Archive for Springergate
Springergate Continued
by John Weckerle
In the June 4, 2009 edition of the Mountain View Telegraph, Craig Springer of Edgewood, New Mexico continued the debate surrounding his “grievance” against the Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District (ESWCD) and your editor’s alleged status as minion and – at least in Mr. Springer’s characterization, prostitute – to an agency focused on land management and conservation. Despite the fact that this is perhaps one of the most bizarre arguments with which we here at New Mexico Central have been involved, we are happy to continue the debate, and of course we encourage Mr. Springer to do so as long as he sees fit. We also encourage Mr. Springer to use our simple commenting feature – something he has not mastered to date – to do so, because he would not be subject to the limitations so often encountered with the weekly print media with respect to the number of words he can use to make his point. Of course, Mr. Springer is free to do his writing wherever he likes.
We were both surprised and slightly amused by the fact that Mr. Springer read our April 29 article disagreeing with the premise of his April 24 letter to the editors of The Independent and the Mountain View Telegraph (which portrayed the ESWCD as an uncaring and inconsistent bureaucratic agency providing its constituents with substandard service) and chose to respond not with a refutation of our argument, but with a vehement personal attack against District Chairman David King and your editor. The latest letter by Craig Springer in the Telegraph continues to harp on my company’s relationship with the ESWCD – the first thing I mentioned in our first article responding to his initial letter – and we have to wonder why he continues to thrash this particular departed steed. We also wonder whether Mr. Springer possesses a dictionary and a thesaurus. “Irreducible” does not mean what he think it does (with a nod to the character Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride); the word he is looking for is probably “incontrovertible.”
Past a certain point, one begins to seek the answers to two major questions: “Who is this guy?” and “What are the facts of the matter regarding Craig Springer’s case?” Let us begin with the first question. »» Springergate Continued
We Appreciate Your Patience…
by John Weckerle
By now, many of our readers are probably wondering if there will be a response to Craig Springer’s latest diatribe in the Mountain View Telegraph, in which Mr. Springer continues to assert that my support for the Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District is somehow financially motivated, and in which he also suggests that I mind my own business. There will be – here. We’ve decided not to send another letter to the Telegraph, as we think that enough trees have died on Mr. Springer’s account, but we are conducting some additional research (which is producing some interesting results) on the subject and will be reporting back in the near future. For now, we will simply say this to Mr. Springer: If you don’t want people commenting on your worms, don’t open the can in public. We suspect that Mr. Springer will understand the metaphor.
Who’s Afraid Of The Big, Bad Blog?
by John Weckerle
Editor’s Note: The Mountain View Telegraph printed my letter in response to the Craig Springer diatribe unedited, as requested. We would like to thank the Telegraph for its honesty, integrity, and courtesy in this matter. To our knowledge, the Telegraph has properly attributed articles that were first published on NM-Central.com. This article is long enough dealing with the issues at hand, but there are broader issues associated with American journalistic practices that bear additional examination, perhaps at a later date.
We seem to be having a run of unfortunate experiences with one of the local newspapers recently. On May 13, The Independent and the Mountain View Telegraph printed letters from local resident Craig Springer that were a response to our April 29 article on Mr. Springer’s prior letters to both papers concerning a dispute with the Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District (ESWCD). The letters were defamatory, accusing your editor of being a communications worker for the Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District and, in that role, nefariously maligning him at the bidding of my allegedly nefarious masters. I will note that, as far as I know, The Independent’s editor, Wally Gordon, knows me personally and (in my opinion) knows what I do for a living, and that I am not an ESWCD communications worker. We will leave it to Mr. Gordon to correct us on that subject. The letters also attacked ESWCD Chairman David King. The Independent contacted Mr. King and allowed him to respond in the same issue that the letter was printed; however, I was not contacted. I spoke to Mr. Gordon, who stated that he contacted Mr. King due to Mr. Springer’s reference to prior and unrelated complaints. Mr. Gordon indicated that I was not contacted due to logistical issues and noted that contacting everyone in these situations could be very complicated. I did not choose, at that time, to raise the issue that making two phone calls is not all that terribly more complicated than making one.
What Mr. Gordon did not mention at the time was something of which I was unaware until I read Vanessa Vaile’s comment on our original article on the issue – that just the week before, in its May 6 edition, The Independent had issued a policy on this very issue, which reads as follows: »» Who’s Afraid Of The Big, Bad Blog?
Meet The Anti-Minion.
by John Weckerle
By now, most of our readers have probably read Craig Springer’s rather imaginative letters to The Independent and the Mountain View Telegraph characterizing me as Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District Chairman David King’s minion. Those who know me, of course, know that I am probably not the best minion material one could hope for.
Normally, I would respond in detail here, but since Mr. Springer was apparently unable to navigate his way through our comment form and sent his complaints to the newspapers instead, I have chosen to send responses directly to those publications (and thank you to The Independent, who courteously offered to provide the opportunity to respond). I have not spoken directly with the Telegraph, but I am sure they will also publish my response, especially since I made sure to send a letter that is not a duplicate of that sent to The Independent. As for Mr. Springer, for the time being, we will simply say that making demonstrably inaccurate statements regarding my involvement with the ESWCD probably doesn’t lend much credibility to his accounts of his disagreement with the District.
Update: For more information on the ongoing dispute with Craig Springer, see our April 29 and June 13 articles.
Criticism of Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District Inaccurate – Some Press Coverage Unbalanced
by John Weckerle
Disclosure: Your editor provides web services to four Soil and Water Conservation Districts: Edgewood, East Torrance, Claunch-Pinto, and Ciudad. However, this article has not been prepared at the behest of the Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District and represents the opinions of the author alone.
In relatively recent editions of The Independent and the Mountain View Telegraph, local resident Craig Springer has aimed some very harsh criticism at the Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District. Having had a substantial amount of interaction with the District over the years, we have been surprised at what we have read – so we decided to do a little checking into the situation. According to documentation provided by the District, Mr. Springer’s cost-share project began with a 2004 Cost-Share application. At that time, it was required that ESWCD Cost-Share projects be completed by August 31 of the year following the submittal of the application (that date has since changed to June 30), so Mr. Springer’s application would have expired on August 31, 2005. Because of staff turnover, the District actually continued to reimburse Mr. Springer until June 14, 2006, at which time he was informed that he would have to re-apply. Apparently, Mr. Springer feels that he should be able to continue collecting on the expired application. Mr. Springer was provided an application, the minutes of the Board meeting at which his situation was discussed, and a letter advising him that he needed to submit a current cost-share application in order to receive reimbursement for future efforts on March 9, 2009, weeks before his complaints ran in the local papers.
I have so far conducted two cost-share projects on my property – one for tree thinning and one for a rain harvesting system – and am preparing an application for a third (drip irrigation). I have also purchased a number of trees and shrubs through District Spring and Fall plant sales. I have been absolutely, 100% satisfied with the program and the support provided by District personnel. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Springer’s complaints are completely off-base, and he should fill out another cost-share application just like everyone else. (NOTE: Cost share applications must be submitted by tomorrow, April 30, 2009).
With regard to the press coverage: The Independent was fair and considerate in allowing the District to respond to Mr. Springer’s letter. The Mountain View Telegraph, however, took another approach. »» Criticism of Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District Inaccurate – Some Press Coverage Unbalanced