Jim Harbison - Inconsistency of the City Council

    Last year at this time Mayor Miyagishima had a revelation. He had read “somewhere” that driving while using a cell phone was 20-times more dangerous than drunken driving. He set out on a campaign to prohibit the practice in Las Cruces. There was no overwhelming public outcry for this legislation. Each Council member supposedly queried their constituents and determined that this activity was so dangerous and such a threat to the public safety that it was absolutely necessary to enact sweeping legislation to end this extremely dangerous activity. So dangerous in fact that it would warrant up to 90 days in jail

    Ironically and coincidentally this was prior to the fall campaign season. Did the Council pass this to convince their constituents they were truly looking out for their best interests? Despite numerous citizen comments opposing this legislation they passed this “critical public safety measure”. They imposed increasing fines for repeat offenses that included fines of up to $500 and 90 days in jail. It also included mandatory appearance in court to insure the offender was sufficiently repentant (and inconvenienced). The law went into effect in early 2010.
    That was then, this is now. At the City Council meeting on July 19th the Police Department presented a resolution to change the penalty structure from an increasing fine for repeated offences to a ”penalty assessment” of $126 for each offense. This was driven, in part, by the inability of the police officer issuing the ticket to be able to determine if this was the first offense or a repeated offense. In addition, by changing it from a progressive fine to a penalty assessment it would enable the offender to mail in the fine in lieu of the mandatory court appearance. As an unintended consequence this has the positive effect of reducing the workload on the municipal courts.

    Under the current Code there are five levels of fines. These range from $56 for parking violations and inoperative equipment; $76 for minor moving violations including failure to use seat belts or child safety seats; $126 for more significant moving violations and excessive speed; and two other categories that had increments to nearly $300 which included reckless driving and driving under the influence. The police department surveyed other cities to determine the fines charged for similar offenses. Based on their study, and the fact that the fines would no longer be progressive with repeated offenses, they recommended a standard fine of $126.

    Councilor Connor immediately objected saying this was too much and that her constituents could not afford that level. She recommended that fine be equivalent to a parking violation of $56. Only two of the current City Council opposed this. Both Councilor Small and Mayor Miyagishima thought that the fines should be, as a minimum, equivalent to a minor moving violation fine of $76 which would be appropriate since under the ordinance the offender must be operating the vehicle (moving violation).

    I find it extremely difficult to understand how this “critical public safety” law that the City Council felt was absolutely essential has been relegated to the equivalent of a “parking violation” offense. What changed it from an extremely dangerous driving offense to a minor non-moving violation? Was it originally necessary or was the Council then pandering to a group of vocal individuals? Did the Council fail to do their due diligence prior to passing the legislation or was it just political theater prior to the fall 2009 election?

    No matter the cause, the current penalty demonstrates the insincerity of the City Council and is just another embarrassment for them.

Jim Harbison - Inconsistency of the City Council