County commission approves ranking of proposed capital improvements with little public input and limited discussion

by Debora Nicoll | October 16, 2020
4 min read
Projects ranged from modest improvements such as a radar speed sign for Hillsboro and parking lot resurfacing in T or C to major infrastructure projects such as bridge work in Monticello and construction of a six-mile shortcut to Spaceport America. Photograph copyright © 2020 by Ron Fenn

Sierra County commissioners approved a new Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan that included millions of dollars in projects proposed for state funding with only a nod to seeking the public comment strongly recommended by the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration’s Local Government Division.

There was a 15-minute hearing on the ICIP, which covers the years 2022-2026, prior the Sept. 15 county commission meeting. An online packet posted on the county’s website on Sept. 11 provided only the names, rankings and expected costs of the 13 proposed projects. The annually updated ICIP ensures that county and municipal governments carefully plan for future capital needs with input from all stakeholders. The ICIP is an opportunity for the county commission to inform state government and the people of the county which capital improvement projects they feel are most important.

There were no details in the packet about the proposed capital improvement projects that, would cost an estimated $5.95 million over four years, if funded. No member of the public was able to speak at the hearing due to COVID-19 restrictions. Only two written comments were received in advance. Both came from Gretchen Kerr, the president of the Hillsboro Community Center, who advocated for a $150,000 expenditure to renovate the center’s kitchen and for a $5,000 expenditure for a mobile radar speed sign for Hillsboro’s main street.

In a later interview, County Manager Bruce Swingle explained that the pandemic had made it impossible to hold the usual public meetings around the county to supplement project requests by county department heads and other government agencies.

The county commissioners later passed a resolution approving the ICIP with almost no debate about the rankings presented by Swingle. During his presentation, Swingle asked the commissioners to be sure that the projects they deemed necessary were included in the ICIP. He also asked them to confirm the proposed ranking of the “top five” projects, as these would receive the most serious consideration for state funding.

The commissioners were on the verge of accepting the projects in the order Swingle presented them with no discussion. Just after a motion to adopt the ICIP without changes was seconded, but before a roll call vote could take place, Commissioner Frances Luna requested that a $427,000 expenditure to renovate Monticello bridge and the Hillsboro speed sign both be moved into the “top five.” Her intervention on behalf of the bridge succeeded.

The commissioners ultimately approved a final ranking of the ICIP projects as follows.

The top-ranked project, approved without discussion, allocated $150,000 to purchase two shuttles for the free shuttle service that normally runs on summer and holiday weekends between points in Truth or Consequences, Elephant Butte and Elephant Butte Lake State Park. Funded nearly equally by the county and the municipalities served, with additional support from other local governmental agencies and civic organizations, the shuttle service aims to make it easy for lake users to visit T or C and vice versa. A secondary purpose is to curb drunk driving. Last year the shuttle provided 545 rides, using Sierra Joint Office on Aging vehicles. 

The second-highest ranked project—$100,000 to expand and resurface the parking lot at the new county government complex to be housed in the former Amin’s furniture store at 1712 N. Date Street—elicited no comment from the commissioners.

Moved up from 10th place to third was the Monticello bridge renovation project, necessitated by its inadequate drainage, which contributes to frequent flooding in the area. 

The fourth-ranked item was a $900,000 request from Sierra Vista Hospital for renovations to the old hospital, which is currently used for administration and food preparation. A sprinkler system, asbestos abatement and tunnel repairs are among the needed improvements

Equipment for the county road department filled the final “top five” slot. This request was for a total of $430,000, phased over three years. 

According to Swingle, the county actively lobbies for all ICIP projects, but the final decision of which to fund rests with the state. 

The other projects on the ICIP are:

6. Hillsboro mobile radar speed sign $5,000 

7. Hillsboro Community Center kitchen renovations $150,000

8.  Winston Community Center roof repairs $150,000

9. “Water on Wheels” tender for outlying fire departments $300,000

10. Divide Well Road shortcut to Spaceport America, to be spent over five years $2,070,730

11. Monticello water system ($100,000 already funded) $830,000

12. Hot Springs Landing drainage study $157,000

13. Sierra Vista Hospital ambulance $180,000

author

Debora Nicoll covers the Sierra County Commission for the Sun.

Share this:
HAVE YOU SEEN?

Understanding New Mexico's proposed new social studies standards for K-12 students

“The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.”
—National Council for the Social Studies 

Reader Michael L. Hayes of Las Cruces commented: What impresses me is that both the proposed standards and some of the criticisms of them are equally grotesque. I make this bold statement on the basis of my experience as a peripatetic high school and college English teacher for 45 years in many states with many students differing in race, religion, gender and socioeconomic background, and as a civic activist (PTA) in public education (My career, however, was as an independent consultant mainly in defense, energy and the environment.)

The proposed social studies standards are conceptually and instructionally flawed. For starters, a “performance standard” is not a standard at all; it is a task. Asking someone to explain something is not unlike asking someone to water the lawn. Nothing measures the performance, but without a measure, there is no standard. The teacher’s subjective judgment will be all that matters, and almost anything will count as satisfying a “performance standard,” even just trying. Students will be left to wonder “what is on the teacher’s mind?” or “have I sucked up enough.”

Four other quick criticisms of the performance standards. One, they are nearly unintelligible because they are written in jargon. PED’s use of jargon in a document intended for the public is worrisome. Bureaucrats often use jargon to confuse or conceal something uninformed, wrong or unworthy. As a result, most parents, some school board members and more than a few teachers do not understand them.

Two, the performance standards are so vague that they fail to define the education which teachers are supposed to teach, students are supposed to learn, and parents are supposed to understand. PED does not define words like “explain” or “describe” so that teachers can apply “standards” consistently and fairly. The standards do not indicate what teachers are supposed to know in order to teach or specify what students are supposed to learn. Supervisors cannot know whether teachers are teaching social studies well or poorly. The standards are so vague that the public, especially parents or guardians, cannot know the content of public education.

Three, many performance standards are simply unrealistic, especially at grade level. Under “Ethnic, Cultural and Identity Performance Standards”; then under “Diversity and Identity”; then under “Kindergarten,” one such standard is: “Identify how their family does things both the same as and different from how other people do things.” Do six-year-olds know how other people do things? Do they know whether these things are relevant to diversity and identity? Or another standard: “Describe their family history, culture, and past to current contributions of people in their main identity groups.” (A proficient writer would have hyphenated the compound adjective to avoid confusing the reader.) Do six-year-olds know so much about these things in relation to their “identity group”? Since teachers obviously do not teach them about these other people and have not taught them about these groups, why are these and similar items in the curriculum; or do teachers assign them to go home and collect this information?

Point four follows from “three”; some information relevant to some performance measures requires a disclosure of personal or family matters. The younger the students, the easier it is for teachers to invade their privacy and not only their privacy, but also the privacy of their parents or guardians, or neighbors, who may never be aware of these disclosures or not become aware of them until afterward. PED has no right to design a curriculum which requires teachers to ask students for information about themselves, parents or guardians, or neighbors, or puts teachers on the spot if the disclosures reveal criminal conduct. (Bill says Jeff’s father plays games in bed with his daughter. Lila says Angelo’s mother gives herself shots in the arm.) Since teacher-student communications have no legal protection to ensure privacy, those disclosures may become public accidentally or deliberately. The effect of these proposal standards is to turn New Mexico schools and teachers into investigative agents of the state and students into little informants or spies.

This PED proposal for social studies standards is a travesty of education despite its appeals to purportedly enlightened principles. It constitutes a clear and present danger to individual liberty and civil liberties. It should be repudiated; its development, investigated; its PED perpetrators, dismissed. No state curriculum should encourage or require the disclosure of private personal information.

I am equally outraged by the comments of some of T or C’s school board members: Christine LaFont and Julianne Stroup, two white Christian women, who belong to one of the larger minorities in America and assume white and Christian privileges. In different terms but for essentially the same reason, both oppose an education which includes lessons about historical events and trends, and social movements and developments, of other minorities. They object to the proposal for the new social studies standards because of its emphasis on individual and group identities not white or Christian. I am not going to reply with specific objections; they are too numerous and too pointed.

Ms. LaFont urges: “It’s better to address what’s similar with all Americans. It’s not good to differentiate.” Ms. Stroup adds: “Our country is not a racist country. We have to teach to respect each other. We have civil rights laws that protect everyone from discrimination. We need to teach civics, love and respect. We need to teach how to be color blind.”

Their desires for unity and homogeneity, and for mutual respect, are a contradiction and an impossibility. Aside from a shared citizenship, which implies acceptance of the Constitution, the rule of law and equality under the law, little else defines Americans. We are additionally defined by our race, religion, national origin, etc. So mutual respect requires individuals to respect others different from themselves. Disrespect desires blacks, Jews or Palestinians to assimilate or to suppress or conceal racial, religious or national origin aspects of their identity. The only people who want erasure of nonwhite, non-Christian, non-American origin aspects of identity are bigots. Ms. LaFont and Ms. Stroud want standards which, by stressing similarities and eliding differences, desire the erasure of such aspects. What they want will result in a social studies curriculum that enables white, Christian, native-born children to grow up to be bigots and all others to be their victims. This would be the academic equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

H.E.L.P.

This postmortem of a case involving a 75-year-old women who went missing from her home in Hillsboro last September sheds light on the bounds of law enforcement’s capacity to respond, especially in large rural jurisdictions such as Sierra County, and underscores the critical role the public, as well as concerned family and friends, can play in assisting a missing person’s search.

Reader Jane Debrott of Hillsboro commented: Thank you for your article on the tragic loss of Betsey. I am a resident of Hillsboro, a friend of Rick and Betsey, and a member of H.E.L.P. The thing that most distresses me now, is the emphasis on Rick’s mis-naming of the color of their car. I fear that this fact will cause Rick to feel that if he had only gotten the facts right, Betsey may have been rescued before it was too late. The incident was a series of unavoidable events, out of everyone’s control, and we will never know what place the correct color of her car may have had in the outcome. It breaks my heart to think that Rick has had one more thing added to his “what ifs” concerning this incident.

Diana Tittle responded: Dear Jane, the Sun undertook this investigation at the request of a Hillsboro resident concerned about the town’s inability to mount a prompt, coordinated response to the disappearance of a neighbor. From the beginning, I shared your concern about how our findings might affect Betsy’s family and friends. After I completed my research and began writing, I weighed each detail I eventually chose to include against my desire to cause no pain and the public’s right to know about the strengths and limitations of law enforcement’s response and the public’s need to know about how to be of meaningful assistance.

There was information I withheld about the state police investigation and the recovery. But I decided to include the issue of the car’s color because the individuals who spotted Betsy’s car emphasized how its color had been key to their identification of it as the vehicle described in Betsy’s Silver Alert. Because the misinformation was corrected within a couple of hours, I also included in this story the following editorial comment meant to put the error in perspective: “The fact that law enforcement throughout the state was on the lookout in the crucial early hours after Betsy’s disappearance for an elderly woman driving a “light blue” instead of a “silver” Accord would, in retrospect, likely not have changed the outcome of the search” [emphasis added].

I would also point to the story’s overarching conclusion about the inadvisability of assigning blame for what happened: “In this case, a perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances, many of them beyond human control, hindered the search that it would fall to Hamilton’s department to lead.”

It is my hope that any pain caused by my reporting will eventually be outweighed by its contribution to a better community understanding of what it will take in the future to mount a successful missing person’s search in rural Sierra County.


RELATED

RELATED
Truth or Consequences Infrastructure Capital Improvements Plan ranked behind closed doors
by Kathleen Sloan | August 28, 2020

What infrastructure projects Truth or Consequences will pursue over the next few years, throwing staff hours and public monies into them, were chosen behind closed...


Scroll to Top