Funding for New Mexico in Focus provided by: Viewers Like You >> Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, we follow up with Senate President Pro Tem.

Mimi Stewart after her signature climate bill failed yet again this year.

As we tie up loose ends from the Roundhouse, plus -- >> Gillum: We're not sort of valuing and appreciating these lives than their deaths are less consequential.

And again, because they are, we don't highlight the fact that these disparities exist.

>> Nash: New research shows black women in the U.S.

are four times more likely to be killed than white women.

We hear about the factors underlying this reality and the risks of ignoring it.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us, I'm Nash Jones.

Last year, we brought you a story of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham sending National Guard troops to Albuquerque's International District and how it differed from President Trump's nonconsensual deployments elsewhere in the country.

Well, they have now left.

And tonight, we are going to get an update from the Area City Councilor, Nicole Rogers, on how that operation went and why it fell short of its goals.

Before we get there, though, correspondent Russell Contreras sits down with U-N-M associate professor Tameka Gillum to learn about her new research and the staggering disparities it uncovered about the killing of black women in the U.S.. Doctor Gillum breaks down what she and her team found.

Why it's a public health crisis, and what it reveals about the structural barriers and unique vulnerability of black women in our country.

Later, we welcome the return of Indigenously Positive, that's our collaboration with nonprofit news outlet New Mexico In Depth, celebrating Native joy and achievement.

To kick off season two, Bella Davis and the Indigenously Positive team take you to a classroom on Santa Clara Pueblo, where kids are seeing themselves and connecting to their science lessons on a whole new level.

They're using Native knowledge and cultural practices to learn the concepts.

But we begin the show with Capital and Main journalist Jerry Redfern, who is back to wrap up his series on oil and gas legislation from the Session.

You have heard about the Clear Horizons Act before on this show.

It's a bill that would have made permanent the governor's climate goals before she leaves office at the end of the year.

Well, it failed again.

So tonight, Jerry lashes out what happened with its sponsor, Democratic Senator Mimi Stewart, and what it means for New Mexico's future.

>> Jerry: Senator Stewart, thanks for joining us today.

>> Stewart: Well, thank you for having me, Jerry.

>> Jerry: Well it's great.

So, let's just jump right into this.

Let's talk about one of the biggest bills of this past session, the bill that you carried, the Clear Horizons Act.

Can you give us an idea in a nutshell, what that was about, and then what happened to it?

>> Stewart: So, the Clear Horizons Act was an attempt to put into our statutes the executive order that our governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, put into place in her first month in office.

Her first month in office in 2019, she set out an executive order that asked her state agencies to work on climate mitigation.

You know, New Mexico is part of the Southwest.

We're hot and dry, and with climate change, we're going to get hotter and drier.

We're in a pretty profound drought right now.

New Mexico's one of seven states that share the Colorado River through a compact.

That compact has ended now without a good resolution of what we do moving forward.

I believe the governor was a visionary when she came here, knowing that she had to work on climate change.

And so her state agencies did that.

Three of them now have climate bureaus.

We have the -- a sustainable economy task force that rests in the Economic Development Department.

When we set up the Economic Development Department, our intent was to diversify our economy.

And that's what that task force is supposed to do.

So the Clear Horizons Act put the governor's greenhouse gas limits into statute and then defined greenhouse gas and a statewide greenhouse gas emissions measurement in the bill, and then it set up to have rulemaking by our Environmental Improvement Board.

They do an incredible job of stakeholder meetings, looking at evidence and then to monitor and measure our reduction of greenhouse gases.

That that's essentially the bill.

[Jerr laughs] >> Jerry: Okay, so -- we had a bill that came in trying to do all of these things reducing greenhouse gases.

But what happened?

I mean, what happened with the bill?

>> Stewart: Well, the bill died on the Senate Floor.

I needed -- I could only lose five votes, and I lost seven.

So it went through the conservation committee and passed out, pretty much party line.

It went through Tax and Rev, Tax Business and Transportation in the Senate, and it came out pretty much party line.

And then it got to the Floor and, the other side started picking people off and scaring them and doing a little memes, some putting their picture and -- “Don't vote for this bill” up on the social internet.

I mean, they just -- and, of course, I was pilloried every night on TV.

Apparently, I'm just the worst thing for kids around.

>> Jerry: So, just to clarify, this was -- this was seven Democrats who voted against the bill, where previously in committee hearings, it had been pretty much party line vote.

>> Stewart: That's right.

That's right.

>> Jerry: So why -- I mean, there's scare tactics in social media posts, but why do you think those Democrats actually voted against it?

You know, I think some people think that it would mean less revenue from oil and gas.

But none of the things we've done the last seven years being fully underneath the, executive order of the governor, has changed any of that oil and gas.

In fact -- oil and gas production has doubled under the methane rules.

The ETA, which is tangential but still part of it under the Clean Cards rules -- >> Jerry: Energy Transition Act, >> Stewart: Energy Transition Act and the -- the Clean Fuels Bill.

We've done all of those in the last seven years.

Production has doubled.

We can't really look like we can scale things back with oil and gas.

They're just trying to get as much oil out of that ground as they can for their stakeholders.

They're making billions of dollars.

We just want them to clean it up at the well head No more venting of methane and lowering your greenhouse gas emissions.

>> Jerry: Right, so -- part of what you had in the bill was this idea of carbon offsets, right?

>> Stewart: Yes.

>> Jerry: Which when you and I spoke before the Session began for an article, I did at Capital and Maine.

You said that that actually came -- the industry came to you with this idea to add that in >> Stewart: We met with the industry -- showed them an outline of the bill.

We weren't done with it yet.

And, there are a number of things they did not like in the bill, as you can imagine.

They just prefer not to be regulated.

Although they're part of national, global, organizations that are trying to regulate emissions, greenhouse gases, they're all part of those national organizations.

So, they talked at length about some of the issues for them.

And when they talked about having a little more flexible for offsets for carbon emission decrease.

I decided to do that in the bill.

>> Jerry: So, do you think -- Well, let me put it this way.

When there were the debates then -- when they were happening -- when there were actual debates, during the committee sessions, you heard from -- I heard from anybody who was there heard from lobbyists from the oil and gas industry, then decrying that this bill was the end of the world.

They were saying, you know -- people are going to just roll up shop and and take off.

Why do you think that they would both talk to you about, “let's put these carbon offsets in the bill,” but then at the same time come to you during these committee, hearings and say, “this is the worst thing ever.” And then you have these Democrats vote against it.

How do you balance those two ideas there?

>> Steward: Well, it's very hard to balance it.

And it's truly kind of makes my heart sick, you know.

And in Hawaii, they all work together.

All the Democrats, all the Republicans, all the chambers, the industry, everyone, lowered their greenhouse gas emission, put essentially the same targets in their statutes that we tried to do.

And then they had a big party at the end of it.

So.

And in Colorado, they have passed, the essentially the same standards as we have, with requirements to lower emissions.

And they've they've passed their bill instead of what's happened in New Mexico.

So, I just think somebody is lying, about these issues because, you know, the head of NMOGA has been in the paper multiple times saying how great the methane reduction was.

You know, we had to drag them kicking and screaming to those methane reduction rules.

They finally agreed to it.

And now, yes, they've lowered their emissions tremendously.

We have been working for seven years in the state to lower these greenhouse gas emissions.

AG is already they're for their 2030 target.

We're doing better in, transportation with our clean fuels.

So everybody needs to lower their greenhouse gas emissions if we want to have any impact on mitigating climate change in this state, because we're just looking at more fire, more floods -- more devastation.

>> Jerry: I'd like to ask you then, you know, another regular comment that came up during the committee hearings was that, well, yes New Mexico pollutes and we have a big carbon emission, lot of carbon emissions that come out of the state of New Mexico.

But when you compare it to the rest of the world, it's really not that much.

Why should why should we have to clean up at this sort of level that you're proposing here?

Whereas, you know, it always comes back to China, China, China China, why China doesn't have to do it.

Why should we?

I mean, what what is the argument?

>> Steward: Well, China's already doing it China is about to do more solar than coal.

For the first time, their emissions are actually going down.

We are the we have the.

Some people think we have the best oil in the world.

It's called sweet oil.

It doesn't need as much refinement as, say, the oil from Venezuela.

So our oil is valuable and other countries are actually, wanting our oil and gas.

Japan would like to buy our natural gas from us.

But guess what?

They say it has to be clean first.

It can't be produced with methane spewing out into the air.

It can't have a high, emission, greenhouse gas emission or we won't buy it.

Remember how we got Facebook in Los Lunas.

They said we want all renewable energy, and we gave them that.

We created a solar field right there for them.

They've increased the gross receipts to Los Lunas by 85%.

So there are companies who want to be green and who want to move forward with this idea that industry needs to be cleaner.

>> Jerry: So I just want to sort of bring this idea around, tell me if this is what you're kind of getting at, that -- New Mexico theoretically produces this very I'm reluctant to use the word, but clean oil and gas.

>> Steward: Well, I don't use that.

I, we use sweet >> Jerry: Sweet?

>> Steward: Yeah, that's what you use say for the oil that comes out of the Permian Basin.

>> Jerry: Well, that tends to be because it's low sulfur.

But that's a different argument.

We can talk about that later.

That'll be fun.

But the idea that you're bringing up here is that you had this Clear Horizons act, which was essentially what these companies would need to be doing if they're going to be exporting the oil and gas from here, because that's the requirements coming from Europe and from Japan and other places to have that pretty much straight.

>> Steward: Yes.

Now, you know, your first question was, we're small.

Why should we care about this?

We're small.

We're the fifth largest state geographically, but we have the second highest greenhouse gas emissions in the country after Texas.

And we know where they are and who's doing it.

And we've had an executive order for seven years to try to rein in those greenhouse gas emissions, not to run off oil and gas, but to incentivize or regulate them so that they were lower those greenhouse gas emissions.

Colorado is doing it.

Other areas of the world are doing it.

It can be done.

You know, these companies have a lot of innovation.

In Colorado, they actually have machines at every well piece that, sucks up the methane.

I forget the name of it, but, they've just done that this last year, so -- we think that it's important for the industry in New Mexico to rein in their pollution.

We have a very high amount of asthma among our students.

We have something like 140,000 people that live within a half a mile of an oil well.

>> Jerry: So if that's the case, then what are you going to bring this bill back next year?

And if so, how do you think you'll be changing it to make it more palatable, perhaps to the 3 or 4 Democrats you'll need to flip next time, provided it makes it that far.

>> Steward: It's too soon for me to answer that question.

I know what I want to keep doing.

There's just an incredible coalition behind the Clear Horizons Act, the Semilla Projects in Vietnam, all the environmental groups in the state.

There's just a lot, a lot of work that's been done in our communities about the Clear Horizons Act.

We had a group of people from Interfaith Power and Light from Carlsbad walk all the way to Santa Fe for the Clear Horizons Act, but I certainly want to continue to be involved with the coalition around the state that's grown over the last several years.

Try to rein in the greenhouse gas emissions that we're producing.

>> Jerry: So last, very last thing.

And -- when you and I talked before the session began, I asked you, do you think that the way that the legislature is set up with these really quick sessions?

You have legislators who are not paid, and it's really a very part time job for the most part.

You brought up that, you know, by the last week of the session, everybody is running on fumes, but they're trying to think through these very difficult bills.

And you said, but that's just the way that it is.

And you can still get stuff.

We still get stuff done.

You know, bills still get passed.

You can still get bills passed.

You still feel that way.

Or do you think we're really heading to a point where we start, need to change things?

>> Steward: Well, I think we have thank goodness we have newer and younger people.

Arriving in our legislature, they want to get paid for the work they're doing.

You know, this is my 32nd year.

>> Jerry: Are you getting the hang of it?

>> Steward: I'm getting the hang of it, but I certainly haven't been paid for any of it.

So I support them in doing that, and we passed a constitutional amendment, to get legislators, pay in the very last minute of the session.

It goes to the voters.

Now, I hope the voters understand how much work we all do for no pay.

I think we would have I don't know, I just don't know.

All I've known is that citizen legislature and -- you know, the short sessions, but the long, robust interim committee process where we just go into things in great detail.

So, you know, it might be time to modernize the legislature.

We'll use some of we'll lose some of the fun.

But we we probably need to have, a longer period of time and pay people so that people will take more seriously.

>> Jerry: Well, Senator, Mimi Stuart, thank you so much.

This has been great.

I hope to see you back here again.

>> Steward: All right.

Well thank you, Jerry.

Appreciate talking with you.

>> Rogers: We did not use them to the full capacity and to the skills.

The New Mexico National Guard is a statewide asset.

And it's not about the question isn't about should they serve or should they not serve?

It's really about how do we deploy them strategically, effectively, humanely.

So we meet the objective.

But first we need to know what that objective is.

>> Nash: That interview with Albuquerque City Councilor Nicole Rogers is in less than 15 minutes.

Last year, Doctor Tameka Gillum co-wrote a study published by the American Journal of Public Health that declared that the high rate of black women murdered in America is a public health crisis.

That study examined more than 30,000 homicides between 1999 and 2020, and found a massive disparity in homicide rates between black and white women.

An associate professor with the University of New Mexico, Dr.

Gillum's work has been highlighted in recent years by The Guardian and the program, in Black America from NPR.

This week, she sits down with contributor Russell Contreres to discuss her findings and consider how structural racism has made life more dangerous for black women.

>> Russel: Dr.

Tameka Gillum thank you for joining us here on New Mexico in Focus.

>> Gillum: Thank you.

I appreciate you having me.

>> Russel: Your research found a staggering disparity in 2020, where black women were murdered at nearly four times the rates as white women.

What does this disparity reveal about the broader and structural forces reshaping violence in the United States?

>> Gillum: Yeah, well, definitely speaks to the unique vulnerability of women of color, in particular in terms of some of the structural barriers that are faced by communities of color, which facilitate things like high rates of poverty, racial segregation and redlining have placed African-Americans in neighborhoods that experience significant rates of crime rates of poverty, high police presence, struggles in terms of employment, underemployment, unemployment, all of these things, neighborhood disorganization, all of these things create circumstances that essentially make black women more vulnerable to experiencing violence in multiple forms.

In some places.

That disparity is as high as 20 times as much.

If you look at states like the state of Wisconsin, black women experience homicide at a rate 20 times that of white women.

And so, you know that that that disparity very significantly, but it's present essentially in any of these states.

>> Russel: Now, you've described the killing of black women as a public health crisis from a population health perspective.

Why is it important to use this lens when examining the 11.6 per 100,000 homicide rates for black women?

>> Gillum: Yeah, it's important because when you think about, I mean, this is something that is killing a significant portion of the population.

And any time we have any type of disparity in disease, for example, when it's acknowledged as a disparity, then there tends to be, more resources allocated to trying to understand the problem more and try to address the problem.

Once we do, we can better put ourselves in a position to better study, better understand, and better put into place resources that are beyond just temporary quick fixes.

But hopefully things that get at some of the underlying factors that contribute to the violence that these this community is experiencing, and the unique vulnerability that black women subsequently experience.

>> Russel: Now, in your review of the national mortality data, how often are these deaths misclassified underreported?

And are we potentially looking at numbers even higher than this?

Sullivan 0.6 per 100,000 residents.

This homicide, >> Gillum: we are definitely looking at the potential for undercounting in this respect.

I mean, there's a lot of, support for the contention that these deaths aren't necessarily always accurately captured.

And that's especially the case with black trans women.

There's often issues in terms of misgendering, sometimes failure to sort of recognize these, especially as hate crimes.

That they often are.

And so the reality is that we, we see these disparities, but it's very possible that we don't see the full magnitude of that is not fully, understood in that respect.

>> Russel: The recent conviction of Sean Grayson in the killing of Sonya Massey has reignited a national conversation about police violence.

How does the state sanctioned violence, particular police shootings, interest your broader findings of the killing of black women?

United States?

>> Gillum: Yeah.

So in the sense of sort of this this notion of state sanctioned violence, I mean, you're talking about police officers going into communities, and black communities tend to be over policed, which essentially exposes black communities to, encounters with police more often, where research supports that black women are more likely to be stopped, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be on the receiving end of the use of force from police officers.

And so it's not necessarily surprising, then, that black women tend to experience higher rates of violence at the hands of police officers, including, homicide.

Right.

And the Sonya Massey case was an excellent prime example of that.

And the sentencing was great that, you know, that we got some sense of accountability in that respect because that has been lacking for a long time.

But it's still very rare that these institutions are ever held accountable for the killing of black women.

>> Russel: Now, here in New Mexico, we've had a lot of focus on missing and murdered indigenous women.

What's the overlap that you see as you recognize between, murdered indigenous women and the murdering of black women?

>> Gillum: You do you see a lot of overlap there.

And the reality is that there has been limited attention that has been directed towards caring about and addressing the fact that both of our communities are experiencing significant violation and of our women, to the point where some of those women are actually lost.

So we experience higher rates of intimate partner violence.

We experience higher rates of sexual assault, and we experience higher rates of murder.

And, you know, there's a reason why our particular communities are experiencing those disparate rates.

And so when you talk about communities that have had, historically struggles in terms of being validated and appreciated by this country, that the murdered and missing, of our women definitely is a manifestation of the fact that, our women aren't cared about as much.

>> Russel: Historically, violence against black women have often received this limited, sustained media attention and policy attention.

How does this invisibility shape our public understanding and the urgency of this response?

I keep thinking of, Kelly.

It took us 15 years, almost two decades to finally have some sort of reckoning about his behavior.

Why are we not getting this attention for black women?

What's stopping us >> Gillum: Well when we're not sort of valuing and appreciating these lives, then their deaths are less consequential.

And so we definitely need and and again, because they are we don't highlight the fact that these disparities exist and not enough attention is being paid to trying to sort of rectify that.

We don't receive the the adequate attention.

Therefore, the complexity of the problem is not understood.

We still want to sort of deny the impacts that things like, historical racism and how that has to this day, generational trauma, disenfranchised positions, you know, those things have continued to affect our communities generation after generation.

>> Russel: Recently, Mississippi based civil rights group, released a report that says that there are about a dozen, of alleged modern day lynchings across the South southern states.

And some of these most of these death have been classified as either unsolved or suicides.

Without speculating on any of these cases, what kind of questions should researchers and public health officials be asking about these cases?

>> Gillum: We should be asking what the real question is and what we should really have a reckoning with.

Are, you know, historical racism and how that still is manifesting in multiple forms today.

I mean, unfortunately, you know, there are people who who thought things like groups like hate groups, white supremacist groups, etc.

there are folks who honestly thought these, these groups were gone, but they were never actually gone.

They kind of went underground.

And we saw a resurgence of them from the time that, President Obama essentially was elected.

And we started seeing, you know, those those groups, those actions, again, sort of come to the surface, unfortunately.

And when you don't have, when those, those types of groups and actors and crimes aren't properly acknowledged, as hate crimes, as you know, are are fully recognized in the way that they should be.

Then these things are allowed to continue to happen because now there's a resurgence and proliferation of those hate groups that hate speech, and it's not being properly condemned.

So it's just sort of growing and manifesting.

And people are, you know, now being more bold and blatant about these types of, killings.

Essentially, >> Russel: If we were to look at this data with black women and American black women 5 or 10 years from now, what do you hope you would see?

What would progress look like, and how do we achieve that?

>> Gillum: I would definitely, in general like to see the the murder of women overall decline.

But I certainly want to see those disparities narrow.

Right.

When you're talking about, you know, an average of, you know, four times as many black women being murdered, that should indicate a significant problem structurally.

And so when we think about you know, some of the legislation, you know, Minnesota is essentially the first and the only state that has, a missing and murdered African-American and, women task force, similar legislation has been presented at the national level and, and resisted.

And I doubt that that will pass any time soon.

And other states such as, Wisconsin, has put forth similar legislation, but again, that has stalled as well.

So certainly five, ten years from now, again, I would like to see the national legislation pass that has been put forth.

And I would like to see those task force and those resources being enacted in states and true efforts to get at some of the things like the disproportionate, poverty the African-American communities experience, a lot of the disenfranchised conditions, in the neighborhoods that facilitate, over policing, things like this.

And so certainly our police forces, need better training and accountability in terms of, being able to be more culturally aware, to even better understanding things like how to engage with people with mental illness or, in distress or recognizing hidden biases, you know, having those different types of trainings, and awareness for agencies like police, but also then having those national and state policies that put resources into recognizing this problem, and properly addressing it again, in a more structural way.

>> Russel: Dr.

Tameka Gillum thank you for joining us here on New Mexico in Focus.

>> Gillum: Thank you again for having me.

I appreciate it.

>> Chavarria: What I feel indigenous science is -- is it's the teachings and it starts from the ancestors.

You know, in terms of being scientists and with astronomy and with connection to the land and pottery making, the arts, all of that are examples of indigenous science.

So when I look at what we're doing, I feel like it's reinforcing a lot of what they're getting at home and within their community.

>> Nash: Bella Davis shares those stories in the latest installment of Indigenously Positive, in about 15 minutes, and thanks to Russell Contreres and Professor Gillum for their conversation for a few more months, the New Mexico National Guard is assisting local police in Espanola.

It's the latest in a series of deployments around the state to assist with public safety.

And there's talk of sending soldiers to Gallup, now too.

We covered the governor's plan to use the Guard last year, starting with their assignment in Albuquerque along Central Avenue in the city's International District.

Over a period of 60 days, the guard worked with APD to, as the governor's office put it, address immediate quality of life concerns for people living in that area while quote, “working towards long term solutions to the city's most pressing public safety concerns.” Now, a few months after the guard packed up and left town, we are getting a clearer picture of whether the operation succeeded.

the leader of the Guard, Major General Miguel Aguilar, told state lawmakers late last month that the mission wasn't going to have the impact that officials had hoped to understand why Senior Producer Lou DiVizio sat down with City Councilor Nicole Rogers.

She represents District 6, home to much of the area where the Guard was deployed.

She tells Lou that to find solutions for her district, we need to first better understand the structural issues standing in the way.

>> Lou: City Councilor Nicole Rogers, great to see you again and thanks for coming back again to New Mexico in Focus.

>> Rogers: Thanks for having me.

>> Lou: Now, the National Guard left Albuquerque at the end of last year after spending months along Central Avenue, largely in District 6. your district.

What did you see during the time that they were deployed?

>> Rogers: Yeah, I definitely kept a close eye on what was happening.

Really real time on the ground.

We had our National Guard members and our real time crime center, monitoring our camera system.

We had them.

I saw them at, platforms for transit areas like on Central and specifically the Central corridor.

And then also I would see them, kind of holding perimeter during large events, that we would have in our district, whether it was a SWAT activation or crash or fire or something like that.

They were really the ones keeping the perimeter, and that's basically what I saw them doing.

>> Lou: Okay, did you hear any feedback from your constituents during the time that they were there?

>> Rogers: I think at the beginning of the deployment or the news of the deployment, people were really unsure what what the objective was, what what's the purpose?

What are we trying to achieve?

And then as it went along, kind of just became a normal part of our policing, really just the normal, you know, status quo of policing.

So I didn't hear a whole lot of backlash or people, kind of saying they shouldn't be here or shouldn't be serving in this way.

>> Lou: Now, before we get to what the National Guard leader, in charge of that operation had to say about it, what was your understanding of what that objective was before they came?

>> Rogers: Yeah, I think that was something I asked for clarification on early on.

Seeing the the chief's letter that went to the governor and the list of things that he asked for, I was really interested in the humanitarian portion of that.

And public safety is more than just policing.

So I thought it was a really great opportunity to actually connect folks to help and as well as policing.

And so I just wanted to know, in practice, like, how is it actually going to work?

What are we training them on?

What's our objective?

What are we going to be actually using them for?

Which I don't think was as clear, based on the list in practice, what are we actually going to do?

>> Lou: Right.

In January, Major General Miguel Aguilar spoke to state lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary about the deployment.

Here's what he had to say.

>> Aguilar: What you had over about an eight week period was a stress test to the criminal justice system as well documented, I think, is I've ever seen what we came to realize is that absent structural change, current outcomes are predictable and they're self-sustaining.

And so no -- and that was what we found in the operation is there's no matter what we did from a criminal enforcement perspective, the environment didn't really change much.

>> Lou: Do you agree that there are structural problems creating crime for people in your district?

And if you do, what are they?

>> Rogers: Yeah, I think structurally we cannot police our way out of this only.

So I think what was missing from the Albuquerque deployment, I think, was a clear objective to what it is we were wanting to do.

If we look at places that they've been deployed since, like Espanola, right, there was a clear objective to go after violent crime and and substance abuse mitigation to make sure folks weren't overdosing.

Right.

So harm reduction, that was missing from our from our deployment.

Right.

And so I asked during, before, during and even after the objective was not clear.

And I think that that's why, Major General maybe feels that way, that we did not use them to the full capacity and to the skills.

The New Mexico National Guard is a statewide asset.

And it's not about the question isn't about should they serve or should they not serve?

It's really about how do we deploy them strategically, effectively, humanely.

So we meet the objective.

But first we need to know what that objective is.

>> Lou: Right, Now a lot of his testimony and his statements to lawmakers were focused on crime, specifically.

And he shared some data around 1000 arrests along central during the nearly two month stretch.

The largest chunk of those arrests, about 40% were arrested for what he called public order crimes, nearly 30% for drug offenses.

And just short of 20% on violent crimes.

The rest were property crimes, a smaller number, he says.

About 80% of the people that were arrested, though, were released and on pretrial conditions, and half were released completely within 48 hours.

I have a lot of questions about those numbers.

And the focus of that operation still.

But let's start with that assertion that releasing people ahead of trial is maybe the most significant systemic issue that he couldn't work around.

Where do you stand on pretrial detention and the so-called revolving doors?

Influence on safety in your district?

>> Rogers: Where I stand on it is, I think, that there needs to be a, there's already clear processes in our judicial system to render somebody incompetent to stand trial right.

And so I think what we're doing in the legislature is making those a little bit more robust.

And to say that if you are not, you know, competent to stand trial, then another evaluation needs to be done to see if you're competent to be released on your own recognizance, because for probably between 6 and 800 folks in my district that are severely mental mentally ill, they're not going to be able to make that decision for themselves.

They're not of sound mind.

And I think that that's but I know one thing from the community, they don't want law enforcement to be making that decision, right?

So if they are doing things that are harm to themselves or others, then law enforcement should step in and then we should meet them with the mental health resources that they need to be able to make a better decision for themselves.

So policing is not going to fix this, but we have to we have to couple them both.

And I think that's why we're seeing much more success.

But it's the same laws in Espanola statewide that are in Albuquerque.

Right.

But again, the objective is clear.

And we're working on that.

And I think it's showing much better outcomes.

>> Lou: Right.

How much say did you have before the National Guard came to your district?

And would you have liked more?

>> Rogers: Absolutely.

I think that's one thing I was vocal about.

Nobody.

I mean, the let's be real, though, the governor in the mayor don't need my permission to, to to do what they did.

I think I believe that both of them were trying to do what they could within their power to, to do something transformational for my district.

But as the leader that's most impacted, I was not listened to.

I asked several times in meetings with general Major General, with the Governor, with Mayor, asking specifically for what I know my community needs.

And so I don't feel like I was listened to.

I do hope that if we try this again, we can take what we learned from Albuquerque and other areas.

But I live on Wyoming and Central.

I am the most impacted, and I really do know what my community needs and it's both.

It's the public safety, but it's also utilizing the National Guard for the skills that they're good at, which is logistics coordination, neighborhood stabilization.

And that's what I need.

And that's public safety.

Instead of just thinking about policing, we miss the boat, and thinking of the broader public safety.

And how could National Guard have utilized them to their full potential of the skills that they already possess?

>> Lou: Okay, so was the failure in your mind then, in planning this whole thing or the execution of the operation?

>> Rodgers: I, you know, I can't speak to planning because I wasn't involved in you know, the conversations leading up to them coming.

But I know for sure, you know, leadership here, I didn't see the type of leadership I'd like to have seen, that I was asking for, when it came to strategic objective, so that we know what we're trying to do and then figuring, bringing the best beautiful minds in the room, from all jurisdictions to figure out how to execute, to make sure we meet our objective.

It's a multi-pronged approach.

So systematically, like you mentioned, we have to do the, the, the changing of the laws in the state legislature, which I think we're on the way to that, the governor should be signing that bill soon.

I think we need resources put into mental health.

So I'm asking folks like UNM hospital, UNMHSC, to expand the programs that are in there, like their alcohol and substance abuse program that has amazing outcomes.

But again, they haven't expanded that program, right.

The street medicine, we need those resources to be expanded.

We need places for okay, if we have civil commitment, where are they going to go?

Right.

We don't have the infrastructure in this state to house folks in that way right now and give them the humane care that they deserve.

So that's another systematic.

But the biggest thing I don't think anybody's talking about is poverty alleviation strategies.

The bottom line is, if you are addicted to something and you have the means to get help, you can pay for that help and you can get that help.

If you don't and you're on Medicaid, the waiting list to get into a substance abuse program is very long.

So we have to be looking at poverty in New Mexico.

It's also generational poverty.

They don't have that line, that help line that lifeline in their own family to help, with issues.

So poverty also is a systematic change that we have to begin to think about okay.

>> Lou: Through that multi-pronged approach.

Obviously a lot of those issues are long term issues that would take long term fixes.

What do you say to those that would argue that the long term fixes aren't feasible until the short term issue of crime is fixed?

And how how should that be approached all at once?

Do you think that there's a holistic strategy going on in the mind of our state lawmakers, city leaders?

>> Rodgers: You know, I'm not sure.

I think, that's a really good question.

I think what my heart tells me is that we're not thinking about we're thinking of this as a linear approach.

And when you recited the numbers, we arrested a thousand people.

Did it help?

Did it meet the objective?

No it didn't, and I think what I know of working with the governor for this, you know, two years in my term, you know, she wants results of the perception of public safety when she's driving down central, right.

And that what's driving the perception to make people feel like they're not safe in my neighborhood.

Right, and that's the suffering that we're seeing.

And we need to look at it from that perspective that these are folks, for whatever reason, that they're they're they're suffering.

Right.

And how do we in the roles that we're in and the immense amount of resources we have access to, how do we alleviate that suffering for folks?

And sometimes that is law enforcement that is going into jail, right.

But if you're out in a day and a half, usually you need three days or four days to detox, right?

So yeah, it used to be that jail was a place that you can connect to those resources and make a different decision for yourself, because you were there long enough to be able to have those thoughts, and get clarity of mind for a little bit.

But that's not the case right now.

So the system, the judicial system, we have outpatient treatment, drug courts, we have lots of systems set up.

But again, we don't have enough to cycle through the amount of people that need it.

And so we just need to segment people based on what they need.

And we know we have 600 plus folks that are severely mental health that needs those types of severe mental health services.

Let's focus on those.

I don't know that anybody is focusing on those.

And that's the perception of safety when you don't have folks, not in their right mind all over my community.

>> Lou: Okay.

Well, I just want to stay on perception for one more question here.

What do folks miss who don't live in your district, who don't spend time in your district, who maybe tuned in to that Senate Judiciary hearing?

What do they miss about in terms of perspective within your district?

>> Rodgers: Yeah, when I see, when I go, you know, I'm always out in my areas, all of them.

And when I see beautiful people who live here, who want to feel like, they are safe in their neighborhoods, I see that the tide is turning.

We have a lot of investment going into, especially this area with investment in food justice, in, housing access in parks, $32 million going into our parks.

We have an amazing walking school bus program, Whittier and Wilson Elementary.

That is like going world wide in Australia and places like Hawaii that came to find out what we're doing in district six.

Right?

Because these conditions that exist that our kids are walking through are not acceptable.

And we're all pushing in the same direction, and we're seeing huge dividends in crime reduction by seeing calls for service in our alleys going down.

Now that we have neighbors taking back their alleys and us in government just coming along with the resources that they need to do it.

So I say to folks, we know what we need.

We just need to start listening.

And I know what my community needs, and I just need the resources.

Governor, mayor, give me the resources and watch me work.

We can do this.

Before you go.

I know I said that was the last question, but I got one more.

If you could be involved, what would a second employment look like in your district?

>> Rodgers: Yeah, a second employment, I would take what we're learning from other areas like Espanola.

I would definitely want to focus on the harm reduction.

I would definitely want to continue to focus on what other things can they do to help APD.

Right.

But not just watching cameras.

And, doing the perimeter.

I would couple them with ACS.

I would do a massive outreach, massive, like close down the state streets.

If you've driven in my district on central Wisconsin behind the McDonald's, Pennsylvania, Dallas, Utah, just to state streets.

Let's close off between Chico and Central.

Let's get some warming stations.

Let's get some hygiene trailers.

Let's use the National Guard's resources because it is a disaster.

It feels it looks like a disaster area.

Help me stabilize these folks and get them pathed into what the mayor has built in this network of gateways.

Let's get them to these gateways and path them out, and let's see if we can clear and get folks into the appropriate bed for what they need and get folks pathed into something different.

And again, if they don't want to take those options, then the last street is if you have an open warrant and you don't want to get help, then the last stop on the last street is with Sheriff Allen or Chief Barker.

If you don't want to make a better decision for yourself.

And I think that we could see on a regular basis, but it's going to have to be both.

We need both.

>> Lou: Understood.

City Councilor Rogers, thank you so much for being here.

>> Rodgers: Thank you.

>> Nash: Thanks again to Councilor Nicole Rogers for offering her perspective on the National Guard's time in Albuquerque.

Until the 1960s, the federal government operated boarding schools that forcibly assimilated Native American children.

In more recent decades, the public school system has given tribal nations little control over curriculum, and native children have rarely seen themselves or their cultures represented in lessons.

Well, enter the Indigenous Science Initiative, which aims to change that, Indigenously Positive our collaboration with nonprofit Newsroom New Mexico In Depth, kicks off its second season tonight with a look at how the initiative is working at Santa Clara Pueblo█s Community School.

Host Bella Davis takes us into the classroom of sixth grade teacher Dianne Chavarria to see how her students are learning science in a way that centers Pueblo knowledge and cultural practices.

>> Naranjo: So I think that's what native science is like, testing out the native, the nativeness of our science, because it's like before our ancestors, we were science scientists.

You know, we didn't get right the first time, but we got it right the couple times.

You know, they asked her, the family and like, they asked her, Gia, Tara.

And so that means, so, Gia, Tara means your mom and dad.

It's a lot to take away from this.

You know, you learn.

Hopefully you take it in your mind, take it in your heart.

Keep it on.

You know, you just pass it on to each of your family hoping they won't go away here.

[Speaking Kha█p█o Owinge] >> Bella: Jonathan is a sixth grader at Kha█p█o Community School in Santa Clara Pueblo, about 25 miles north of Santa Fe.

His school is one of seven across New Mexico, plus one in Minnesota, that are trying out a new science curriculum this school year centered on indigenous knowledge and learning practices.

It's called the Indigenous Science Initiative.

>> Paul: The Indigenous Science Initiative is a collaboration between Noc Inspired Schools Network and the LANL Foundation to work with teacher designers to develop a community led, middle grade science curriculum.

There's a wealth of research now that shows that students respond to curriculum that reflects their context and their identities, and that when students feel a connection to what they're learning, whether it's a mirror or a window, they're more engaged, and they and they tend to achieve more as well.

>> Diane: Our students don't learn in compartments.

Like for this hour, you're doing just math or this, you know, 45 minutes, you're doing science.

But they need to see how things are connected and how they're related and what those relationships are.

So even though within our curriculum, we have our big ideas and our core values, as you localize as a community, you can apply your core values to the work that's there and see the relationships, how they're interconnected and how they build upon each other.

>> Martinez: When students arent█s seeing themselves reflected in the curriculum, that becomes really problematic because, curricular erasure really is, a difficult thing for young people to, try and navigate through as they're trying to be successful in schools.

>> Bella: Historically, education in the US was a tool to violently assimilate native children.

And the system still isn't really designed for them.

In 2018, a state judge found New Mexico was violating its own constitution by failing to provide a sufficient education to the majority of students in the state, including native kids.

Instead of suppressing culture, this new curriculum is meant to help students connect it with science.

>> Chavarria: All of the components of what makes a community is something that I try to bring within the classroom, and then connecting with families and connecting to the calendar, the community of what's happening within the community is something that I try to bring into the classroom, as well, because it's very important.

And to what I feel indigenous science is, is it's the teachings and it starts from their ancestors, you know, in terms of being scientists and with astronomy and with connection to the land and pottery making the arts.

All of that are examples of indigenous science.

So when I look at what we're doing, I feel like it's reinforcing a lot of what they're getting at home and within their community, but also, providing that opportunity for them to have a voice.

>> Bella: On the day we visited Diane, sixth grade students paired up with kindergartners for an activity.

The idea was that by preparing and then baking a few different foods in an outdoor oven, the whole school helped build, they learn about kinetic energy and the scientific method in a way they could actually connect with.

>> Naranjo: If you're like your native here, I think it's good to know about your ancestors, how they make stuff or how they did stuff, or how did they do that, how do they make this?

>> Madeline: When I was growing up, we didn't have this type of interactions with our culture like we had table language lessons.

And none of this.

What we're experiencing now with the Acacia school, what I see is, with especially with Diane incorporating a lot of, like the adobe making today, bread making, making jerky, making pottery, weaving belts, it's all hands on, and it's all tied and connected to culture.

>> Martinez: So the community engagement work -- really has been an embedded part of what the Indigenous Science Initiative is doing.

And it is, grounded in, indigenous knowledges it's grounded in indigenous ways of, knowing and thinking and learning.

And there, and there's this reciprocal nature that goes along with it so that -- there's always a check back with the community.

>> Madeline: Everything that I learned was like New Mexico history, and very little was talked about about indigenous people.

And the little bit that was talked about was focused on like tribes that aren't even in this area.

So like maybe the Sioux or the Comanche or -- those are the two that kind of stick and stick out in my memory and very little on the pueblos, except for a brief touch on the Pueblo Revolt.

You know, that's not enough.

And I think that if we had this type of curriculum in every school, not just indigenous schools, but in every school, then we would be more understood.

The indigenous population will be more understood by all of the communities or all of, you know, humanity.

>> Bella: One of the initiative's big plans is to make the curriculum open source later this year, meaning it'll be free to access online.

The teacher, designers and an advisory collective are thinking through what that could look like >> Paul: For anyone who's accessing this in the future.

We hope that they're able to see and honor and value and adapt and localize what's been created, and also see all the other great stuff that's out there.

And think about how that fits within their design, within their context, within their community, and based on what they know about their students.

We don't see this curriculum as an end all be all, but as a demonstration and as a starting point.

>> Martinez: One of the biggest challenges that I think, we've been trying to work through is the localization piece.

And so the challenge for the teacher designers and for the advisory, in some ways really is how is it that we can make this more accessible across the board?

How can we put enough front matter into the curriculum itself so that people feel comfortable and confident enough to, figure out how do you find a knowledge keeper or knowledge sharer in the, in the community that you're from?

Because a lot of the knowledge that we're asking the students who are learning from this curriculum to engage in is, based on ancestral knowledge.

>> Chavarria: There's so much knowledge within our communities.

And that's one thing that I'm learning that and a lot of it's not within textbooks.

A lot of it is oral history.

A lot of it is, you know, ways that may not be, openly shared with others, but making those connections where that becomes part of the curriculum, where they're able to come in and show and teach the students, different important things that are important to who they are.

With our pongteh today, I had the students interview some of the elders or or community members to talk about, like what community means to them and how does food symbolize that.

And reflect upon either stories and memories that relate to cooking.

So they came in and they connected at home and brought those ideas as well into the classroom.

So I think that there is an abundance of knowledge and just trying different ways.

And usually the community will be back you up knowing that you're putting that effort in and knowing that you're on the same line that they're on.

>> Naranjo: If you don't know what pongteh means, it's like an horno oven, so we call it outside oven.

I've heard that about this oven.

We've been using it for how many generations?

How many years?

And it's like, it's like a survival thing we use and we use it for, like, our feast day.

Because, you know, it's, it's just going down.

Passing down.

You know, which some day, I might just get to do that too, you know?

And I make one or, you know, I'm gonna come here to do it with the kids.

The younger the other generations after me.

>> Nash: Thank you to Bella Davis, producer Benjamin Yazza, and our partners at New Mexico In-depth.

We are so excited to have Indigenously Positive back for a second season.

Thanks, of course, too to everyone else who contributed to the show for New Mexico PBS, I'm Nash Jones.

Until next week.

Stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You