July 2018 LHPB Meeting:

Closing the “Girrard Issue”

Note: The complete transcript for this meeting is not yet available. In the interim, specific statements made at this meeting will be posted on this site and answered by Neil and Cindy Girrard. Excerpts from the transcript are in normal type - comments in response by Neil and Cindy Girrard are in blue.

* * * * *

Marsh: Do we need to make a motion?

Borowski, Buffalocalf, Allen(?): No, no, no.

Allen: That’s just your decision is just to continue to move forward.

Marsh?: We are continuing to move forward. [garbled]

Amistae?: [garbled]

Marsh: Thank you.

Someone: [garbled]

Marsh: And I would like to say thank you for giving us the direction on how to handle this, cause…

Borowski: Are you satisfied, sir, Mr. Stone?

Stone: Yes, if you are.

Someone: Oh.

Allen?: We were just discussing it, it was an action item and I haven’t seen the agenda, so is it an action item that needs a motion?

Someone: Yes it is. [garbled]

Allen?: So it does? OK. OK. Thank you.

Someone: I can’t see [garbled] corner.

Allen: I know. OK. Thank you very much guys. We really appreciate it.

Smith: OK, so we’re closed on the Girrard issue, is that correct, ladies?

Marsh: Yes.

Borowski: I make a motion we close the Girrard issue.

Smith: Second.

Marsh: Second.

Smith: All in favor.

Marsh?: Aye.

Smith: Aye. Now. Next item…

* * * * *

Wow. The “Girrard issue” is now closed. Whatever that means is anybody’s guess but the “Girrard issue” is now closed. Let’s look, however, at some things more carefully.

Marsh: Do we need to make a motion?

Borowski, Buffalocalf, Allen(?): No, no, no.

Allen: That’s just your decision is just to continue to move forward.

Marsh?: We are continuing to move forward. [garbled]

Amistae?: [garbled]

Marsh: Thank you.

Someone: [garbled]

Marsh: And I would like to say thank you for giving us the direction on how to handle this, cause…

Borowski: Are you satisfied, sir, Mr. Stone?

Stone: Yes, if you are.

Someone: Oh.

This looks like total mind control. Commissioner Elaine Allen says, “Just continue to move forward” and Marsh dutifully repeats, sounding like a robot, “We are continuing to move forward.” Whatever “move forward” means, no one explains or apparently cares. It would seem to us that “move forward” means call it (whatever “it” might be) closed so that we can pretend like it never happened. No one cares how the Girrard children were affected by Smith’s implied threats to burn our house down. No one has even listened to us – only invited us to be sacrificial lambs at this kangaroo court for which everyone but us was informed to be prepared to slam dunk us back into our place.

When your government will not give a fair hearing to any matter, there is something very wrong with your government.

Allen?: We were just discussing it, it was an action item and I haven’t seen the agenda, so is it an action item that needs a motion?

Someone: Yes it is. [garbled]

Allen?: So it does? OK. OK. Thank you.

Someone: I can’t see [garbled] corner.

Allen: I know. OK. Thank you very much guys. We really appreciate it.

Yes, Allen is very grateful to the board that they have quietly let Smith’s words slide. Smith’s actual words were never once played or read. We, of course, were not there because we could tell in advance it was going to be a farce. Here it is nauseating how grateful Allen is to the board for doing this dirty deed – and dirty deed this meeting truly is!

Smith: OK, so we’re closed on the Girrard issue, is that correct, ladies?

Marsh: Yes.

Borowski: I make a motion we close the Girrard issue.

Smith: Second.

Marsh: Second.

Smith: All in favor.

Marsh?: Aye.

Smith: Aye. Now. Next item…

We have received a letter from county code enforcement that what was closed at this meeting was the 2009 issue – the same issue that even Samantha Mendez said the statute of limitations was passed and there was no issue between us and the county. So, someone drove over a thousand miles, many unnamed people loyal to the historicity cult were invited to a meeting just so the board could close an already dead issue? No, the board needed to do something to make it look like they had decided something.

What they have decided is that because we are opposed to the historical ordinance, we are not entitled to the protections of the law. What they have decided is that threats of arson, when conducted against people who are opposed to their precious historical ordinance, is acceptable. After all, it was only Smith’s opinion that he voiced – even though in January he voiced it as the chairman of the board as his way of explaining his attitude about enforcing “problems” in the district to a prospective board member, even though in May he voiced it as the chairman of the board as an implied threat to Neil Girrard and even though in July he voices it as a message he is supposed to deliver from the county commissioners to the Girrards and presumably to anyone else whom he does not approve of in the district.

It would have been so simple to listen to the tapes, recognize Smith’s growing vigilante-ism (willingness to go beyond proper enforcement procedures) and improper attitudes (no one should think burning down someone else’s home is acceptable!), and, as a board, say, “We agree with the Girrards that this is unacceptable behavior on Mr. Smith’s part and we demand his resignation. However, we certainly do not agree with the Girrards’ challenge of the ordinance but we will open up the lines of communication with them and see if we can achieve a real resolution with them.”

Such a decision, however, would have required a strength of character and moral fiber that is not a usual characteristic of this board. County commissioner Leo Martinez in 2004 called this board a “stinky board” and it is once again true because the board does not pursue it’s constitutional or legal responsibilities but does things “however they want to do it” (Elaine Allen, July 2018 LHPB meeting) because the board does not care about justice or truth but only about their illusion of “historicity” and delusion of “good will” by which they wield oppressive control over their neighbors.

This kangaroo court has produced nothing that enables this conflict or controversy to be resolved but has only insured that the issue will remain open and festering for a long time to come.