Merilee Dannemann7-24-23+

Welcome to New Mexico News Services LLC!

merilee dannemann 7-24-23 on

When leaders resort to the unthinkable

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

In an episode of the original “Star Trek,” the Enterprise lands on a planet where inhabitants have lined up submissively to die at the Disintegration Chamber.

The planet is at war with a rival planet, a war fought entirely by computers. After a simulated battle, some people from the losing side will present themselves for disintegration. Because the war is so bloodless, nobody is trying to end it.

They have made the unthinkable acceptable.

The episode ends with Captain Kirk destroying the computers and persuading the opponents to begin peace negotiations.

Like that planet, we have made the unthinkable acceptable. It is called a government shutdown. Who could have conceived the United States government shutting down programs from food safety to border patrols because Congress can’t agree to continue funding it?

Yet it has happened. It almost happened twice this year, in September and November. And we’re not done. Because the budget agreements are short term, we are in suspense again until January and February deadlines. That includes me, and I’m angry.

The first shutdowns, during the Reagan administration, lasted just a day or two. But during the mid-90s, a newly emboldened conservative majority in the House of Representatives rebelled against what they perceived as a bloated and intrusive government. They were probably partly right. But they took their refusal to compromise too far. And their successors have done it again repeatedly. That first mid-90s shutdown was terrifying, partly because it was unknown. But the process has been tamed. The unthinkable has been made acceptable. Congress has turned our national budget into a gunfight at the OK Corral and made it appear almost normal.

The trick is that it’s not a real shutdown. It’s only partial.

Between the Office of Management and Budget and individual agencies, work-arounds have been found, such as identifying essential workers who are expected to work even though they won’t be paid until the shutdown ends. If some low-paid employees can’t pay their rent, that’s their personal problem.

Every federal agency has a detailed shutdown plan, publicly posted on the White House website. I looked through 34 pages of the Department of Transportation plan, dated August 3. In the Federal Aviation Administration, part of DOT, it says 25,489 employees are necessary to protect life and property; 17,251 others will be furloughed. Air traffic controllers are among the essential ones. We will trust them to keep millions of Americans safe in the air while not getting paid. Who buys their coffee?

Those plans also identify jobs that won’t be done, like safety inspections and maintenance – omissions that will cost the taxpayers later.

Members of Congress will continue to get paid. Their staffs won’t.There are 94 federal agencies operating in New Mexico, including military. Some will stop working. Food assistance under several programs will be jeopardized for more than a half million New Mexicans. Most funding for tribes would stop.

In the 35-day shutdown of 2018-2019, thousands of federal workers resorted to food pantries. Reports say the hardest hit will be the lowest paid workers of federal contractors, like people who clean the buildings, who will not get back pay.

The number one job of Congress is to pass a budget that funds the government. This basic job has been ignored during the recent shenanigans by the semi-anarchist caucus on the far right. Thanksgiving is over. Congress should immediately go back to work and enact a full-year budget. A member who thinks we’re spending too much on a particular item should argue the point in committee and then accept the majority result. Anyone who believes a shutdown is an acceptable tool should not be in Congress.

It’s unthinkable.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Bogged down at the border

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

The situation at the U.S.- Mexico border is a tragedy for the migrants who, out of desperation, started a journey in hope and ended up in despair or frustration.

It’s a hardship for communities forced to deal with the unplanned overload of homeless and hungry migrants.

It’s a waste of resources for employers, including New Mexico farmers, who need more workers and can’t legally hire them.

It’s a national embarrassment and a stain on the United States’ reputation in the world.

The governance of immigration – who is allowed in, who is not – is dictated by laws. It’s been clear for years that the law is severely out of step with reality. It’s out of date. The job of fixing outdated laws belongs to Congress, which has been sidestepping that responsibility for all those years.

Gabe Vasquez, Democratic congressman from New Mexico’s Second District, is proposing bills updating laws related to immigration:

The Strengthening Our Workforce Act proposes to allow immigrants in critical jobs such as health care and education to apply for two-year temporary provisional status so that they could work legally in the United States.
The Humane Accountability Act proposes to address abuses that have occurred within federally sanctioned detention centers, which would undoubtedly include the much-criticized facility in Torrance County.
The Stop Coyotes Act would impose higher penalties for human traffickers.
The Smart Border Protection Act proposes new inspection technology to detect illegal drugs such as fentanyl at the border.
The Farm Workforce Support Act proposes to reform the agricultural workforce program and address the shortage of farm workers. This one is cosponsored by Rep. Juan Ciscomani, R-Arizona.

Vasquez and Ciscomani recently founded the Bipartisan Southwest Caucus and have cosponsored several other bills, including the Joint Task Force to Combat Opioid Trafficking Act and the Wolf and Livestock Fairness Act. A bipartisan caucus of border-area Congress members could be a helpful development to start updating the laws affecting the border.

Here’s the problem: Vasquez is introducing these laws at a time that might be the most dysfunctional moment in the history of Congress.

The House has just elected a new speaker on a strictly partisan vote. Speaker Mike Johnson, with a deeply conservative record but minimal experience at leadership, is perhaps best known for defending former President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The Speaker has the power to move legislation forward or prevent bills from ever coming to a vote. And Vasquez is running for reelection in one of the most hotly contested districts in the nation. He won the Second Congressional District by a slim margin of about 1,200 votes over former Rep. Yvette Herrell, a Republican who is a candidate for the seat again.

So why would this speaker allow this Democrat to have a victory by passing legislation to help solve a major national problem?

While Congress has been failing to act, the problem has been festering while migrants continue to suffer and border communities continue to be overwhelmed. Republicans have been blaming President Biden for the state of our immigration system rather than fixing it.

President Biden proposed a comprehensive immigration bill in January 2021, shortly after he became President. That bill attempted to address all aspects of the issue, including the root causes of migration, conditions in several Central American countries that force residents to leave home. No surprise – the legislation bogged down in Congress.

Aren’t we all tired of this?

Rep. Vasquez’s bills deserve a chance to be moved expeditiously through committees and get a vote on the House floor. That’s entirely in the hands of the new speaker.

We’re waiting. Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

The special districts on your ballot

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

My old friend Robert Daigh liked to joke that he was in the “used beer and groceries” business. That was his bit of earthy humor when talking about the community water and sanitation district that he helped to create.

My friend was a founding board member of El Valle de los Ranchos Water and Sanitation District, officially formed in 1979 to serve several unincorporated communities south of Taos -- Talpa, Ranchos de Taos, Cordillera and Los Cordovas.

As I write this today, three candidates are running for an at-large position on that board.

The mission of the district was, and still is, to provide safe drinking water and a wastewater system. As an entity of government with power to tax and eminent domain, it had to go through a lengthy administrative process to create itself.

Dozens of candidates are running for board positions in special purpose districts that preserve the soil, water and livability of their communities and that most of us know nothing about. Like my friend, the people who go to the trouble of running for an obscure public office, so they can serve without pay on one of these boards, are local heroes.

If you have not voted yet in the local election, you still have time. You can find your complete sample ballot at https://voterportal.servis.sos.state.nm.us/WhereToVote.aspx.

You might face some frustration finding information about the candidates for these districts. Checking their websites, I found most districts are not posting election information. There is some information on the League of Women Voters vote411 website.

Districts have different purposes. Here is what the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts says:

“New Mexico has over 77 million acres of forest, range, cropland, pasture, and other lands. The stewards of these lands include federal (25%), state (12%), and local governments (2%); tribes (16%); and over 10,000 ranchers and farmers (45%). These stewards came together over 50 years ago at the local level to form the 47 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) under New Mexico state law, to help them in their stewardship responsibilities.”

The Carlsbad district’s website provides historical background.

Conservation districts, it says, “work in partnership with NMDA (Department of Agriculture), other state and federal agencies, and various organizations to advance conservation on private and public lands in their area. If authorized by voters in the district, SWCDs may collect a mill levy on lands in the district, up to a maximum of one mill.”

Soil and water conservation districts were created by Congress during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, which resulted from severe erosion.

“In 1933 the Congress created the Soil Erosion Service (which was later changed to the Soil Conservation Service in 1935). Since about three-fourths of the continental United States is privately owned, Congress realized that only active, voluntary support from landowners would guarantee the success of conservation work on private land.

“In 1937, President Roosevelt wrote the governors of all the states recommending legislation that would allow local landowners to form soil conservation districts. New Mexico adopted the soil conservation district act in the same year.”

Among its projects, the Carlsbad district promotes healthy soils, healthy plant life and species diversity across both public and private lands.

The Otero district, based in Alamogordo, has a watershed restoration program involving small dams and a cost-sharing program where landowners can apply to address any natural resource issue.

The Upper Rio Grande Watershed District currently operates and maintains seven flood control structures along the Rio Grande as it flows through the Ohkay Owingeh area.

Every district has a story, a history and a purpose. And, right now, a few candidates are asking for your vote.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

About the off-year election

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

New Mexico is having an election in a couple of weeks. Now is a good time to get started figuring out whom and what you will be voting on.

More precisely, we are having lots of separate elections, all at the same time and on the same ballot, coordinated by your county clerk. The official Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 7. You can check with your county clerk for locations and early voting information.

What’s happening is a consolidation of all the little nonpartisan elections that used to be held separately.

Depending on where you live, you might be voting on a mayor, a city council member, a school board member, a community college board member and a representative from a district you didn’t even know about, such as a flood control or water and sanitation district, all nonpartisan. There might be a few bond issues or other matters mixed in.

Many boards and commissions have staggered terms. Roughly half the seats will be up for election this year and the other half two years from now. So you might not see any candidates for a particular office in your district.

The League of Women Voters is expected to have candidate information for every district. You can find it at vote411.org.

To see your own individualized ballot, based on your address, go to :https://voterportal.servis.sos.state.nm.us/WhereToVote.aspx.

To see the complete list of candidates and questions for the whole state, go to:https://candidateportal.servis.sos.state.nm.us/CandidateList.aspx?eid=2858&cty=99.

You might find more information on the websites of the individual districts. You might also take a few extra minutes to go to the website of that conservation district you did not even know about, and read about what that district does. Then find your property tax bill and see how much money your taxes contribute to it.

If you are surprised by this off-year election, here is the history.New Mexico made this change to consolidate local elections a few years ago, so that voters would not have to vote at different times for city council, school board and others. It also saves all those districts the considerable costs of running and attempting to publicize special elections.

The state constitution used to require that school board elections must be held at a different time from all other elections. This antiquated provision was written around the time of statehood and reflected the fact that women were allowed to vote in school elections but not in general elections, so this provision kept those elections separate.

The provision made it very inconvenient for voters. Only the most motivated among us would make a special trip just to vote for a school board member or a member of some other board. But there was a nasty catch in the constitution. (This was in Article VII sections 1 and 3.) To amend this provision required a near-impossible threshold of approval from three quarters of those voting in the state plus two thirds of those voting in each county. So it was nicknamed the “unamendable” provision, and previous attempts to change it had failed.

After the voters approved amending it in 2016, it had to be litigated before the State Supreme Court to overrule that provision. Then legislation had to be passed to implement the new approach, and finally, each individual school board, municipality and other district had to change its own rules to adapt to the new dates.

We voted by this new method in 2021. The Secretary of State’s record shows we had a 19.55% voter turnout, which is not too bad by some standards.

Maybe, as more voters figure it out, we’ll do better this year.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Don’t punish the shooter – stop him

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

The governor’s declaration of a temporary gun moratorium was such a spectacular error that it took public attention off the issues that provoked it: the senseless murders of children in New Mexico.

Now we have lots of yammering about how to fix the gun problem while tiptoeing around the core of the problem: guns.

The suspects in the August 13 killing of five-year-old Galilea Samaniego were reportedly all underage, except for one 19-year-old who said she was not the shooter. We have not heard much about them.

One news report (lawandcrime.com) says the shooter was aiming at the grandson of Galilea’s babysitter. The two boys had been friends but argued about a girl. Over this argument, a teenager was apparently ready to murder another teenager.

If the shooter and his friends have committed previous crimes, maybe they should already have been incarcerated. If they had never done anything criminal before, there would have been no basis for that.

But one fact is undeniable: They would not have shot this child if they had not had a gun.

Fourteen-year-old Porfirio Brown was reportedly friends with the girl he killed on July 28 in Questa. A few teens were goofing around, according to reports, and there was no provocation before Brown killed 13-year-old Amber Archuleta. There was a gun in his hand, and several more in the house.

Beau Wilson, the Farmington shooter, had no criminal record. He had a houseful of guns, including the one he bought shortly after his 18th birthday.

There was no basis, two years ago, to suspect 13-year-old Juan Saucedo Jr. would take a gun to school and kill fellow student Bennie Hargrove.

Now we’re falling all over ourselves demanding special legislative sessions and harsher penalties.

A recent editorial by the Albuquerque Journal, in advocating a special legislative session, listed several crime-related bills that were tabled in this year’s regular session. Most of these bills increase penalties for crimes.

None of these laws would have stopped any of those killings. How do you impose a strict sentence on someone who has not yet committed a crime?

Punishing crime is necessary. But the goal – at least MY goal – should be not to punish crime but to prevent it. So little Galilea is not shot at all but lives to grow up. Punishing the shooter is not a happy ending. My goal is no shooter.

Which do you think her mother prefers?

But stricter sentences have a deterrent effect, making would-be criminals stop and exert enlightened self-control. Right? You’re kidding. Shooters don’t generally make rational choices. They are either too stupid, too driven by greed or anger, or too drug addicted. Or just too young. Deterrence only works on people who understand it.

The other remedy is mental health. This state bears a permanent scar because we sat by in confused silence while the previous governor systematically dismantled our already precarious behavioral health system.

How do we identify everyone who is likely to shoot somebody and provide mental health services to those individuals? Where’s the plan?

You might think we could require mental health screening, in addition to background checks, as a condition of purchasing a gun. But if such a radical proposal passed our Legislature, county sheriffs would probably refuse to enforce it.

Requiring screening would stop some shootings but not enough. Even though a notable percentage of mass shootings are committed with freshly purchased firearms, there are so many guns in circulation that a determined shooter is surely able to find one, possibly in his dad’s closet. The governor’s order was obviously a terrible idea. Okay, please tell us your better one, and hurry up before the next five-year-old is shot.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

A presidential candidate talks serious policy

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, made thought-provoking remarks about the complex relationship of our national security, the environment, and the global implications of how countries meet their energy needs.

He caught my attention when he mentioned the mining of rare-earth elements because New Mexico has deposits of some of them. The New Mexico deposits have been studied by our Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources, affiliated with New Mexico Tech.

Burgum is one of the lesser known Republican candidates for president. He was talking to a friendly audience in New Hampshire. I happened to see this on C-SPAN.

The rare-earth issue was not the central point of his talk but was part of a larger train of logic related to national security. While it might seem like an obscure issue, it was a valuable insight into what a presidential candidate considers worth talking about.

Burgum said essential raw materials are mined in places like Africa, where there are few or no environmental considerations, so the environmental damage is greater than if they were mined in the United States where environmental safeguards would provide some protection.

If we care about the environment, but we require such resources, is there an argument for mining them here in the U.S. where the impact will be smaller? Are we being less than ethical if we ignore the damage done elsewhere?

And would we be safer if we relied on ourselves for these essential resources rather than faraway countries?

Rare-earth elements are pretty darn important to our modern economy. The American Geosciences Institute says they “are necessary components of more than 200 products across a wide range of applications, especially high-tech consumer products, such as cellular telephones, computer hard drives, electric and hybrid vehicles, and flat-screen monitors and televisions.”

But some impacts of mining in New Mexico have been genuinely nasty. We have scars in the earth from open pits and health effects, which have been especially hard on Native Americans. Would we ever want to encourage more of it? It is easier on our nerves if we let mining poison the water someplace else.

I don’t know whether Gov. Burgum was right or wrong on the facts. He may have been completely off base. However, that is the kind of substantive, policy-oriented discussion we should be hearing from all presidential candidates.

When Burgum switched topics, the next subject was government administration, and how he saved his state money and improved the performance of state agencies with zero-based budgeting. I don’t know his performance record, but I did notice that this successful capitalist talked about making government institutions more effective, not dismantling them.

Burgum had the podium for an hour. He had control over his choice of subject matter. Nobody was asking the tricky questions we hear in presidential debates, which tell us only about the quick wit of candidates, not their capability to run the world’s most powerful nation. I would like to see more serious conversation from more of the candidates.

Millions of voters, including Republican voters, want someone other than Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee for president, but so far Republican voters have not agreed on which candidate. I hope voters in the early primary states will attend many more in-depth presentations by those candidates and give the country an informed choice.

New Hampshire has the early-primary privilege. New Mexico won’t see most of these candidates in person, even though New Hampshire’s population of 1.4 million is much smaller than ours. By the time of our primaries, the nominations will likely be decided. That’s the result of a system that allows a minority of voters to make critical national choices.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Legislators espouse hot button issues

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

In a recent op-ed article, Rep. Greg Nibert, R-Roswell, sounded the alarm about New Mexico school children, gender identity issues and new legislation. Nibert referred specifically to two bills passed this year: House Bill 7 and Senate Bill 397.

His op-ed was followed a few days later by an article by Rep. Rod Montoya on the same theme. It may be a false alarm.

HB7 is an anti-discrimination law related to the hot-button issues of reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare. The language prohibits public entities from discriminating based on these criteria but does not mention schools specifically. SB 397 establishes school-based health centers, or SBHCs. This bill could be confusing to some readers because it establishes in law health centers that have existed for years.

Nibert says these two laws, taken together, “force public school personnel to help underage children get gender-altering services, such as hormone blockers, gender reassignment surgery, psychotropic medications and abortion services.”

Montoya’s article says: “They are encouraging teachers to have discussions with your kids on the very sensitive subjects of family planning, gender surgery and hormone blockers, then referring them to third-party providers without parents knowing anything about it.

“If your child’s school has a school-based health center, an adult will likely be having conversations with your kid that have nothing to do with their physical health, but rather gender, identity, sexual practices and who they are having sex with.”

I don’t see any evidence to support that. After studying the language of these two laws, plus related laws and other documents, and trying to give these arguments the benefit of the doubt, I could not find logical connection from the language of the law to “forcing” or “encouraging” school personnel to do any such thing. There is nothing directing school personnel to proactively do anything. If the school has a health center, what any adult will most likely discuss is the student’s health issue, whatever that is.

The health centers are not operated by the schools but by various healthcare-related organizations. New Mexico has had them for 25 years.According to analysis by the Legislative Finance Committee, there are 78 SBHCs in New Mexico; 54 are contracted with the state Department of Health Office of School Adolescence Health.

SBHCs are especially important in rural and other medically underserved areas of New Mexico, reaching children who might have no other access to medical services.

A 2021-2022 report by the Department of Health said SBHCs provided 42,416 visits to 16,144 patients; 59% were for primary care; 12% were for well-child checks; 34% provided behavioral healthcare.

HB 7, one of the bills cited, refers to gender-affirming care, but, again, it is anti-discrimination legislation. It does not tell anyone to do anything, except not to “deny, restrict or interfere with” with someone seeking that care.

In response to my inquiry, Republican legislative communications director Matthew Garcia-Sierra wrote in an email response, “HB 7 would further require that … public health care providers not interfere with the child’s request for services that could include life-changing medications or surgery.” In other words, “not interfere with” means “provide the service.” While I’m no doctor, I find that makes no sense either logically or medically.

A letter has been issued jointly by the secretaries of the Department of Health and the Public Education Department, addressed to education leaders, apparently responding to these articles without naming any names. The letter expressed concern that misinformation is being spread about SBHCs.

Today’s children have plenty of access to information, including misinformation, about sensitive subjects – not from the schools but from other students and social media. If I were a parent in today’s environment, I would focus my worries on some kid coming to school with a gun. Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Civics helps make democracy work

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

If we want our country to continue to be a representative democracy that works – and I hope we all do – as citizens we need to know more than a little about how it functions. Some of us have worried in recent years that young people are not learning enough about civics in school.

The Civic Trust of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation has stepped up to contribute with a new program called the National Civics Bee.

The program, a contest for middle school students, is in the second year of its pilot phase, and New Mexico is one of the pilot states. The New Mexico Chamber of Commerce (formerly Association of Commerce and Industry) is the host, with cooperation from the Rio Rancho school district.

The state final was August 19. First place winner was Auburn Eichers, Lincoln Middle School in Rio Rancho, followed by Victoria Miller, C.V. Koogler Middle School in Aztec, second; and Esha Shivashankar, Mountain View Middle School, Roswell, third. Cash prizes were $1,000 for first place, $500 for second place and $250 for third place.

Regional competitions had taken place, with several districts participating. The 10 finalists were from Rio Rancho, Aztec, Roswell, Santa Fe, Farmington and Albuquerque.

The contest format was that each competitor wrote a 500-word essay about something they wanted to change or solve in their own community. Locally recruited judges read the student essays in advance and prepared follow-up questions, which the student had to answer in person.

Eichers impressed the judges with her essay on justice for sexual violence. Other topics by the finalists included safer communities, bullying, improvements to parks, homelessness and pollution. I liked that the essays focused on local topics. Students could study an issue that they may have seen personally and observe the role of public institutions in solving community problems.

In the other part of the contest, students answered short multiple-choice questions about civics topics. All the students answered the same questions at the same time using tablets rather than speaking out loud. These questions focused on national matters, such as basic constitutional principles.

In promoting this event, the U.S. Chamber noted that "only 51% of Americans were able to name all three branches of government, 52% of Americans can’t name a Supreme Court Justice, and a Woodrow Wilson Foundation study found that the majority of Americans would fail a U.S. citizenship test."

I was pleased that this event was sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation with state and local chambers of commerce, organizations that nobody can reasonably call radical. I know our New Mexico Chamber from its old days as ACI, and I have generally found it to be a source of level-headed thinking aimed at promoting a balanced approach to our myriad, sometimes conflicting policy demands.

President Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural address, famously said, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Reagan was wrong.

Whether government is the problem or the solution depends on the quality of the effort citizens put into it. That wrong-headed anti-government bias has been undermining American policy ever since, sowing seeds of the decline of trust in our ability to act collectively for the common good. That has led to continuous reduction in funding of public institutions and, as the inevitable result of persistent budget cutting, the reduction in competency of those very institutions that we used to rely on to solve problems together as a nation.

It is commendable that leaders of the business community are taking this step to help put our national will back together again. It is long overdue.

And the contestants were all terrific.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Sometimes you have to get rid of the guns

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

Maybe somebody is worried about Dad, who has been way too depressed and scaring the family with hints of suicide. Maybe it’s a teenager who’s behaving too oddly. Or maybe there’s concern about a new child in the home.Those are common reasons for families to get the guns out of the house and take them to a gun buyback. They will receive gift cards in return, but that’s just a bonus. New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence (NMPGV) has a gun buyback program that has so far collected a couple of thousand guns around the state. At one 2021 event in Las Cruces, 101 firearms plus two pellet guns were turned in. Of all participants, 57% said they acted for safety reasons; 47% of the firearms removed were assault or semiautomatic weapons.

So far, the buyback program has been considerably more effective than the state’s “red flag” or Extreme Risk Protection Order law. That’s the law that allows a family member or other authorized person to ask a law enforcement official to petition a judge to approve taking someone’s guns away. It now has two alternative acronyms: ERPO or ERFPO. “F” stands for “Firearm.”

The Administrative Office of the Courts tracks these orders. From May 2020, when the law took effect, through June 2023, the state had 33 one-year protection orders and 24 temporary orders granted. Not much.

Apparently, nobody was worried enough about Beau Wilson – not his family, not schoolmates, teachers or whoever sold him staggering quantities of ammunition, three days before he opened fire in Farmington on May 15. We can only imagine how agonized this teenage boy must have been to pull off his bulletproof vest and yell to police to kill him.

Farmington Police Chief Steve Hebbe has used the ERPO law three times, including once since May 15. When I asked, he said he never had the opportunity to intervene with Wilson because no one spoke up.

I wonder if this tragedy has affected attitudes in San Juan County, which is a so-called Second Amendment Sanctuary county, opposed to any gun law enforcement. The sheriff, who has jurisdiction outside city boundaries, has not yet returned my call.

But Chief Hebbe said he is well supported by the community and has had no lack of support on his handling of these extreme risk petitions.

Hebbe will become president of the New Mexico Police Chiefs Association in September. He said he plans to ask the Attorney General to develop a guide for law enforcement on how to use the law. Small towns especially, he said, don’t have the resources to provide adequate training.

Law enforcement officers are beginning to understand that ERPO is a tool that can be applied appropriately, according to Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence. She travels the state extensively and talks with officers. Though most sheriffs are still on record as opposing the law with no exceptions, Viscoli thinks they are becoming more open-minded to the possibility of using ERPO in specific situations. That has not shown up in the statistics yet. Maybe the guidebook Chief Hebbe wants will help.

Meanwhile, if you are worried about guns in your home, you can get help turning them in or receiving a gun lock, at no charge. Contact NMPGV at (323)394-1131 or info@newmexicanstopreventgunviolence.org.

You have a right to know what your local law enforcement will do or refuse to do the next time an emotionally desperate teenager starts muttering about shooting up the neighborhood. I encourage you to go to the next meeting of your county commission, get a place on the agenda and ask. Then please let me know what they said.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Listen to the outsider perspective

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

New Mexicans have been singing the refrain “What’s wrong with New Mexico?” for so long we should make it the official state ballad.

Or maybe we could try listening to keen observers who are not stuck in old ways of thinking. Sen. Bill Tallman, D-Albuquerque, quoted to me a statement that a fellow senator had made recently on the Senate floor: “New Mexico doesn’t like change, and it doesn’t take risks.”

That has the ring of truth.

Tallman is definitely not “from here,” to use a favorite New Mexico term. He is unaffected by the sentimentality of native New Mexicans and wannabe native New Mexicans.

He’s a career city manager who has run city governments in several states. He is analytic about New Mexico and has introduced legislation to make government work better. Not surprisingly, some of his legislation has been resisted.

For instance, when a top executive is hired for a public position, New Mexico law considers the list of applicants to be a public record. If a news organization (or anyone else) asks for the information, the public entity is required to provide it. Tallman thinks that is preventing the most highly qualified candidates from applying.

The Las Cruces school district just hired a new school superintendent. The news service Source New Mexico published the names of 23 applicants with a paragraph about each one.

It appears Las Cruces made a fine choice. The new superintendent is Ignacio Ruiz, an assistant superintendent for the Clark County School District in Nevada, the fifth largest school district in the nation, with an impressive resume.

However, the unanswerable question is: Who else might have applied but didn’t?

Tallman has been consulting with Nick Estes, retired former general counsel for the University of New Mexico. Estes noticed that in recent searches for superintendents for the largest districts, none of the applicants were superintendents from districts of comparable size. He thinks a superintendent who already has a job of similar status would not risk applying if the names were to be disclosed, because it would damage the relationship with the community back home.

Estes said 37 states hold applicants’ names confidential and most other states place some limits on what can be disclosed.

Our law makes an exception for university presidents. Only the names of finalists -- at least five -- are required to be published. Tallman’s recent Senate Bill 63 would apply a similar rule to all public institutions.

SB 63 passed the Senate comfortably but died in the House.

It was opposed by my friends in the journalism community, who in my opinion are putting an inflexible position on open records ahead of the goal of excellence.

Tallman didn’t have better luck attempting to reform our goofy capital outlay process. That’s the process where legislators earmark more than $1 billion every year on dozens of little projects instead of a few big ones that would have statewide benefit.

Tallman’s bill, SB 186, proposed to establish a capital outlay interim committee composed of legislators and appropriately qualified public members, which would set priorities for the billion-plus dollars. A different approach to the same issue was in SB 197, with other sponsors. Neither bill passed.

On the capital outlay issue, there is more widespread recognition that we’re behind the times and changes are needed. This change – whether Tallman’s approach or another one – will probably batter its way through the Legislature in the next few years.

Tallman is also working on procurement reform and other matters that can only be appreciated by policy nerds like me.

So many of us – me included – are tired of singing that old refrain about New Mexico’s bottom position on the national stage. It’s worth more listening to people who have been somewhere else. Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

It’s our meat and our safety

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

Is it better to have meat inspections conducted by a state agency or a federal agency? What do you think?

Some New Mexicans who understand the economics of cattle growing and meat processing want to reinstate the state program. Legislation has been introduced a few times, most recently in this year’s legislative session. The previous program was terminated in 2007 after negative reports by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Federal law requires that meat sold to the public must be inspected by a government inspector to ensure that it is safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is the agency in charge. The law allows the program to be turned over to states, provided the state adopts standards at least as strong as the federal ones.

The impetus comes in part from lengthy delays during the COVID crisis. This year’s attempt, HB 205, passed the New Mexico House unanimously but stalled in the Senate.

Meat inspection is not without controversy.

Nationally, there is a perennial argument about letting businesses do their own inspections. Fortunately, it appears common sense is still prevailing. That is, as in virtually any industry, safety inspection is best done by government employees who are independent of the employer and can resist pressure to cut corners for profit. When government has let businesses do their inspections, reports show, the worst violations have occurred. Violations, remember, can mean people get sick. There is also ongoing pressure to move the process faster, making it impossible for inspectors to examine every animal.

In 2019, before COVID, an investigation by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting, as recounted by Iowa public radio, found serious staffing shortages, with inspectors suffering from work overload and burnout and standards being violated.

In 2013 the process almost ground to a halt. The department was almost forced to furlough large numbers of inspectors, which would have effectively closed plants and temporarily shut down Americans’ supply of meat. The reason was the so-called sequester.

In 2011 Congress was so dysfunctional that it could not agree on the debt ceiling. (Remember the debt ceiling?) To prevent a crisis, a law was passed creating a special committee of Congress to work out an agreement, with the condition that if the committee failed, automatic spending cuts would follow.

That was the sequester.Members believed the sequester was so drastic that surely the committee would find a way to avoid it. But the committee failed, and the sequester took effect.

The sequester did not distinguish between departments that could absorb budget cuts without risking public safety and those that could not.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the department, having already done all other possible budget cuts, would have to furlough meat inspectors for two weeks.

As reported by Food Safety News, “Vilsack noted that it won’t just be the roughly 8,000 meat inspectors in more than 6,000 plants that are impacted, but also the 250,000 people who work in the plants.” It would also shut down the nation’s meat supply and cause havoc among cattle growers.Somehow the department managed to avoid this. But we are always a little too close to the next budget cut that adds a little more risk to the meat that could end up on your dinner table.

Meat inspection is one of many functions of government that operate far from public view, so it’s easy to forget that food safety is one of the programs funded by our tax dollars.

If the New Mexico meat inspection bill is introduced again next year, and passes this time, it will probably help the state’s economy but, more importantly, it will give us the opportunity to make sure it’s fully funded and done properly. The rest will be up to us.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Welcome to New Mexico News Services LLC!

merilee dannemann 7-24-23 on

This website uses cookies.