LAWBREAKERS AND LIARS IN THE LAS CRUCES LAW OFFICE

I gave thanks Thursday for the Las Cruces police force and legal community.  They are a blogger's delight, a gift which just keeps on giving.  It has ranged from an Animal Control Officer citing me for five fictitious (my mantra: “fact-free, false, and fabricated”) code violations to the City Attorney claiming on 24 June 2021 that “The events as they occurred actually occurred.  They were properly documented.”  Wow!  Over 16 months later, she contradicted IA’s 5 February 2020 report that “Mr. Hays’ warning notice had several violations marked to which there was no physical evidence or proof an actual violation had occurred."  She did not respond to my request to see the documents.

I also gave thanks for readers who have been decent enough to wonder why I have invested so heavily in this case.  I know that the fictitious violations are small; I also know that the responses of Las Cruces officialdom—Mayor, Councilors, City Managers, City Attorneys, Police Chiefs and IA Officers—are large.  Their strategy and tactics used against me—delays, obstruction, concealment, nonsense, lies, misrepresentations, slander, libel—can be used against against you, especially if your case is more important or police misconduct far worse.  Far from being chastened by the publicity which I have given their misconduct, they may relish my public exposure as advertising their warning to citizens not to confront them with complaints.  You will be treated disrespectfully, denied due process, and unable to find local lawyers brave enough even to advise you about your case involving the political and police powers of city and state.  You may think that it will not happen to you (until it does), ignore my warning, and tolerate police misconduct, which once again, I document in one significant matter: antisemitism.

In the spring of 2020, I made an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request for all records related to my complaint about five fictitious violations.  Mr. Robert Cabello, Senior Assistant City Attorney, with the knowledge and approval of Ms. Jennifer Vega-Brown, City Attorney, only partly complied.  He justified redacting two and withholding two records by citing IPRA exemption NMSA 14-2.1(C) Matters of Opinion, “letters or memorandums which are matters of opinion in personnel files….” concerning ACO Juan Valles.  Mr. Cabello states in a 26 March 2020 email that “the redactions…are directly related to the employee’s relationship with the City.”  His justification impressed neither me nor Mr. John Kreienkamp, NM Assistant Attorney General, whose opinion concluded, in effect, that the Law Office should get smart and start over.  The weight of his opinion and the threat of legal action prompted the Law Office to come clean (perhaps).

One redacted section concerned antisemitism.  Background: I neither alleged nor suggested antisemitism in my 5 August 2019 formal complaint to IA about the citations.  In an email later that day to four officials—Councilor Kasandra Gandara, Interim City Manager William Studer, Chief of Police Patrick Gallagher, IA Officer Carmen Lazarin—, I suggested antisemitism as a possible motive for ACO Valles’s citations.  I did not know that any suggestion of bias-based policing requires an investigation.

Even so, the LCPD was reluctant to act.  It did nothing for 6 weeks.  IA Officer Lazarin seems not to have informed other IA officers of this suggestion; or, if she had, neither she nor they took it seriously.  Nor did Chief Gallagher.  A month later, on 3 September, IA Sgt. Sean Mullens notified Valles’s superior that my complaint “was determined to be a non-serious matter.”  IA inaction prompted me to write a 21 September blog suggesting that antisemitism went beyond ACO Valles to others in the LCPD.  IA rushed to add bias-based policing to my complaint without my knowledge or permission.  I protested, demanded that it be detached from my complaint, and explained that criminalizing bias is contrary to my moral and religious principles.

Over 3 months later, on 14 January 2020, IA acted; IA Sgt. Mullen interviewed ACO Valles.  (His memorandum dates the interview 14 January 2019, before the incident!)  I have numbered the sentences in the unredacted passage for ready reference:

[1] Mr. Hays doesn’t like the fact a warning notice left on his gate.  [2] He challenges the complaints [sic] validity since the caller chose to remain anonymous.  [3] He protested the facts in emails, blogs, phone calls and meetings.  [4] The notice was left by ACO to have the property owner call in and the Animal Control Officer educate them on the reason for the visit to their home and the city ordinances required by [sic] every pet owner.  [5] In an email and blog authored by Mr. Hays, he suggested antisemitism within LCPD, specifically in this instance with ACO Valles.  [6] He noted a large Star of David which hangs about the garage as motivation for ACO Valles’ [sic] actions.  [7] Mr. Hays told Lieutenant Kinney and Chief Gallagher during a meeting on January 7, 2020 with City Staff that he wasn’t complaining of biased [sic] based policing.  [8] LCPD is obligated to look into any suggestion of biased [sic] based policing whether or not the citizen files an official complaint.

[9] During my interview ACO Valles advised he is not targeting Mr. Hays’ [sic] because of his beliefs, religion or any other reason.  [10] He just happened to be the officer who took this call for service.  [11] By the same measure where Mr. Hays said there is no evidence to support violation at his home; [sic] there is absolutely no evidence to suggest any bias or targeting of Mr. Hays by ACO Valles or LCPD.

I waste no one’s time or trouble to address the irrelevant, or rebut the false, misleading, contentious, or pejorative statements, in these two paragraphs.  Instead, I make a few brief observations about them.

First, over half the statements are irrelevant, having nothing to do with a suggestion of antisemitism.  Statements 1 through 4 are about me and the notice of violations.  Statements 7 and 8 address complaints about antisemitism, not antisemitism itself.

Second, of the remaining five statements, two (5 and 6) present my suggestion and my evidence for it; two (9 and 10) present ACO Valles’s counters: an unsupported denial of antisemitism and an everyone-would-do-as-I-did defense, namely, cite me for fictitious violations (and for the same motive?); one (11) is IA Sgt. Mullen’s flawed analogical argument in ACO’s Valles’s defense (IA Sgt. Mullen omits his conclusion cited just above in his memorandum in order to dismiss my possible evidence, the Star of David).

Third, missing are any investigative questions relevant to ascertaining ACO Valles’s motive.  IA Sgt. Mullen did not ask ACO Valles whether he had given out fictitious citations for code violations before?  If so, often?  If so, to whom and of what religion?  And if so to any of these questions, why?  If his conduct in my case is routine with him, Valles admits to routine bad policing.  If his answers seem trustworthy in making my case unique, then what explains giving them out in this instance?

Fourth, and most important, nothing, absolutely nothing, in this passage justifies an exemption because it contains no “Matters of Opinion” concerning ACO Juan Valles and nothing “directly related to the employee’s relationship with the City.”

So the question is, why did Mr. Cabello and Ms. Vega-Brown claim a bogus exemption and thereby break the law and lie to both me and an NM Assistant Attorney General.  One answer: they thought that they would not be discovered to be lawbreakers and liars.  Another: they thought that, if discovered, they would suffer no consequences.  They were discovered, and they have suffered no consequences.

City officials—Mayor, Councilors, City Manager, and Chief of Police—have condoned city lawyers’ lawbreaking and lying to citizens and state officials, and some have actively worked to silence me and disregard of my case.  Mayor Miyagishima, who publicly and privately promised that I would present my case to the police auditor; Councilor Bencomo, who has advocated police reform and attended a meeting in which the City Manager said that the citations should be retracted; and Councilor Gandara, who has repeatedly and vigorously defended the City Attorney to me—all deliberately voted to exclude my case from those to be reviewed by the police auditor.  Councilor Gandara, who did nothing more than back my requests to meet with two City Managers, is greatly committed to social services but little concerned for public safety.

What began as a suggestion of one ACO’s antisemitism leads, after my 2-years’ effort to have fictitious violations retracted and my police record expunged, to the suggestion of institutional antisemitism.  The refusal of these city officials and officers except the City Manager to admit mistakes and make amends reflects more than wagon-circling.  When antisemitism is a possibility, now approaching certainty, refusal reflects their tolerance of it and its taint.  Dodging transparency and accountability, ducking the facts supporting my complaint, and rigging the police auditor’s report are tell-tale signs of antisemitism in the leadership of The City of Three Crosses.  If not, let them answer.  Certainly, this redacted portion contains nothing cogent denying antisemitsim.

Compatible with this official behavior—and alarming—is sentence {3}: “He protested the facts in emails, blogs, phone calls and meetings.”  IA Sgt. Mullen disapproves of my protesting the fictitious violations (not his “facts,” all false).  Despite his oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States and New Mexico, he neither accepts nor respects a citizen’s First Amendment rights: free speech, free press, petition, and assembly.

I close with a specific warning: it cannot happen here—until it does.  If IA Sgt. Mullen represents the LCPD, it constitutes a potential threat to the civil rights, perhaps even the lives, of citizens who protest police misconduct or political actions.  The City Attorney and her Senior Assistant tried to conceal this redacted statement by lawbreaking and lying because it shows that they not only cannot rebut the suggestion of antisemitism, but also recognize and tolerate the threat of police action against Las Cruces citizens.

As of sundown (three stars appearing in the firmament), I wish you a Happy Hanukkah!

THE GREAT EXPERIMENT: AMERICA'S STRUGGLE TO BECOME "ONE NATION"

     The Pledge of Allegiance, written by a socialist—imagine that!—, also a minister, in the later nineteenth century, declared America to be “one nation.”  I am a loyal American, served in the Military Services and in a combat zone but do not believe that America is “one nation.”  Come to think of it, “one” seems redundant.  “Two nations”—huh?

My disbelief reflects the meaning of “nation,” which differs from that of “country,” “land,” or “state.”  It applies to people sharing descent, history, traditions, culture, and language, but not necessarily a defined territory.  Many peoples have both a homeland and a diaspora, and many in the diaspora retain some allegiance to the old country.  Because nationality is a common basis of identity, it usually takes a generation or two for, say, American Irish to become Irish American, or American Jews, Jewish Americans.  Even so, feeling for the old country in the new one endures in food, customs and rituals, parades, etc.  Some major cities have a “Chinatown” or a “Little Italy.”  Bostonian Irish contributed to the IRA fighting the British, and Jews, even non-Zionists, contributed specially raised funds before and after the Six-Day War, and give annually to Israel.  (Passover ends, “Next Year, Jerusalem”; I have said it, but I have never meant it.)

By definition, America seems not only not a nation, but even the antithesis of one.  Its peoples have come and are still coming from other countries.  They differ in their descents, histories, traditions, cultures, and languages.  Although immigrants have become naturalized and acculturated, distinctive differences among peoples remain.  At least in the first generation or two, they tend to live in national and religious enclaves which create conditions for intergroup conflict.  An attack by Irish workers, later abetted by Irish policemen, on a Jewish funeral procession in 1902 New York is but one such example.  These conflicts based on nationality and religion have been supplemented by the constant conflict between races, almost always between whites and people of color or regarded as people of color, however denoted.  (Irish were once thought “dark.”)  But not always: in the 1990s, in Los Angeles, blacks confronted Koreans who provided better grooming services at lower prices than did black-owned businesses.  To its shame, the NAACP took sides though it professes to serve the “advancement of colored people.”

Race is the major differentiator of groups and individuals, though, more generally, any differences presumably defining groups and individuals can underlie or prompt conflict.  Those affirming political equality in a multicultural—really, multinational—society seem to be losing to those denying it by citing group differences as justification.  These opponents of political equality necessarily affirm their superiority to others on the basis of one or more characteristics, the primary ones being race, religion, and gender (lesser, associated ones: nationality, morals, intelligence).  White racists think themselves superior to all people of color; Christians think themselves superior to Jews and Muslims; men think themselves superior to women.  Ardent anti-racists like Robin DiAngleo and Ibram X. Kendi play the race card in reverse by privileging what they believe to be black beliefs, feelings, or perspectives, exempting them from common standards, and excusing them from criticism—and thereby showing themselves to be racist and un-American, too.

America’s response to diversity has been bifurcated: enslavement, then segregation, of blacks and later discrimination against other peoples of color; yet a slowly developing myth about the country as a “melting pot.”  Between slavery and segregation, and ethnic assimilation, America tried to keep people of color separate and to assimilate whites of different European nationalities.  The ideal for whites was to be or attempt to resemble WASPS—an un-American ideal because it clearly excluded blacks.  But the pot cracked.  It survived during and for a few years after the Second World War, as America recognized disparate groups but promoted the “Brotherhood of Man.”  This notion was schizoid: a wartime—a we-are-not-like-Hitler—recognition that many Americans retained a vestige of their pre-American national identity; and an effort to override that recognition, to unify and rally all Americans in the war effort.  Later, some groups whose members descended from European countries adopted or accepted hyphenated designations for themselves, like Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans to maintain a trace of identity inherited from their nations of origin.  As usual, Jews are the exception.  Although Jews are suspected of and slandered for allegedly having dual allegiances, Jewish immigrants from Israel do not call themselves Israeli-Americans.  In the Civil Rights Movement, blacks not only asserted their citizenship as Americans equal to other Americans under the Constitution, but also—at least, many—insisted on their separate identity as distinguished by skin color by calling themselves blacks instead of negros or on continental descent by calling themselves Afro-Americans—, in the end, the proper American stance.

Today, America’s response to its diversity parallels its historical response.  Some, perhaps most, seek to adopt the position which blacks have adopted and which others are still attempting to adopt—an America as a nation of political equality defined by the Constitution, notably the Bill of Rights, which overarches identifiable nations, with integration or assimilation at the personal level allowed as a matter of choice.  Others, growing in numbers and power, seek to maintain racial and religious separation, re-establish white Christian domination of others, and, by the logic internal to such bigotry and to the extent deemed by them possible, undertake ethnic confinement or cleansing.

The struggle between American diversity and white Christian nationalism redefines the terms of Lincoln’s question: whether “that nation” “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” “can long endure.”  I have my doubts.  The answer, if present trends of Republican manipulation of elections and other political misconduct are not soon checked, the door will swing shut and lock out democracy.  Worse, the demands of domination and repression will become increasingly brutal as the numerical advantage of political egalitarians grows larger and requires greater effort to control by social supremacists.  The amoral, aggressive behavior of Republicans in Congress and in supermarkets and stores is a harbinger of greater future abuses of the norms of civility and the rule of law, and of more violence.  As ever, power without restraint will grow unchecked.  If Republicans succeed, as their unprincipled, determined, and disciplined quest for power suggests, Democrats, often thoughtful, tolerant, and tentative, will be politically incapacitated or isolated—conditions from which, short of revolution, they will not soon emerge to save democracy.

If so, the Great Experiment will fail; America will not succeed in becoming one nation of many diverse nations embraced by a government, the first of its kind in history, struggling to ensure political equality under the law, with liberty and justice for all.  Which, SCOTUS originalists, is what the Founding Fathers intended in the Bill of Rights.

ARE LAS CRUCES PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS LEARNING WAY TOO MUCH?

BULLETIN: The Las Cruces teachers union is demanding a raise.  The timing of this demand reflects sleazy politics; it waited until the election was over so that a raise could not become an issue.  It knows that its demand will be met because current or former teachers elected or re-elected to the School Board will vote for a raise.  Comment below, after the blog.

*           *           *           *           *           *           *

At a recent medical appointment, a young technician giving me some tests told me with a hint of pride that she was a graduate of Arrowhead Park Early College High School.  I hope that she lied.

Carrying Bruce Lancaster’s The American Revolution with me to read between tests, I chose to ask her a simple question: in what century did the American Revolution occur.  First answer: nineteenth century; second answer: seventeenth century; third answer: sixteenth century.  (Apparently, she does not know in what year the Declaration of Independence was signed.  July Fourth—whenever.)

I asked her whether she had read a complete novel in high school English.  Her response: she could remember reading only one: Orwell’s 1984—had I heard of him or it?

I know that one swallow does not a summer make and that one student does not all students represent.  But how does even one student graduate from any high school in the LCPS system, not to mention its flagship high school, and know so little history and have read so little fiction?  Apparently, teachers teach history without dates and English with few novels.  Has she heard of Austen or Dickens or Hawthorne or Twain?  Not likely.

Is time being spent raising student consciousness in history and English?  I know that CRT, feared by many parents, politicians, and propagandists, is not taught in the LCPS system.  But if it were, they need not fear students learning much from CRT because they learn so little even at the best public high school Las Cruces has to offer.

I sent this story to the members of the current School Board, with a comment like this one but here revised and expanded for a larger audience: no reply.  While they protect, praise, promote, and pay teachers, the teachers do little in return except blame everyone else for their failure.  (They could blame their failure on New Mexicans’ low average IQ, 95.7, which includes them.)  Their failure is defined by a decades-long record of student failure to achieve 50% proficiency in reading and math in 4^th and 8^th grade tests.  School Board members, in the name of transparency and accountability, should explain these results.  They should explain why, if everything is for the students—their favorite mantra—, the entire LCPS system is doing nothing for them.  They must be satisfied with these results, for, when they ran for the School Board, they did not say anything about this record of gross educational ineffectiveness.  But we know the answer: incumbents take no responsibility and newcomers do not want to assume any.  Their slogan: in the League of Women Voters, The Bulletin, and The Sun-News, we trust (to ask no questions, run no stories, and feature apple-polishing blurbs).

The public should understand that those School Board members who have been teachers—they always argue that their experience qualifies them for the position—are compromised by a conflict of interest between pleasing friends and (former) colleagues, and serving the students.  The results identify the winners.  Since School Board members and LCPS teachers have neither desire nor plan to do better, voters in future elections, particularly parents, wanting better, should replace every incumbent and demand a teaching staff do-over.  With this long record of poor student academic performance, the odds are that any teacher whom you know or meet is a bad one.

By the way, the same goes for Bill Soules, who has no constituency except teachers and is not conflicted between seeking their votes and proposing suitable legislation.  His politician’s interests prevail over parents’ concerns for their children.  He avoids trouble and assures re-election by voting to infuse the system with large dollops of money.  I know: I suggested and he scorned some no- or low-cost ways to improve curriculums and instruction.  Anyone paying attention has noticed that, in his many years as chair of the Senate Education Committee, public education in New Mexico has remained ranked as the worst in the nation.  Surely, Soules deserves some credit for the state’s distinction.

*           *           *           *           *           *

Comment: Any across-the-board raise at the local or state level would waste public funds, cannot make current teachers better, and may not attract more, much less better, teachers.  Giving mediocre teachers more money to attract better teachers is an expensive way to attract talent.  With only about 5% attrition and few vacancies, that approach would cost many millions each year over many years, and get little in return.

With or without more many, for the LCPS to get better teachers, it must establish higher standards for hiring them—something more than a PED certification and a 98.6^oF body temperature—and protection from worse teachers.

If the School Board must spend more money on teachers, it should spend it to improve teacher quality.  I suggest two ways.  One is to give current tuition refunds for courses to learn what they should be teaching.  Another and better way is to develop a two-track salary structure: one track for new hires and current teachers who pass a one-time-only, independently developed and administered, subject-matter tests of teacher competence, with a high passing score (95 or better); the other track for current teachers who decline to take the test.  My guess: current teacher will fight any such test because it would expose their incompetence.

WORRIED ABOUT CRT IN NEW MEXICO'S SCHOOLS? THINK AGAIN!

I congratulate PED for repeating deficiencies of the Common Core State Standards in its Proposed Revised K-12 Social Studies Curriculum.  Consider one Performance Standard for the First Grade:

Inquiry 22. Construct Compelling and Supporting Questions

●  1.1. Explain why a compelling question is important.

●  1.2. Generate supporting questions related to compelling questions across the social studies disciplines.

Absurd.  PED assumes that first graders understand “compelling” and “supporting.”  PED assumes that they can distinguish between them.  PED assumes that first-grade teachers understand them, can distinguish between them, and can teach first graders their meanings and the difference between them.  And lack of realism is pervasive.

Pace PED, neither teachers nor students can possibly know which questions are “compelling” and which “supporting” because of the vagueness of the terms,  Moreover, neither teachers nor students can have enough knowledge to generate supporting questions to compelling questions in the half dozen or so “social studies disciplines,” even if they know what they are.  Reality check: Experts in fields related to social studies often debate which questions are more or less important than others.

Dear Reader: can you perform to the level of these first-grade standards?  I admit that I cannot.

No less absurd: Teachers cannot readily, perhaps not possibly, assess whether students meet stated performance standards.  What standards do teachers have to know when a student has explained something?  How can teachers ascertain whether students have generated supporting questions to compelling questions in each field?

The performance standards do not stipulate what students are supposed to know and what teachers presumably must teach.  Performance standards fail because they assume that students have learned without specifying that teachers have taught the information necessary to perform.  Relatively minor issue: no standard states that students know the names of and can identify the continents; major bodies of water or major river systems; major mountain ranges or deserts; major countries; the fifty states, their capitals, their major cities, and their postal abbreviations.  Likewise, the distribution of populations, wealth or poverty, religions, and races.  Relatively major issue: teachers do not know enough to teach students about diverse cultures and societies throughout the world without presenting partial, superficial, and biased accounts of them.  Can white teachers give an informed, unbiased account of Blacks in Africa or urban America or Latinx in Brazil or rural New Mexico?  Can Christian teachers give such an account of Judaism in Israel?  In America?  In the Lower East Side and in Los Angeles?   Surely, PED jests.

The result of these deficiencies is that this curriculum is irresponsible in defining “performance,” not content, not what teachers teach to students so that they can satisfy yet-to-be-defined appropriate grade-level standards.  If students cannot meet PED performance standards, the blame for their failure can be shifted to what they could not perform and away from what the teacher failed to teach.  In addition, the statement of the curriculum is larded with jargon impenetrable to non-professionals, including most parents and many school board members.

In short, this curriculum is a compendium of professional incompetence and an exercise in educational obfuscation and pomposity.  It gets teachers off the hook and puts students on it.  Someone should ask Bill Soules if he is happy with it.