, throw ‘em on a boat headed to another city. They’re gone. Traveling on water might help their minds. Researching my novel, The Moonlit Path, I learned that in 1914, when angry bands of unemployed men roved through California, cities sometimes put them in trucks and drove them to other cities. But a city trying that now could pay huge damages.

“Roust ‘em!” The City of Albuquerque is under a new court order not to seize or destroy homeless folks’ property. Homeless encampment sweeps may be unconstitutional.

The state and federal constitutional protections against injustice and inequality can sometimes be real inconvenient. For example, just because you think some penniless guy is a problem, you can’t just lock him up and toss the key because he lacks $200, when a rich guy would walk instantly, hardly noticing he’d deposited $200.

The Constitutions say we get fair trials. If jail is a possibility the state or city pays a lawyer to defend us. But I can’t have a fair trial if I’m too mentally addled to help my lawyer with that defense. Defendants who display their lack of sanity to judges get sent to Las Vegas. They aren’t cured there, maybe aren’t even treated, but the State sends ‘em back, agreeing they’re insane, and local judges have to free them. State and Nation could spend more on helping with mental health.

I remember a commercial in which a guy fixing transmissions says, “Pay me now or pay me later.” Not changing your oil eventually has consequences. If some of these problems worry you, consider advocating that our governments do some prevention. (Meanwhile, congressional wingnuts may shut down our whole government (costing many billions of dollars) to make us spend less on just the kinds of things that could help.

Few choose homelessness. Helping folks avoid it helps us all.

                                  – 30 – 

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 1 October, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper website (sub nom, Can We Focus on Real Solutions for Homelessness), as well as on the KRWG 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 / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[By the way, folks ask me what's going on with the column, because they often don't see it in the Sun-News these days.   Yes, I do still write the column each week (although one recent week I just got too busy and skipped it, first time in more than a decade).  No, it's often not in the newspaper.  (Why?  Because, as I understand it, they now make up the editorial pages for all the Gannett papers in the region, not solely for Las Cruces, so sometimes my column doesn't make it.) It is still on the newspaper's website, given above (although just when it goes up varies).  It is also on KRWG's website, under Local Viewpoints, usually by Monday.  That one's free.  And of course I re-post it here on my blog.]

[By the way, we’ll continue candidate fora this week on “Speak Up, Las Cruces!” on KTAL, 8-10 am on KTAL, Community Radio:]

4 October 

8 - 8:30  Co-Hosts Peter Goodman and Daisy Maldonado will talk with each other and listeners who call in [ (575) 526-KTAL (526-5825) ]

8:30-9     Beto O'Rourke (by phone)

9-10        Las Cruces City Council Dist. 1 Candidates Jason Estrada, Cassie McClure, Daniel Buck, Patrick Potter, and Mark O'Neill)

See our website for full schedule, but we’ll talk with the seven candidates for Mayor of Las Cruces on 18 October, from 8:30 – 10.

[Candidate fora repeat when the Wednesday morning show repeats 2-4 pm Wednesdays, and thereafter will be on our archives, so they're available to everyone, whether or not you're free to listen when we're talking.] 

Restorative Justice Is a Healthy Innovation at LCPS

Las Cruces Public Schools is implementing restorative justice.

Starting around 2017, influenced by former School Board President Maria Flores, the school sought to reexamine its approach to discipline. Automatically meting out punishments, particularly suspensions or expulsions, wasn’t working for the schools (not really changing any kids’ hearts and minds) or for the community (putting uneducated kids on the streets, when perhaps he could have gone further in his education. Suspension is “the nuclear option.”

LCPS was tired of repeating similar actions with a forlorn hope of getting a better result.

So what IS “restorative justice” as practiced in our schools?

“It’s about teaching kids how to cope with their emotions and understand the harm caused by any infraction,” says Roberto Lozano, Associate Superintendent of Equity, Innovation, and Social Justice. It rests on five Rs: Relationship, Respect, Responsibility, Repair, and Reintegration.

It’s not about “no consequences.” It’s about tailoring those consequences to the specific situation, kids, and infraction, in a way that might improve the situation for everyone, not just put kids prematurely on the street instead of en route to a diploma. And as a kid who was usually in trouble, I’d have hated it. I’d have said, “Punish me any way you feel like, you jerks!” rather than have to sit down and discuss the harm I’d caused. With victims.

Rather than automatically thinking “Punishment!” the teachers learn to consider “restorative practices” that might repair the harm done, restore harmony, and even maybe even reach the root cause of a kid’s misbehavior. The school arms principals, counselors, and teachers with tools for more subtle and sharply focused responses to misconduct – which takes everyone more time and effort, but promises superior results. “This work is hard,” Dr. Lozano warns.

It’s about getting kids to reflect on the harms caused by their own misbehavior. LCPS is doesn’t compromise where safety is concerned, but seeks generally to turn sour behavior into refreshing discussions and, hopefully, kids’ insights into themselves and their conduct. An example: angry mother of first grader complains some “monster” classmate grabbed her daughter’s backside. Assistant principal identifies boy and calls parents, who apologize profusely, explaining the boy went to park with older brother and friends, saw them grabbing each other’s asses in play, thought that was how one behaves. They’ve told him otherwise. Principal schedules sit-down. Parents meet. Mother is still angry, but softens a little when she hears explanation. Then kids join them. Mother breaks into hysterical laughter when she sees how small and clueless the “monster” is.

Strong student-teacher relationships are essential. Building such relationships may not be in the syllabus; but writing it off is like canceling football practices and just playing weekly games because you can’t record a “win” by practicing. Or objecting that changing the spark plugs isn’t driving to Tucson. Strengthening relationships and trust furthers the basic mission by improving kids’ ability and motivation to learn reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic. Studies show kids who are relative comfortable in class learn better. Which makes sense. Don’t we all function better when we’re not too distracted by uncertainty whether we belong, fears that no one cares about us, or emotional upheaval about having been beaten up?

I’m not sure how widely the program is effective. A high school teacher recalled some talk of it a few years ago “from the higher ups,” but really hadn’t seen it in action.

But the idea is good.

                                             – 30 --

[The above column appeared Sunday, 17 September, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, as well as on the KRWG website under Local Viewpoints. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

 

A Ringside Seat for Local Democracy

Democracy is a strange and messy process. Plunging into it sometimes leaves me moved, amused, angry, and curious.

I went to Tuesday’s City Council Meeting. I hoped to help rescue discussion of police accountability from the secret committee where Mayor Miyagashima has sent it to die. (Ken’s helped make some great changes over time, but killed others in their infancy.)

Public input, as usual, was mostly the Coalition for Conservatives in Action, berating councilors about rising crime and regarding some letter to NMSU regarding an unpopular and hate-producing speaker. (I lack facts to agree or disagree. I understand protecting the students from hatred, but I’m a pretty strong First Amendment guy. That’s another column.) It’s sometimes tough to distinguish honest anger about real problems from using a convenient way to attack the councilors.

Outside the meeting room, I told some of the conservatives I share their concern about crime, particularly recidivism, but think the Council the wrong target on some issues. Actions these folks demand would be tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court. State constitutional bail rules bind Municipal Court. Recidivism? If a municipal judge has a mentally incompetent defendant, who can’t constitutionally be tried because s/he can’t assist the defense lawyer, the judge can send the defendant up to Las Vegas; but Las Vegas just says “Yep, incompetent,” and sends the Defendant back. The judge can’t try that Defendant, and can’t institutionalize the defendant to get the help s/he needs.

Sadly, I kept having to explain why I didn’t think abortion was baby-killing, and that sort of stuff.

Some folks (left or right) can’t suspend their political anger long enough to cooperate on matters we all agree need fixing. By contrast, when CCIA’s Juan Garcia called me one Sunday morning, I went to the site of some vandalism and wrote a column on the problem it symbolized. Juan didn’t bother reminding me that he thinks abortion is murder, and I didn’t waste time asking how the hell he could vote for Donald Trump. We saw a problem, sympathized with the victim, and wanted to improve the situation. We still do.

The Council considered a hotly-contested proposal for an apartment complex at 725 McClure, zoned for single-family homes. Planning and Zoning had declined to approve it, and the owner appealed.

John Vaccaro made a great argument for the landowner, noting that the project helped address standing problems such as infill development and more affordable housing. Justin Nations movingly argued the residents’ case, based on safety, inadequate road and infrastructure, and historic significance. I did not immediately know which way I’d vote, if I could.

Sincere citizens argued from their conflicting interests. No one was right or wrong in any clearly accessible way. I felt for the single-family homeowners, recalling how much I disliked the extra traffic Centennial High School caused – and dislike the willfully law-breaking black smoke from Tommy Graham’s old mortuary. But the developer was following some city principles, and, as one councilor said, multi-family homes, more energy-efficient, are the wave of our climate-altered future.

And we need places for workers and old folks with limited resources to live.

“This is a hard one,” two councilors commented. “It’s a really heavy decision,” one added. Finally they rejected the appeal 4-3, but several expressed mixed feelings.

Sitting there reminds me that much of a councilor’s work has little to do with the political spectrum.

                                                         – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 10 September, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper’s website (sub nom Democracy and your City Council, as well as on the KRWG website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). (By the way, Wednesday, 13 September, from 4 to 5:30 I’ll be intermittently on KRWG, helping with the station’s upcoming fund-drive. This would be a duller, less enjoyable, less intelligent, and generally less interesting community without KRWG, and its classical music, local and national public affairs programs, and local news reporting. We listen often. If you’re a contributor, thanks! If you’re not, please consider contributing.]

[Regarding the line, early in the column, “Ken’s helped make some great changes over time, but killed others in their infancy,” it’s a fair summary, but oversimplified. In my view Mayor Miyagashima’s long tenure has seen him on the right side of a lot of close calls, but also with his mind slammed shut against certain proposals. I hadn’t yet moved back here when he first ran for Mayor, but I supported him twice for re-election – and would not have supported him had he chosen to run again this year. I like and respect him, but have been as direct as I could be about some strong criticisms, including a couple where I thought the City was violating state law or its own ordinances.]

              

 

On Book Banning

Coalition of Conservatives in Action’s local chair, Juan Garcia, has requested removal from the Mayfield High library of a book, Jack of Hearts and other Parts. We’ll discuss this on radio September 13 with Juan, but here’s my gut reaction:

Book-banning happens when political or military power and intellectual or humanitarian weakness combine. Banning a book, whether the Bible, Lady Chatterley's Lover, or Ayn Rand’s nonsense, admits that in a free exchange of ideas, the book is dangerously persuasive.

Freedom is a compelling idea. Dictators ban books and movies and activists advocating freedom. Equality is so compelling that Rhodesia, South Africa, and southern U.S. states banned works urging it. Some would still ban To Kill a Mockingbird. Christianity, early on and again in Communist-ruled nations in the 20^th Century, was a dangerous idea.

Our country’s bedrock principle is freedom of speech. In New Hampshire town halls or in cyberspace, we are confident enough to invite freedom of discussion. Ideas, religions, and theories, even some we loathe, should be free to contend in the intellectual marketplace.

Banning books states, loudly and clearly, “I’m afraid my views can’t hold up to open competition and examination.” Why else bother?

Jack was written, apparently, to reassure “queer” kids and spark discussion. (“Queer,” like “the N-word” was an epithet that folks now, like Blacks in my youth, turned around and embraced, as a way of saying, “We are who we are – Is Name-Calling is the Best You Can Do?”)

Our government says kids should be treated well, whatever their skin color, religion, gender, or ideas. That doesn’t always happen.

The banning can’t be for containing sex scenes. Jack is less explicit than many young adult books, and in the small excerpts I’ve read, the harsh, hurtful treatment of lovers might discourage kids from suffering such treatment, not attract them.

The banning is for fear of the idea that kids whose sexual preferences differ from the narrow Fundamentalist Christian box of only one male and one female, preferably married to each other, and perhaps preferably of similar skin shades and limiting their activities to the missionary position. It’s reasonable to discourage high school kids from having sex at all; but that horse left the barn decades ago, so the concern must be the nature of the sex.

The banning can’t be an allegation that Mayfield High is teaching kids bad behavior. No class requires or discusses the book. It’s in the library. So are murder mysteries and perhaps Mein Kampf or Das Kapital, but Mayfield High isn’t thereby advocating murder, communism, or persecution of Jews.

The fear seems to be that kids exposed to such ideas will choose behavior or genders of which their parents would disapprove. (Gender doesn’t seem to be a choice.) As a board-member in Tennessee said, the book contains ideas about sex education “that I disagree with.” But that’s the point of reading, and education: to confront those, sometimes. The Supreme Court says “disagreeing” ain’t a constitutionally appropriate ground for banning.

So I why shouldn’t this book be there, for the occasional kid who wants to read it. Few will, so what’s the problem?

To me, the whole commercial U.S. culture, which still objectifies women and still uses sex to sell, is far more harmful to kids than anything in Jack. The pervasive view that women must be “beautiful,” as the dominant culture defines beauty, did me more harm than any book.

                                                   – 30 – 

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 3 September, on the newspaper's website, as well as on the KRWG website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). (By the way, 13September from 4 to 5:30 I’ll be intermittently on KRWG, helping with the station’s upcoming fund-drive. This would be a duller, less enjoyable, less intelligent, and generally less interesting community without KRWG, and its classical music, local and national public affairs programs, and local news reporting. We listen often. If you’re a contributor, thanks! If you’re not, please consider contributing.

Regarding the column, I should note that we’ve scheduled Mr. Garcia as a guest on our community radio show, Speak Up, Las Cruces, 13 September, during the 9:30 – 10 a.m. segment, to discuss his reasons for asking that the book be removed.]

Personally, I figure folks who are not hurting anyone, and are acting consensually, and are of sufficient age and mental acuity to choose intelligently, should have much freedom. Frankly, too, although I am a man who likes women sexually, I have always wondered why, in the abstract, we should not ALL be bisexual: if intimate caresses and sexual congress are fun, and enhance the closeness people feel for each other, why not feel free to enjoy that with lots of one’s friends? Too, overpopulation is one of humanity’s problems, and gay sex doesn’t contribute to it.]

[Finally, a word regarding an earlier column, on the Disqualification Clause of the 14^th Amendment, which arguably disqualifies Donald Trump from running for President. I’ll add a note to the end of that recent column later, but I’d suggested our secretary of state raise the question legally. The New Hampshire Secretary of State has now done so, asking the New Hampshire Attorney-General for legal advice on the matter. That’s an appropriate start toward what we should see, a full and fair airing of the issue in our court system, likely reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.]