Several months ago, I asked Las Cruces Police Chief Jeremy Story for information about five SWAT vehicles which he had asked City Council to recommend for state funding. I was interested in their capabilities, purposes, and scenarios for their use. Story and other LCPD officers did not respond to my requests or, at my urging, Councilor Cassie McClure’s requests. By contrast, my request to Dona Ana County Sheriff Kim Stewart prompted an informative reply from Captain Alfred Sanchez, who was forthcoming in answering my questions. For roughly the same population as the city’s but a much greater area, DASO has three SWAT vehicles, two of them military-style, primarily intended for use against barricaded shooters.
On 14 August, I emailed my elected Progressive representatives—Jeff Steinborn, Angelo Rubio, and Cassie McClure—to request that they inquire about the intended purposes of these SWAT vehicles. (I copied this request to my distribution list then and place it at the end of this blog now.) The response by these elected officials, all Progressives who tout themselves as champions of liberal democracy, was underwhelming. None of them was courteous enough to acknowledge my email; presumably, none made an inquiry. Apparently, none takes public safety and citizen rights seriously enough to respond to a concerned constituent.
Other representatives did respond. Joanne Ferrary emailed me to express her concern and to indicate that she would inquire; having heard nothing from her, I assume that any inquiry by her went unanswered. On 26 August, Nathan Small emailed me that he will make efforts to ensure that I get the information about SWAT vehicles which I want. Still, I expect no LCPD response.
I remain concerned. I wonder why Steinborn, Rubio, and McClure are not concerned about Story’s militarization of the LCPD; indeed, McClure compliantly voted for his request just because Story, as the police chief, asked for SWAT vehicles. I worry that he is arming the LCPD for the days when it might be co-opted or pressed into the service of immigrant roundups, protest suppression, or voter intimidation. I am puzzled by the paradox that local Progressives claim to be alarmed by the fact or the prospect of middle-of-the-night or middle-of-the-street abductions of immigrants, legal or illegal, but are not alarmed that the city’s current Republican police chief wants excessive quantities of military-style equipment.
My larger concern is that local politicians—on City Council, most being Progressives—are unresponsive to their constituents on matters of public importance. As an aside, I note that unresponsiveness of government officials to their constituents seems to be infectious. The difference between House and Senate Republicans, Trump supporters all, some of whom avoid town hall meetings on visits to their districts or states, and Steinborn, Rubio, and McClure, who refuse to answer reasonable questions reasonably asked, is small. Those federal officials are avoiding answering to their constituents and, in doing so, are undermining the fundamental relationship between them and thus democratic representative government. Local Progressive officials Steinborn, Rubio, and McClure are acting like them.
The difference: whereas political activism is evident in many places throughout the country, in Las Cruces, political quiescence prevails. Many local citizens are satisfied to be left alone to enjoy time with family, friends, and high-school football; and shrug off expected shabby political treatment. Thus accustomed to their officials’ sluggish conduct, they do not care whether officials address problems perceived by and alarming to a few. But political leadership requires that elected officials address problems, not by nose counts of complainers, but by their actual importance to the public interest.
This local lethargy enables elected officials to ignore the warnings of a handful of informed and concerned citizens in three areas of importance to city and state: police conduct, public health, and public education. Police misconduct triggers reflexive responses but leads to no concerted and sustained efforts to reform the LCPD. City Council seems obtuse regarding the threat of SWAT vehicles in an LCPD which has a record of stonewalling.
Knowing almost nothing about public health, I know better than to offer uninformed opinions. I do know public education. I know that, as long as Las Cruces high schools field competitive football teams, no one much cares that they do not produce competent—i.e., academically proficient—graduates. According to its own mission statement, the School Board is more committed to the safety and sense of belonging of every student than to their education.
What is true of Las Cruces is largely true of New Mexico. In my 18 years as a resident, I have witnessed no change, unless it be a deterioration, in students’ academic performance in public education. The state still ranks at or very near the bottom in national rankings. Normally, this record would be held against legislators on the house and senate education committees, especially Progressive Bill Soules, who, as chair of the senate’s education committee, has overseen a decline in academic proficiency throughout his dozen years in office. Just as Trump’s giveaways to Putin get nothing in return, so Soules-advocated increases in teacher salaries get no improvement in student education. Soules has never addressed the concerns of citizens who want better results, not bigger bills, from their public schools. So the gap between the national average level of education and the state’s level of education will widen the longer the state does little more than fill educational potholes at ever greater costs. As long as the state continues its customary approaches to public education, the state will not have an educated population with a workforce capable of attracting wealth-generating companies. In the strictest sense of the phrase, New Mexico, which currently receives about $4000 more per capita annually than it returns in federal revenues, will become, if it is not already, a welfare state.
Only a few ask questions or get answers about the city’s and the state’s poor showing in policing, health, and education. Poorly governed and unresponsive to those few citizens rightly concerned about major issues—that is, too poorly led to address its problems and mitigate, if not solve, them—the city, as if in receivership, might be better run under state rule and the state might be better governed as a territory run by Washington and a territorial governor, regardless of party, once Trump leaves office.
14 August email:
Donald Trump’s abuse of his powers now extends to the co-option of local police forces, purportedly for anti-immigration and crime-curtailment purposes. In view of their co-option in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and in expectation of more of the same in other cities, control of local police forces and limitations on their capabilities should be ensured by preventive measures.
Story and other LCPD officers have refused my and Councilor Cassie McClure’s request for information pertaining to Story’s request for five military-style SWAT vehicles. McClure voted for the request because, as she told me, the Police Chief recommended it—not, to my mind, a very due-diligent reason. Representative Joanne Ferrary notified me of her concern and indicated that she would inquire, but, despite a request to her, I have heard nothing from her. I assume that any inquiry by her went unanswered.
Accordingly, I request that you ascertain the rationale for and the state of Las Cruces Police Chief Jeremy Story’s request to City Council and its approval of his request for state funding of five SWAT vehicles for the city. I also request that you make any LCPD responses available to the public and to me.
I look forward to your responses as a measure of your commitment to public safety and the protection of citizens and their rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment