Truth or Consequences City Commission approves smart-meter-contract purchases and goes silent

by Kathleen Sloan | May 15, 2020
4 min read
The Truth or Consequences City Commission  approved about $20,000 in payments to Landis + Gyr after coming out of executive session May 13, apparently going through with a $1-million smart meter purchase for the city-owned electric utility’s customers, a nonessential purchase many residents are dead set against.

None of the City Commissioners, not even the three new City Commissioners who campaigned on transparency platforms, Brendan Tolley, Randall Aragon and Amanda Forrister, answered the Sierra County Sun’s questions about why the City would further stress public funds by going through with a nonessential purchase amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Mayor Pro-Tem Brendan Tolley belatedly answered the Sun’s phone call, stating he couldn’t talk about it because of “pending litigation.”

Last August the City Commission, by mere motion, voted to award a Request for Proposals for the electric utility smart meter installation and system to Landis & Gyr.

Without bringing the subsequent contract back to the City Commission, Mayor Sandra Whitehead signed the contract with Landis + Gyr September 2019 that included a pick-and-choose menu of services that goes on for years, without a bottom line stipulated.

The $1-million figure was City Manager Morris Madrid’s verbal estimate for how much the project would cost at the August 27 meeting. The City Commission has never been presented with or asked for a schedule of costs and services.

By October 2019, over 260 people signed a petition to put the question whether smart meters should be banned in the City for 10 years, succeeding in garnering enough signatures to hold a special election.

After missing state-law-dictated deadlines, one of the last acts of the prior City Commission, in a Jan. 29 special meeting, was to vote down holding a special election. The City Commission cited case law that argued some governmental actions are not subject to a public vote.

Ron Fenn filed a lawsuit the next day, claiming the City Commission violated the state law allowing the people under a commission-manager form of government to put certain questions to public vote. He was running for City Commission seat 5 at the time, subsequently losing the bid for office.

The court case is still in the discovery phase and no judge has been assigned. The case was filed in 7th Judicial District Court, Sierra County.

The City made no purchases with Landis + Gyr until recently. The contract had an easy-out clause stating lack of City funding could void the contract. According to an up-date report given by City Manager Morris Madrid to the City Commission, Landis + Gyr had delayed delivering services due to the coronavirus pandemic. It appeared the City may have taken the easy out, saving the $1 million.

Then the first purchases with Landis + Gyr showed up in the City’s accounts payable statements included in the May 13 City Commission packet, available online, which total about $20,000.

The Sun asked the City Commission the following questions that remain unanswered:

Due to the coronavirus shut down, it is a given gross-receipts-tax revenue will drop, causing more than the usual deficit in General Fund revenue compared to General Fund expenditure. This is usually made up by a massive transfer from the electric department. The electric fund will therefore probably be tapped more deeply in the upcoming fiscal year. 

Smart meters are not essential. 

1. Please express your opinion on expending $1 million from the electric fund for smart meters—made up of citizen fees—during a very tough year. 

2. Please express your opinion on the lack of an opt-out ordinance, while this nonessential infrastructure is going in place. The Public Utility Advisory Board and City Manager Morris Madrid voiced favor with a $120 set-up charge to not have a smart meter and then $20 a month thereafter as its opt-out proposal. Given the 25-percent poverty rate, this is not a real option for many people. Please include in your statement what you feel would be a reasonable opt-out plan. 

3. When the smart meter motion was made Aug. 27, 2019, between 30 and 40 business customers were automatically excluded at no charge. Please express an opinion on whether this shows favoritism to businesses over residential customers and whether it is an equitable application of city policy to make residents pay to opt out, but not businesses. 

4. A few months ago I asked the new Commissioners if they would reconsider letting the smart-meter purchase go to a vote. The citizen-initiative ordinance was ignored and the special-election resolution was voted down. Have you worked on or investigated this issue? 

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