Suppression at council forum?

-A A +A

It was obvious at the Los Alamos League of Women Voters  supposed forum, which was to have included the charter ballot questions, that the moderator was NOT going to allow any question which questions the government’s complete authority. Nor anything that resembles Free Speech!
Several seconds into my question the moderator interrupted me setting a time limit on my question and then proceeded to re-interrupt me every few seconds until my time was up so naturally I kept talking, not being the kind of person who gives up their rights, she kept interrupting. And when the county guy asked to answer my question she shut him up and proceeded on to the pre-planned fluff questions they had planted in the audience.
Going in, I had planned on voting “yes” on the questions, I just wanted some inconsistencies cleared up. Now I urge all voters to vote “NO”!!!
Here’s the bottom line. The county council wants to make it very hard for the citizens to get what they want or stop that which they don’t want. The ONLY reason to increase the needed signatures while cutting in half the time to collect them is that the council is afraid of the citizens and what they might do or stop.
Also the county believes that the word “whereas” is a magical word that automatically makes any other wise illegal ballot measure legal. Like combining the new restrictions with a further restriction that if you fall short of the needed signatures you can NOT re-file that petition or any petition resembling it in anyway until 12 months after the ruling on the signatures thereby ensuring that it will actually be two years before the council has to worry about that issue again. This paragraph is what the communists in town squelched me from asking about.
But most telling that the council is up to no good, is the fact they have published in the ` that the new text of the charter will NOT be available for anyone to read what they are actually voting for until they walk into a polling place on Election Day. Save your freedom vote “NO” on all 4 questions.

Greg White
Los Alamos

Editor’s Note: Los Alamos County did publish the ballot questions and wording of the proposed charter revisions in both English and Spanish on two occasions, the most recent being Sept. 25 on pages 8 and 9. Electronic editions of those newspapers are available for review at LAMonitor.com.


LWV Forum

Actually the League published in advance and announced at the beginning of the forum that after their presentations questions from the audience were to be directed at the speakers and were limited to 30 seconds. The gentleman was not asking a question but stating opinions; the moderator politely reminded him that unless he asked a question within the time period he would not be able to get a question answered. He continued to make statements of opinion way past the allotted thirty seconds and the moderator asked the young lady who was handling the mike to retrieve it from him. He gave up the mike but continued to speak, saying among other things that his free speech rights were being violated. One of the scheduled speakers began to respond to one of his statements but the moderator correctly insisted that no question had been asked and went to the next question. The Moderator correctly enforced the rules that were published and that all present by their attendance had agreed to observe.

The League of Women Voters has sponsored forums for candidates and other topics in Los Alamos longer than I can remember (been here 38 years). I have been to most of their events for the last 35 years or so, and I have never seen any form of censorship or bias. I know the people in the League who organize and raise money for these events and I have seen how they struggle to be fair and equitable to the speakers and the public. The gentleman now compounds his bad behavior on Thursday night by insulting the League with unfounded accusations of collusion and bias. The League of Women Voers, those in attendance, and especially the moderator who stood up to his rude and obnoxious behavior, deserve his apology.

George Chandler
1208 9th Street