Whither Sheriff's Dept?

The recent deluge of letters to the Daily Post regarding the future of the Sheriff's Dept is conflating two issues: the department's desire to engage in scope creep vs. carrying out its traditional duties in Los Alamos County vs. Council's desire to eliminate the office, and the far right politics being espoused in some letters. Let's separate the two.

The question of eliminating the sheriff, i.e., whether the traditional duties of the Los Alamos Sheriff as described in our county's governance documents can be more cost effectively and safely carried out by other county staff should be analyzed. The councilors who are suggesting this change in governance should post the analysis here in the Daily Post. If the duties can be folded into the LAPD more cost-effectively, this should be made clear. Separately, the idea of scope creep worries me. One, do the deputies have the same level of police training as our PD and two, do we need two police agencies in one jurisdiction? We don't have separate county vs city jurisdictions such as is the case in Santa Fe or Albuquerque.

The "Constitutional Sheriff" and related rhetoric is polarizing the discussion. Certainly the difference in the office of police chief vs. sheriff is clear--one is appointed by the county and one is directly elected by the public. The recent lawsuit fiasco where a police chief was given the bum's rush by the County Administration for still to be fully disclosed reasons still worries me. But separately, if the Sheriff office's current brand of politics is found distasteful by the community, the remedy is to vote out the incumbents, not eliminate the office. If the community agrees with the philosophy put forth in letters such as one written by Mr. Horne, we should re-elect the incumbent. I find it interesting that we are told we should be supporting an ideology that is wary of Big Government when if not for Big Government and the military-industrial complex, there would be little up here on the hill but a few ranchers, a small boy's school, and some cattle.But whatever...that's a decision to be made at the ballot box, not in Tirades to the Editor.

At any rate, it really sounds like we should have a pair of referendums on our hands. One for the office, and one for the office holder. May we live in interesting times.

Charter Amendment To Require That a Councilor Do Your Laundry

Editor

 Insofar as we may already have one Charter Amendment on the ballot this year, i.e., to abolish the office of elected sheriff of Los Alamos County,  I will suggest a second one after a chat with a counter staffer at one of our few remaining gas stations in Los Alamos: County Council will henceforth be responsible for ensuring laundry can be done frugally on The Hill.

Buying some groceries on the station located on what used to be "Conoco Hill", I mentioned to the service staff member that it was nice to have at least one of the previous long time gas station in town left standing. The person grumbled that it was unfortunate that gas stations were falling like dominoes to the Krogerville onslaught, and to boot, there is no longer a self-service laundromat in town. As a renter, that staffer now has fewer options.

To a Council that is advocating that we broaden our economic base and encourage tourism, I will reiterate that tourist industry jobs don't pay the lavish wages that our major employer pays. Tourist industry workers may be renting and may not have the laundry facilities many of us take for granted. For a tourist industry worker to add the price of having a laundry service clean their clothes would be more expensive. Driving to Pojoaque or Espanola to do laundry means a round trip of almost forty miles. At General Service Administration reimbursement rates of 54 cents a mile, that means adding 20 bucks to the cost of doing laundry.

Rather than cause such a hardship, I suggest a charter amendment: during such times that Los Alamos does not have a full self-service laundromat, the seven County Councillors will take in all laundry for those residents who do not have access to a washer/dryer. Council members will turn it around in a maximum of 48 hours. Simple enough. Perhaps instead of a Sheriff's Dept., we can delegate and have a County Laundry Department.

 A community government that wishes to expand our economy to include more lower wage jobs has a responsibility to know what social issues such decisions will entail. I am sure there are others (health insurance, living wage, transportation, housing costs, etc) far more serious than washing hotel industry uniforms, but this example provides a good opportunity for Council to step up to the plate and proudly hit one over the fence.

Letter To The Editor: Lacking An Outside Audit ... Doubt About County Personnel Management Remains

I am disappointed that Council voted 4-2 against commissioning an independent audit of the County's personnel policies. This follows some high profile, successful lawsuits against the county and the loss of former acting Police Chief Randy Foster, who was fired, as I understand, due to his handling of a potentially catastrophic personnel situation. I counted Randy as a friend as well as a Chief, so like Councilor James Chrobocinski, I am somewhat conflicted. That said, I think this was the wrong decision.

County spokespeople can attempt to assuage our concerns about county management with lawyer-vetted argle bargle, to wit, a lawsuit payout does not equal admitted culpability. The public is not so naive; the numbers in these payouts speak for themselves. So too, does public confidence in County governance wane when high profile people in sensitive positions, such as the police chief, leave under a cloud of the county's own making, leading us to wonder whether the county is in good hands.

Admittedly, not all personnel actions can be made public and there is much we don't know. As a former member of a union board of directors (University of Hawaii Professional Assembly), I realize that you cannot sky-write all personnel actions. Thus, an  independent audit that preserved confidentiality when appropriate would have been a suitable substitute to both evaluate our personnel policies and let the public know that we are striving to make county governance as good as it could be. That 4-2 vote ensures neither will be obvious.

The votes of Councilors Girrens, Reiss, Izraelevitz and Henderson disappoint. I hope they write letters to this paper explaining their vote. Or, perhaps, raise this issue again with a less opaque outcome.

Father Daniel J. Berrigan, RIP

 Father Dan Berrigan one of the two Berrigan brothers (Phillip was the other) who stridently opposed the Vietnam War, died a few days ago. Writeups in the NY Times and on NPR.








Somewhat in honoring their efforts at stopping what was an extremely misguided war.

It May Be a Spiffy Bomber to Us, But It Was Hell on the Marshallese

Sent to the Albuquerque Journal.

Editor

 In the Sunday Journal, Charles Brundt tells us about the need to raise funds to repaint a B-52B bomber that will be exhibited at the National Museum of Nuclear Science & History. Brundt elaborates on the history of this aircraft, including that it was heavily involved in "...Operation Redwing Cherokee, a series of 17 nuclear test detonations from May 4 through July 21, 1956, at the Bikini and Enewetak atolls in the Pacific." Indeed, the U.S. conducted some 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands.

For whatever security this testing may or may not have provided Americans, its legacy continues to haunt the Marshall Islanders, where many areas have been too contaminated for habitation and where many people were directly subject to high levels of fallout and long term radioactive contamination. Imagine if New Mexico, rather than having experienced one small test of a nuclear device at Trinity Site, was used as a target for dozens of very large thermonuclear weapons.

Perhaps in addition to raising funds for re-painting that B-52, we should not be whitewashing the effects our testing program had on its unwilling participants living on those Pacific Islands. How much paint does it take to undo the equivalent of a nuclear war on someone's island home?

More Gun Laws Don't Make You Safer

That is, when you ignore everything else...

Yet another article in the New Mexican about Albuquerque residents shooting each other. Albuquerque has about twice the violent crime rate as the U.S. while New Mexico the 2nd most violent by state. Like Avis, we try harder...to...ugh..be #1, but unlike Avis, to be at the top of every wrong list. Note: The Journal based its rankings on FBI data.

Just for laughs I thought I would look up the five states that the Albuquerque Journal article says are the five least violent states based on FBI data and compare these to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence rankings as states with tough gun laws. Here it is, in order of the safest state, Vermont, followed by the four runners up, and their Law Center gun law rankings in parentheses. Note--a failing grade means the Law Center thinks there are not enough gun laws. Vermont (F), Maine (F), Virginia (D), Wyoming (F) and Kentucky (F). New Mexico and Alaska, the most violent states, likewise have grades of F.  Note that the FBI rankings only include violent crime. In the Politifact link below, the metric includes accidents and suicides as well as crime. The politifact article is a good read, as it discusses the issue in depth and interviews some scholars on the subject.

Politifact: More Gun Laws Mean Fewer Gun Deaths

Safety and harm reduction is not all about passing strict gun laws. While the Law Center highlights violent states that have "weak" gun laws, it is mute about safe states with few gun laws.  Lax laws regulating gun sales may grease the wheels of gun trafficking into violent places like Chicago and D.C.. We need to bite the bullet and solve that problem with policies aimed at deterring trafficking and promoting crime control (and state level gun controls focused on crime) rather than pushing laws aimed at gun ownership in general. The lack of strict gun laws doesn't seem to pose a danger in itself, at least for the residents of those safe states. Unless you are suicidal or gun-accident prone.

"...Earlier this year, Santa Fe residents gathered to discuss ways to reduce gun violence in our community. The town hall meeting is another sign that activists are going to seek to reduce the harm caused by guns, no matter the political pushback. Even more encouraging, they are seeking to change the conversation so that fewer people die...."

-Saturday New Mexican Editorial

In a departure from its usual "round up the usual suspects" editorial view, Saturday's New Mexican tells us we need to concentrate on suicide and harm reduction rather than gun control, in part, because two-thirds of American gunshot deaths are suicides. But that statistic ignores the elephant in the room. Talk with Charles Blow of the NY Times or Father Michael Pfleger at St. Sabina's Parish in south Chicago, aka Chi-Raq. Blow has told us that about three quarters of white Americans gun deaths are suicide while about four fifths of black gun deaths are homicides. I suspect that editorial would likewise leave Albuquerque Police Chief Gordon Eden rolling his eyes, given the gun violence in his city. Black lives do matter, and non-Hispanic black deaths due to homicide are close to an order of magnitude higher than non-Hispanic whites.

Gun violence needs to be looked at in microcosm and solved in macrocosm, as both guns and policy flow seamlessly across borders.  National and state policies that influence income inequality, job exportation, chronic unemployment, drug addition treatment, taxation policy, and social services spending, to name a few, influence communities (and their crime and suicide rates) in different ways. Probably more profoundly than gun laws. But the quote above goes to the core of the problem: rather than demonizing each other across the Gun Control Divide, we need to ask each other's help and build alliances instead of grooming adversaries in order to reduce violence.

I agree with the New Mexican's Editorial Board that we ought to tackle the problems rather than concentrate entirely on the implements. Why are white (and other) folks putting a gun to their own heads? Why are urban blacks shooting each other in Chicago? Maybe its time to give people options other than bullets. As I've said before, our nation's "Maslow's Gun" approach to problem-solving is killing us.

As far as suicides? Unlike the New Mexican's editorial board, I am not sure what gun shop employees and shooting range officers can do to prevent suicides, but its worth a try. Guns are incredibly effective suicide mechanisms not because people go to a gun shop to buy a suicide gun, but because the gun is already readily available in the home, thus can be loaded and used immediately upon impulse. Drugs, gas, or driving to a bridge take time, and thus may result in reflection and "oh, never mind" or calling out for help. Once used on impulse, guns rarely fail at delivering. That is a good reason to lock them up and keep them away from suicide-prone teens or relatives. It may also be a good reason to NOT have guns around if you're not planning on being part of an active firearms culture (if you don't practice regularly, chances are, you will fail at using a gun in self-defense). Certainly our local gun shop owners can give us advice but so can priests, ministers, friends, and medical practitioners. On that last note, idiotic and misguided pro-gun based legal prohibitions on medical personnel discussing gun issues don't help and are an example of a "gun law" that doesn't make us safer. In terms of the bigger picture, we need to solve social problems in order to get people out of their suicidal or homicidal ruts, rather than focus on passing more gun control laws.

New Mexico Truth: Stunning Vistas and Child Poverty.

In West, region of guns and suicide, outreach to curb deaths

For starters, this Huffington story and the figure from it, below, are worth a look. I imagine this is not the only correlation between violent death and social ills that one can quickly find.

Suicide, Unemployment Increasingly Linked, Paper Suggests

Why Sell a Gun To A Stranger Without a Background Check?

I went to the New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence (NMPGV) town hall meeting tonight down in Santa Fe. Overall, a very civilized affair that lacked some of the stridency of the usual gun debate. That said, the question of "common sense gun laws" came up. That discussion needs a new introduction line. Perhaps "consensus driven, effective gun violence prevention laws". Or something. As long as it doesn't stop there.

I did make the point to the audience that some of these so called common sense suggestions are offered harshly and at times, the notion that they are common sense suggestions is in the eye of the beholder.  I suggested that perhaps if instead of demands, we ask for cooperation, we could get somewhere.

Meanwhile, there has been yet another mass shooting. Bleeding Kansas, eh? As Mark Follman of MJ keeps tweeting relentlessly, we are in a national epidemic of the firearms version of Maslow's Hammer. Some people really ought to melt down their guns and make them into metal statues.

Drawing on the idea of the poster in my favorite gun shop (The Outdoorsman) provided by the NSSF, "Don't lie for the other guy", meant to dissuade straw purchases, we need a public information campaign to promote background checks such as "Why Would You Sell A Gun To A Perfect Stranger Without A Background Check?" I suggested, since Mayor Gonzales and Sen. Rodriguez were in the room, legislation that would provide a background check, free, at any FFL for a private sale. Make it part of a gun ethics commitment for people to follow. Perhaps the state or city could reimburse FFLs for the chore. This is not an unreasonable suggestion. We provide tax incentives for activities the government wants to encourage such as using renewable energy, installing energy conservation devices, riding a bike to work, or borrowing to own a home. Since the cost to society of a homicide is over a million dollars, it makes sense to likewise incentivize a background check even if it is not a legal requirement.

You could even have a nice poster. For example, this fellow, who was an eight time felon who bought several ARs from unquestioning sellers, could be a poster child. Stories here and here.  Note that it is a Federal crime to knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon, something that Seattle Times writer Danny Westneat mentions but also notes that without a background check, ignorance is indeed bliss. The fact that the couple sold guns to someone they admitted was sketchy enough to worry them also worries me as well as worrying Danny Westneat. The last thing the gun owning community needs is more bad headlines and wrongful deaths.

Why Sell A Gun To A Stranger Without A Background Check?
(A couple sold their Bushmaster to this 8 time convicted felon.)

Obtain a background check. We will make it easy. 
Far easier than being interviewed by police when something goes dreadfully wrong. 
We fellow gun owners will thank you for being careful and respecting our gun owner's ethics--and helping preserve our rights.
photo credit: Federal DOJ via www.seattlepi.com