Letters to the Editor (7/25/2013)
How are things supposed to be?
Doug May writes from a preacher’s perspective about how things are “supposed to be.” His view is founded on centuries of religious beliefs that many consider unassailable. To oppose them is generally called heresy or blasphemy — perhaps some other loaded term. The inference is that “thinking” is insulting to religious or superstitious tradition.
Once, men believed the Earth was flat. They believed the sun revolved about the Earth. They knew nothing about the circulatory system or the functions of the brain. Women were considered chattels and not allowed to take part in government. Luckily, we progressed and evolved. Perhaps Doug thinks that was due to “bullying”?
Whatever your views are on marriage and homosexual relationships, it is inevitable that time will tell what comes of acceptance of those who seek same-sex unions. Let’s start by discussing your sex life. Perhaps there’s something there that “We” find deviant? Tacky? Unacceptable by the church? Whose church? Doug May’s church?
Archaic beliefs and religious inflexibility are the bastions of bigotry. Yes, that’s another term for “conservative.” If you demand everyone live by your rules, be prepared to meet resistance. And, surprises. Such as: Homosexuals are the product of heterosexual marriages. Do you approve?
Is SEC voter mandering?
Let me apologize in advance for broaching this subject. But I simply cannot, in good conscience, let this pass without saying a word about it. The SEC is owned by all of its members, not the few who think all is bad with its trustees, management and advisors. The notion that (all) trustees are not trustworthy is a bunch of crock anyway. Last fall two trustees were re-elected to represent their respective districts. That’s 40 percent of the membership! If there are trust issues then show these folks the facts, not the rhetoric.
I hear all this persuasive talk with ostentatious language … oops! I mean pseudo-debate on how wrongdoing the trustees are. The past is gone and good riddance to that. It’s time to move forward already. There have been tremendous changes in the reformation of the cooperative these last few years: open meetings act, rezoning, fewer trustees, curtailment of their compensation, annual district meetings and absentee voting – they are all in the current SEC bylaws.
Ah yes, absentee voting (or mail vote as it’s being called) – the big gorilla is still in the house. Here is my take on this matter. A fundamental principle of parliamentary law, and Robert’s Rules, is that decisions are made only by the members present in a properly called meeting at which a quorum is present. Let’s read that again “only by members present” and “a quorum is present.” However, sometimes you need to extend voting rights to members who can’t physically be there to vote. In this case, you have a couple of options, voting by proxy and voting by mail.
Voting by proxy goes against SEC bylaws. Voting by mail is a trade-off: You give up the benefits of discussion and debate in favor of giving all the members an opportunity to vote. Voting by mail probably isn’t worth the extra expense if most members can make it to meetings. But it is state law – so be it.
Here is the issue, counting mail votes as part of a quorum goes against New Mexico state law article 62-15-8, notwithstanding subpart “G”, as in “gorilla.” Read the entire section – do your homework. To use mail votes just create a quorum has consequences, which is probably why it goes against State law. For example, to allow members to vote by mail, you must be sure that you don’t enable a decision on a question to combine mail votes with votes cast after discussion, amendments or floor nominations at a meeting.
Heck, if my mail vote could be counted toward establishing a quorum, why stand in line and wait to vote in person if I don’t have to be present? Can you imagine a Cooperative annual meeting being conducted with no audience? Can you imagine hell freezing over? You get the point!
Dogs not stationary
Where are the areas that roaming dogs are attacking bicyclists? Seems like good areas to avoid.
In defense of the police who are called to attend to dog attack when the animal control officer is not on duty, and are accused of not responding, I suppose it is possible they were dealing with a robbery, a roll-over, or a hostage situation.
In defense of the animal control officer who goes to the location of a roaming dog attack (note the word roaming), the dog — who is not a stationary object — is someplace else. Dogs don’t want to be caught. They do not sit calmly waiting to be snared. Dogs run home. It may be obvious he has returned to his home, but if the residents of the property deny ownership of the dog, they can’t be cited. I have no defense for the owner who does not take responsibility for his dog.
In defense of the dog, it is in a dog’s nature to chase an object that moves whether a ball, a frisbee, a stick or a bicycle. It would be prudent to avoid an area where dogs are known to be loose until owners can successfully be held accountable.
Thanks for supporting Relay for Life
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Socorro for their support of Relay for Life. This year’s event had 16 teams, had 185 participants and raised over $18,500.
Relay for Life is one of the biggest fund-raising activities in the world, with over 4 million participants each year. The money raised by Relay goes to the American Cancer Society and funds cancer research as well as many support programs for cancer survivors and caretakers. The support from the people of Socorro helps make all this possible.
I would also like to thank my organizing committee: Lorraine Archuleta, Cliff and Bert Brothers, Carol Dotson, Gina Egler, Julie Euart, Joseph Herrera, Cindy Lam and Kathy Spring. Thanks everyone!
2013 Relay for Life – Socorro