BY KEVIN HOLSAPPLE
Los Alamos
Editor,
I read a recent letter you published by Andy Fraser that contains erroneous information that I think is important to correct. ( https://losalamosreporter.com/2024/11/17/lte-please-approve-the-community-broadband-network-contracts-tuesday/ )
Fraser wrote “I’ve read Kevin Holsapple’s article in the Los Alamos Reporter. It seems that to satisfy his request for transparency the County would have to conduct contract negotiations in public.” I said no such thing in any letter. I did point out that the County Broadband Project page ( https://www.losalamosnm.us/Initiatives/Community-Broadband-Network ), presumably a reliable source of information, notes no public engagement since 2022. I also suggested that now that there is a definite proposal, public engagement is in order and will improve public understanding and confidence in any subsequent decision. I also indicated several questions that I think are important for providing informed input to the Council about making a decision.
Fraser also wrote, “There has been a lot of public discussion about the CBN and the predecessor ideas for years. During the almost two years between your charge to Staff in January of 2023 and their response this month. Holsapple and others may have forgotten some of those discussions.” I have not forgotten the long ago discussions that led us to where we are today. It was great that there was a general discussion a long time ago about the concept of a community broadband network that led to an initiative. At that time, there were few details. However, now that there is a defined contract under consideration, the public should have the opportunity to understand it, have a Q&A opportunity, and provide informed input to the Council. Nothing about what I suggested would breach the confidentiality of the concluded negotiations. If the questions I posed in my letter seem in any way unfair or irrelevant to the County, I would appreciate the opportunity to have a dialogue about that together with a dialogue about the answers to the questions. Many others have told me they would like to be able to understand these things as well. This can’t be done in the format of a Council meeting.
In his letters, Fraser himself points out a significant concern with what we publicly know about the project. I share his concern about not duplicating existing infrastructure, as would likely happen if the contracts and funding were approved Tuesday. The requirement to consider existing infrastructure could have been made part of the RFP. If the public had been engaged to provide input back when the RFP was being formulated, I would have championed this concern. Maybe Fraser would have, too. That would have been appropriate citizen engagement. Now that there is a completed negotiation and proposed contracts, it remains an important consideration that could reduce cost, reduce implementation time, and avoid the disruption to some citizens of digging up their neighborhood. This is just one of the concerns that a brief pause to allow for public engagement could help with.
For those who don’t want to read my prior letter ( https://losalamosreporter.com/2024/11/17/lte-my-objection-to-council-agenda-item-regarding-community-broadband-project/ ) carefully, I am not at all opposed to the community broadband project. It is clearly a community priority, but it should also be considered in the context of other important community priorities. Other priorities relate to transparency and support for local small businesses. The citizens count on the Council to integrate and balance priorities in County projects. In the recent community survey, “enhancing communication with the public to promote transparency and strengthen trust in County government” and “enhancing support and opportunities for local businesses” are also strong priorities. Fifty-eight percent of citizens rated communication and engagement as a high priority, 77% rated small business as a high priority, and 42% rated broadband as a high priority. All of these things are important, but we need the County to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Meaningful citizen engagement could help them do that in this case.
Although I support the concept of the community broadband project, I am opposed to approving the details without any serious attempt at public vetting and participation regarding the details. A pause to allow for meaningful citizen engagement will benefit future public confidence in the project and County processes. Is there some reason we don’t know about to rush a decision after all these years of putting together enough details to take action on?