GOOD COPS/BAD COPS--WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

       The police killing of Tyre Nichols in Memphis, TN, prompts my return to the case of LCPD Officer Jared Cosper’s killing of Sra. Amelia Baca.  Anyone watching films of the Memphis killing observes about half a dozen officers beating the victim and about half a dozen officers walking around and watching without intervening.  (EMT personnel, even after they arrived on the scene nearly half an hour later, did not rush to give Mr. Nichols medical assistance.)  So the “bad cops” did the beating and the “good cops” did not.  After the cops made a false report to mislead senior department officials, the Memphis police chief quickly fired five officers, later fired more, dealt or promised to deal with others, and disbanded the special unit of which they were a part.  The Memphis PD made prompt and only slightly edited disclosures to the victim’s family and then the public.

 

By contrast, the Las Cruces Police Department went silent about Sra. Baca’s killing for a week, Police Chief Miguel Dominguez initiated and released a PR film of the killing (after seeking approval from associated agencies), and the city released an unedited film only in response to a citizen’s Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request.  Thus, Dominguez tried to mislead the public to exonerate the killer, who has not been charged but has been returned to duty.  No one will accuse Dominguez of honesty, or him, the LCPD, or associated agencies of transparency.  Fortunately, for them, neither City Council nor citizens make demands for accountability.

 

The problem of “good cops/bad cops” goes beyond the LCPD.  A multi-agency task force investigated Cosper’s killing of Sra. Baca and then met to review its report at the Third District Attorney’s office on 13 June 2022.  With due allowance for my possible misreading of some handwritten signatures, the attendees were:

 

District Attorney (2)

Ramus, Ashley

West, Brandon

 

New Mexico State Police (7)

Avilucca, Mike

Cardelaria, Phillip

James, Ray

Larecher, Randy

Ortega, Macrina

Sanchez, Imelda

Williams, Jesse

 

Dona Ana Sheriff’s Office (4)

Day, Jon

Louick, Lawrence

Pacheca, Jose N.

Thourenell, Chase 

Las Cruces Police Department (6)

Bradley, Peter

Davis, Kenny, Facilitator

Delao, Veronica

Dominguez, Miguel, Chief

Henke, Mike

Porras, Ricardo

 

  New Mexico State University PD (1)

McGuire, Nelson

The “independence” of this task force was compromised by the attendees’ conflict of interest or tolerance of conflict of interest.  Six of the twenty attendees were officers from the LCPD, which employs Cosper.  One of them was its Police Chief; another was the Facilitator.  Given that Dominguez initiated a public-relations campaign biased for Cosper and against Sra. Baca, and that the LCPD did not bring charges against him, LCPD attendees were biased against charges.  Ignoring their conflict of interest, these LCPD attendees were the “bad cops.” The two attendees from the DA’s office likely advised the task force what in the report would or would not likely be acceptable to District Attorney Gerald Byers—a conflict of interest and just bad, but also just lawyering.  Insensitive or indifferent to LCPD attendees’ conflict of interest, all non-LCPD attendees were the “good cops.”  These “good cops” countenancing “bad cops” are comparable to “good cops” standing around and watching “bad cops” beat up Tyre Nichols.

 

DA Byers did not disclose the report or act on it either to bring or dismiss charges.  He faced a dilemma.  If he brought charges, police would hinder his prosecutions; if he dismissed charges, voters might oust him in the next election.  So, for either professional or political reasons, he sent the report to NM Attorney General Hector Balderas, who took no action.  He left the matter to his successor, Raúl Torrez.  With much to do in his first month in office, he cannot attend to every case at first.  However, since the customs of New Mexico law enforcement are likely to hold true even on the watch of a self-professed reformer, he will quietly bury the case, and the killer will go free by default—by the fault of justice delayed, then denied, in this state.

 

Locally, those who wish to reform LCPD policies and practices have not said that this case would have come before a proposed citizen police oversight board.  Yet those who vociferously profess to support police reform oppose the board.  When one Councilor sought to get the proposal on the Council’s agenda, the Mayor rejected the suggestion with a long-winded, one-sided rebuttal of the need for a board.  Following his lead as she has done before, Councilor Bencomo dismissed the proposal by smart citizens and skilled lawyers (e.g., Earl Nissen, Peter Ossorio, Peter Goodman) as “superficial”—who the hell is this woman to say so?  She claimed to strongly support “real police reform” (emphasis hers) though she has never proposed or supported any herself—so how dare she say so?  I know that my repeated criticisms of this self-promoter prompt reflexive support from her sisters on Council, but they need to act, not out of sympathy for her, but out of concern for public safety, and do something about a police department callous, corrupt, and incompetent, from the top down and the bottom up.

 

Meanwhile, local news coverage has allied itself with the LCPD’s thin blue line by maintaining its wall of silence about this case.  None of its ace reporters has raised questions about the task force, its report, the DA, or the NMAG.  Long into a 6-months-for-$1 subscription to the Las Cruces Sun-News, I have not gotten my money’s worth and have cancelled it.  Of course, I cannot do the same with The Bulletin, but I would if I could.  Where police misconduct is concerned, it is all quiet on the western front.

STUPIDITY OR CUPIDITY? CITY SWINDLE IN WATER BILLS

Agencies of Las Cruces city government may be engaged in organized misconduct.  The more responses which I get from the Water Section of the Utilities Department, now headed by Ms. Adrienne L. Widmer, or the Utilities Board of Commissioners to my complaint about large fluctuations in billed water usage, the more I suspect that apparent incompetence masks actual illegality.

 

My complaint about these fluctuations to the Water Section goes back several years (detailed in 13 Nov and 21 Dec blogs); after every visit, its response is the same: on the basis of its meter, it claims that I have a leak of 1 to 2 gallons per hour (GPH); however, its personnel cannot find even a trace of a leak in my yard or home.  My 10 November presentation of my complaint about these fluctuations to the Board prompted a visit by Commissioner Ray Hickman, whose 9 December letter repeated prior Water Section responses, and a request to the Water Section to investigate my complaint.  On 6 January, it issued a 40-page report from Ms. Rhonda Diaz, Water Conservation Program Coordinator, with the same response plus data from meter readings over a two-week period in December.

Every month my bill provides a graph of billed water usage for a 13-month period.  This bill is roughly similar to others from the same time of year.  Both the Water Section and the Board have seen such graphs.  The last 5 months show usage of 3,000 gallons per month (GPM).  If I had the leak (1,200 GPM) which Water Section claims, I would hardly notice it.  (It might make up for the drop in usage after I divorced my wife and stopped watering vegetation.)  The previous 8 months show usage of 5,000 to 12,000 GPM, that is, additional usage of 2,000 to 9,000 GPM over 3,000 GPM.

Members of the Board and the Water Section know that I define my complaint by these large fluctuations.  My presentation read and copied to the Board began with a statement of the problem:

 

I address an old but persistent problem.  For the past several years, my utility bills have shown fluctuations, including spikes of thousands of gallons per month, in water usage.  I have failed several times to get a sensible explanation of these fluctuations from the Utilities Department.  Its explanation—it is a leak—does not fit the facts.

 

The Board’s and the Water Section’s explanation is not sensible for two obvious reasons.  One, leaks do not expand and shrink on an annual cycle (only bills do).  Two, the amount of water—in some months, equal to that in large swimming pools—is too great to go undetected.  (A 9,000 gallon leak would fill a pool 20’ long, 15’ wide, and 4’ deep.)

 

Neither the Water Section’s investigation nor Diaz’s report addressed my complaint about fluctuations.  Instead, its investigation acted on its misrepresentation of it—“your concern over meter accuracy” (emphasis mine)—by selecting a 2-week period in a 3,000-GPM-month, monitoring my meter, and amassing a huge amount of irrelevant data to give seeming support to its standard response.  The investigation’s flawed approach could not and did not address the fluctuations.

 

First, it assumed, obviously wrongly, that the data from this period are typical of any other 2-week period in the year.  If so, billing for water usage would be roughly level throughout the year.  But it is not.  If the leak is 1 to 2 GPH, then Diaz is wrong that “the billing and electronic reads correlate.”  During the months of fluctuation, either the meter is not reporting a lot of water or the billing overcharges me in those 7 months.

 

Second, it assumed, unquestioningly, that my water meter operated perfectly and read water flows accurately.  Maybe so.  But, as a relatively new technology, my meter, though tested before installed, can malfunction or error.  Even established technologies have such liabilities; computers crash, software has bugs, radars sometimes have blips which correspond to no object.  The Water Section has work-arounds for meter failures, but only independent audits can establish whether the meter readings correspond to the actual water flows.  Moreover, because the meter uses two-way electronic technology, Utility Department personnel can manage its operations and readings from the office.  So no matter how much data the Water Section collects and how many pictures it takes, it cannot prove that it delivered the water for which I have been billed.

 

Diaz’s two-part report explains and reports this irrelevant material.  Its first part is a 7-page letter with two sections: “Analysis/Explanation of Daily Readings and Total Consumption Volumes” and “Below is a summary of actions related to your concern over meter accuracy.”  Its second part is a 33-page attachment of meter readings and photographs.  Again, since I complained about fluctuations in water usage, not meter accuracy, the Water Section has wasted a lot of resources to avoid addressing my complaint.  The inevitable question is why avoid it and a sensible response to it.

 

The Water Section’s investigation and report show stupidity.  Its motive may have been cupidity.  Built into the mission and operation of the Utilities Department is the possibility of corruption and the need to cover it up.  According to its website, “Las Cruces Utilities (LCU) operates as a non-profit organization governed by the Utilities Board of Commissioners that established [sic] strategic policy.  LCU is solely funded by rates and charges authorized by the Board, providing utility services to approximately 100,000 residents and businesses within its service territory.”  So, under Board direction, the Water Section funds its water purchases, operations, and maintenance by charging consumers for water usage.  There are two ways for it to cover costs: by adjusting rates—raising them is never popular—or by over-charging users with spurious claims of usage.

 

The Water Section’s response to my complaint—avoidance, misdirection, and data-dazzle—leads me to one conclusion: the Water Section is raising money by manipulating either its meters or its billing.  Whether money is going to legitimate purposes to avoid unpopular rate increases, or to office slush funds or private pockets, I do not know.  I believe that it has engaged in illegal behavior and that the Board of Commissioners, City Councilor Kasandra Gandara, and City Manager Ifo Pili, having received Diaz’s report, are complicit if they continue business as usual and do nothing to address not only my complaint, but also the issues which it raises.