Speaking in favor of the proposed change in language governing county utilities—County Question No. 2 at Tuesday’s Kiwanis meeting from left, George Chandler, John Hopkins and Steve Girrens. John Arrowsmith, Chris Ortega and Lawry Mann spoke against Question 2. Photo by Don CaspersonRepresentatives of both sides in the General Election debate about changing the Los Alamos County Charter spoke briefly at Kiwanis on Oct. 28.
Steve Girrens, John Hopkins, and George Chandler spoke in favor of the proposed change in language governing county utilities—County Question No. 2, which would give the County Council the final say (over the Utilities Board) in case of an impasse on major issues such as rate changes.
John Arrowsmith, Chris Ortega, and Lawry Mann spoke against Question 2.
Kyle Wheeler described and supported the streamlining and language changes proposed in County Question No. 1.
The discussion of County Question No. 2—by far the most controversial of the two issues—came down to two opposing beliefs: Those favoring the change argued that the County Council is elected by the people and responsible for the county government, and should, therefore, have the final say when there is disagreement with a proposal by the Utilities Board. Those opposing the change noted that the existing language has worked well for approximately 60 years, during which time the Utilities Board has tried hard to keep rates as low as possible for the benefit of local residents.
Arguments FOR the Changes
Girrens, currently a member of the County Council, began the informal “debate.” He noted that the Utilities Department is the largest of the county departments, and that its assets are owned by local citizens. He said the County Council is elected by the citizens and is accountable to them. The departments are accountable to the County Council, he said, and the councilors must be able to fire any department head who will not abide by the council’s will.
John Hopkins, a major mover in the history of Charter review, said that as it stands now, the language in the Charter governing utilities is poorly structured. He said the current wording leaves the council with “none of the power and all of the responsibility.” The best solution, he said, was to rewrite Charter Article V in its entirety—specifically the parts discussing the responsibility and authority of the County Council and the Utilities Board. In the new wording, he said, if an impasse should develop, “The council would ultimately have the last word.” This new wording, he said, would be consistent with the approach used in the rest of the state.
Chandler said that under the new wording, direct control by the council is “not possible … because the council cannot initiate anything.” For example, he said, if the Utilities Board were to propose new rates, the council declined to approve them and sent them back for reconsideration, and the impasse was not resolved, five public meetings and 90 days of negotiations would have to take place before the council could finally decide the issue. He called this approach “the least direct form of control possible.”
Arguments AGAINST the Changes
John Arrowsmith, the recently retired head of the Utilities Department, said the existing balance of power between the Utilities Board and the County Council “protects us from making quick decisions that (adversely) affect us for the next 50 years.” He used as an example, the council’s decision to build Pajarito Cliffs (the cluster of new county buildings below what was once DeColores Restaurant), a group of buildings which, he said, is “empty most of the day.” The County Council is “a political body,” he said, made up of “seven individuals with seven different agendas.” That’s why the county administrator’s job is so difficult. When the councilors can’t agree, they replace the CAO, he said, noting that there were four CAOs during the years that he himself served as Utilities Department director—about one new CAO every 28 months. This “chronic instability within the county government,” he said, “leads to turmoil” at the mid-management level. The late John Rogers, who served both as a member of the Utilities Board and the County Council, told him, he said, that the Utilities Department is “a can-do organization,” while the council is a “can’t-do organization.” The shortcomings of political management haven’t changed over the last 50 years, Arrowsmith said. The original Charter, which gave a degree of autonomy to the Utilities Board, was an “elegant solution” to the problem.
Chris Ortega, who was an employee of the Utilities Department for 26 years, served as manager for 16 years, and has since served on the Utilities Board for several years, said he has had an opportunity to know all of the Utilities Department managers. The founders of the county, he said, intended “that the utilities should be run as a business,” and they have been. The Utilities Board has rejected projects that were too expensive so that they didn’t create a “big burden” for the ratepayers.
Lawry Mann, who served 10 years on the Utilities Board and 10 years on the County Council—and also served as chairman of both at one time or another—drew a ripple of laughter when he commented, “If Steve Girrens had served on the Utilities Board, he would be on our side.”
Questions and Answers
As the discussion moved to question-and-answer mode, Hopkins repeated that as it stands now, the council has “none of the power and all of the responsibility.” He said that as he and others reviewed the Charter, they consulted with attorneys and were told that under state law, the existing utilities portion of the Charter “wouldn’t stand muster.” The council, he said, “must have ultimate authority.”
Arrowsmith said, however, “I think it’s unlikely that that’s true.” He said the model charter held up as a good example by the American Public Power Association is “more like ours” than like the revised Charter that is proposed here now. He added, “I believe the council has adequate authority” already. And, he said, “You will be paying for Pajarito Cliffs for the next 20 years.”
Kiwanis President Steve Boerigter called for a summary of Question 1 on the ballot, and Wheeler, a former councilor, rose to answer him.
She said Question 1 is not as controversial as Question 2 (the utilities question), but it includes “beefed up language with regard to the council chairman.” Under the new wording, the role of the council chairman (or chairwoman) would be strengthened and would include “head of government” status for emergency situations, intergovernmental relations, and ceremonial purposes. In addition, the title of the “county administrator” would be changed to “county manager” to better describe the duties of the position and to align better with existing practice in other New Mexico communities. She said the new wording would also clarify the councilors’ ability (as opposed to the “manager’s” ability) to appoint members to boards, commissions, committees, and ad hoc committees. One other change would make it clear that poll workers could serve on boards and committees—an issue now in doubt.
Charmian Schaller asked Wheeler whether consideration had been given to the budget impact of Question 1—the need for such small changes as new titles in all county documents. She noted that any time the membership of the County Council changes, such document changes are necessary. She said these changes are not a sufficient reason to reject Question 1.
Jordan Garcia asked the entire panel for examples of when the existing Charter has worked well and when it has failed to work. Hopkins responded that the proposed changes are an issue of “structure,” not a “reflection on the Utilities Board.” The county has been fortunate, he said, to have good members on the board over the years.
Those supporting the changes noted the public meetings that were held as the changes were developed. Arrowsmith, however, commented that many of the 18,000 people in Los Alamos County didn’t come, but might complain vigorously if the changes are implemented.
Most of the panel participants lingered after Kiwanis moved on to Committee Meetings and final ceremonies, and Kiwanis members had an opportunity to ask them individual, detailed questions about these two complex ballot issues.
