Free Speech and Abuse of Free Speech

Every Sunday at noon at the turnoff from Hwy. 152 into Kingston a group of about a fifth of the people of Kingston demonstrate their disapproval of recent federal government actions. They invite everyone to join. I think we can accept that this action is protected by the first Amendment both in terms of the participants’ right to assemble and in terms of their freedom of speech.

But freedom of speech gets much more complicated when we think of the County Commissioners’ action at the end of January in passing the Resolution Opposing the Abuse of the Antiquities Act.

The Antiquities Act dates from Teddy Roosevelt’s attempt to preserve things of public value (historical ruins, wilderness, beauty, open spaces, etc.) on land owned by the people and held in trust by the federal government, to keep part of that land from being ruined by exploitation. It was part of his whole scheme for creating national parks. Specifically, this act, several times revised, authorizes the President to create national monuments with the approval of Congress with limitations in Wyoming and Alaska.

As far as I know, we don’t have any national monuments in Sierra County, and I don’t remember hearing anyone advocating for one. So, what is the Commission up to? What abuse is it talking about?

If you read the resolution itself, though, you see clearly that 1) it is does not oppose abuses of the act but opposes the act itself, calling for Congress to abolish it; and 2) it goes much further than opposing the act by opposing all designations of “national monuments, wilderness. wilderness study areas, wildlife preserves, open space, or other conservation land” on private or “government” lands (I guess that means state and city lands too). It just doesn’t want them around anywhere, even on your own property, because, according to the County Commissioners, they restrict “public access” and so are detrimental to local development and local economy.

These claims may seem counterfactual to people who have visited Bandelier National Monument or hiked the Organ Mountains or walked into the wilderness area beyond Kingston, past the recently locked private property gate that prevented public access to those designated lands. As for the claim that the local economy suffers from such designations, surely the Commissioners know that tourism based on open land and waters is a major driver of this county’s economy, that hunters, fishers, hikers are our bread and butter.

I don’t want to get into the national debated about this issue because the Resolution’s title is just a misdirect, so I refrain from arguments for or against the act. I only ask, again, what is the Commission up to, passing resolutions about something that seems not county business and which, if carried out, might harm the county?

The Sierra County Commission is not alone in passing this resolution. A few day before, a similarly stated resolution (“Misuse” instead of “Abuse”) was passed by Graham County in Arizona (home of Freeport McMoRan) and in a few days, Luna County, next door, will probably pass another one with slightly different wording. So, there is something like a conspiracy among counties. These resolutions must have a single source, a master form with suggestions of different wordings to “custom fit” the counties. The Eastern Arizona Courier/Copper Era news source identifies the source as the Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties.

While the CA/NMC (registered as a non-profit in NM in 1992) bills itself as an association of counties, its membership is open to municipalities, corporations, businesses, associations, and individuals. Sixteen counties belong: five counties in Arizona: Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham and Navajo; and eleven counties in New Mexico: Catron, Chaves, Eddy, Harding, Hidalgo, Lea, Luna, McKinley, Roosevelt, Sierra and Socorro. As you can see, these are homes to big time mining, oil and gas exploitation, and lumbering. Although its aim is the well-being of local economies, its efforts — lobbying on the state and national level, litigation (lots of them), and PR work – favor the economy of national and international owners rather than local workers. It is devoted to attacks on environmental legislation, the Endanger Species Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, the Executive Order protecting Wetlands, but it calls itself “non-partisan.” It sees itself as defenders of private property (big property, not little property), which is why when Sierra County’s Resolution complains that that federal land management restricts “public access,” it means the corporation’s access to public lands not your access. Commissioner Day is a Director of CA/NMC, and we pay an annual fee of $2,500 to belong.

Our County Commission is using its quasi-executive power to further the agenda of a private corporation. It is serving as a mouth-piece not of the people of Sierra County but of an association of private citizens. These citizens, including our Commissioners, have the right to express their ideologies as private citizens. But when our Commissioners speak as a Commission in an official Resolution, as our elected representatives, they do not have that right. As elected officials their legal right (as defined by state law, NM Statutes § 4-38-18) is constrained by the Commission’s purpose of furthering the well-being of the county, not the well-being of CA/NMC and not for the benefit of large natural resource exploiters which we don’t have yet in the county. If this were McKinley County or Grant County, where exploitation is paramount for the county’s economy, such a resolution might serve a public interest purpose. But Sierra County Commissioners’ right to speech is restricted. It must speak for and to the county; it cannot be the public relations voice of the exploitation industry.

In exceeding the limits of the Commission’s legally given authority, the Commission misuses its power (and its status) as a state endowed entity to care for the county’s welfare. The Resolution can be thought of as an abuse of power or an abuse of discretion. In comparison to the exercise of free speech in Kingston every Sunday, it might also be seen as an abuse of free speech. If Commissioners want to truly exercise free speech, they are free to go out on the street, too.