Fact check on Szigeti’s smart-meter claims

by Kathleen Sloan | February 16, 2020
5 min read
George Szigeti is putting out false information on the smart-meter debacle in a bid to win City Commission Seat 5. 

Szigeti currently occupies Seat 5. He was appointed by the City Commission December 2018 to fill resigning-Mayor Steve Green’s seat, who hand-picked Szigeti and stayed on until he was seated. 

The City Commission went against its constituents at the Jan. 26 meeting, rejecting the people’s initiative ordinance to ban smart meters for 10 years, making Szigeti’s campaign slogan, “I am here for you!” sounds insincere.

In a political-campaign letter in the Sentinel’s Feb. 14 edition, Szigeti claims the City Commission’s decision to purchase a $1-million smart-meter system from Landis + Gyr for electric customers on August 27, 2019 was done “after four years of public discussion.” 

Fact check: Szigeti is referring to public meetings held by the Public Utility Advisory Board and City Commission, which were miserably lacking in public attendance and public comment. Szigeti was on the PUAB for seven years before he was appointed, not elected, City Commissioner. 

Therefore the project was not publicly discussed. The agendas’ language was too obscure to notify the public of what was going on. “Discussion on AMI,” for example, was typical. 

In addition, Szigeti, in the letter states, “But just as we are signing the contract, a small but vocal group of citizens steps forward in protest.” 

No, the group was not small. And the numbers have swelled, with 264 people signing the petition to ban smart meters. Considering 700 to 1,200 people vote in City Commission elections, it is a large number of people. Virtually not one member of the public has spoken in favor of the smart-meter purchase since the City Commission voted on it Aug. 27, 2019. 

Szigeti is also wrong in claiming the electric smart-meter system was “discussed” and “studied” for four years. It was a different project, department and vendor. The PUAB and City Commission were considering a “performance contract” with YESCO, a company that also makes smart meters, for the water system. Even though Szigeti, as a PUAB member, was spearheading the $9-million contract spanning 20 years, the City Commission deemed it too expensive and voted it down.  

The PUAB studied nothing, as proven by the Sierra County Sun’s public records request, which came up with “no such documents exist.” The only study was done by YESCO, the company wanting to sell them smart meters. The City paid YESCO about $50,000 to “study” the cost efficiency of buying their product, a prejudiced, expensive and worthless study. 

Therefore Szigeti’s claim that the PUAB studied the possible ill-health effects of smart meters can be tossed out the window. No documents, nothing in the minutes, not a concern then and evidently not now. 

In the letter to the editor he states, “Although four years of research and discussion have revealed no objective scientific evidence of health hazards from the minimal amounts of radio frequency energy emitted by these meters . . .” If Szigeti had noted the numerous statements and citations several people have given during six months of public comment, he would have ample scientific evidence of health hazards from smart meters. 

Szigeti has wrongly stated in the past that the American Cancer Society and World Health Organization have dismissed the health hazards. On the contrary, they recommend a suspension of smart meters until more definitive research is done, claiming the anecdotal research is strong enough to avoid them. 

However, Szigeti’s worst falsehood in the letter exposes his lack of understanding of the commission-manager form of government.   

He states that “sufficient signatures were obtained to force a referendum,” and the City Commission passed a “resolution” to purchase the smart meters, and the people’s “petition with signatures was not presented to the city clerk within 30 days of the passage of the resolution, as required by New Mexico State law 3-14-17.” 

Szigeti is citing the wrong law. The people did not bring the City Commission a referendum; they brought it an “initiative ordinance,” which is law 3-14-18. A referendum seeks to overturn a law authored by the city commission. Since the City Commission didn’t pass a resolution or an ordinance, but merely voted by mere motion to purchase $1 million in smart meters from Landis + Gyr, the people could not force a referendum. 

The people had 30 days to present the people’s law or initiative ordinance to the City Commission after City Clerk Renee Cantin “certified” the petition. Cantin certified the petition and “presented” it to the City Commission on the same day, Dec. 2, 2019. Therefore not even one day elapsed on the 30-day clock for an initiative ordinance. 

Perhaps Szigeti’s belief the people brought a referendum gave him the confidence to make the motion that the City Commission reject holding a special election on smart meters, in defiance of the State law on initiative ordinances. 

In the letter he cites the court case Johnson v. City of Alamogordo, the supposed legal cover suggested by City Attorney Jay Rubin at the Jan. 26 meeting. The case concerns a referendum the people of Alamogordo brought in defiance of the city commission’s ordinance raising water and sewer rates. 

In the 1996 case the judge cites other out-of-state court cases that distinguish administrative and legislative acts by a city commission. The judge claims only legislative acts can be put to referendum. The judge argued raising rates is an administrative act by a city commission. Szigeti claims that buying smart meters is also “clearly an administrative issue.” But since the people’s initiative ordinance is not attacking a city-commission-authored ordinance or resolution, or even the purchase, his reasoning misses the target.

In addition, the people’s ordinance argues against the meters for health reasons, which is very likely a legislative issue, not an administrative issue. 

The cases cited in Johnson v. Alamogordo also state all “new laws” are considered legislative acts. Since the people of Truth or Consequences are trying to pass a new law, that is, a 10-year ban on smart meters, it appears to be a legislative act, despite Szigeti’s claim it is administrative. 

Ironically, after making several misleading and outright misstatements, Szigeti’s last paragraph in the letter to the editor claims he is the people’s knowledgeable source: “An informed citizenry is our strongest asset, and I pledge to keep you informed.” 

TAGS: | | |
author
Kathleen Sloan is the Sun’s founder and chief reporter. She can be reached at kathleen.sloan@gmail.com or 575-297-4146.
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.

Scroll to Top