On April 17, 2023 City CAO Lawrence Rael wrote Dr. James Ginger,  the Federal Court appointed monitor in the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA), proposing a 40% cut in pay.  It was proposed that the monitor’s  pay would go from just under $1.6 million annually to $960,000 a year. The monitoring team has been paid more than $9 million since its work began in Albuquerque in 2015.

It was in late 2014 that Ginger and his monitoring team were appointed by a federal judge to oversee the police reform efforts after the city signed a consent decree with the Department of Justice (DOJ).  The Settlement followed an 18-month investigation by the DOJ that found  that APD officers engaged in a pattern of excessive use of  force and deadly force and found a culture of aggression within APD.  Over the last 8 years Ginger and his team of 14 experts has filed 17 Independent Monitors Reports on APD’s progress and has been paid over $1 Million a year.

In his  letter sent to Ginger, CAO Rael said the pay cut was appropriate with APD making “significant strides” in its Court Approved Settlement Agreement.  Rael noted APD is also now self-monitoring  on upwards of 20% of  requirements of the CASA which Rael argued reduced Ginger’s workload as  Federal Monitor.  Rael wrote:

“If the [Independent Monitor] feels that a different amount is appropriate, we ask that you provide documentation to justify the requested amount.  [Please respond] whether these terms are agreeable … .”

31% AGREED TO PAY CUT

After a monthslong negotiation, the Federal Monitor agreed to a significant pay cut.  On July 21, the city agreed to pay the federal monitor $1,096,225 between July 1, 2023  and June 20, 2024, which is  a $500,000 pay cut or 31% pay cut.

CAO Rael said this in a statement:

“After making the initial offer, the City engaged with negotiations with Dr. Ginger and reached agreement on a reasonable amount based on the expected workload for the team of monitors. … This amount will be subject to renegotiation in the future as APD assumes more responsibility and the monitoring team’s workload is reduced.”

The City Attorney, in a follow up  email to Ginger wrote “the City intends to request a mid-year meeting to review budget issues, and to initiate negotiations regarding the rate for fiscal year 2025 as the end of fiscal year 2024 approaches.”

APD Chief Harold Medina said the department has gone above and beyond to exceed standards for their settlement agreement with the DOJ and  believes a pay cut is necessary. Medina said this:.

“The truth is these processes go above in beyond what our settlement agreement calls for.”

On June 6, during a hearing on the 17^th Federal Monitor’s Report,  Ginger addressed the proposed cut and said his team had come back to the city with its own proposed cut of $444,000 a year. Ginger said this during the hearing:

“[The proposed cut]  is significant. Especially when you consider that we still have to make the same number of trips, we still have to pay the same number of man hours per site visit. A lot of our costs are fixed. But we are negotiating a reduction.”

City officials have said it hopes that the reforms under the CASA will be completed by the end of the year and then  after two years of compliance as required by the terms  of the settlement the case can be dismissed in 2026.

UNION PRESIDENT CALLS REFORM MONITROING  A JOKE AND SAYS USE OF FORCE NEVER A PROBLEM

Shaun Willoughby, president of the police union had this to say about the Federal Monitor’s pay cut:

“[It’s] incredibly competent and courageous [for the city seeking to reduce the monitor’s pay].  My hat’s off to the City. … I think [Ginger] is way overpaid to begin with. …

[The monitoring process] has completely destroyed this community  … From my perspective and from an officer’s perspective, this whole entire situation with the DOJ and monitoring team is a joke.  …

I think we could do just the same work without the DOJ and without the monitoring process. We have become accustomed to the reform effort. We’re making progress right now. …  I am pleased that we are making that progress, but the truth is I’m pleased that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.”

After pointing  out that less than 1% of police calls result in force being used Willoughby said this:

[APD officers’  use of force]  has been blown out of proportion … I don’t think that use of force in this community is that big of a problem. I don’t think it ever was.”

Willoughby said the reform process is “directly tied” to the record-high 18 police shootings of 2022 due to DOJ-reviewed policies that resulted in gunfire instead of less-lethal force. He said recent changes to APD policies made by leadership have allowed more use of less-lethal force and, in his opinion, could have prevented 9 of last year’s shootings.

The links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-pay-decrease-independent-monitoring/43715046#

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/local/city-seeks-40-pay-cut-for-albuquerque-police-monitoring-team/article_f4ebd7ad-705a-5aac-9bc2-36741c959dcc.html

REFORMS ACHIEVED UNDER THE CASA

Under the terms of the CASA, once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in 3 identified compliance levels and maintains it for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed. APD was supposed to have come into compliance within 4 years and the case was to be dismissed in 2018.

On May 10, 2023 the 17th audit report was filed. APD’s compliance levels were reported as follows:

Primary Compliance 100%

Secondary Compliance 100% 

Operational Compliance 92% 

On November 16 , 2023, it will be a full 9 years that has expired since the city entered into the CASA with the DOJ. It was originally agreed that implementation of all the settlement terms would be completed within 4 years, but because of previous delay and obstruction tactics found by the Federal Monitor by APD management and the police officers’ union as well as APD backsliding in implementing the reforms, it has taken another 5 years to get the job done. Now after almost 9 full years, the federal oversight and the CASA have produced results.

Reforms achieved under the CASA can be identified and are as follows:

1. New “use of force” and “use of deadly force” policies have been written, implemented and all APD sworn have received training on the policies.
2. All sworn police officers have received crisis management intervention training.
3. APD has created a “Use of Force Review Board” that oversees all internal affairs investigations of use of force and deadly force.
4. The Internal Affairs Unit has been divided into two sections, one dealing with general complaints and the other dealing with use of force incidents.
5. Sweeping changes ranging from APD’s SWAT team protocols, to banning choke-holds, to auditing the use of every Taser carried by officers and re-writing and implementation of new use of force and deadly force policies have been completed.
6. “Constitutional policing” practices and methods, and mandatory crisis intervention techniques an de-escalation tactics with the mentally ill have been implemented at the APD police academy with all sworn police also receiving the training.
7. APD has adopted a new system to hold officers and supervisors accountable for all use of force incidents with personnel procedures implemented detailing how use of force cases are investigated.
8. APD has revised and updated its policies on the mandatory use of lapel cameras by all sworn police officers.
9. The Repeat Offenders Project, known as ROP, has been abolished.
10. Civilian Police Oversight Agency has been created, funded, fully staffed and a director was hired.
11. The Community Policing Counsels (CPCs) have been created in all area commands.
12. The Mental Health Advisory Committee has been implemented.
13. The External Force Investigation Team (EFIT) was created and is training the Internal Affairs Force Division on how to investigate use-of-force cases, making sure they meet deadlines and follow procedures.
14. Millions have been spent each year on new programs and training of new cadets and police officers on constitutional policing practices.
15. APD officers are routinely found using less force than they were before and well documented use of force investigations are now being produced in a timely manner.
16. APD has assumed the self-monitoring of at least 25% of the CASA reforms and is likely capable of assuming more.
17. The APD Compliance Bureau has been fully operational and staffed with many positions created dealing directly with all the reform efforts and all the duties and responsibilities that come with self-assessment.
18. APD has attained a 100% Primary Compliance rate, a 100% Secondary Compliance rate and a 92% Operational Compliance rate.

COMMENATARY AND ANALYSIS

The fact that the federal monitor has agreed to a significant pay cut is yet another indication in that APD is on the verge of compliance with the federal court approved settlement despite efforts of the police union. The other major indicators include:

1. APD has now achieved a 100% compliance in the Primary and Secondary Compliance Levels and a 92% compliance in Operational Compliance.
2.  APD is self-monitoring in 20% of the reforms.
3. 18 specific major reforms have been achieved and can be identified.

POLICE UNION PRESIDENT’S EFFORTS TO DISCREDIT REFORMS

It is downright repulsive that APOA Union President  Shaun Willoughby said this:

[The monitoring process] has completely destroyed this community  … From my perspective and from an officer’s perspective, this whole entire situation with the DOJ and monitoring team is a joke.  …

[APD officers’  use of force]  has been blown out of proportion … I don’t think that use of force in this community is that big of a problem. I don’t think it ever was.”

It’s obscene that APOA Union President Shaun Willoughby does not believe APD use of force and deadly force was ever a problem.  Willoughby’s comments were totally irresponsible and need to be condemned in no uncertain terms.  Willoughby pointing out that less than 1% of police calls involve use of  force degrades and downplays the seriousness of taking a life by violating a person’s constitutional rights with the use of deadly force.

The oversight of APD and the reform process has never been about the efforts to combat and reducing crime but everything to do with constitutional policing practices and violations of constitutional rights by the Albuquerque Police Department.

Willoughby’s remarks are nothing more than a reflection of just how low Willoughby is willing to go to mislead the public.  He pretends ignorance of why the APD was investigated by the Department of Justice in the first place and why APD was in need of reform.

WILLOUGBY OWES COURT, MONITOR AND CITY APOLOGY

APOA Union President Willoughby owes the court, the federal monitor and the citizens of Albuquerque an apology for his careless and irresponsible remarks regarding the DOJ and the reform process, but that will never happen. Willoughby has never apologized once for the  conduct of his union members because he has never believed his union members have  ever done anything wrong when it comes to “excessive use of force” and “deadly force” despite undisputed proof of police misconduct and the use of force and deadly force.

No apologies were made by Willoughby after 2 of the most egregious shootings in APD’s history and use of deadly force.  Those shooting were the killing of homeless camper James Boyd and the killing of army veteran Ken Ellis, Jr., both who were suffering from mental illness.  The Boyd shooting resulted in a $10 million dollar jury verdict against the city and the Ellis shooting resulted in a $5 million dollar settlement for civil wrongful death action

Least anyone has forgotten, Willoughby became irate back on December 7, 2017 when newly sworn in  Mayor Tim Keller stood alongside his new command staff and talked about the task ahead of them to reform the Albuquerque Police Department. Before he could get to the plan, the mayor announced he had a few apologies to make. One for a “historical tone at the top of the department and a culture of excessive force.” It was an apology that was long overdue to the citizens of Albuquerque from any Mayor. Mayor Keller said this:

“I also want to tell the victims of families who have been hurt by unnecessary use of force that I am sorry.”

Willoughby was quick to fire back and condemn Mayor Keller for making the apology and said Keller’s apologies were “an insult to the men and women in blue.”  Willoughby said this.

“That’s kind of a global apology. Every single circumstance, in every instance, is dynamic and there’s two sides to every one of those stories. … It’s important to understand that the APOA is not a political organization. I’m actually employed by the cops that we serve. … I don’t think that the APOA having discontent is wrong or reminding anybody that we felt that, that was dishonorable [for Keller] to apologize for a group of police officers.”

https://www.krqe.com/news/police-union-disappointed-with-mayors-apologies-during-first-week-in-office/

It was downright laughable and two faced when Willoughby said APOA is not a political organization and said he was employed by the cops.  It was Willoughby and the police union who politized themselves when they endorsed Mayor Keller a few months earlier when he ran for Mayor the first time.

POLICE UNIONS REAL BEEF WITH THE REFORMS

The police union 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 Willoughby, police officers are afraid to do their jobs for fear of being investigated, fired or disciplined.

The police union has never articulated in open court and in clear terms exactly what it is about the reforms that are keeping rank and file from “doing their” jobs. What the union no doubt feels is interfering with police from doing their jobs is the mandatory use of lapel cameras, police can no longer shoot at fleeing cars, police can no longer use choke holds, police need to use less lethal force and not rely on the SWAT unit, police must use de-escalating tactics and be trained in crisis intervention, and management must hold police accountable for violation of standard operating procedures.

FINAL COMMENTARY

If anything has destroyed this community, as well as destroying one of the finest police departments in the country at the time, it was the actions of more than a few Albuquerque Police Officers and its management who created, who were involved with or who did not stop a culture of aggression and the use of excessive use of force and deadly force.

The only joke here is Willoughby’s attempt to rewrite history by ignoring what happened within APD and ignoring what has been accomplished under the settlement and the reforms implemented. Then there is the matter of Willoughby doing whatever he could over the years  with the help of his union membership of sergeants and lieutenants  to stop and interfere with implementation of the reforms.

The postscript below provides a review of the DOJ investigation and the CASA.  It serves as a reminder of what brought the DOJ here in  the first place and  what the police union and its leadership have done to interfere with implementation of the reforms.

___________

POSTSCRIPT

REVISTING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INVESTGATION OF APD

It was  April 10, 2014 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) released its investigation of APD that found a “culture of aggression” within the department. The investigation concentrated in part on reviewing APD’s use of the force against persons with mental illness and in crisis and APD’s specific responses to suspects that were having mental illness episodes. What differentiates the DOJ’s investigation of APD from the other federal investigations and consent decrees of police departments in the country is that the other consent decrees involve in one form or another the finding of “racial profiling” and use of excessive force or deadly force against minorities. In APD’s case, it was the use of excessive force and deadly force against the mentally ill.

The 2014 DOJ investigation found APD’s policies, training, and supervision were insufficient to ensure that officers encountering people with mental illness or in distress do so in a manner that respects their rights and is safe for all involved. There have been at least 32 police officer involved shootings and the city has paid out $61 million dollars in settlements to families’ who have sued APD for wrongful death. A significant number of those lawsuits involved the mentally ill.

One of the most memorable shootings occurred in 2014 and the killing of homeless camper and mentally ill James Boyd in the Sandia foothills where both SWAT and the K-9 units were dispatched. Two SWAT officers were eventually charged with murder but after a trial on the merits, the jury could not reach a verdict and District Attorney Raul Torres decided not to retry the case. The City settled with the Boyd family for $5 million.

Another memorable case involved the killing of Ken Ellis, Jr. who was an Iraq War Veteran suffering from service-connected mental illness. Ellis was stop by APD at a convenience store on Lomas believing Ellis was driving a stolen car which turned out to be false. Ells pulled a gun and held it to his head while he was on his cell phone talking to relative and APD shot and killed him. A jury and judge found that Ellis was more of a danger to himself and not the police and awarded the Ellis family $10 Million.

REVISTING THE CASA

On November 14, 2014, the City of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Police Department and the United State Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a stipulated Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The settlement was the result of an 18-month long investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that found that the Albuquerque Police Department engaged in an pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force”, especially when dealing with the mentally ill. The DOJ investigation also found a “culture of aggression” existed within the APD. The Court Approved Settlement Agreement mandates 271 police reforms, the appointment of a Federal Monitor and the filing of Independent Monitor’s reports (IMRs). There are 276 paragraphs in 10 sections within the CASA with measurable requirements that the monitor reports on to the federal court presiding over the case reforms.

Soon after the entry of the CASA on November 14, 2014, the APD police union intervened in the lawsuit and became a third party to the case to advocate union interest in city policy. The police union was at the negotiating table over the use of force and deadly force policies and has sat in the court room during all the hearings. It was the police union that was a major contributing cause for a full one-year delay in writing the new policies on use of force and deadly force.

The CASA mandated APD adopt a new system to hold officers and supervisors accountable for misconduct and violations of policies, especially violations of excessive use of force and deadly force. Personnel procedures were implemented which included outlining details how use of force cases and deadly force cases must be investigated.

The CASA requires far more reporting by officers and field supervisors. It requires detailed reviews of those reports up the chain of command within the department. Sergeants and lieutenants are required to be much more involved in field supervision and review of use of force and deadly force.

POLICE UNION OBSTRUCTION TACTICS

One thing is for certain is that Willoughby and some police union members have done everything they can to undercut the police reforms brought on by the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation that found a “culture of aggression” and repeated use of deadly force and excessive use of force.

The Federal Court Appointed Monitor has labeled the union interference with the reforms as the “County Casa Effect”. It was on September 10, 2018, during a status telephone conference call held with the US District Court Judge that Federal Monitor Dr. James Ginger first told the federal court that a group of “high-ranking APD officers” within APD were thwarting the reform efforts. The Federal Monitor revealed that the group of “high-ranking APD officers” were APD sergeants and lieutenants.

In his 10th report Federal Monitor Ginger referred to the group as the “Counter-CASA effect” and stated:

“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” …  Some members of APD continue to resist actively APD’s reform efforts, including using deliberate counter-CASA processes. For example … 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.”

In his 12th Federal Monitor’s report released on November 2, 2020 the Federal Monitor reported this:

“[The federal monitor] identified strong under currents of Counter-CASA effects in some critical units on APD’s critical path related to CASA compliance. These include supervision at the field level; mid-level command in both operational and administrative functions, [including] patrol operations, internal affairs practices, disciplinary practices, training, and force review). Supervision, [the] sergeants and lieutenants, and mid-level command, [the commanders] remain one of the most critical weak links in APD’s compliance efforts.”

On August 17, New Mexico’s Chief United States District Judge William P. Johnson, in an 87-page opinion, tossed and also upheld New Mexico’s state campaign finance limits in an 11 year old lawsuit.  The Federal lawsuit was filed in 2012 by the Republican Party of Bernalillo County, the Republican Party of Doña Ana County, New Mexico Turn Around, former Republican Party State Party Chair Harvey Yates and other plaintiffs with Republican Party ties including  the Right to Life Committee of New Mexico.  U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush on December 21, 2001 and he is believed to be a registered Republican.

The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of New Mexico’s campaign finance laws as set out in the state’s Campaign Reporting Act. The statute was enacted in 2009 in response to political corruption scandals in the state and after recommendations from an ethics reform task force convened by then Democratic Governor Bill Richardson.

Judge Johnson noted the state’s campaign reporting act was enacted just before the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark  case of  Citizens United v. FEC and  wrote the decision “injected uncertainty into the world of campaign finance. Seizing on this uncertainty, the Republican Party of New Mexico and other plaintiffs filed suit in 2011, citing the First and 14th amendments and the Supremacy Clause.”

COURT RULING

The campaign finance regulations are part of the state’s Campaign Reporting Act. Judge Johnson found 3 violated the First Amendment. They include an $11,000 limit on state parties’ contributions to gubernatorial candidates or candidate committees and a $5,500 limit for all other candidates and county parties each election cycle.

U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson enjoined the State of New Mexico from enforcing its $11,000 limit per election cycle on contributions from state political parties to gubernatorial candidates or candidate committees.

Johnson also enjoined the state’s $5,500 limit per election cycle for all other candidates and the state’s $5,500 limit from state political parties to county parties. Judge Johnson also dismissed the lawsuit’s challenge to the $27,500 limit on contributions from individuals and entities to state political parties.

Judge Johnson focused on Republican Party challenges to 5 different state campaign contribution limits, finding 3 violated the First Amendment. Lawyers representing the state, including the state Attorney General, presented evidence of the need to address “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance through limits on contributions to political parties.   Johnson ruled that for a contribution limit to survive, the state must first show a “sufficiently important interest in that limit. … Campaign contribution limits must aim to prevent quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.”

Judge Johnson  wrote  “Political corruption is not just a relic of New Mexico’s past.”  Judge Johnson proceeded to cite the convictions in the 1980s of former New Mexico State Investment officer Philip Troutman and Deputy State Treasurer Kenneth Johnson, who were convicted of conspiracy to commit extortion for soliciting $2,000 in contributions to the Democratic Leadership Fund.

Judge Johnson also  cited the convictions in the 1990’s of then-state Democrat Representative Ronald Olguin for soliciting or demanding a $15,000 bribe in exchange for including a $100,000 appropriation into the House’s appropriation bill.  Judge Johnson noted two state Democrat Treasurers in New Mexico, Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil, were convicted of extortion and attempted extortion.

Judge Johnson wrote:

“Two key examples [of quid pro quo corruption are] the convictions of Troutman and Johnson in the 1980s and the recent ‘pay to play’ scandals of Governor Bill Richardson. … The Court finds the federal investigation into Governor Richardson’s alleged pay-to-play schemes qualifies as the appearance of quid pro quo corruption because the State has demonstrated public awareness of the serious risk that Governor Richardson was awarding state contracts — the quid — in exchange for campaign contributions — the quo.”

In the 3 limits the judge ruled as unconstitutional, Johnson found the limits on state party contributions to both gubernatorial candidates and non-gubernatorial candidates were lower compared to other states’ limits and lower than limits upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As to the third limit, regarding state party contributions to county political parties, the judge found the state failed to put forth evidence to show that “there’s a serious risk of donors circumventing valid contribution limits by donating money to a state party with the intention that the money be donated to a county party to give to a candidate in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo” candidate or the appearance of one.”

The limit on such contributions, he wrote, is “too attenuated from the root concern of quid pro quo corruption between individuals and candidates.”

Conversely, in upholding the $27,500 limit per election cycle, Johnson found that New Mexico’s limit on contributions from individuals and entities to state political parties is higher, often substantially higher,  than the comparable limit imposed in 20 states. He also upheld the $27,500 limit on contributions from national political parties to state political parties for federal elections.

The judge found that evidence submitted in the case showed that the “[New Mexico Republican Party] … works closely with its Republican candidates, including evidence that the NMGOP provides its candidates with campaign assistance, strategic advice and often coordinates joint rallies and fundraising events with its candidates. … The case record also contains testimony about the importance of these type of fundraisers as ways for donors to meet candidates … Specifically, former plaintiff Mark Veteto testified that his presence at State Republican fundraisers and the like allowed him access to former Governor Susana Martinez including the ability to email, text and call her.”

JUDGE CITES RICHARDSON PAY TO PLAY SCANDALS

In his  87-page opinion, New Mexico Federal Judge Johnson noted that the campaign contribution limits were recommended by an ethics reform task force convened by then Democratic Governor Bill Richardson.  According to Judge Johnson, the task force proposed creating limits to “address quid pro quo corruption and the appearance of corruption associated with large campaign contributions” and he noted several high-profile corruption scandals influenced the task force and led to the adoption of the contribution limits.

Judge Johnson noted in his ruling that one of the scandals “ironically, involved Governor Bill Richardson …  Richardson came under federal investigation in 2008 for allegedly giving state contracts to campaign donors. And these pay-to-play allegations ultimately caused Richardson to withdraw from consideration as President Obama’s Commerce Secretary.”  Richardson had served as Department of Energy secretary under President Bill Clinton but was never charged with a crime.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/judge-tosses-parts-of-nm-campaign-finance-law/article_86015704-3d3b-11ee-8965-c7832d6970e1.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-campaign-finance-law-d4a1a755b642169bc05b08da64e83a5b

SOUR GRAPES FROM PROSECUTOR

It was ultimately the main office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC that made the final decision not to go forward against Richardson. On August 28, 2009, then Republican US Attorney Greg Fouratt whose office was investigating Governor  Bill Richardson and his former top aides after a probe of an alleged pay-to-play scheme,  said that although federal charges were not brought that did not  exonerate the conduct of people involved.

Fouratt made the comments in a letter sent to defense lawyers, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.  Fouratt said the  federal investigation “revealed pressure from the governor’s office resulted in the corruption of the procurement process” in awarding state bond deal work to a Richardson political contributor.  Richardson spokesman at the time  issued a statement  saying Fouratt’s letter was “nothing more than sour grapes.”   Fouatt was later appointed federal magistrate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32600518

https://www.koat.com/article/prosecutor-no-charges-but-governor-not-exonerated/5031170

CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC REVISTED

“Citizens United was where the conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged federal campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries.   A 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.  In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.

With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.  As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party.  The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups.”

The link to the quoted source material is here:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The ruling by New Mexico’s Chief United States District Judge William P. Johnson should not come as any surprise to anyone, but it is nonetheless was very disappointing.  The ruling will likely be affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeals if the state appeals in that it is conforms with the United State Supreme Court case of  Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION INCLUDES REPUBLICANS AS WELL

It is understandable how U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson would note that it was ironic that the campaign contribution limits were recommended by an ethics reform task force convened by then Democratic Governor Bill Richardson who was investigated for allegedly giving state contracts to campaign donors which is commonly referred to as “pay to play”.  Judge Johnson  also went out of his way to write  “Political corruption is not just a relic of New Mexico’s past” .  He proceeded to identify  high profile scandals of only  Democrats including  Democratic Treasurers  Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil who were convicted of extortion and attempted extortion.

What Judge Johnson glossed over  is that government corruption  “is not just a relic of New Mexico’s past” and it is not confined to Democrats  and has included  Republicans in the past 11 years.

DIRTY DOWNS DEAL

The biggest notable scandal involving Republican “pay to play” was “THE DIRTY DOWNS DEAL”, yet Judge Johnson made no mention of it.  During her first year in office, former two term Republican Governor Susana Martinez  was alleged to have been involved with a “play to play” controversy involving the award of a $1 Billion-dollar, 25-year, Albuquerque Downs Racetrack contract, dubbed by politicos as “The Dirty Downs deal”.

The FBI investigated the contract, which was awarded to the Downs at Albuquerque in December 2011. FBI agents interviewed people involved with the former Republican Governor’s campaign and others about the race track lease and about campaign donations and inaugural donations. The Republican Governor herself also answered FBI questions about the Downs lease deal but she never went public with what she said. Allegations were made that the Downs at Albuquerque contract was a “pay-to-play deal”.

Allegations of nefarious conduct around the Downs lease involved political insiders, significant campaign contributions to Governor Martinez and attempts to hide political donations and contributions to Governor Martinez or her political action committee from donors connected to the Downs Race Track. Two of the Downs owners are Louisianans Bill Windham and John Turner and they are Republican boosters and were substantial contributors to the Republican Governor’s campaign for Governor and she received $70,000 in contributions during her campaign from Windham and Turner.

The Republican Governor’s political adviser, Jay McCleskey, who has never been a state employee but had an office next to Martinez in the Governors office, thrust himself right in the middle of the “Dirty Downs Deal” controversy and the award of the contract by the State Fair Commission. McCleskey became upset over a two-week delay on the contract award by the State Fair Commission. McCleskey became angry when the State Fair Commission did not approve the 25-year racino lease with the Downs at Albuquerque.

For several months, a federal grand jury investigated Jay McCleskey regarding expenditures from Republican Martinez’s campaign, as well as money from her 2011 inauguration committee that went directly to McCleskey. On March 4, 2016, Mc Clesky’s attorney, Republican Paul Kennedy the go to criminal defense attorney and former State Supreme Court Justice appointed by Martinez,  announced that the federal grand jury would not indict McCleskey by saying “I’ve been informed the investigation has been terminated”.  Kennedy  declined to answer any questions and did not provide any documentation of the notice of non prosecution as was the case in the Richardson investigation and the Fouratt letter.

https://www.abqjournal.com/735011/mccleskey-lawyer-grand-jury-over-no-charges.html

TWO OTHER NOTEABLE REPUBLCAN SCANDALS

There are two other notable scandals involving Republican officials in the last 11 years:

In 2021, Republican Demesia Padilla, Secretary of the Taxation and Revenue Department, was convicted by a Sandoval County jury of stealing $25,000 from a client of her accounting business while she served in the Cabinet of former Republican  Governor  Susana Martinez.

In 2015 Republican Dianna Duran  resigned as secretary of state after she was charged with diverting money from her campaign to pay gambling debts at Native American casinos. She was ordered to pay $28,000 restitution to campaign contributors and served 30 days in jail.

FINAL COMMENTARY

Simply put, Citizens United is an abomination. It is just another Supreme Court case opinion in a long line a rulings rendered by an ultra-conservative Republican majority on the United State Supreme Court. What is now happening is that the United States Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy because of blatant partisan politics. (See below link to Dinelli blog article.)

The influence of big money in elections allowed by the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United is destroying our democracy. Equating money spent to free speech and defining corporations as equal to a person who is a citizen who votes was never envisioned by the framers of the constitution, yet that is exactly what has been done by the Unites Supreme Court.

United States Supreme Court Has Lost Its Legitimacy Because Of Partisan Politics; Supreme Court “Champing At Bit” To Interfere With Elections Laws To Disenfranchise Voters By Empowering Legislatures To Set Aside Election Results Excluding The Courts

On Monday August 21, the Albuquerque City Council will be deciding to place a cap on the number of short-term rentals in the city in addition to the requirements of the 2020 short-term rental ordinance which requires short-term rental owners to obtain a permit and set certain occupancy limits.

The goal is to cap  short-term rentals like Airbnb and VRBO in an attempt to stop housing units from being removed from the overall housing market reducing the availability of homes for sale. The initiative is intended  to boost housing stock in Albuquerque.  For the last year, the Mayor Keller Administration has claimed that the city is experiencing a crisis in housing with a shortage of affordable housing.

Under the legislation, the permit cap would be set at 1,800. The cap was raised from 1,200 in the original legislation to accommodate all current rentals in the city. In addition to the cap, the ordinance would do the following:

• Limit the number of permits per owner to 3.
• People who currently own more than three rental properties would be able to keep all of their properties, and renew those permits in perpetuity but they would be prohibited from adding properties.
• All existing rental properties would be grandfathered into the 1,800 cap.
• Require a manager, either the owner or another party, to live or be based within 20 miles of the city limits, and be available 24/7 to respond to maintenance issues, security concerns, and complaint.
• Require the manager’s contact information be included on the permit application
• Limit permits to natural persons, as opposed to corporations or other business entities.
• Limit the number of rentals to 3 per individual operator. People who already own more than 3 rentals would be grandfathered in  and be able to renew permits for all their properties.
• Properties available for mid-length stays for traveling nurses or other transient workers would not be included. Only properties offering stays of 30 days or less will be included.
• Corporations would still be able to own short-term rentals, but they would need to find a local manager to list their contact information and be available to guests.
• Increase the civil penalties for non-compliance with the ordinance.

City Government Affairs Manager Diane Dolan said it doesn’t appear like there’s widespread corporate ownership of short-term rentals in Albuquerque.

CONFLICTING DATA

Data sources are conflicting about the number of short-term rentals currently in operation in the city. City  officials say that there are about 1,200 short-term rentals operating in the city

City records obtained by the Albquerquerqu Journal show the vast majority of short-term rental owners with permits rent out just one unit. Of the over 600 people and companies that rent their properties out for short term stays, just a handful currently have permits for 3 or more properties. That number excludes the hundreds of unpermitted short-term rentals that the city has identified.

The number of rentals operating in the city fluctuates throughout the year.  AirDNA  tracks short-term rental data.  It reports that just over a third of the rentals in the city are available full time.  During the month of Balloon Fiesta last year, the number of available rentals shot up by about 600 units between August and October to 2,310 units. That number included single rooms, which currently make up about 13% of the rentals in Albuquerque. In July 2023, AirDNA found that there were  1,933 active short-term rentals in the city. About 200 of those are single-room rentals.

Even short-term rentals that are only available for a limited part of the year are still required to obtain an operating permit per the 2020 short-term rental ordinance, a spokesperson for the city’s Planning Department said. In July 2023, AirDNA determined that there are  1,933 active short-term rentals, defined as those with one or more days available to book, in the city. About 200 of those are single-room rentals.

Even short-term rentals that are only available for a limited part of the year are still required to obtain an operating permit per the 2020 short-term rental ordinance, a spokesperson for the city’s Planning Department said.

According to AirDNA, there are currently 1,954 active rentals in within the city.  Albuquerque.  Of those rentals, 241 are single room or shared room rentals, which would not be included in the cap which  leaving 1,713 rentals which already comes close to the proposed 1,800 cap.  City data collected  places that  number much lower.

As of May 1, city data shows  1,325 short-term rentals in the city. Government Affairs Manager Diane Dolan  said the AirDNA data is overstated. She claims it includes some areas outside of the city, including Los Ranchos, and could potentially lump in medium-term rentals, geared at traveling nurses and other nomadic tenants. Only rentals under 30 days would be considered short-term rentals under the regulation.

According to Dolan, for several years the number of short term rentals has hovered around 1,200 in the city but  between September 2022 and February 2023  the city has seen an unusual spike of about 400 rental units. Dolan said this:

“It’s like having the drain open, with the water on full blast. …  We’re trying to pass down some housing, and meanwhile, some of it’s just trickling out the bottom.”

The link to quoted and relied upon news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/council-set-to-vote-on-short-term-rental-regulations-tonight/article_ac016476-3f9d-11ee-b2d2-abd07f3b4b73.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

OPPOSITION EMERGES

City official did meet with both national Airbnb representatives and local owners, but  parts of the legislation have remained contentious with some short-term rental operators in Albuquerque.

Carl Vidal, who owns three short-term rentals and runs a property management company for other owners called a cap “inherently unfair.” Vidal  questioned who would decide who receives permits if the 1,800 cap is reached.  Vidal said this:

“If the city is capping it and saying, ‘Okay, we’ve hit our 1,800 cap … they’re basically telling all future generations of New Mexicans, ‘I’m sorry, you’re not allowed to use your real estate to produce extra streams of income.”.

Vidal also  participated in discussions about the 2020 ordinance. He did not agree with all of the regulations but supported others like occupancy limits.

Stacey Seidel, a contractor and  short-term rental owner, said he understands adding a cap on the number of permits and acknowledges that some housing is lost to the short-term market. However he doesn’t support the three rental properties limit on per person. Seidel said having additional properties allowed him to scale his business and hire several full-time employees. Seidel said this:

“Here’s what happens: now I can’t have full time employees. … So we’ve lost jobs out of our community … it really restricts our ability to give a good, quality service and high paying jobs.”

Seidel said he would rather see a tax increase on short-term rentals  including his own that goes towards multifamily construction or other housing programs than a limit on the number of rentals per person.

REPLACING HOUSING

Government Affairs Manager Diane Dolan said the city faces a high cost to replace lost housing.  Although the number of housing used by short-term rentals is about 1% or lower replacing even a few hundred units is costly. Part of Mayor Tim Kellers “Housing Forward ABQ” to address the city’s housing shortage is converting old motels and hotels  as one of the cheapest ways to build new units.  However, Dolan said replacing the 400 units lost between September and February would  cost at least $40 million. For different types of housing, that number could double.

Rental property owner Carl Vidal owns both short- and long-term rentals. Vidal said that certain properties are more appropriate for one use. Industry members contend that not all properties are suitable for long-term rentals and vice versa. Vidal said this:

“I wouldn’t be able to cover my mortgages with [the short-term rental properties] as long term rentals. … I do have two additional long-term rentals … and those two houses don’t make short term rentals.”

Former City Councilor and former State Senator Eric Griego is now employed by the city as the Associate Chief of Staff for HousingPolicy at the city.  Griego said the cap on rentals  legislation isn’t intended to penalize short-term rental owners, and fits into the larger zoning changes passed in June by the City Council and amendments to the city’s zoning laws and Mayor Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ” plan and other Mayor Keller Housing Forward initiatives, including allowing casitas in more residential areas in the city. Griego said the legislation can help ensure that when new casitas are built, they’re primarily used for housing rather than short-term rentals.

Griego said this:

“This is about making sure that we can maximize the number of units that we can put into the housing stock. … It’s looking forward as we bring more accessory dwelling units online … to the extent that we can, protect as many of those for affordable housing in particular.”

EDITOR’S COMMENTARY

Eric Griego has very little or no background on housing development in the private sector and is a politcal appointee of Mayor Tim Keller.   He is the  leading advocate for Mayor Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ” plan. Griego has also made the misrepresentation at city presentations on Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ” plan that the goal of the plan  is to reduce homelessness when in fact its goal is to increase the amount of affordable housing and it has nothing to do with the homeless.

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

Contractor and  short-term rental owner Stacey Seidel said that the area that units are in can affect their success as one type of rental. According to Seidel people  might not want to live in Downtown Albuquerque. But tourists love to stay in the area. Similarly, tourists are less interested in visiting the North Valley.

Seidel, who also rents to four long-term tenants, said short-term rentals may eventually convert into long-term housing as the market oversaturates and it becomes harder to justify cleaning and management costs as nightly rates fall.

Seidel spent $250,000 renovating a historic boarding house in the historic Huning Highland area which he currently uses as a multi-unit vacation rental. Seidel said the goal  has always been to convert some of those units into regular apartments  fulfilling the “historic precedent” of the building as housing. Seidel said he wouldn’t have been able to afford the renovation without the increased immediate revenue from Airbnb, and the property may never have been restored.

Seidel said this:

“If it were going to be long-term rental, the cost of the restoration would have prohibited me to restore that building  …While we are losing some things to the STR market, we are also gaining things.”

CAPPING SHORT TERM RENTALS OCCURING STATEWIDE

Other cities and counties in the state are implementing or considering short-term rental caps. Santa Fe capped the number of permits at 1,000, and the Town of Taos capped them at 120. While both locations have reputations as tourist towns, they both have much smaller populations than Albuquerque.

According to city officials, before 2020 short-term rentals were “completely unregulated.” City officials are now saying  59% of Albuquerque short-term rentals are permitted — a provision of the 2020 ordinance. In September last year, just 39% of rentals were permitted. The number increased after an enforcement push on the city side, although as of June 2023, no fines had been issued.

The link to quoted and relied upon news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/local/city-council-to-consider-cap-on-short-term-rentals/article_44c0ea6e-2cb2-11ee-873f-c794b8261289.html#:~:text=A%20proposed%20cap%20on%20the,and%20set%20certain%20occupancy%20limits.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

A controversial provision of Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ” plan is  pending consideration by the City Council of City Council Ordinance 0-23-69 seeking to regulate and cap short term rentals, also known as “Bed and Breakfast” rental units. The Keller Administration argues that there is a need to protect existing housing stock to make it available to all permanent residents and future residents so that they will always have access to a safe, stable home. It has nothing to do with providing housing to the homeless.

EDITOR’S DISLOSURE: The below commentary was provided by Associate Broker Carl Vidal with the Irvie Homes Property Management.

“Despite Mayor Keller’s claims that short-term rentals reduce available housing to permanent residents, there is no evidence that banning or capping the number will increase the city’s overall housing supply to permanent residents.   AirDNA, a leader in short-term rental data, reports that 66% of short-term rentals in Albuquerque are part-time units. These homes are rented out periodically by locals to support their families and cover monthly bills.  The locals often reside in these homes while they’re not rented. In Albuquerque, short-term rentals account for only 0.007% of the housing inventory, and only 0.003% if we consider just full-time rentals.

Short-term rentals have significantly contributed to Albuquerque’s economy, generating an impressive $216 million in economic impact and creating over 2,280 jobs locally. Moreover, the city, state, and county have collected around $14 million in taxes in 2022 alone from these rentals. With over 2,500 hosts leasing short-term rentals across the city, last year’s 431,000 guests spent an average of $361 per overnight visit. These figures demonstrate the essential role of short-term rentals in the city’s economy, making them a vital asset that should be allowed to exist and thrive..

Short-term rentals play a crucial role in providing housing for transient  workers in various industries, including healthcare traveling nurses and locum doctors, traveling contractors, actors, directors, film workers, and staff from Intel, Facebook, Sandia Labs, and Kirtland Airforce Base. These rentals serve as a lifeline for workers who would otherwise struggle to find affordable housing during their stay. Without short-term rentals, many of these workers simply will not be able to find housing locally, highlighting the critical role these rentals play in supporting the local economy and workforce.

Short-term rentals provide an accessible investment opportunity for local Albuquerque residents, with over 2,000 hosts across the city relying on the income they generate. In contrast, building hotels requires a vast amount of funding that is typically only accessible to the wealthiest members of our society. For instance, a mid-tier 100 room hotel costs an estimated $22.5 million, with a minimum down payment of $4.5 million, making it unaffordable for the vast majority of New Mexicans. As a result, out-of-state corporations often finance these projects, taking profits out of our state. Short-term rentals serve as an investment vehicle for the 99%, ensuring that the income generated stays within our community and benefits local residents.

Limiting short-term rentals to only 1,800 units will strip future generations of New Mexicans of their opportunity to benefit from this innovative and growing sector.   The “Housing Forward ABQ” plan  to limit short term rentals  is a restriction on  commerce and interfere with property owners’ rights.  It will give an unfair advantage to out-of-state owned hotels in supply and demand economics.  By limiting the number of licenses available, the city is undermining a vital source of income for thousands of locals. Short-term rentals offer a valuable opportunity for the future and should be given a chance to thrive.”

On August 14 , NM State Sena Antonio “Moe” Maestas announced he will propose an amendment in the 2024 legislative session that would mandate special elections to fill legislative vacancies caused by the early departure of a legislator. The proposal follows two hotly contested appointments in Bernalillo County of one NM State Senator and one NM State Representative. Maestas himself was one of the appointments.

According to Maestas, special elections to fill legislative vacancies will eliminate “backroom” politics of appointments and allow voters to decide who fills an unexpired term. Under the current appointment system, a county commission makes the appointment for legislative districts that lie entirely within one county. For multi-county districts, the governor chooses from nominees forwarded by the counties.

Maestas argues the system now in place results in behind-the-scenes competition to secure support for a legislative seat. According to Maestas,  in Bernalillo County the five-member commission has sometimes deferred to the commissioner who represents the district with a vacancy.  Maestas said this:

“Five people should not choose a legislator, much less three, much less one, which is the custom of the Bernalillo County Commission. … It’s time to modernize our democracy and go to a special election.”

Maestas said he will introduce his constitutional amendment in the 30-day legislative session that starts January 16. If adopted by both the Senate and House, it would ask voters in 2024 to amend the New Mexico Constitution to require special elections within a certain period of time after a legislative vacancy.  Some details, such as how to select each party’s nominees to go on the special election ballot, could be handled in a follow-up bill if voters agree to amend the Constitution.

Appointments are a significant source of power for counties and the governor. In Bernalillo County alone, the commission has made 10 appointments in the last five years.

COUNTY OFFICIALS DISPUTE

Bernalillo County officials were quick to dispute that they defer to one commissioner’s opinion for an appointment.  Democrat Bernalillo County Commissioner Adriann Barboa said she likes the idea of developing a more democratic process to address vacancies. But then she added special elections may not be practical given the volume of legislative departures and the cost of holding an election.

Barboa said the county has taken steps to standardize and open up the way appointments are made. Barboa also said it puts commissioners in a difficult position as they face pressure to choose among candidates backed by competing interests. Barboa said she would need to review the details of Maestas’ proposal before taking a position on it.

The link to relied upon news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/a-lawmaker-says-new-mexicos-system-for-filling-legislative-vacancies-is-flawed-heres-how-he/article_a1bbe136-3ace-11ee-be53-2b8547938902.html

MOE MAESTAS APPOINTMENT RECALLED

NM State Senator Maestas went through the county commission appointment process last year in November when he moved from the NM House of Representatives after serving in the chamber for 10 years to the NM State Senate. Maestas was appointed by the County Commission to serve the remaining 2 years in the New Mexico Senate caused by the resignation of Senator Jacob Candelaria. Senator Jacob Candelaria, an independent stepped down to focus on his law practice and family. Candelaria endorsed Maestas to replace him.

Notwithstanding, objections to the Maestas appointment quickly emerged from Commissioner Adriann Barboa and then Commission Chair Debbie O’Malley with them arguing it was a rush job. What happened was that then Democrat County Commissioner Charlene Pyskoty, Democrat County Commissioner Steven Michael Quezada and Republican Walt Benson called for a meeting 6 days after the Senate vacancy to name an appointment. It was outgoing Commissioner Charlene Pyskoty who said that she and the  2 other commissioners wanted an early appointment meeting date and that it was common to fill the vacancies in 2 weeks.

The line of attack against the Maestas appointment was particularly egregious by outgoing commissioner O’Malley who called the recommendation for an early appointment meeting date “inconsiderate” and “disrespectful”  and more time was needed for applications. O’Malley’s allegations got particularly nasty and personal against Maestas by including Maestas’s wife, who is a very successful and respected registered lobbyist, and included allegations that the Maestas appointment was an “insider deal”.  O’Malley said this:

“It is possible—even likely—that the Commission will sanction this insider deal at the meeting to appoint, and I have no choice but to accept the majority vote, but appointing a State Senator is a very big deal. Vacancies in the Senate are a rare occurrence. …  I do not regret standing up for the constituents in my District while certain members of the Commission do everything they can to railroad a two-year political appointment to appease a Senator, a Representative, and a corporate Lobbyist who have been plotting this for a year.”

The November 16 County Commission meeting making the Maestas appointment degenerated into a verbal slug fest of false accusations, innuendos and slurs with then Commissioner Debbie O’Malley calling then Commissioner Charlene Pyskoty a “bitch”. Commissioner Pskoty for her part called O’Malley “disingenuous at best, and flagrant hypocrisy and political gamesmanship at its worst”. Pyskoty said this:

“There is no question that Commissioner O’Malley’s unprovoked verbal attack on me, using a gender-based slur, was deplorable and wrong. … O’Malley compounded the problem by engaging in threatening and disorderly behavior toward my assistant, making things even worse, and sending the message that politically motivated violence is acceptable. One just needs to turn on the news to see that inflammatory rhetoric from an elected official is never ok. Appointments are typically made within a few weeks of a vacancy.”

Quoted news source: November 16 , 2022 New Mexico Politcal Report “Bernco Votes-State Rep Maestas To Fill State Senate Vacancy.”

Both O’Malley and Pyskoty are no longer on the commission having left office after the 2022 elections.

CRISTINE PARAJÓN APPOINTMENT RECALLED

On June 7, 2023 New Mexico State Representative Christine Trujillo announced her resignation from the New Mexico House of Representatives District 25 effective July 1.  On July 1, the Bernalillo County Commission announced it was accepting applications and seven candidates applied to fill the vacancy. On Friday Augusts 11, the commission met and appointed Cristine Parajón to fill the vacancy.

The Parajón appointment became very controversial with questions raised on Parajón’s length of residency in the district and accusations that the fix was in with Bernalillo County Commissioner Adriann Barboa recruiting Parajón and conspiring with Commissioners Eric Olivas and Barbara Baca to appoint Parajón over far more qualified applicants.

PARAJÓN VOTER REGISTRATION CARDS SHOWED MOVED INTO DISTIRCT DAY AFTER VACANCY

There are 3 voter registration cards signed and submitted for filing by  Cristine Parajón with the Bernalillo County Clerk’s Office that reveal she changed her registration address the very day after Trujillo announced her resignation and 22 days before the County Commission started to accept applications to fill the vacancy.

The first voter registration card is dated and signed by Parajón on November 4, 2022. The registration card gives a Broadmoor street address that is not within the House District 25.

The second  Parajón  voter registration card was signed on June 8, 2023 the next day after the Trujillo resignation, and 22 days before the County Commission started to accept applications to fill the vacancy, making the change in her address for voting purposes and determining the House District where she resides. The second registration card provides a home address on Chinlee Street which is in House District 25. The registration card gives the Broadmoor Avenue Street address where she gets mail which is in HD District 18.

The third Parajón  voter registration card is dated July 1, 2023. It gives a Chinlee Street address where she lives and the same Chinlee Street address where she gets mail.

PARAJÓN’S THIN RESUME OF EXPERIENCE

From 2019 to 2023 Parajón has held 5 jobs and she became unemployed.  She was required to resign from her state employment as Director of Strategy for the  New Mexico Human Services Department because state law prohibits state employee from holding elective offices. Those 5 jobs were:

August 2019 to April 2020 (8 months):  University of New Mexico Office for Community Health, Special Projects Coordinator “analyzing medical data for the viability of clinical services for the City Westside Emergency Housing Center.”

 April 2020 to September 2020 (5 months): Deputy Incident Commander, City of Albuquerque Emergency Operations Center to deal with logistics associated with COVID quarantine and isolation hotels.

September 2020 to September 2021 (1 year):  Employed as consultant working in New York, NY, for Oliver Wyman working on availability of prescription drugs to the under privileged and minorities.

September 2021 to May 2023 (1 year, 9 months): Gateway Homeless Shelter Administer, City of Albuquerque appointed by Keller Administration.

July 2023 to present (1 month):  Director of Strategy, New Mexico Human Services Department.

PARAJÓN RECRUITED BY BARBOA

It has been confirmed by sources, despite county officials stating otherwise, that the desires of the county commissioners whose district the vacancy fell within, which in this case was both Barboa and Olivas, would be given much greater consideration and relied upon. Therefore it was the progressive majority of Commissioners Baca, Barboa and Olivas who  decided to fill the vacancy giving very little or no consideration to what was  said by the other two commissioners.

Three confidential sources within the Democratic Party, including one Ward chair,  confirmed Progressive Democrat Adriann Barboa recruited Progressive Democrat Cristina S. Parajón to apply for  the  House District 25 vacancy. One confidential source also said Barboa initially wanted Parajón to run for City Council District 6.  Commission Eric Olivas, despite public assurances to the contrary that he had not made up his mind who he would vote for, disclosed to confidential sources he had every intention to vote for whoever Commissioner Barboa wanted which was Cristine S. Parajón who Barboa recruited to run.

COUNTY COMMISSION OVERHAULS SELECTION PROCESS

On February 18, 2023 as a direct result of the controversy that emerged with the selection of Senator Moe Maestas,  the Bernalillo County Commission voted to overhaul the selection process used to fill legislative vacancies. The County Commission approved a policy that requires that the county advertise when a legislative vacancy occurs and to accept applications from applicants for at least 15 days.  The commission must make public the names and resumes of all applicants at least 5 business days prior to the commission’s appointment vote.  The new policy allows for an accelerated process when the seat empties immediately before or during a legislative session. Previous appointments occurred after shorter application windows and without any formal pre-meeting release of applicant names.

It was newly elected County Commissioner Eric Olivas who sponsored the changes.  Olivas at the time described feeling disheartened by how the county commission had handled the appointment to House District 16. He said the public did not even know who was up for the position, saying he was fielding questions on the eve of the vote from citizens simply trying to find out who was being considered. Olivas said the public deserved more notice than it had been getting during the county’s process.  Olivas said this:

“When we make a legislative appointment, we are making an appointment in lieu of an election …  [It’s] five of us selecting someone to represent, in some cases, tens of thousands of voters who have not had an opportunity to choose their representation.”

The Olivas  legislation rescinded and replaced a policy Democrat Bernalillo Couunty Commissioner Steven Michael Quezada sponsored in 2022. Quezada’s policy aimed to expedite the selection process, requiring the commission to make appointments within 10 business days of a legislative vacancy. Quezada argued against Olivas’ updated policy contending that the public suffers more with a longer selection process because a legislative district should never go un-represented, even in the 10-11 months of the year when it is out of session. Quezada also argued that repealing his 10-day deadline for appointments could allow time for “special interest groups” to start lobbying for candidates. Quezada  said this at the time:

“I am the one who changed the policy [last year] to really take politics out of our appointment. … Our job is to appoint somebody instantly.”

Other commissioners disagreed, saying the new policy brought more transparency. Progressive Democrats Barbara Baca, Adriann Barboa and Eric Olivas and Republican Walt Benson voted for the change while Democrat Steven Michael Quezada voted no. Republican Commissioner Walt Benson convinced Olivas the policy should include a deadline and Olivas added language requiring the commission to make appointments within 45 days of the vacancy.

The link to quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/local/metro-beat-bernco-sets-new-rules-for-filling-vacancies/article_21a8851c-1d67-599f-bc0e-beded826c71b.html

PROCESS FOR FILLING VACANCIES VARIES NATIONALLY

The process for filling legislative  vacancies varies among the state legislatures. Some states allow the governor, a political party, a legislative chamber, or county board to appoint a replacement, while some states require a special election.

Twenty-five states fill vacancies in the state legislature through special elections. Twenty-one states fill vacancies through appointments, and four states fill vacancies through a hybrid system that uses both appointments and special elections.

From 2011-2022, the average number of special elections held per year was 73. The average number of special elections per odd year between 2011 and 2021 was 85. The average per even year between 2011 and 2022 was 61.

If there is a vacancy in the New Mexico State Legislature, the board of county commissioners is responsible for filling the vacancy. There are no deadlines set by Article IV, Section 4 of the New Mexico Constitution, which governs legislative vacancies. If the legislative district spans more than one county, the boards of county commissioners each submit one name to the governor, who appoints a candidate from the list. The appointed replacement serves for the remainder of the unfilled term

The link to the quoted research source is here:

https://ballotpedia.org/How_vacancies_are_filled_in_state_legislatures

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It’s downright laughable that Progressive Democrat Bernalillo County Commissioner Adriann Barboa said she likes the idea of developing “a more democratic process” to address legislative vacancies given the underhanded tactics she has been involved with and used in the Maestas appointment and the Parajón appointment.  Barboa is interested in a “more democratic process” so long as her preferred progressive  candidate is appointed and she is allowed to do her very own behind the scenes political movidas.

There is little doubt that freshman County Commissioner Eric Olivas takes great pride in his sponsorship of the legislation that requires a formal application process for legislative vacancies and that commissioners are given upwards of 45 days to appoint.  Olivas does not realize the process he sponsored is defective in that it only expands the time for applications. Absent are any provisions mandating a public, open interview process by the country commission and public to ask questions of applicants and prohibitions preventing commissioners from soliciting and recruiting applicants, even those who do not live in the district such as what happened with the Parajón appointment.

A MESSY PROCESS

The legal and constitutional process of filling vacancies in the New Mexico legislature caused by the early departure of a legislator has always rested with the County Commission where the vacant legislative district is located.  On paper, it is pretty straight forward process.  There are 5 county commissioners and the applicant who secures a 3 vote majority wins, period, end of discussion.

Appointments to legislative vacancies can be very messy because of political rifts amongst the politcal party that has the majority on the commission. There currently exists a politcal rift between the 3 Progressive Democrats of Barbara Baca, Adriann Barboa and Eric Olivas who have the majority over Moderate Democrat Stephen Michael Quesada and Conservative Republican Walt Benson. The current political rift is a carryover from the previous Bernalillo County Commission where Progressive Commissioners Adriann Baroba and then Commissioner Debbie O’Malley had a very personal distain, some would say vendetta, for Senator Moe Maestas. The Parajón appointment had an element of politcal vindictiveness carried out by Progressive County Commissioners Adriann Barboa, Eric Olivas and Barbara Baca against Democrat County Commissioner Steven Michael Quezada.

With the appointment of Cristine S. Parajón  you had a County Commissioner go out of her way to recruit her own progressive candidate and act like a king maker giving no consideration to what residents in the House  District wanted and needed.  You had a number of even more qualified people who actually lived in the district much longer and who know its problems and who jumped through the hoops, apply and even participate in good faith in a forum, not realizing that the fix was in thanks to 3 county commissioners.

Given what Senator Moe Maestas went through, it’s understandable that he feels so strongly about a constitutional amendment calling for a special election to fill legislative vacancies. It is something that is indeed long overdue.  However, the problem is that the length of time to achieve a constitutional amendment mandating special elections to fill legislative vacancies is considerable and highly questionable.  First is the matter that the upcoming  2024 legislative session is a 30 short session and legislation is confined to budget matters and the call of the Governor meaning only what the Governor wants will be allowed. Then there is no guarantee the constitutional amendment will pass both chambers of the legislature. Then if it does passes the legislature it will have to  be placed on next year’s November general election ballot  and there is no guarantee it will  pass.

What would be much simpler is to elect Bernalillo County Commissioners  who do not abuse their power and authority such as Progressive County Commissioners Adriann Barboa, Eric Olivas and Barbara Baca.  All 3 put their own personal interests and desires above the best interests of House District 25 voters and only voters can hold them accountable.

The November 7 municipal election will remake the Albuquerque City Council and perhaps there will be a shift from the current Democrat control to a Republican controlled city council. Three of the four incumbents whose seats are on the ballot are not running for reelection.  They are District 2’s Democrat Isaac Benton, District 6’s Democrat Pat Davis and District 8’s Republican Trudy Jones.

The only sitting councilor running this year is District 4’s first term Republican Brook Bassan who is a public finance candidate while her opponent is Progressive Democrat Abby Foster who is a privately financed candidate.  The city council’s 5 other seats will not be decided again until 2025 and will include the Mayor’s race. There are no term limits for city councilor nor for Mayor.

ANNOUNCED CANDIDATES

The candidates who have qualified for the ballot and public financing are the following:

DISTRICT 2 (DOWNTOWN, OLD TOWN, PARTS OF THE NORTH VALLEY AND WEST SIDE)

• Joaquin Baca, Democrat: Water rights program manager at the U.S. Forest Service, member of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, President of the ABQCore neighborhood association. (Qualified for $40,000 public financing.)
• Loretta Naranjo Lopez, Democrat: Retired city planner and member of NM Public Employees Retirement Association Board. (Qualified for $40,000 public financing.)
• Moises A. Gonzalez (Undetermined): Documentary filmmaker, former teacher and community activist. (Privately financed candidate.)

DISTRICT 4 (NORTHEAST HEIGHTS)

• Brook Bassan, Republican: Incumbent City Councilor and a stay-at-home mom.  and incumbent councilor.   (Qualified for $40,262 in public financing.)
• Abby Foster, Democrat:  Small business owner, attorney and mediator who practices adult guardianship law. (Privately financed candidate.)

DISTRICT 6 (NOB HILL, INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT)

• Jeff Hoehn, Democrat: Executive director of Cuidando Los Niños. (Privately financed candidate.)
• Abel Otero, Democrat: Owner and operator of Fonzy’s barbershop. (Qualified for $40,000.00 public financing.)
• Kristin Greene, Democrat: Tattoo artist and Burlesque dancer. (Qualified for $40,000.00 public financing.)
• Nichole Rogers, Democrat: Office manager and independent contractor for Primerica Financial Services. (Qualified for $40,000.00 public financing.)

DISTRICT 8 (NORTHEAST HEIGHTS AND FOOTHILLS)

• Dan Champine, Republican: A retired police officer and current mortgage lender. (Qualified for $44,577.00 public financing.)
• Idalia Lechuga-Tena, Democrat: Vice president of Meals on Wheels of New Mexico  former NM House representative for District 21.  (Qualified for $44,577.00 public financing.)

The link to the City clerk’s website listing candidates is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/2023-candidates-and-committees-1

ISSUE BACGROUND AND CANDIDATE QUESTIONS

All too often, city council races are ignored by many voters and the campaigns do not really heat up until the very last month or two  weeks of the campaign. Most city council races are won with direct voter contact and candidates going “door to door” looking for support and votes.

Voters should know where candidates stand on the major issues they care about and what they will do if elected. Major issues and questions candidates for City Council and voters  need to think about and discuss include the following:

SOCIAL ISSUES

A.  ABORTION

ISSUE BACKGROUND: 

Two New Mexico County Commissions and 3 municipalities have passed ordinances restricting a woman’s right to choose by prohibiting the operation of abortion clinics. The ordinances are  based on the Comstock Act which is federal legislation from the 1870s that prohibits the mailing of “obscene material,” including medication or equipment used in abortions. The Attorney General has filed a New Mexico Supreme Court action to set aside the ordinances and declare such ordinances as unconstitutional with the litigation still pending.

CANIDADATE QUESTIONS

1.Are you in favor of the City Council enacting similar legislation in the form of prohibiting the city from issuing licenses to do business in Albuquerque to any health care provider that provides abortion services?

2, During the last fiscal year, the city council funded Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion services, $150,000. Do you feel the City should continue providing funding to Planned Parenthood?

B.  GUN CONTROL

ISSUE BACKGROUND:   

The exclusive authority on gun control is given to the New Mexico legislature and municipalities are barred by the New Mexico constitutions from enacting such legislation. The 2023 New Mexico 60-day legislative began on January 17 and came to an end on March 18.  Upwards of 40-gun control measures were introduced, but only 10 were seriously considered and of those 10, only 2 made it through the session to become law. Among the laws that failed were banning the sale of AR-15-style rifles and prohibiting the sales magazines with more than 10 rounds.

CANIDADATE QUESTIONS

1. Do you feel the City should seek home rule authority to allow it to prohibit the city from issuing a yearly license to do business in Albuquerque to any retail business that sells AR-15-style rifles and prohibiting the sales magazines with more than 10 rounds?
2. What gun control measures do you support and feel the city should support in its annual legislative priorities presented to the legislature?

C. THE HOMELESS 

ISSUE BACKGROUND: 

Each year the “Point in Time” (PIT) survey is conducted to determine how many people experience homelessness on a given night in Albuquerque, and to learn more about their specific needs. The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help understand the extent of homelessness at the city, state, regional and national levels.

In August, the 2022 the Point In Time (PIT) homeless survey reported that the number total homeless in Albuquerque was 1,311 with 940 in emergency shelters, 197 unsheltered and 174 in transitional housing. On May 22, the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) released a  report on the state’s homeless and the affordable housing shortage.  The LFC report included the preliminary estimates yet to be  finalized 2023 Point In Time (PIT) annual homeless count.

The 2023 PIT preliminary data revealed a significant 48% uptick in the state’s homeless population going from upwards of 2,600 people to nearly 4,000 people. The increase was reportedly driven primarily by an increase in the unsheltered count with 780 more people in Albuquerque and 232 more in the rest of the state. According to the LFC report, the 2023 Albuquerque unsheltered count increase by 780 more people. In otherwards Albuquerque homeless went from 1,311 in 2022 as reported by PIT  to 2,091 as reported by the LFC.

Over the past two fiscal years, the City Council has approved and budgeted $33,854,536 for homeless emergency shelters, support, mental health and substance abuse programs and $60,790,321 for affordable housing programs for the low-income, near homeless.  It has also approved funding for two 24/7 homeless shelters, including purchasing the Gibson Medical Center for $15 million to convert it into a homeless shelter. The Family and Community Services approved 2023-2024 budget lists forty five (45) separate affordable housing contracts totaling $39,580,738, fifteen (15) separate emergency shelter contracts totaling $5,575,690, and twenty seven (27) separate homeless support service contracts totaling $5,104,938 for a total of $50,261,366

CANDIDATE QUESTIONS

1. Do you feel that the city homeless numbers have reached a crisis level and do you feel the Keller Administration has been effective in handling or managing the crisis?
2. Should the City continue to fund city services to the homeless or near homeless at the current levels?
3. Do you feel more or less should be spent on dealing with the homeless?
4. What more do you feel can and should be done to reduce the homeless population in Albuquerque?
5. What services should the City provide to the homeless and poor if any?
6. Should the city be more involved with the county in providing mental health care facilities and programs?
7. Would you be in favor of the City Attorney’s office participation in a mental health “civil commitment” program of the homeless suffering from mental illness and drug addiction where they would not be criminally charged nor prosecuted and jailed but committed to a behavioral health and drug addiction facility or hospital  after a court of law finds that they represent a danger to themselves and/or the general public?

C. SANCTUARY CITY VERSUS IMMIGRANT FRIENDLY CITY

ISSUE BACKGROUND: 

On May 9, 2023 Title 10 referred to as the Covid-era restrictions that allowed immigration officials to quickly turn away migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border expired at ushering in tougher policies for asylum-seekers. Republican controlled state governors such as Florida and Texas are busing migrants seeking asylum to major cities such as New York and Washington DC.

In 2001, the Albuquerque City Council enacted a resolution that declared Albuquerque an “immigrant-friendly” city and 10 years later the city council voted to affirm the policy. An “immigrant-friendly” city implements “welcoming city” policies and does not provide for city enforcement of federal immigration laws, and addresses only city services, including licensing and housing. The City of Albuquerque has never been a “sanctuary city” where law enforcement is prohibited from enforcing federal laws and local government provides services to migrants seeking asylum. Albuquerque’s “immigrant-friendly” designation welcomes immigrants to the city and is mainly symbolic.

CANDIDATE QUESTION

1.Should the city of Albuquerque provide housing or services to migrants seeking asylum and to what extent?

2.Should the city council repeal the 2001 resolution that declared Albuquerque an immigrant friendly city?

3. Should the city remain an immigrant friendly city as defined by city ordinance or should the council go further and declare the city a sanctuary city?

D. CITY GOVERNMENT AND SERVICES

1. Do you feel the position of an elected City Councilor should be a part time paid position or a full-time paid position that should prohibit outside employment as is the case with Mayor?
2. On March 24, 2023  it was reported that the Citizens Independent Salary Commission responsible for making recommendations for compensating city elected officials voted to recommend increasing the pay of city councilors by 87%.  If approved, city councilor pay would go from the present $33,600 to $62,843 a year.  Are you in favor of the pay increase or should city councilor pay remain the same?
3. Are you in favor of a state “right to work statute” that would impact or eliminate city employee unions?
4. Should city unions be prohibited from endorsing candidates for municipal office?
5. As a candidate for city council will you seek and will you accept the endorsement of any city of Albuquerque union, including the endorsement of the Albuquerque Police Officers Association and the Fire Fighters local union?
6. Are you in favor of privatizing city services or work such as public safety, the 311 call center operations, the bus system or the maintenance and repair work done at city facilities such as the Bio Park?
7. Are you in favor of the city bus transit be free of charge to the general public?
8. City Councilors each fiscal year are  given upwards of $2 million in discretionary spending for capital improvement projects in their individual districts. What projects your district would you identify to spend such money on?

E.  CITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE BACKGROUND:

On October 18, 2022,  Mayor Tim Keller announced his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”. It is a “multifaceted initiative” where Keller set the goal of adding 5,000 new housing units across the city by 2025 above and beyond what the private sector normally creates each year.  According to Keller, the city is in a major “housing crisis” and the city needs between 13,000 and 28,000 new housing units.

Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” was embodied in amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) which is the city’s zoning laws. To add the 5,000 new housing units, Keller proposed that the City of Albuquerque fund and be involved with the construction of new low-income housing.  The strategy includes “motel conversions” where the city buys existing motels or commercial office space and converts them into low-income housing.  It includes “casitas” on existing residential properties as permissive uses and not as conditional uses.

On July 6, Mayor Tim Keller signed into law the zoning amendments that embody his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”.  It will allow casita construction on 68% of all built out residential lots in the city.  Casita construction is now a “permissive use” on all single-family R–1 zones giving the Planning Department exclusive authority to approve casitas over objections of adjoining property owners. Mayor Keller announced his administration’s goal is to review and approve 1,000 new casitas all over the city by 2025.  Keller announced the Planning Department will also “lower the bar” for property owners to build casitas and provide pre-approved casita designs. The city also wants to provide loans for building costs to homeowners that agree to rent their casita to those who use Section 8 housing vouchers.

CANDIDATE QUESTIONS

1.Are you in favor of motel conversions and if so to what extent should the city council be involved with approving the acquisitions?

2. Should “casita” additions be a “conditional use” requiring an application process with the City Planning Department, notice to surrounding property owners and affected neighborhood associations and provide for appeal rights?  Should casitas  be a “permissive use” that would give the Planning Department exclusive authority to issue permits for construction without notices and hearings and with no appeal process?

3.  Should the City Planning department provide pre-approved casita designs to developers?

4. Should the city provide  loans for building costs to homeowners that agree to rent their casita to those who use Section 8 housing vouchers?

ISSUE BACKGROUND:  

Amendments to the  Integrated Development Ordinance, which is the city’s zoning laws,  allows for the land use known as “Safe Outdoor Spaces” to deal with the homeless crisis. “Safe Outdoor Spaces” are city sanctioned homeless encampments located in open space areas that will allow upwards of 50 homeless people to camp, require hand washing stations, toilets and showers, require a management plan, 6-foot fencing and provide for social services.  The city council has voted to allow 18 Safe Outdoor Spaces, 2 in each city council district. The City Council has attempted 3 times to repeal allowing Safe Outdoor Spaces and funding with Mayor Keller vetoing the attempts.

5.  What is your position on city sanction and funded Safe Outdoor Spaces and should they be allowed at all and if so to what extent?
6.  The Integrated Development Ordinance enacted by the City Council in 2017 essentially repealed all sector development plans designed to protect neighborhoods and their character to favor the development community. Are you in favor of repealing the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) and reverting back to the comprehensive zoning code and enacted sector development plans?
7. To what extent should adjoining property owners and neighborhood associations have the right to contest and appeal changes in zoning permissive and conditional uses?
8. What do you feel the Albuquerque City Council can do to promote “infill development” and would it include the City acquiring property to be sold to developers and the formation of public/private partnerships?
9. What do you feel the City Council can do to address vacant residential and commercial properties that have been declared “substandard” by city zoning and unfit for occupancy?
10. Should the City of Albuquerque seek the repeal by the New Mexico legislature of laws that prohibit city annexation of property without county approval?

UPTOWN TRANSIT CENTER EXPANSION

On July 6 Democratic U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján and President Biden’s senior adviser and infrastructure coordinator Mitch Landrieu along with Mayor Tim Keller held a news conference to announce $25 million in new federal funding that will be used in part to expand the Uptown Transit Center. The total cost of the entire development project will be at least $50 Million. The project has been dubbed “Uptown Connect”.  It is a public-private partnership project to reconstruct the existing bus platform on America’s Parkway, between Uptown Boulevard NE and Indian School Road NE. The overall development project will have underground parking, entertainment, affordable housing and retail uses.  Project developer Palindrome said it will be building 400 apartments above the transit center, as well as restaurants and retail sites. 200 of the 400 of the apartments will be dedicated to affordable housing and the other half will be at the fair market rental rates.

1.Are you in favor of the Uptown Transit Center expansion?

2.Do you feel it is appropriate to mandate 200 of the 400 apartments to be dedicated to affordable Housing?

3. The city owns the land upon which the Uptown Transit Center expansion and apartments will be built and it is some of the most expensive real estate in the city. Do you believe that there is a higher and better use for the property, such as a park or a community center?

RAIL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

ISSUE BACKGROUND:

On July 22,  Mayor Tim Keller announced  plans  for the Albuquerque Rail Trail project. The Rail Trail project  is an $80 Million dollar a 7- to 8-mile multi-use pedestrian and bike trail circling downtown that will connect key destinations in the downtown area. The Rail Trail will consist of 11 major sections all in the Downtown area from the Rail Yards to the Sawmill District, Old Town, Tingley Beach, the Barela’s neighborhood, and back around in a 8-mile loop. The total projected cost is $80 Million. The project is roughly half funded. Funding for the Rail Trail Loop includes $15 Million from the City, $10 million from the State of New Mexico, and $11.5 million  from the Federal RAISE Grant, totaling $36.5M for the full loop.  Money from bonds that voters are expected to vote on in November’s city election could also be used for the project.  A 25-foot neon tumbleweed at the intersection of Route 66 and the railroad is being proposed.

CANDIDATE QUESTIONS 

1.Are you in favor of the Rail Trail project as proposed by Mayor Keller?

2. Do you feel the city council should have any input on the plans and designs for the Rail Trail?

3. Are you in favor of spending $80 Million dollars on the project?

4. Should the Rail Trail project be placed on the ballot for voter approval?

5, Do you feel that State and Federal funding should be used for the project?

6. To what extent should the city provide law enforcement to patrol the 8 mile rail trail and do you have any public safety concerns for the project?

7. Do you have an opinion on the appropriateness of spending money on a 25 foot neon sculpture of a “tumbleweed” at Central and the railroad tracks?

F. ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CRIME:

ISSUE BACKGROUND:

The Albuquerque City Council plays a crucial oversight role of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) including approving its budget. Since 2014, the city and the Albuquerque Police Department (APD)  have been working under a federal court approved settlement agreement after the Department of Justice found a “culture of aggression” and   excessive use of force and  deadly force.  Under the terms of the settlement, APD is required to implement 271 reforms with oversight by a court approved Federal Independent Monitor.  When APD reaches 95% compliance in 3 compliance levels and maintains that compliance for 2 years, the case can be dismissed.

On May 10, 2023  Federal Court Appointed Independent Monitor James Ginger filed his 17th Report on the Compliance Levels of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) and the City of Albuquerque with Requirements of the Court-Approved Settlement Agreement. The Federal Monitor IMR-17 report which covers August 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023,  reported APD’s compliance levels were as follows:

Primary Compliance 100%

Secondary Compliance 100%

Operational Compliance 92% (95% needed to be achieved and sustained for 2 years)

CANDIDATE QUESTIONS 

1. Do you feel the city should seek immediate dismissal of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement or wait and additional 2 years after APD comes into complete compliance in all 3 of the compliance levels?

2.  What oversight role do you believe the Albuquerque City Council should play                  when it come to the Albuquerque Police Department (APD)?

3. Should the City seek to renegotiate or set aside the terms and conditions of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) and if so why?
4. What would you do to enhance civilian oversight of APD and the implementation of the Department of Justice mandated reforms?
5. Should the APD Chief, Assistant Chief, Deputy Chiefs and APD command staff be replaced with a national search and replaced by “outsiders” to  make changes at APD with new leadership and management?
6. Should the function of Internal Affairs be removed from APD and civilianized under the city Office of Inspector General, the Internal Audit Department and the City Human Resources Department?
7. APD currently has 980 sworn police. What are your plans for increasing APD staffing levels and what should those staffing levels be?
8. What are your plans or solutions to bringing down high property and violent crime rates in Albuquerque or your district?
9. Should APD personnel or APD resources be used in any manner to enforce federal immigration laws and assist federal immigration authorities?
10. Should the City Council by ordinance create a Department of Public Safety with the appointment of a Chief Public Safety Officer to assume management and control of the Albuquerque Police Department, the Albuquerque Fire Department, the Emergency Operations Center and the 911 emergency operations call center?
11. Should APD and the Bernalillo County Sherriff’s Office be abolished and consolidated to form one regional law enforcement agency, combining resources with the appointment of a governing civilian authority and the appointment of a Superintendent of Public Safety?

APD POLICE PAY

ISSUE BACKGROUND

The City Council must approve contracts negotiated by the Mayor’s Administration with all unions including the Albuquerque Police Department Union (APOA). Although state law is clear that management is strictly prohibited from joining government employee unions, APD Sergeants and Luitenants, who are management, are allowed to be members of the police union.

On July, 14 2023, the Mayor Tim Keller Administration City announced that it  negotiated a new, two-year contract with the Albuquerque Police Officers Association. Under the new 2 year contract, APD police officers are being paid a 5% pay increase for the budget year that started on July 1 and goes through June 31, 2024. Hourly pay will again increase 4% for the next budget year that starts on July 1, 2024 and ends June 31, 2025.  Under the new contract APD Police Officers will be paid between $63,000 per year and as much as $81,000 per year depending upon their total years of service.  Sergeants will be paid between $86,659.65 to $90,126.04 a year under the new contract. Lieutenants will be paid between $99,065.40 to $103,027 a year under the new contract.

The union negotiated hourly yearly pay amounts do not include bonus pay, overtime pay or longevity pay which can add thousands each year to base pay and can result in police officers doubling or tripling police officer annual pay. In addition to their hourly pay,  APD sworn police officers are paid “longevity pay” with  longevity pay starting  at $2,730 per year and increases topping of at $16,380 annually for those who have served 17 or more years.  Retention pay  bonuses for  police officers who have been on the force 19 years or more, and who are eligible for retirement  are  paid as  much as $18,000 more per year, or $1,500 more a month. A combined total of $34,380 yearly incentive pay and longevity pay is paid to a police officer with 18 to 19 years of experience.

CANDIDATE QUESTIONS

     1. State law prohibits government management from joining government unions,                 Should APD Sergeants and Lieutenants, even though they are management, be             allowed to be members of the police union allowing the union to negotiate pay                 and  benefits for them?

2. Should the city abolish APD hourly pay and implement a salary structure with a step increase system based on year experience and performance measures and abolish overtime pay and longevity pay?
3. The City of Albuquerque Budget is referred to as a performance based budget where all city departments must submit detailed statistics and data referred to as “performance measures” to justify their budgets. Should negotiated APD pay raises be tied to department overall performance measures such as crime rates, total arrests and clearance rates?
4. The city of Albuquerque employs upwards of 6,000 full time employees. APD is currently budgeted for 1,000 sworn police and 780 firefighters and only they are paid longevity pay and bonus pay. Do you feel that all city employees and not just police officers and firefighters should be eligible to be paid longevity pay and bonus pay?
5. Should the city continue to fund and provide full time APD police officers, known as school resource officers, to the Albuquerque Public School system or should the Albuquerque Public Schools expand and provide more funding to its own APS School Police and reassign APD Officers to patrol the city?

G.  THE CITY ECONOMY

ISSUE BACKGROUND:

It is often said that the City of Albuquerque is the economic engine for the state and as goes Albuquerque’s  economy so goes New Mexico’s economy. The city’s Economic Development Department provides services intended to bring long term economic vitality to the City. Included in the department are the economic development division, the film and music offices, the international trade division, the management of contracts for tourism and the program for economic development investments.  The mission of the department is to  develop a more diversified and equitable economy that works for everyone by growing and retaining local businesses and jobs; eliminating barriers to success in underserved communities; recruiting businesses in key industries; increasing Albuquerque’s competitiveness in the global market; and fostering a healthful built environment.  The  FY/24 General Fund budget for the Economic Development Department  is $3.8 million, a decrease of 62.1% or $6.2 million below the FY/23 original budget.

1.What strategy would you implement to bring new industries, corporations and jobs to Albuquerque?

2. Albuquerque’s major growth industries include health care, transportation, manufacturing, retail and tourism with an emerging film industry. What programs would you propose to help or enhance these industries?

3. To what extent should tax increment districts, industrial revenue bonds and income bonds be used to spur Albuquerque’s economy?

4.  What financial incentives do you feel the city can or should offer and provide to the private sector to attract new industry and jobs to Albuquerque, and should that include start-up grants or loans with “claw back” provisions?

5. What sort of private/public partnership agreements or programs should be implemented to spur economic development?

6. What sort of programs or major projects or facilities, if any, should the city partner with the State or County to spur economic development?

7.  What programs can the city implement to better coordinate its economic development with the University of New Mexico and the Community College of New Mexico (CNM) to insure an adequately trained workforce for new employers locating to Albuquerque?

8. Are you in favor of the enactment of a gross receipt tax or property tax dedicated strictly to economic development, programs or construction projects to revitalize Albuquerque that would be enacted by the City Council or be voter approved?

9. What programs can Albuquerque implement to insure better cooperation with Sandia Labs and the transfer of technology information for economic development.

10, Do you feel City Economic Development Department is adequately funded and if not what funding levels and personnel staff do you feel is needed?

H. EDUCATION

1. Should the City of Albuquerque have representation or be included on the Albuquerque School board, the University of New Mexico Board of Regents and the Community College of New Mexico Board?
2. What do you think the City can do to help reduce high school dropout rates?
3. What education resources should or can the City make available to the Albuquerque school system?
4. To what extent should the city make available before and after school programs?
5. Should the city offer as a paid benefit to its employees child care at a city facility?

I. TAXATION AND PROJECT FINANCING:

1.Do you feel that all increases in gross receipts taxes should be voter approved or should tax increases be the exclusive prerogative of the city council as it is now?

2  Are you in favor of constructing an outdoor soccer stadium at the Balloon Fiesta Park?

3.  Are you in favor of constructing a multipurpose arena funded by use of voter approved bonding and if so where should it be built?

J.  MISCELLANIOUS ISSUES

1. Do you feel Mayor Tim Keller has done a good job, do you support his agenda as Mayor and has he endorsed your candidacy?
2. If you have qualified  to be a public finance candidate, will you truly be a public finance candidate or do you intend to rely upon measured finance committee’s set up to promote your candidacy?
3. Should major capital improvement projects such as the Albuquerque Rapid Transit (ART) project or the building of a soccer stadium be placed on the ballot for voter approval or should major capital improvement projects be up to the city council?

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

What is downright pathetic is that more than a few well-known political gossip types and city hall observers have already begun to declare who the winners will be in all the city council  races even before the campaigns are fully engaged and covered by the media.  One political gossip columnist and his sources began predicting the final outcomes of all 4-city council races the very day after candidates qualified to be on the ballot. It is the real slimy side of politics from those who have never run for office themselves and who simply want to try and be king makers, who are already supporting a candidate and who are actually working on campaigns. It is so very discouraging to those who are now running for city council, who are going do to door campaigning and who are  forced to listen to their political drivel. Predictions of front runners now does a real disservice to the candidates and the election process they are going through.

There have also been more than a few endorsements of candidates by outgoing city councilors. Endorsements of elected officials leaving office of those seeking to replace them amount to nothing more than attempting to preserve their own legacy. They are trying to influence public opinion, discourage the other candidates and to tip public perception in favor of their preferred candidates. The outgoing city councilors do not realize they are not as well liked as they think they are which is likely one of the reasons they are not running for another term.

The city is facing any number of problems that are bringing it to its knees. Those problems include exceptionally high violent crime and murder rates, the city’s increasing homeless numbers, lack of mental health care programs and little economic development.

The city cannot afford city councilors who makes promises and offers only eternal hope for better times that result in broken campaign promises. What is needed are city elected officials who actually know what they are doing, who will make the hard decisions without an eye on their next election, not make decisions only to placate their base and please only those who voted for them. What’s needed is a healthy debate on solutions and new ideas to solve our mutual problems, a debate that can happen only with a contested election. A highly contested races reveal solutions to our problems.

Voters are entitled to and should expect more from candidates than fake smiles, slick commercials, and no solutions and no ideas. Our city needs more than promises of better economic times and lower crime rates for Albuquerque and voters need to demand answers and hold elected officials accountable.

Let the debate begin and good luck to the candidates!

In a nearly 100-page indictment former President Donald Trump along with18 of his closest allies were indicted in Georgia over their efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state of Georgia.  The Georgia Fulton County District Attorney’s office charge Trump using a statute known as the state’s “Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” (RICO)  used to prosecute organize crime and organize crime bosses and mobsters.  The indictment accuses Trump, his aides and lawyers of a “criminal enterprise” to keep him in power.

The indictment details dozens of acts by Trump or his allies to undo his defeat.  Ther efforts include:

1. Pressuring Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to find enough votes for him to win the battleground state.
2. Harassing an election worker who faced false claims of fraud and who later received death threats.
3. Attempting to persuade Georgia lawmakers to ignore the will of voters and set aside the election results..
4. Appoint a new slate of electoral college electors who would vote for Trump setting aside the electors who had been legitimately elected.

One particularly brazen episode outlined in the indictment alleges a plot involving one of Trumps lawyers seeking  access to voting machines in a rural Georgia county and steal data from a voting machine company.

The indictment outlines 161 acts by Trump and his associates that have already been reported upon and that have received widespread attention. The  Jan. 2, 2021 phone call  made by  Trump to  urged Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” the 11,780 votes needed to overturn his election loss stands out as the most damning.  The Fulton County District Attorney said the call violated a Georgia law against soliciting a public official to violate their oath of office.

The sprawling indictment charges Trump with making false statements and writings for a series of claims he made to Raffensperger and other state election officials. Those false statement and claims included  that up to 300,000 ballots “were dropped mysteriously into the rolls” in the 2020 election, that more than 4,500 people voted who weren’t on registration lists and that a Fulton County election worker, Ruby Freeman, was a “professional vote scammer.”

Former New York City Mayor and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani is charged with making false statements for allegedly lying to lawmakers by claiming that more than 96,000 mail-in ballots were counted in Georgia despite there being no record of them having been returned to a county elections office, and that a voting machine in Michigan wrongly recorded 6,000 votes for Biden that were actually cast for Trump. Giuliani was never able to produce a scintilla of evidence to support the false claims.

Also charged are individuals who are alleged to helped Trump and his allies in Georgia to influence and intimidate election workers. One man, Stephen Cliffgard Lee, was charged by prosecutors for allegedly traveling to Ruby Freeman’s home “with intent to influence her testimony”  before congress. Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss testified to Congress last year about how Trump and his allies latched onto surveillance footage from November 2020 to accuse both women of committing voter fraud, allegations that were quickly debunked, yet spread widely across conservative media. Both women, who are Black, faced death threats for several months after the election.

The indictment charges several co-defendants of tampering with voting machines in Coffee County, Georgia, and stealing data belonging to Dominion Voting Systems, a producer of tabulation machines that has long been the focus of conspiracy theories. According to evidence made public by the congressional committee investigating the January 6 riot, Trump allies targeted Coffee County in search of evidence to back their theories of widespread voter fraud, allegedly copying data and software.

Others charged include White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Trump administration Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, who advanced the then-president’s efforts to undo his election loss in Georgia. Meadows is charged with repeated contact with Georgia officials. Other lawyers who supported legally dubious ideas aimed at overturning the results, including John Eastman, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro, were also charged. It was Eastman who wrote the legal theory that Vice President Mike Pence had the authority to reject the selectorial college vote.

A link to read the entire Georgia indictment is here:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/14/trump-georgia-indictment-document-00111154

DISTRICT ATTORNEY FANI WILLIS

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, whose office brought the case had this to say in a late night press conference:

“The indictment alleges that rather than abide by Georgia’s legal process for election challenges, the defendants engaged in a criminal racketeering enterprise to overturn Georgia’s presidential election result.”

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said the defendants would be permitted to voluntarily surrender by noon August 25. She also said she plans to seek a trial date within six months and that she intends to try all  the defendants collectively.

THE 19 INDICTED DEFENDANTS

Including Donald Trump, the 19 individuals that have been indicted are:

Mark Meadows, White House chief of staff

Rudy Giuliani, Trump lawyer

Sidney Powell, Trump election lawyer

Jenna Ellis, Trump campaign lawyer

Mike Roman, Trump campaign official

Jeffrey Clark,Top Justice Department official

Ray Smith, Trump campaign attorney

John Eastman, Trump election lawyer

OTHER TRUMP ALLIES

Kenneth Chesebro, Pro-Trump lawyer

Trevian Kutti, Publicist

Harrison Floyd, Leader of Black Voices for Trump

Robert Cheeley, Pro-Trump lawyer

Stephen Lee, Pastor tied to election worker intimidation

FAKE ELECTORS

David Shafer, Georgia GOP chair

Cathy Latham, Fake elector tied to Coffee County breach

Shawn Still, Fake GOP elector

ALLEGED VOTING SYSTEM BREACHERS

 Scott Hall, Tied to Coffee County breach

Misty Hampton, Coffee County elections supervisor

FOUR PENDING CASES

As it stands, Trump had now been indicted 4 times that contain a total of 91 felony counts.  Trump has been charged in the State of New York with falsifying business records and now in  Georgia with both being election-related cases. Trump also  faces a separate federal indictment accusing him of illegally hoarding classified documents  at his Maralogo home in Florida.

It was on August 2 that Trump was indicted on felony charges for working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the violent riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol, with the US  Justice Department seeking  to hold him accountable for his efforts to block the peaceful transfer of presidential power and threaten American democracy.

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-georgia-indictment-rcna98900

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indicted-jan-6-investigation-special-counsel-debb59bb7a4d9f93f7e2dace01feccdc

https://apnews.com/article/trump-georgia-election-investigation-grand-jury-willis-d39562cedfc60d64948708de1b011ed3

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-fulton-county-georgia-08-14-23/index.html

 https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/08/georgia-indictment-defendants-list-dg/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

One of the biggest arguments that have been made by MAGA Republicans is that Trump has done nothing wrong, that he did not have the necessary intent believing he won the election and that he was following the advice of his attorneys. Well, at least 7 of the indicted in the Georgia case are those very attorneys that gave Trump the legal advice he used to violate the law.

What is truly disgusting is the extent the Republican Party and its leadership continue to support Trump and go to his defense refusing to accept he is a danger to our national security and to our democracy.  Based on all the polls, Trump is the clear front runner and will be the Republican  nominee.  His opponents flail around unable to break the strangle hold over the Republican Party which has essentially become his cult.

It is more likely than not that more than a few of the 19  who have been indicted in Georgia will want to plead guilty to the charges and turn state evidence to testify against Trump in exchange for a suspended jail sentence.  That testimony will likely include admissions that Trump knew he lost Georgia.

The sooner Trump is tried, convicted and sentence to jail for the crimes he has committed, the better.  It will show that no one is above the law and Trump will finally be brought to the justice he so richly deserves. The beaty  of the Georgia indictment is that if Trump is convicted and then elected, he cannot pardon himself or any of his co conspirators on the charges.

The 4 pending indictments can  be called Making America Great Again one indictment and conviction at a time.