Letters

The four amendments to the charter seem reasonable to me. For more than two years, they have been discussed in open meetings by the charter review committee and the county council. The charter review committee was selected by the council to represent a wide cross section of our community. Many meetings were held by the committee so the public could present and persuade.
Committee members themselves had many different viewpoints. The amendments, the product of all those meetings, were presented to the county council. After vetting the proposals with the public, the council made some modifications and decided that the amendments merited placement on the ballot.
 Not all participants in the process agreed on all the issues, but that is a feature of representative democracy — listen and then decide.
Initiative and referendum are the last resort to rectify what the public considers widely unpopular or improper council action. They should not be used by a special interest group that disagrees with a well-aired council decision.
The best way to have an impact on a board or council decision is to make your opinion or ideas known early in the process while policies are being formulated. This is a lot less work that resorting to a petition and much more effective.

In response to the Oct. 7 letter titled “Suppression at Council Forum,” I wish to set the record straight regarding the League of Women Voters candidate forum on Oct. 4. Planning how to run a forum is not straightforward, and a major consideration is the limited time available.  At the beginning of the meeting, I explained the format we would follow.  Members of the audience were invited to ask questions, but told not to make statements and to ask only one question.  All questions were limited to 30 seconds and all answers to one minute. Asking and expecting those in the audience to adhere to the pre-established ground rules does not constitute a violation of free speech.  We were gathered to hear the candidates’ opinions, not those of the audience.
 Mr. White broke these ground rules by running over the allotted time for framing a question, and by making a statement of opinion. His accusation that the League, a nonpartisan group, planted “fluff” questions with certain audience members is totally false. Many Leagues do not permit members of the audience to ask questions directly.  Instead, they are told to write them out on cards to be sorted and screened by League members and read by the moderator. Perhaps the Los Alamos League needs to consider taking that approach.

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.

The Los Alamos Monitor’s headline, “Council short on options,” of Sept. 13, regarding the Trinity Site should not be just a lament.  It should be a call to action.
The economic viability of the Trinity Site “lifestyle center” concept was uncertain when it was developed in 2005-06, long before investment money for such projects dried up.  Two developers, first Boyer and now NADG, have been unable to implement even scaled down versions.
Why should we think a third entity, Kroger / Smith’s, whose interests are much narrower, would make the dream happen?
Our options presently are so limited because generations of councilors, county staffers, and various advisors have refused to even consider developing any alternatives.  Too many have too much personal or political capital invested to admit the old concept is not working.  They keep flogging this dead horse instead of exploring options that might serve us better.