Mike Voorhees Guest Opinion Column: “ABQ City Councilor Dan Lewis Sponsors Sinister Legislation to Gut Your Rights and Silence Neighborhoods To Favor Developers; Lewis Violates Both Court Order and Settlement Agreement”; Lewis Needs To Go; Tell City Council To Vote NO On Lewis Council Bill No. O-24-69

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

MIKE VOORHEES GUEST OPINION COLUMN

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

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

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

 SO WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?

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

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

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

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

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

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

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

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

January 2, 2025

“Happy New Year, Councilors!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limit the standing of Neighborhood Associations;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Mike Voorhees, Member at Large

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

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

DINELLI COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT CITY COUNCIL

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

CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100

CITY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL ANALYST EMAILS

lesanchez@cabq.gov,

bmaceachen@cabq.gov,

joaquinbaca@cabq.gov,

bacajoaquin9@gmail.com,

kpena@cabq.gov,

cquezada@cabq.gov,

bbassan@cabq.gov,

dawnmarie@cabq.gov,

danlewis@cabq.gov,

galvarez@cabq.gov,

nrogers@cabq.gov,

district6@cabq.gov,

tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov,

tanyaj@cabq.gov,

dchampine@cabq.gov,

rgrout@cabq.gov

rrmiller@cabq.gov

City Inspector General Finds Keller Administration Paid Out $280,000 In Covid Grant Funds Intended For Child Care To Pay Bonuses To 28  Keller City Officials; Referral Made To US Attorney; Keller Administration Lashes Out; Council Should Vote Requiring “Claw Back” Refunds From Those Paid

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

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

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

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

OIG REPORT FILED

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

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

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

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

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

OIG CONCLUSIONS

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

BONUSES PAID TO KELLER CITY OFFICIALS

The OIG investigation report states in part as follows:

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

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

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

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

WHAT REVEALED DURING OIG INTERVIEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE OF FEDERAL FUNDING USED TO PAY BONUSES

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

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

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

OIG RECOMMENDATIONS

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

OIG’S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE DECLINES TO APPROVE INVESTIGATION REPORT

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

REFERAL MADE TO U.S. ATTORNEY

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

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

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

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

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

KELLER ADMINISTRATION RESPONDS, LASHES OUT

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

Associate Chief Administrative Officer Carla Martinez released the following statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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