New Mexico in Focus; 1130; Lin Farley: On Coining The Term "Sexual Harassment"

>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO INFOCUS PROVIDED BY THE MCCUNE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION AND VIEWERS LIKE YOU. THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO INFOCUS WE LOOK AT EARLY EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE. >> THE WAY WE HAD DEALT WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT UP TO THIS TIME WAS BY MAKING A JOKE. OH, SHE IS JUST AN OLD MAID, DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO TAKE A JOKE, WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? >> THE LINE DEBATES SOME OF THE TOP STORIES IN THE NEWS. NEW MEXICO INFOCUS STARTS NOW. WELCOME TO NEW MEXICO INFOCUS. LATER THIS HOUR, THE LINE OPINION PANEL LOOKS AT NEW MEXICO SENATOR LINDA LOPEZ' CALL FOR THE HEAD OF THE PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TO RESIGN OVER A COMMENT HE MADE ABOUT MANIFEST DESTINY. WE WILL ALSO DEBATE THE NEED FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PAY FOR LOBBYISTS TO CHASE AFTER THE STATE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. FIRST, THOUGH, THE LINE TACKLES THE RECENT AND BRIEF GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN.

>> WELCOME TO THE LINE. LATE LAST FRIDAY, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 2013, AFTER SENATE COULD NOT AGREE ON A FUNDING BILL. WHILE THAT SHUTDOWN FIVE YEARS AGO LASTED 16 DAYS, HE RECENT ONE ENDED MONDAY NIGHT WHEN CONGRESS PRESENTED AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED THE KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OPEN FOR THREE MORE WEEKS. LINE PANELISTS HERE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN WHEN THE THREE WEEKS ARE UP, JOINED AT THE TABLE BY FORMER STATE SENATOR MARK BOITANO, TOM GARRITY OF THE GARRITY GROUP, PR, ATTORNEY SOPHIE MARTIN IS WITH US AND STEPHANIE MAEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PROGRESS NOW NEW MEXICO AND FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE. NOW, THE SHUTDOWN MAY HAVE BEEN SHORT BUT NEW MEXICO DID FEEL THE IMPACT. ALBUQUERQUE BUSINESS FIRST REPORTED THAT WHILE SOME FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WERE TOLD TO REPORT TO WORK ON MONDAY, THERE WERE CLOSURES THAT DAY AND OVER THE WEEKEND. FOR EXAMPLE, WHITE SANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT AND OTHER NATIONAL PARKS WERE CLOSED. THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES FROM KIRTLAND REPORTED TO WORK MONDAY AND, YOU KNOW, IT JUST HAPPENED. NOW, SOPHIE, START WITH YOU. BACK TO BUSINESS AS USUAL. THE SHUTDOWN WAS DISRUPTIVE.

WE HAVE FOLLOW-UP ON THIS THAT WILL IMPACT US, BUT THESE ARE SCARY THINGS WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT SEQUESTRATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE ARE IN A VULNERABLE SPOT. ANY SHUTDOWN MEANS SOMETHING -- >> NEW MEXICO IS VULNERABLE. WE DO HAVE A HIGH PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT. ONE OF THINGS I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SHUTDOWN IS THAT THERE WERE MANY PLACES THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS REMAINED OPEN. WE SAW SANDIA AND LOS ALAMOS REMAINED OPEN. AND THE TRUTH IS FOR NEW MEXICO, WHILE WE DO GET A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EMPLOYMENT FUNDING COMPARED TO OVERALL BUCKET FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, A LOT OF WHAT WE HAVE IS CONTRACTED WORK. AND, SO, WHAT HAPPENS WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AT SANDIA AND LOS ALAMOS AND OTHERS, THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CUSHION BUILT IN AGAINST FURLOUGH.

SO THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE PERSON WHO IS FURLOUGHED IS IMPACTED. OUR ECONOMY IS IMPACTED BY THE LOSS OF THOSE DOLLARS BUT A SURPRISINGLY LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, SURPRISINGLY LARGE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPANIES DO KEEP WORKING AS LONG AS THEY CAN. >> YOU KNOW, SENATOR, IT IS INTERESTING, IT IS THAT DOUBTS IF YOU'RE AN EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYER OR A CONTRACTOR. I APPRECIATE SOPHIE'S POINT. IT IS THAT DOUBT BECAUSE SOMETHING GETS LOST. THINGS NEED TO CHUG ALONG BUT YOU'RE NOT WORKING AT 100% WHEN YOU'RE NOT SURE WHAT IS FACING YOU. FOR NEW MEXICO, WE HAVE DECISIONS TO MAKE. WE HAD SOME OF OUR SENATORS COME DOWN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS ON THIS VOTE. HOW DID YOU SEE THE POLITICS OF THIS PARTICULAR THING? WHAT WAS YOUR THOUGHT THERE? >> INTERESTING. EVERY TIME I READ ABOUT THIS I THINK WHY DON'T WE HAVE A WASHINGTON. AND IF YOU GO BACK 20 YEARS, SENATOR PAUL SIMON FROM ILLINOIS GOT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT OUT OF THE HOUSE AND

IT MISSED BY ONE VOTE IN THE SENATE. THEY NEED A SUPERMAJORITY, SO, YOU KNOW, 49 STATES HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT INCLUDING NEW MEXICO AND WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT ON A FEDERAL LEVEL? SO, I THINK WE NEED -- >> FAIR POINT. >> HONESTLY, THIS ONE FROM MY VIEWPOINT WAS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING. SO, I MEAN, WE LOOK AT IT FROM A CITIZENS' VIEWPOINT, MOST CITIZENS FEEL TOTALLY DETACHED FROM WASHINGTON AND THE INTEREST GROUPS AND THE CANDIDATES LOVE TO FINGER POINT AND THEY LOVE THE DRAMA. THEY RAISE MONEY WHEN THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN BUT IT REINFORCES THE NEGATIVE IDEA THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN WASHINGTON AND CONGRESS. FROM THE WORKERS' VIEWPOINT, 2% OF OUR JOBS ARE IMPACTED BY THIS. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT SANDIA, THE REALITY IS, SANDIANS WORK A FOUR DAY WEEK, A LOT OF THEM AND SO, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS AS MUCH OF AN ISSUE WITH THIS. THE THING THAT IS REALLY INTERESTING FROM A POLITICAL VIEWPOINT IS WHO WINS AND

LOSES. YOU KNOW, THE LONGEST SHUTDOWN WE HAD WAS UNDER CLINTON, DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. REPUBLICAN CONGRESS TRIED TO PUSH CONSERVATIVE INITIATIVES ON CLINTON, HE DIDN'T BUDGE. CLINTON WAS A WINNER. ON THIS ONE, I THINK THE DEMOCRATS MADE A HUGE MISTAKE TYING THIS TO DACA. THE ISSUE FOR MOST AMERICANS WERE WHO IS MORE IMPORTANT, LAW BIDDING AMERICANS OR FOREIGN NATIONALS. IT WAS THE WRONG ISSUE TO HANG THEIR HAT ON. >> THAT SAID, I WILL SAY, WE LOOK AT IT AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS SHIFTING, WHO ARE WINNERS, WHO ARE LOSERS, BUT WHAT I DO THINK IS FROM THE DEMOCRAT PERSPECTIVE, THEY GOT THAT CHIP REAUTHORIZATION IN SIX YEARS AND I THINK THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CLINTON SHUTDOWN IN THAT WE HAVE A HIGHLY UNPOPULAR CONGRESS, A HIGHLY UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT AND THIS YEAR WE HAVE AN ELECTION. AND SO I THINK IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THERE IS GOING

TO BE LONG-TERM HURT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GIVEN WHO THEY ARE UP AGAINST IN THESE MID TERM ELECTIONS. >> STEPHANIE, WE HAD THE HASH TAG SCHUMER SHUTDOWN, AND TRUMP SHUTDOWN AND IT ALL ADDED UP TO A LOT OF DRAMA, WE ARE ALL GLUED TO OUR TELEVISION SET AT MIDNIGHT. >> I THINK SOPHIE PLACED IT OUT VERY WELL. I THINK THAT WE HAVE YET TO REALLY SEE WHO THE WINNERS AND LOSERS ARE AND THAT BLAME IS GOING TO SHIFT BACK AND FORTH BASED ON WHAT THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT LOOKS LIKE AND HOW THE NEXT FEW WEEKS UNFOLD. I DO THINK, THOUGH, I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO MOVE AWAY FROM AND LOSERS. >> IS THAT REALLY POSSIBLE? >> I MEAN, YOU KNOW, TO SOME DEGREE I DO THINK IT IS IN OUR CONVERSATIONS AROUND KITCHEN TABLES AND CONVERSATIONS WITH POLICYMAKERS. NOW WE HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION TAKING PLACE IN NEW MEXICO. REALLY THINKING FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, WE CAN FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OF THE POLICIES AS SOPHIE POINTED

OUT. CHIP BEING REAUTHORIZED AND ABLE TO SEE THE PREVENTION OF AN INCREASE IN A TAX PREMIUM ON HEALTHCARE. THERE WERE SOME REAL, I THINK, WINS OUT OF THE SHORT TERM SPENDING BILL, BUT I DO ALSO SUPPORT WHAT CONGRESSWOMAN GRISHAM HAS SAID AND LUJAN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY NEED TO THINK THROUGH WHAT A LONG-TERM SOLUTION IS. WE CAN'T KEEP GOING FROM CR TO CR BECAUSE OF THE INSTABILITY THAT YOU POINTED OUT. MAYBE THERE HASN'T BEEN DIRECT IMPACT LIKE THIS TIME IN PARTICULAR ON THE CONTRACTORS AND THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES OR INDIVIDUAL ON CITIZENS AS A WHOLE BUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOT THAT STABILITY I THINK DOES IMPACT WORK PRODUCT AND IT DOES IMPACT THE CLIMATE. >> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, WHILE YOU'RE ROLLING THERE, SENATOR'S HEINRICH AND UDALL, THEY VOTED FOR THE STOP GAP AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ROLLBACK THAT DEMOCRATS CAVED. DID YOU SEE. >> THE WINNERS AND LOSERS THING IS RALLY NOT ONE WE SHOULD BE OPERATING ON.

YOU SEE FROM THE PROPONENTS OF DACA WHO ARE REALLY EXCITED AND TRYING TO ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO TAKE A POSITION ON THAT NOW AND REALLY WANTED TO SEE OUR SENATE DELEGATION HOLD THE LINE ON THAT. THEY WERE DISAPPOINTED. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I ALSO GET WHY SENATOR UDALL AND HEINRICH DID WHAT THEY DID IN SUPPORTING THE SHORT-TERM SPENDING BILL BECAUSE I THINK THEY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE A SOLID COMMITMENT FROM MCCONNELL TO REALLY TRULY ADDRESS BOTH DACA, BORDER SECURITY, MILITARY SPENDING AND A NUMBER OF OTHER CRITICAL ISSUES. WE HAVE SEEN THOSE PROMISES OVER AND OVER AGAIN BUT THEY HAVE SOME LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT THEY HAVEN'T HAD IN THE PAST. THIS WAS GOING TO BE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION. THE OTHER INTERESTING PIECE IS SENATOR MCCONNELL WAS VERY CLEAR IN THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO WAIT FOR A GREEN LIGHT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. THERE IS GOING TO BE A BIPARTISAN CONVERSATION AND HOPEFULLY OUT OF THAT CONVERSATION SOME REAL POLICY THAT COULD BE A COMPROMISE. >> THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID

THAT, TOM, CUT YOU OFF THERE, THAT IS A FRAMEWORK, POSSIBLY, GETS BACK NEXT WEEK, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THERE, BUT BRING IT BACK CLOSER TO HOME AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE GOT ALSO A CLOUDING OVER THIS, LOTS OF STORIES ON FACEBOOK AND THE NEWS OF ICE AGENTS GOING ON BUSES AND ASKING FOR ID, AND FAMILIES BEING SEPARATED AND THE POLISH DOCTOR THAT HAS BEEN IN THE U.S. FOR 40 YEARS. PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT THAT. MEANWHILE ALL THIS IS GOING ON BEFORE WE GET TO WHAT STEPHANIE IS TALKING ABOUT, SOME KIND OF RESOLUTION ON THIS. >> WELL, THERE ARE MULTIPLE NARRATIVES TAKING PLACE. THERE IS THE NARRATIVE IN THAT'S TAKING PLACE FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. THERE IS THE BACK STORY, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE FEDERAL AGENTS AND, YOU KNOW, TAKING A WHOLE DIFFERENT TACT ALTOGETHER AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS. THEN THE OTHER NARRATIVE THAT I AM SURPRISED HASN'T REALLY

BEEN TALKED ABOUT MUCH IN NEW MEXICO, TO THE QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO SENATOR HEINRICH AND UDALL. THEY VOTED FOR IT BECAUSE THEY KNEW HOW RELIANT NEW MEXICO IS ON THAT FEDERAL DOLLAR, AND TAKING THAT NARRATIVE EVEN TO THE STATE LEVEL WITH THE LEGISLATURE MEETING RIGHT NOW IS THERE IS REALLY -- NOBODY REALLY SEES THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE ARE RELIANT, WE ARE TOO RELIANT UPON FEDERAL FUNDING. AND, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER OUR STATE GETS TO A POINT OF POTENTIAL PARALYSIS BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENS IN ANOTHER STATE, THAT SHOULD SEND UP A LOT OF FLARES TO SAY WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS AND FIND WAYS TO GET OFF THE FEDERAL DOLE OR DIVERSIFY THE ECONOMY, WHICH ARE THINGS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL, NOT JUST WITH THE MARTINEZ ADMINISTRATION BUT WITH RICHARDSON, JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION. EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT IT, NOBODY IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. >> EXACTLY RIGHT. A MINUTE LEFT HERE. THE ISSUE IS THE WALL, SORT OF CLOUDING ALL THIS AS WELL. OUR ANGLE OF ATTACK ON THIS IN NEW MEXICO HAS BEEN VERY

INTERESTING LATELY. THE GOVERNOR HAS COME OUT AND SAID SHE IS NOT GOING TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS BUT W HAVE SOME LOCAL LEGISLATORS SAYING WE WANT A WAY TO STOP THIS. IT'S A VERY INTERESTING THING AS A BORDER STATE. IT'S NOT JUST THEORY. >> THERE ARE LANDOWNERS IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE STATE WHO ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THERE IS EMINENT DOMAIN AND THEY'LL LOSE PARTS OF THAT PROPERTY. SO, YEAH, THE INTERESTING THING IN WASHINGTON, THOUGH, IS IT IS LESS TALK, I THINK, ABOUT A PHYSICAL WALL. YEAH IT COMES BACK AROUND THE PRESIDENT BRINGS IT BACK AROUND, BUT AT LEAST IN SOME OF THE DEALS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IT IS MORE STAFFING, TECHNOLOGY, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT MIGHT BE -- I MEAN I FORGOT WHO IT WAS, A CONGRESS PERSON WHO SAID ESSENTIALLY, I THINK THIS IS A DUMB WASTE OF MONEY, BUT IF THIS IS WHAT WE DO NOT TO HAVE A WALL, OKAY, LET'S PUT MORE MONEY INTO OFFICERS AND TECHNOLOGY AND THAT ACTUALLY COULD BENEFIT NEW MEXICO, IF WE HAVE -- THAT

SOUNDS TERRIBLE. I DON'T EVEN WANT TO SAY THAT. PROBABLY SOME OF THAT MONEY WILL COME TO US. THE TRUTH IS SO MUCH OF OUR ECONOMY IS RELIANT ON IMMIGRANTS THAT IT IS HARD TO SAY, WALL, NOT WALL. >> IT IS A LITTLE MORE NUANCE THAN THAT. >> WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE LINE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT A CALL FOR THE HEAD OF THE PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TO RESIGN. HAVE TAUGHT CIVICS AND NOT KNOW ABOUT MANIFEST DESTINY, THE THING THAT CAN BE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T HAD EXPOSURE TO THAT CONCEPT OR DON'T REMEMBER IT FROM SCHOOL, ET CETERA, IS THAT IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A GENOCIDAL POLICY.

>> THE TOPIC OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE IS FRONT AND CENTER. THANKS IN PART TO THE ME TOO MOVEMENT BUT THE FIGHT TO PROTECT WOMEN'S RIGHTS ON THE JOB GOES BACK MORE THAN YOUR DECADES. LIN FARLEY WAS AT THE CENTER OF THAT FIGHT BACK IN THE 1970'S WHEN SHE WROTE THE BOOK SEXUAL SHAKEDOWN. MS. FARLEY IS ALSO CREDITED WITH COINING THE TERM SEXUAL HARASSMENT. SHE FIRST USED IT WHEN SHE WAS AN INSTRUCTOR AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND USED IT PUBLICLY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A HEARING OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. SHE LIVES IN SANTA FE NOW AND RECENTLY SAT DOWN WITH CORRESPONDENT MEGAN KAMERICK TO TALK ABOUT LINGERING BARRIERS TO A TRULY EQUAL WORKPLACE AND HOW TO TEAR THEM DOWN. THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN THIS INTERVIEW THAT SOME MIGHT FIND UNCOMFORTABLE, SOME OF THE WORDS ARE IN VIOLATION OF FCC RULES ABOUT APPROPRIATE ON-AIR CONTENT. AND AS YOU'LL HEAR, MS. FARLEY THINKS IT IS IMPORTANT TO USE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WHEN TALKING ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT, EVEN IF IT MAKES PEOPLE CRINGE. BUT OUT OF A SENSE OF CAUTION ABOUT OUR LICENSE, WE ARE BLEEPING OUT THE MOST

CONTROVERSIAL WORDS AND PHRASES FROM THIS INTERVIEW. IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE UNALTERED VERSION, HEAD TO OUR WEBSITE AT NEWMEXICOINFOCUS.ORG. WHILE YOU ARE THERE, LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT OUR WE THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU ABOUT THE BEST WAYS TO COVER IT. NOW, HERE IS MEGAN AND SPECIAL GUEST, LIN FARLEY. >> WITH THE REVELATIONS OF POWERFUL MEN ABUSING THEIR ROLES IN WORKPLACES, THERE IS MOMENTUM TO CREATE REAL CHANGE AROUND SEXUAL HARASSMENT. LIN FARLEY, THANKS FOR COMING IN TO GIVE US SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT. YOU FIRST USED THE TERM SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN PUBLIC IN 1975 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. HOW DID YOU LEARN THIS WAS SUCH A WIDESPREAD EXPERIENCE FOR SO MANY WOMEN. >> I WAS TEACHING AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND I HAD A MIXTURE OF CO-ED FROM ALL OVER THE AND I WAS TEACHING A 15 CREDIT FIELD STUDY COURSE ON WOMEN IN WORK. AND I WAS GOING TO BE PUTTING THESE KIDS OUT IN THE FIELD

WITH WELFARE MOTHERS AND UNION WORKERS AND GIVE THEM A TASTE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO THE PEOPLE THAT THEY WOULD, QUOTE, BE ADMINISTERING TO LATER ON. I STARTED GETTING NERVOUS BECAUSE I THOUGHT, WELL, I WONDER WHAT THEIR WORK EXPERIENCE IS. WE ARE GOING TO BE WITH WORKING WOMEN. SO I DID A LITTLE CONSCIOUSNESS RAISING IN WHICH THEY TALKED ABOUT THEIR WORK EXPERIENCE AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE KIDS -- I HAD 15 KIDS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY -- HAD ALREADY HAD AN EXPERIENCE OF EITHER BEING FIRED OR LEAVING A JOB BECAUSE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. WE DIDN'T HAVE A NAME FOR IT. WHAT THEY SAID WAS, OH, HE HIT ON ME AND JUST WOULDN'T TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER. OR THE GUY WAS JUST A SEXUAL SNAKE. I MEAN, THE LANGUAGE THAT WE USED AND I WALKED OUT OF THE ROOM AND I THOUGHT, OH, MY GOD, THIS IS AN ISSUE. AND I JUST BECAME LIKE SOMEONE POSSESSED. EVERY WOMAN I MET, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY, BY THE WAY HAS ANYTHING LIKE THIS EVER HAPPENED TO YOU AND ALMOST INVARIABLY THE WOMAN WOULD GO,

OH, HONEY, HAVE YOU GOT ALL DAY. HOW MANY EXPERIENCES WOULD YOU WANT TO HEAR ABOUT? SO, IT JUST WENT FROM THERE. IT WAS LIKE A SNOWBALL AND SOMEONE TOLD ME THERE WAS A WOMAN NAMED CARMITA WOOD WHO HAD GONE AS FAR AS SHE COULD GO IN THE SECRETARIAL POOL. >> AT CORNELL? >> AT CORNELL AND HAD BEEN HARASSED BY A FAMOUS -- VERY FAMOUS SCIENTIST AT CORNELL. AND THEN SHE HAD BEEN TURNED DOWN FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. SO, WE GOT TOGETHER AND I SAID, WE WILL APPEAL THE UNEMPLOYMENT RULING BUT WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO BE A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE ISSUE? BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE. AND I SAID, I DON'T WANT AN ANSWER RIGHT AWAY. I WANT YOU TO GO HOME AND THINK ABOUT IT, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BECOME VERY FAMOUS. YOU'RE GOING TO BE NOTORIOUS. YOU'RE GOING TO BE ONE OF THE FIRST WOMEN REALLY TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE. SO, SHE WENT HOME, TALKED WITH

HER FAMILY AND MADE THE DECISION, YES, AND CAME BACK AND THAT WAS SORT OF THE BEGINNING. WE DID APPEAL HER UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIM. WE LOST. WE DID A SPEAK OUT AND I PRESENTED THE TESTIMONY AT THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND MANY FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS THERE. >> THE TIMES COVERED THAT HEARING. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT ARTICLE CAME OUT? >> WELL, PEOPLE WERE SORT OF BLOWN OUT BECAUSE -- AND I WAS VERY SCARED, I HAVE TO ADMIT. MY HANDS WERE SHAKING WHEN I READ MY TESTIMONY BECAUSE THE WAY WE HAD DEALT WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT UP TO THIS TIME WAS BY MAKING A JOKE. OH, SHE IS JUST AN OLD MAID. SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO TAKE A JOKE. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? COME ON LADY, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. I THOUGHT THEY COULD START LAUGHING. PEOPLE COULD START MINIMIZING THIS, BUT HOLMES NORTON PICKED UP ON IT RIGHT AWAY AND ENID NEMY WHO WAS IN THE ROOM

PICKED UP ON IT RIGHT AWAY. AND ENID NEMY SAID, I WANT TO GO BACK AND TALK TO THE POWERS THAT BE. I WANT TO COME TO ITHACA AND DO A STORY AND I SAID GREAT. THAT IS WHAT SHE DID. SHE DID THE FIRST NATIONALLY SYNDICATED STORY THAT USED THE PHRASE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN ON THE JOB AND THEN THERE WAS NO PUTTING THE GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE. WE GOT LETTERS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND PEOPLE SENT QUARTERS, DIMES, DOLLARS. FIVE DOLLAR BILLS. WOMEN SAID, I CAN'T BELIEVE SOMEBODY IS FINALLY TALKING ABOUT THIS. IT WAS AN INCREDIBLE OUTPOURING AND THAT WAS VERY ENERGIZING FOR US. IT WAS JUST LIKE WE WERE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. WE WERE DOING SOMETHING VALUABLE AND WE JUST KEPT GOING FROM THERE. >> WHAT WERE SOME OF THE EGREGIOUS EXPERIENCES THAT WOMEN TOLD YOU ABOUT ON THE JOB? >> IT RAN THE WHOLE GAMUT AND PEOPLE TEND TO FOCUS ON WHAT AMOUNTS TO RAPE OR WHAT PROSTITUTION. I'LL GIVE YOU THE JOB IF

YOU'LL SLEEP WITH ME OR YOU'LL GIVE ME A BLOW JOB IN THE BACK ROOM IN THE AFTERNOON. BUT ONE OF THE STORIES, I REMEMBER WAS A WOMAN WHO SAID EVERY MORNING HER BOSS CAME IN AND HE SAID, HI, BLEEP, HOW THEY HANGING TODAY? AND AFTER A WHILE, SHE JUST COULDN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE. A LOT OF WOMEN, I THINK, EXPERIENCE, WHAT WE CONSIDER LESSER FORMS OF HARASSMENT, ARE ACTUALLY NOT LESSER FORMS OF HARASSMENT. IT BUILDS UP OVER TIME AND IT IS STRESSFUL. THAT IS WHY THE WORD HARASSMENT IS CRITICAL. I COULD HAVE CALLED IT MANY OTHER THINGS. BUT, WHAT GOT THE CLOSEST, AS FAR AS I COULD SEE, WAS TO SAY, SEXUAL HARASSMENT. SO IT INCLUDES THE VERBAL DENIGRATION. IT INCLUDES THE KIND OF SEXIST COMMENTARY THAT JUST NEVER STOPS. THEN IT GOES ON TO TOUCHING AND FEELING AND TO MORE SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE. IT GOES THE WHOLE GAMUT.

>> WHY WAS IT ACTUALLY IMPORTANT TO GIVE A NAME TO THIS? >> WE HAD ALL BEEN -- WOMEN HAD BEEN EXPERIENCING THIS BUT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A COMMON NAME, WE WEREN'T CONNECTING WITH ONE ANOTHER. SO, YOU KNOW, JANE OVER HERE WAS CALLING IT ONE THING AND SUSAN WAS CALLING IT ANOTHER AND SOMEBODY ELSE SAYING SOMETHING ELSE AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR TO ME WHEN I WALKED OUT OF THAT CLASSROOM WE HAD TO HAVE A NAME. WE ALL HAD TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAD TO HAVE A NAME FOR THIS BEHAVIOR. IT TOOK ME A WHILE, ABOUT TWO WEEKS. I BRAIN STORMED WITH EVERYBODY AND IT WAS VERY HARD TO KIND OF PIN IT DOWN. I DON'T KNOW WHY. WAS IT INTIMIDATION? WAS IT BLACKMAIL? WAS IT EXTORTION? FINALLY, I THINK, SEXUAL HARASSMENT CAME ABOUT AS CLOSE AS WE WERE GOING TO GET. >> YOUR BOOK CAME OUT AND A DOCUMENTARY WAS BASED ON IT. YOU WERE ON ALL THE MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS.

WHAT REACTIONS WERE YOU GETTING AT THE TIME FROM MEDIA AND FROM CORPORATIONS? >> EVERYONE TREATED IT AS A GROUND-BREAKING WORK, WHICH IT WAS. SO, I WOULD ARRIVE FOR THE TV SHOW AND THE WOMAN PRODUCER WOULD COME OUT AND SAY, OH, LIN, WE ARE SO HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE, VERY GROUND-BREAKING WORK, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, BUT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN SHE WOULD USE THE NAME OF THE MALE HOST, JOHNNY OR JACK OR JIM OR MURPH, ARE GOING TO APPEAR TO ATTACK YOU BECAUSE WE THINK THAT IS BETTER BOX OFFICE. I SAID, OKAY, BECAUSE I JUST WAS TRYING TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT THERE. BUT OVER TIME, IT GOT HARD. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU CAN'T DEFEND YOURSELF, WHEN YOU JUST -- I WOULD JUST SMILE AND LET THEM SAY THEIR STUFF AND I WOULD TRY TO TALK TO THE AUDIENCE AND GET THE INFORMATION OUT THERE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I REALLY CARED ABOUT. THERE WAS ONLY ONE SHOW THAT I

EVER WALKED OFF. >> REALLY? >> IT WAS IN CHICAGO AND IT WAS A RADIO SHOW. THE MAN WAS VERY NICE AND POLITE AND SAID IT WAS GROUND-BREAKING WORK AND THEN TWO YOUNG GIRLS CALLED IN. THEY WERE WORKING AT A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND THEY HAD TO PUT OUT. THEY HAD TO HAVE SEX WITH THE BOSS IN ORDER TO KEEP THEIR JOBS. AND THEY WERE REALLY UPSET AND WANTED HELP. I COULD HEAR THAT AND WHEN THE CALL ENDED, THE GUY CALLED THEM LITTLE WHORES. >> ON THE AIR? >> ON THE AIR. HE SAID, THOSE LITTLE WHORES, WHAT DO THEY THINK THEY ARE DOING? AND I JUST WENT WHOA. YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT TO ME BUT YOU CANNOT INSULT YOUNG WOMEN WHO CALL INTO THIS SHOW BECAUSE I AM APPEARING ON IT. I JUST TOOK THE MICROPHONE OFF AND I SAID, WE'RE DONE.

I WALKED OFF. I THOUGHT, OH, I AM GOING TO HEAR MCGRAW HILL. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THEY TELL YOU WHEN YOU GO ON TOUR IS DON'T LEAVE THE PERSON WITH ANY DEAD AIR TIME. BE A GOOD GUEST. >> THAT IS YOUR PUBLISHER. >> RIGHT, SO I WAS A VERY BAD GUEST AND I LEFT HIM WITH ABOUT 10 MINUTES OF DEAD AIR TIME BUT IT DIDN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY. MCGRAW HILL, WHEN I TALKED TO THEM, THEY SAID, SALES ARE SOARING AGAIN. CAN YOU DO IT AGAIN TOMORROW. >> WHAT CHANGES DID YOU START TO SEE IN TERMS OF LAWS IN FEDERAL AGENCIES. >> WELL, YOU KNOW, EEOC WAS VERY RESPONSIVE. >> EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. >> YES. >> AND ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON WAS NOT HEAD OF THE EEOC THEN BUT SHORTLY AFTERWARD SHE WAS. STARTED FILING CASES WITH THE EEOC. I TALK ABOUT DIANE WILLIAMS IN THE BOOK WHO WAS THE FIRST WOMAN, BLACK WOMAN, TO SUE THE

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. SHE WON HER CASE. A MALE ATTORNEY TOOK HER CASE. THEY WERE EARLY DAYS AND HER CASE WAS, I THINK, SIGNIFICANT. MONUMENTAL MAYBE. SO, WE HAD THOSE ISOLATED CASES AND THEN WE BEGAN TO SEE CLASS ACTIONS. MITSUBISHI, I THINK IT WAS 350 WOMEN SIGNED ON AND THEY GOT A NICE SETTLEMENT. IN THE BEGINNING THE SETTLEMENTS WERE SMALL. THEY GOT LARGER AND LARGER AS TIME WENT ON. YOU BEGAN TO SEE CASE LAW. YOU BEGAN TO SEE A DEVELOPMENT AND UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS A KIND OF SEX DISCRIMINATION, SEXUAL HARASSMENT. IT WAS JUST AS VALID AS SEX DISCRIMINATION AND SHOULD BE TREATED WITH SERIOUSNESS AND COULD BE LITIGATED UNDER THE PREVAILING SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION LAW.

THERE WAS A STEADY DEVELOPMENT OF LEGAL CASES. >> YOU WROTE IN THE BOOK IN 1978 THAT, AND QUOTING YOU, UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND HOW SEXUAL HARASSMENT HAS BEEN USED TO KEEP WOMEN IN LINE AND THE WAY THIS COERCION INTERACTS WITH WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS, WOMEN WILL REMAIN AN EXPLOITED UNDERCLASS. HERE WE ARE 40 YEARS LATER, CLEARLY THIS IS STILL A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM. WHY? >> BECAUSE IT HAS TAKEN ME 40 YEARS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO STOP SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE. IT IS SIMPLE. WE NEED PARITY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMAN IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY IN THE WORKPLACE. IF A MAN LOOKS AROUND AND HE SEES NOTHING BUT OTHER MEN THAT HE HAS TO REPORT TO, HE IS GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SEXUAL HARASS SOMEBODY, IF THAT IS WHAT HE IS INCLINED TO DO. BUT IF HE LOOKS AROUND AND HE SEES, OH, FOUR MEN AND SIX WOMEN THAT HE HAS TO REPORT

TO, HE IS NOT GOING TO HARASS. IT IS THAT SIMPLE AND WE HAVE TO REALLY LOOK AT WHO WE ARE PUTTING IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY; SUPERVISOR, MANAGER, WITHIN THE WORK PLACE. ALMOST INVARIABLY THEY ARE MALE. THEY ARE NOT FEMALE. THAT IS WHAT IS KEEPING SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN PLACE. I DON'T CARE, GRETCHEN CARLSON GOT 20 MILLION. IT ISN'T GOING TO STOP SEXUAL HARASSMENT. >> YOU WROTE YOU AN OPINION PIECE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES A FEW MONTHS AGO, SAYING, I COINED THE TERM SEXUAL HARASSMENT. CORPORATIONS STOLE IT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? >> A LOT OF CORPORATIONS JUMPED ON IT OR SLOWLY OVER TIME. THERE WAS A MOVIE, THE WORKPLACE HUSTLE THAT WAS DONE THAT WAS SHOWN BY VIRTUALLY -- >> BASED ON YOUR BOOK? >> -- EVERY MAJOR CORPORATION IN AMERICA DID A TRAINING. UTILIZING THE WORKPLACE HUSTLE, WHICH WAS BASED ON SEXUAL SHAKEDOWN. SO LIP SERVICE WAS GIVEN

TO THE IDEA THIS IS NOT OKAY, BUT IT WAS LIP SERVICE. AND IT WAS ALMOST LIKE SOME GUY TOLD ME IT WAS ALMOST LIKE A TRAINING SEMINAR OF HOW TO DO IT. I MEAN, WE ARE LAUGHING ABOUT IT BUT WHEN HE TOLD ME THAT, I MEAN, I REMEMBER THINKING, OH, MY GOD, YOU KNOW, SO GUYS ARE GOING, THEY ARE THINKING, OH, I DIDN'T THINK OF THAT BEFORE, I DIDN'T HAVE IDEA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. AGAIN, UNTIL WE SEE PARITY BETWEEN THE SEXES IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY WE ARE NOT GOING THE STOP IT. AND YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE TRAINING IN THE WORLD AND IT IS NOT GOING TO ERADICATE SEXUAL HARASSMENT. SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS, THE CORPORATIONS SORT OF TOOK THE PHRASE OVER AND THEY SANITIZED IT. AND THE WAY THEY SANITIZED IT, AND THE MEDIA IS COMPLICIT, EVERYBODY IS COMPLICIT, IS, WE DON'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THE DOWN AND DIRTY DETAILS OF WHAT SEXUAL HARASSMENT MEANS. SO WE HAVE THIS KIND OF NICE PHRASE, BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

DOES IT MEAN (BLEEP) IN THE AFTERNOON IN THE BACK ROOM? DOES IT MEAN THE MANAGER WHO LIKES TO DO IT ON TOP OF THE BOARD ROOM TABLE? IS IT THE WOMAN WHO HAS TO CRAWL UNDER THE DESK TO GIVE A MAN A BLOW JOB WHILE HE IS TALKING ON THE PHONE? THE STORIES THAT I HAVE HEARD ARE JUST -- WE NEED TO SAY THE DETAILS AND NEED TO STOP RELYING ON THAT PHRASE. WE NEED TO HEAR THE NITTY GRITTY DETAILS OF THIS. I GOT AN AWARD, I THINK, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE HARDBACK AND THE PAPERBACK BY THE AFLCIO AND THEY FLEW ME OUT TO MICHIGAN TO PRESENT ME WITH THE AWARD AND THEY WERE GOING TO PUT A CLAUSE AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THEIR UNION CONTRACTS WHICH WAS GREAT. AT THE SAME TIME THAT I WAS THERE, THREE BLACK WOMEN CAME TO ME AND TOLD ME SOME OF THE MOST VICIOUS, UGLY HARASSMENT STORIES I HAD HEARD INCLUDING FECES PUT

IN THEIR LOCKER AT WORK. THIS WAS UGLY STUFF. AND THEY WERE MANAGEMENT. THEY WEREN'T UNION AND NOBODY WAS ABOUT TO HELP THEM. >> YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT. WHO ARE THE MISSING VOICES IN THE MOST RECENT REVELATIONS ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT? >> CLEARLY THE MISSING VOICES ARE THE WORKING CLASS WOMEN, THE WOMEN WHO DO MOST OF THE WORK IN AMERICA TODAY. ACTRESSES, IN GOVERNMENT, EVEN SOME ACADEMIA AND PUBLISHING, THOSE ARE THE VOICES THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE WAITRESS. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE FACTORY WORKER. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE DOMESTIC WORKER OR THE AGRICULTURAL WORKER, ALTHOUGH SOMEONE TOLD ME YESTERDAY THAT A LATINO ORGANIZATION WROTE A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE WOMEN WHO WERE COMING OUT IN HOLLYWOOD. AND I WAS SO EXCITED TO HEAR THAT BECAUSE IF WE CAN HAVE ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE LATINA FARM WORKERS AND THE ACTRESSES IN

HOLLYWOOD, THIS WILL BE REVOLUTIONARY BECAUSE YOU HAVE WOMEN WITHOUT ACCESS TO MEDIA HOOKING UP WITH WOMEN WHO DO HAVE ACCESS TO MEDIA AND THEY CAN SUPPORT AND HELP EACH OTHER. >> WELL, YOU AND MANY OTHERS HAVE SAID WE SPOKE ABOUT ATTENTION ON WOMEN OF PRIVILEGE ESPECIALLY IN HOLLYWOOD, BUT THE GOLDEN GLOBES AWARDS, MANY OF THESE WOMEN USE THAT PRIVILEGE TO CALL FOR CHANGE, TO INCLUDE OTHER WOMEN IN THAT CALL. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT COULD BE A KEY WAY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. >> YEAH. I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO -- THERE IS A TENDENCY BY SOME PEOPLE SAY, WELL, BLACK WOMEN HAVE IT WORSE OR WORKING CLASS WOMEN HAVE IT WORSE. I WOULD LIKE TO SORT OF SEE A STOP TO THAT. I THINK WOMEN ACROSS THE BOARD, WHETHER THEY ARE PROFESSIONAL ACTRESSES OR THEY ARE DOMESTIC WORKERS, GET SEXUALLY

HARASSED. LET'S NOT BRING IN ALL THE USUAL WAYS THAT WE DIVIDE OURSELVES AND LET'S START THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN UNITE, HOW WE CAN COME TOGETHER. ALL WOMEN ARE SEXUALLY HARASSED AND I DON'T THINK ANY ONE GROUP HAS IT ESPECIALLY WORSE THAN ANY OTHER GROUP AND I AM HOPING WE CAN SEE A UNITY MOVEMENT START TO FORM THAT WOULD TAKE CONCRETE STEPS TOWARDS STOPPING HARASSMENT SO THAT IF A WOMAN IS UP FOR A PROMOTION, SHE IS GOING TO BE A MANAGER, SHE IS GOING TO BE A SUPERVISOR, LET'S LET WOMEN UNITE BEHIND HER TO SEE THAT SHE GETS THAT JOB. BECAUSE, THAT IS JUST ONE MORE PERSON THAT IS GOING TO PREVENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT. >> THE MEDIA HAS PROVIDED A MEGA PHONE FOR ALL THESE STORIES THAT HAVE COME OUT, A PLATFORM FOR VICTIMS TO SHARE WHAT HAPPENS, BUT WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE SYSTEMS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES, LIKE

HR DEPARTMENTS OR PEOPLE IN THE ORGANIZATIONS WHO APPARENTLY KNEW ABOUT SOME OF THESE PREDATORS FOR YEARS >> THAT IS THE WHOLE THING. HR DEPARTMENTS WERE A FAILURE. SOMETIMES IT SEEMED AS IF MY BOOK SIMPLY CREATED ANOTHER LITTLE JOB NICHE FOR MIDDLE CLASS WOMEN TO BE THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OFFICER IN THE HR BUT SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANY POWER. WHAT WAS SHE GOING TO DO? WAS SHE GOING TO TAKE ON THE MANAGEMENT? YOU COME TO HER WITH A STORY AND SHE IS CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE. SHE IS SYMPATHETIC TO YOUR STORY BUT SHE HAS TO REPORT TO MANAGEMENT AND THEY ARE THE PEOPLE THAT EMPLOY HER. IT NEVER WENT VERY FAR AND I DON'T THINK IT EVER WILL GO FAR. I DON'T THINK THAT HR DEPARTMENTS ARE THE ANSWER. WE NEED A WOMEN'S UNION. WE NEED A NATIONAL WORKING WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION WITH SOME TEETH, YEAH. >> YOU KNOW THE WOMEN YOU FIRST MET AT CORNELL, HAD NEARLY ALL, YOU SAID, LEFT JOBS BECAUSE OF HARASSMENT. DECADES LATER, WITH ALL THE RECENT REVELATIONS WE HAVE

HEARD, MANY WOMEN SAY THEY MOVED ON, SOME LEFT THE PROFESSION AND ABANDONED THEIR CAREER GOALS. WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD TRULY CHANGE THAT AND KEEP THOSE OPPORTUNITIES OPEN SO WOMEN CAN STAY IN THE WORKPLACE >> I THINK IF WOMEN CAN CONTINUE TO SUPPORT EACH OTHER, WOMEN WILL NOT HAVE TO LEAVE JOBS BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND AND YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE AND -- DID YOU SEE THE MOVIE WITH CHARLIE -- SHE WAS A MINER. >> I WANTED TO SEE THAT I KNOW WHICH ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT IS BASED ON A REAL STORY. >> THOSE WOMEN'S WERE VICIOUSLY SEXUALLY HARASSED. THE OTHER THING YOU NEED TO REMEMBER AND THAT MOVIE POINTS THIS UP IS, SEXUAL HARASSMENT HAS BEEN USED BY EMPLOYERS IN TWO WAYS. TO KIND OF OPPRESS WORKING WOMEN. ONE IS, IT KEEPS THEM OUT OF NONTRADITIONAL JOB AREAS. YOU SEE THAT MOVIE ABOUT MINERS, THE WOMEN ARE TRYING TO DO TRADITIONAL MALE JOB AREA AND

MEN DON'T WANT THEM THERE AND THEY ARE FIGHTING AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS A MAJOR TECHNIQUE THAT MEN TRADITIONALLY USE WHEN WOMEN ARE COMING INTO A JOB AREA WHERE THEY DON'T WANT THEM. WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL FEMALE JOB SPHERE IT IS USED TO DEPRESS WAGES AND KEEP UNIONIZATION OUT. SO, YOU SEE IT WITH YOUNG KIDS. YOU SEE IT IN THE FAST FOOD INDUSTRY. IT IS ALMOST LIKE EMPLOYERS TURN A BLIND EYE BECAUSE IT KEEPS TURNOVER HIGH AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT UNIONIZATION. THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SOMEONE BEING THERE FOR A YEAR OR SO, MAYBE DESERVING A RAISE. YOU HAVE ONLY BEEN HERE SIX MONTHS. BECAUSE THE MANAGER WAS HARASSING YOU AND YOU HAD TO GET OUT, BUT THEY DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THAT. IT WORKS IN THEIR FAVOR >> YOU GOT A PH.D. IN PSYCHOLOGY AND WENT ON TO DO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS AFTER YOU WRAPPED UP YOUR BOOK TOURS. WHY?

>> I GOT TIRED OF BEING THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT LADY. IT WAS KIND OF THE HEIGHT OF THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT AND WHEREVER I WENT SOMEBODY WOULD SAY, SHE WROTE THE BOOK ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND WHOEVER HAD AN AX TO GRIND ABOUT THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT WOULD ZERO IN ON ME, AND I WOULD SORT OF LIKE, OH, PLEASE, AND I COULDN'T PUT IT DOWN ON A JOB APPLICATION. AS SOON AS THEY SAW THAT SEXUAL -- I WROTE A BOOK ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND WOMEN ON THE JOB I WAS LABELED TROUBLEMAKER. I WAS A NO GOODNICK. IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE SOMEBODY WOULD ASK ME, WHAT IS THE BOOK ABOUT, AND I WOULD SAY, OH, WOMEN AT WORK. AND YOU KNOW I SHOULD -- >> BEFORE THE INTERNET OBVIOUSLY. >> I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING BECAUSE I WAS BACK-PACKING. AFTER THE MANUSCRIPT HAD BEEN VETTED AND EDITED AND WE WERE GOING TO PRESS, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A LITTLE LAG TIME AND I DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY. I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING AND SO I

WENT BACKPACKING AND I FORGET WHERE I WAS, IT WAS SORT OF AT THE END OF A SUMMER, IT WAS POURING RAIN AND I HAD MY THUMB OUT. I WAS LIKE DESPERATE TO GET A RIDE AND THIS OLDER MAN AND HIS SON PICKED ME UP AND PUT ME IN THE MIDDLE. AND WITHOUT THINKING, THIS IS MY FIRST EXPERIENCE OF WHAT WAS TO COME, THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU TALK, AND I SAID, WELL, I WROTE A BOOK. OH, WHAT IS IT CALLED? SEXUAL SHAKEDOWN, THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN ON THE JOB. WITHIN THREE MINUTES I WAS BACK OF THE CAR STANDING IN THE RAIN AT THE SIDE OF THE ROAD GOING, OH, DEAR. AND THE FATHER SAID, YOU ONE OF THEM LIBERS? AND I SAID, OH, NOT EXACTLY. >> HE MADE YOU GET OUT >> I DIDN'T WANT TO GET THROWN BACK OUT. >> YOU RETIRED TO SANTA FE. YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE MEDIA A LOT IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT BOOK. DO YOU HAVE AN INTEREST IN

RETURNING TO THIS TOPIC NOW? >> I DO. NOT ONLY RETURNING TO THE TOPIC BUT I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN. IT IS TIME FOR US TO TALK ABOUT THE WAY WE SOCIALIZE MEN AND THE WAY MEN -- SO MANY MEN -- LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY. IF WE HAVE VICTIMS IN THE NUMBERS WE SAY WE HAVE AND I BELIEVE WE DO, WE HAVE A HARASSERS IN EQUAL NUMBERS. BUT WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT. WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THE WAY WE SOCIALIZE MEN TO ABUSE WOMEN AND CHILDREN OR TO THINK IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OR EXPLOIT OR ABUSE WOMEN AND CHILDREN. I DID MY DOCTORAL DISSERTATION ON THE SECRET WORLD OF MEN AND I THINK IT IS TIME FOR THAT BOOK TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY. >> WELL, LIN FARLEY, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING AND TALKING TO US. >> IT WAS A PLEASURE. >> WELCOME BACK TO THE LINE. LAST MONTH, SECRETARY DESIGNATE CHRISTOPHER RUSZKOWSKI PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SPOKE

AT A CHARTER SCHOOL CONFERENCE AND TOUTED THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF OUR NATION, SAYING, THIS IS A COUNTRY BUILT OVER THE LAST 250 YEARS ON THINGS LIKE FREEDOM, CHOICE, COMPETITION, OPTIONS, GOING WEST, MANIFEST DESTINY. END QUOTE. DESTINY, A 19TH CENTURY DOCTRINE JUSTIFYING TERRITORIAL EXPANSION BY SETTLERS WAS CRITICIZED BY NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL LEADERS, TEACHERS, UNIONS AND OTHERS. MANY SAID THE COMMENT WAS LACKING IN SENSITIVITY AND SHOWED THAT THE HEAD OF THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT WAS OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE PEOPLE HE WAS APPOINTED TO SERVE. THIS WEEK, DEMOCRATIC STATE SENATOR LINDA LOPEZ CALLED FOR THE SECRETARY DESIGNATE TO RESIGN OVER THE COMMENT SAYING THAT HE STILL HAD NOT EXPLAINED OR PROPERLY APOLOGIZED FOR HIS ILL-ADVISED COMMENTS. START WITH YOU, AS -- I UNDERSTAND YOU SPOKE WITH MR. RUSZKOWSKI RECENTLY. YOU MET HIM AT AN EVENT. I AM NOT SURE IF THIS SUBJECT CAME OUT, BUT I AM CURIOUS YOUR SENSE OF HIM AS YOU MET HIM AND THE SUBJECT MATTERS YOU DID

TALK ABOUT >> IT DIDN'T COME UP. WE WERE DISCUSSING OTHER ITEMS AND STUFF. I THINK HE IS EXTREMELY HE'S EXTREMELY SENSITIVE AS WELL AS FAR AS KNOWING HOW HIS COMMENTS ARE IMPACTED WHICH I THINK WAS WHY HE EXPRESSED REMORSE AS SOON AS HE WAS CALLED OUT ON IT, BUT HE IS A DEMOCRAT. HE'S A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT. HE WORKED FOR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS. HE'S WORKED FOR REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS. A LOT OF THE INITIATIVES HE IS TAKING, REALLY FOCUSED ON WANTING TO HAVE THE STUDENT SUCCEED. HE'S AN EDUCATOR BY TRAINING, TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN MIAMI, CHARTER SCHOOLS IN MARYLAND. AND HE HAS WORKED ON THE ADMINISTRATION SIDE. TO THE ISSUE OF QUALIFICATION, I THINK, HE IS AS QUALIFIED AS ANY OTHER STATE PUBLIC EDUCATION SECRETARY THAT WE HAVE HAD PREVIOUSLY, THAT HAS BEEN NOMINATED, AND I THINK THAT HE REALLY HAS THE BEST INTENTION OF THE SCHOOLS AND THE CHILDREN AT HIS HEART. NOW, I HEARD HIM SPEAK AT AN ECONOMIC FORUM.

HE WAS ASKED THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT IF THE UNIONS ARE HOLDING BACK STUDENTS IN NEW MEXICO. IF HE HAD BEEN TOWING THE COMPANY LINE HE WOULD HAVE JUMPED RIGHT ON IT. HE SAID, NO, UNIONS ARE NOT THE ISSUE. WE HAVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AROUND OUR STATE THAT ARE NOT UNIONIZED THAT ARE HAVING JUST AS MANY ISSUES TO THOSE THAT ARE UNIONIZED. THE FOCUS IS WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP THE CHILDREN. I REALLY RESPECTED THAT. I THOUGHT HE HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A HIT OR GIVE A HIT AND HE DIDN'T. HE WENT BACK TO HIS BRAND. >> KIND OF SHAPING HIM UP FOR US IN THIS DISCUSSION >> STEPHANIE, SPECIFIC TO THE MANIFEST DESTINY COMMENT, IT IS PRETTY SHOCKING WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT. WHAT HAPPENED PARTICULARLY IN OUR PART OF THE COUNTRY, IN OUR STATE SPECIFICALLY. >> MS. LOPEZ, WAS THAT TOO STRONG FOR YOU? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. I THINK SHE IS COMPLETELY IN LINE AND IT IS COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE, I THINK, CALL FOR

I THINK THAT AS HAS BEEN SAID, HIS COMMENTS WERE VERY MUCH OUT OF TOUCH WITH SOME OF THE VALUES THAT SOME NEW MEXICANS HOLD DEAR. AND I THINK THAT HIM SAYING THAT IT JUST SHOWS THAT HE IS OUT O TOUCH. I WILL SAY, THOUGH, TOM, I RESPECT YOUR OPINION AND RESPECT YOUR ANALYSIS OF PEOPLE AND POLICY. SO I FIND IT HEARTENING TO HEAR THAT YOU THINK THAT IT WASN'T MAL-INTENTIONED AND THAT HE DOES HAVE THE STUDENTS BEST INTEREST SO I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER INSTANCES WHERE THE SECRETARY OR ACTING SECRETARY HAS SHOWN SOME, I WOULD SAY, LACK OF LEADERSHIP BECAUSE, I MEAN, YOU LOOK AT FEDERAL FUNDS THAT WERE LOST THAT COULD HAVE GONE TO SEVERAL OF OUR REALLY UNDER-SERVED

SCHOOLS THAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY GO TO PRE K KIDS AND WE KNOW THAT IN NEW MEXICO WE HAVE SUCH A FINITE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES AND THE EARLY ED IS SOMETHING WE HAVE SEEN AND HAS BEEN STUDIED TO ACTUALLY INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES AND TO HELP OUR COMMUNITIES AND THE FACT THAT HE MISSED THE BOAT ON THAT IS ONE PIECE OF IT. HIS POSITION ON SCIENCE FOUNDERS ARE ANOTHER. IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE, PROBABLY THAT IS WHAT SENATOR LOPEZ WAS ALSO LOOKING AT LOOKING IN THE MANIFEST DESTINY COMMENT. I WAS HESITANT TO BRING THAT UP AFTER HEARING TOM'S ASSESSMENT -- HIS OPINION OF -- I WANTED TO SAY GRONKOWSKI, SORRY SECRETARY. >> LET ME MOVE TO SOPHIE. THE ALL PUEBLO COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS PUT A GOOD HIT ON THEM AS ONE COULD IMAGINE. THIS WAS QUITE INSULTING FOR THE COUNCIL. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN HIS HEART, BUT TO HAVE SOMEONE COME OUT AND SORT OF BLURT OUT, WAS

IT MAL-INTENT, WAS IT NOT UNDERSTANDING THE TERM? WE CAN'T REALLY FIGURE IT OUT. >> IT IS HARD TO SAY, IN MY UNDERSTANDING HE TAUGHT CIVICS CLASSES IN THE PAST SO THE THOUGHT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TAUGHT CIVICS AND NOT KNOW ABOUT THINK THAT CAN BE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T HAD EXPOSURE TO THAT CONCEPT OR DON'T REMEMBER FROM SCHOOL, ET CETERA, IS THAT IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A GENOCIDAL POLICY. AND TO USE IT FLIPPANTLY, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE LAW, THE FIRST PERSON THAT MENTIONS THE NAZIS LOSES ON THE INTERNET, BUT IN SOME PARTS OF THE COUNTRY AND CERTAINLY IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY, IT WOULD BE LIKE A POLITICIAN SAYING, WELL, POLITICIANS DO, BUT, A PUBLIC SERVANT STANDING UP

AND SAYING, THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON SLAVERY IN A POSITIVE WAY. WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING, I HOPE, THAT THAT IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE VIEW OF OUR HISTORY AND THE THEME IS TRUE MANIFEST DESTINY >> ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE COLONIALISM AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN TERMS OF WEST WARD EXPANSION AND INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS HERE IN NEW MEXICO HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY IMPACTED. THAT IS UNDERSTATEMENT NEGATIVELY IMPACTED. THAT IS PARTICULARLY TRUE. >> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING FROM 1840S, THAT IS WHERE THE TERM FIRST CAME ABOUT. WE CAN REMEMBER THERE IS A FAMOUS PIECE OF ART WITH ANGLES LOOKING OVER SETTLERS, SHOOTING INDIANS. I AM AMAZED YOU COULD BE SOMEONE IN THIS STATE AND TO HAVE A LITTLE CHECK IN YOUR MIND JUST WHEN IT GETS TO YOUR TONGUE TO SAY, THAT IS NOT GOING TO THE WORK HERE, EVEN IF WE DON'T KNOW. YOUR SENSE WHEN YOU FIRST HEARD HIM. ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE HIM A

MULLIGAN AND MOVE ON OR IS MS. LOPEZ RIGHT HERE, SOMETHING HE NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR HERE? >> WELL, THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE SECRETARY HEART. IT RAISES AN INTERESTING QUESTION. TO ERR IS HUMAN. TO FORGIVE IS DIVINE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE DEBATED IN THE SENATE WHEN WE BEGAN WEB CASTING, BECAUSE I INTRODUCED THAT BILL AND THEN REPRESENTATIVE ARNOLD JONES STARTED TO WEB CAST FROM HER COMPUTER, WAS ARCHIVING THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE DEBATES, RIGHT? THAT WAS A CONCERN AMONG THE LEADERSHIP. BECAUSE, THE REALITY IS, YOU KNOW, WE ALL MISSPEAK. DID SECRETARY RUSZKOWSKI MISSPEAK OR DID HE HAVE SOME MAL-INTENT IN HIS HEART. THE REALITY IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHILOSOPHICAL ORIGINS OF MANIFEST DESTINY, I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY AGREEMENT. SOME PEOPLE FEEL IT IS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO TAKE LAND FROM INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.

OTHER PEOPLE FELT, YOU KNOW, THE CONTINENT WAS MEANT TO BE, YOU KNOW, RUN BY AMERICANS. SO, ANYWAY, THIS IS CONCERNING TO ME, BECAUSE THE REALITY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ALL MISSPEAK AND I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT OPRAH RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. EVERYBODY LOVES THIS LADY AND THEY SHOULD, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS PROBABLY SOME STUFF SHE HAS SAID SOMEWHERE THAT WOULD COME OUT AND RUIN HER REPUTATION, ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE CONDI RICE RUN FOR PRESIDENT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS FAIR TO JUDGE SOMEONE BASED ON A FEW THINGS THAT THEY SAY. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH HIS RESPONSES SINCE THEN? DO YOU FEEL LIKE HE HAS HEARD FOLKS WHO HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS? >> ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. HE SAID HE MISSPOKE. HE SAID IF HE HAD TO DO IT OVER AGAIN HE WOULD USE SOME DIFFERENT WORDS. I THINK THE BIGGER PICTURE TOO

IS JUST WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH PUBLIC ED. MAYBE NOT THE BIGGER PICTURE BUT ANOTHER THING WE NEED TO LOOK AT IS WE TALK ABOUT JOB GROWTH. WE TALK ABOUT OUR MARKET IN TERMS OF BRINGING IN COMPANIES AND SO FORTH. LOOK AT OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM. WE ARE DOING BETTER AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE MARTINEZ ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR THAT. >> GOOD POINT. TOM, JUST UNDER A MINUTE. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE TO THE WASHINGTON POST, YOU KNOW, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN SAY THINGS BUT IT IS LEFT UP TO THE REST OF US TO GET PAST IT. WE HAVE TO KIND OF FIX THE DAMAGE HERE A LITTLE BIT. WHERE DO YOU GO FROM HERE ON THIS? DOES IT WASH OUT IN THE CULTURE? >> I THINK IT IS UP TO THE SECRETARY DESIGNATE TO REALLY EXPRESS WHAT HIS HEART IS THROUGH FUTURE ACTIONS. I DON'T THINK -- I THINK HE HAS ADDRESSED THE ISSUE, NEEDS TO MOVE ON. I THINK HIS PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER FOR PED NEEDS TO PULL IT BACK A COUPLE OF NOTCHES BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW -- MULTIPLE VOICES

>> EXACTLY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS OUT OF LINE. IT MADE FOR INTERESTING HEADLINES AND NEWS ARTICLES BUT DIDN'T HELP ADVANCE THE ARGUMENT AT ALL. >> GOOD POINT. HAVE TO END. WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE LINE, WE'LL LOOK AT THE ROLE OF LOBBYISTS IN STATE GOVERNMENT. >> NEW MEXICO INFOCUS IS ON TWITTER AND FACEBOOK. FOLLOW US ONLINE TO GET UPDATES ON UPCOMING SHOWS AND TELL US WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE TOP NEWS STORIES OF THE WEEK. THEN, TUNE IN BECAUSE WE MAY SHARE YOUR COMMENTS ON THE LINE. >> WELCOME BACK TO THE LINE. NOW, HERE IS A QUESTION. DOES EVERYONE NEED A LOBBYIST? THAT WAS A HEADLINE TO THE ARTICLE BY ANDREW OXFORD, A REPORTER WITH THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN WHO WROTE ABOUT WHAT HE CALLED AN ARMY OF LOBBYISTS THAT WILL BE WORKING IN SANTA FE YEAR. THESE LOBBYISTS REPRESENT TOWNS, COUNTIES, VILLAGES, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, COLLEGES AND EVEN CHARTER SCHOOLS, MOSTLY, IF NOT ENTIRELY, ON THE TAXPAYER

DIME. AND THE ARTICLE POINTED OUT THAT IT MIGHT BE SEEN AS A WASTE OF MONEY AND SORT OF COUNTER-INTUITIVE TO A LOT OF CITIZENS OUT THERE THAT MUNICIPALITIES NEED TO HIRE PAID LOBBYISTS, SOMETIMES ON THE TAXPAYER DIME, TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS THAT DO THE SAME THING. I'M CURIOUS FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW AS AN EX-SENATOR WHY IS THAT? WHY DO WE NEED LOBBYISTS TO DO WORK THAT REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT WOULD SEEM TO BE HIRED TO DO? >> GOOD QUESTION. DOES EVERYONE NEED A LOBBYIST? NO. I DON'T NEED A LOBBYIST, RIGHT, BUT A LOT OF LOBBYISTS REALLY PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT FUNCTION IN FOR INSTANCE, YOU HAVE LEGISLATORS THAT MEET WITH DIFFERENT GROUPS OF TEACHER UNIONS, PRO LIFE, PRO CHOICE FOLKS, THE REALTORS UP FRONT BEFORE THEY RUN FOR OFFICE. THEY HEAR ABOUT ISSUES AND MAYBE BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS GROUP OR THAT GROUP DECIDES THAT THIS PERSON IS GOING TO BE A FRIEND OR FOE IN THE LEGISLATURE, THEY GIVE THEM MONEY.

THERE IS 2,000 BILLS EVERY YEAR. WE HAVE THREE TIMES AS MANY BILLS IN NEW MEXICO AS THEY DO IN COLORADO OR ARIZONA. BOTH THOSE STATES HAVE THREE TIMES -- WE HAVE -- THREE TIMES THE POPULATION. WE HAVE TOO MANY BILLS. MORE EYES ON A PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS BETTER. >> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS, HOWEVER. WHO WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE TO TALK ABOUT A TOWN OR MUNICIPALITY'S NEED OR WANTS? WOULD IT BE THE TOWN MANAGER OR MAYOR OR A LOBBYIST? AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS, WHY CAN'T THOSE FOLKS DO THAT FOR THEMSELVES OR THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVE VERSUS A PAID LOBBYIST, PAID TWO TO FOUR GRAND A MONTH? WHY IS THAT EVEN NECESSARY? >> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION AND I THINK THE BIGGER QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT A COUNTY MANAGER SPENDING 60 DAYS IN SANTA FE? OR DO YOU WANT A COUNTY MANAGER WORKING IN THE COUNTY FULFILLING WHATEVER JOB DESCRIPTION THAT HE HAS. >> FAIR ENOUGH. SOPHIE, WHAT DO YOU THINK ON

THAT QUESTION. WHO GETS SERVED HERE IN THIS SYSTEM? >> UNDER OUR CURRENT SYSTEM, A MUNICIPALITY IS PROBABLY CRAZY FOR THEM IN THE LEGISLATURE. WE HAVE AN UNPAID LEGISLATURE. IT IS NOT A FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE, ALTHOUGH, I KNOW THAT OUR LEGISLATORS DO SPEND QUITE A BIT OF THEIR OWN TIME IN THE PURSUIT OF LEGISLATIVE DUTIES. I THINK AT THE SAME TIME WHEN YOU SAY, DO THE COUNTY MANAGERS HAVE THE TIME TO BE DOING THAT WORK DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, DO OUR LEGISLATORS HAVE THE TIME TO BE DOING THAT ON TOP OF WHAT THEY ARE ALREADY DOING, OUTSIDE OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION? SO, ABSENT A FULL-TIME LEGISLATIVE BODY AND MORE ROBUST GOVERNMENT THAT HAS PEOPLE ON STAFF WHO CAN HANDLE THAT AND FOR WHOM IT IS THEIR JOB, THIS IS THE OUTSOURCING OF THAT FUNCTION. WE CERTAINLY -- WE ALL LIKE LOBBYISTS OR DON'T LIKE LOBBYISTS DEPENDING ON WHETHER WE AGREE WITH THEIR EMPLOYER AND THE GOALS THEY ARE PURSUING,

BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE A COMMUNITY IN NEW MEXICO AND YOU REALLY NEED MONEY FOR A BRIDGE, YOU REALLY NEED A NEW REC CENTER, YOU NEED WHATEVER IT IS, HOLD HARMLESS, FOR INSTANCE, ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ISSUE, NOT HAVING A LOBBYIST PROBABLY MEANS YOU DON'T GET HEARD AT THE LEVEL THAT IS NECESSARY. >> TOM, SOPHIE MAKES A GOOD POINT ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND THE FACT IN THE ARTICLE, RED RIVER WAS GIVEN AS AN EXAMPLE. NOT A LOT OF FOLKS LIVE IN RED RIVER FULL-TIME BUT THEY HAVE SOME NEEDS TO UPGRADE THEIR WATER SYSTEM AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING. APPROPRIATE TO HIRE A LOBBYIST TO DO THESE THINGS OR I ASK AGAIN IS NOT THE MAYOR OF RED RIVER THE BEST SINGLE VOICE TO GO TO LEGISLATORS AND SAY THESE ARE MY NEEDS >> YEAH. I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT BUT THE ELECTEDS TALKING HAS A HUGE IMPACT. YOU HAVE APPOINTEDS, THOUGH,

WHO ARE GOING TO TALK TO ELECTEDS AND THAT COULD BE SOMETIMES A WASTE OF MONEY. HIGHER EDUCATION, FOR EXAMPLE. YOU HAVE UNIVERSITIES, YOU HAVE COMMUNITY COLLEGES, WHICH FOR THEIR OWN REASONS AND IT IS ALL STRATEGIC, AND, BUT, THEY ALSO HAVE STAFF THAT GO UP THERE ON A REGULAR BASIS AND, YOU KNOW, IS REALLY USING A LOT OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF TO MONITOR A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS A GOOD USE OF FUNDS. I WOULD SAY PROBABLY NOT. IT MIGHT BE A BIT OVERKILL BUT SEEING HOW MUCH RELIANCE THERE IS IN A LOT OF THESE ARENAS ON STATE FUNDING, IT IS A GOOD MOVE TO MAKE. THE OTHER ASPECT IS THAT LOBBYISTS, AS SOPHIE MENTIONED, ARE GETTING PAID MUCH MORE THAN LEGISLATORS, SO, IT BRINGS -- THEY'LL ALWAYS GET PAID MORE. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE A PAID LEGISLATURE, WHICH WE NEED, BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS GOING TO GET PAID MORE. AND MORE EYES ON A PIECE OF LEGISLATION, I AM OKAY WITH

THAT, AS LONG AS THEY ARE OBJECTIVE EYES. WHEN YOU GET SPECIAL INTEREST INDUSTRIES PROVIDING THOSE EYES, WEIRD THINGS HAPPEN. >> WE'RE DOWN TO TWO MINUTES. THIS IS A BIG DOUGH FLOATING AROUND. THIS IS NOT JUST PEOPLE MAKING 500 BUCKS A MONTH. WE'RE TALKING BIG DOUGH FROM OIL AND GAS AND ALL THESE ENTITIES. >> YOU PROVIDED A GREAT SEGUE. IT DOES DEPEND ON THE OBJECTIVITY OR LACK THEREOF OF BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS THAT WE SEE WITHIN THE LOBBYING INDUSTRY AS SOPHIE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WITH WHOM THEY ARE BEING EMPLOYED BY REALLY DOES, I THINK, SPEAK VOLUMES TO HOW LEGISLATORS ARE GOING TO REACT, HOW THEY ARE GOING TO RESPOND. I DO THINK THAT THE MONEY IN ALL OF THIS, BOTH IN POLITICS AND THE LOBBYING INDUSTRY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, STEVE TERRELL'S ARTICLE IN THE NEW MEXICAN WHERE HE OUTLINES THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT ARE GOING TO CORPORATE LOBBYISTS REALLY SHOWS THE IMPACT AND HOW

DISPROPORTIONATE IT IS TO THE EVERYDAY HARD WORKING NEW MEXICO FAMILY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE TIME AND RESOURCES AND CAPACITY TO GO UP AND LOBBY ON THEIR OWN BEHALF. THIS SPEAKS TO THE NEED FOR GREATER CIVIC ENGAGEMENT FOR US CREATING AND REALLY SUPPORTING A SYSTEM OF POLICY MAKING THAT ALLOWS FOR GREATER PUBLIC INPUT AND I THINK THE WEBCASTING IS A GREAT EXAMPLE AND -- >> SOPHIE, FRED NATHAN FROM THINK NEW MEXICO MAKES AN INTERESTING POINT, THAT HIS POINT IS THIS SHOWS HOW INEFFICIENT, UNTRANSPARENT, THIS REALLY ALL IS WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS NEED FOR LOBBYIST, THAT IF WE DID OUR BUSINESS IN A DIFFERENT KIND OF WAY, YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO HAVE ALL THESE LOBBYISTS. WITHOUT KNOWING ALL THE DETAILS OF WHAT MR. NATHAN IS EXACTLY TALKING ABOUT THERE, I THINK I DON'T DISAGREE WITH HIM IN THE BIG PICTURE. THIS IS NOT A FULLY FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM. ANYBODY WHO SPENT TIME AROUND THE 30 DAY OR 60 DAY KNOWS THAT.

HOWEVER, THIS IS LIFE OR DEATH FOR THESE SMALLER COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND FOR APS, LARGER ENTITIES AS WELL, AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT IT IS. WE HAVEN'T MANAGED THAT REFORM. >> THANK YOU ALL. WE HAVE TO WRAP IT UP. WE HAVE TO WRAP UP THIS DISCUSSION NOW, BUT STAY TUNED IN THE COMING WEEKS FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND OTHER NEWS OF THE DAY. >> I AM GENE GRANT, THANKS FOR JOINING US FOR NEW MEXICO INFOCUS AND AS ALWAYS WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND EFFORT TO STAY INFORMED AND ENGAGED. SEE YOU NEXT WEEK, INFOCUS. PROVIDED BY THE MCCUNE

CHARITABLE FOUNDATION AND