New Truth or Consequences City Commissioners weigh in on smart-meter special election

by Kathleen Sloan | March 6, 2020
4 min read

​The issue that spurred many of the 13 candidates to run for a Truth or Consequences City Commission seat in the March 3 election was smart meters. 

The candidates saw dozens of residents go to the mic at City Meetings in the last six months and noted the quick organization and success of a petition in favor of a citizen-initiated ordinance to ban smart meters for 10 years. They probably noted 264 people signed it within a week, indicating a broad-based constituency was against smart meters and they better pay attention if they wanted those votes. 

Only George Szigeti spoke in favor of smart meters and he lost.  

Not one resident in six months has spoken in favor of smart meters. Opposition to the $1-million purchase focused on three points:  bad health effects are associated with spiking electro-magnetic waves given off by the meters; the money should go to critical infrastructure repairs instead; and the City Commission wasn’t transparent about the project in general. 

Lack-of-transparency complaints included: There was nothing in the Aug. 27, 2019 city packet when the City Commission awarded Landis + Gyr the request-for-proposals competition; the City Commission awarded the RFP by mere motion and without a public hearing on the project; the city awarded the RFP without vetting Landis + Gyr, which is embroiled in lawsuits. 

“More transparency” was the campaign cry common to all the candidates, primarily based on the smart-meter ruckus. Transparency—for most of the candidates—meant listening to what their constituents say at public meetings and then responding to them in public meetings. No more back-room machinations culminating in sudden agenda items awarding $1-million deals funded by the people’s utility fees. 

Not listening came to a head at the Jan. 29 special meeting. The people, in an effort to be heard and to force the City Commission to listen, passed a petition and presented a citizen-initiated ordinance banning smart meters for 10 years. 

The old board didn’t bother to vote against the ordinance, doing nothing, which the law considers “acting adversely.” Acting adversely triggers a special election, according to state law on initiative ordinances. 

The old board denied the people’s right to make and decide local laws under the City’s commission-manager form of government.  

It refused to let the people’s ordinance go to the people’s vote. Instead of passing a special election resolution, the old board voted it down; claiming installing smart meters is an “administrative decision” not subject to public review. 

All five City Commissioners voted the special election down at the Jan. 29 special meeting. Three of those commissioners are now gone, Rolf Hechler, Kathy Clark and George Szigeti. 

The Sierra County Sun asked the three new commissioners, Brendan Tolley, Randall Aragon and Amanda Forrister: Would you consider overturning the prior Commission’s decision, putting the smart-meter issue to a vote, and if not, why not?”
​
The results were mixed.

Brendan Tolley said, “My answer is yes, I would definitely consider it.”

Randall Aragon said, “Regarding this question, perhaps the most prudent (and reasonable) response from me is that all three of the newly selected Commissioners must ‘put first things first’ and initiate a genuine interaction between ourselves and the already seated Commissioners after taking office. A lot of legislation and caucusing relating to smart meters has already taken place—over many years. I certainly would be amenable to reopening discussion with our new board of Commissioners on this issue because I unquestionably desire to know that we (as Commissioners) have all the variables and options illuminated relating to financial obligations should we consider a ‘jump ship’ plan: or any other option. Right now, it does appear that smart meters are to begin the installation process in the very near future (30-60 days?).  Consequently, in summary, I would hope the entire board will consider reopening discussion on this matter to see what we are facing as to alternatives and its merits and demerits for our citizenry.

Amanda Forrister did not respond. 

If the new board decides to go along with the old board’s decision to install smart meters, a secondary issue is in play: whether to allow customers to opt out or not. 

The City Commission’s citizen-advisory board, the Public Utility Advisory Board, is working on an opt-out policy or ordinance. It will decide the issue March 16. 

The five-member PUAB has three ex-city-employee members, two of whom headed the city-owned electric utility, for which the smart meters are being purchased. 

PUAB members Ed Williams and Gil Avelar have said they are in favor of smart meters for the electric department. Chairperson Jeff Dornbush has said he is in favor of smart meters for the water department. None of the PUAB members have opposed the smart meter purchase for the electric or water departments. 

The PUAB will recommend what customers are to pay to opt out, to be considered by the City Commission. 

It’s probably going to be expensive to opt out, unless the new board stands up for the people. Charging a one-time fee of $150 and a monthly fee of $20 was proposed at a recent PUAB meeting. 

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