Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.

>> Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus turmoil at the State Office of African American Affairs, we hear from the journalist who uncovered it in the former employees who lived it.

>> Ortiz: It's not that, you know, O Triple A doesn't have a mission or it doesn't have a purpose per se, but it's not being fulfilled and it hasn't been fulfilled for some time now.

>> Nash: Also, radioactive airborne plumes and ozone pollution choke a small New Mexico village.

New studies lay out a strong connection to the oil and gas industry.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us.

I'm Nash Jones.

So it is a heartbreaker of a week here at New Mexico in Focus as we bid farewell to a mainstay here on the show, both in front of and behind the camera.

Longtime producer Lou DiVizio is soon to move on, and tonight marks his last appearance on the air.

We know that many of you have built a relationship with Lou over the years, especially when he stepped into the host chair for more than a year, so we wanted to give him some time to say goodbye while also acknowledging his immeasurable contributions to our team.

So stick around for that conversation as we wrap things up tonight.

But first, let's get to some news.

In about half an hour, we are going to welcome capital and main reporter and NMiF oil and gas correspondent Jerry Redfern back to the studio.

He's going to help us understand what new measurements tell us about radiation and pollution in the small New Mexico village of Loving.

And how researchers are interpreting that data.

He's also going to update us on some slow going efforts at the state environment Department to keep a better eye on the Permian Basins toxic air.

But before executive producer Jeff Proctor speaks with Jerry about his recent reporting, we turn to a story that we mentioned in last week's show.

On August 23rd, the Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Lily Alexander published a story documenting years of high turnover and alleged hostile working conditions at the State Office of African-American affairs, or O Triple A, as it's known.

At the center of some of the controversy is Gene Grant, the longtime former host of this program and the current executive director at the African American Affairs Office.

We asked Grant for an interview last week.

He declined.

Instead, Lily will bring the story to our show tonight.

Joining her in studio are two former employees of O Triple A, Jacqueline Thomas, who worked under former director Charles Rideau, and Asha Ortiz, who worked under Rideau and then Grant.

>> Lily: Asha, Jacqueline, thank you both so much for being here and welcome to New Mexico in Focus.

>> Ortiz: Thank you, >> Thomas: Thank you.

>> Lily: So, Asha, I know you're from Albuquerque, but you were working for the Children's Learning Institute in Houston when you started looking for jobs back home.

What inspired you to apply for a role at the Office of African American Affairs?

>> Ortiz: So originally.

So I have my bachelor's degree in both family child studies and Africana studies.

So originally when I saw the posting for the job at OAAA, it was for the community liaison position.

And so I had gone into my interview thinking that it was going to be more like community based.

However, because of my experience in working in education, they were like, oh, actually, we have this role in education and we think you would be a better fit for it based on your experience and your resume.

And so I was thinking that I was just going to be utilizing my Africana studies degree, but it turns out I was able to use kind of all my experience together to qualify for the position.

>> Lily: Yeah.

Jacqueline, tell us a bit about your background and what interests you -- interested you about the Health Advocacy Coordinator job at OAAA?

>> Thomas: Well, so I have my masters in Healthcare management as well as my bachelor's in health administration.

And so I wanted to go into the community.

My wife, she's originally from here.

She's Afro indigenous.

And so we want to come back and we wanted to go ahead and make some waves in the community, so to speak.

So that's why we came here, is to work with the community and, you know, try to uplift the community as much as we could.

>> Lily: So you both expressed to me your initial excitement when you began work at the office.

What did you hope to accomplish both individually and for the community in your respective roles?

Asha, let's start with you.

>> Ortiz: I was just excited that I was going to be able to take some of my experience that I already had, and be able to make that more applicable, rather than just it being general to the community, because I do have a passion for education.

And so I think just the opportunity to be able to improve the achievement gap in New Mexico when it came to the black community.

I thought that was just an opportunity that I couldn't pass up.

>> Lily: Jacqueline, what was it about the agency's mission that interested you?

>> Thomas: Making a way for the black community to get health care, to see what's going on with high blood pressure?

You know, those things will impact the community.

That's what I wanted to do, and that's what I did.

You know, I tried to make sure that, you know, maternal health was being focused on men, you know, over the age of 50 getting exams, you know, those things, you know, just to get the community, just to get the information out to the community.

That's partly what I was doing.

>> Lily: What was the day to day experience like working in the office, and how was it different from what you had hoped for?

>> Thomas: So I actually liked the day to day I was able to, you know, interact with the community members, go to different, different like events that they had.

I was able to write articles on different things that plague our community.

It was really a great job, you know, but unfortunately, what happened, happened.

So here we are >> Lily: Jacqueline, when I interviewed you for The New Mexican, you described months of escalating workplace hostility.

And then in September 2025, then acting director Charles Reado fired you.

What was that moment like?

And were you expecting it?

>> Thomas: I was not expecting it that day.

So I can clearly see what happened.

Okay, so back, I had asked for, you know, a work schedule to be changed.

And I sent in all the accommodations.

Thank you.

I sent in accommodations, and that's -- Thursday, I asked HR about my accommodations and they said, wait for Charles Reado.

And then all of a sudden he came in and gave me that paper and said I was fired.

He actually had the supervisor read it and I did not sign it.

And I was just so dumbfounded because I recently just did HIV, HIV conference for OAAA.

I went there and got all the resources and was going to put it out to the community on how to get prep for our community.

And it was -- I was just slapped in the face when I got in the office and I left and that was it.

>> Lily: So, Asha, you resigned from your position under current Executive Director Gene Grant in May.

When you and I spoke for the article, you talked about sort of a cumulative series of moments that forced you out the door rather than one specific final straw.

What were some of those moments?

>> Ortiz: I feel like there had been before Jean even got there the tensions had kind of started to build.

There was an issue with budgeting.

And, you know, anytime you presented an idea on a project or a program, it was like, oh, well, that's not going to work for whatever reason.

But there was never any suggestion on how to make the idea or the proposal work.

So it just felt like a lot of things were being shut down when it came to like trying to to get things done to help the community.

There was a series of things that kind of had occurred, and it was actually after African-American day at the legislature that following week, I was told that I needed to sign three verbal write ups, and one of them was for taking home a state vehicle without without permission, which I had had a conversation with my supervisor, and he was the one that was like, yeah, like, you're good to take it.

Cool.

Whatever.

The next one was for being disrespectful in an email.

And then the third one was for fraudulent time on my time card.

And so I had let my supervisor and I was going to be late that day, communicated it.

And then there was an email that had actually got sent out and said, hey, make sure your time cards are accurate.

So I look at my time card.

I'm like, okay, yeah, cool.

And then it was that following week that I found out that, oh, you didn't report that you were going to be the 20 minutes late.

You didn't report that time on your time card.

That's a fraudulent time.

Sign this verbal warning.

And so to me I'm like, if it's a verbal warning, why am I signing it?

Yeah.

So I wasn't comfortable with that.

And I said, you know, I'm not I'm not going to sign any of these three documents.

So I'm like, you know what?

Okay, let me try and talk to Gene.

We had our staff meeting try to talk to Gene after.

I'm like, hey, Gene, like, I've got these write ups.

I'm not understanding what's going on.

Why am I having to sign a paper if they're verbal?

After that, it kind of -- the conversation escalated.

He didn't give a damn, language that was completely inappropriate, cursing.

And I left his office in tears.

And it took everything in me not to quit my job in that moment.

But I was already a part of so many projects and working on this trades fair that I really wanted to see through.

So I said, you know what?

Let me file a complaint with HR.

Did that the results of the investigation came back.

There was no breach of the governor's code of conduct.

And for me, it was kind of like a slap in the face because it was like, if I were to conduct myself in that same manner, would nothing happened to me.

And at the very least, like you don't talk to people like that as an executive director of an agency, let alone in a professional workplace in general.

>> Lily: So, Jacqueline, when you and I spoke for the article, you said that you feel the office doesn't care about black women.

>> Thomas: No.

>> Lily: What led you to make that assessment?

>> Thomas: The constant belittling of black women.

I know for me, working underneath Charles Reado and there was another program supervisor named from Mika, and she's not here to, you know, go ahead and talk about it.

But underneath Charles Reado's leadership, he was very mean and rude to black women.

And -- It was apparent how he would call her work wife, how he would write in the emails about how I speak.

And it felt like, man, you're supposed to be you█re supposed to be ride or die for the community.

But yet you put down black women.

It's horrible.

And all the other -- the other programs that I tried to make for black women, such as Double Dutch, you know, doing some Double Dutch work and basketball and everything for the community, for black women.

It was always turned down.

>> Lily: So Asha, out of the at least 11 employees I identified through my reporting who resigned or were fired from the office between 2022 and now.

Seven were women and four women.

Does that ratio hold any significance to you?

>> Ortiz: Yeah, I think that, you know, there was a point in time in the office where I was the only woman that was a coordinator.

After Miss Jackie had left, it was just me for a while.

Aside from the secretary, and I often felt like a lot of work was being dumped on me, that was not my responsibility.

When it came time to be in like, public perception, it was like, oh, Asha, you go speak there or you go talk to this person or they want to do an interview for this, you do it.

And for me, it kind of like it made me question like, why am I always as the only woman, being the one who's put in this position, right.

There was a conference that the office held that, you know, the person who was supposed to be hosting the event, they had made arrangements prior, so they weren't able to.

I didn't find out until the day of that, oh, I'm stepping up and assuming that position.

And so it was always kind of like putting me in situations that I wasn't prepared for or that I wasn't comfortable being in, and there was nobody else in the office that was getting that type of treatment.

So as the only woman, I felt like that's why I was being treated that way.

>> Lily: I'd like to get both of your reads on this.

So we're talking, of course, about an office created by state statute with a mission of serving as a clearinghouse and advocate for black people in New Mexico.

What is the broader impact on the community when turnover is so high and the workplace culture has devolved in the ways you've described today?

Asha?

>> Ortiz: So I think that, you know, when well, I think it's important to start off by saying, because of and I'm sure probably turnover rate is part of that.

There is a mistrust in the community when it comes to OAAA.

When I first started and I was told, oh, you know, collaborate and try and get on projects, I was reaching out to people.

Oh, we've worked with you guys before.

We're not interested.

We didn't have a positive experience with so-and-so.

>> Thomas: We didn't get paid.

>> Ortiz: Yeah.

People were promised money that they didn't receive.

Like it was just like, oh, well, they said that they were going to do this and didn't come through for us.

So there was a history with the people that I was reaching out to, that they didn't have a positive experience working with the office.

And so, you know, and when it comes to turnover, how are you supposed to develop like or establish a relationship with somebody there if they're not consistently there?

>> Lily: Jacqueline, how do you think the current state of things that OAAA impacts its mission?

>> Thomas: It -- there is no mission.

They -- the constant turnover.

How can you have people work when there's such a constant turnover for the community?

It's hard to even when you get there, your boots on the ground, you're going you have to finagle and try to get into the community.

And it's hard because there's already a prevalence of OAAA not doing what they're supposed to do.

So it's a catch 22.

You can't do anything with it.

>> Lily: So Asha, you previously told me that you think the office as it is, essentially has no purpose.

What changes to the office do you think might improve turnover and the work environment?

>> Ortiz: I think that the solution to it is leadership.

I wouldn't say that, you know, in me saying that, it's not that, you know, OAAA doesn't have a mission or it doesn't have a purpose per se, but it's not being fulfilled.

And it hasn't been fulfilled for some time now.

And I think that when you have the turnover rate that we're talking about, there's no way to do that, right.

When you have mistrust from the community.

There's no way to do that when you are not establishing your own programing and in your own expectations for the community.

When it comes to to, you're supposed to be this hub of resources, this hub of all things when it comes to the black community across the state.

And it's not there.

Other organizations in the community are doing more than the office itself is doing, because it doesn't have that strong leadership it needs to be able to execute the mission or the purpose.

>> Lily: Yes, Jacqueline, we've talked a lot today about what feel like systemic problems at the office.

What would fixing the system look like?

>> Thomas: It's disheartening when we have this and this leadership and this constant of, you know, I want to say bullying because it is workplace bullying.

What they're doing it, it creates such a disheartening attitude not only to the people that, you know, like UNM and all the the people that are working there and coming up and getting their schooling.

But also it's for the community, right?

Because most of the people that are coming to these jobs are transplant people.

They're not the people that are in the community.

Right?

They're transplant.

They're coming from different areas, coming from Texas.

I'm coming from I came from Charleston, you know, so when you see that and then you see how the community the like OAAA is treating these people, these professional people, it's disheartening and it creates a bad taste in your mouth.

>> Ortiz: I also think that, as Miss Jackie was saying, like the community needs to be involved.

So I would say like the fact that there hasn't been an advisory council.

I feel like that advisory council needs to exist and it needs to include members of the community, as well as a leader whose office is not in Santa Fe, but where the rest of his staff are or their staff.

If it were to be a woman doing the work that needs to be done.

How are you collaborating?

How are you leading from a place where nobody interacts with you?

>> Thomas: Exactly.

>> Lily: Asha.

Jacqueline.

Thank you.

>> Thomas: Thank you.

>> Ortiz: Thank you.

>> Nash: thank you to Asha Ortiz and Jacqueline Thomas for sharing their personal experiences.

It is a vulnerable thing to do and for thinking through some possible solutions as well.

We asked Grant and the governor for a response to some of the former O Triple A staffers█ claims.

Grant did not respond.

Michael Coleman, a spokesperson for the governor, sent us an email that reads in part.

Governor Lujan Grisham has complete confidence in Gene Grant.

She trusts Gene's ability to make personnel decisions, manage his staff, hold them accountable and build a professional team.

We asked Lily to stick around and join me here at the table to provide some additional context around what Ortiz and Thomas just shared.

Her reporting for the Santa Fe New Mexican also dug into the story of how this office came to be, and featured letters and emails from Grant, along with responses to these latest accusations from both Grant and Coleman.

So let's get into it.

>> Nash: Lily, welcome to New Mexico in Focus, Thank you so much for being here.

>> Lily: Thank you for having me.

>> Nash: Folks, just heard your interview with two former employees of the Office of African American Affairs.

I'd like to spend some time now, unpacking more of your reporting.

Out of at least 11 people who were fired or let go from the office over the last several years, you interviewed nine of them for your story.

Are there experiences other than what we just heard, that you want to add to what folks understand about what's been happening at the office?

>> Lily: I think one interesting sort of event was Teresa Robinson.

She was the Special Projects Manager there, for about three months.

She was fired in July of this year.

I think her story kind of stands out because she was very surprised that she was fired, whereas other people -- sometimes sort of felt like it was coming.

That's what they expressed to me, or like there was sort of a pattern, they were written up, etc.

But Teresa -- she was actually sort of hand-selected for the role.

Executive Director Gene Grant reached out to her, told her about the position.

She was excited and interested about it, and interviewed for it, and that happened.

But yeah, she was fired, she said it was very sudden.

Her last day in the office was immediately the same day that she received her termination email.

Yeah, she still doesn't know why she was fired.

That's what she expressed to me.

>> Nash: Okay, and now turnover has obviously been high among staff.

It's also been high at the Executive Director level.

In fact, there have been seven since 2003 and four just since 2020, and those were William Scott Carreathers from 2019 to 2020, Amy Whitfield from 2020 to 2022.

Charles Reado, who was Acting Director from September of 2022 to 2025, and is now Deputy Director.

And, of course, Gene Grant the former host of this program who took over in October of 2025.

One former employee who you quote in your story, Joshua Bradshaw, who worked under Whitfield and then Reado, said that he felt the office's issues were systemic and not necessarily tied to any particular one Director, do you believe that that is the case as far as what you found out?

>> Lily: I think so, yeah.

And in fact, multiple people expressed that to me, even though they, of course had their issues with specific Executive Directors.

And I think it's kind of evident in the fact that a lot of their comments on their work experience at the office kind of mirrored each other despite -- or like across years.

So like this idea of sort of -- they would propose a project or some sort of idea they had for the office and then they would be met with, “we don't have enough money,” “we don't have enough resources.” “We're not going to do that.” There was also a theme of proposing a project, that project getting approved, and then the approval being rescinded by leadership.

That's one example.

But yeah, overall, it seems like some of their experience were the same regardless of whether they were there in 2022 during Whitfield's era or more recently.

>> Nash: Okay, and while we've been hearing about some of this recent tumult at the agency, you actually write in your story that the Office of African-American Affairs had a rocky start.

How so?

>> Lily: So -- the sort of concept for the office began in 1998 with a survey that was kind of assessing whether it was something that the state might need.

Then it was established in 1999 with a bill signed by then Governor Gary Johnson.

And yeah, he signed the bill in the following year.

There was a proposal to put forth $200,000 to kind of get it up and running, and he vetoed that bit of funding.

It was super controversial, actually, a bunch of different black leaders across New Mexico protested outside his office one day during the Legislative Session -- >> Nash: Over this veto?

>> Lily: Yes.

>> Nash: And so when the office was established, there was no funding -- that was given towards it?

>> Lily: Correct, yes.

And actually, Johnson said that the only reason he signed the bill establishing the office was because he thought that no state money was going to be going towards it.

It would all be private funding.

>> Nash: And, so when did funding finally start to trickle in?

Was that under Johnson as well?

>> Lily: Yeah, later in [year] 2000, after the protest around the $200,000 veto, he eventually agreed to put $100,000 towards it.

>> Nash: But that's significantly less than what was initially proposed.

>> Lily: Yeah, half.

>> Nash: Well, do you see any connection between that rocky start, the underfunding at the beginning, even the governor at the time saying, “the only reason that I approved this was because I thought it was going to be free.” Do you see any connection between that and what you're hearing from employees today?

>> Lily: Yeah, I mean, I mentioned this idea of people proposing projects and being met with, “we don't have enough money.” The office has over $1 million in budget, but I think it definitely feels reminiscent of the initial start, at least for the employees.

And a lot of them who I spoke to actually kind of harkened back to that, especially comments about the state statute that outlined the office's missions.

>> Nash: Well, yeah.

You quote several employees as saying, “that the office is falling short of meeting its statutory obligations or making any tangible impact.” What does the statutory obligations lay out for them, and how are they falling short of that?

>> Lily: Yeah, it's pretty big actually.

There's a lot of -- it's a big list of different responsibilities that the initial legislation gave the office.

Overall, it was supposed to serve as kind of a clearinghouse and institutional advocate for the state's black community.

More specifically, they were supposed to study issues that impacted African-Americans in New Mexico, including things like healthcare economic issues, etc., hold conferences for the African-American community, secure recognitions of people's accomplishments.

And then they're also supposed to publish an annual report about the stuff that they're doing, although -- >> Nash: Are they doing those things?

>> Lily: Well, I wasn't able to find the report, but employees say that, no, they are not doing most of those things now.

>> Nash: Well, you learned a lot of this.

I mean, you say, as the employees say, through interviews with the nine former employees that you spoke with, but there's also a paper trail of some of what they're talking about.

What did you learn from complaints that employees filed over the years, as well as grievances filed by the union that represents those staff, CWA7076?

>> Lily: Yeah, the grievances were interesting, both filed in 2023 by two employees at the time when there was a union presence or when OAAA they had a union presence.

Interestingly, I think one grievance filed by Philip King, who was the Economic Engagement Coordinator for a couple of years, one of the union's sort of complaints with it was that it was very subjective.

The language, that then Acting Director, Charles Reado used in King's evaluations, employee evaluations, there were a lot of adjectives and other stuff where those reports are supposed to be objective.

And also -- they said that some of -- the union said that some of the expectations outlined for employees in their job descriptions were not actually mutable.

>> Nash: And that's the Economic Director?

>> Lily: Yes.

>> Nash: Okay.

Well, the union also, I believe -- spoke to or filed grievances related to bullying and intimidation?

>> Lily: MmmHmm.

>> Nash: Is that right?

Can you expand on what they were pinpointing?

>> Nash: Yeah.

The subjective language was one thing.

And actually, there was a third complaint that I didn't get to review, that I think delved more into the workplace bullying intimidation side of things, so -- >> Nash: Okay, well, employees aren█t the only ones who documented their positions.

The agency did too.

Some of the staff received write ups, for instance, from a director, whether that was Gene Grant or otherwise.

Termination letters were also mentioned in your report.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, through a spokesperson, told you that she trusts Gene Grant's ability to hold his staff accountable.

How did he attempt to do that, and what was the rationale that he spelled out in why he was taking those accountability steps?

>> Lily: Well, as I mentioned, interestingly, with Teresa, her termination letter, which was just in the form of an email that was sent to her, did not have a reason, and New Mexico, of course, is an At-will employment state.

So they don't necessarily have to give a reason.

But there was another employee who was also fired in July.

His name was Ezra, he received -- >> Nash: What was his last name?

>> Lily: Herbert.

>> Nash: Okay.

>> Lily: Yeah, Ezra Herbert.

His termination letter sort of pointed to a bunch of things, including insubordination, different violations of the code of conduct.

Specifically, it seems to center around -- leave requests that he had had approved by his supervisor to work on a summer camp teaching project.

But then Grant rescinded the leave requests, the approval of the leave requests.

And then he still -- according to the termination letter went to the events.

>> Nash: Grant also told you in a statement that he expects a lot of his staff, and that's why he's taking these steps of holding them accountable, either through write ups or terminations.

Can you expand on what you've heard from the agency and from the governor's office?

>> Lily: MmHmm -- Well, Michael Coleman, spokesperson for Governor Lujan Grisham, said that she stands by Gene Grant completely.

I outlined, of course, everything that I was saying in my article to him before I received that statement.

But, yeah, and then Grant, as you say, said he expects a lot of his employees -- He said that he doesn't have a lot of one on one time with the coordinators.

That's a job that a lot of these people had.

There's sort of four pillars that have coordinator roles attached to them.

So he said.

He doesn't have a lot of contact with them, but he expects a lot of his employees.

>> Nash: Okay, and while turnover has been extensive as as we've discussed, Grant also said that there are a number of key vacancies that he's hoping to fill in the in the coming months.

What's the outlook according to Grant around employment at the at the office.

>> Lily: So, Grant in the statement that he sent me said that they had hired two different people for two of the coordinator roles that were recently vacant, and then he planned to hire a third person for the third vacant position.

I think it was by September, at the time of me writing this article.

So, yeah, he said at that point the agency would be fully staffed for the first time in four years.

>> Nash: Okay.

Lily Alexander, thanks so much for breaking down your reporting for us.

>> Lily: Thank you.

>> Nash: Thanks to Lily Alexander for coming on to interview two of her sources in that story, and for sharing the broader scope of her reporting.

You can read her full story online at Santa Fe New Mexican.

santafenewmexican.com.

Moving on.

Let's welcome back capital and main journalist Jerry Redfern, who also serves as our de facto oil and gas correspondent.

As usual, Jerry has been focused on the Permian Basin, where industry drills continue to thunder away at one of the nation's highest clips.

For one of his most recent stories, Jerry takes us to Loving New Mexico, a town of about 1400 people.

Whereas, he writes, the smell of raw hydrocarbons regularly fills the air.

There, the oil and gas footprint is almost immeasurably vast.

In recent, scientific research has drawn a link between its many byproducts and radioactive plumes fanning out across the sky.

So here's Jerry laying out his reporting with executive producer Jeff Proctor.

>> Jeff: Jerry, welcome back to New Mexico in Focus.

And thank you, as always, for helping us keep an eye on oil and gas beyond industry news releases.

>> Jerry: Well, you're most welcome.

I'm just doing my job.

>> Jeff: Awesome.

You've been mucking around recently in a newly published scientific paper and an associated study that came along with it that found some kind of eye popping ties between byproducts of oil and gas production in the Permian Basin.

And checks notes, radioactive airborne plumes in that region.

Can you walk us through some of the significant findings?

>> Jerry: Yeah.

So between 2023 and 2024, there was this study of an scientific airborne study van that was set up down in loving New Mexico, which is about 20 minutes south of Carlsbad, and it's sitting sort of right smack dab in the middle of a production area in the Permian Basin.

The biggest oil and gas producing region in the United States.

What they found were elevated levels of airborne radiation and really high levels of ozone.

And what they knew that data when they were doing the original research.

Right.

What the studies are saying is they're tying it back to the actual and gas production.

They needed to sit down with the data, do the work to be able to tie it back.

And that's what happened here.

They're saying that there's a very high correlation that that's where this is coming from.

>> Jeff: Gotcha and I think that that's important for viewers to understand.

The researchers were not able to pinpoint a particular single source of this radiation, because all of the measurements were taken in one spot.

So from whence did the data come that underpins this study?

When and how was it collected?

You mentioned that van.

When did they do this?

>> Jerry: This was between 2023 And it would it sat in one spot and ironically enough, it sat in a parking lot for that whole time period.

And it was able to detect, you know, wind direction, wind speed, temperature, things like that.

So it was able to tell that when the wind came out of certain directions, they would have elevated levels of radiation on the wind.

But since they were in one spot, they couldn't say where that came from.

You know, you'd have to have multiple spots to be able to triangulate something like that.

And they didn't.

And that's part of why, at the very end of the study, they said, we need more research being done here.

>> Jeff: Yeah and we'll get to that in just a moment.

I want to contextualize this just a little bit.

One of the things that I noted from reading your story was that they found up to five times the normal amount of is it background radiation?

Can you unpack that for me just a little bit before we start naming chemicals?

>> Jerry: Yeah.

So this is where it gets into deep science.

Known to be a little bit careful.

I am not a scientist, but there is normal background amounts of radiation that occur all the time.

Everywhere occur naturally occurring radiation.

And that's what is in the area there as well around living in Carlsbad.

And what they were finding is that concentrations increased concentrations up to five times that normal amount would blow into blow past this monitoring station and loving every once in a while.

And it was coming from the same general directions.

So they could say, you know, it's over there, it's over there.

But that's that's all they were able to really determine at this point.

>> Jeff: Gotcha so some of the things we're talking about, we're talking about radon, we're talking about nitrogen dioxide, which is a dominant precursor of ozone, which you mentioned a moment ago and that sort of thing.

Really quick before we move along here, Jerry, is there a safe amount of radiation?

>> Jerry: No, according to the scientists involved in the report And to kind of think about it, you can see how that's the case.

They mean there's normal background amounts.

You know, anything elevated above that won't have anything to do with.

So just to put it to clarify it, the amounts that they were seeing the radiation increase did increase people's exposure, right?

It needs to be made clear it's not just a little bit here, it is a little bit, but it's enough that it has the scientists concerned.

>> Jeff: Let's talk briefly about some of the potential attendant health risks.

What are some of the health risks with being exposed to these kind of larger than normal, naturally occurring amounts of radiation?

>> Jerry: So the radiation that they're talking about in the study is primarily radon.

And that is airborne.

Right.

And it gets in your lungs and it causes long effects.

I'm not sure how else to put it.

And the possibility that they were saying in the story is that it raises the possibility of people getting lung cancers and issues like that.

So that's the real particular concern around that particular type of pollution.

>> Jeff: I want to get back to what you just mentioned a moment ago about the some of the hopes that these researchers had, and I'm going to read a couple of quotes.

The authors, the authors of this study noted in their conclusion quote, given the well-established health risks associated with radioactivity exposure, continued investigation is critical.

The lead investigator for the study told you in an interview, quote, we are really hoping that this line of inquiry doesn't end with this study.

Gerry, who might be able to take a hand off like that?

>> Jerry: Well, that would be the New Mexico Environment Department.

So during this study, they had this very expensive testing vehicle set up there.

And loving at the end of it.

They offered to sell it to the environment department, which declined.

So what when you're dealing with scientific studies, what you want to have is sort of the longest possible period of study that you can get away with, right?

But this study ended.

So there's a gap in data collection of these high level types of data that we don't know about from, say, late 2024 really up until about now.

So that's that's the idea that they were nudging at with that particular quote.

>> Jerry: Makes sense.

One thing I want to note to from reading your story is the environment department declined to purchase the monitoring station, let's just call it that.

This vehicle that was in the parking lot, despite the fact that it measured a broader range of potential chemicals and pollutants than what the Environment Department was capable of at the time.

Did I read that correctly?

>> Jerry: Yes.

>> Jeff: Okay gotcha.

Meanwhile, the Environment department, the aforementioned, is coming into some pretty fancy new equipment, namely a van and a truck that could help fulfill these suggestions to continue the research, continue the study.

Let's start with the van.

What is it meant to do for the $480,000 price tag?

It came list?

>> Jerry: Yeah.

So that that came as a surprise.

I was actually looking initially for information on the air monitoring van that I knew they were supposed to get.

Sorry, I'm jumping ahead of it and came across the purchase order for the one you're talking about, which is a radiation monitoring van.

Like that's what it does.

And it can monitor all manner of radiation at different levels from different sources.

And that obviously very well perked my ears up considering everything here.

So that's one thing.

Environment Department told me when I asked him about it.

You know, it's not specifically for looking at things at, say, Los Alamos or elsewhere, but it is also going to be able to be used to monitor radiation in the oil and gas fields.

>> Jeff: Is it cooking?

If I remember correctly, the Environment Department told you that they took delivery of this van in April.

Is it out measuring now?

What's the status of the van?

>> Jerry: As far as I know, neither of the two vans we're talking about are out monitoring at this point, and I will give them a little bit of credit.

I mean, they're really complicated pieces of truck.

You can drive a truck, but all the scientific stuff in it is really complicated machinery.

You have to hire specialized people to be able to operate it and know how to operate it, et cetera, etc., and then get them trained on it and so on.

So there's, there's a bit of lead time, but yeah.

>> Jeff: we'll get to some other timelines in just a moment.

The environment Department does say that it's getting better at stationary monitoring.

In recent years.

They are clocking sulfur dioxide down in the Permian.

How does that stuff get into the atmosphere?

>> Jerry: The oil and gas that comes out of the Permian Basin here in New Mexico and in Texas, in this particular region of it, is known to be high in sulfur dioxide.

This is normally occurring with this stuff, but nobody wants it.

It's a pollutant as far as the oil and gas producers are concerned.

It's certainly a pollutant when you put it in the air.

So there are different ways it can get into the atmosphere.

When you have a gas, what's called a gas plant, where the glass, the gas is cleaned and put into pipelines, you got a whole bunch of it.

You got to deal with it and it can link out of things like that.

Another key way it leaks out is through flares.

And anybody is driven through the Permian Basin.

We'll have seen players everywhere.

And those are all emitting sulfur dioxide as well.

And I think that's the key area that they're looking for to see if there's some way that they can figure these things out.

>> Jeff: Flares.

Flares is the word that I know that you would use in your stories.

Venting is another word or those are the same things, the flares that we see.

>> Jerry: No, they're very different.

>> Jeff: Okay.

>> Jerry: So venting is uncombusted gas that comes out of the facility no matter what.

Flares are the things at the top of a pole where you see the 30ft long flame and black clouds that come off of it, and sort of from a climate or an environmental view.

The venting is much worse.

You actually, the players are not clean by any measure, but they're better than just straight venting.

And theoretically, both are banned by the state at this point.

But if you're going to get rid of stuff for whatever the reason might be, you want to make sure you're flaring it.

>> Jeff: Gotcha, let's get to that second vehicle.

The one that it sounds like has maybe not been delivered yet.

I'm going to call that for purposes of this conversation.

The truck.

Can you walk through walk, folks, through the timeline of how the truck either came to be or is supposed to have come to be.

>> Jerry: Right so back in 2022, it was wild Earth Guardians had a they essentially took Occidental Petroleum to court for pollution that they were committing down in the Permian Basin near in New Mexico, and they won a settlement with oxy, mainly to get them to clean up their operations.

Part of that was oxy put up a half $1 million for other environmental cleanup work and projects in New Mexico.

It was kind of an open ended thing, as near as I've been told about it.

And they got the money.

And then in 2024, early, that was handed over to the New Mexico Environment Department with the idea that the environment department would purchase a truck like we're talking about here, right, to go out and be able to monitor very closely in will and gas producing regions where pollution is coming from, who's doing it, what it looks like, enumerate it, be able to have super solid evidence of pollution, to be able to go back to a company and say, you did this and this and this and this, right, this, this becomes important here in a minute.

So since then, and I've known about this, and I've been asking the environment department for the last couple of years.

Whereas the truck where's the truck?

Where's the truck?

That's why I was looking through the purchase orders previously and stumbled across found the band.

So and it turns out finally got Ahold of the people at enemy.

Do you know about this?

And they said, yeah.

Okay.

Well, we recently got the truck, but we didn't have people to be able to operate it.

That's that same story again, right?

And what they were waiting for was this gets complicated again, money to come in to hire people to be able to operate the truck.

And the truck ended up costing more than they originally estimated.

I think it's $85,000, more than half a million bucks they got from the original settlement.

>> Jeff: Where would we go get that money, Jerry.

Yeah, right.

This comes from permitting fees.

So the Environment Department puts out permitting fees or charges, permitting fees to companies that have facilities that are known to be polluting.

They're known that it's going to happen, you know, tank batteries in the Permian Basin, what are called compressor stations, where you gather natural gas together and shoot it through a pipeline.

You have it for facilities where you're cleaning up that natural gas, like I was talking about earlier.

And companies pay a fee for the environment department to say how much they're allowed to pollute.

So let that sink in for a minute.

So they're paying a fetal allow them to pollute to a certain amount over that.

They could be charged fines for exceeding their permit.

Recently, the New Mexico Environment Department got the Environment Board to increase their fees pretty dramatically.

And that's being that money is going back to the environment department to be able to buy equipment and hire people to do this stuff.

So it's it's kind of an odd circle where you're charging fees to be able to pollute, and you take those fees to hire the people to go out to check whether or not that pollution is happening at the appropriate levels could put some irony quotes in there for appropriate levels of pollution.

But that's that's the way it works.

That's the way the state operates on this.

>> Jeff: You use the I word.

And despite all of this, eventually where we land is by allowing permits for people to come in and pollute and to essentially break the law, that's what it's going to take to get the truck trucking.

>> Jerry: I wouldn't say break the law here.

I would say it is it is allowing this pollution to happen.

And to be clear, the state has decided over the years, and gas industry is an important industry and we need to keep it going.

And if you're going to do that, this is just the fact of it.

There's going to be pollution that comes with it.

And this is the state's way of trying to track it.

And it's it's a, you know, from the outside it looks like an odd system.

But this is how it works, honestly everywhere.

So there all sorts of questions about it.

But this is what we got.

>> Jeff: and it█s illegal.

I appreciate I appreciate the clarification, I gather from your reporting that the folks who are involved in the initial settlement that you mentioned aren't particularly pleased with the way this whole thing has rolled out.

A fellow named Jeremy Nichols, who is formerly of Wild Earth Guardians, told, you, quote, the Environment Department wants to do more monitoring of air pollution in the Permian Basin.

That's like a police department saying they need to do more murder monitoring before they decide to enforce murder laws.

What sort of action do Nichols and others want to see the state doing?

>> Jerry: They want to see the state out there taking these companies to court for polluting.

That's really what it is and what they've been saying for years.

This is not very talking.

This is these folks talking through Jerry, I guess you could say is that this problem has been going on for years.

We know that there's a huge amount of pollution going on in New Mexico, in the Permian Basin, and these companies need to be taken to court.

This is their argument.

And rather than just doing more monitoring, they want to make sure that this monitoring leads to a dramatic reduction in the pollution that's happening.

And if they find people to take them to court, that's that's really what they're getting at.

That's what they want to see.

>> Jeff: So the monitoring is important.

And as far as you need data in order to take somebody to court, but they would like to see more court action.

>> Jerry: Exactly and this is kind of what I was hinting at earlier.

This is what the environment Department leaders had told me repeatedly is that yes, there's data and then there's data and they need data that's, you know, thoroughly and utterly vetted and verified that they can use to take to court should it come to that and not just any data will do.

>> Jeff: Jerry, great reporting as always, and thanks for coming in to share it with our viewers.

>> Jerry: I'm very happy to do it.

Thanks for having me on, Jeff.

>> Nash: Huge thanks to Jerry Redfern for helping us keep an eye on the repercussions of New Mexico's prolific oil and gas industry.

Now, for the part of the show you have likely been dreading since I promised it at the top, I am right there with you saying goodbye to New Mexico in Focus█ as senior producer Lou DiVizio.

After five years at NMPBS this week will be Lou's last on our air, and I cannot overstate how valued and beloved Lou is by our entire team, and how thoroughly he'll be missed.

Based on how many times I heard something along the lines of like, Where's Lou?

I miss Lou from viewers when I took the host seat last year, I am confident many of you are his fans as well and will lament his absence along with us.

So we wanted to take some time tonight to send him off and to reflect on his years long efforts to bring a show to life each week that serves New Mexico well, and that we can all be proud of.

>>Nash: Well Lou, I can't very well say welcome to New Mexico in Focus.

You've been here a lot.

I will say that I'm doing this interview under duress.

I don't want to see you go.

But I also am so glad to get a chance to talk with you about the impact that you've made here at the station.

We are going to miss you so much, and I think a lot of our viewers probably know you best for your on camera work, no doubt.

but you've actually worn a lot of hats in your five years here at the show.

Can you talk a little bit about how you've spent your time and how that's changed over the years?

>>Lou: Sure.

Well, thanks, Nash.

And yeah, I'm sad to be doing this, but yeah, I've done a ton since I've been here five years ago now.

There's a whole new leadership group for our news department.

Kevin McDonald was great.

Matt Grubbs I remember first day I worked here.

Matt Grubbs took me up to Santa Fe, showed me around the Capitol, took me up to the Sangre de Cristo, decreased as it was really made me feel comfortable.

And so I worked in the role I was hired for for the first six months or so as a producer.

So that's writing writing scripts for anchors, writing questions for interviews, setting up field packages, setting up interviews, a lot of that.

But then, of course, things changed.

Gene left, Kevin left, Matt left.

Jeff comes on.

I was able-- >>Nash: Jeff Proctor our Executive Producer.

>>Lou: Jeff Proctor, who's done an amazing job.

I've been able to put myself in the chair, which I had never done before, really, apart from college.

And and that was a different challenge for sure, while maintaining all my other duties too.

So it's been it's been a lot, but it's been rewarding.

>>Nash: You mentioned you got in front of the camera for about a year and a half before I came on to host between when Gene Grant left and when I came on, you and Jeff were switching off hosting.

How did that change your relationship to the show, but also to our viewers?

>> Lou: In terms of, you know, addressing the public and being the front face of this show.

It was really it was stressful at first, but then super rewarding.

You know, for a while I was just talking to my wife.

She's at channel 13.

I was getting recognized more than her pretty early on, and that was pretty funny.

And but I mean, you know, humbling to a bit because, you know, people watch the show.

Not for me.

They watch for the information, but they kept watching it even when I was hosting after such a long time with Gene.

So that's not lost on me.

>>Nash: And I'll add that Laura Paskus also was doing some hosting back in that era.

I relate a lot with what you're saying.

I mean, as as the host of this show and a host formerly at KUNM, that connection that you make with folks starting to see folks out in the community, you know, you're not speaking into an abyss.

Is there anything, as you're preparing to leave that you'd like to say to our viewers about what they meant to you or what this relationship has been like?

>>Lou: Sure.

Well, thank you first.

I mean, like I said to to come into here to be in front of a camera after more than a decade of Gene as the show is changing and to not really lose much viewership as far as we know and to hear feedback, you know, not just looking at numbers on a page, but to hear people in the community saying, we like the show, we like what you're doing.

See comments on our pages.

It meant a lot.

So yeah, just grateful.

Totally.

>> Nash: Is there a nything in particular that you covered during your time that you are particularly proud of?

>>Lou: Yes, certainly.

Election coverage.

First off, when we were in a lot of staffing flux, I think it was 2022.

It was basically just me and Gwyneth who knocked it out.

And Gwyneth was incredible.

Gwyneth Doland of course our politics correspondent.

And she has always been great.

I've loved working with her for these five years too and that translated into the roundhouse stuff.

I've really enjoyed that.

To be able to be in the Capitol during session, it's a different functioning legislature than what I was familiar with in Michigan.

Gwyneth knew exactly how to feel it out, and she taught me that over a couple of years I was able to grow through that, edit her pieces, help her think through questions.

That was just a ton of fun.

I'll always remember that.

And Elizabeth Miller too.

That was the other one I was going to bring up too.

The first piece we did together was on replanting in the Hermit's Peak, Calf Canyon Burn Scar, and I talked to these experts just off camera for over an hour.

Just because it's so interesting.

And these stories, that's what I like about or love about this show.

And what we can do is these stories that wouldn't get much airtime, I don't think anywhere else that are influential and and interesting to and being able to edit all those pieces together, the stories that she set up, I mean, she got all the experts, but just being able to be the one to stitch it and present it has been a ton of fun.

>>Nash: And you've done a nice j I mean, you've really honed your eye for those kinds of things and for New Mexico politics, the legislature, I mean, you have those connections and you know how to drive that story forward, especially when we're not necessarily the ones breaking the news, but often analyzing it or digging that next step deeper.

You've done a really nice job with that.

You mentioned you're from Michigan originally.

You also worked in commercial TV before you landed here at PBS.

I'm curious, as you're getting ready to move on, what you think you'll carry with you from working in public media here at NMPBS, but also during your time in New Mexico overall?

>>Lou: Sure.

Well, that's a big question.

And, you know, New Mexico in general, it's just an awesome place, an awesome people.

You know, being from Michigan is stark contrast and landscape, but it's one that I've come to appreciate and absolutely love in terms of shifting to public media from network affiliates and commercial news.

It took a little bit of an adjustment, but I mean, it's been so refreshing and I don't I don't want to go back and I will do everything I can to not but I will say, you know, in this show, I was just thinking about this in the booth yesterday when we were watching it, Jerry Redfern's interview with Jeff about these toxic radioactive plumes just blowing through.

You know, that's a pretty big deal.

And it requires context and science and research and all of these things that you can't broadcast in the traditional commercial news format.

And I've been told so many times, no soundbites over 12 seconds.

People aren't going to care.

Once you start getting into the weeds.

But, you know, I found that people do care.

And that's that's what I'm so grateful about for our viewers.

And because it's clear that people do care, it's not everybody.

It's not something you can put on in the background and kind of tune in and out of, like you could with the regular 5:00 news broadcast.

But it's information that is valuable, necessary, and I've just been really proud to be part of it.

>>Nash: I think you're right.

I think our viewers do care.

And as as we wrap up with you, I think they care about you.

You know, I think you've built this great relationship.

You've served this community really well.

We're so grateful for everything you've done here and are wishing you the very best.

You and Ann and your two kiddos as you as you step into this next chapter of your life.

Thanks for taking the time to do this and to talk about your time here before you take off.

>>Lou: Thank you Nash, yeah.

>> Nash: Another huge thanks to Lou DiVizio for all he's contributed to NMPBS.

Thanks too to everyone else who contributed to this week's show.

But before I sign off, a quick update on what you're going to find in this space over the next few weeks, our team is going to take some time throughout September to gear up for election coverage.

To buy us that time, we are going to be serving up some of our favorite shows from the last year for you to enjoy again over the next few weeks.

We plan to return with new episodes and that election coverage you've come to expect from us in October.

For New Mexico PBS I'm Nash Jones.

Until then, stay focused.

>> Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.