This blog article is an in-depth analysis of “connecting the dots” revealing the face of Mayor Tim Keller, naming his promoters and his reliance on high dollar contributions from measured finance committees to get elected and to promote causes he supports and the 2019 candidates for City Council he endorsed. It also reveals “Mayor Keller’s local PAC” soliciting funds for a City Councilor candidate.

MEASURE FINANCE COMMITTEES EXPLAINED

Under the City of Albuquerque’s campaign finance laws, a Measure Finance Committee is a political action committee (PAC), persons or group that supports or opposes a candidate or ballot measure in City of Albuquerque elections. Measure Finance Committees are required to register with the City Clerk within five (5) days once they have raised or spent more than $250 towards their purpose specific purpose.

All Measure Finance Committees must register with the Albuquerque City Clerk, regardless of the group’s registration as a political action committee (PAC) with another governmental entity, county, state or federal. Measure finance committees must also file financial “Campaign Finance Reports” reporting monetary contributions, loans, in kind donations and expenditures.

Under existing law, it is illegal for any candidate for office or their campaign committee to coordinate their campaign efforts with any measured finance committee.

2019 MEASURED FINANCE COMMITTEES IDENTIFIED

According to the Albuquerque City Clerk’s web page, a total of 10 measured finance committee have been formed and were registered for the November 5, 2019 municipal election. Those measured finance committees are:

A Better ABQ
ABQ Democracy Dollars, Common Cause NM, New Mexico Working Families, Ole Education Fund
ABQ Fire Pac
ABQ United for District 2
ABQ Votes
ABQ Working Families Party
Democratic Party of New Mexico
Progressive ABQ
Public Safety First
Sierra Club 2019 Albuquerque MFC

All the measured finance committee campaign finance reports for the 2019 municipal election can be found here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/2019-city-council-candidates-financial-disclosures

2019 MUNICIPAL ELECTION COVERAGE

“New Mexico Politics With Joe Monahan” provided November 5 election coverage both on the blog and on the radio the day before the election and days after the election day. On November 6, Joe Monahan published an excellent summary and analysis of the November 5 results on his blog. The November 6 blog included an analysis of the failed Proposition 2 Democracy Dollars and reported on the enactment of Proposition 1 increasing public financing.

NOVEMBER 6 MONAHAN BLOG

Following is an excerpt from Mr. Monahan’s November 6 election coverage blog article:

“DEMOCRACY DUD

On the other hand the proposition to update the city’s public financing system by awarding more money to publicly financed council and mayor candidates did pass muster with the voters, winning 58 to 42.

http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/

NOVEMBER 7 MONAHAN BLOG

On November 7, Joe Monahan reported that Mayor Tim Keller announced that he is running for a second term:

“You can say you heard it hear first.” So declared ABQ Mayor Tim Keller on our KANW-FM Election Night broadcast as he announced he will seek a second four year term in 2021. Already? Well, that’s how it works these days. Keller is now only two years into the first term that he was elected to in 2017 but wants to send an early signal to potential foes that he is all in for another.

Unlike past mayors he waded deeply into the city council elections this year, endorsing Councilor Pat Davis who won big, Councilor Ike Benton who will go to a run-off with Zack Quintero and Ane Romero who has a December 10 run-off with Republican Brook Bassan.”

http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/

MAYOR KELLER’S ENDORSEMENT OF 2019 CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES

Mayor Tim Keller released a video endorsing incumbent Democratic Albuquerque City Councilors Isaac (Ike) Benton, District 2, and Pat Davis, District 6, for another term to the Albuquerque City Council. Keller also endorsed newcomer Ane C. Romero in the District 4 City Council race. The endorsements raised more than a few political eyebrows, especially among the young progressive Democratic candidates running against Benton and Davis. One Democrat candidate expressed privately they felt “absolutely betrayed” by Keller in that he supported Keller for Mayor.

In the video endorsement, Mayor Keller proclaims that Benton and Davis have been tremendous City Councilors and are in the best positions to move Albuquerque forward and stating:

“With the right leadership we truly can come together to be the best city we can be.”

You can view the full video here:

https://www.facebook.com/BentonForABQ/videos/504381937059221/

MAYOR KELLER’S LOCAL PAC IDENTIFIED

A confidential source has provided an email from former State Representative Stephanie Maez to Emerge NM, an organization that recruits and trains democratic woman to run for office. Emerge does not endorse candidates or contribute to candidates financially. Maez should have known this, but she felt it appropriate to ask for contributions from her “Emerge Family” on behalf of Democrat Ane Romero. The email states in full as follows:

“Hello Emerge Family!
I’m running Mayor Keller’s local PAC supporting our fellow Emerge sister, Ane’ Romero for City of Albuquerque council district 4.
As you all know, campaigning is tough work and it takes many hands and resources to win elections and stay in office. A Better Albuquerque has been created to help one of our own see her way to the Council.
Please show your continued support of this amazing individual by making a contribution (there is no amount too small) to our PAC. See here website here (sic): www.abetterabq.com
Let me know if you have questions!
All the very best,
Steph
Stephanie Maez
(505) 410-0251”

Based on the email “A Better Albuquerque” is the Mayor’s PAC and has registered with the city clerk’s office as a measured finance committee and has filed campaign finance reports with the city clerk. According to the campaign finance reports filed for “A Better Albuquerque”, all of the reports were filed by Stephanie Maez.

Another measured finance committee known as “Progressive ABQ” is registered with the city clerk’s office and has filed campaign finance reports with the city clerk. According to the campaign finance reports for “Progressive ABQ,” all were filed by Stephanie Maez.

You can review the Measured Finance Committee campaign finance reports for “Progressive ABQ” here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/2019-city-council-candidates-financial-disclosures

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/documents/progressive-abq-statement-10.pdf

INFLAMATORY MAILER IN CITY COUNCIL RACE

The Friday before the November 5 election, a mailer was sent out attacking City Council District 2 candidate Zack Quintero who was one of 5 candidates running against long serving City Councilor Isaac Benton. Hispanic Progressive Democrat Zack Quintero, 28, is a recent UNM Law School graduate and economist, and was born and raised in New Mexico.

The flyer proclaimed “ZACK QUINTERO DIDN’T INVENT CHRISTMAS ENCHALADAS” an obvious reference to his Hispanic heritage. The mailer had a color photo that was “photo shopped” with the head of a smiling Zack Quintero superimposed on the body of another man of color standing in a kitchen with the person dressed in a short sleeve shirt crossing their arms to reveal an extensive number of tattoos on both arms. Zack Quintero has no tattoos.

Candidate Zack Quintero quickly denounce the mailer as racist, as did one of his opponents Robert Blanquera Nelson and others. All three news stations and the Albuquerque Journal covered the controversy. Mayor Tim Keller for his part remained silent, did not comment on the flyer, did not withdraw his endorsement of Isaac Benton. What is even more troubling is the media never interviewed Keller about the controversy and Mayor Keller has not disclosed publicly or denied he has connections to Stephanie Maez, A Better Albuquerque nor to “Progressive Alb”.

“Progressive Abq” publicly supports District 2 incumbent City Councilor Isaac Benton. Benton for his part said he did not know about the disparaging mailer and said the group is not affiliated with his campaign.

Political observers were saying that there was a poll showing Mr. Quintero gaining on Benton in the race and there was major concern by Benton supporters that he would not get the 50% + 1 of the votes to avoid a runoff. Benton’s worst fears of not winning outright to avoid a runoff came true. The results of the November District 2 City Council race were that Incumbent Isaac Benton came in first with 4,836 votes (42.04%) and Zack Quintero came in second with 2,337 votes (20.66%). A runoff election between the two is schedule for December 10.

Former New Mexico State Rep. Stephanie Maez was found to be associated with the content of the mailer and mailing out the inflammatory mailer. Maez said in a Channel 7 interview that the mailer had nothing to do with race and pivoted to deflect criticism by saying:

“As a matter of fact, I find it offensive that they are even alleging [racism] … . As a Hispanic woman, native New Mexican, I’ve spent my whole like championing issues that impact our communities our Hispanic communities for him to say that I find it offensive.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/race-for-district-2-city-council-seat-heats-up-with-controversial-political-ads/ar-AAJIIWv

It is very difficult to believe Maez was offended by the accusation of racism when she is Hispanic, was the one responsible for mailing it out and the intent of the mailer was to clearly ridicule a young Hispanic opponent of Benton.

SOLICITATIONS AND ATTEMPT TO RUN INTERFERENCE

Confidential sources have disclosed that at least 2 people were contacted by a woman who was likely, but not confirmed with confidence, to be Stephanie Maez, who said she was raising money for the “the Mayor’s PAC” to support council candidates. One declined to give money. The other was willing to give, but did not, when no assurance would be given by the caller that the donation would not go to benefit incumbent City Councilor Isaac Benton.

According to one confidential source, Alan Packman, Keller’s longtime political consultant who now works for the city, during city office hours, attempted to distance Mayor Tim Keller from the inflammatory mailer that attacked city council candidate Zack Quintero. Packman texted to the confidential source “Want to make sure you know that mayor had nothing to do with that mailer”. The text response to Packman was that there was reason to believe that it was not true, to which Packman gave no reply.

KELLER’S APPROVAL OF PROPOSITION ONE

Proposition 1 was approved by city voters with 46,468 voting YES and 38,863 voting NO. Proposition 1 ostensibly deals with updating the city’s public finance ordinance by increasing the amount given to candidates for Mayor. The biggest change to the public finance law under Proposition 1 is to dramatically increase the amount of city general fund and taxpayer money that will be given to mayoral candidates. In the 2017 Mayors race, the amount of public finance was $380,000 and with enactment of Proposition 1, the amount will be increased from $1.00 to $1.75 per voter, which will be $665,000 in public finance.

Proposition 1 also clarifies and tightens up the definitions around what constitutes an in-kind donation. In the 2017 mayoral election, many irregularities occurred with “in kind” donations that resulted in ethics complaints against Mayor candidate Tim Keller where cash donations were called “in kind” donations.

Keller’s longtime political consultant Alan Packman argued that “cash donations” to the 2017 Keller campaign were “in kind donations”. The City’s Election Ethics Board rejected outright that “cash donations” were “in-kind donations” and admonished the Keller Campaign with no penalty. After the election, Keller hired Packman to work for the city at the 311-call center, even though Packman has no prior experience working in government service call centers and his previous work experience was being a “political consultant” managing campaigns. Packman is paid upwards of $80,000 a year and reports directly to Mayor Tim Keller.

On November 7, Mayor Keller boldly proclaimed:

“With Proposition One, we are finally updating the Open and Ethical Code with new rules to close loopholes, improve public financing, and increase transparency in the City elections.”

KELLER’S ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSITION 2 DEMOCRACY DOLLARS

Proposition 2 was rejected by city voters with 39,232 (49%) voting YES and 41,249 (51%) voting NO. Approval of Proposition 2 would have set up Democracy Dollars, a program to provide eligible Albuquerque residents, not just registered voters and would have included non-citizens, with a $25 taxpayer-funded coupon to give to an eligible candidate of their choosing in a city election. The funds would have been added to those provided by the city’s current public finance system should a candidate qualify.

“Democracy Dollars” sent out a slick and impressive mailer to 49,158 registered voter family household encouraging Albuquerque voters to vote YES on Proposition 2. According to a Campaign Finance Report, the cost of the mailer with postage was $20,286.48.

The flyer that “Democracy Dollars” sent out has the official city color photo of Mayor Tim Keller quoting him as follows:

“At the heart of every democracy, everyone should have a stake in their elections. That connection is what Democracy Dollars is all about.”

The political flyer contained the following disclaimer:

“PAID FOR BY ABQ DEMOCRACY DOLLAR, COMMON CAUSE NEW MEXICO, NM WORKING FAMILIES PARTY, OLE EDUCATION FUND. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE.”

Common Cause New Mexico, NM Working Families and OLE are progressive organizations known to be supporters of the Mayor, with at least two having made contributions to the measured finance committee “Democracy Dollars”. It is unknown and has not been reported by the media or disclosed if “Democracy Dollars” measured finance committee knew Keller was running for a second term or if Mayor Tim Keller disclosed to Democracy Dollars or the PAC he was running for another term.

2017 KELLER FOR MAYOR MEASURED FINANCE COMMITTEES

Tim Keller was the only candidate in 2017 election that qualified for public finance. The Keller campaign collected the needed 3,000 qualifying cash donations of $5 to the City of Albuquerque from registered voters over a six-week period. Once qualified, the Keller for Mayor campaign was given a total of $506,254 in public financing, which included financing for the first election and separate financing for the runoff. As a condition to receiving public financing from the City, Tim Keller agreed in writing to a spending cap not to exceed the amount given and agree not to raise and spend any more cash to finance his campaign.

Notwithstanding being a public finance candidate, Keller supporters realized that more would be needed to elect Keller and supporters formed three (3) measured finance committees that either raised money directly to spend on his behalf or indirectly spent money and supported Keller’s candidacy for Mayor financially. No other candidate for Mayor in 2017 had a measured finance committee raising or spending on their behalf.

ABQ Forward Together was a measured finance committee that was formed specifically to raise money to promote Tim Keller for Mayor in 2017. The measured finance committee raised over $663,000 for Keller. ABQ Forward Together was chaired by longtime political consultant Nerie Olguin a former campaign consultant for Mr. Keller when he ran successfully for New Mexico State Senate. $67,000 was raised and spent by the Firefighters political action committee known as ABQFIREPAC for Tim Keller. $122,000 was raised and spent by ABQ Working Families on Tim Keller’s behalf.

$1,358,254 was spent on Tim Keller’s successful campaign for Mayor. ($506,254 public finance money + $663,000 ABQ Forward + $67,000 ABQFIREPAC + $122,000 ABQ Working Families = $1,358,254.)

There was no other candidate for Mayor in 2017 that had measured finance committees that raised and spent money on their behalf. Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis, who made it into the runoff with Tim Keller, raised more than $847,000 combined in cash and in-kind contributions for the October election and the November Mayoral runoff election.
Democrat Brian Colón raised and spent nearly $824,000 for his unsuccessful mayoral run and came in third. Republican Wayne Johnson privately raised and spent approximately $250,000. Republican Ricardo Chavez finance his own campaign by contributing and loaning his campaign $1 million dollars, but when he dropped out of the race, all of the money was repaid to him after he spent approximately $200,000. The remaining three (3) candidates for Mayor raised and spent less than $50,000 combined after failing to qualify for public financing.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/01/02/2018-year-to-reform-city-public-campaign-finance-laws-revised-article/

2019 DEMOCRACY DOLLARS MEASURED FINANCE COMMITTEE; FATHER ERIC GRIEGO DEFENDS HIS PUBLIC FINANCE CHILD

A measured finance committee was formed to promote “Democracy Dollars”. According to finance reports filed with the Albuquerque City Clerk, the measured finance committee entitled “ABQ Democracy Dollars, Common Cause New Mexico, New Mexico Working Families Party, Ole Education Fund” was registered. The “Democracy Dollars” measured finance committee filed ten 2019 Campaign Finance Reports.

On October 21, 2019, the Democracy Dollars measured finance committee filed its 8th Campaign Finance Report covering the reporting period of October 12, 2019 to October 18, 2019. You can review the report here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/documents/democracy-dollars-statement-8.pdf

The Financial Activity Summary of the October 21, 2019 report reflects that $80,000 in cash was contributed by the New Mexico Working Families Party. In the 2017 Mayor’ race, ABQ Working Families raised $122,000 and spent it on Mayor Tim Keller’s behalf to get Tim Keller elected Mayor.

The Working Families Party is a “progressive grassroots political party building a multiracial movement of working people”. Former Albuquerque City Councilor and former State Senator Eric Griego is its executive director. Griego was the sponsor of the original City’s Public Finance ballot initiative passed in 2005 by voters by 69%.

Eric Griego, rather than advocating dramatic changes to the existing City’s public finance law he sponsored and make it easier to qualify for public finance, Grieg advocated for a whole new “pool of money” in the form of “Democracy Dollars” to supplement public finance qualifying candidates. For more on Eric Griego see “Father Eric Griego Defends His Public Finance Child” at this link:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2017/09/22/father-eric-griego-defends-his-public-finance-child/

The 8th Democracy for Dollars Campaign Finance Report reported a total of $39,745 in “in -kind” donations. There are 10 in-kind donations including in kind donations of $4,244, $3,709, 3,250, $2,248. A one in-kind donation of $20,912 is listed as having been made by a Colorado corporation advocating campaign finance reform with the purpose of the donation to make phone calls to registered voters.

On November 4, 2019, the Democracy Dollars measured finance committee filed its 10th Campaign Finance Report covering the reporting period of October 26, 2019 to November 1, 2019. You can review the report here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/documents/democracy-dollars-statement-10-1.pdf

The Financial Activity Summary of the November 4, 2019 report reflects that at total of $45,084.00 in cash contributions were made, with Common Cause donating $42,000 in cash on October 26 and Ole Education fund donating $3,084.00 on November 1, 2019.

The 10th Democracy for Dollars Campaign Finance Report reported a total of $54,665 in “in -kind” donations which included $33,350 from Ole Education Fund made on November 1 for “FIELD CANVASS, RADIO ADVERTISING FROM MICHELSON CREATIVE COMMUNICATIONS”, $3,250 from New Mexico Working Families Party made on November 1 for STAFF TIME AND STAFF MANAGEMENT and two in-kind donations of $3,180 and $4,178 made by Stand Up America of New York, New York.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

During the November 5 KANW-FM Election Night coverage with Joe Monahan, Mayor Tim Keller boldly proclaimed “You can say you heard it here first” as he announced he will seek a second four-year term as mayor in 2021. It is more than likely than not Mayor Tim Keller and his political consultants will use the same formula that won him the 2017 election in his 2021 bid to get reelected: namely seek $665,000 public finance first, proclaim he is once again “walking the talk” and then turn around and get considerable financial help from progressive measured finance committees to promote his candidacy for another term.

PROPOSITIONS ONE AND TWO

Proposition One “Public Finance Update” and Proposition 2 “Democracy Dollars” represented a failure at real reform to the City’s public finance laws. Both propositions can be considered a very noble and idealist attempt to campaign finance reform in one form or another to deal with Citizens United, the United States Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited amount of campaign fund raising and spending.

Notwithstanding the nobility of the attempts, they were very feeble attempts at best. The reality is both propositions represented nothing more than a “money grab” by candidates and incumbents like Tim Keller and the propositions favors incumbents that already have a campaign organization in place.

Proposition 1 does not represent campaign finance reform but only increased the amount of public finance to candidates by going from $380,000 to $665,000 in public fiancé for candidates for mayor. As proved by the 2017 Mayors race, $665,000 will still not be enough to compete with private finance campaigns that can raise and spend as much as they want, unless you rely on measured finance committees to promote your campaign which defeats the purpose and intent of public financing of campaigns.

You can read a related blog article here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/10/26/vote-no-on-proposition-1-updating-public-finance-changes-not-public-finance-reform-but-increases-taxpayer-money-trough-for-politicians/

The “Democracy Dollars” system was touted a “voucher” system to allow the city to donate $25-dollar redeemable vouchers to all “qualified” city residents who are less fortunate to make money donations on their own. The argument was that the less financially fortunate would be able to participate and make a political campaign donation to candidates of their choosing like those who can afford to make donations on their own. This is a warped interpretation of democracy. It equates political donations as the only meaningful way to participate in the election political process.

Democracy Dollars received one single $82,000 cash donation and 10 in-kind donations including in kind donations of $4,244, $3,709, 3,250, $2,248. A whopping one in-kind donation of $20,912 is listed as having been made by a Colorado corporation advocating campaign finance reform with the purpose of the donation to make phone call to registered voters.

It is very difficult to ignore the absolute hypocrisy of the supporters and promoters of Democracy Dollars when they engage in the very conduct they condemn and supposedly deplore in the form of making “big money donations” to political campaigns and turn around and make single $80,000 and $40,000 cash donations, raise thousands for a measure finance committee to support a candidate or initiative and make $20,000 in-kind donations.

SINISTER THREAT OF MEASURED FINANCE COMMITTEES

The single biggest threat to the fairness of Albuquerque’s municipal elections is the influence of the “measured finance committees” that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates of their choosing, attack candidates they oppose or promote or oppose propositions on the ballot.

Every effort should be made to make Albuquerque’s public financing laws for municipal elections to legally provide for a “dollar for dollar” match to privately raised funds by candidates, thereby providing a real level playing field.

The influence of big money in elections allowed by the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United is destroying our democracy. Many highly qualified candidates for office all too often do not bother to run because of the inability or difficulty raising the necessary money to run. Political campaign fundraising and big money influence are warping our election process.

Money spent becomes equated with the final vote. Money drives the message, affects voter turnout and ultimately the outcome of an election. Albuquerque municipal elections need campaign finance reform and enforcement, not a money grab by those running for office which is what Propositions 1 and 2 represent.

Albuquerque municipal elections need campaign finance reform and enforcement, something the City Council and the Mayors have been reluctant to do for at least the past 10 years.

Mayor Keller said “With [the passage of] Proposition One, we are finally updating the Open and Ethical Code with new rules to close loopholes, improve public financing, and increase transparency in the City elections.” Keller used many of those same loopholes himself to get elected Mayor in 2017, especially when it came to his use of “cash donations” as “in-kind donations” and measured finance committees.

CONCLUSION

Albuquerque’s public finance laws are way too difficult to qualify for public financing by candidates for Mayor. In the 2013 and the 2017 Mayoral elections, only 2 candidates out of 19 candidates for Mayor qualified for public financing.

Only time will tell if Mayor Tim Keller will actually do more than give enactment of Proposition 1 lip service and say he is “walking the talk” now that he has made it know he is running for a second term.

Only Time will tell if Mayor Tim Keller or the City Council will attempt to reign in measured finance committees who Keller relied on so heavily to get himself elected and to elect candidates and causes he supports.

Following are links to related blog articles:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/10/26/vote-no-on-proposition-1-updating-public-finance-changes-not-public-finance-reform-but-increases-taxpayer-money-trough-for-politicians/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/10/30/democracy-dollars-engages-in-class-warfare-and-tribalism-while-mayor-tim-keller-promotes-funding-source-for-his-2021-election-vote-no-on-proposition-2-democracy-dollars/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/10/25/democracy-dollars-warped-interpretation-of-democracy-violating-state-anti-donation-clause-and-federal-campaign-finance-laws/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/01/02/2018-year-to-reform-city-public-campaign-finance-laws-revised-article/

NEWS UPDATE:

On November 13, the Albuquerque Journal published a story entitled “PAC claims Keller connection in fundraising email”. You can read the article here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1390598/pac-claims-keller-connection-in-fundraising-email.html

In the Journal article, Keller Mayor spokeswoman Jessie Damazyn said “The Mayor was certainly publicly supportive of these candidates and worked on their behalf, but any suggestion that these were his organizations is incorrect.” There was no denial that Keller has every talked to Maez and discussed his support and the PACS. Of course Mayor Keller and Maez are denying that Keller was directly involved with the PAC. Now that Keller has made it known he is running for reelection, which he announced Nov 5 election night on the radio, Maez and Keller know there are very serious repercussions with a candidate or their campaigns coordinating efforts with measured finance committees.

Keller has an extensive history of PACS raising thousands in campaign donations on his behalf and he is an expert on how the game is played. ABQ Forward Together was a measured finance committee that was formed specifically to raise money to promote Tim Keller for Mayor in 2017. The measured finance committee raised over $663,000 for Keller. ABQ Forward Together was chaired by longtime political consultant Nerie Olguin a former campaign consultant for Mr. Keller when he ran successfully for New Mexico State Senate. $67,000 was raised and spent by the Firefighters political action committee known as ABQFIREPAC for Tim Keller. $122,000 was raised and spent by ABQ Working Families on Tim Keller’s behalf. $1,358,254 was spent on Tim Keller’s successful campaign for Mayor. ($506,254 public finance money + $663,000 ABQ Forward + $67,000 ABQFIREPAC + $122,000 ABQ Working Families = $1,358,254.)

On this 2019 Veterans Day, I am compelled to pay tribute to members of my family who have given so much and sacrificed so much to protect our freedoms and to protect this great country of ours. All these family members were born and lived in New Mexico, two were born in Chacon, New Mexico and the rest raised and educated in Albuquerque.

One gave the ultimate sacrifice during time of war.

My father Paul Dinelli and my Uncle Pete Dinelli, for whom I was named after, both served in the US Army during World War II when the United States went to war with Italy, Germany and Japan. The United State was at war with Italy during World War II. My father and uncle were first generation born Americans and the sons of Italian immigrants who settled in Albuquerque in the year 1900 to live the American dream. My Uncle Pete Dinelli was killed in action when he stepped on a land mine. My father Paul Dinelli was a disabled American Veteran when he returned to Albuquerque after World War II.

My uncles Fred Fresques and Alex Fresques, my mother’s two brothers, also saw extensive combat in World War II. My Uncle Alex Freques served in England and was in the Air Force. My uncle Fred Freques saw extensive action in the US Army infantry to the point that he refused to talk about what he saw to anyone. After the war, my Uncle Fred returned to Albuquerque and raised his family in Barelas. Over many years, my Uncle Fred was active in the Barelas Community Center and was a trainer for the “Golden Gloves” competition teaching young adults the sport of boxing.

My father in law, George W. Case, who passed away a few years ago at the age 93, served in the United States Navy during World War II and saw action while serving on a destroyer. My father in law George Case was so proud of his service that he wore a World War II Veterans cap every day the last few years of his life. After the war, my father in law George Case returned to Albuquerque was married to my mother in law Laurel Del Castillo for 50 years, raised a family of 4 girls. George eventually owed a liquor store for a few years and then went on to build, own and operate the Old Town Car wash and was in the car wash industry for a number of years.

My nephew Dante Dinelli, was born and raised in Albuquerque and joined the service a few years after graduating from Cibola High School. Dante served 20 + years in the US Navy, retired as a Chief Petty Officer and to this day still works in a civilian capacity for the Navy.

My two nephews, Matthew Barnes and Brandon Barnes, the sons of my younger sister, Pauline were born and raised in Albuquerque and went to Bosque Prep. Both Mathew is a Major and Brandon is a Captain in the United States Marine Corps and both are climbing the promotion ladder in the Marine Corps. My nephew Captain Brandon Barnes is a graduate of the US Naval Academy. My nephew Captain Matthew Barnes graduated from UNM with honors and served a tour in Afghanistan.

To all the wonderful and courageous men and women who have served and continue to serve our country to protect and secure the promise of freedom and the ideals upon which the United States was founded upon, and to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, I thank you for your service to our Country.

Your service and sacrifices will never be forgotten. God bless you all and God Bless this great country of ours!

On November 1, 2019, Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger filed with the Federal Court his 10th compliance audit report of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) reforms mandated under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The audit report covers February 2019 through July 2019. The report is 287 pages long and follows the same format as all the previous 9 reports. It is a detailed audit of every paragraph of the consent decree.

On November 8, 2019, the Albuquerque Journal did a very lengthy front-page story entitled “APD hits important milestone in DOJ reforms”. The Journal article glosses over or practically ignores the “Counter CASA effect” the monitor has been dealing with APD since September 2018. The link to the Journal article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1388829/apd-hits-important-milestone-in-doj-reform.html

The Albuquerque Journal article was published the day after my own blog article with the link to that article provided below.

COUNTER CASA EFFECT

It was on September 10, 2018, at a status telephone conference call held with US District Court Judge Robert Brack who at the time was presiding over the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) reforms that Federal Monitor Dr. James Ginger first told the federal judge that a group of “high-ranking APD officers” within the department were trying to thwart reform efforts.

The Federal Monitor revealed that the group of “high-ranking APD officers” were APD sergeants and lieutenants. Because sergeants and lieutenants are part of the police bargaining unit they remained in their positions and could not be removed by the Chief. APD Chief Michael Geier also reported last year to Judge Brack that he had noticed some “old-school resistance” to reforms mandated by the CASA. At the time, Chief Geier reported he replaced a number of commanders with others who agree with police reforms. However, Chief Geier reported he could not replace the sergeants nor lieutenants who were resisting the reforms because of the union contract.

Federal Monitor Ginger referred to the group as the “Counter-CASA effect”.

UNION RESISTANCE TO REFORMS

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019, a day long status conference was convened by Federal Judge James Browning to listen to Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger’s third “Outcome and Measures And Analysis Report” on the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). Judge James Browning took over the case from Judge Robert Brack who retired and went on Senior Status. It had been more than a year since the last public status conference was held.

At the August 20, 2019 hearing, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the city of Albuquerque, APD , the police union and the many stakeholders in the effort testified. Overall, the consensus throughout the all-day hearing was that APD has improved dramatically. All seem to agree that there is a lot more left to be done with the police reforms. All of the participants said they are committed to seeing the reform through.

During the August 20, 2019 hearing, District Court Judge Browning asked APOA Union President Shawn Willoughby what he and the union rank and file felt about the CASA. Willoughby’s responses were a quick condemnation of the CASA when he said “we hate it”, “we’re frustrated”, the reforms and mandates are “a hard pill to swallow”, that “all change is hard”.

According to Willoughby, police officers are afraid to do their jobs for fear of being investigated, fired or disciplined. In the same breath, Willoughby went on to brag about how his union, unlike other police unions in city’s with consent decrees, actually worked and cooperated with the city and the DOJ.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

After well over a year since the “Counter Casa” effect was first reported on September 10, 2018 to the federal court, the November 1, 2019 10th Federal Monitors report confirms once again that police union membership continues to undermine the reform process. The police union and its leadership have said in open court that the mandated reforms under the consent decree are interfering with rank and file officer’s ability to perform their job duties.

According to the Federal Monitors 10th report:

“Sergeants and lieutenants, at times, go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete”.

Under “Counter CASA Effects” in his 10th report the Federal Monitor reports:

“Some members of APD continue to resist actively APD’s reform efforts, including using deliberate counter-CASA processes. For example:
• Sergeants assessed during this reporting period were “0 for 5” in some routine aspects of CASA-required field inspections;
• Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) disciplinary timelines, appear at times to be manipulated by supervisory, management and command levels at the area commands, letting known violations lie dormant until timelines for discipline cannot be met;”

MOVE TO DISMISS POLICE UNION AS PARTY TO FEDERAL LAWSUIT

The APD Union was not a named party to the original civil rights complaint for excessive use of force and deadly force filed against the city by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Soon after the DOJ initiated the federal lawsuit against APD and the City, the APOA police union intervened to become a party to the federal lawsuit in order to advocate for union interests in city policy and changes to the “use of force” and “deadly force policies.”

The Police Union, despite public comments of cooperation and comments made to the court, have never fully supported the agreed to reforms. The Police Union contributed significantly to the delay in writing the new use of force and deadly force policies.

The union leadership has always been at the negotiating table. For a full year, the police union was involved with the drafting of the “use of force” and “deadly use of force” policy. The union contributed to the one-year delay in writing the policies objecting to many provisions of the policies. The police union repeatedly objected to the language of the use of force policy asserting the policy was unreasonable. This was evidenced by the monitors claim that submitted use of force policies were missing key components and the monitor saw 50-plus changes needing to be made to satisfy union objections.

The union leadership has attended and has sat at counsel table during all court hearings and the Federal Monitor presentations on his reports. During all the Court proceeding where the federal monitor has made his presentation to the federal court, the APOA union has made its opposition and objections known to the federal court regarding the “use of force” and “deadly force” policies as being too restrictive with rank and file. The union has repeatedly claimed rank and file cannot do their jobs even with training on the policies. The major contribution the police union has provided to the reform process is interference, obstruction and delay of the reforms.

The City Attorney’s Office and the Department of Justice need to file a “Motion For Removal” of the police union as a party to the lawsuit. This would allow an evidentiary hearing where the Federal Monitor could testify as to his findings and identify the management, sergeants and lieutenants who “go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete”.” Testimony could then taken from APD Sergeants and Lieutenants to determine to what extent there has been interference with implementation of the reforms.

What is very problematic is that no one knows for certain to what extent the union is influencing the actions of the sergeants and lieutenants to resist the implementation of the CASA reforms that the union opposes. During the August 20, 2019 hearing Union President Willoughby made it clear the union membership “hates” the CASA, feels the reforms are “a hard pill to swallow” and that they believe “all change is hard”. Willoughby went so far as to say the rank and file are afraid to do their jobs for fear of being fired when he knows they can only be fired for cause and guaranteed personnel rights and procedures.

The very last thing APD management needs is for sergeants and lieutenants to passively but deliberately oppose the reforms by acting as union operatives as opposed to management, which ostensibly is still happening based on the 10th Federal Monitors Report filed on November 1, 2019.

CITY SHOULD REMOVE SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS FROM UNION

There is a definite “chain of command” when it comes to APD. All Commanders, Deputy Chiefs and the Chief are “at will” positions that serve at the pleasure of the Administration, either the Mayor or Chief. APD has a clear line of authority that separates management from rank and file sworn police officers that must be preserved and honored.

Police sergeants and lieutenants by virtue of their titles, responsibilities, management and supervisory authority over sworn police officers are part of the “chain of command” management team of the police department. Including APD police sergeants and lieutenants who are part of management in the union bargaining unit creates a clear conflict within management and sends mixed messages to rank and file sworn police officers.

APD police sergeants and lieutenants are on the front line to enforce personnel rules and regulations, standard operating procedures, approve and review work performed and assist in implementing DOJ reforms and standard operating procedures policies. This point was repeatedly made by the Federal Monitor when he said “until the sergeants are in harness and pulling in the same direction as the chief, things won’t get done as quickly”. Others said the same thing during the August 20, 2019 hearing. In other words, without the 100% support of the sergeants and lieutenants to the CASA and mandated reforms, there will be little or no progress made with “operational compliance” and reaching a 95% compliance rate will take years.

All APD police sergeants and lieutenants are clearly part of police management and chain of command and should not be a part of the union. The police union refuses to acknowledge or agree to removal of the sergeants and lieutenants from the bargaining unit knowing it will eliminate the unions ability to influence them in management and it will reduce the size of the dues paying union membership.

Sergeants and lieutenants need to be made at will employees and removed from the union bargaining unit in order to get a real buy in to management’s goals of police reform and the CASA. APD Police sergeants and lieutenants cannot serve two masters of Administration Management and Union priorities that are in conflict when it comes to the CASA reforms.

During the next round of union contract negotiations, the city should demand that the management positions of APD sergeant and lieutenant be removed from the APOA Union bargaining unit. Further, the Keller Administration should seek to have the APOA Union removed as a party to the federal lawsuit, the consent decree and CASA negotiations.

Otherwise, the city will continue to deal with the APD Union version of the “Counter-CASA Effect” and it will take far more years to get APD in compliance with all of the reforms.

Below is the link to a related blog article on Federal Monitors 10th report:

10th Federal Monitor’s Compliance Report: “Counter Casa Effect” Alive and Well Within APD; Move To Dismiss Union From Case; Remove Sergeants and Lieutenants From Police Union

On November 1, 2019, Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger filed with the Federal Court his 10th compliance audit report of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) reforms mandated under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The audit report covers February 2019 through July 2019. The report is 287 pages long and follows the same format as all the previous 9 reports. It is a detailed audit of every paragraph of the consent decree.

The link to the 10th Federal Monitor’s report is here

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/493-191101-imr-10.pdf

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE LEVELS

The CASA was negotiated to be fully implemented over a four-year period. It has now been a full five years. Under the terms and conditions of the CASA, once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in all 3 compliance areas, and maintains compliance for 2 years, the case can be dismissed.
For the purposes of the APD monitoring process, “compliance” consists of three parts: primary, secondary, and operational compliance levels.

The 3 compliance levels are as follows:

1. PRIMARY COMPLIANCE: Primary compliance is the “policy” part of compliance. To attain primary compliance, APD must have in place operational policies and procedures designed to guide officers, supervisors and managers in the performance of the tasks outlined in the CASA. As a matter of course, the policies must be reflective of the requirements of the CASA; must comply with national standards for effective policing policy; and must demonstrate trainable and evaluable policy components.

2. SECONDARY COMPLIANCE: Secondary compliance is attained by implementing supervisory, managerial and executive practices designed to (and effective in) implementing the policy as written, e.g., sergeants routinely enforce the policies among field personnel and are held accountable by managerial and executive levels of the department for doing so. By definition, there should be operational artifacts (reports, disciplinary records, remands to retraining, follow-up, and even revisions to policies if necessary, indicating that the policies developed in the first stage of compliance are known to, followed by, and important to supervisory and managerial levels of the department.

3. OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE: Operational compliance is attained at the point that the adherence to policies is apparent in the day-to-day operation of the agency e.g., line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance, not by the monitoring staff, but by their sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and command staff. In other words, the APD “owns” and enforces its policies.

(See pages 5 and 6 of 10th Federal Monitor’s Compliance Report.)

COMPLIANCE STATUS ASSESSMENT

In the 9th audit report that covered the time period of August 1, 2018 to January 14, 2019 the federal monitor found APD was 99.6% in primary compliance, 79% in secondary compliance and 63% in operational compliance. This was up slightly from the 8th audit report when the department was in 75.4% secondary compliance and 59.2% in operational compliance. Primary compliance remained the same between the two periods at 99.6% compliance.

In the 10th Federal Monitor’s Audit report, the monitor reported APD met 100% of CASA-established primary compliance requirements during the reporting period. According to the audit “This means, in effect, that policy requiring compliance actions and processes are complete, and are reasonably designed to achieve the articulated goals of the CASA.” Secondary compliance rates (training) were reported at 81%, up from 79% and overall compliance rates are at 63%, the same as the 9th audit report.

Following is the “Overall Status Assessment” contained in the 10th Federal Audit report:

“As of the end of the tenth reporting period, APD continues to make progress overall, having achieved primary compliance in 100% of the applicable paragraphs of the CASA. Primary Compliance relates mostly to development and implementation of acceptable policies (conforming to national practices).”

“APD is in 64% Operational Compliance with the requirements of the CASA, which means that 64% of the time, field personnel either perform tasks as required by the CASA, or that, when they fail, supervisory personnel note and correct in-field behavior that is not compliant with the requirements of the CASA.”

USE OF FORCE ASSESSMENT CONTINUES TO BE PROBLEMATIC

It was a Department of Justice (DOJ) 18-month investigation that resulted in the DOJ finding a “culture of aggression” and civil rights violations within APD and the use of “deadly force” or “excessive use of force.” The Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) mandated the establishment of an Internal Affairs Force Division (IAFD).

The 10th Federal Monitor’s report identified continuing problems with “use of force” investigations as follows:

“We have seen significant progress in areas of force investigations through APD’s Internal Affairs Force Division (IAFD), and we believe if that unit is properly staffed and given the resources it needs, APD will be better positioned in the future when Operational Compliance determinations are more prevalent. The current Commander of IAFD, in our opinion, is highly committed to the task of providing the agency with honest and thorough use of force investigations that include legitimate assessments of whether force was justified and objectively reasonable. … As the new use of force “suite of policies” become operationalized, … IAFD is expected to make a shift from its current role, principally focused on uses of force already investigated, to taking on initial investigatory responsibilities in the field.

Timeliness of use of force investigations are of particular concern, and proper staffing of units responsible for CASA related paragraphs needs to be monitored closely. Since APD intends to pivot its use of force investigation responsibilities after it implements its new use of force suite of policies, to be effective, the organization will need appropriate allocation of resources to these tasks.”

(See 10th Federal Monitors Audit Report Pages 9 and 10).

MONITOR IDENTIFIES MILESTONES REACHED

According to the 10th audit report, APD has reached three major milestones during the reporting period:

“First, [APD] has produced a valid set of policies guiding field performance in all critical aspects of CASA-compliance.

Third, [APD] has organized and fielded an internal data management, analysis, and reporting process that has begun to perform the internal audit processes necessary for long-term maintenance of the objectives attained to date. These are major milestones, and reflect a commitment, focus, and operational intent to become fully CASA-compliant.”

(See 10th Federal Monitors Audit Report, Page 4)

MONITOR IDENTIFIES MAJOR PROGRESS

The 10th Federal Monitor’s report noted progress in other areas as follows:

1.“APD’s policy development process has improved markedly in the last two years. … APD [is] now reasonably capable of identifying issues with current policy and developing clear and sufficient guidance for field officers, supervisors, command personnel, support personnel, and administrative oversight. The agency has taken the first steps toward becoming a data-based “learning organization.”

4. APD’s Compliance Bureau continues its strong process- and outcome-related oversight of APD operations. It is a process that APD should consider replicating (on a smaller scale) and building into each Area Command’s compliance efforts.”

(See pages 284 and 285 of 10th Federal Monitor’s Compliance Report.)

MONITOR REPORTS SERIOUS LAPSES IN LAPEL CAMERA USAGE

The Federal Monitor reported 2 major serious lapses by APD during the reporting period that are potentially fatal shortcoming in the compliance process. According to the federal monitor, the shortcomings need to be addressed immediately and clearly by APD.

The two major shortcomings reported are:

“[There are] … serious lapses in internal reporting, supervision, and command oversight that are in need of continued attention and improvement. Put simply, at this point, supervisory processes and command oversight remain basically unchanged, or actually moving backwards, by failing frequently to either note policy (and CASA) violations and failing frequently to take clear and unequivocal steps to inform officers that they have violated policy or procedures. [The] “corrective actions” that do occur are often executed at the lowest levels of the disciplinary process, e.g., verbal or written reprimands, regardless of the seriousness of the violation.

The most frequent CASA violations are also in the most crucial aspects of CASA compliance, e.g., the widespread and unnoticed practice of many APD patrol officers failing to activate their OBRDs [lapel cameras] when required, or even turning off their OBRDs in the middle of a given contact. This point of failure often tends to interdict the systems improvement process, as APD is effectively blind to in-field violations—and for that matter, best practices—by its field personnel. These failures are seldom noted by supervisors, and even less likely to be noted by lieutenants and commanders.”

MONITOR FINDS WEAKNESSES WITHIN CHAIN OF COMMAND FAILING TO ACT

The Federal Monitor reported serious and significant delays in reporting impacting discipline:

“A serious and significant tendency exists among a large percentage of field supervisors—and some in the mid-management and command ranks—to continue to routinely supersede or discount executive authority by delaying reports of officer behavior requiring action until discipline can no longer be applied due to union contract restrictions.

Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case ‘complete’. “

(See pages 284 and 285 of 10th Federal Monitor’s Compliance Report.)

STRENGTHS IDENTIFIED BY MONITOR

The 10th Federal Monitor’s report identified 6 major organizational strengths related to the CASA mandated reforms. The report listed those strengths as follows:

“ 1. Internal Affairs Force Division (IAFD) has created a new APD standard of professional review, classification, investigation and findings development for APD’s more serious use of force investigations. The lessons learned from developing these processes are being applied to critical IA review functions moving forward.

6. APD’s Compliance Bureau continues its strong process- and outcome-related oversight of APD operations. It is a process that APD should consider replicating (on a smaller scale) and building into each Area Command’s compliance efforts.”

(See pages 283 and 284 of 10th Federal Monitor’s Compliance Report.)

WEAKNESSES IDENTIFIED BY MONITOR

The 10th Federal Monitor’s report provided a summary of “weaknesses” identified during the reporting period that are alarming when it comes to mid management. Those weaknesses are:

“A serious and significant tendency exists among a large percentage of field supervisors—and some in the mid-management and command ranks—to continue to routinely supersede or discount executive authority by delaying reports of officer behavior requiring action until discipline can no longer be applied due to union contract restrictions.

Some command personnel are often equally involved in direct and willful actions or inactions that contravene the CASA, and protect officers who have, in some cases, willfully committed actions in violation of, or failures to act in accordance with, the CASA. “

SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES

The 10th Federal Monitor’s report provided a summary of “opportunities” identified during the reporting period. Those opportunities are as follows:

“APD has begun an infusion of new command-level personnel committed to CASA compliance, and there is evidence of a maturing of in-house process documentation, data collection and data analysis that is an essential element of successful compliance efforts. APD has, for the most part, a focused executive-level leadership supporting CASA-congruent processes and has created an environment of CASA-supportive oversight among most executive-level APD personnel. Further, there are supportive funding levels from the City of ABQ related to CASA compliance efforts.”

COUNTER CASA THREATS

The 10th Federal Monitor’s report provided specific examples where APD, after 4 years of implementing the reforms, are still resisting the reform effort.

“Some members of APD continue to resist actively APD’s reform efforts, including using deliberate counter-CASA processes. For example:
• Sergeants assessed during this reporting period were “0 for 5” in some routine aspects of CASA-required field inspections;
• Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) disciplinary timelines, appear at times to be manipulated by supervisory, management and command levels at the area commands, letting known violations lie dormant until timelines for discipline cannot be met; and
• Spin up of “new” FRB processes will require persistent and candid review, assessment, oversight and support at the field level. “

The entire 10th Federal Monitors report can be found filed with United Sates Federal Court for the District of New Mexico in Case 1:14-cv-01025-JB-SMV, Document 493 Filed 11/01/19 Page 1 of 287.

COUNTER CASA EFFECT

It was on September 10, 2018, at a status telephone conference call held with US District Court Judge Robert Brack who at the time was presiding over the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) reforms that Federal Monitor Dr. James Ginger first told the federal judge that a group of “high-ranking APD officers” within the department were trying to thwart reform efforts.

The Federal Monitor revealed that the group of “high-ranking APD officers” were APD sergeants and lieutenants. Because sergeants and lieutenants are part of the police bargaining unit they remained in their positions and could not be removed by the Chief. APD Chief Michael Geier also reported last year to Judge Brack that he had noticed some “old-school resistance” to reforms mandated by the CASA. At the time, Chief Geier reported he replaced a number of commanders with others who agree with police reforms. However, Chief Geier reported he could not replace the sergeants nor lieutenants who were resisting the reforms because of the union contract.

Federal Monitor Ginger referred to the group as the “counter-CASA effect.” Ginger described the group’s attitude as “certainly ambivalent” to the reform effort and the CASA. According to the transcript of the proceeding, Dr. Ginger told Judge Brack:

“The ones I’m speaking of are in critical areas and that ambivalence, alone, will give rise to exactly the sort of issues that we’ve seen in the past at the training academy. … So while it’s not overt, you know, there’s nobody sabotaging computer files or that sort of thing, it’s a sort of a low-level processing, but nonetheless, it has an effect. … It’s a small group, but it’s a widespread collection of sworn personnel at sergeant’s and lieutenant’s levels with civil service protection that appear to be, based on my knowledge and experience, not completely committed to this process … It is something that is deep-seated and it’s a little harder to find a quick fix or solution to it, but I think, in the long term, by having this foundation with new leadership and a new direction from the top down, we should be able to get through this and survive it.”

The entire 53-page transcript of the conference call can be read here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GzUumHhiD3Mw2_dLg_czXml_T6-3QI2w/view

NEW FEDERAL JUDGE, OLD UNION RESISTANCE TO REFORMS

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019, a day long status conference was convened by Federal Judge James Browning to listen to Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger’s third “Outcome and Measures And Analysis Report” on the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). Judge James Browning took over the case from Judge Robert Brack who retired and went on Senior Status. It had been more than a year since the last public status conference was held.

At the August 20, 2019 hearing, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the city of Albuquerque, APD , the police union and the many stakeholders in the effort testified. Overall, the consensus throughout the all-day hearing was that APD has improved dramatically. All seem to agree that there is a lot more left to be done with the police reforms. All of the participants said they are committed to seeing the reform through.

During the August 20, 2019 hearing, District Court Judge Browning asked APOA Union President Shawn Willoughby what he and the union rank and file felt about the CASA. Willoughby’s responses were a quick condemnation of the CASA when he said “we hate it”, “we’re frustrated”, the reforms and mandates are “a hard pill to swallow”, that “all change is hard”.

According to Willoughby, police officers are afraid to do their jobs for fear of being investigated, fired or disciplined. In the same breath, Willoughby went on to brag about how his union, unlike other police unions in city’s with consent decrees, actually worked and cooperated with the city and the DOJ.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

After well over a year since the “Counter Casa” effect was first reported on September 10, 2018 to the federal court, the November 1, 2019 10th Federal Monitors report confirms once again that police union membership continues to undermine the reform process. The police union and its leadership have said in open court that the mandated reforms under the consent decree are interfering with rank and file officer’s ability to perform their job duties.

According to the Federal Monitors 10th report:

“Sergeants and lieutenants, at times, go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete”.

Under “Counter CASA Effects” in his 10th report the Federal Monitor reports:

“Some members of APD continue to resist actively APD’s reform efforts, including using deliberate counter-CASA processes. For example:
• Sergeants assessed during this reporting period were “0 for 5” in some routine aspects of CASA-required field inspections;
• Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) disciplinary timelines, appear at times to be manipulated by supervisory, management and command levels at the area commands, letting known violations lie dormant until timelines for discipline cannot be met;”

MOVE TO DISMISS POLICE UNION AS PARTY TO FEDERAL LAWSUIT

The APD Union was not a named party to the original civil rights complaint for excessive use of force and deadly force filed against the city by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Soon after the DOJ initiated the federal lawsuit against APD and the City, the APOA police union intervened to become a party to the federal lawsuit in order to advocate for union interests in city policy and changes to the “use of force” and “deadly force policies.”

The Police Union, despite public comments of cooperation and comments made to the court, have never fully supported the agreed to reforms. The Police Union contributed significantly to the delay in writing the new use of force and deadly force policies.

The union leadership has always been at the negotiating table. For a full year, the police union was involved with the drafting of the “use of force” and “deadly use of force” policy. The union contributed to the one-year delay in writing the policies objecting to many provisions of the policies. The police union repeatedly objected to the language of the use of force policy asserting the policy was unreasonable. This was evidenced by the monitors claim that submitted use of force policies were missing key components and the monitor saw 50-plus changes needing to be made to satisfy union objections.

The union leadership has attended and has sat at counsel table during all court hearings and the Federal Monitor presentations on his reports. During all the Court proceeding where the federal monitor has made his presentation to the federal court, the APOA union has made its opposition and objections known to the federal court regarding the “use of force” and “deadly force” policies as being too restrictive with rank and file. The union has repeatedly claimed rank and file cannot do their jobs even with training on the policies. The major contribution the police union has provided to the reform process is interference, obstruction and delay of the reforms.

The City Attorney’s Office and the Department of Justice need to file a “Motion For Removal” of the police union as a party to the lawsuit. This would allow an evidentiary hearing where the Federal Monitor could testify as to his findings and identify the management, sergeants and lieutenants who “go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete”.” Testimony could then taken from APD Sergeants and Lieutenants to determine to what extent there has been interference with implementation of the reforms.

What is very problematic is that no one knows for certain to what extent the union is influencing the actions of the sergeants and lieutenants to resist the implementation of the CASA reforms that the union opposes. During the August 20, 2019 hearing Union President Willoughby made it clear the union membership “hates” the CASA, feels the reforms are “a hard pill to swallow” and that they believe “all change is hard”. Willoughby went so far as to say the rank and file are afraid to do their jobs for fear of being fired when he knows they can only be fired for cause and guaranteed personnel rights and procedures.

The very last thing APD management needs is for sergeants and lieutenants to passively but deliberately oppose the reforms by acting as union operatives as opposed to management, which ostensibly is still happening based on the 10th Federal Monitors Report filed on November 1, 2019.

CITY SHOULD REMOVE SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS FROM UNION

There is a definite “chain of command” when it comes to APD. All Commanders, Deputy Chiefs and the Chief are “at will” positions that serve at the pleasure of the Administration, either the Mayor or Chief. APD has a clear line of authority that separates management from rank and file sworn police officers that must be preserved and honored.

Police sergeants and lieutenants by virtue of their titles, responsibilities, management and supervisory authority over sworn police officers are part of the “chain of command” management team of the police department. Including APD police sergeants and lieutenants who are part of management in the union bargaining unit creates a clear conflict within management and sends mixed messages to rank and file sworn police officers.

APD police sergeants and lieutenants are on the front line to enforce personnel rules and regulations, standard operating procedures, approve and review work performed and assist in implementing DOJ reforms and standard operating procedures policies. This point was repeatedly made by the Federal Monitor when he said “until the sergeants are in harness and pulling in the same direction as the chief, things won’t get done as quickly”. Others said the same thing during the August 20, 2019 hearing. In other words, without the 100% support of the sergeants and lieutenants to the CASA and mandated reforms, there will be little or no progress made with “operational compliance” and reaching a 95% compliance rate will take years.

All APD police sergeants and lieutenants are clearly part of police management and chain of command and should not be a part of the union. The police union refuses to acknowledge or agree to removal of the sergeants and lieutenants from the bargaining unit knowing it will eliminate the unions ability to influence them in management and it will reduce the size of the dues paying union membership.

Sergeants and lieutenants need to be made at will employees and removed from the union bargaining unit in order to get a real buy in to management’s goals of police reform and the CASA. APD Police sergeants and lieutenants cannot serve two masters of Administration Management and Union priorities that are in conflict when it comes to the CASA reforms.

During the next round of union contract negotiations, the city should demand that the management positions of APD sergeant and lieutenant be removed from the APOA Union bargaining unit. Further, the Keller Administration should seek to have the APOA Union removed as a party to the federal lawsuit, the consent decree and CASA negotiations.

Otherwise, the city will continue to deal with the APD Union version of the “Counter-CASA Effect” and it will take far more years to get APD in compliance with all of the reforms.

You can read a related blog article here:

Ninth APD Federal Monitor’s Report Filed; Negotiate Dismissal of CASA

APOA Police Union Is “Counter CASA Effect” Within APD; Remove Sergeants and Lieutenants From Union; Kudos To APD Chief Michael Geier On Reforms

Convoluted Federal Monitors Third “Outcomes Measures and Analysis” Report Red Flag For Another $4 Million Contract; Trump DOJ Has All But Ended Federal Police Reform; Dismiss ABQ’s Consent Decree

For the last 35+ years, New Mexico political blogger Joe Monahan has done election coverage both on his blog and on the radio the day before the election and election day. This election day is no different. On November 6, Mr. Monahan published an excellent summary and analysis of the November 5 results on his blog:

http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/

Below is the Monahan election results report followed by the raw vote numbers for City Council and Propositions 1, Election Code Update and Proposition 2, Democracy Dollars with final commentary:

Election ’19: Turnout Is The Surprise Of The Night, Two Council Run-Offs In Store, All Bonds Pass But Voters Send Message On Some And APS Gets A Reprieve
NOVEMBER 6

There’s always a surprise or two on any Election Night and last night was no different in Election ’19, except the surprise came with a twist.

You can email Joe Monahan at newsguy@yahoo.com and the link to his blog is here http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/

ELECTION DAY RAW NUMBERS

Below are the raw numbers for all four of the City Council races. The runoff for Districts 2 and 4 will be held on December 10.

DISTRICT 2 CITY COUNCIL

Isaac Benton: 4,836 (42.04%) (Runoff Candidate)
Connie Vigil: 1,267 (11%)
Steven Baca: 674 (5.85%)
Joseph R. Griego: 662 (5.76%)
Robert Blanquerqa Nelson: 1,692 (14.69%)
Zack Quintero: 2,337 (20.66%) (Runoff Candidate)

DISTRICT 4 CITY COUNCIL

Brook l. Bassan: 5,095 (48.97%) (Runoff Candidate)
Athena Ann Christodoulou: 907 (8.71%)
Ane C. Romero: 4,403 (42.33%) (Runoff Candidate)

District 6 City Councilor:

Patrick M. Davis: 4,246 (56.78%) (Re elected to Second term)
Gina Naomi Dennis: 3,230 (43.22%)

District 8 City Council

Trudy Jones: 7,305 (56.51%) (Re elected to 3 term)
Maureen Skowan: 5,624 (43.49%)

PROPOSITION 1: Amendments to Open and Ethic Elections Code. This proposition ostensibly deals with updating the city’s public finance ordinance by increasing the amount given to candidates for Mayor. Under Proposition 1, the amount given to qualifying candidates increased from $1.00 to $1.75 per voter, which means public fiancé will go from $380,000 to $665,000 in public finance paid by the city to candidates for Mayor.

YES: 46,468
NO: 38,813

PROPOSITION 2: Democracy Dollars. This proposition would have set up a city funded voucher system to use city general funds to give out $25 vouchers to all residents, not just registered voters nor United States Citizens, who in turn would have given the vouchers to candidates they support. A measured Finance Committee was formed to promote Democracy Dollars and it reported $257,735 in in-kind contributions as of Nov. 1, much of it staff time. Democracy Dollars was endorsed and supported by progressive organizations Common Cause New Mexico, Center for Civic Policy, New Mexico Working Families Party, Equality New Mexico and OLÉ. It was also endorsed by the Bernalillo County Democratic Party.

YES: 39,232 (49%)
NO: 41,249 (51%)

COMMENTARY

Congratulations to City Councilor incumbents Pat Davis and Trudy Jones for being elected to another term on the City Council.

Best of luck to both Isaac Benton and Zack Quintero in District 2 and to both Brook L. Bassan and Ane Romero in District 4 as they face off in the run off to be held on December 10.

A heartfelt congratulations to all the voters in the November 5, 2019 election for taking time out to exercise their right to vote. City residents and voters can take great pride in making a financial commitment to sustain our City and our public-school system with the enactment of all the bonds.

Given today’s political climate, where so many voters seem to be happy or content just seeing things just burn down, President Abraham Lincoln said it best about the importance of voting:

“Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.”

If you did not vote on November 5, please do not bitch about how bad things are in our community or with your city councilor and you can just sit on your blisters.

ITS NOW ONTO THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!

Today, November 5, 2019 is election day. It is the first consolidated elections for the City of Albuquerque. The Local Election Act (LEA) was passed by the New Mexico Legislature in 2018. The Local Election Act provides for consolidated local elections to be conducted in New Mexico. The November 5, 2019 ballot is very lengthy and includes 4 City Council elections, $127 million in city general obligation (GO) improvement bonds, continuation of a city road tax, the Albuquerque Public School Board election, a ballot measure for a continuation of a tax levy for APS school maintenance and bonds, and the CNM governing board.

BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

There are also two propositions at the very end of the ballot on the reverse side of the ballot.

PROPOSITION 1: This proposition ostensibly deals with updating the city’s public finance ordinance but in reality, it is misleading in that all it does is increase the amount given to candidates for Mayor with no changes for making it easier to qualify for public finance. Under Proposition 1, the amount given to qualifying candidates would increase from $1.00 to $1.75 per voter, which means public fiancé will go from $380,000 to $665,000 in public finance paid by the city to candidates for Mayor. You can read more about Proposition 1 here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/10/26/vote-no-on-proposition-1-updating-public-finance-changes-not-public-finance-reform-but-increases-taxpayer-money-trough-for-politicians/

PROPOSITION 2: This proposition sets up a city funded voucher system to use city general funds to give out $25 vouchers to all residents, not just registered voters, who in turn will give the vouchers to candidates they support. It is likely proposition 2 violates the New Mexico anti-donation clause. The New Mexico Constitution strictly prohibits donations to individuals by governmental entities. The provision provides in pertinent part:

“Neither the state nor any county, school district or municipality, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall directly or indirectly lend or pledge its credit or make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation … .” (N.M. Const. art. IX, § 14.)

You can read more about Democracy Dollars here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/10/25/democracy-dollars-warped-interpretation-of-democracy-violating-state-anti-donation-clause-and-federal-campaign-finance-laws/

NEW MEXICO POLITICS WITH JOE MONAHAN

Although today is election day, early voting started a few weeks ago. For the last 35+ years, New Mexico political blogger Joe Monahan has had election coverage both on his blog and on the radio the day before the election and election day. This election day is no different. Mr. Monahan provided an update of the voter turnout in his November 5 blog on the 4 city Albuquerque City Council races as follows:

“It appears the new state law consolidating a lot of elections previously held separately will boost voter turnout. Bernalillo County Clerk Linda Stover reports 51,752 votes had been cast early as of late Monday with some more absentees expected today.

Turnout here has been trending higher in the Trump years. We’ll know soon if that holds true for this election.
…
You’re invited to join us for ABQ Election Night coverage beginning at 7 p.m. on KANW 89.1 FM ABQ/Santa Fe and at KANW.COM”

You can read the complete New Mexico Politics With Joe Monahan blog article at this link:

http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/

COMMENTARY

Given today’s political climate, where so many seem to be happy or content to seeing things burn down, President Abraham Lincoln said it best about the importance of voting:

“Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.”

Please get out and vote today. If you do not vote today, then do not bitch about how bad things are in our community and you can just sit on your blisters.

FOR RELATED ELECTION BLOG ARTICLES SEE:

On November 5, Vote Out DINO’S Pat Davis and Isaac Benton

Vote NO On Proposition 1 Updating Public Finance; Changes Not Public Finance Reform But Increases Taxpayer Money Trough For Politicians

“DEMOCRACY DOLLARS” Warped Interpretation Of Democracy Violating State Anti-Donation Clause And Federal Campaign Finance Laws; Vote No on Proposition 2

Vote YES On Extension of APS Mill Levy For School Repairs, School Security!

ABQ’s $127 Million Bond Package And Road Tax; City Hall “Movida” With Homeless Shelter Because Of NIMBY; Vote YES on November 5 For All The Bonds And Road Tax