http://www.koat.com/article/critics-question-why-perez-s-return-was-negotiated-behind-closed-doors/9992504

KOAT TV Channel 7 has reported that Albuquerque Police (APD) Officer Dominique Perez has negotiated his return to work as an Albuquerque Police Officer with the City of Albuquerque.

The return to work agreement is ten (10) pages long, places extensive conditions on work duties and responsibilities and provides for the City to pay “back pay” to the tune of $140,000 to Perez.

The return to work agreement was negotiated behind closed doors by the Berry Administration.

No civil lawsuit for wrongful termination and no appeal of the discharge with the city’s personnel board was ever conducted which resulted in the return to work agreement.

After the killing of James Boyd, APD Police Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy were charged by the Bernalillo County District Attorney for the murder of homeless camper James Boyd.

Upon being charged with a felony, both Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy were terminated by APD as per the departments standard operating procedures.

A Special Prosecutor was appointed and Perez and Sandy were tried for the murder with the trial costing the State of New Mexico approximately $200,000.

A special prosecutor had to be appointed because the Sandy/Perez defense attorneys successfully had the Bernalillo County District Attorney Office removed from the case alleging biasness, conflict of interest because of alleged interference by the District Attorney in an unrelated criminal case involving a relative of the then District Attorney.

Within hours after homeless camper James Boyd was shot, Chief Eden declared during a press conference that the killing was “justified”.

Months before the criminal trial of Keith Sandy and Dominique Perez, the City settled the civil lawsuit with the James Boyd family paying them $5 million dollars of taxpayer money.

The James Boyd settlement was also conducted behind closed doors without the City defending the case as being “justified” as Chief Gordon Eden had argued in a press conference.

When Sandy and Perez were charge and tried for the murder, a twelve-person jury could not reach a verdict of guilt nor innocence of either officer.

After the criminal trial, the criminal case against Perez and Sandy was dismissed by the Bernalillo County District Attorney.

In the Channel 7 interview, the only explanation Mayor Berry could come up with on returning Dominique Perez to work is he believes the city “had a right to return Perez” to work and “there’s no finding of guilt”.

Mr. Berry, there was also no finding of “not guilty” and no finding of innocence by the jury after a two week trial.

The biggest question is why was Dominique Perez allowed to return to work for APD when it was totally within the rights of the City not to allow him to return to work, even if he had been found not guilty, which did not occur?

There was never any public hearing in a public forum, court or personnel board as to whether or not Dominique Perez should be allowed to return to work for APD.

Over the years, there have been many cases where APD sworn officers have been charged with felonies, found not guilty, and not allowed to return to work by the City and APD.

A recent case that quickly comes to mind is the criminal prosecution of former APD Office Levi Chavez who was charged with the murder of his wife, terminated by APD, and who was later acquitted by a jury of his wife’s murder.

The City and APD refused to allow Levi Chavez to return to work, even though he was found not guilty by a jury.

Levi Chavez’s law enforcement certification was revoked when he went on trial and reinstatement of his certification was turned down by the state law enforcement board even after he was acquitted.

Levi Chaves has since gone on to apply for and is now in law school.

Another question that has gone unanswered or not reported by the media is if the law enforcement certification of Dominique Perez was ever suspended or revoked by the Director of New Mexico Law Enforcement Certification Board?

The rules and regulations of the Law Enforcement Certification Board provide as follows:

“B. Arrest or indictment on felony charges [of a law enforcement officer]; summary suspension:

(1) The director upon being notified that a certified police officer … has been arrested or indicted on any felony charge(s) shall immediately notify the individual of the intent to suspend the certification. … Notice of the immediate suspension shall be served on the officer … . Upon service of the notice, the individual shall have 15 days to request to be heard at the next meeting of the board. At the meeting, the individual may present evidence, witnesses and argument as to why their certification should not be suspended. The board may deliberate and shall issue a decision on the suspension at the meeting.” (See 10.29.1.11 GROUNDS FOR DENIAL, REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF POLICE OFFICER OR TELECOMMUNICATOR CERTIFICATION; REPORTING REQUIREMENTS)

There has never been a court case or personnel board public hearing to determine if there was a “wrongful termination” of Dominique Perez.

The termination of both APD Officer Keith Sandy and Dominque Perez were governed by the APD standard operating procedures dealing with “rules of conduct”.

The ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS, Section 1-1-4 of the Rules of Conduct provide as follows:

“B. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations

1. All sworn personnel are required to take an oath of office.
2. Personnel will obey all federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations, and, enforce those lawful directives while protecting the rights of individuals, as established in the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Mexico. This includes, but is not limited to, obeying all felony, misdemeanor, and traffic laws, and local ordinances, as well as all lawfully issued civil orders of any jurisdiction. …
3. …
4. …
5. Personnel will not commit any act that constitutes a violation of the rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department, to include, but not limited to, this policy. Personnel will, at all times, be held accountable for their own personal policy and procedure violations and must report any such violations to their chain of command.
6. …
7. …
8. After providing notice to the Officer or employee, and an opportunity for a hearing, the Department may impose discipline, up to and including termination, upon the occurrence of any of the following:
a. Completion of an internal investigation establishing that an employee more likely than not has violated Department policy or procedure, or has failed to report or document an alleged violation of Department policy or procedure;
b. Completion of a criminal investigation establishing a reasonable belief that the employee has violated a federal, state, or local felony and/or misdemeanor, or has failed to report or document an alleged violation of law;
c. The return of an indictment, or filing of a criminal information, complaint, or other formal criminal charge for the violation of any federal, state, or local felony or misdemeanor.”

The rule of conduct is clear that the return of an indictment, or the filing of a criminal information or complaint, all of which are mere accusations, can be grounds for termination.

The rule of conduct may sound somewhat harsh, but not when you take into consideration that police officers are held to a higher standard and they are not above the law.

The credibility of any police officer and indeed of a police department is seriously undermined when a police officer is charged with a felony crime.

There are no standard operating procedures or rules of conduct that dictate or require that the City or APD are required to return to work a police officer who is found not guilty for a felony.

The question that has never been decided by the city personnel board or by a court of law is if the conduct of Dominique Perez in the shooting and killing of James Boyd was in fact “justified” or if there was any violation of APD standard operating procedures to sustain termination.

The Berry Administration has not given any detailed explanation or justification for returning Dominique Perez to work other than the Mayor saying the City had “the right to do it”.

Both the James Boyd civil lawsuit of $5 million dollars and the return to work agreement have been negotiated behind closed doors.

It has been reported that an estimated $63.3 million the City of Albuquerque has paid in legal settlements in law enforcement civil rights cases from 2010 to 2016 has resulted in a $40 million shortfall in the city’s risk management fund, which pays for uninsured losses.

(See February 14, 2017 Albuquerque Journal, Metro & NM “Payouts leave Duke City $40M short”, section C-1: https://www.abqjournal.com/949518/claims-payouts-leave-abq-40m-short.html)

The report makes one wonder exactly what has the Berry Administration and the City Attorney’s office done to defend the City in police misconduct cases and wrongful termination cases other than writing checks and just “rolling over” without defending and settling the cases and without advocating any sort of defense and just returning people to work.

The Albuquerque City Attorney’s Office employs 34 attorneys, numerous para legals, administrative assistants and support staff.

The City taxpayers are entitled to demand and expect competent and aggressive defense when the city is sued, even in wrongful termination cases.

In 2010, it was the Berry Administration, on the recommendation of then City Attorney Rob Perry, a plaintiff’s attorney before becoming City Attorney, that abolished the “no settlement” policy to the absolute delight of plaintiff attorneys and the courts.

As City Attorney and as Chief Administrative Officer, Rob Perry sits on the City Risk Management Committee that approves city settlements of the cases.

The “no settlement policy” mandated that all “police misconduct cases” be tried before a jury with a few exceptions allowed when liability and misconduct was absolutely certain.

The philosophy was that the “sunlight” of an open courtroom and the presentation of evidence was the best disinfectant for police misconduct to inform the public.

The “no settlement policy” mandated that the City Attorney’s office aggressively defend the cases and police officer’s actions and required plaintiff attorneys to prove police misconduct and their client’s cases and damages.

This should also be the case for “wrongful termination” cases.

Settlements are reached behind closed doors and the public is seldom given much of an explanation of how damages are arrived at and why resulting in much speculation.

The “no settlement policy” worked and the City would often prevail when it went to court saving the taxpayers millions of dollars.

Even when the city did not prevail, judgments awarded by juries were often significantly less than what plaintiffs were seeking.

Plaintiff attorneys absolutely hated the no settlement policy and so did the court’s because it is a lot easier to settle a case than try a case before a jury.

With the abolishment of the “no settlement” policy, the City Attorney’s office has now acquired the reputation of just settling cases for the sake of settling and the city has become an easy mark to settle cases for large amounts of taxpayer money.

After 40 years of practicing law, mostly as a trial attorney, I for one have great faith in the American jury system and feel that there are times a jury needs to hear a case and determine damages, especially when it comes to police misconduct cases and even in “wrongful termination” cases.

City Councilor Pat Davis was elected to the Albuquerque City Council in October 6, 2015 to represent District 6, which encompasses the International District, Mesa Del Sol, Nob Hill, Southeast Heights, and the University of New Mexico.

Pat Davis previously worked as a police officer for the U.S. Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police in Washington, D.C. and the University of New Mexico Police Department and at one time served as the Public Information Officer (PIO) for the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office.

In 2010, Pat Davis ran for Bernalillo County Sheriff as a Democrat.

Davis earned a master’s degree in criminal justice from New Mexico State University.

Less than two years after being elected to the City Council, Davis is now running as a progressive Democrat to replace 1st Congressional District Congresswoman Mitchelle Lujan Grisham.

Former Democratic Party Chair Debra Haaland, former UNM Law School Associate Dean Antonette Sedillo Lopez, immigration and tax attorney Damian Lara, and Albuquerque physicist Dennis Dinge and Edgewood Mayor Pro Tem John Abrams, former United State Attorney for the District of New Mexico Damon Martinez and businessman Pula Moya have announced their candidacies for the 1st Congressional seat.

When Pat Davis ran for city council, I supported him without reservation and even went door to door campaigning for him.

I supported Davis for city council because ostensibly he is a progressive Democrat, he is a former police officer and I had high hopes that he would demand accountability from a Republican Mayor.

I believed Davis would advocate civilian oversight and accountability from the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) when it came to the Department of Justice (DOJ) mandated reforms.

I had high hopes for Pat Davis when he was elected to the city council, but no longer.

To say the least, I have been very disappointed with Pat Davis.

I regret supporting Davis for city council because of what he has done and has not done on the city council.

Pat Davis has agreed with the Berry Republican Administration and agreed with the Republican City Councilors on so many strategies and issues you would think Pat Davis was in fact a Republican.

Some specifics regarding Pat Davis’s action and voting record on the Albuquerque City Council:

1. Davis has voted repeatedly for and supported Republican Mayor Berry’s ART Bus project and funding. Davis refused to advocate to put ART on the ballot for public approval, telling his constituents at a forum that there was nothing he could do and it was the Mayor’s project. Davis voted to spend federal grant money that had yet to be appropriated by congress. The ART Bus project has been a total disaster resulting the destruction of the character of Route 66 and having a negative impact and resulting in several businesses going out of business. A few Nob Hill businesses at one time advocated a recall of his election because of his support for ART.

2. When he served on a task force to overhaul Albuquerque’s public fiancé law, Pat Davis declined to advocate meaningful changes to our public finance laws making it easier for candidates to qualify for public finance. The only change he agreed to was increasing the amount of money candidates get and not the process of collecting the donations to qualify and not expanding the time to collect qualifying donations. The lack of changes to the public finance laws favors incumbents like Pat Davis.

3. The Albuquerque City Council plays a crucial oversight role of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) including controlling its budget. Davis has done nothing when it comes to Albuquerque Police Department (APD) reforms and has never challenged the APD command staff in any meaningful way demanding compliance with the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree reforms. Each time the Federal Monitor has presented his critical reports of APD to the City Council, Davis has been silent and has declined to demand accountability from the Mayor and hold the APD command staff responsible for dragging their feet on the reforms. Davis has failed to attend any of the federal court hearings on the consent decree.

4. Davis advocates for enactment of the Healthy Workforce ordinance by voters which mandates the pay of sick leave by employers, and is always there for a photo op with those organizations who pushed to get it on the ballot. However, Davis has never demanded the City Attorney’s office enforce the existing Albuquerque minimum wage ordinance. Davis claims to be in favor of increasing the minimum wage, but he has never demanded the Mayor nor the City Attorney to enforce the current city ordinance enacted by voters with a 2 to 1 margin. Currently there is a class action lawsuit where minimum wage workers are being forced to defend the city minimum wage ordinance without city hall intervention or help.

5. Since being on the Council, Davis has voted for over $63 million dollars in revenue bonds to build pickle ball courts, baseball fields and the ART bus project down Central not seeking public input and bypassing the capital improvements process (CIP) that mandates hearings and public votes. The use of revenue bonds is discretionary with the City Council requiring seven (7) votes and revenue bonds do not require significant review and public hearings as is required with capital improvement bonds.

6. Davis voted for the city ordinance amendments requiring equal pay for woman, but failed to demand more. The amendments to the equal pay for woman ordinance sound good and look good on paper but accomplish very little. The truth is that the equal pay for woman ordinance only applies to city contracts and those who do business with the city. The ordinance is voluntary and gives preferential treatment on city contracts to those who voluntarily comply. The equal pay for woman ordinance should apply to all businesses licensed to do business in Albuquerque, it should be mandatory for all businesses and enforced by city planning that issues business licenses, and could be made so by the city council.

7. Davis voted to award Taser International, a five-year, $4.4 million contract for 2,000 on-body cameras for police officers, and cloud storage despite the fact the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office is investigating the $2 million no-bid contract the city entered with Taser in 2013 because former Police Chief Ray Schultz began consulting work for Taser while he was still on the city’s payroll. This is one contract that should have never been approved by the city council when there is an ongoing investigation, but Davis voted for it.

8. Davis attempted to privatize certain APD law enforcement functions with the hiring of a private security company that would employ 25 retired law enforcement personnel who would do field service work and reports for APD. Davis withdrew the bill after it was reported that the no bid contract for $1 million dollars would go to co-sponsor Republican City Councilor Brad Winter’s former campaign manager.

9. Davis called for the City to select and hire a private “outside investigator” to investigate the allegations made by a former APD records custodian that there was erasing, altering, corrupting or tampering and withholding of evidence of police officer lapel camera video in police officer involved shooting cases. The allegations included that high ranking APD command staff and the City Attorney’s office ordered the altering or withholding of lapel camera video. The allegations are criminal in nature and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has announced that there is an ongoing criminal investigation, but Davis wanted a private company to investigate and report to the city.

10. Davis partnered Republican Councilor Don Harris to write and sponsor a city ordinance to address blighted, abandoned or substandard commercial properties requiring property owners to make repairs when a number city ordinances and building codes are already on the books that are not being enforced to address substandard properties including one of the strongest nuisance abatement ordinances in the country. Rather than trying to re-invent the wheel for publicity sake, Davis and the City Council should have fully funded the Safe City Strike Force and utilize condemnation actions to address blighted commercial properties that are irreparable and that have become magnets for crime.

11. Davis voted for the final adoption of the ABC-Z comprehensive plan which will have long term impact on our neighborhoods and favors developers. The enactment of the comprehensive plan was a major priority of Republican Mayor Berry and the development community pushed hard for its enactment before Berry leaves office. The ABC-Z project rewrite is nothing more than making “gentrification” an official city policy and the “gutting” of long standing sector development plans by the development community to repeal those sector development plans designed to protect neighborhoods and their character.

12. When the Albuquerque City Council adopted the 2017-2018 city budget containing longevity pay plan for police officers, Davis sponsored the budget amendment to give to the longevity pay but only if the city met its quarterly revenue projections calling into doubt if the promised longevity pay would ever be paid to police. If Davis really wanted to fund the longevity pay program he would have sponsored an amendment funding it without any strings attached nor contingent on the city meeting revenue projections.

13. Davis sponsored a bill aimed at “reforming” the Albuquerque Police Department by banning any APD involvement whatsoever in the investigation of officer involved shooting cases. Davis ignored the fact that APD is operating under a Federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). Three years after the Department of Justice found a “culture of aggression” and after millions spent negotiating and implementing a federal consent decree, Davis attempted to take the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) out of the equation when it comes to investigating its deadly police shootings when such involvement is mandated by federal court order and the consent decree.

14. On an 8 to 1 vote, the Albuquerque City Council enacted the 2017-2018 city budget, with Davis voting for it, that provided 3% raises for city employees and longevity pay for APD sworn police officers. The budget was passed over the objections of Mayor Berry who then vetoed the city budget for the first time in his seven (7) years as Mayor. Berry claimed the budget passed by the council was “structurally unsound” objecting to the pay raises and longevity pay. At the same time Berry announced his veto, Davis and Republican City Councilor Brad Winter announced with the Mayor a $528.9 million dollar “compromise budget”. Davis apparently had no intent of even attempting an override of the very budget he voted for and passed on an 8-1. The Davis/Winter “compromise budget” reduced city employee pay raises to 1% and drastically reduced the police officer retention pay program by anywhere from $1.6 to $4 million. When the vetoed budget went before the Albuquerque City Council, for the first time in eight years, the Council, to the chagrin of Pat Davis, overrode the veto. Voting to override the Berry veto were Democrat Councilors Isaac Benton, Ken Sanchez, Klarissa Peña, Diane Gibson and Republicans Dan Lewis and Don Harris. Voting against the veto were Democrat Pat Davis and his Republican buddies Brad Winter and Trudy Jones. A despondent Pat Davis, as if channeling Republican Mayor Berry, said of the override “I can’t in good conscience see how this council could vote to override when it would put us on a credit watch”. Councilor Benton correctly pointed out that the city council can amend the budget anytime it wants if there is in fact a problem.

CONCLUSION

As City Councilor Pat Davis campaigns for the US Congress as a progressive Democrat, talks like a progressive Democrat, he needs to be asked by Democratic Party voters if once elected to the US Congress will he vote and act like a Republican as he has done so many times during his very short tenure on the Albuquerque City Council.

Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis has agreed with the Republican Berry Administration and agreed with Republican City Councilors on so many strategies and issues you would think Pat Davis was in fact a Republican.

The term that comes to mind is DINO (Democrat In Name Only).

Davis has once again shown his willingness to march to the tune of Republican Mayor Berry, despite one of his prior votes on the City Council.

On an 8 to 1 vote, the Albuquerque City Council enacted the 2017-2018 city budget, with Pat Davis voting for it, that provided 3% raises for city employees and longevity pay for APD sworn police officers.

The council passed budget was carefully crafted with input from all the city councilors and public hearings.

The original 2016-2017 budget was passed over the objections of Mayor Berry,

Mayor Berry vetoed the entire city budget for the first time in his seven (7) years as Mayor showing he can be the same kind of leader as Suszana Martinez when she vetoed the State of New Mexico budget.

Berry claimed the budget passed by the council was “structurally unsound” objecting to the pay raises and longevity pay.

Berry went as far as to say “The budget that came up from the City Council was well-intentioned, but it was simply a recipe to overpromise and underdeliver.”

At the same time Berry announced his veto, Pat Davis and Republican City Councilor Brad Winter announced with the Mayor a $528.9 million dollar “compromise budget” as a substitute to avoid an override of the budget.

Pat Davis apparently had no intent of even attempting an override of the very budget he voted for and that was passed on an 8-1 vote.

The Davis/Winter “compromise budget” reduced city employee pay raises to 1% and drastically reduced the police officer retention pay program by anywhere from $1.6 to $4 million, which was what was in the Mayor’s original budget.

The Davis/Winter compromise budget was hailed as the best thing next to sliced toast by the Albuquerque Journal in an editorial which was a tip off that the Journal did not like the prospect that an override of their favorite Mayor was possible.

When the vetoed budget went before the City Council, for the first time in eight years, the Albuquerque City Council, to the chagrin of Pat Davis, overrode the veto!

(See June 6, 2017 Albuquerque Journal, page A-1, “City Council overrides mayor’s budget veto; Councilrs note that package can be amended to fix the glitches” https://www.abqjournal.com/1013533/council-overrides-albuquerque-mayors-budget-veto.html)

Voting to override the Berry veto were Democrat Councilors Isaac Benton, Ken Sanchez, Klarissa Peña, Diane Gibson and Republicans Dan Lewis and Don Harris.

Ken Sanchez, Klarisa Pena, Diane Gibson and Don Harris are running for re-election and Dan Lewis is running for Mayor which may explain fully the new found courage they found in standing up to Berry for the very first time and over riding the Berry veto.

The normally quiet City Councillor Klarissa Pena showed some leadership when she justified her over ride vote by saying that the Davis/Winter compromise budget had not received the same public input as the vetoed budget approved by the city council.

Voting against the veto were Democrat Pat Davis and his Republican best buddies Brad Winter and Trudy Jones.

A despondent Pat Davis, as if channeling Republican Mayor Berry, said of the override “I can’t in good conscience see how this council could vote to override when it would put us on a credit watch”.

No Councilor Davis, it is you who do not have a very “good conscience”.

City Councilor Pat Davis sponsored the original longevity pay budget amendment and the council voted 5-4 to give officers longevity pay of up to $13,000 a year, but only if the city meets its quarterly revenue projections.

The Davis amendment to the first budget that passed places the entire $4 million for longevity pay into a reserve fund, the city would spend $1 million a quarter on longevity pay, with payment to officer’s contingent on the city meeting revenue forecasts over the next 15 months.

The City’s Budget Officer Gerald Romero said at the time “If revenues don’t pick up [then the money for the longevity pay] stays in reserves. … The way I read it, it doesn’t give us much wiggle room.”

Arguably, an APD officer could decide to stay and work with APD or not retire because of the promised longevity pay and then the City could turn around and say it has not met its revenue forecast and decide not to pay the officer the promised longevity pay.

If Pat Davis really wanted a longevity pay program, he could have made sure it was funded without any strings attached, but he did not.

Councilor Isaac Benton correctly pointed out after the veto override that the city council can amend the budget anytime to fix “glithes” which is likely within a week.

As City Councilor Pat Davis campaigns for the US Congress as a progressive Democrat, talks like a progressive Democrat, he needs to be asked by Democratic Party voters if once elected to the US Congress will he vote in good conscience like a Republican as he has done so many times during his very short tenure on the Albuquerque City Council.

The Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) at the University of New Mexico (UNM) did a report on Albuquerque’s economy and outlook.

BBER used local statistics and national forecasts of our state and local economy to come up with a job history and job projections.

A portion of the University’s BBER 2016 report and forecasting model is contained in a section of the City of Albuquerque’s 2018 Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-2018.

(See City of Albuquerque “Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2018, pages 46, 47, 48, 49 at www.cabq.gov/dfa/budget/annual-budget)

Following is the section contained in the 2017-2018 City of Albuquerque proposed budget:

“The Albuquerque economy declined in sync with the national economy, but has lagged in its recovery.

Total employment in the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) increased in the third quarter of 2012 but this gain was due to a change in processing by the department of Workforce Solutions and not in actual employment.

The 4th quarter of 2014 and all following quarters through the 1st quarter of 2016 show increases with growth.

The UNM BBER forecast of employment in October 2016, has positive non-agricultural (non-ag) employment growth beginning in FY/13, though as mentioned above, FY/13 is due only to a technical adjustment.

The growth in total employment in FY/14 was 0.4% and FY/15 growth in total employment was 1.4% and with one estimated quarter FY/16 is expected at 1.7%.

The Albuquerque economy lost over 27 thousand jobs from FY/08 to FY/12 a loss of 7% of total employment.

About 13 thousand jobs were added in FY/13 to FY/16.

In FY/17 employment is expected to increase 1.5% and remain near this level for the remainder of the forecast.

The economy does not approach FY/08 employment levels until FY/19.

This puts the Albuquerque recovery over four years behind the national economy in terms of reaching post-recession employment levels.

Government employment limits growth, with private sector employment growth exceeding total employment growth from FY/12 through FY/21.

Construction has improved and is now helping the economy.

The unemployment rate continues to decline, but some of this is due to discouraged workers leaving the labor force.

In calendar year 2015 there was somewhat a reversal of this with a small increase in the unemployment rate caused in part by people re-entering the labor force.

The [unemployment] rate is expected to slowly decline to 5.3% in FY/20 and FY/21.

This is above the unemployment rate for the U.S. for the entire forecast period.”

ALBUQUERQUE’S ECONOMIC GROWTH INDUSTRIES

The BBER study also discussed the following nine (9) major Albuquerque industries or economy sectors:

1. Retail and Wholesale Trade
2. Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
3. Manufacturing
4. Education and Health Services
5. Accommodation and Food Services
6. Real Estate & Financial Activities
7. Professional and Other Services
8. Information
9. Government

Following is information provided on each industry or sector:

1. RETAIL AND WHOLESALE TRADE

“These sectors [retail and wholesale trade] account for about 15% of employment in [Albuquerque’s Metropolitan Statistical Area]. It is a particularly important sector in terms of the Gross Receipts Tax (GRT); making up about 30% of GRT. As the recession hit, the closure of stores and reductions in purchases substantially hit employment and GRT in this sector. The sector is expected to have employment growth of just over 0.8% in FY/17 and FY/18 with a jump to over 1.5% in FY/19 and tailing off for the remainder of the forecast.”

2. TRANSPORTATION, WAREHOUSING AND UTILITIES

“This sector while important, only accounts for 2.5% of employment. Employment growth in this sector was weak before the recession hit and then declined substantially in FY/09 and FY/10. The expectations for the forecast are a robust recovery with growth over 2% in FY/17 following a decline of 0.6% in FY/16. With this growth, the sector does not reach the pre-recession high in the forecast period.”

3. MANUFACTURING

“This sector accounts for about 4.5% of employment in the [Albuquerque’s Metropolitan Statistical Area]. It is an important sector as it creates relatively high paying jobs that bring revenue from outside the area. (Emphasis added.) It also generates purchases of materials and services in the local economy making this sector’s impact greater than its employment share. After substantial job losses including closing of Eclipse Aviation and GE, the sector posted small gains in FY11 and FY/12. In FY/13, FY/14 and FY/15 the sector declined and is expected to post a small increase in FY/16 and FY/17 before suffering losses in the remainder of the forecast. FY/21 employment is only 72% of the employment of FY/08.”

4. EDUCATION AND HEALTH SERVICES

“This sector is predominantly health services and accounts for 15.7% of employment. Albuquerque is a major regional medical center that brings people into the area for services. Presbyterian Hospital and its HMO are one of the largest employers in the area. This was the only sector that increased through the recession and continues to be a primary driver for economic growth. Growth slowed in FY/14 but increased in FY/15 and is expected to reach 4% in FY/16. Growth stays above 3% in all years but FY/21 where it slows to 2.9%. This sector is the largest contributor to employment growth in the forecast period adding about 10,000 jobs (36.6% of total job growth) from FY/16 to FY/21.” (Emphasis added.)”

5. ACCOMMODATIONS AND FOOD SERVICES

“This category includes eating and drinking establishments as well as hotels and other travel related facilities. It accounts for 10% of employment in [Albuquerque’s Metropolitan Statistical Area]. The sector is a major contributor to both [Gross Receipts Tax] and Lodgers’ Tax. FY/14 and FY/15 had growth of over 3%. This slowed in FY/16 to near 2% and after increasing to over 2.5% in FY17 remains below 2% for the remainder of the forecast. The sector reached its previous peak of FY/08 in FY/14.”

6. REAL ESTATE & FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES

“This is two sectors and includes finance, insurance and real estate including credit inter mediation. It accounts for about 4.5% of employment in the [Albuquerque’s Metropolitan Statistical Area]. The financial crisis, the consolidation of banking, and the collapse of real estate impacted this sector. FY/13 shows an increase of 1% with FY/14 increasing 1.8%. Growth tapers off through the remainder of the forecast. In FY/21 the sector remains 367 jobs below the level of FY/08.

7. PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER SERVICES

“This category is a grouping of four service sectors (Professional and Technical, Management of Companies, Administrative and Waste Services, and Other Services). The category accounts for 18% of the employment in … [Albuquerque’s Metropolitan Statistical Area]. It includes temporary employment agencies, some of Albuquerque’s back-office operations, and architect and engineering firms that are closely tied to construction. It also includes Sandia National Labs (SNL). While the national labs gained some positions in FY/11 through FY/15, the sector as a whole was weak. This began to change in FY/15 as construction services (engineering and architecture) began adding jobs, though the sector as a whole declined. The sector shows expected growth in FY/16 of less than 1%. Growth then exceeds 1% every year in the remainder of the forecast with a peak growth of 2.6% in FY/18. In FY/21 it still remains 3,300 jobs below the peak of FY/08.”

8. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

“This sector includes businesses in telecommunications, broadcasting, publishing and internet service establishments. It also includes the film studios. It accounts for about 2% of employment in … [Albuquerque’s Metropolitan Statistical Area]. FY/13 posted solid growth, but FY/14 showed a substantial decline and FY/15 declined again. FY/16 is expected to show growth of over 3%, but slows to under 1% growth until FY/21.”

9. CONSTRUCTION

“Construction is typically cyclical, with significant swings in building and employment. Construction is an important sector and has an impact on the economy larger than its employment share of 5%. This sector lost 12 thousand jobs from FY/07 to FY/13. In FY/07 its employment share was 8%. After falling consistently from FY/07, employment in construction began increasing at the end of FY/13. FY/14 grew 2.8% and 2.4% in FY/15. Employment is expected to increase only 1.2% in FY/16, but then increases to near 3% in FY/17 and remains in the 2% to 3% range for the remainder of the forecast.It is one of the fastest growing sectors in the economy for the forecast period. Even with this growth construction employment in FY/21 is forecast to be 26% or 8,000 jobs below the FY/07 peak.”

10. GOVERNMENT

“The government sector makes up almost 21% of the Albuquerque’s Metropolitan Statistical Area employment. The largest part of State and Local government is education. Local Government includes the public schools and State Government includes the University of New Mexico and Central New Mexico Community College. The local sector also includes Indian enterprises.

The Federal Government makes up 4.4% of employment; nationally Federal government makes up 3.4% of total employment. This doesn’t include military employment which is counted separately. Active military is around 6,000 or about 1.7% of the total non-agricultural employment. Nationally military is 1% of total non-agricultural employment. Government employment slowed and decreased in FY/11 through FY/16.

Local and State employment decreased due to declines in tax revenue and the inability to fund the same level of employees. State and Local are flat in FY/13. State government has been stronger with growth of 2.4% and 11.3% in FY/14 and FY/15. It is expected to grow 4.2% and then decline or remain at low levels of growth for the forecast. Local government has been flat and is expected to show little growth in the forecast. The major sources of state and local jobs are education, though the Labor department does not keep individual counts for these jobs at the local level.

Federal Government after growing strongly in FY/10 showed little growth in FY/11 and declines in FY/12 through the remainder of the forecast. This occurs due to the federal government taking steps to reduce its expenditures. The forecast shows continued losses in federal jobs except in FY/19 to FY/21 largely due to hiring for the 2020 census.”

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

The City has a total operating revenue and budget of approximately $955.3 million for fiscal year 2018.

Gross receipts tax makes up for 64% of the City’s general fund revenues.

29% of all city appropriations goes to public safety (police, fire, 911, emergency operations center, ect.) and 20% goes to infrastructure (street system, water and sewer system, ect.) for a combined total of 49% of all city expenditures.

The remaining 51% of city expenditures goes to providing all other essential and government services involving some 23 other city departments.

The various departments and expenditures include the Mayor’s office, city council services, the 311 call center, the city attorney’s office, the risk management department, finance and administration, cultural services and affairs, family and community services, social services to the poor and homeless, transportation or mass transit services (bus), the human resources department, the city clerk’s office and maintaining government facilities such as our parks, the Bio Park including the zoo and aquarium, libraries, senior citizen centers, just to mention a few, and salaries and benefits for city employees.

The City of Albuquerque does have an Economic Development Department and its mission is “develop a more diversified and vital economy through the expansion and retention of businesses; develop appropriate industry clusters and recruit target industries; and assist new business start-ups, and promote the film and music industries.”

“The Economic Development Department supports the tourism and hospitality industries through collaboration and oversight of the City’s contractors. The department also fosters international trade efforts and increased international business opportunities for Albuquerque companies.”

The question that needs to be asked is if city hall is serious or even committed to economic development and diversifying our economy?

The answer appears to be no based on the resources allocated.

The fiscal year 2018 proposed budget for the Economic Development Department was $3.6 million, a decrease of 24.1% from the fiscal year 2017 original budget and employs nine (9) full time employees which does not sound like much for an effective economic development plan for diversifying the Albuquerque economy.

During the last eight (8) years, Albuquerque’s Economic Development Department has not convinced nor attracted a single major corporation or business to relocate to Albuquerque.

During the last eight (8) years, the City has paid out $61 million dollars in taxpayer money to settled police misconduct cases, deadly force cases and excessive use of force cases.

Can you image if the $61 million in settlement money could have been available for economic development or even social services?

CITY HALL NEEDS TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

When you look at Bureau of Business and Economic Research study it does not look like Albuquerque’s economy is going to turn around any time soon.

During the last eight (8) years, city hall has not made much progress in diversifying our economy.

Albuquerque can and must expand and find better ways to use financial incentives for economic development such as tax increment districts (TIDS), industrial revenue bonds, and even fund economic development investment programs such as initial startup funding with claw back provisions.

Albuquerque needs to pursue with a vengeance real growth industries such as the retail and wholesale trade, education and health care, professional services, technology transfer, transportation and manufacturing, and the film industry to diversify our economy.

Public-private partnerships in the growth industries where ever possible should be encouraged and developed.

Special emphasis and support should be given to Albuquerque’s film industry which is developing, expanding and proving to be very successful in providing well-paying jobs.

Albuquerque’s taxpayers must be convinced by its leaders of the importance of investing in major projects and in our neighborhoods to make Albuquerque more of a “walk able” City, where people can raise their family, work and make a living and have recreational and entertainment opportunities all within a small radius thereby reducing our reliance on the automobile.

A well designed, efficient mass transportation system is a basic essential service that must be provided by a growing City to its citizens.

Any mass transportation system that is developed must truly serve the entire community and not just a small geographic area such as is the poorly designed ART bus project which is destroying historic Route 66.

More community centers with recreational facilities would be a good start achieving a walk able city.

The City of Albuquerque needs to partner more with the State of New Mexico wherever possible.

A good first start in partnering with the State is to find a new vision for the State Fair grounds and how that very valuable gem in the center of Albuquerque can be better utilized to serve the Albuquerque community.

A suggestion would be for the City and State to jointly fund a tear down the old Tingly Coliseum and construct a multipurpose, state of the art facility that could be used for entertainment and sports events and operated year-round with a joint powers agreement.

Other joint powers agreements can be entered into between the City, State and County for the mutual use of facilities.

CONCLUSION

Our political, business and civic leaders need to show far more backbone and commitment to improving and diversifying Albuquerque’s economy.

Otherwise, we are destined to become a dying, dusty southwest city without any real potential for growth and better economic times.

I did a FACEBOOK page post on the news story where it was reported that the Route 66 cancelled the performance of comedian Kathy Griffins over a photo she had taken.

The unaltered photo shows Kathy Griffin staring wide-eyed into the camera holding a gruesome mannequins head with the face forward that looked way too real, with straw yellow hair and all, drenched and dripping with realistic looking blood and being held upright by her outstretched arm.

Frankly, when I saw it, it reminded me of all the murders ISIS committed by beheading people in public and that were telecast for political propaganda.

I am no fan of President Trump, and any one that knows me knows I am Democrat as they come.

I am a very big supporter of President Obama, but the photo was still very disturbing.

My FACEBOOK post was as follows:

“Sometimes I think I have seen it all when it comes to comedians that are vulgar, crude, and intolerant but what Kathy Griffin did was beyond the pale. I saw an unaltered photograph of her on line and did a double take. I am glad to see Route 66 did the right thing and cancelled her performance. No threat, real, perceived or in just in jest, should ever be tolerated against a President. Too much of this country’s history in my own lifetime has been altered by violence against our politicians.”

Thus far my FACEBOOK post has had 152 likes, 94 comments and 15 shares.

There has been very healthy and spirited comments over my post about freedom of speech, the press and how turnabout is fair play when it comes to President Trump and the way he and his supporters treated President Barack Obama, including a few with photos of President Obama that I considered offensive and deleted.

Here are a few of the comments with names omitted:

“… the fake right wing outrage machine just got started. They are ok with Trump’s admitted rape and racism. They are ok with Fox News hosts sexually harassing women. They are ok with the overt racist policies of this administration, but one C-level comedian goes over the line and OH MY GOD!!! OUTRAGE!!! But let us not forget Trumps real crimes and he is not worthy of our sympathy. Have at her. Hope it makes you all feel better.”

Another comment:

How is it ok for him [meaning Trump], not her? The real kick in the pants is, She is ACTUALLY a comedian, expected to be OUTRAGEOUS! He is a President and we SHOULD ALL demand better out of him. Instead we expect her to behave with decorum and him to be a crass jackass. Hmmmmmm.”

Another comment:

“Where was the concern when President Obama was hung in effigy, his image used as target, or in artwork as dead?”

A comment from an attorney that I have known for many years said of my post:

“Pete, are you really outraged? Or, are you running for something… again? Save your fake outrage. This is the state of political discourse in today’s reality. Accept it and move on.”

Still another comment:

“I resoundly disagree. 1. Freedom of speech includes effigies. 2. She did it for shock value and the amount of press she is getting will more than make up for a cancellation of a little casino in NM 3. Her photo could be considered art and provocative art is meant to be over the top and create controversy. I think Rt66 are cowards for cancelling the show.”

The following comment made me think how quickly people forget:

“Just wondering, if you have any examples of “violence against our politicians.” Do you mean the assassinations of the Kennedys? I was not alive for those, but are there any recent ones? The only example of violence that includes politicians I have heard of recently, was when the candidate Gianforte beat and choked a reporter. He was then promptly elected into office. Do you think that it is fair to remove work from a comedian, and not from a politician who is supposed to be representing their state/this country? If threatened violence is so vulgar and appalling, then why isn’t actual violence treated in the same fashion? Maybe if the Republicans (mainly the actual President) should stop condoning violence, and then maybe we would see a lot less of it popping up. I find it so funny that so many conservatives got up in arms about this, but hailed Gianforte for actually beating someone up. The irony and the stupidity is not lost on me.”

What I did say in my post was violence against politicians “in my lifetime” and I listed ones that I could recall off the top of my head: President John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Governor George Wallace, President Ronald Reagan, Mayor Mosconi and City Councilor Harvey Milk of San Francisco both assassinated, US Representative Gabby Giffords of Arizona.

I also mentioned the Kirkwood City Council shooting that occurred on February 7, 2008, where a gunman went on a shooting rampage at a public meeting in the city hall, leaving six people dead and two others injured.

I have no doubt what Kathy Griffins did was protected free speech, but that does not make it right or that she should have done it and she is now suffering the consequences even though she has apologized more than once for it.

Just because something is protected free speech does not mean you go ahead and do it.

I once heard a very prominent civil rights attorney give a lecture in Albuquerque who worked for the ACLU and who said that private citizens can walk up to uniform police officers and call them any name in the book they want, even using the “F word”, in protest, and he said it is protected free speech.

He then went on to say “But why would you do that to anyone who is carrying a gun?”

The point is, protected free speech has limitations that requires one to use your common sense.

Our first amendment right of free speech does have limitations.

There is a very old case taught in law school where the United States Supreme Court found free speech does not mean you can stand up in a packed theater and falsely yell “fire” causing a stampede for the exits.

What is really bothering me is the level of political discourse in this country that is being held out as just “free speech” that has such violent overtones, that promotes violence, promotes racial discrimination, promotes religious intolerance against others, and promotes hate and distrust of others, and that denigrates women and minorities.

In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment.

Too much intolerance is being promoted by our elected officials and President Trump has done more than his fair share of it, especially when he ran for office, but that does not mean violence against him should be condoned.

After watching what has been happening in Washington the last three months, I cannot but help wondering what is our country coming to, what are we becoming as a nation, what are we doing to ourselves?

We are a nation of laws, and I am absolutely confident things will unfold as they should in Washington without so called “free speech” that is nothing more than promoting violence against others.

As Americans, we need to come together, be tolerant and respect each other, confront our demons and set aside our differences and seek within ourselves to find solutions to our problems, our differences, without violence, before we destroy each other, and the freedoms we enjoy in this country.

“Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart
until, in our own despair, against our will,
comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.”
― Aeschylus

State District Court Judge Alan Malott has tossed a challenge to Albuquerque’s minimum wage ordinance filed by defendant business owners against minimum wage workers who were forced to file a class action lawsuit to enforce Albuquerque’s minimum wage ordinance without any assistance from the city.

(See June 2, 2017 Albuquerque Journal, Section B, “Challenge to ABQ minimum wage law tossed; Judge says litigant filed complaint late)

The Defendants in the case are the former restaurant owners of Kelley’s Brew Pub who sold the restaurant to another firm and Kelly’s is now under new management.

The Defendants alleged the minimum wage ordinance enacted in 2012 by voters “was presented to voters in an unlawful, misleading and deceptive manner” and was “therefore void and unenforceable as a matter of law”.

Judge Mallot did the right thing by dismissing the claim.

This is a major court victory for Albuquerque’s working class with no thanks to Mayor Berry and the Albuquerque City Council.

The City of Albuquerque and the City Attorney’s Office should be aggressively defending the minimum wage ordinance and should enforce it, but they never have done it.

In 2012, by a two-to-one ratio, voters in the City of Albuquerque decided to raise the City’s minimum wage from $7.50 per hour to $8.50 per hour.

Albuquerque’s minimum wage is now $8.80 an hour.

In 2012, Republican Mayor Richard Berry, the Republican Albuquerque City Councilors and the business community opposed and campaigned against the minimum wage voter initiative.

After enactment of the City’s minimum wage ordinance, Mayor Berry did not object to, albeit instructed, his appointed City Attorney saying the City did not have the resources to enforce the law against all businesses who violated the minimum wage law.

The current attitude of City Hall is that workers need to go to court on their own at their own expense to enforce the minimum wage ordinance and that is why the class action lawsuit was filed by waitresses and waiters.

The existing minimum wage ordinance is a city ordinance that needs to be enforced by the city and the city attorney’s office and not leave workers hanging out to dry and to fend for themselves at their own expense.

Not many minimum wage workers can afford to hire an attorney to go to court and enforce the provisions of the city’s minimum wage ordinance.

Since enactment of the city’s minimum wage ordinance, where have all our Democratic City Counselors gone?

Not a single city councilor who call themselves Democrats, including City Councilors Pat Davis, Diane Gibson, Ken Sanchez, Klarissa Pena and Isaac Benton haver ever demanded the Mayor or the City Attorney’s Office to enforce Albuquerque’s minimum wage ordinance.

All five (5) of our Democratic City Councilors have acted more like Republicans than Democrats when it comes to Albuquerque’s minimum wage.

Our Democratic City Counselor’s support of Albuquerque’s minimum wage is blowing in the wind.

Every single business in Albuquerque is required to register and have a license to do business and must agree to adhere to all enacted city ordinances and laws.

Businesses cannot pick and choose what laws and City Ordinances they want to follow.

The City Attorney’s office and Planning Department have the authority to enforce existing ordinances.

The Planning Department issues licenses to do business in Albuquerque and has code enforcement responsibility.

Businesses licensed by the City can be ordered to follow the minimum wage law or the City will take court action to have their business licenses revoked and secure Court Orders to shut down the businesses for violating the law.

The Mayor and the City Attorney’s Office needs to do the right thing and enforce the existing minimum wage and not force worker’s to fend for themselves.

All candidates for Mayor need to articulate not only where they stand on Albuquerque’s minimum wage but if they intend to order the Planning Department and the City Attorney’s Office to enforce it.

All candidates for City Council need to articulate where they stand on Albuquerque’s minimum wage and if they support funding for the Planning Department and the City Attorney’s Office to enforce it.