WHAT GOOD IS A LAS CRUCES PUBLIC EDUCATION IF IT IS NOT GOOD?

    As a peripatetic educator for most of my adult life and a teacher for 45 of its years, I am accustomed to the conventional rhetoric of School Boards and their Superintendents.  So I was not surprised by the nonsense offered by LCPS Superintendent Ignacio Ruiz, as reported by Algernon D’Ammassa’s column “LCPD presents first ‘State of the District’ address,” in the Las Cruces Bulletin (7 June).  I do not know the man; I assume him to be a good fellow, diligent to keep everybody happy and problems invisible.  Indeed, Ruiz identified no educational problems, only initiatives on communications, in the District. 

    Ruiz introduced his report by saying, “We have close to 5,000 highly trained professionals including over 1,600 of the most dedicated educators in the country across our 40 schools.”  Everyone, especially the School Board, accepted the statement without question because it states what everyone wants to hear.  But its claim is absurd; Ruiz has no basis for using this superlative.  If the superlative were not just gush, it would require facts about the identification and measurement of the dedication of teachers here and elsewhere in the country.  Of course, there are no such facts.

 

    Ruiz’s gush, intended to gratify the School Board and placate parents of current students, makes addressing any problems in LCPS education, especially any problems traceable to those “most dedicated educators,” disagreeable to the powers-that-be.  Nevertheless, the facts about proficiency scores in reading and math reduce his gush to a trickle.  “LCPS students in grades 3 thru [sic] 8 and grade 11 averaged 38 percent in reading proficiency, while math proficiency scores in those grades were 23 percent.”

 

    D’Ammassa rightly does not blame Ruiz for these inconvenient facts about continuing deficiencies in Las Cruces public education by prefacing them with the observation that the scores date from “before his arrival at the district.”  Fair enough for judging his performance in his first year, but irrelevant to judging those “most dedicated educators” who taught the students before he arrived.

 

    Obviously, even if those 1,600 teachers are “dedicated,” their dedication is irrelevant because it has not translated into effective teaching.  Whatever “dedicated” means, it does not mean competent or effective.  Ruiz, with the tacit approval of the School Board, is eager to avoid the inference that those “dedicated educators” are mediocre at best because it raises controversial questions about teacher quality, including preparation.

 

    One way to avoid the problems of poor education of which parents might otherwise complain is to celebrate the higher-than-state-average graduation rate of 81.5 percent.  I credit Ruiz, who, despite the dark cloud of low proficiency scores in basic academic subjects and high rates of absenteeism, finds a silver lining in the fact that “The district’s graduation rate continued to top the New Mexico rate.”  However, the fact accentuates the poor quality of public education.  Given low proficiency scores, another unwelcome inference is that the District sets its standards low enough and teachers inflate grades high enough that presumably, of its graduates, 62 percent are not proficient in reading and 77 percent are not proficient in math.  I am pleased that Ruiz does not descend to touting how well these “dedicated educators” are doing despite a truancy rate of 39 percent and to blaming the students and their parents for their absenteeism.  Students too young to cast ballots often vote with their feet.  I wish that he could consider that, if his “dedicated educators” were good teachers, absenteeism might be lower.  Since much school funding is based on per-student attendance, absenteeism costs the District a lot of money.  Has anyone considered making the parents or guardians of “chronically absent” students responsible for both their children’s truancy and the District’s lost revenues?

 

    D’Ammassa reports Ruiz noting that “The data [presumably of graduation rates, not of proficiency scores] only tells [sic, sic] part of the district’s story.”  Non-academic measures of District success are “Safety and dignity for a diverse student body, equity in services for all students and respect for the various constituencies represented by LCPS.”  These measures, intangible and unquantifiable as they are, are all well and good, but they reflect no academic achievement.

 

    If I were a parent of an LCPS student and knew of this dismal record about which the School Board is indifferent, I would be moving heaven and earth and the other place to put the District in receivership for proven, persistent failure.  If I were a School Board member, I would insist that the Superintendent either ensure that student academic performance as measured by proficiency scores dramatically improve or expect to be fired.  I would also insist that the Superintendent, at whatever expense necessary, ensure that teacher quality is priority number one, even if it means firing “dedicated,” but incompetent or ineffective, “educators.”  Finally, either as a parent or a School Board member, I would campaign for an independent “truth commission” to investigate and evaluate the academic character and condition of the District, its schools, and its teachers.  Otherwise, the “State of the District” will remain what it is: holding pens to enable parents to have jobs without the inconvenience and cost of hiring babysitters, and credential factories rewarding students for attendance with worthless diplomas.

 

 

[Just for fun: The article “The right to choose,” The Economist (1 June), reports, “Republican-controlled state legislatures moved quickly to restrict abortion,” then notes parenthetically, “Texas bans even women who have been raped from obtaining them.”  That is, Texas is exceptional in going farther than other states, which apparently ban only men who have been raped from having abortions.]

YVETTE HERRELL: WILL SHE RUN FROM HER CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?

    Former Congresswoman Yvette Herrell, seeking to return to Congress, recently texted me a campaign message.  It featured a collage of images and texts smearing incumbent Congressman Gabe Vasquez, no hero of mine, who seeks re-election.  My response to her message was a simple one, a question why she has nothing to say about her record.  But a look at Herrell’s record answers it.

 

    Incumbent candidates for public office have voting records; challengers usually do not.  However, in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District, voters have two candidates with voting records: Republican Herrell, who served from 3 January 2021 through 3 January 2023; and Democrat Vasquez, who has served since 3 January 2023.  Ballotpedia reports Herrell’s voting record; it also reports Vasquez’s voting record.  Given the adversarial partisan voting pattern during President Biden’s first three years in office, it is reasonable to assume that, with some exceptions, what Herrell opposed Vasquez would have supported.

 

    People often either do not know or often forget their representative’s votes even on important issues.  As the 2024 election approaches, Republican candidates have been telling—that is, lying to—their constituents that they supported popular legislation which they actually opposed.  So, to inform or remind them, I provide Herrell’s voting record during her one term in office.  Her record reflects votes on major bills which Ballotpedia selected as indicative of an officeholder’s positions.  For a brief description of the bills, use the link at the bottom of the table.

 

    A few words on Herrell’s record.  First, an assessment.  Aside from two votes for defense authorization, Herrell has voted against major bills meant to help people (e.g., women’s and LGBTQ+ rights), protect consumers, assist the economy, or improve election procedures.  Second, a caution.  Her record reflects her membership in the Freedom Caucus, the radical Republican group which has obstructed even Republican-friendly bills and risked government shut-downs.  Those who vote for her do so at their risk and everyone else’s risk.  Third, predictions.  Given her record and membership in the Freedom Caucus, she is likely to run from or lie about her record.  Give both, she is not likely to claim that she will work on a bipartisan basis; if she does, the claim will be dead on utterance.  Fourth, a question: aside from national defense, what is Herrell for?

 

YVETTE HERRELL’S CONGRESSIONAL VOTING RECORD

VOTE        BILL                                                                                              PASSED

Nay            Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act                                         228-206

Nay            American Rescue Plan Act of 2021                                               220-210

Nay            Inflation Reduction Act of 2022                                                    220-207

Nay            Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act      220-204

Nay            For the People Act of 2021                                                            220-210

Nay            Assault Weapons Ban of 2022                                                       217-213

Yea            National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022             363-70

Yea            James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for

                        Fiscal Year 2023                                                                       350-80

Nay            American Dream and Promise Act of 2021                                   228-197

Nay            Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise

                        to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022                       342-88

Nay            Chips and Science Act                                                                   243-187

Nay            Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021                                       218-211

Nay            SAFE Banking Act of 2021                                                           321-101

Nay            Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022                                        260-171

Nay            Equality Act                                                                                   224-206

Nay            Respect for Marriage Act                                                              258-169

Nay            Continuing Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental

                        Appropriations Act, 2023                                                        230-201

Nay            Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act                            217-207

Nay            Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021                                227-203

Nay            Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act                                           220-203

Nay            Bipartisan Safer Communities Act                                              234-193

Nay            Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United

                        States, for high crimes and misdemeanors                             232-197

Nay            Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition

                        Improvement Act of 2022                                                       225-201

Source: Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Yvette_Herrell)

 

    Herrell addresses a number of her views on major subjects, including abortion and gun control, in an audio/visual tape, “Yvette Herrell in 2020 virtual candidate forum hosted by the Republican Party of Valencia County.”  Her remarks on abortion run for over three minutes, from 21:20 to 23:26; on gun control, from 36:17 to 38:34.

 

    For what it is worth—and it is worth very little—I provide Vasquez’s voting record.  He has little to run on or from.  Few votes were on matters of significant legislation—for which only a do-nothing-constructive Republican Party is responsible.  Several bills or resolutions, some with attractive names—“Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023,” “Lower Energy Costs Act,” “Relating to a national emergency…,” and “Providing for congressional disapproval…”—Vasquez rightly opposed because they were not good ones.  The one vote which sticks out is his “yea” vote on resolution opposing socialism.  Plainly, this vote, vigorously opposing socialism (no politician of either party has the faintest idea what it is), is virtually a necessity.  Out of Ballotpedia’s sight, he probably does pork-barrel politicking for his conservative constituents.

 

GABE VASQUEZ’S CONGRESSIONAL VOTING RECORD

VOTE        BILL                                                                                        PASSED

Yea             National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024       310-118

Nay            To terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of

                        the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for

                        proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers,

                        and for other purposes                                                          227-201

Nay            Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023                                                  217-215

Yea            Denouncing the horrors of socialism                                          328-86

Nay            Lower Energy Costs Act                                                            225-204

Nay            Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of

                       title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the

                       Department of Labor relating to “Prudence and Loyalty in

                       Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder

                       Rights”                                                                                        219-200

Nay            Relating to a national emergency declared by the President

                        on March 13, 2020                                                                 229-197

Yea            Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023                                                314-117

Rep.

Hakeem

Jeffries

(D-N.Y.)    Speaker of the House election (January 2023) - 15th vote

                        Rep. Kevin McCarthy                                                            216-212

Yea            Declaring the office of Speaker of the House of

                        Representatives to be vacant                                                  216-210

Rep.

Hakeem

Jeffries

(D-N.Y.)    Speaker of the House election (October 2023) - 4th vote

                        Rep. Mike Johnson                                                                220-209

Nay            Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing

                       investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives

                       inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House

                       of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to

                       impeach Joseph Biden, President of the United States of

                       America, and for other purposes                                              221-212

Yea            Providing for the expulsion of Representative George Santos

                      from the United States House of Representatives                    311-114

Source: Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Gabriel_Vasquez)

 

CITY COUNCIL VIOLATES LEGAL RESTRAINTS TO OPERATE IN SECRET

       Las Cruceans who think that the only people who threaten the rule of law and democracy are Trump, his lawyers, his sycophants, and his MAGA hordes are not paying attention.  There have always been millions of Americans and there are now thousands of Las Cruceans who—actions speaking louder than words—undermine American democracy, its principles and values, and its Constitution.  Trump has given them permission to out themselves after years of repression by respectability.  Here, four years ago, members of City Council, dominated by pseudo-Progressives, outed themselves by voting to amend an ordinance for selected committees, accepting a charter for a committee known as the Public Safety Select Committee (PSSC), and tolerating its operations in secret and in violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA).  Just one of those actions.  (Note: Progressives a century or so ago stood for open government.)

 

       To enable its secret operations, the committee has never published notices of its meetings, its agendas, or its minutes.  It was once listed on the City’s website of boards and commissions; when listed, its entry provided a “purpose” and a “description,” but no “contact.”  Some months ago, contrary to the charter (I.a), the listing was removed from the website.  The PSSC is so secret that Mayor Eric Enriquez and all Councilors have twice refused to answer my questions about whether the committee still exists or has been renamed, repurposed, or terminated.  Their refusal to answer such simple questions raises some serious questions and suggests some serious skullduggery.

 

       The charter of this secret committee states that its purpose is “to provide the mayor and city council with information and advice on the goals and objectives stated in the City Charter or the City’s strategic plan” (I.a).  My review of many IPRA records discloses none indicating that the committee has done so.  If it has not been doing what it is chartered to do, what has it been doing instead?  Or have its three City Council members (one is the Mayor) been securing the approval of the other four Council members for policies, programs, or funding with a rolling quorum?  Or have they avoided a rolling quorum by using the City Manager as an intermediary to secure this approval?

 

       The charter also states, “The term of the select committee shall not exceed one year or the amount of time necessary to complete the specific established goals and objectives of the committee” (I.c).  This secret committee has existed for four years, from early 2020 to at least early 2024.  Its meetings have addressed, among other topics, cannabis, crime, domestic violence, homelessness, mental health, and excessive police force.  The City Manager could and should have addressed them or developed proposals to Council for policies or programs to address them.  They are obviously topics appropriate for public discussion at City Council public meetings or working sessions.  Yet the PSSC has had no “specific established goals and objectives”; without them, it could not and did not solve even a part of one of these problems in a year or in a reasonable period of time implied by the charter.  This committee has thus violated its charter.  Why has it not occurred to any Council member, the Mayor included, to comply with the charter, that is, obey the law of its own creation?  Why has Council outsourced its responsibilities to an unaccountable, illegitimate directorate to run the city by deciding important matters behind closed doors and then hiding those decisions from the public?

 

       Nothing in the PSSC charter authorizes closed meetings.  Moreover, OMA has requirements for informing other members of City Council and the public of closed meetings.  The relevant passages from the New Mexico Open Meetings Act Compliance Guide (p. 32) state:

 

2. Closed Meeting Outside an Open Meeting

The Law

If any meeting is closed pursuant to the exclusions contained in Subsection (H) of this section, the closure: ...

(2) If called for when the policymaking body is not in an open meeting, shall not be held until public notice, appropriate under the circumstances, stating the specific provision of the law authorizing the closed meeting and stating with reasonable specificity the subject to be discussed, is given to the members and to the general public.

Commentary

A public body may sometimes need to meet in a special meeting to discuss only a matter that is covered by one of the exceptions defined in Section 10-15-1(H) of the Act. Under those limited circumstances, the public body must give notice of the meeting to its members and to the public in accordance with its policy regarding notice of special meetings or as may be reasonable under the circumstances. Such notice must state the exception to the Act or other legal authority that authorizes the closed meeting and must state the subject to be discussed with reasonable specificity. When noticed properly, these closed meetings may take place without having an open session before or after the meeting.

 

Instead of following state law, the PSSC has justified its closed meetings by citing on every agenda a passage in the Las Cruces Municipal Code: “In accordance with LCMC Chpt. 1, Div. 6, Sec. 2-174, et seq., this meeting is not a public meeting and does not include a quorum of elected officials or representatives.”  The citation refers only to the Oversight Committee, which is explicitly designated as a management committee not subject to OMA.  PSSC is not so designated; it is not even mentioned.  Nothing in the cited sections of the LCMC authorizes PSSC secrecy, and, even if something did, the LCMC does not supersede OMA.

 

       However, some records, redacted or withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege, suggest that the city may have tried to establish the PSSC on grounds which exempt it from the letter of OMA.  The City Attorney may have given the PSSC legal advice to its liking so that Council members on the PSSC can plead that they acted on the advice of counsel.  Such deviousness insinuates that the intentions or operations of the PSSC, if within the letter of the law, were not within the spirit of the law, and might not have been in the public interest.  In short, all PSSC meetings have violated OMA by a failure to give public notice.

 

       If the PSSC had complied with the OMA requirements for prior public notice, it still might have properly closed them.  The OMA lists ten categories of exceptions justifying a closed meeting.  The Guide’s Table of Contents lists them:

 

H. Exceptions

Licensing

Limited Personnel Matters

Administrative Adjudicatory Deliberations

Personally Identifiable Student Information

Collective Bargaining

Certain Purchases

Litigation

Real Property and Water Rights

Public Hospital Board Meetings

Gaming Control Board Meetings

 

My review of many IPRA records show very few of these exceptions.  So almost all closed PSSC meetings have violated OMA by failing to confine themselves to these exceptions.

 

       City Council is reviewing this secret “select” committee without thus far making it an agenda item for public discussion.  So the Mayor and Councilors are resorting to secrecy in reviewing and redirecting the operations of this secret committee.  Their exclusion of the public from deliberations about public safety and basic issues of governance is a hallmark of anti-democratic politicians and anti-democratic governments on the Left as well as the Right.

 

       Unless you are among those opposed to American democracy, tell the Mayor and your Councilor what you think of their anti-democratic practices in chartering a secret committee to run Las Cruces in matters of public policy.

 

 *      *      *      *      *      *      *

       I provide three items for those who want to know the details, with pertinent points in bold font: first, the text of the city ordinance for select committees; then, the PSSC  “Purpose” and “Description” in its charter.  The cited sections asserted to justify closed meetings are too long to include here.  The relevant OMA sections have been given above.

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAS CRUCES MUNICIPAL CODE (LCMC) 1997, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 2, ART. 4, DIV. 7, SEC. 2-1101, SELECT COMMITTEES, EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 6, 2020.

 

The City Council is informed that:

 

WHEREAS, LCMC Ch. 2, Art. 4, Div. 7, Sec. 2-1101 establishes the mayor’s ability to appoint Select Committees whose purpose is to provide information and advice on City Charter objectives; and

WHEREAS, the mayor determines membership, purpose, duties, and duration of Select Committees; and

WHEREAS, the mayor must notify the city council of the establishment and purpose of select committees; and

WHEREAS, it [is] the desire of the city council to expand the ability to create Select Committees for the benefit of the entire city council to support the goals and objectives of the City’s strategic plan.

NOW THEREFORE, be it Ordained by the Governing Body of the City of Las Cruces:

(I)

THAT Section 2-1101, entitled “Select Committees,” of the Las Cruces Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 2-1101. -Scope.

(a) Select committees may be established by the mayor or city council to provide the mayor and city council with information and advice on the goals and objectives stated in the City Charter or the City’s strategic plan.  The membership, purpose, duties, and duration of the select committees shall be determined by the mayor or the city council and shall be made available to the public.

(b) If the Mayor establishes a select committee, the city council shall be given written notice of the establishment of all select committees.  This notice shall include the purpose for the select committee and the names of the members.

(c) The term of the select committee shall not exceed one year or the amount of time necessary to complete the specific established goals and objectives of the committee.

(d) The recommendations of a select committee shall not be binding and are subject to approval of the city council or the city manager in accordance with the city charter.

(e) The city manager may assign appropriate city staff or community members to a select committee for the purpose of providing information, recommendations, or subject-matter expertise. The select committee shall not include more than three members of the city council.

(f) Sections 2-187 through 2 -190 are inapplicable to select committee members.”

(II)

THAT City staff is hereby authorized to do all deeds as necessary in the accomplishment of the herein above.

 

DONE AND APPROVED this 6 day of January 2020.  [Signed by the Mayor]

 

       The operations of the PSSC implied by the “Description” and “Purpose” in the City’s “Boards and Commissions” website entry before it was removed are different from the actual operations of the PSSC.  Both statements seem designed to give cover to Council and, while still on the website, deceive the public.

 

Description

The duties of the Public Safety Select Committee shall include but not be limited to the following: (1) provide input, comment, or recommendations on proposed ordinances, programs, or initiatives involving public safety matters within the City; (2) provide recommendations to the City Council on matters of public safety; (3) provide information, recommendations, or assistance in the development and implementation of various existing and future public safety related programs; (4) encourage, collect, and present resident input regarding public safety service levels and priorities; (5) make recommendations concerning related department budgets and budget priorities.

 

Purpose

To improve the overall safety and quality of life of the community by providing recommendations to the City Council on safety initiatives, raising awareness of community safety concerns, and to serve as a mechanism for productive discussion on matters of public safety between the policy making body, individuals serving in the area of public safety and subject matter experts.