"So what did you do for your birthday, Mitchell?"
Jackie and I went to the Rio Rancho School District School Board parents and staff meeting to discuss a proposal that is being, unfortunately, seriously considered, which is to arm security guards at Rio Rancho Public Schools. Jackie and I each spoke against it, in our own ways, and Jackie was interviewed on local television. And by God she made the station manager cut! Here it is. I liked this birthday activity much more than a birthday dinner or date, I have to admit, which is why Jackie is perhaps the only woman I could have married who would put up with me. :)
What I did, instead of going over to talk to the reporter, was speak to the Board president and two Board members after the meeting, and reminded them of what I said in simple persuasive words (I'm a lawyer after all). I said public policy making is not about individual preferences (people talked about how much they personally like or loathe guns too often in the forum). I said, instead, public policy is about determining priorities, recognizing probabilities not remoteness of threats, and thinking of the communities' needs overall. When evaluating the proposal, we see, from the presentation the operating officer of the Board made, there are nearly 132,000 schools across the nation, and it turns out, from 2000-2015, there were various armed shooter instances in schools, but that was 0.0044% of schools affected. We also see the Board proposal would require an additional $400,000 in the budget, in a district where, at the end of the first week of school last year, my wife learned there were not enough textbooks in the elementary school she was at, and the school said there would not be sufficient money to order more. And none came. Also, even if the Board passes the proposal, it turns out there are not enough people on the security staff currently who meet the requirements to carry a gun, and the school district has often sought retired police officers, but cannot find enough. So, I said, what is the point of passing something that will make it harder to fill the position, when, even if there are retired police officers, how many truly have training in SWAT or armed to the teeth shooters? One, it turns out. I said that's like hiring lawyers and not asking who has tried a lawsuit. I said publicly that this is governance by cable news because one is proposing a policy that cannot be effectively implemented with the proper people. That got major applause, but notice it does not show up--despite it being snappy--on the t.v. report. Wonder why? We know why. Corporate media never likes corporate media criticism, especially when it is from a systemic perspective.
What I find extraordinary is when I confronted them about insurance considerations of arming school guards, they said the state regulations do not allow for school guards to carry non-lethal weapons, only lethal ones. I said they need to contact the PED (Public Ed Department) and get that regulation changed immediately. It was the reason the school's risk pool (the district does not have "insurance") said it was okay to have guns, not tasers, batons, or anything else for guards. I said, What? You have a risk pool, not insurance? Do you realize what happens when there is a catastrophic injury or incident in a risk pool? Rates go up dramatically, much more than the savings you had by foregoing insurance. The school district executive manager agreed with me, saying that after the one shooting event in a small rural school district in New Mexico last year (there has been one more in the last fifteen years, so two overall), the rates have now dramatically increased. I said that is precisely why your risk pool agent should be fired, and get the district out of the risk pool, and into insurance. I said, if you have a homeowners' policy, your rates go up with a gun in the house. For the risk pool to say, No problem with arming security guards, and then, after an incident, where a gun may either be ineffective or may escalate a situation, the rates go up dramatically, is an insurance agent giving bad advice about true risk and underwriting.
In speaking to the Board members, it is clear this is a close vote, and it may get voted down in favor of more study, which would be a relief. This is especially so because I find the schools here are more security hardened, as Jackie's school has double doors with bullet proof glass, and one cannot even enter without buzzing in. And there is no way to get to the other side without jumping big fences, and each room has bulletproof glass to protect against most intruders. The school does twice a year drills about active shooter situations, too. All of this is not perfect, of course, but more than I saw in Poway Unified in San Diego, for example.
So, of course, with my presentation, the media decided to do what it does, which is interview the big, burly guy who loves guns and the woman (Jackie) who doesn't. The funniest thing to me is the big, burly guy, in the forum, said he was not sure he supported the proposal because he owns guns, and would not trust himself with children who may act out, particularly those with mental disabilities. He said guns can often escalate a situation. But notice the report just has him tell you how much he likes guns. Jackie tried to get me to talk to the reporter, but I again felt I needed to get to these Board members and go into deeper detail on the points to consider in the evaluation process. None of these other points were aired, despite my public question which was recorded by the cameraman, in the one minute report. Funny that, but of course typical corporate media. Always keeping it shallow and to arguing the way one argues on "Oprah."
