The Palace of Malice

On February 7, 2008 the Los Alamos County Council voted to destroy the physical symbol of the Independence of Los Alamos.

On December 21, 2010 5 Members of the Los Alamos County Council, 2 of whom voted in the affirmative in the above cited action, voted to destroy the liberties and rights of the citizens of Los Alamos and to vacate the Charter which was the codification of the Independence of Los Alamos.

The Palace of Malice, akin to Nero's Golden Palace and destined to become home to Ozymandius, will be built upon a foundation of legal chicanery, ruthless manipulation, self-aggrandizement, wanton destruction, and the wholesale abuse of Public Trust and authority --- but at what cost, and borne by whom?

Reality Check -- No community of any size can long survive the destruction of its heritage, the dissolution of its freedoms, and the permanent division of its citizens.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

*** "When, in the course of human events............."

Has the right of democratic self-determination of the people of Los Alamos met its final demise? Has the Social Contract been abrogated? Has the Los Alamos County Council become an elected Oligarchy? Or, has that same Council, regardless of who may be its individual members, become the thrall of an established, un-elected Power Elite?

The Council action on Ordinance 555 and its LAGRI petition precurser is instructive.

By concentrating on the subject material, Council once again chose to look at the proposal in a manner which avoided directly dealing with the underlying issue. The subject matter of any Ordinance initiative or Referendum initiative is but the tip of the iceberg.

The underlying issue, reason, or purpose of any citizen initiative invariably goes to a break-down in the social contract between government and the governed such that citizens find that their only recourse is to set aside the normal processes of representative government and re-establish the principle that ultimate authority for governance rests with, and derives from, the people. A Referendum intiative, commonly referred to as simply "referendum", which by its nature seeks to overturn a legislative action, is a direct challenge to the governing body. An Ordinance initiative, commonly referred to as simply an "initiative", by its nature of seeking to implement policy which has been ignored by elected representatives, is a somewhat more indirect challenge to the governing body -- though an Ordinance initiative which places strictures on the actions of the elected representatives is certainly a direct challenge to the governing authority.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "It is the propensity of the functionaries of every government to gather unto themselves the rights and properties of their constituents................". The citizen initiative is the means by which those constituents may counter that propensity. Jefferson also wrote that he believed every society should have a revolution every 200 years or so in order to correct the tendencies towards governmental abuses. Certainly, as a challenge to the governing authority, the citizen initiative can be seen as a form of that revolution and, as such, is an action upon which citizens are normally reluctant to embark. People would prefer to trust their government to govern wisely and well and are usually reasonably tolerant and patient of governmental mis-steps. Still, "when in the course of human events.........".

That the governing body and the power elite would attempt to deflect these attempts of the citizenry to re-assert its hegemony is understandable. They will make every effort, in whatever manner, to retain thier power. The arguments will include those already given; that an avenue of public input exists, that the voters are not to be trusted to make the "right" decision, or that there is no legal basis for citizen action. Indeed, the County Attorney has broadly interpreted the case of Johnson v The City of Alamogordo far beyond its parameters in order to make a case which would scuttle the entire intiative process. The argument is untested in New Mexico courts, but, given that the right of initiative is a firmly established precedent in other States, it is unlikely that the argument would survive any direct challenge. Indeed, the "right to Petition" was listed in the Declaration of Independence as one of the driving reasons for that Declaration. Yet members of the Council will cling to this untested interpretation as yet another way to protect thier own postion.

Such tactics only makes matters worse. The governing body and power elite become further entrenched and divorced from the citizenry which can only increase the citizens' frustration. "Throwing the bums out" by the normal proceedure of regularly scheduled election is no longer seen as a viable alternative. Citizens are left with but two increasingly draconian options. The lesser of these two is the Recall initiative by which the entirety of the elected representatives may be summarily dismissed. Yet this does not preclude their being replaced by others of like mind. Should this be the case then it is not unlikely that citizens will seek to disband the governing body entire and replace it with a governmental form which citizens hope will be more responsive and responsible to the people in whom the ultimate authority of and for governance rests.

Reality Check: If the Council does not take heed to the underlying point of direct citizen action, if the untested opinion of the County Attorney is allowed to prevail, then resort to the more draconian measures will be a matter not of "If" but of "When".

Can you spell "revolution"?


  1. Richard, I tried to point out last night that not finding a solution to the spending issues will continue to plague the Council. I'm not sure it registered. However, as I was listening to the County Attorney and the Councilors and grading an algebra test at the same time, an idea occurred to me.

    I believe I heard some mention by the CA of how communities have structured "funds" whose money can be spent only by citizens' vote. What came to mind was an amendment to the charter to establish a capital improvement fund into which the Council must depost 75% of the GRT revenue. Any project (note I did not say capital project) paid for by the fund would have to be approved by the voters. It could limit the vote to any project that depletes the fund by a certain percentage of the original deposit + some fudge factor based upon how long the money has accrued. It could also include some wording that would prevent the County from developing projects that spend less yearly than the percentage, but the total would be more.

    Deciding when to have the election should be when the project is 60% designed, not a conceptual design but a real design that shows doors, windows, room dimensions, etc. After all, Kyle Zimmerman has stated that at that point the cost is pretty well fixed.

    The discussion last night that mixed utilities projects with County capital projects really bothered me. My understanding of how utilities projects are funded is by the rates we pay which help pay off utilities revenue bonds. Utilities is supposed to be "self supporting"; yet some small percentage of our gas and electric payments go into the general fund. At this point with all the GRT revenue, I do not understand why that should continue. Nor do I understand what sort of "emergency" would require an expenditure outside the norm for utilities. However, if utilities needed a "loan", there are certain state mandated funds that the County contributes to that could probably cover any emergency. The spending for the leaking sewer plant needs more clarification.

    Finally, I do not agree with one speaker who said that Los Alamos "deserves" to spend as they are because our budgets were so lean during the 1980s. Somehow, I think the County operated more sensibly then.

    Patricia Max

  2. Good suggestion, though I would opt for a smaller %.

    I particularly liked your comments regarding the loss of accountability simply due to the change in funding source.

    The County does indeed have poverty issues. Much of what is on the agenda now has been on the to-do list for a long time but the money wasn't there. Too bad repairs to the Muni weren't part of that list. In any event, the problem is that Time has moved on and much of the List has been voided by Time -- I think it may be one of those be careful what you wish for things.....

    There is a lot that needs to be fixed or re-worked. People will say the County should be run like a Business. Nope. Government is in the business of Public Goods which are such because they do not lend themselves to the Private Sector. However, County could be run much more professionally than it is now. The wink and the nod, the good old gang of retired Councilors who linger like ghosts that don't know they are dead, and the invisible hand of the very few, very wealthy, very powerful marionettist(s) is certainly not professional. Even Tamany Hall was better managed and more concerned for the welfare of its constituents.