Letters to the editor — Dec. 3

Leaders should address public unhappiness

What is social media saying about Clovis? Should our city and county leaders be concerned?

With various Facebook pages speaking out about management practices, one wonders about the impact on elected leaders.

Pages that imply mismanagement include: “Take Back Your Community Clovis,” “Clovis New Mexico Shelter Reform,” and “High Plains Patriots.”

They are asking basic questions: why, when, and how?

There are other social media sites asking the same questions.

Officials in general use three tactics to stave off negative reactions:

1. Deny a problem even exists by stating they are doing the best they possibly can with available resources (said with authority).

2. Delay making any changes because a study must be accomplished or funding must be arranged (years from now since today’s funding is already established). Yet they manage to follow their own agenda.

3. Discredit the group or person who raises the question.

Ready access through the Internet to information is allowing people the ability to research and understand what is afoot. Concerned citizens are no longer blind to local practices.

Leaders are accustomed to being in control and like certain “fixtures.” They may use cold rationality to show what they have accomplished, how their leadership made Clovis “shine.”

Should they continue to march toward their vision of what should happen and expect the public to blindly follow?

Would it be wiser to develop a relationship by actually spending time understanding what the public is unhappy about and honestly address those issues instead of placing bothersome issues on the back burner?

Should there be a balance that brings “heart” back into the fray? The world needs genuine and benevolent leadership leading to peace and harmony — something many are waking up to.

Diane Sagnotty

Grady

Republicans have no intention of addressing problems

A long list of things have the support of the majority of the public that Republicans have no intentions of addressing. Among those are immigration reform, consumer protection, health care, infrastructure maintenance, controls on financial institutions, etc.

The chief executive officer of XL pipeline said the pipeline would create about 50 permanent jobs; the balance would be temporary.

James Hanson, former NASA scientist, said the pipeline would be a huge environmental mistake. The window to address climate change is getting smaller and smaller, according to the vast majority of environmental scientists.

Building the XL pipeline would create far fewer jobs than addressing infrastructure needs of one state. The largest recipient of XL pipeline benefits would be Koch Bros. That explains the optimistic estimate of benefits by The State Department and all the bad mouthing for the pipeline.

Our ignoring global warming is showing disrespect, not to mention stupidity, for the needs of our island, Earth.

Scientific facts show that we have to leave a large part of our fossil fuels in the ground to avoid climatic disaster.

The Republicans are going to appoint Jim Inhofe chairman of Environment and Public Works Department. This will kill funding for the EPA and their efforts to address global warming. The EPA and Clean Air Act were supported by Republicans at their origin. The current ones are more influenced by the rewards of supporting the status quo than the needs of our planet. You might say they were ethically challenged.

Leon Logan

Tucumcari