Mike Voorhees, whose educational background includes degrees in geography and engineering, moved to Albuquerque in 1995 to help grow the aerospace sector. Since then, he has been involved in various community organizations and activities, including a Habitat for Humanity house build, open space trail repair, and advocacy for safety and education in hot air ballooning.  In 2024, after exposing multiple improper actions of the City’s Planning Department, he was elected to the Executive Committee of the West Side Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (WSCONA) as Member at Large.  In 2004, he was presented the FBI Director’s Award for “Exceptional Service in the Public Interest” for his work protecting and improving the security posture of critical infrastructure in New Mexico against both natural and human-caused threats.

MIKE VOORHEES GUEST OPINION COLUMN

Following is a guest opinion column written by Mike Voorhees entitled
“ABQ City Councilor Dan Lewis Sponsors Sinister Legislation to Gut Your Rights and Silence Neighborhoods To Favor Developers; Violates Both Court Order and Settlement Agreement”

EDITOR’S DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest opinion column by Mike Voorhees do not necessarily reflect those of www.petedinelli.com blog. Mr. Voorhees gave consent to publish his guest column and he was not compensated for it. The guest column is being published as a public service announcement to educate citizens of Albuquerque.

GOOD CITY LEGISLATION DOES NOT QUIETLY APPEAR OVER THE HOLIDAYS TO BE VOTED ON AT THE FIRST COUNCIL MEETING OF THE NEW YEAR

A little background:  Most cities rarely make major changes to their zoning ordinances, and when they do, it typically goes through a process of community engagement, staff review, and extensive public feedback.  Albuquerque completely overhauled its zoning ordinances in 2017 by adopting the IDO (Integrated Development Ordinance) which was largely written by a consultant according to the wishes of the developer lobby.  Even so, the IDO has been changed every year since, with an average of 100 changes considered each year—most of which lessened protections for neighborhoods, historic districts, parks, open space, and the values of sustainability and livable communities.

The legislative changes are often worded in complex, conflicting, and vague language, requiring thousands of hours of review to understand the consequences and give thoughtful and cogent feedback in hopes that the city adopts and maintains fair and equitable rules to grow our city in a way that meets shared values and protects Albuquerque’s character and natural setting.

Much of the public feedback comes from Neighborhood Associations.  These are volunteer-run, non-partisan organizations made up of residents from all walks of life who care about their community, and are willing to give countless hours of their time in public service.  They give voice to the concerns of their neighbors, promote sustainable neighborhoods, and advocate for planning that considers the whole community and not just the profit-driven motives of developers.

WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

Even though the City Council agreed to move to a more manageable [Integrated Development Ordinance] IDO update process every two years, Dan Lewis introduced surprise update legislation (O-24-69) over the holidays to be heard tomorrow, Monday, Jan 6, 2025!

 If you read the legislation’s introduction it makes some ridiculous and misleading statements.  It complains that the IDO—which was written to advance the interests of developers in the first place—still “imposed substantial burdens on City staff and developers”.  In other words, even the existing very pro-developer ordinances don’t allow developers to crush opposition from neighborhoods, indigenous populations, or advocates of our parks and open space.  It also tries to couch this legislation as somehow responding to the “housing and homelessness crisis”.  This legislation will do the opposite, and data from across the country shows this.  Where legislation with similar provisions have passed, corporate and hedge-fund ownership of rental properties has increased, rental price collusion has been on the rise, and housing affordability has decreased.

 SO WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?

The City of Albuquerque lost a lawsuit in District Court that WSCONA [Westside Coalition Of Neighborhood Associations] and I filed when Dan Lewis acted improperly on behalf of developers to gut scenic protection rules near Petroglyph National Monument.  His behavior was specifically cited in Judge Ortega’s Opinion and Order in that case (No. D-202-CV-2023-03961).  The City appealed and lost again in the Court of Appeals.  What apparently irked Dan Lewis is that the Judge reversed the Council’s action and barred him from participating in the remand of this issue.  Undeterred, he thought he could “cleverly” get around the judge’s order by passing legislation so sweeping, that no neighborhood association could hope to win in the future, or even have standing to appeal anything, going forward.  I will be surprised if he and any councilors who support him aren’t found to be in contempt of court.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

The lawsuit the City lost involved property used by a member of the Asphalt Pavement Association of New Mexico (APANM) which hired Dan Lewis as its Executive Director.  You might recall that Dan Lewis signed a Settlement Agreement with the State Ethics Commission promising to recuse himself in all matters that come before the Albuquerque City Council relating to any APANM member.  Since Guzman Construction Solutions, LLC has been associated in various capacities with the property in question in our lawsuit, by proposing sweeping changes to the IDO that could impact the zoning status of that property, Dan Lewis has violated that Settlement Agreement.

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

This legislation guts your rights. It exempts the City from following its own Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) on any property it owns or leases.  That park in your neighborhood, or that open space you use? Maybe Dan Lewis would rather see it converted to a data center or a multi-story self-storage building.  O-24-69 excludes your use of any public land as a basis for standing in any appeal!  Don’t worry, your neighborhood association will save you again, right?  Not if Dan Lewis has his way. O-24-69 states that when the City doesn’t even notify your neighborhood association about variances or hearings, there is no right to appeal on that failure. And it makes neighborhood associations potentially liable for developer attorney fees, but not the reverse! “Try to fund that appeal, annoying community activists!”  Sure it violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 18 of New Mexico Constitution, but who cares?  There are even more sordid details mentioned in the letter to the City Council below that read as though they were lifted from a “Breaking Bad” script, but this should be enough to make your blood boil.  Dan Lewis should resign and crawl back under the rock from whence he came.  In the meantime, call your councilor and tell them to vote no on O-24-69.

Or better yet, sign up to speak against it at tomorrow’s City Council meeting either in person or via Zoom:

https://www.cabq.gov/council/find-your-councilor/public-comments/public-comment-sign-up-jan-6-2025-council-meeting

The following is the letter from the Westside Coalition Of Neighborhood Associations (WSCONA) Executive Committee sent to members of the Albuquerque City Council concerning O-24-69:

January 2, 2025

“Happy New Year, Councilors!

Contempt of Court is a bold move for Albuquerque City Council’s first meeting of 2025.  But here we are.

For those of you who have not been paying attention, or joined the City Council after this case was filed or were relying on the City’s attorneys to keep you out of trouble, let me bring you up to speed.

Beginning in 2022, Councilor Dan Lewis attempted, at the request of an undisclosed client of Consensus Planning, to amend the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) in order to remove a portion of the protections that preserve the views near Petroglyph National Monument. These protections limited building height to a maximum of 15 feet (or 19 feet high with an approved variance) along land near the volcanic escarpment that is cherished by Albuquerque’s residents and visitors and is sacred to 29 Pueblos and Tribes.

This ill-conceived amendment was opposed by City planning staff and voted down by the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC). Undeterred and despite substantiated requests that Councilor Lewis recuse himself, he resurrected the amendment via the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee (LUPZ)—which he chaired at the time—wherein it recommended the amendment to the full City Council, which voted to approve it.

Based upon numerous due process violations, the Westside Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (WSCONA) and I subsequently filed suit in District Court (No. D-202-CV-2023-03961).  The Court ruled in our favor and found as follows:

“The Court holds that Councilor Lewis’s failure to recuse himself from the proceedings in this matter denied Appellants an opportunity for a fair hearing before both the LUPZ and the City Council. As this issue is dispositive, the Court does not reach the other arguments raised by Appellants.”

“The Court holds that Councilor Lewis should have recused himself from considering the Amendment both before the LUPZ and the Council meeting.”

“Councilor Lewis’s statement at the LUPZ, which occurred prior to the Council’s consideration of the proposed amendment, is a clear and unambiguous indication of prejudgment. Finally, Councilor Lewis officially voted on the committee amendment.”

“For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Council is REVERSED. This matter is REMANDED to the Council for a new hearing without Councilor Lewis’s participation.” [emphasis added]

The City appealed this decision in the Court of Appeals and lost.

Now we find that Councilor Lewis has quietly introduced Council Bill No. O-24-69 over the holidays, attempting an end-run around the basis of the Court’s decision, carving out exceptions to the very due process violations cited by Judge Ortega in her decision.

The purpose of Council Bill No. O-24-69 seems to be—in addition to undermining democracy and the property rights of homeowners—entirely designed to allow Councilor Lewis to rig the game in favor of the same undisclosed client of Consensus Planning that was behind the now-reversed amendment. Councilor Lewis is, despite the Court’s order, essentially participating without “participating”.

Council Bill No. O-24-69, blatantly attempts to:

Limit the standing of Neighborhood Associations;

• Limit an individual’s standing by excluding individuals use of public lands as a basis for standing;
• Eliminate failure to notify Neighborhood Associations as a basis for appeal or remand;
• Add the expensive risk to Neighborhood Associations of having to pay the attorney fees of developers when Neighborhood Association’s appeals of approvals are denied, but allows developers to have no liability to pay attorney fees of Neighborhood Associations when developers appeal a denial, regardless of the decision;
• Allow amendments by the request of a developer or other unknown party to bypass the EPC or LUPZ and go straight to the City Council;
• Add a burdensome requirement for a Neighborhood Association to file a petition in order to have standing in any appeal;
• Allow a City Councilor to NOT be recused even when that councilor sponsors an amendment;

While this bill would impose numerous policies detrimental to Albuquerque’s residents that are directly opposed by Councilor Lewis’ own constituents, you might wonder why he is so adamant about refusing to accept the Court’s ruling on this matter and risk contempt charges?

Perhaps a little context is needed. When WSCONA and I filed this and a related lawsuit, we collected funds from concerned citizens to pay our attorney, including through Go Fund Me campaigns. Unknown to us at the time, a party connected to opponents of our lawsuits created a fake FACEBOOK account deceptively using my name and likeness, wherein the account holder made vile, racist posts, disparaged Native Americans, made false statements about our lawyer, and used copyrighted photos I had taken without obtaining my permission, while also linking to the real Go Fund Me campaigns, all in an apparent effort to discredit me and to discourage others from supporting our fundraising campaign.  This fraudulent cyber activity violated multiple Federal and State laws.

Because of this, I was able to obtain a subpoena in Federal Court, which was served on Meta Platforms, Inc., to disclose the data related to the fraudulent Facebook account.  In compliance, the data provided by Meta led back to entities in Albuquerque; Las Vegas, Nevada; and, more troublingly, the City of Patzcuaro in Michoacán de Ocampo, Mexico.

Why was this criminal activity traceable back to Michoacán, a region known primarily for both drug cartels and illegal avocado production?  Why would anyone there have any interest in an 18-acre parcel of land in Albuquerque and be willing to commit cyber crime to advance that interest?  Why would Councilor Lewis be so compelled to do the bidding of an undisclosed client of Consensus Planning and thus risk contempt of Court for himself and his fellow Councilors?

The answers to this are probably best left to law enforcement, but that these questions logically arise from the bill before you should at least give you pause.

The provisions of this bill run counter to due process rights guaranteed under both the New Mexico and U.S. Constitutions.  They will not be effective in limiting rights in the courts, and will ultimately send plaintiffs directly to the courts, thus costing the City more money fighting lawsuits, rather than dealing with and sometimes disposing of issues at the administrative level.  In addition to being unconstitutional, it will likely be an irresponsible waste of taxpayer dollars.

This issue is even more troubling given the history Councilor Lewis has with the State Ethics Commission and the Settlement Agreement he reached with it.  That settlement included the following provisions:

“To settle this matter, City Council President Lewis has agreed to recuse himself in all matters that come before the Albuquerque City Council relating to the AQCB [the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Joint Air Quality Control Board] (or any successor entity to the AQCB), the APANM [Asphalt Pavement Association of New Mexico], or any APANM member, so long as he serves on the Albuquerque City Council and also is employed by APANM.” [emphasis added]

Dan Lewis remains the Executive Director of APANM.  Guzman Construction Solutions LLC is a member of APANM.  Guzman Construction Solutions LLC maintains a commercial water tank on the property in question and operated heavy equipment on the property for years in violation of the City’s zoning ordinances. There is clearly an interest by Guzman Construction Solutions LLC in the fate of this property.  While members of LLCs in New Mexico are not listed publicly, and thus full property ownership information when any LLC is involved in zoning approvals often remains opaque to the public, it is essential that public officials recuse themselves when there is even the appearance of impropriety.  In this case, quite the opposite has occurred.

Councilman Lewis, in his current attempt to alter the rules of the IDO in a matter relating to Guzman Construction Solutions LLC, has violated the terms of his Settlement Agreement with the State Ethics Commission.  And the purpose of Councilor Lewis’ proposed amendment is clearly to alter the results of any remanded hearing on amending the view protection rules in favor of developers, including presumably the undisclosed client of Consensus Planning, in effective violation of his Court-ordered exclusion from participating in that process.

Perhaps there is an innocent explanation why Councilor Lewis quietly introduced this legislation over the holidays when most residents were enjoying time off with families and friends, and are not generally checking for surprise additions to the City Council’s agenda.  Perhaps there is a reasonable basis for why Councilor Lewis decided to ignore the Council’s adopted policy to only make changes to the IDO every other year.  None readily come to mind.

As a resident of District 5, my councilor is Dan Lewis.  I am appalled at his behavior and his brazen attempt to put private commercial interests above his duty to his constituents, the City Charter, the rule of law, or even a lukewarm attempt at ethical behavior.

An astute reading of the above would lead a wise City Councilor to avoid supporting or having anything to do with Councilman Lewis going forward, as his motives remain suspect at best.

Do the right thing and reject Council Bill No. O-24-69.

Sincerely,

Mike Voorhees, Member at Large

On behalf of all members of the WSCONA Executive Committee with one voluntary recusal.

CC: Elizabeth Haley, René Horvath, Jim Price, Jane Baechle, Richard Schaefer, & Frank Comfort

DINELLI COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Albuquerque City Councilor Dan Lewis’ sponsorship of Council Bill No. O-24-69 is about as underhanded as it gets. His nefarious conduct as described by Mike Voorhees is the very type of ethically challenged conduct that gives elected officials bad reputations and who the public simply cannot trust.

During the last three years he has been an Albuquerque City Councilor, Dan Lewis has exhibited a pattern of downright hostility towards constituents who oppose or who disagree with his votes on policy and legislation. Lewis has a reputation during city council meetings of berating, insulting or ignoring members of the public who disagree with him. Lewis is known to text on his cell phone  or be on his phone during city council public comments.  Lewis is known to go out of his way to offend citizens by leaving meetings very early on not to return.

Dan Lewis ran unsuccessfully for Mayor against Tim Keller in 2017 when Keller won the 2017 runoff by a decisive landslide with 62.20% to Lewis 37.8% and it is said by many city hall observers he still harbors bitterness over his loss to Tim Keller.  District 5 Conservative Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis previously served 2 terms on the City Council from 2009 to 2017. On November 2, 2021 Lewis defeated incumbent Democrat Cynthia Borrego who had replaced him.

Since his return to the city council in 2021, Lewis has engaged in obstruction tactics to carry out a very personal vendetta against Mayor Tim Keller. His tactics include demanding additional confirmation hearings on already council approved Keller director appointments, such as the City Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer, so he could disparage their job performance and insult them during public hearings he presided over with the full intent not to vote for their confirmation.  In 2021, immediately upon being sworn in, Lewis introduced legislation to repeal pandemic era legislation he disagreed with and that was enacted after he left the council in 2017, with all 4 of his  efforts to repeal failing to his chagrin.

Lewis has already said to media outlets he will not be running for Mayor in 2025, but he has a reputation for misleading and he should not be believed nor trusted not to run for Mayor. To run for Mayor would prohibit him from running for another city council term. Lewis has not said if he will seek another 4-year term on the City Council.  His constituents need to send him a strong message loud and clear that he has worn out his welcome. Lewis needs to move on because he no longer represents the  interests of his District but his own right wing Republican MAGA political agenda. If he does run, he should be opposed.

CONTACT CITY COUNCIL

On Monday, January 6, the Albuquerque City Council will be meeting and will be voting Council Bill No. O-24-69 sponsored by Dan Lewis. Voters and residents are urged to contact and voice their opinion and tell all city councilors to vote NO and reject Council Bill No. O-24-69.  City Council phone numbers and email addresses to the councilors and their council services assistant are:

CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100

CITY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL ANALYST EMAILS

lesanchez@cabq.gov,

bmaceachen@cabq.gov,

joaquinbaca@cabq.gov,

bacajoaquin9@gmail.com,

kpena@cabq.gov,

cquezada@cabq.gov,

bbassan@cabq.gov,

dawnmarie@cabq.gov,

danlewis@cabq.gov,

galvarez@cabq.gov,

nrogers@cabq.gov,

district6@cabq.gov,

tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov,

tanyaj@cabq.gov,

dchampine@cabq.gov,

rgrout@cabq.gov

rrmiller@cabq.gov

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the City of Albuquerque is an independent entity that has the responsibility for promoting accountability, integrity, efficiency, and transparency in the governance of the City of Albuquerque. Through inspections, reviews, and investigations, the OIG identifies systemic corruption vulnerabilities and recommends improvements to reduce the City’s exposure to fraud, waste, and abuse. The Office’s goal is to improve the function of City departments to ensure they are effective and efficient for the constituents of Albuquerque.

According to City Ordinance 2-17-2, the Inspector General’s goals are to:

1. Conduct investigations in an efficient, impartial, equitable, and objective manner;
2. Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in city activities including all city contracts and partnerships;
3. Deter criminal activity through independence in fact and appearance, investigation and interdiction; and
4. Propose ways to increase the city’s legal, fiscal and ethical accountability to insure that tax payers’ dollars are spent in a manner consistent with the highest standards of local governments.

https://www.cabq.gov/inspectorgeneral/our-department

OIG REPORT FILED

On November 24, the City of Albuquerque Office of Inspector General issued a final Investigation Report with the entitled subject matter “Alleged Improper Use of the Child Care Stabilization Grant Funds by Inappropriately Compensating City Employees Through Bonuses.”

On January 2, the investigation report was released and posted.

You can read the entire 24 page Inspector General Report here:

https://www.cabq.gov/inspectorgeneral/documents/23-0013-c-_23-0014-c-_23-0019-c_investigative_report-final.pdf/view

file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/23-0005-N_Grant_Bonus__FINAL_12.02.2024%20(2).pdf

OIG CONCLUSIONS

The city of Albuquerque’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation concluded that a group of city employees, including top administrators in  Mayor Tim Keller’s Family & Community Services Department, received more than $280,000 in improper bonuses using money intended to sustain “childcare providers” during the COVID pandemic.  According to the  investigation report,  the OIG found “questionable expenditure” of federal grant funds to 27 employees between 2021 and 2023. More than 10 recipients, including top managers, received nearly $20,000 each. The grant money was supposed to assist in keeping child care providers’ doors open during the pandemic.  The Family & Community Services Department now operates under the umbrella of the city’s Youth and Family Services and Health, Housing and Homelessness departments.

BONUSES PAID TO KELLER CITY OFFICIALS

The OIG investigation report states in part as follows:

“Twenty-three out of the 27 employees who received premium pay had annual salaries greater than Preschool staff. Five of those salaries were more than double the Preschool staff’s highest paid salary with one almost tripling the salary of the highest-paid Preschool staff.”

In total, $287,972.77 was distributed to 27 city employees, a majority who worked outside the Family and Community Development Department, which oversees childcare in the city. According to the report, pay ranges for preschool are $32,469 to $42,162 annually. The report goes on to say that the pay ranges for the recipients of the “premium payments” range from $32,468.80  to $123,489.60. The bonuses were $3,878.99 to $22,498.03, with the highest payments given to office assistants, fiscal analysts, a fiscal manager, facilities operations coordinator, and a Child & Family Development Division manager.

The OIG investigation revealed $280,000 of federal grant money went to higher-ranking city staff that included the Family and Community Development Department  Deputy Director, fiscal manager and the child and family development division manager. Additionally, two fiscal officers, two payroll specialists and seven fiscal analysts received bonuses.

Twenty-three of the 27 employees received a July 2022 bonus of either $8,533 or $3,878, then in December of the same year, 14 employees received bonuses ranging from $5,400 to $13,000.  Among its findings, the OIG reported bonuses, called premium payments, of up to that $22,498 were paid to employees who earned $32,469 to $123,490 annually. The highest bonus of $22,498 went to the Child and Family Development division manager. The position made $88,000 annually before the “premium pay.”

WHAT REVEALED DURING OIG INTERVIEWS

The OIG employs investigators who conducted extensive  interviews to determine how the federal grant money was used to pay bonuses.

In city employee interviews during the inspector general’s investigation, employees stated the bonuses were for recruitment and retention, and couldn’t give a formula of how they decided  to pay each employee or who would get a bonus.  During one interview, the OIG asked “if there were others in the management chain who approved the list of disbursements. In response, one top ranking department official said a spreadsheet of proposed bonuses ultimately went to the “11th floor” of City Hall. The 11^th floor  is the location of  Mayor Keller’s office and city’s executive staff including the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)  and Chief Operations Officer (COO).

Asked if anyone considered “that maybe teachers and direct support staff for the centers should have received more than the other support staff”, the unidentified division manager stated no, ‘it did not come up,’ and they “wanted to be consistent across the board.”

The OIG learned in one interview that all payments went through top-ranking directors “and then got signed off by the CAO (chief administrative officer).” But the report did not identify the name of the CAO. The CAO position changed hands in 2022 from Sarita Nair to Lawrence Rael, who retired in 2023.

Another top administrator in the Family & Community Services Department told the OIG that no one raised any red flags on who was to get the bonuses, and that official thought “it was a good opportunity to do something good” for the employees.

That administrator was quoted as saying that officials “thought they were protected with the guidance on allowable expenses and having key City Management overseeing and approving the disbursements.”

SOURCE OF FEDERAL FUNDING USED TO PAY BONUSES

The source of the funding for the bonuses paid  came from the federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed on March 11, 2021, for child care stabilization grants to help give financial relief to child care providers and defray unexpected business costs associated with the pandemic and to help stabilize their operations “so that they may continue to provide care.” The federal funding was administered by the state of New Mexico.

In 2021, the Federal Government signed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) aimed at assisting local governments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The city of Albuquerque applied for funding through a series of 21 grants filed to the ECECD for approval of the funds. The OIG report states that the grants were completed by a division manager on behalf of 21 different site managers.

The funding, per the OIG findings, was meant to be paid out to providers and other teachers as a means of retention and “designed to stabilize existing childcare businesses”. In 2022, then city councilors approved the grants and the funding that was approved by the state.

OIG RECOMMENDATIONS

The OIG report does not explicitly recommend disciplinary action. In its recommendations, the OIG recommended the city should determine if the extra pay should be recouped or if the city’s general fund should be tapped to repay the amount improperly disbursed. However, a Keller Administration city division director was quoted in the OIG report as saying that the understanding was that “all employees who conducted work on behalf of the division” would receive bonuses.

OIG’S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE DECLINES TO APPROVE INVESTIGATION REPORT

On January 2, 2025 the OIG’s oversight committee took the unusual action of voting not to approve the OIG report released. The Accountability in Government Oversight Committee, which is comprised of community members appointed by the mayor and City Council, met on November 14 to review and consider the investigative report.  The committee  found the OIG “lacked sufficient jurisdiction under the city’s Inspector General ordinance to investigate one or more of the allegations.”   This is simply a false finding in that according to City Ordinance 2-17-2, the Inspector General’s goals includes  “to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in city activities.”    The committee voted 5-0 against approval, stating in a “cautionary statement” attached to the investigative report that “readers are advised to review this published report and its content with the understanding that the Committee did not approve this report.”

REFERAL MADE TO U.S. ATTORNEY

City Council President Dan Lewis issued the following statement in response to the OIG report saying this:

My office is referring this investigation to the U.S. Attorney due to allegations of federal crimes involving the abuse, misuse, and theft of federal funds allocated to high-ranking members of the Keller administration. These funds, approved by the Council, were intended exclusively for early childhood programs as outlined in the grant’s description. However, they appear to have been unlawfully redirected as cash bonuses for the Mayor’s staff.

KOAT TV new legal analyst and private defense attorney John Day offered this analysis of the referral to the US Attorney:

“The real problem for the city is whether or not the Department of Justice, whether the U.S government is actually going to look at this because, across the country, there have been some pretty aggressive investigations and prosecutions by the federal government of entities and people who misused COVID funds. … The big problem for the city government could be is if the Department of Justice, if the U.S government, starts an investigation and determines that money was misused, that could be a problem.  It’s a tough job being an inspector general. The pushback from the city is pretty intense. They’re denying that anything improper happened. But the investigation by the city’s independent inspector general showed that people got bonuses, city officials got bonuses when the money was supposed to go to the people who are actually doing the work.”

https://www.koat.com/article/mayor-tim-keller-misuse-funds-albuquerque/63334454

KELLER ADMINISTRATION RESPONDS, LASHES OUT

In response to the OIG report, the Keller Administration responded it did not intentionally misuse the federal grant  funds and did not have direction from the federal government on where to appropriate the funds.

Associate Chief Administrative Officer Carla Martinez released the following statement:

“These were employees that kept childcare centers open during the COVID crisis, these were not bonuses, and these were not inappropriate.  … Once again the OIG is submitting subjective opinions that were unanimously rejected by her own oversight committee comprised of legal and accounting professionals. This grant provided necessary overtime funding for critical early childhood caregiver programs and management during the Covid crisis.”

Alex Bukoski, spokesperson for Mayor Tim Keller’s office,  responded to City Council President Dan Lewis:

“Dan’s comments are at best, a grossly inaccurate overreaction; and worst another in a long line of bitter rants against the Administration since losing his own election bid.”

The links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.cabq.gov/inspectorgeneral/documents/23-0013-c-_23-0014-c-_23-0019-c_investigative_report-final.pdf/view

file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/23-0005-N_Grant_Bonus__FINAL_12.02.2024%20(2).pdf

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/report-city-of-albuquerque-misused-federal-funds-to-give-bonuses-to-high-ranking-staff/

https://www.koat.com/article/mayor-tim-keller-misuse-funds-albuquerque/63334454

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_db61b066-c95f-11ef-9abc-5fc03d5a4358.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

In 2017, Mayor Tim Keller was elected to his first term as Mayor  with great bravado as the white knight State Auditor who stopped “waste, fraud and abuse” and held people accountable for government corruption. That all quickly changed once Keller became Mayor.

Simply put, its nothing but  absolute “waste, fraud and abuse” and downright corruption that the Keller administration would approve the payment of bonuses to city hall officials of $5,400 to $22,000 using funding from child care stabilization grants intended to give financial relief to child care providers and defray unexpected business costs associated with the pandemic.  The Keller Administration excuse that there was no intent to do something wrong and that it did not have direction from the federal government on where to appropriate the funds rings very hollow and is very disingenuous. The Keller Administration made absolutely no effort to seek guidance on what they could do with the funds.  The blunt truth is Keller and his executive staff saw a pool of federal money they could divert and give out as bonuses to reward 27 employees to the tune of $280,000.

The OIG’s oversight committee taking  the unusual action of voting not to approve the OIG report released is nothing more than a “white wash” of what happened. The committee  found the OIG “lacked sufficient jurisdiction under the city’s Inspector General ordinance to investigate one or more of the allegations.”  The conclusion is a false finding by the Accountability in Government Oversight Committee that the OIG overstepped its authority.  According to City Ordinance 2-17-2, the Inspector General’s goals includes  “to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in city activities.”    The OIG was doing its job of identifying  “waste, fraud and abuse.”  Instead of being alarmed, the committee appointed by the Mayor and the City Council,  have elected to essentially condone the nefarious conduct of the Keller Administration instead of demanding accountability and refund of the bonuses.

City Council President Dan Lewis’ referral to the United State Attorney Office is commendable, but is likely a waste of time and will be ignored given that a new US Attorney for NM will be appointed by Trump. The Keller Administration’s nasty little reaction and personal attack against Lewis for the referral to the New Mexico US Attorney came as no surprise given how Keller has already made it known he is seeking a third 4 year term  and he wants to avoid any and all controversy and accusations of corruption.

The City Council needs to take immediate and aggressive  action on its own and it has the authority to do so. The federal grant funds, were accepted and approved by the Council for use and  were intended exclusively for early childhood programs as outlined in the grant’s description.  Therefor the city council has the authority to enact a resolution requiring the return of the $280,000 by those who were paid the bonuses. Any thing less would be the city council condoning the Keller Administrations nefarious conduct.

Project 2025 is a proposed presidential transition project and consists of a series of detailed policy proposals put together by hundreds of high-profile conservatives. Those proposals are laid out in a roughly 900-page book entitled “Mandate for Leadership, The Conservative Promise.”  Project 2025 was written by at least 144 people who worked for Trump’s first administration or his campaign.

Project 2025 was spearheaded by the conservative  Heritage Foundation and  included an advisory board consisting of more than 100 conservative groups. It is led by two former Trump administration officials,  Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management and serves as director of the project, and Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to Trump and who was the project’s associate director.

Project 2025’s policy proposals are dramatic and sweeping and include a  wide range of topics from foreign affairs,  to public  education, to health care, to law enforcement and to immigration. Project 2025 proposes enforcing laws that make it illegal to mail abortion pills over state lines, criminalizing pornography and eliminating the Department of Education. The project also advocates a sweeping elimination of environmental regulations and a crackdown on programs to boost diversity in the workplace, which the project argues are broadly illegal.

Conservatives have  spent years envisioning how to concentrate power in Presidency  and impose a decidedly ultra rightward shift across the United States Government and society itself. The project calls for a broad expansion in presidential power by boosting the number of political appointees and increasing the president’s authority over the Justice Department and the military.  That last proposal has alarmed many law enforcement officials, who say it will undermine the department’s ability to conduct investigations without political interference.

Participants in Project 2025 assembled lists of thousands of conservatives that could be slotted into politically appointed positions throughout the government in the opening days of a second Trump administration. Behind the scenes, the project’s affiliates have drafted executive orders and agency regulations that could be used to quickly implement the policies that the project is advocating once Trump takes office.  In essence, the goal is to create a form of American Fascism.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-is-project-2025-how-is-it-connected-trump-2024-11-26/

TRUMP DISAVOWELS PROJECT 2025

As the blueprint for a hard-right turn in America became a liability during the 2024 campaign, so much so that Trump pulled an about-face. He denied knowing anything about the “ridiculous and abysmal” plans written in part by his first-term aides and allies. During the last 6 months of the 2024 Presidential Campaign, Trump and his campaign repeatedly tried  to distance Trump  from Project 2025 claiming he had nothing to do with it. In a July 5 post to his social media platform Trump wrote:

 “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

 Trump’s initial pushback to the initiative came after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a podcast interview that the nation is “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

In further attempts to distance himself from project 2025, Trump said this:

“They’ve been told officially, legally, in every way, that we have nothing to do with Project 25. They know it, but they bring it up anyway. They bring up every single thing that you can bring up. Every one of them was false.” 

Trumps campaign said they would ban people involved in Project 2025 from his administration, which is now turning out to be just another lie.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-is-project-2025-how-is-it-connected-trump-2024-11-26/

DAMAGING INTERVIEW CONNECTING TRUMP TO PROJECT 2025

On July 24, the week after the Republican convention, Russell Vought, now Trump’s designate to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was interviewed at the presidential suite of the Rosewood hotel in DC, by two men posing as relatives of a wealthy conservative donor. The men Vought was talking to worked for the British journalism nonprofit Centre for Climate Reporting and were secretly recording him the entire time. The Centre had clandestinely placed several hidden cameras and microphones posing as relatives of a wealthy conservative donor.

Sitting on a couch in the hotel suite, Vought seemed relaxed and comfortable discussing a wide range of topics, from the history of the conservative movement to European politics to his relationship with Trump. Vought said he was unfazed by Trump’s repeated denials of any connection with Project 2025, dismissing such public statements as politics. Vought said this:

“I see what he’s doing is just very, very conscious distancing himself from a brand. … It’s interesting, he’s in fact not even opposing himself to a particular policy.”

Vought said he had personally talked to Trump in recent months and received at least one personal “assignment” from him after he left office. He noted that the former president has “been at our organization, he’s raised money for our organization, he’s blessed it … he’s very supportive of what we do.”

Vought said his group, the Center for Renewing America, was secretly drafting hundreds of executive orders, regulations, and memos that would lay the groundwork for rapid action on Trump’s plans  describing his work as creating “shadow” agencies. He claimed that Trump has “blessed” his organization and “he’s very supportive of what we do.”

While on video Vought discussed his plans to “take control of … bureaucracies” and said he wanted to “be the person who crushes the deep state.” Vought said this:

“Eighty percent of my time is working on the plans of what’s necessary to take control of these bureaucracies. … And we are working doggedly on that, whether it’s destroying their agencies’ notion of independence … whether that is thinking through how the deportation would work.”

In discussing Trump’s plan to carry out the largest deportation in US history Vought said the expulsion of millions of undocumented immigrants could help “save the country”. Once deportations begin, “you’re really going to be winning a debate along the way about what that looks like. … And so that’s going to cause us to get us off of multiculturalism, just to be able to sustain and defend the deportation, right?”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/russ-vought-project-2025-trump-secret-recording-invs/index.html

TRUMP APPOINTS PROJECT 2025 MAIN ARCHITECTS AND AUTHORS

On November 22 news outlets reported President elect Donald Trump had completed assembling his Cabinet and senior staff for his second term in the White House before taking office on January 20, 2025. Trump nominated Cabinet Secretaries for government agencies and other top administration jobs that require United States Senate Advise and Consent confirmation mandated by the US Constitution.

Trump  nominated several architects and authors of Project 2025 who will have a key role in his administration. Following are Project 2025’s authors and contributors that Trump has nominated:

RUSSELL  VOUGHT

Russell Vought is a repeat from the first Trump Administration. Vought is  one of Project 2025’s top architects. He will  lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the agency that develops the president’s proposed budget and executes the president’s agenda. Vought started the Center for Renewing America, a nonprofit that describes itself as the “tip of the America First spear.”  Vought also served as the policy director of the Republican National Convention committee that rewrote the Republican Party’s  official platform this year, a sign of how central he is to Republicans’ policy goals. 

Vought plays a prominent role for Project 2025. Not only did he author a chapter on “Executive Office of the President” for the project’s “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise”, but his Center for Renewing America is also a member of Project 2025’s advisory board. According to press reports, Vought “was also deeply involved in drafting Project 2025’s playbook for the first 180 days of a new Trump administration.”   He has crafted plans for Trump to deploy the military in response to civil unrest and assert more control over the Justice Department.

Vought wrote the Project 2025 Chapter laying out priorities for the Executive Office of the President, which includes OMB. In it, he outlines ways to centralize executive power and in the federal bureaucracy which he says “all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly ‘woke’ faction of the country.” He characterizes the OMB director as a vessel for the president’s policy agenda, rather than as “the ambassador of the institutional interests of OMB and the wider bureaucracy.”

Vought helped draft executive orders that would undermine civil service protections and make it easier for Trump to fire thousands of federal employees. Vought was  the chief architect of Schedule F, a misguided plan to reclassify federal employees as at-will employees who could be fired for any reason. He served as OMB director during Trump’s first administration, during which OMB reclassified 88% of its employees as Schedule F. But the reclassification was not fully implemented at OMB or other agencies, and President Biden repealed Trump’s Schedule F directive after he took office.    Vought recently said in an interview, “There certainly is going to be mass layoffs and firings, particularly at some of the agencies that we don’t even think should exist.” 

The strategy of further concentrating federal authority in the presidency permeates Project 2025’s and Trump’s campaign proposals. Vought’s vision is shocking  when paired with Trump’s proposals to dramatically expand the president’s control over federal workers and government purse strings. These are ideas intertwined with Trump’s  tapping mega-billionaire Elon Musk and venture capitalist Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a “Department of Government Efficiency.”

Trump in his first term sought to remake the federal civil service by reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers, who have job protection through changes in administration,  as political appointees, making them easier to fire and replace with loyalists. Currently, only about 4,000 of the federal government’s roughly 2 million workers are political appointees. President Joe Biden rescinded Trump’s changes. Trump can now reinstate them.

Meanwhile, Musk’s and Ramaswamy’s sweeping “efficiency” mandates from Trump could turn on an old, defunct constitutional theory that the president and  not Congress is the real gatekeeper of federal spending. In his “Agenda 47,” Trump endorsed so-called “impoundment,” which holds that when lawmakers pass appropriations bills, they simply set a spending ceiling, but not a floor. The president, the theory holds, can simply decide not to spend money on anything he deems unnecessary.

Vought did not venture into impoundment in his Project 2025 chapter. But, he wrote, “The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government. Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.”

Trump’s choice of Vought  immediately sparked backlash. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a Democrat and outgoing Senate Appropriations chairwoman, said this:

“Russ Vought is a far-right ideologue who has tried to break the law to give President Trump unilateral authority he does not possess to override the spending decisions of Congress (and) who has and will again fight to give Trump the ability to summarily fire tens of thousands of civil servants.”

Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, leading Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, said Vought wants to “dismantle the expert federal workforce” to the detriment of Americans who depend on everything from veterans’ health care to Social Security benefits.

“Pain itself is the agenda,” they said.

The Office of Management and Budget Director requires Senate confirmation, prepares a president’s proposed budget and is generally responsible for implementing the administration’s agenda across agencies. The job is influential but Vought made clear as author of a Project 2025 chapter on presidential authority that he wants the post to wield more direct power.  Vought wrote

“The Director must view his job as the best, most comprehensive approximation of the President’s mind.  [The OMB] is a President’s air-traffic control system [ and should be] involved in all aspects of the White House policy process [ becoming] powerful enough to override implementing agencies’ bureaucracies.”

Trump did not go into such details when naming Vought but implicitly endorsed aggressive action. Vought, the president-elect said, “knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State” , Trump’s catch-all for federal bureaucracy,  and would help “restore fiscal sanity.”

In June, speaking on former Trump aide Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, Vought relished the potential tension: “We’re not going to save our country without a little confrontation.”

STEPHEN MILLER

Stephen Miller is Trump’s pick to serve as White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and the President’s Homeland Security Adviser.  Miller is a longtime member of Trumps inner circle and a staunch defender and advocate of all that is Trump and the MAGA movement. Miller founded  as an ideological counter to the American Civil Liberties Union.  “America First Legal” was listed as an advisory group to Project 2025 until Miller asked that the name be removed because of negative attention.

Miller will be taking on a much  expanded role in Trump’s second term. While he is not listed as a contributor to Project 2025, America First Legal is listed on the Project 2025 Advisory Board up and until the group asked to be removed. Miller was also featured in videos produced by the Heritage Foundation promoting Project 2025.

Miller is the chief  architect of Trump’s immigration ideas, including his promise to initiate  the largest deportation force in U.S. history. As deputy policy chief, which is not subject to Senate confirmation, Miller would remain in Trump’s West Wing inner circle.  Miller said this at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally on Oct. 27:

“America is for Americans and Americans only.”

KAROLINE LEAVITT

Leavitt is Trumps’ pick for White House Press Secretary. She is his 2024 campaign’s national press secretary and served in the White House during his first term. Leavitt is listed as one of Project 2025’s instructors who train conservatives on conservative governance best practices. The course she’s teaching is called The Art of Professionalism. She was featured in the Heritage Foundation’s videos promoting Project 2025.  She tried to distance Trump’s campaign from Project 2025 even though she’s a Project 2025 instructor as well as his campaign’s national press secretary.

BRENDAN CARR

Brendan Carr has been nominated to chair the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an agency that regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, and satellite.  Carr is the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission having been appointed by Trump in 2017.  Carr authored a chapter “Federal Communications Commission” for Project 2025. Carr has proposed reigning in big tech and media companies that he claims have improperly “censored” conservatives’ views by limiting the reach of misinformation and lies.

Carr outlined his plan to challenge “Big Teck” in his FCC chapter of Project 2025. In his section, he called for the FCC to issue and interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to eliminate “expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute.” Section 230 protects platforms, such as Facebook or You Tube, from liability over content posted by their users. Carr also lays out proposals to expand broadband connectivity access, address TikTok’s “serious and unacceptable risk” and support emerging satellite technologies among other goals.

Carr wrote that the FCC chairman “is empowered with significant authority that is not shared” with other FCC members. He called for the FCC to address “threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market,” specifically “Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square.” Carr has called for more stringent transparency rules for social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube and “empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any.”

Carr will require Seante confirmation.

TOM HOMAN

Tom Homan is listed as an overall contributor of Project 2025.  Trump appointed Homan as  “Border Czar” who will oversee the southern and northern U.S. borders and all maritime and aviation security.  Homan served as the acting heading of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during Trump’s first administration. He retired in 2018 after the White House failed to move his nomination toward Senate confirmation. This time, Homan will bypass the process completely because his “border czar” role does not require Senate confirmation.

Homan, as acting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director during Trump’s first presidency, played a key role in what became known as Trump’s “family separation policy.” Previewing Trump 2.0 earlier this year, Homan said: “No one’s off the table. If you’re here illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder.” Project 2025 includes a litany of detailed proposals for various U.S. immigration statutes, executive branch rules and agreements with other countries. Examples include reducing the number of refugees, work visa recipients and asylum seekers.

Homan is already flexing his anticipated power before he is even sworn in. On November 26 Homan vowed  to instill harsh consequences on sanctuary city leaders who are threatening to block immigration authorities from carrying out their planned mass deportation telling them plain and simple: “Don’t test us.” Homan said this during a visit to the border in Eagle Pass, Texas:

“Let me be clear, there is going to be a mass deportation because we just finished a mass illegal immigration crisis on the border. … If we don’t do it, what is the option? Let them stay? Cause if you let them stay, you’ll never fix the border. You’re gonna send a message to the rest of the world: enter the country illegally, which is a crime, ignore a court order … we’re telling the whole world it’s OK to enter this country illegally, you’ve never got to go home.

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston was asked by a local Denver television station to respond to Homan’s vows to arrest local leaders and politicians who stood in the way of deportation efforts. Mayor Johnston told ABC News reports he was willing to go to jail to stop possible mass deportation efforts under the incoming Trump administration.  Johnson  said he was  “not afraid of that” in a TV interview but said “I think the goal is we want to be able to negotiate with reasonable people how to solve hard problems. ”

During an interview on Fox News,  Homan said this:

“But look, me and the Denver mayor, we agree on one thing — he’s willing to go to jail, I’m willing to put him in jail because there’s a statute. It’s Title 8 United States Code 1324 (iii). And what it says is it’s a felony if you knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien from immigration authorities. It’s also a felony to impede a federal law enforcement officer. ”

Johnson said in a separate interview, that he would send Denver police to the city line to confront federal agents, an action he likened to Tiananmen Square. He later withdrew the comments. In a separate Fox News interview, Homan said the incoming administration would respond to blocking tactics by withholding federal funding from non-compliant cities and states.  Homan said “That’s going to happen, I guarantee you”

https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/incoming-trump-border-czar-threatens-denver-mayor-with-jail-time

JOHN RATCLIFF

John Ratcliff is Trump’s pick to lead the CIA and previously was one of Trump’s directors of national intelligence. He is a Project 2025 contributor. The document’s chapter on U.S. intelligence was written by Dustin Carmack, Ratcliffe’s chief of staff in the first Trump administration. Reflecting Ratcliffe’s and Trump’s approach, Carmack declared the intelligence establishment too cautious. Ratcliffe, like the chapter attributed to Carmack, is hawkish toward China. Throughout the Project 2025 document, Beijing is framed as a U.S. adversary that cannot be trusted.  Ratcliffe will  require Senate confirmation.

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.afge.org/article/new-trump-administration-packed-with-project-2025-architects/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-is-project-2025-how-is-it-connected-trump-2024-11-26/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/project-2025-contributors-trump-administration-picks-1235175351/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/after-trumps-project-2025-denials-tapping-authors-influencers-116170438

https://apnews.com/article/trump-project-2025-administration-nominees-843f5ff20131ccba5f056e7ccc5baf23

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/26/trump-picks-project-2025-russ-vought

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-cabinet-filling-project-2025-005256417.html

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

When it comes to all of Trump’s executive appointments, the single most important  qualification is absolute and unquestioned loyalty to Trump. What is also clear is that Project 2025 is indeed the conservative blue print do centralize more power than ever in the Presidency with no checks and balances by congress nor the courts.

It was the economy and inflation that swept Trump to a decisive victory. Exit polls showed that the voting public were extremely disgruntled if not downright hostile with the direction the country is going, with inflation out of control. Voters were far more were concerned about making a decent living, angered over grocery and gas prices, as opposed to any threat Trump posed to democracy. Voters simply believed they were better off when Trump was President the first time believing all his lies. Voters chose to forget the 4 years of total chaos Trump brought upon the county and his failure to deal with the pandemic that killed millions worldwide and in the United States and that had a strangle hold on the country and that destroyed the economy.

In the end, voters simply ignored Trumps flawed character, the multimillion dollar civil judgements against him for sexual assault and slander, his criminal conduct in the private sector and while in office, his fraud in securing millions in loans in New York, the  multiple state criminal convictions and pending federal criminal charges, his two impeachments, his misogyny and racism, his threat to democracy, his attempt to overthrow the government with all his lies that the election was rigged and stolen from him, his attacks on woman’s rights and civil rights, his partiality to racists groups such as the Proud Boys, his promotion of racist policies and his cult following of Christian fundamentalist who totally ignored his immorality, multiple marriages and affairs and praised him as the second coming.

Trump will be our President come January 20 and there will be a peaceful transfer of power, unlike 4 years ago when Trump promoted an insurrection. The country will get the President it has elected. Voters will get a clown car of a cabinet filled with people who have no business being appointed and whose goal is to destroy the very agencies they will head. The reality is that with his executive appointments he is following the conservative  Project 2025 agenda, topic by topic, page by page.  (See postscript below on Project 2025).

There may be a peaceful transition of power, but come January 20, four years of total chaos will commence. Trump has already said he can only serve another term but hinted that may change if people really want to change that.  With Trumps announced appointments, it his clear he intends to gut the Department of Justice, the military leadership, our health care system and dismantle government to carry out his personal vendetta.

Trump and his Republican Party will overreach declaring they have a mandate to do whatever they damn well want with no guard rails. Trumps selections for cabinet positions also indicate there will be no checks and balances from congress in that some Senate Republicans are already indicating a willingness to forego their “advise and consent” of appointments an allow for “recess appointments”.  There will be no intervention from the Trump appointed Supreme Court of right-wing conservative disciples who have given him immunity from prosecution making him above the law.

As the saying goes elections have consequences. But that includes unintended consequences. Trumps agenda will go way beyond what people thought they were voting for. It’s not at all likely voters will be any better off financially than they are now in two years under a Trump second presidency let alone the 4 years to come. His imposition of tariffs and the effects of mass deportation on the agricultural work force will have an impact as will corporate greed and refusal to reduce consumer prices. It may be the “economy stupid” but in reality a President can do little to bring down the cost of goods and services which is subject to the laws of market  supply and demand, and corporate profits and sure greed.

It’s only a matter of time before the general public turns on Trump as they did 4 years ago once they realize they have been had once again. Stupid is as stupid does. The public turned on  Republican President George W. Bush after he was elected by a popular vote and the Republicans lost congress. It will happen again. Voters have now voted for the return of chaos. Based on Trump’s agenda, and his cabinet appointments, chaos is exactly what we will get with millions getting hurt in the process. This is what happens when the big lies replace reality and personal finances outweigh preservation of our democracy.

________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

The CBS national news agency published  on line a remarkable  report written by its staff reporters Melissa Quinn and Jacob Rosen entitled “What Is Project 2025; What To Know About The Conservative Blue Print For A Second Trump Administration”.  It is clear that Project 2025 is Trump’s conservative blue for a second term reflecting an American Fascist Agenda to give Trump unfettered presidential power. The link to read the entire 920 page Project 2025 is here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise

On December 15, the Albuquerque Journal published the following guest opinion column submitted by long time community  activists Isaac and Sharon Eastvold:

“The city of Albuquerque is moving ahead with yet another “green” project. The city also called the Albuquerque Rapid Transit project on Central “green.” That project cut down over 500 trees, and got rid of electric buses. There seemed to be no end to cost overruns.

Like ART, the new Green Stormwater Infrastructure “pilot project” being touted by City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn proposes to retrofit older neighborhoods with an impossible, destructive burden. Costs are already running into millions, and headed for even greater overruns. The money for this boondoggle is coming from, you guessed it, your tax dollars in the recent municipal bonds.

These bonds never fail to pass. Written comments which opposed putting Green Stormwater Infrastructure in the bond mysteriously disappeared when mailed to the full council and the mayor. Definition: GSI involves excavations of streets for what are called “bio swales.” These would be 9 feet wide from the curb, 9 inches deep and of varying lengths between driveways. The city claims that these excavations will capture stormwater and infiltrate it to groundwater below the swales. It won’t.

The water table depth in this project area varies from 150 to 500 feet. These bio swales need to be located above the water table within 5 to 18 feet. The water table is too far down for this to work.

In addition, the city’s own GeoTest Inc. has twice found clay levels 6 to 9 feet down that would prevent infiltration. They find that stormwater could move laterally, with time, and cause subsidence of adjacent streets and structures.

Albuquerque has been in a drought since 2021. In that year, some residents along Summer NE experienced stormwater over-topping the curb. No structures were damaged. This was caused by improperly resurfacing short stretches of Summer and Marble. Correcting the resurfacing would restore the intended gravity flow of stormwater to the San Mateo, 8-foot diameter, and San Pedro, 4-foot diameter, main drains.

The GSI “pilot project” also proposes cement underground stormwater storage tanks. One of these, on La Veta, is not even planned to connect to the city’s sewer system. It will simply capture water with no option for infiltration. The bio swales and storage tanks, therefore, can not comply with the legally binding N.M./Texas compact requiring all withheld water be returned to the Rio Grande within 96 hours.

Finally, the dark, moist place, of underground tanks would provide inviting habitat for the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes now plaguing Albuquerque.

Councilor Fiebelkorn, if she hopes to be elected to any office, should learn from the “greenwashed” and miserably failed ART disaster on Central. Her “pilot project” promises to be yet another expensive misuse of taxpayer’s municipal bond money.

Concerned citizens can support any beautification of the neighborhood or city that is environmentally sound and well-researched. They can not support ignoring good alternatives that resolve real problems less expensively.

What the city is proposing will only benefit the bottomless pockets of a small cadre of city consultants. The result will be the degradation of long-established mid-heights neighborhoods.”

The link to the Albuquerque Journal guest column with photos is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/article_3b567438-b8d6-11ef-b39c-5f8ae05c2f0a.html

BIOGRAPHY

Isaac and Sharon Eastvold are long time community activists.  They founded the Fair Heights Neighborhood Association on October 11, 1993.  Both have been residents of City Council District 7 since its inception and residents of City Council District 5 which became District 7 because of redistricting. They have also been members of the Neighborhood Stormwater Drainage Management Team since May 31, 2021.  Isaac and Sharon Eastvold were the founding members of the Friends of the Albuquerque Petroglyphs (FOTAP).  This organization was instrumental in securing city council and community support for the establishment of Petroglyph National Monument on June 27, 1990.  Isaac was awarded one of two pens used by President George H.W. Bush to sign the establishment act.

____________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE DEFINED

Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) is a method of sustainable stormwater management that focuses on treating stormwater runoff prior to it entering waterways by mimicking and working with living, natural systems. It is an approach to managing stormwater runoff in ways that mimic the natural environment as much as possible, using plants, soil, and stone to filter and manage stormwater more effectively, reducing how much enters our sewer systems, and protecting our rivers and streams.

Urban areas have lots of hard surfaces  such as roofs, roads, parking lots, etc.,  that don’t allow water from rain, snow, and ice to soak into the ground naturally, so the runoff collects pollutants and litter on its way down the drain, and overwhelms our sewer systems, which can overflow into our rivers and streams.

Green stormwater infrastructure tools allow runoff to get soaked up by plants, filter into the ground, or evaporate into the air. Some systems also slowly release the water into a sewer once wet weather and the threat of overflows have passed.

https://www.bernco.gov/public-works/public-works-services/water-wastewater-stormwater/stormwater/green-stormwater-infrastructure-and-post-construction-stormwater-management/

https://water.phila.gov/gsi/

On December 17 at its last meeting of the year, the Albuquerque City Council enacted 2 out of 3 measures  aimed at restricting overnight camping in public spaces and the use of public parks by the homeless.  All 3 of the measures were sponsored by Republican City Councilor Renee Grout. During public comments, the 3 measures faced significant opposition from activists who voiced concerns that the legislation will criminalize homelessness and make it harder for unhoused individuals to stay warm during the winter.  A small number of commenters spoke in favor of the ordinances.

TWO MEASURES PASSED

The two ordinances approved by the City Council are the “Parks Ordinance,” which addresses littering, vandalism and the “misuse of park facilities,” and the “Revised Ordinances of Albuquerque: Public Camping,” which bans camping on streets and sidewalks and “reduce(s) the negative impacts encampments often have on neighborhoods.” The “public camping regulations” ordinance prohibits public camping in unauthorized areas and on any city property,  such as parks, streets and sidewalks. The bill’s goal is to clarify or add to current existing laws regarding illegal public camping.

City Attorney Lauren Keefe, who authored the measure, said there was a need for a legal clarity-enforcement balance. Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis said this during his interaction with City Attorney Keefe:

“This bill would certainly give some clarity to our current laws and ordinances, without a lot of loopholes or checkerboarding applications to it.”

AMENDMENTS TO THE PARKS ORDINANCE

One measure passed  was  amendments to  the existing ordinance on the use of city parks and prohibits camping, fires, shopping carts, and  deals with  use of playground equipment and vandalism. The public encampment regulations further define the prohibitions on public camping in unauthorized areas such as parks, streets and sidewalks.  According to Councilor Grout, the changes are intended to curb littering, vandalism, drug use, and illegal camping. Grout said the measure was critical to address the safety concerns of those who say they don’t feel safe using city parks, especially families with young children and fears of children encountering needles. Needles being left behind where children play and aggressive behavior by homeless  who are camping out in public spaces were cited as problematic.

The amendments to the Parks Ordinance bans camping in all city parks and ban shopping carts in or around public playgrounds and parks. According to Grout it “clarifies that parks are not meant for overnight camping, and adds a definition of camping. It allows for overnight camping by organized youth groups with permission.” It also closes parks at 10:00 p.m. instead of midnight and seeks to align the law with the current practice of allowing food trucks at parks and advertising at ball fields. The ordinance also states it is illegal for a person to refuse to leave if they have already received a notice to vacate

The amendments to the Parks Ordinance contain the following specific prohibitions:

1. No Camping.No person will be allowed to camp or construct or erect any tent, building or other structure whether permanent or temporary, in a park for the purpose of staying in the park overnight or be allowed extension of electrical utilities except by written permission of the Mayor. An exception would be allowed for youth organizations camping with adult supervision for one night only and with written permission or a permit from the Mayor and the Director of the Parks & Recreation Department.

2. Shopping Carts Prohibited.  Shopping carts would be prohibited in all City parks,  city open spaces, and the parking areas that serve these facilities. Any shopping cart, whether empty or containing any merchandise or belongings, may be confiscated and either returned to the cart owner, recycled, or otherwise disposed of.

3. Wrongful Use of Playground Equipment.Unless otherwise posted, the use of playground equipment is reserved for children. Adults would be allowed in playground areas or within 50 feet of playground areas only when accompanied by a child under the age of 12, unless the 50-foot buffer extends  beyond the Park boundary. This buffer may include gazebos, benches, and  tables,

4. Children Park Designations.The Mayor may designate certain parks as “Children’s Parks” and restrict access by adults unless they are  accompanied by a child under the age of 12. Users must follow playground guidelines and restrictions. During park operating hours, no person shall engage in any conduct that deprives park visitors of the intended use of the  playground equipment.

5. Vandalism of Park Grounds. The existing law provides “No person in a park shall damage, cut, carve, transplant or remove any tree or plant or injure the bark or pick the flowers or  seeds, of any tree or plant.”  The ordinance will be amended to provide (in bold and italicized)  that  “No …  person [shall] attach any rope, wire, hammock,or other contrivance to any tree or plant. No person shall damage grass by leaving personal items in grass areas for extended periods.”

6. No Feeding of Wildlife. No person in a park shall give or offer or attempt to give to any animal or bird any food, tobacco, alcohol, or other known noxious or injurious substances to any bird or wild animal.Park users shall clean up and  remove all food scraps and wrappers that could attract wild animals.

7. No Fires.Fires would only  be allowed in permanent grills  provided by the City for cooking.

8. Vending of Merchandise.Vending would be  allowed only  by  licensed vendors in designated areas only with a valid permit from the Department of Parks & Recreation. Food vendors must carry all other permits required by the Environmental Health Department, the Fire Marshal, and any  other regulatory agencies.

9. Advertising signs and 2 banners may be allowed only on outfield fences in baseball and softball parks. The “batter’s eye” portion of all outfield fences, defined as the area directly behind the pitcher from the batter’s perspective, shall be kept clear of all  signs, banners, and other visual distractions.

The Park Ordinance amendments passed on a 6-3 vote. Republican Councilors Renee Grout, Dan Lewis, Dan Champine, and Brook Bassan  and Democrats  Joaquín Baca and Louie Sanchez voted YES  in favor.  Democrats Klarissa Peña, Nichole Rogers and Tammy Fiebelkorn voting NO against the measure.

The link to review the entire ordinance is here:

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/o-56-673abd707d89b.p

 PUBLIC CAMPING ORDINANCE

The second measure passed makes illegal “public camping” in unauthorized areas such as parks, streets and sidewalks. The “park maintenance and playground safety” ordinance makes sleeping, erecting tents or storing personal items illegal in and near playgrounds at city parks.  This ordinance was written by  City Attorney Lauren Keefe  and City  Councilor Grout sponsored it at the request of the Keller Administration. It is intended to clear up gaps in existing ordinances regarding camping in public. While current laws prohibit camping in certain public places, this one called ‘The Public Camping Ordinance,” would be much broader. It will categorically ban camping in publicly owned places like streets and sidewalks. It was argued that passage would make the city safer.

The ordinance defines “CAMP” as “ To occupy an area for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a  permanent or temporary place to live, or to occupy an area with an apparent intent to remain in that location for 24 hours or more.”

CAMP FACILITIES are defined in the act as “Tents, huts and any other temporary structures or shelters.”

An ENCAMPMENT is defined as “An area where an individual or individuals have erected  one or more tent or structures or placed personal items on public property with the apparent intent to remain in that location for 24 hours or more.  An  area will not be deemed an encampment merely because any individuals are  present on public property or because individuals have temporarily placed  personal items on public property.”

The ordinance is straight forward making it unlawful to camp on public property and it states:

“Except as otherwise authorized by ordinance or by rules issued by the Department of Parks and Recreation, it shall be unlawful for any person to camp, or maintain an encampment, in any publicly owned area, including any street, sidewalk, right of way, park, or open space. It shall further be unlawful  for any person to refuse to remove an encampment from public land after  receiving a notice instructing them to remove the encampment, or to set up an  encampment after being ordered to remove one from a particular location.  A  person does not violate this ordinance if the person is merely sitting, sleeping  or lying on public property on a temporary basis.”

The new ordinance will also make it unlawful for any person to maintain personal property, including camp facilities or camp paraphernalia, on public property after that person has received a notice instructing them to remove the items.

Violation of the ordinance is a petty 5 misdemeanor and, upon conviction be subject to a fine not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or both (§ 1-1-99)

The camping ordinance passed 5-4.  Republican City Councilors Renee Grout, Dan Lewis, Dan Champine, and Brook Bassan and Democrat Louie Sanchez voted YES.  Democrats Joaquín Baca, Klarissa Peña, Nichole Rogers, and Tammy Fiebelkorn voted NO.

The link to review the camping ordinance is here:

Click to access o-58-673abd810f065.pdf

“SHOPPING CART ABANDONMENT” PREVENTION ORDINANCE

The third ordinance dealt with shopping cart theft and abandonment. Councilor Renée Grout withdrew the “Shopping Cart Abandonment Prevention Ordinance” after facing concerns and pushback from the mayor’s administration and fellow councilors.

Shopping carts are stolen from grocery stores and businesses and often used by the homeless to transport their personal belongings.  Abandoned shopping carts can pose safety hazards and contribute to neighborhood blight.  This ordinance would have made it illegal to possess shopping carts outside of a retailer’s property. Possession of a cart would have resulted  in a petty misdemeanor and could include fines or jail time. However, a judge would be able to give a community service sentence instead.

The resolution would have placed far more responsibility on businesses to prevent shopping cart thefts and would require businesses to submit a plan to the city on steps they’re taking to keep carts secure.  The ordinance would have allowed  the city to collect abandoned shopping carts and hold them for up to 30 days before being considered “forfeited.”   The shopping cart abandonment ordinance was unique and clever at the same time, but it essentially placed burdens on businesses who are victims of crime and stolen property when it’s the thief that needs to be charged. Victims of stolen shopping carts should not be required to pay the city $25 for the return of their stolen property and an extra $5 a day thereafter when they are told to pick up their property.

The link to review the entire shopping cart ordinance is here:

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/o-57-673abd7d003f8.pdf

OPPOSITION EMERGES

During the public comment portion of the City Council, attendees critical of the measures argued  that those experiencing homelessness are being criminalized and the damaging  consequences of encampment sweeps ignored.  Supporters argue that enforcement of the ordinances will further curb illegal camping, littering, vandalism, public defecation,  drug use and the changes will protect the parks from criminal behavior.

The amendments to the Parks Ordinance  and the Public Camping Ordinance were met with strong  opposition from some members of the public who spoke out against them at the city council meeting.

Homeless Advocate Jarod Buell  told the  council this:

“The measures proposed today will punish unhoused people from the crime of not wanting to freeze and will fine them for what meager possessions they manage to hold on to.”

Kendal Jacobson, another community activists said this about the Public Camping Ordinance:

“Destroying their camps will do nothing to create more services for them and force them to sleep in deadly below-freezing temperatures.”

Republican City Councilor Renee Grout said this in response to the criticism of her sponsored bills:

During debate, Councilor Grout said this about the Parks Ordinance:

“I think these changes that we’re proposing are reasonable I really do.  There are people who reach out to us on a daily basis, a weekly basis, they send us emails, and they love going to our city parks, and they are scared to go. … They matter, too. We need to listen to them as well. People are sometimes afraid of these [homeless] people. … Sometimes they,  in one specific park I’m talking about, take over the area right next to the playground equipment. They take it; they’re very possessive. It’s true. That’s why people have sent emails, they have called me, and it’s important that we listen to them.

Violations of the ordinances could result in petty misdemeanor charges, fines up to $500, or jail time up to 90 days.

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/albuquerque-city-council-approves-safe-public-space-legislation/

https://www.koat.com/article/city-of-albuquerque-bans-camping-in-public-spaces/63218693

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_9a140d68-bcdd-11ef-a74e-bf350f3820a5.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://citydesk.org/2024/city-council-tightens-the-screws-on-encampments/

EXISTING STATE STATUTES AND CITY ORDINANCES

The State of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque have enacted 8 laws and ordinances enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of public  property. The specific statutes and ordinances are:

1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
2. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
8. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

All the above laws are classified as “non-violent crimes” and are misdemeanors.  The filing of criminal charges by law enforcement are discretionary when the crime occurs in their presence. The City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department have agreed that only citations will be issued and no arrests will be made for “nonviolent crimes”  as part of a federal  court approved settlement agreement  in  a decades old federal civil rights lawsuit dealing with jail overcrowding.

US SUPREME COURT CASE GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON

 On June 28, the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. The case is strikingly similar in facts and circumstances and laws to the case filed against the City of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park.

The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. The homeless plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass, a town with just one 138-bed overnight shelter,  criminalized them for behavior they couldn’t avoid: sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.

Meanwhile, municipalities across the western United States argued that court rulings hampered their ability to quickly respond to public health and safety issues related to homeless encampments.  The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine Western states, ruled in 2018 that such bans violate the Eighth Amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds.

The United States Supreme Court considered whether cities can enforce laws and take action against or punish the unhoused for sleeping outside in public spaces when shelter space is lacking. The case is the most significant case heard by the high court in decades on the rights of the unhoused and comes as a rising number of people in the United States are without a permanent place to live.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Republican  Supreme Court  reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution. The Republican  majority found that the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets.  The Supreme Court ruled  that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, even in West Coast areas where shelter space is lacking.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. … A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness. … Cities across the West report that the 9th Circuit’s involuntary test has crated intolerable uncertainty for them.”

Gorsuch suggested that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a “necessity defense,” if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban.

A bipartisan group of leaders had argued the ruling against the bans made it harder to manage outdoor encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public spaces in nine Western states. That includes California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population.

Homeless advocates argue that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse. Cities had been allowed to regulate encampments but couldn’t bar people from sleeping outdoors.

Progressive Democrat Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketangi Brown Jackson dissented. Sotomayor read from the bench the dissent and said this:

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. … Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment. … It is quite possible, indeed likely, that these and similar ordinances will face more days in court. … It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. … [But the majority instead] focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented Grants Pass before the high court, applauded the ruling, saying the 9th Circuit decision had “tied the hands of local governments.”  Evangelis said this:

“Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”

The Republican Supreme Courts ruling comes after homelessness in the United States has peaked and grown 12% last year to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people. More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using a yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. Nearly half of them sleep outside. Older adults, LGBTQ+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected, advocates said. In Oregon, a lack of mental health and addiction resources has also helped fuel the crisis.

The Link to a quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/supreme-court-oregon-homelessness/61453397

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

 Enactment of the amendments to  the Parks Ordinance and the Public Camping Ordinance come at the end of a year when the Mayor Keller Administration  has tried to strike a balance between helping the homeless community and responding to the concerns of many constituents and business owners.  Mayor Tim Keller must now decide whether to sign the proposals into law. A city spokesperson says the mayor is still reviewing them.

There is a fine balance between assisting those experiencing homelessness while also enforcing laws that are designed to protect public health, safety and welfare and the peaceful use and enjoyment of public lands by the public, such as parks. The Albuquerque City Council and Mayor Keller are on opposite sides on many issues, with one notable exception and that is how to deal with the unhoused and that unhoused encampments should not be allowed.

The Keller Administration has gone so far as to implement a formal homeless encampment removal policy that establishes the priority of what encampments to target first. The policy provides a timeline for which individuals must be notified of an encampment clearing. It provides for storage of personal belongings by the city free of charge. It authorizes the city to dispose of personal property seized that is abandoned.

The proposed ordinances and amendments to the existing ordinances as proposed by City Councilor Renee Grout represent a good faith effort to deal with problematic encampments. However, her proposals are in fact an overlap or a redundancy to existing state laws and city ordinances calling into question what will be accomplished, if anything, now that they have been enacted. As it stands under existing law, unhoused squatters or campers can be cited  with criminal trespassing, unlawful use of public property, interference with sidewalk usage and street rights of way and unlawful nighttime camping in public parks, but not arrested as per a federal settlement on jail overcrowding. Notwithstanding, the city has an aggressive encampment clearance policy.

The United States Supreme Court has given cities the green light to enforce vagrancy laws when it comes to the unhoused. Unhoused who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers or alternatives to living on the street force the city to make it totally inconvenient for them to “squat” anywhere they want and must force them to move on. After repeated attempts to reason with them to move on, citations and arrests for other crimes  are in order. Until the problem is solved, the public perception will be that very little to no progress has been made despite millions spent to deal with what Mayor Tim Keller proclaims as the “challenge of our lifetime.”

The links to two related blog articles are here:

City Revising Removal Of Homeless Encampment Policy; South Central And International District Area New Target  For Clean Ups; Action Long Overdue To Enforce Existing City Ordinances

City Creates “Shelter Connect Dashboard” Identifying Unhoused Shelter During Winter Months; City’s Unsheltered Data Breakdown; City’s Financial Commitment To The Unhoused; Given City’s Commitment To Homeless, Crisis Should Be Manageable But Has Only Gotten Worse Under Mayor Tim Keller

APD Chief Harold Medina is calling upon the 2025 New Mexico legislature to create and assemble a new, separate task force that would be placed in charge of investigating all police officer-involved shootings statewide. The task force would be a third-party group with no connection to any law enforcement agency in New Mexico.

In 2024, there were13 APD officer-involved shootings which is down from the 18 that happened in 2022. In New Mexico statewide, it is estimated there are 50 officer-involved shootings a year.  In Albuquerque, whenever there is an APD Police Officer involved shooting, the shooting is investigated by a multi-agency task force. The current task force lets APD, despite having a police officer involved in the shooting, oversee the investigation with assistance from at least one other agency.

A recent APD Police Officer involved shooting had people asking more questions, even after department leaders laid out what they discovered led to it. That’s one of the reasons why APD Chief Harold Medina no longer wants his department officers’ investigating shootings by those within their own ranks.  Medina said this:

“There are individuals who won’t actually believe our investigation because they’ve heard this misinformation.”

Medina believes the task force would help build trust with people and law enforcement and is vital in ensuring transparency. The proposal for the creation of a separate task by the New Mexico legislature is part of what is known as the Metro Crime Initiative which is a listing of 50 major priorities that the city wants the 2025 Legislature to enact. The postscript to this article provides a related blog article entitled “Identifying Mayor Keller’s Failing Metro Crime Initiatives (MCI); After Over 3 Years, 5 Action Items Completed, 3 Partially Addressed; 42 Items Remain Of MCI’s 50 Legislative Agenda Priorities; 2025 NM Legislature Will Likely Refuse To Enact MCI Recommendations Ignoring Keller”

APD Police Chief Harold Medina said this about the creation of a separate task force:

“We have a great process in Albuquerque. And for me, taking the next step to make it even better is putting it into the hands of an independent entity. … It would really be able to reduce the caseload down to a level that doesn’t impact us as much. …  I think [a separate task force is] an important step forward for us to make sure the public has faith and trust in the processes,”

Medina said lawmakers and organizations are in support of the idea and he  said this:

“They’re very interested in it. … And I’ve actually even spoken to the ACLU about it. And the ACLU seems to support the concept.”

Medina says New Mexico State Police end up taking on a lot of policed officer involved investigations. Medina said this:

“I would suppose that it’s a huge burden, them having to go across the state and conduct these high profile investigations. … [ The new task force would free up APD resources]  I currently probably have about three to four at any time who are just doing officer involved shootings for the year. If I could clear those officers up to work on other types of criminal cases, I could start a new unit, a white collar unit.” 

Medina says he doesn’t know who would make up the task force, but he wants the state to do a study to identify the best way to move forward. But he has some ideas and said this:

“An in house prosecutor would be a vital part of this team. Somebody that could look and give advice on different aspects of the shooting. … By having this, it takes out that whole argument that cops are investigating cops.”

https://www.koat.com/article/apd-chief-looking-to-gain-support-for-new-statewide-task-force-koat-officer-involved-shootings-investigation/63187849

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/apd-chief-wants-new-task-force-to-investigate-police-shootings/

APD RANKED #1 IN CIVILIAN KILLINGS OUT OF THE 50 LARGEST CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN THE COUNTRY

On April 10, 2024  the on line news publication Searchlight New Mexico published a remarkable story researched and written by its  staff reporter Josh Bowling.  The article is entitled “Can the Albuquerque Police Department ever be reformed?”  The article goes into great detail explaining the Court Approved Settlement Agreement, what has been done to reform APD and the role of the Federal Monitor. The link to read the full, unedited Searchlight New Mexico article with photos and graphs is here:

https://searchlightnm.org/can-the-albuquerque-police-department-ever-be-reformed/?utm_source=Searchlight+New+Mexico&utm_campaign=ca4e266790-4%2F10%2F2024+-+Albuquerque+Police+Department+Reform&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8e05fb0467-ca4e266790-362667516&mc_cid=ca4e266790&mc_eid=ccd9412715

The Search Light New Mexico article reported that in 2014, the Albuquerque Police Department killed 10.6 people per million residents,  more than any other sizable police department in the nation, according to data tracked by the national nonprofit Mapping Police Violence.

Following are the relevant excerpts from the Search Light New Mexico article

In 2022, the department set a record for police shootings with 18, 10 of which were fatal. That year, a Searchlight analysis found, only the police departments in Los Angeles, New York and Houston killed more people than APD.

Law enforcement officials, including police leaders and district attorneys, say such figures are nuanced. They point to the acute dearth of mental health resources in New Mexico and, anecdotally, stories of people who draw guns on police officers as explanations for why the problem of police violence is so outsized locally.”

…

“In the past four years, Albuquerque police repeatedly shot people who were suffering visible mental health crises. They shot 26-year-old Max Mitnik in the head during a “schizoaffective episode” in which he asked officers to fire their weapons at him; they shot and killed 52-year-old Valente Acosta-Bustillos who swung a shovel at officers and told them to shoot him; they shot and killed 33-year-old Collin Neztsosie while he was on his cell phone, pleading for help with a 911 dispatcher.

These grim numbers have led reform advocates, critics and law enforcement leaders themselves to question what it means to be “in compliance.”

“You can improve things on paper or comply with the terms of a consent decree and still have these things happening. … Albuquerque is a prime place to be asking the questions…about what impact consent decrees have. The city should be ground zero for the national conversation on police reform” said UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz, author of the 2023 book “Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable.”

This is not to say that the consent decree has been without merit. The 2014 Court-Approved Settlement Agreement between the DOJ and Albuquerque laid out nearly 300 mandated reforms.  Since its launch, APD has fulfilled hundreds of reform requirements, including overhauling scores of policies and training procedures.”

The Search Light New Mexico article contains a horizontal graph listing the 50 largest cities in the United States. According to the graph, among the 50 largest cities, Albuquerque Police killed people at the highest rate than all the other city police departments in 2023  at the rate of  10.6 per 1 Million population. It is worth comparing Albuquerque’s 10.6 kill rate to the largest cities in the surrounding border states of Texas, Colorado, Arizona and also including Oklahoma and Nevada:

• Albuquerque, NM: 10.6
• San Antonio, Texas:  9.8
• Phoenix, Arizona: 8.7
• Austin, Texas: 7.3
• Denver, Colorado: 5.6
• Tucson, Arizona: 5.5
• Fort Worth, Texas: 5.4
• Houston, Texas: 5.2
• Colorado Springs, Colorado: 4.2
• Dallas, Texas: 3.1
• El Paso, Texas: 2.9
• Las Vegas, Nevada: 2.6
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: 2.0

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

For the past 10 years, APD has been operating under a Court Approved Settlement Agreement mandating 271 reforms after a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation found that APD had engaged in a pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force” and finding a “culture of aggression.”

Over the past 10 years, the city has spent millions on reform efforts, has created and staffed new divisions to hold APD officers accountable, rewrote use of force policies and procedures and trained APD officers in constitutional policing practices. The reform has been accomplished under the watchful eye of the federal court and an appointed Federal Independent Monitor.

On June 4, a federal court hearing was held on the 19th Federal Independent Monitor’s Report and APD’s progress in implementing the mandated reforms of the CASA. The federal monitor reported that APD has reached 100% primary compliance, 100% secondary compliance and 96% operational compliance of the 271 reforms mandated by the settlement.

Despite the improvement and gains made by APD in the implementation of the reforms, APD police officer shootings and the killing of civilians is occurring at a “deeply troubling” rate. In terms of overall shootings, both fatal and non-fatal, law enforcement officers in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County shot 131 people between 2013 and 2022.

As reported above, the national nonprofit Mapping Police Violence reported that last year, APD killed 10.6 people per million residents, which is more than any police department of comparable size in the nation. APD was ranked No. 1 in police officers killing civilians in a listing of 50 largest cities in the United States.

During the June 4 status conference hearing on the Court Approved Settlement, Federal Judge James Browning asked how APD can be in compliance with the  DOJ settlement given that the level of police shootings is “at the same level as it was when you started this process. We are still having, I would say, troubling police shootings.”

DOJ attorneys responded saying police are being held accountable and with training and de-escalation skills, police officers are using constitutional policing practices handling lethal encounters.  A cynic would say if you are killed by APD while you commit a crime, at least APD followed constitutional policing practices.

The CASA was not designed to guarantee or completely stop nor prevent police officer shootings. It was designed to implement constitutional policing practices, especially when dealing with the mentally ill. There never was a guarantee that police officer shootings would go down or simply never occur even with the reforms.

What the CASA reforms ensure is that police officers are being held accountable when they violate constitutional policing practices and people’s civil rights. All that really can be done is to train and implement constitutional policing practices in the hopes that it will bring down police officer shootings of civilians.

MEDINA MORE CONCERNED  ABOUT DEDICATED RESOURCES TO INVESTIGATE NOT REDUCE POLICE SHOOTINGS

It should come as absolutely no surprise that APD Chief Harold Medina supports the 2025 New Mexico legislature creating an independent task force to investigate all police officer-involved shootings statewide. APD is ranked #1 in civilian killings out of the 50 largest city police departments in the country. The tragic reality is that APD alone could keep such a task force occupied all year long.  The task force would spare APD from dedicating resources and personnel to investigate their own department shootings.

Simply put, APD shootings of civilians is at unacceptable levels. Medina saying “an independent entity. …  would really be able to reduce the caseload down to a level that doesn’t impact us as much” is evidence that Chief Medina is more interested in the extent of APD personnel dedicated to investigating police shootings and not at all  interested in initiating reforms to  reduce APD officers killing civilians. Medina is more interested in saving personnel resources than saving lives by getting to the bottom of why there are so many APD Police Officer involved shootings.

Identifying Mayor Keller’s Failing Metro Crime Initiatives (MCI); After Over 3 Years, 5 Action Items Completed, 3 Partially Addressed; 42 Items Remain Of MCI’s 50 Legislative Agenda Priorities; 2025 NM Legislature Will Likely Refuse To Enact MCI Recommendations Ignoring Keller