Dear Editor:
Re: Presidio “County rejects funding for new district judge assistant,” pub. date April 3, 2025
In the article about the vote by the Presidio County Commissioners Court against entering an interlocal agreement to fund a second district court coordinator, there was a statement that it was not clear why the district court needed another assistant absent a significant uptick in court cases. This is an understandable position. We offer this as our perspective as attorneys who practice in the 394th District court.
The current court coordinator, Lori Holguin, has performed the work of at least two people for the last 12 years. She has done so with excellence and without complaint. In addition to the regular full-time work of a court coordinator managing civil and criminal dockets in five counties, Ms. Holguin operates the court recorder system that replaced a full-time position of a court stenographer and that is required for almost every court hearing. When a person who has been arrested or charged with a crime cannot afford a lawyer, she facilitates a process that results in immediate appointment of a public defender. She patiently helps pro se litigants (people without lawyers) navigate Zoom technology so they can appear in court remotely –– a particular benefit to folks in border communities who live far from the courthouse –– and makes sure a Spanish language interpreter is available for non-English speakers. She juggles in-person and remote court settings across the five counties, which can involve emergency matters such as Child Protective Services proceedings.
We have known Ms. Holguin to work on weekends, late evenings, and to take very few vacations. She meets the highest standards for efficiency, courtesy, and professionalism that one could hope for from a public servant. Still the demands of what she is tasked with exceed any reasonable person’s workload. The clerks themselves have their own full-time jobs and cannot be expected to take on additional administrative tasks.
We understand the county has budget constraints and the commissioners have a duty to their constituents to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. We believe that county taxpayers have been well-served by the work of their district court coordinator and that a second coordinator is necessary and will ensure continued timely and fair access to courts for litigants, defendants, families, jurors, and the public.
Julie Balovich
Sarah Sibley Klein
Elizabeth J. Lewis
James G. McDermott II
Hector Mendez
Rod Ponton
Robert Soza
Sandra Stewart
Sandra Wilson
Editor’s note: This letter was received before the Commissioners Court met and once again denied the funding request, but approved a one-time payment. See story, page 1.
_____
Open Letter to Doug Burgum
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior
Dear Secretary Burgum:
We are writing to you today with a sense of urgency on behalf of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks and the Association of National Park Rangers. Our organizations offer over 50,000 years of experience as leaders and stewards of our national parks. Our collective membership has over 4,000 current, former, and retired National Park Service (NPS) employees and volunteers, including dozens of employees who have lived and worked at Big Bend National Park during their careers.
We request your immediate attention to an ongoing matter that has the potential to put one of America’s most treasured national parks at risk. We believe you can resolve the growing concern regarding transparency and the military presence at Big Bend National Park, without compromising the administration’s commitment to border security. We strongly believe there is no incompatibility between border security and the wise, cautious stewardship of our nation’s heritage as embodied in the National Park System.
There has been considerable media attention regarding the president’s decision to send United States Army troops to assist the United States Border Patrol (USBP) along the border in the Big Bend Sector, which includes Big Bend National Park. However, the administration’s activities have already significantly decreased illegal border activity, prior to the Army’s deployment to Big Bend. And in terms of illegal crossings, Big Bend National Park is the quietest section of the least active sector.
Historically, the relationship between NPS and USBP at Big Bend National Park has been outstanding. NPS and USBP staff cooperate daily to protect multiple national interests at Big Bend National Park, which include conservation (including protection of wilderness character), public enjoyment, and security of the nation’s borders. These missions have proven to be complementary as there is mutual respect for each agency’s important role.
The rules of engagement between NPS and USBP are governed by the 2006 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Interior – Regarding Cooperative National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands along the United States’ Borders. As the Army is at Big Bend National Park in support of the USBP mission, we expect that the MOU applies, and the rules of engagement would be the same. However, there has been no public disclosure regarding the rules of engagement, or that relationship, and we would like to see transparency regarding this issue.
Many of the 118 miles of the Rio Grande that border the park to the south are in deep, roadless canyons. The steep canyon walls, plus the fact that the lands across the border are the most remote and rugged in northern Mexico, limit access to the border for illegal crossings. Since illegal activity in the park is at a low level, USBP does not have a need to drive off-road. We urge you to ensure that this precedent is followed and that the large Stryker combat vehicles remain on paved roads to avoid damaging narrow, unpaved, backcountry roads.
As there is no indication that the military will construct border barriers in Big Bend National Park, the exemptions of federal environmental and other laws for that purpose don’t apply. Hence there is no legal authority for either the military or Homeland Security to disregard environmental compliance, or any laws or regulations governing national parks.
Our concern is not the presence of the Army along the border, or even in the national park, but the potential for damage to irreplaceable resources, park infrastructure, and the risk to the visitor experience at one of the most-loved national parks in the country. Most importantly, there has been no transparency, so we do not know if there is a commitment by the Army to avoid damaging park resources or infrastructure. Will the military troops, new to the terrain and the USBP relationship, respect the park’s roadless areas and recommended wilderness? Will there be an encampment, and if so, where will it be, and how will it deal with water, sanitation, trash, and other related issues? Will there be fuel transfer operations in the park? The park is also in a crisis drought situation now so potable water is very limited, and it’s possible the additional activity could impact existing park visitors, residents, or operations.
There must be greater transparency and, as park managers have not been able to speak freely, we ask you to ensure there is open communication. The NPS should be at the table and have the opportunity to speak publicly about what’s happening in Big Bend National Park. The public should know there is a commitment by all parties to protect Big Bend National Park while enhancing border security.
While we hope this operation will be an example of interagency and civilian-military cooperation, we are greatly concerned over the potential for lasting damage to the resources and infrastructure of one of America’s most sacred places, and the reputation of the Department of the Interior and National Park Service as the stewards of America’s irreplaceable spaces. We urge you to ensure that the NPS is part of the decision-making process, that efforts to enhance border security will be executed without jeopardizing the continued protection and operation of Big Bend National Park, and to communicate this information to local communities, stakeholders, partners, and the public.Sincerely,
Phil Francis
Chair, Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks