Transparency for capital outlay is a welcome change

Kudos to Rep. Matthew McQueen, D-Galisteo, for his leadership and perseverance in bringing transparency to New Mexico’s system for funding public infrastructure projects. For the past 44 years, legislators have appropriated funds to specific infrastructure (or “capital outlay”) projects without having to disclose which projects they are sponsoring. For the past six years, McQueen has worked to reform that system so New Mexicans can hold their legislators accountable for how they appropriate public funds.

During this year’s legislative session, McQueen sponsored House Bill 55, which will create a public, searchable list of the sponsors of every capital outlay appropriation. House Bill 55 passed the House 65-1 and the Senate unanimously — a remarkable development considering that identical legislation failed to pass the Senate on a 21-22 vote just two years ago. Thanks to McQueen’s dedicated work, New Mexico’s capital outlay system will finally be brought out of the shadows and into the sunlight.

Fred Nathan Jr. founder and executive director Think New Mexico

Preserving the mural

“What is past is prologue.”

These words are carved on a plaque at the entrance of a building proudly sitting on Guadalupe Street. On this building is an exceptional mural that looks out from the iconic Railyard District in the heart of historic Santa Fe. Now there is news that this prime example of mural art is going to be destroyed. It seems many Santa Feans care deeply about preserving our past, especially expressions within the mural art form. Can this existing building and mural serve as an “art” museum, as proposed? Questions must be answered.

What is the justification of destroying a mural that narrates our New Mexican history in such a monumental style? There is talk of showing a representation of the mural within the “new” museum — is that not tokenism? Who has the power, will or authority to stop the destruction — the Department of Cultural Affairs, the City Council or the mayor? In the midst of controversies over the safety of monuments such as the Plaza obelisk, we are not dealing publicly with this mural. In not protecting this art, are we allowing for an irrevocable mistake? Is this not sadly ironic? Lura Brookins

Santa Fe

Not ‘science’

The commentary (“Pandemic reopenings are not a science” by Faye Flam, March 28) was a welcome change from the usual dogmatic rhetoric and concomitant compliance with whatever the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tells the public. Perhaps now that questions about procedures are not conflated with utterances from former President Donald Trump, there will be more experts willing to come forth to voice their thoughts and doubts. One of the comments that hits home for me was, “I am simply not interested in an epidemiologist’s opinion on whether schools should be reopened. I’m interested in an epidemiologist’s opinion on how much more the virus will spread if schools are reopened. Whether schools should be reopened — that’s not their field.”

The last paragraph nicely sums up what some of us who are neither Republicans nor Trump supporters have thought. It states: “There’s a lot science can tell us about relative risks of returning to normal activities, and it’s important for public health officials to keep people informed on any risks that might persist post-vaccine. But it’s time to stop disguising their preferred goals and trade-offs as ‘the science.’ ”

Susan Noel

Española

Compare the numbers

As a scientist and a Democrat, I believe in numbers and truth. I believe the vaccine is working from the numbers that I see in New Mexico. But I keep hearing otherwise from the Republicans and contrary information about masks. So, I am curious as to whether there are any numbers available to show a difference between Republicans and Democrats in infections and deaths. Not that the Republicans will believe any report. Election fraud is still their fiction in spite of numerous studies showing otherwise.

Steven Rudnick Santa Fe