This blog begins with a brief response to Peter Goodman’s editorial endorsement (22 October) of Kasandra Gandara and continues with the support of my points in my 3 May blog “Kasandra Gandara for Mayor: Another First for a Woman Also Unqualified.”
Goodman opines,
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.
Goodman and I differ on two points. One, Gandara’s experience has nothing to do with her non-existent record as a leader; she is first a follower, then an enthusiastic supporter, of others’ initiatives. She does not address problems or approve a solution until they reflect a majority (e.g., LITE; actually, it is LIGHT). Two, she was once a progressive and still operates under that label, but many no longer recognize her as such since she has become a Councilor and Mayor Pro Tem. Indeed, she has become a slavish servant of the police and fire departments, as one would expect of a member of the secret Select Committee on Public Safety—hardly the role of a "progressive" public servant who mouths allegiance to transparency and accountability and one who may be in criminal violation of the Open Meetings Act.
With Gandara thus set aside, I take Goodman’s recommendation of Alexander Paige Baca Fresquez as the best of a mostly mediocre roster of candidates. The little which I know about former County Commissioner Isabella Solis disqualifies her as anyone who could represent the views of Las Cruces citizens or act in their interests.
Accounts of Kasandra Gandara’s candidacy for Las Cruces mayor appeared in Mike Cook’s 14 April Bulletin article and Justin Garcia’s 17 April Sun-News article. Both articles note but do not stress the fact that she would be the city’s first female mayor. Yet, despite the disaster or disappointment of two recent firsts for females—Susana Martinez as state Governor and only women as city Councilors, respectively—, many Las Cruces voters will consider what is between a candidate’s legs more important than what is between the candidate’s ears in this fall’s election. For them, sex still sells.
Garcia’s article reported a coincidence too pat to be a coincidence, one suggesting a comfy, corrupt relationship between Gandara and the LCPD. The police arrested Jason Estrada, the first candidate for mayor on the grounds of selling cannabis illegally. He then ended his candidacy; the police then dropped the charges. In effect, the LCPD cleared the field before the announcement of her candidacy and may have deterred others. Why? My guess is that the LCPD appreciates Gandara’s indifference or resistance to police reform—about which, more below.
Everyone yawned at her announcement. Everyone knew that Gandara would seek the office because she is politically ambitious. But ambition is not a qualification. Nor, in answer to Garcia’s question why should Las Cruces elect her Mayor, is her claim to be an “experienced leader.” Nothing in her biographical sketch about residency, education, employment, or status as Councilor or Mayor Pro Tem shows leadership. She claims to be a leader because of egotistical opinions of her importance based on this biography.
Her record is not one of leadership. Gandara does not cite any initiative of her own on policies or programs. Without taking the lead in anything, she favors and supports almost everything. She shares everyone else’s concerns about “public safety, poverty, affordable housing (‘absolutely a top priority’) health and behavioral health, business and workforce development and education.” I doubt that her support in these areas, even if more than lip-service, would distinguish her from other candidates, though priorities among them might differ. Speaking of lip-service, I note that she assumes that communication is the key to most issues, as long as they are not controversial issues—which explains her logorrheic discourse.
Garcia also asked Gandara whether she believed that the LCPD needs reform. She ducked the question. Instead, she bloviated about “community policing” and police building relationships with the community; “She said that she would build trust between the department and the community they police” without saying how (elsewhere, she says that the Mayor has little influence on crime). In short, she is long on pieties which mean anything or nothing. She has taken no leadership role in addressing multiple problems reflected in cases of severe police misconduct. Notably, she made no reference to LCPD murders and maimings, some with multi-million-dollar settlements, some quite recently, which have occurred during her eight years in office.
Worse, Gandara has not taken any action, much less a leadership role in action, on an even smaller scale. I know from my direct experience with her that she took no action when she learned that five code violations alleged by the LCPD were false, that then-Police Chief Patrick Gallagher had lied to me in her presence, and that the LCPD would not address, much less withdraw, its false allegations even when Internal Affairs found them unfounded. One reason may have been her cozy relationship with former City Attorney Jennifer Vega, who vigorously supported the LCPD and suborned City Council despite this record of LCPD dishonesty. Gandara’s reluctance to deal with the facts, insist on honesty in city officials, and demand amends for misconduct does not speak well of her moral character and what it would mean for her “leadership” of City Council.
In Cook’s article, she claims that “As mayor, Gandara said she will facilitate greater communication between the city and the community….‘I will talk to [note: not with] anybody….I will listen and do my best. You’re going to get a responsive…mayor’.” This claim is not credible. Set aside my case to the contrary. Readers know that, on 5 March, I publicly asked Gandara questions about Vega’s sudden and surreptitious departure from office. In the months since, I have had no response, not even the courtesy of a reason for not answering them. None of the five questions to Gandara is out of bounds of ordinary information about government operations to which the community is entitled.
1. Is Jennifer Vega still the City Attorney or not? If not,
2. When did she leave the position?
3. Did she give notice and resign, or was she fired?
4. What explains her departure?
5. Why has no one in city government announced her departure?
All other members of City Council and the City Manager to whom I sent these questions have also not answered them. So I have grave doubts that Gandara, like her “amazing, compassionate” fellow Councilors, believes in transparency about government conduct or can change the culture of a “black box” Council and Administration.
I have even more doubts about her claim to be “a strong proponent of performance-based budgeting that mandates ‘accountability all the way around’.” If so, Gandara would have asked how the Public Works Department managed to spend $750,000 on a flood control project as ineffective and environmentally destructive as it was expensive. The answer might lead to measures preventing wasted funds otherwise available to the causes which Gandara supports. Without exploring waste and the incompetence creating that waste, her talk about performance-based budgeting is blather.
Bottom line: no spine. In terms of character, convictions, and conduct in office, Kasandra Gandara promises more of the same slack, shabby governance long in decline in Las Cruces under current Mayor Ken Miyagishima and more recently under Mayor Pro Tem Gandara.
No comments:
Post a Comment