On April 1, the Mayor Tim Keller Administration released the 2022-2023 annual budget that once enacted by the city council will be for the fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2022 and will end June 30, 2023. The overall budget submitted for review and approval of the Albuquerque City council is for $1.4 Billion. $841.8 represents the general fund spending and it is an increase of $127 million, or 17.8%, over the current year’s budget of $1.2 Billion.

The link to the proposed 244-page 2022-2023 budget it here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-proposed-final-web-version.pdf

In an interview, Mayor Tim Keller said the budget is actually a “pretty bland” proposal that covers the necessary bases without introducing many new elements. Keller is quoted as saying:

“I don’t think there’s anything in here that is a particular surprise … It’s not like we have some massive announcements.”

The link to quoted news sources is here

https://www.abqjournal.com/2484892/mayor-releases-1-4b-budget-proposal.html

“ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS THROUGH A HOUSING FIRST APPROACH”

Since day one of being sworn in as Mayor on December 1, 2017, elected Mayor Tim Keller has made it a top priority to deal with the city’s homeless crisis. The 2022-2023 budget continues with Mayor Tim Keller’s commitment to help the homeless including funding for the Gateway Homeless Shelter on Gibson.

It was on Tuesday, April 6, 2021, the city officially announced it had bought the massive 572,000-square-foot complex for $15 million and will transform it into a Gateway Center for the homeless. It was announced that the complex would be only 1 of the multisite homeless shelters and not the 300-bed shelter originally planned. The complex has a 201-bed capacity, but remodeling could likely increase capacity significantly. Mayor Keller alienated many when he unilaterally decided on the purchase of the Lovelace Gibson facility and announcing that it would be used as a homeless shelter. Mayor Keller sought little or no input from the surrounding neighborhoods.

Notwithstanding, Mayor Keller in the 2022-2023 budget is increasing his commitment to dealing with the homeless on a number of levels. However, there is one new level that is a totally different level without making full public disclosure for the new effort.

On April 4, Mayor Tim Keller’s plan to spend $950,000 on “city sanctioned homeless encampments” was reported in a blog article on the entire proposed 2023 city budget. The article is entitled “Keller’s ‘Pretty Bland’ $1.4 Billion 2023 City Budget Far From Bland With 18% Increase; 13% Pay Raises For Cops With Performance Measures Down And More Overtime; Anemic 2% Pay Raises For City Workforce; $900,000 For Open Space City Sanctioned “Homeless Encampments”

The link to the April 4 blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/04/04/kellers-pretty-bland-1-4-billion-2023-city-budget-far-from-bland-with-18-increase-13-pay-raises-for-cops-with-performance-measures-down-and-more-overtime-anemic-2-pay/

Buried in Mayor Keller’s “Executive Summary” of the $1.4 Billion Dollar budget is a section entitled “Addressing Homelessness Through a Housing First Approach”.

To quote in part Keller’s Executive Summary of the 2022-2023 proposed budget:

“The pandemic exposed cracks in the social safety net and public health systems, and provided an opportunity to address these challenges with urgency. Our proposed budget also aims to close some of those cracks in the system on a larger and more permanent scale, including:

• $750 thousand for the first phase of Safe Outdoor Spaces, which, if approved by Council, will enable ultra-low barrier encampments to set up in vacant dirt lots across the City, plus an additional $200 thousand for developing other sanctioned encampment programs.

(Editor’s Note: This line item has been taken out of order and placed first for emphasis.)

• $4 million in recurring funding and $3 million in one-time funding for supportive housing programs in the City’s Housing First model. In addition, as recommended by the Mayor’s Domestic Violence Task Force, the budget includes $100 thousand for emergency housing vouchers for victims of intimate partner violence.

• $1.3 million for a Medical Respite facility at Gibson Health Hub, which will provide acute and post-acute care for persons experiencing homelessness who are too ill or frail to recover from a physical illness or injury on the streets but are not sick enough to be in a hospital.

• $4.7 million net to operate the first Gateway Center at the Gibson Health Hub, including revenue and expenses for emergency shelter and first responder drop-off, facility operation and program operations.

• Full funding for the Westside Emergency Housing Center, which has operated at close to full occupancy for much of the year.

• $500 thousand to fund the development of a technology system that enables the City and providers to coordinate on the provision of social services to people experiencing homelessness and behavioral health challenges.

• $500 thousand to fund Albuquerque Street Connect, a highly effective program that focuses on people experiencing homelessness who use the most emergency services and care, to establish ongoing relationships that result in permanent supportive housing.”

KOB NEWS STORY ON CITY SANCTIONED HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS

On April 9, KOB Channel 4 ran the news story entitled “Albuquerque officials consider designated homeless camps”. Publication of the news story is in order:

“There is a new plan to give those without a home a new and safe place to stay in Albuquerque. [Weekend news anchor Tommy Lopez added the plan is contained in the proposed 2022-2023 city budget.]

Mayor Tim Keller is now saying a city-managed and designated homeless camp could be a solution to some homelessness problems in the city. KOB 4 spoke with a city council member about the idea and where those potential locations would be.

“We see them every day, who are not ready to get into permanent supportive housing,” said Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis.

Even with Tiny Homes Village and the proposed Gateway Center, Davis says it’s a way to address the issue of those who don’t want to be placed in a home.

“Even though we are putting $40 million into housing every year, we still have a waiting list, and we still have people who aren’t willing to get into those other places and we need to come up with an answer for some of them. Maybe this is an option we should explore,” said Davis.

While the plan is still very much in it’s beginning phase, the goal is to clear out homeless camps at parks and move them to empty dirt lots. Now, the city says they don’t plan on picking just any dirt lot, they are looking for locations that are near homeless services and ones that are far from any homes.

“This is not about turning your neighborhood park into an encampment. This is about incentivizing in certain parts of town where they are not disruptive to other residents or other uses,” said Davis.

And the camps wouldn’t be open to just anyone.

“Some of the early things we have learned is that they have to be small enough to be manageable, they have to be managed, it can’t just be a free for all, there needs to be a structure and a system for it,” said Davis.

This isn’t a new idea Santa Fe is also looking into it and Las Cruces has already created these types of camps.

“Done right, other cities have seen a lot of success with it, but we got a lot of details yet to be sorted out before the City of Albuquerque will start doing these,” Davis said.

The city council knows this is going to be a big topic of discussion in Albuquerque. They say in April and the start of May, there will be multiple meetings where citizens will be able to speak their minds about this.

But the city will have to make a decision soon, it has until the end of May to finalize the budget.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/albuquerque-officials-consider-designated-homeless-camps/6441590/?cat=500

Much of the information contained in the Channel 4 news report on the the encampments, such as location and screening of occupants, has not been rendered to writing in that the proposal is very much in the planning stages.

2021-2022 APPROVED FUNDING FOR CONTRACTS TO DEAL WITH HOMELESS

It is the city’s Family and Community Services Department that manages and deals with city services, programs and federal grants for the homeless and assist with affordable housing programs to help low-income people in need of financial assistance to avoid becoming homeless.

The Family and Community Services Department had a total budget of $54,868,986 with 313 full time employees for the fiscal year 2021-2022. According to the 2021-2022 fiscal year approved city budget for the Department of Community Services, the city spent upwards of $35,145,851 to help the homeless and those in need of housing assistance. A breakdown of the amounts spent includes:

$18,191,960 for affordable housing and community contracts (Budget page 175.)

$6,421,898 for emergency shelter contracts (Budget page 176.)

$4,378,104 for mental health contracts (Budget page178.)

$3,624,213 homeless support services(Budget page 178.)

$2,529,676 substance abuse contracts for counseling (Budget page 179.)

You can review the detailed line-item funding of programs, contract and grants administered by the Family and Community Services Department in the 2021-2022 approved city budget on the pages provided above with the link here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy22-approved-budget-numbered-w-hyperlinks-final.pdf

2022-2023 PROPOSED FUNDING FOR CONTRACTS TO DEAL WITH HOMELESS

Mayor Keller’s 2022-2023 proposed budget significantly increases the Family and Community Services budget by $24,353,064 to assist the homeless or near homeless by going from $35,145,851 to $59,498, 915 . The 2022-2023 proposed budget for the Department of Community Services is $72.4 million and it will have 335 full time employees, or an increase of 22 full time employees.

A breakdown of the amounts to help the homeless and those in need of housing assistance is as follows:

$42,598,361 total for affordable housing and community contracts with a major emphasis on permanent housing for chronically homeless. It is $24,353,064 more than last year. (Budget page 101)

$6,025,544 total for emergency shelter contracts (Budget page 102.), down $396,354 from last year.

$3,773,860 total for mental health contracts (Budget page105.), down $604,244 from last year

$4,282,794 total homeless support services(Budget page 105.), up $658,581 from last year

$2,818,356 total substance abuse contracts for counseling (Budget page 106.), up by $288,680 from last year.

The link to the proposed 244-page 2022-2023 budget it here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-proposed-final-web-version.pdf

2021 POINT-IN-TIME (PIT) REPORT

On June 22, 2021, Albuquerque’s 2021 Point-In-Time (PIT) report was released that surveyed both sheltered and unsheltered homeless. Major highlights of the 2021 PIT report are as follows:

There were 1,567 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people living in Albuquerque, a slight increase over the 2019 count of 1,524 homeless. The 2020 homeless count is 2.8% higher than in 2019 and 18.9% more than in 2017, despite the pandemic limiting the 2021 counting effort’s.

The 2021 PIT count found the good news that 73.6% of the homeless population was staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing or using motel vouchers rather than sleeping in alleys, parks and other “unsheltered” locations. The 73.6% in the 2021 count is much a higher than the 2019 and 2017 PIT counts.

Albuquerque’s unsheltered homeless decreased from 567 people in 2019 to 413 in the 2021 count.

42% of Albuquerque’s unsheltered were defined as chronically homeless, meaning they had been continuously homeless for at least a year and had a disabling condition

21% said they were homeless due to COVID

37% were experiencing homelessness for the first time

12% were homeless due to domestic violence.

30.19% of the homeless in Albuquerque self-reported as having a serious mental illness.

25.5% self-reported as substance abusers.

In the rest of the state, 37.92% of the homeless self-reported a serious mental illness, while 63.3% self reported as substance abusers.

The combined PIT numbers for the areas outside of Albuquerque is defined in the report as “Balance of State” (BOS). The 2021 BOS PIT count reports that 1,180 sheltered and unsheltered homeless, a 31% decrease from the 1,717 counted in 2019.

Operators of programs that provide services to Albuquerque’s homeless say the actual number of homeless is far greater than indicated in the PIT count. The Albuquerque Public Schools says the number of homeless children enrolled in district schools, meaning kids from families that have no permanent address, has consistently been more than 3,000.

The link to quoted statistics is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2402560/homeless-numbers-see-little-change.html

https://www.cabq.gov/family/documents/2019-albuquerque-pit-count-final.pdf

KELLER’S 2021 MUNIPAL ELECTION COMMENTS RECALLED

During the 2021 municipal election where Keller ran and was elected to a second term, Keller claimed the worsening homeless crisis in Albuquerque is partly because homelessness, just like violent crime, is “exploding” around the country. Responding to the arguments by his opponents that more arrests need to be made, Keller had this to say:

“This is a good example of folks just not doing their homework. … It’s just naive to think that a mayor can come in and [just start arresting people who are homeless]. … Mayors have to understand they are not the all-powerful kings of the city and they can just do stuff that’s illegal. It’s a good lesson to learn, because their ideas will never fly in court, and it’s just going to end up costing the city a bunch in lawsuits. … My administration … [is] going to continue working with our partners, but we unfortunately have to own this problem, because we need to do more.”

Keller acknowledged that the city has laws and ordinances that allow it to dismantle homeless encampments, he said there is a “line” to walk between respecting individuals’ rights and enforcing ordinances.

When it came to government sanctions and operated outdoor, public place encampments, Keller said during the campaign he was open to the concept if faith-based organizations or other agencies want to try it. However, he would want the authorized camps to be small, scattered and controlled to mitigate issues like substance abuse. Keller said this:

“I think we need an all-of-the-above approach because homelessness and unsheltered is such a terrible problem for our city.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

“Safe outdoor spaces” is the popular term now being used by municipal governments across the United States to refer “government sanctioned encampments for the homeless”. City hall sanctioned encampments are a bad idea for Albuquerque and will likely make things worse while millions are being spent to alleviate the homeless crisis in the city.

The April 9, KOB Channel 4 news story makes it abundantly clear that the Keller Administration has given very little next to no thought to city hall sanctioned “safe outdoor spaces” or “homeless encampments” yet the Keller Administration is asking for $950,000 for a first phase development and “other sanctioned encampment programs” . Nothing is mentioned on the number of phases or amounts that will eventually be spent.

Keller’s own budget summary says:

“$750 thousand for the first phase of Safe Outdoor Spaces, which, if approved by Council, will enable ultra-low barrier encampments to set up in vacant dirt lots across the City, plus an additional $200 thousand for developing other sanctioned encampment programs.”

These are 2 appropriations that come as “a particular surprise” to use Keller’s words. Keller has yet to make any sort of formal “public announcement” or press conference his is known for of city sanctioned encampments. There is little doubt that government sponsored encampments will be controversial, especially when the homeless encampments will be spread throughout the city on vacant “dirt lots” in plain site for all to see.

During his 2021 reelection campaign for Mayor, Keller said he was “open to the concept if faith-based organizations or other agencies want to try it”. A $950,000 allocation by the city and the city sponsoring “open space homeless encampments” is a major difference from faith-based organizations or other agencies doing it on their own.

MEDIA HOG PAT DAVIS

It is not all clear nor likely that Mayor Keller or his Administration briefed Pat Davis on the subject government encampments for his Channel 4 interview seeing as the budget was released by Keller 7 days before the interview was published. Pat Davis is not the City Council President nor Vice President nor the Chairperson of the budget committee and can only speak for himself and the exact reasons why he was interviewed by Channel 4 is suspicious.

Davis has the reputation of being a “media hog”, a politician always on the prowl for self-promotion. Davis does not hold a leadership position on the counsel, but he inserted himself into the discussion on city homeless encampments as if he was speaking for the City Council as a whole or for Mayor Tim Keller. Why Channel 4 did nor reach out to the city council leadership or the Mayor is a mystery.

Pat Davis is also the same City Councilor who stuck his meddling nose into the Gateway Homeless Shelter being located at the old Lovelace Hospital complex by attempting to place a cap of only 30 residence on the facility when the facility was being designed for as many as 150. Davis stuck his nose into it only after the city had bought the facility and after he saw residents in his district, where the facility is located, raise hell about it. During protests and zoning hearings on the project, Davis was nowhere to be found.

It is not at all likely that Pat Davis was asked by the Keller Administration to discuss city sanctioned homeless encampments and very doubtful he told the Keller Administration that he was going to be interviewed by Channel 4. The fact that Channel 4 interviewed Davis and not the council leadership nor the Mayor on encampments raises a degree of suspicion as to the true motives of the station and its reporters or perhaps they were just lazy.

Davis was nothing more than a “media hog” when he spoke as if he knew exactly what the intent of the new initiative sounding like he has already decided to support city sponsored encampments when he said:

“This is not about turning your neighborhood park into an encampment. This is about incentivizing in certain parts of town where they are not disruptive to other residents or other uses. … Some of the early things we have learned is that they have to be small enough to be manageable, they have to be managed, it can’t just be a free for all, there needs to be a structure and a system for it. … Done right, other cities have seen a lot of success with it, but we got a lot of details yet to be sorted out before the City of Albuquerque will start doing these.”

AN ADVERSION TO RULES AND DESIRE TO BE LEFT ALONE

City hall sanctioned encampments programs, especially those on city owned property, can not and must not be offered with no strings attached as to usage otherwise they will only make things worse for the city’s homeless crisis and to an extent interfere with the city’s other programs and encourage a life style as being sanctioned by the city.

A difficult realty that many who want to help the homeless have a hard time dealing with is that many homeless want to live their life as they choose, without any government nor family interference, and simply do not want anyone’s help. Many homeless do not seek help, even though they may desperately need it, especially those who suffer mental illness. It’s an aversion to rules, a desire to live as one chooses and many times the inability to qualify for help that makes things difficult for the homeless. The Tiny Home Village complex off east Central which serves as transitional housing for the homeless is a prime example of the problem.

Bernalillo County is having a hard time finding people to stay at the Tiny Home Village complex. The county spent $5 million to build the facility even as homeless encampments keep popping up all over the city. One year after the Tiny Home Village opened in the International District, 25 of the 30 homes are empty as nearby streets are lined with tents.

One of the city’s largest homeless encampments is right outside the Tiny Home Village. One of the biggest reasons for the Tiny Homes village being empty is all the rules that must be adhered to. To qualify for a Tiny Home, one must be free of drugs and alcohol. In addition to following the rules, residents are required to help around the complex. Many applicants for the Tiny Homes project can not make it past the vetting process.

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/tiny-home-village-struggles-to-fill-vacancies-as-homeless-encampments-surge/

WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?

As it stands now, city hall and the Keller Administration are spending upwards of $40 Million a year on city services to benefit the homeless or near homeless. That will increase next year by another $24,353,064. What is clear from the 2021 POINT-IN-TIME (PIT) REPORT is that progress is being made when it reported that 73.6% of the homeless population was staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing or using motel vouchers rather than sleeping in alleys, parks and other “unsheltered” situations. The 73.6% in the 2021 count is much a higher than the 2019 and 2017 PIT counts.

$950,000 out of a $1.4 Billion dollar budget does not sound like much for “ultra-low barrier encampments to set up in vacant dirt lots across the City” but when you add that amount to the millions already being spent to help the homeless, it must be questioned. City sanctioned encampments have the potential of making a crisis even worse, especially when such encampments will have negative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.

There is very little doubt that once the public finds out about what Keller is up to in his budget, there will be significant opposition. At a very bare minimum, what needs to be disclosed to the public is the actual plan Mayor Keller and the city has for “city sanctioned homeless encampments”.

At a bare minimum, the full city council needs to demand answers to the following before funding city sanctioned homeless encampments:

1. Exact size or physical area of the encampments and visibility.
2. What areas of the city and locations being considered?
3. Will the Keller Administration ignore city zoning code requirement and special use permits or attempt change zoning laws on their own to simply allow for government sanctioned encampments where ever the administration wants them?
4. Will under-utilized city parks and city owned open space be allowed to be used? Bullhead park near the Veterans Hospital or even the vacant airport industrial park are comee to mind when there is talk of open space locations that are near homeless services in that both are in walking distance to the soon to be open Gateway Homeless Sheltet Center on Gibson.
5. Exactly what is “ultra-low barrier” usage and will allow visibility of the camps.
6. The number of people allowed on the camp site, the length of time of occupancy and the extent of screening of campers.
7. Location and site selection criteria, including proximity to residential areas, school, churches, hospitals and bars and recreational marijuana dispensaries.
8. The extent of rules imposed for usage, such no drug use, no weapons nor firearms or open fires
9. Security and management oversight to be provided by the city.
10. To what extent is the city assuming liability for any injury sustained to anyone who uses the camps?
11. To what extent the city council will be allowed to review and decide if “city sanctioned homeless encampments” will be allowed.
12. Will the city Mayor Administration be given exclusive authority to make the decisions on the encampments without any input from neighborhoods and the city council.

FINAL COMMENT

City hall sanctioned encampments programs for the homeless need to be fully vetted by the city council. At this point, the are a bad fit for the city and it will not be money well spent. Until such time as the Keller Administration can present a well thought out, detailed plan on the program, the City Council should deny the funding request of $950,000 from the proposed 2022-2023 budget. City sanctioned homeless encampments will only make things worse for the city’s homeless crisis and to an extent only encourage a life style as being sanctioned by the city.

The link to a related blog article is here:

Keller’s “Pretty Bland” $1.4 Billion 2023 City Budget Far From Bland With 18% Increase; 13% Pay Raises For Cops With Performance Measures Down And More Overtime; Anemic 2% Pay Raises For City Workforce; $900,000 For Open Space City Sanctioned “Homeless Encampments”

On April 7, KOAT Target 7 ran a news story involving Albuquerque City Councilor Louie Sanchez making 911 calls on March 6 and a history of 911 emergency calls he made before March 6.

The story is a remarkable reflection of a newly elected city council going out of his way to exert dominance over APD by calling into question APD’s job performance and a Police Department responding by calling into question the motives of an elected official and not saying if APD believed Sanchez’s calls were legitimate. For that reason, the entire news story transcript merits publication.

Following is the transcript of the full news story:

“Albuquerque City Councilor Louie Sanchez made a 911 call on the afternoon of Saturday March 26. [Quoting the call]:

“Sanchez: 61st and Central. I’m across the street in the building
Dispatch: Which corner are they on?
Sanchez: They are at the pit stop 61st and Central.
Dispatch: Which corner is that on?
Sanchez: He beat a guy up with a but stock of a gun and pointed it.”

The dispatcher asks Councilor Sanchez if he wants to meet with police, he says no.

Dispatch: If nobody wants to talk to officers then…
Sanchez: No, you need to get the gun off the street, ma’am. There he goes. He is walking away. He just pointed the gun at somebody else.
Dispatch: Where’s the victim?
Sanchez: Are you going to get it? You guys waste too much time.

Four minutes into the call the dispatcher issues a “be on the lookout for the suspect.”
Sanchez: Are you serious? You’re not going to come over here and deal with it. You’re just going to be on the lookout.

Then about five minutes into the call dispatch hung up on Sanchez without letting him know whether officers were called to the scene.

“As far as I know, no one even checked the area. As far as I know, an officer never came to talk to me together. Further information” Sanchez said.

Target 7 obtained the dispatch radio procedures from the Albuquerque Police Department, according to Section 315, since Sanchez said he witnessed an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, dispatch should have responded immediately.

“I hope that the police department is not avoiding or diminishing calls to keep the crime stats down” Sanchez said.

According to call logs obtained by the police department an officer was not actually dispatched to check out the area until 33 minutes after Sanchez called.

An officer arrived in the area 17 minutes later.

That means it took APD 50 minutes to check out what was going on with a reported man with a gun.

Sanchez believes officers were not dispatched until after he called a supervisor complaining.

Despite whether Sanchez was willing to speak with a responding officer, APD says the dispatcher made an error.

“They should have dispatch an officer right away and that type of call,” Gilbert Gallegos said.

Gallegos is the public information officer for the Albuquerque Police Department, admits procedures were not followed.

“The director did speak to the call taker after the incident, talked with that person and mandated some additional training to make sure they were aware of what they should have been doing,” Gallegos said.

While the department admits there should have been officers dispatched immediately the day of the incident, they say Sanchez has made a number of calls in the past six months and they are now asking questions.

“I think I counted 10 calls to 911 or 242-COPS,” Gallegos said.

Most of those occurred before he became a city councilor in January.

The department gave Target 7 audio recordings of those calls.

As well as call logs, the department also says they saw no evidence of the incident that Sanchez says occurred on March 26.

“We didn’t find the incident he’s talking about. It may have happened, you know, outside of view of the video, but our officers did make an attempt to try to figure it out,” Gallegos said.

On Monday, Sanchez brought his concerns about 911 response times to the city council.

“It is a pattern, the counselor calling 911 or saying he is going to call 911 and then bringing it up at city council meetings. So it’s a little confusing, I guess, as to what his goals are,” Gallegos said.

Sanchez was asked what his goals are; he said he wants to make sure citizens get a response when they call police, especially on a 911 priority call.

The department would not say whether they believe Sanchez’s calls are legitimate.

“I think something like that would have to be more properly vetted and answered by an outside entity like maybe the inspector general,” Gallegos said.

Sanchez wants an audit done on the Albuquerque Police Department.

“I would like to see the police department do an audit with somebody independent. Go over all of the calls. Listen to all the police calls that come in and then determine whether they fall into one of their priority systems or not, and or if they were diminished,” Sanchez said.

Sanchez says his biggest concern is police not responding within a timely matter to high priority calls.

APD said they have reached out to Sanchez to have conversation about his experiences, they say he has not responded to their phone calls.”

The link to the news story is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-city-councilor-louie-sanchez-concerned-about-911-response-times/39668101

NOT THE FIRST TIME SANCHEZ OUT MANUVERED PUBLICLY BY APD

The April 7 Channel 7 news story is not the first time that City Councilor Louis Sanchez has embroiled himself in news accounts and has been out maneuvered by APD. During the March 21 City Council meeting, the March 14 KRQE News 13 Investigative report on the Lt. Jim Edison’s overtime pay abuse was brought up. City Councilor Louie Sanchez saw it as an opportunity to comment before news cameras on APD’s handling of the incident. APD Chief Harold Medina was not present.

Sanchez had this to say:

“When I was a young police officer I was told your time sheet was the single most important item that you deal with as a police officer every single day of the week. . . That it needs to be accurate 100% percent. It’s a legal document so it has to be 100% accurate. . . The comment that we don’t have time for that [says] you don’t have time to do your job. So I need to get an explanation why we don’t have time to check timesheets. …”

APD Chief Harold Medina was not about to have any freshman City Councilor, even if he is a retired APD police officer, question his management of APD. On March 25, Medina went out of his way to write a letter to Councilor Sanchez, attaching it to a press release no less, that took issue with Sanchez’s comments and responding to the news report. Medina wrote Sanchez in part:

“I did not attend Monday’s City Council meeting, but I would like to take the opportunity to respond to the question you directed at me about a recent news story. …

First, Lt. Edison never worked in the Chief’s Office, as stated in the news story. Further, the statement attributed to me was a response to a question about Lt. Edison’s supervisor during his assignment. I made the point that Lt. Edison’s supervisor was a Deputy Chief, and not a Commander, which I determined to be problematic and fixed the problem. Commanders typically oversee lieutenants, including oversight of their overtime; whereas Deputy Chiefs oversee Commanders, who are exempt employees and do not earn overtime.

That is why I said Deputy Chiefs on my Executive Team should not be managing officers’ time sheets. The KRQE story fails to mention that when Lt. Edison was eventually put under the supervision of a Commander, that Commander scrutinized his timesheets and found discrepancies, which were reported up the chain of command and investigated.

In addition, I understand you mentioned that you learned as a young officer that your timesheet is the “single most important item that you deal with as a police officer.” I don’t disagree that you may have been told that. But I strongly disagree with that viewpoint.

Frankly, that approach to the job is the type of culture we have been changing since I have been Chief. I want officers to excel at investigations and produce effective criminal complaints that lead to the prosecution of criminals. Officers must be 100% accurate when they arrest suspects of violent crimes and take someone freedom away. A time sheet, while important to document an officer’s work, should not be an officer’s top priority.”

Medina’s letter to Sanchez and attaching it to a press release was an act of disrespect to an elected official and violates city council protocol. Medina should have asked to speak before the next city council meeting and answer whatever questions Sanchez has about the time sheet fraud and abuse and any other questions he may have about APD’s management.

When Medina tells Sanchez “I want officers to excel at investigations and produce effective criminal complaints that lead to the prosecution of criminals. Officers must be 100% accurate when they arrest suspects of violent crimes and take someone freedom away. A time sheet, while important to document an officer’s work, should not be an officer’s top priority” Chief Medina is essentially saying to APD officers you can violate the law when it comes to overtime pay card fraud so long as you are enforcing the law and making arrests.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

City Councilor Louie Sanchez needs to realize he is no longer a cop and that he is surely no match for APD’s nor the Mayor’s public information officers who make a living at public relations. The blunt truth is that City Councilor Louie Sanchez is looking increasingly foolish and losing credibility as as a city councilor as he uses the press to ask questions of APD and calling for audits. Sanchez has no business trying to manage APD as a City Councilor by calling APD 911 and telling APD how to handle 911 calls which is exactly what he did on March 26 and did before with his other calls.

Louie Sanchez needs to start acting like a City Councilor and needs to start introducing City Council Resolutions that will affect APD on policy and get the backing of more than Republican City Councilors with his efforts.

Across the state, prosecutors and law enforcement have been under severe strain to meet the increased demand for public safety. Some law enforcement agencies are so shorthanded that they have stopped responding in person to property crimes because of a lack of officers. Prosecutors say that some victims and witnesses, particularly during the height of COVID-19, have been reluctant to appear for the required pretrial interviews and hearings, sometimes resulting in criminal cases being dismissed.

On March 24, the New Mexico Supreme Court announced through the Administrative Office of the Courts procedures to streamline and expedite criminal cases and traffic cases in state courts to ease hardships in the justice system from the COVID-19 pandemic. The New Mexico Court developed the initiatives with input from judges and justice partners, including prosecutors and public defenders.

The specific changes announced are as follow:

The State will no longer be required to schedule pretrial interviews with law enforcement in misdemeanor cases in Santa Fe County Magistrate Court and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court under a pilot initiative. Defense lawyers will continue to have information supplied by law enforcement in police reports and recordings such as lapel videos, as well criminal complaints, which bring charges against a person and outline the reasons for an arrest. Click here to view the Supreme Court order.

District courts can hold settlement conferences in criminal cases and assign a judge, other than the judge presiding in the case , to facilitate possible plea discussions and ensure that the parties exchange evidence in a timely manner. Prosecutors are not required to make a plea offer and a defendant is not required to accept one. If the state does not intend to offer a plea and notifies the court, a settlement conference will not be held. An order issued by the Supreme Court allows for settlement conferences by suspending a prohibition on judicial participation in plea discussions. The Second Judicial District Court has been using settlement conferences. The Supreme Court is expanding the initiative statewide to potentially speed up the resolution of cases, and focus resources on more complex criminal proceedings and those in which defendants are jailed pretrial.

Requiring a status conference for defendants, who are not in jail, early in criminal proceedings. The conferences can help resolve cases and allow witnesses, including law enforcement and crime victims, to avoid appearing at a later hearing. The status conference will be conducted before a defendant’s preliminary hearing, which determines whether there is probable cause for the case to proceed to trial in district court. The new procedure will be piloted in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court and the Santa Fe County Magistrate Court. At the status conference a defendant can make a plea, enter a pre-prosecution diversion program and waive a preliminary hearing. Click here to view the Supreme Court order.

Traffic violation cases in magistrate courts statewide and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court generally will be conducted remotely. This allows officers, the defendant and witnesses to avoid traveling to a courthouse for in-person trials before a judge and can free up time for officers for other law enforcement duties. There previously was a presumption that traffic cases would be heard in-person.

Chief Justice Michael Vigil had this to say in a statement about the new procedures:

“The Supreme Court approved these procedural measures to help our justice partners and courts make the best use of their time and limited resources. … All New Mexicans benefit from an effective and efficient justice system that resolves criminal cases in a timely manner.”

New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Briana Zamora has this to say about the changes:

“These changes in the judicial process will help efficiently use the resources of police, prosecutors, defense counsel and courts to move cases forward toward a resolution while honoring constitutional rights and protections.”

Supreme Court Justice David Thomson said this about the changes:

“When possible we want to prevent law enforcement officers, crime victims and witnesses from unnecessarily making multiple appearances in court proceedings. We are working with our justice system partners to update procedures and processes that strained their resources during the pandemic.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court’s March 24, 2022 press release in a pdf formate entitled “Supreme Court streamlines procedures to expedite criminal cases in state courts” can be found here:

https://www.nmcourts.gov/news/

The most controversial change is the pilot program eliminating the requirement that prosecutors make law enforcement available for pretrial interviews in misdemeanor cases.

PROSECUTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT REACT

In a March 4 letter to the New Mexico Supreme Court, Bernalillo County Dsitrict attorney Raul Torrez wrote the Court:

“… Pretrial interviews require police officers to appear for court-related activities in greater numbers and for more time than is necessary to adjudicate cases in a fair and just manner. These police officers are too frequently taken off the streets and away from their duties.”

Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez had this to say about the Supreme Court changes:

“The Supreme Court’s changes are modest but they are a welcome start in building a more just and equitable system. … [ Eliminating pretrial interviews in misdemeanor cases] will free up many hours [for prosecutors and will] “relieve some of the burdens imposed on law enforcement officers in misdemeanor cases.”

Torrez said APD’s staffing shortage will still be impacted by the officers having to participate in pretrial interviews in felony cases, while also appearing for testimony at preliminary hearings and trial.

APD Chief Harold Medina had this to say:

“Overall, this is a welcome change that will help move cases through the system and allow officers to do their jobs in the field.” Medina also renewed his call on for pretrial detention criteria to be adjusted to keep more violent offenders jailed pending trial.”

DEFENSE BAR REACTS

Chief Public Defender Ben Baur in reaction to the Supreme Court changes has this to say:

“Probably, initially, this will reduce some burden upon law enforcement and district attorneys but if there are more trials, not necessarily. It is definitely adding to the burden of the defense because we will have to find other ways to seek these interviews [like seeking subpoenas to get a pretrial interview] We’re going to have to see how this is interpreted.”

“We are interested in efficiency because we are so under-resourced we want to be able to move things, but it can’t be at the expense of our clients. … Clearly the court with the best of intentions is trying to find efficiencies in the system, but I believe that this may actually lead to more trials because if we can’t interview the officers without a trial, there are cases where we may end up going to trial simply because we need to ask them those questions.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2484589/court-rules-aim-to-speed-up-criminal-processing-ex-programs-could-in.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2485641/court-streamlining.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

After a full two years of the pandemic, and a scaling back of court trials and in person hearings, it is difficult to understand why the New Mexico Supreme court is acting now. At least it’s a start and the new procedures have real promise. Streamlining practices to make the best use of everyone’s time and resources while ensuring the rights of defendants must be the ultimate goal. The Supreme Courts new process should be carefully monitored over the next 6 months and be evaluated to ensure they’re working as intended.

An April 6, 2022 Albuquerque Journal editorial entitled “[Overtime] scandals eating away at credibility of APD, its watchdogs” said in part:

“How many overtime scandals will it take for the Albuquerque Police Department — and those who investigate it — to end them once and for all? The accrual of overtime isn’t the issue. The collective bargaining agreement between the city and the local police union spells out the terms for claiming overtime.

But the process seems ripe for abuse based on the number of problems over time. We’re at seven audits and counting since 2014, raising concerns. The latest, in August, found that problems identified previously persisted and the city was not tracking progress in addressing recommendations. And the lack of follow-through doesn’t stop with APD.”

The editorial discusses the overtime investigations of former Lt. Jim Edison and APD Spokesman Simon Dolbick, including 7 audits. A public dispute between APD Chief Harold Medina and City Councilors Louie Sanchez and Dan Lewis was also noted. The editorial points out the lack of follow up by the Attorney General and Chief Harold Medina’s failure to solve the overtime pay abuses and concludes saying pressure from the State Auditor and the Mayor may be needed. Frankly, far more than that is needed.

The link to the full Albuquerque Journal editorial is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2485956/ot-scandals-eating-away-at-credibility-of-apd-its-watchdogs.html

The answer the Journal’s ultimate question to what is needed to end APD overtime pay abuse once and for all is:

1. Criminal prosecutions for fraud.
2. Civil lawsuits for reimbursement of fraudulent overtime pay.
3. New terms to the APD union contract removing APD management from the bargaining unit.
4. Abolishing all forms of overtime pay.
5. Creating a strict salary structure.

This blog article is an in depth discussion of the APD overtime abuses and what must be done to stop it.

LT. JIM EDISON CASE STUDY IN EXCESSIVE OVERTIME PAID

The latest overtime scandal involving excessive overtime paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars is the case of APD Lieutenant Jim Edison. It is a case study showing the police union contract encourages and permits overtime pay abuse. APD command staff from commanders up to the Chief are “at will” employees, prohibited from being police union members and prohibited from claiming overtime. The Lieutenant Edison case pinpoints that the union contract needs to be negotiated to remove the management positions of Sergeants and Liements from the collective bargaining unit, making them at will, and prohibiting them from being paid overtime.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE EDISON CASE

In the spring of 2020, right after the pandemic began, APD Chief Harold Median placed Lt. Jim Edison in charge of the COVID-19 unit in APD’s Special Operations Bureau. Edison was responsible for coordinating the department’s COVID response, including contact tracing, testing of officers and directing them when to quarantine.

According to a March 14, 2021 KRQE News 13 Investigative report, over the course of one year, APD Lieutenant Jim Edison was paid $242,758 which consisted of a base pay and overtime pay. To put this staggering amount into perspective, hourly based pay for APD Lieutenants in 2020 and 2021 was $40 an hour or $83,200 a year. In other words, Edison was paid $159,558 in overtime in addition to his $83,200 base pay resulting in $242,758 paid in 2021.

Review of APD pay stubs showed Edison made $186,944 in 2020 and $173,672 in 2021. In 2020, more than $95,000 appeared to be from overtime according to pay stubs. From April 2020 to April 2021 Edison was paid upwards of $224,000, according to records APD provided to the media.

Edison was paid upwards of 3 times his base pay all because of overtime paid at the rate of time and a half. The police union contract requires payment in full for 2 hours for any overtime worked outside scheduled work time, no matter if the actual work was for mere minutes or seconds.

APD Internal Affairs and the Police Oversight Agency investigation into the time Edison claimed found Edison was routinely forwarding voicemails or emails outside of work hours and claiming 2 hours of overtime in each time he forwarded the voicemails or emails which likely took seconds to forward. The police union collective bargaining contract contains a clause that when an officer is “called in to work outside their regular working hours”, they are guaranteed pay for a minimum of 2 hours and the rate of time and a half.

The investigation report on Edison found he was voluntarily taking on tasks or duties outside of his regularly scheduled hours not ordered or approved by his supervisors, including early morning hours when he was at home. The investigator wrote in the report:

“An example … [is] listed on his overtime slips were emails Edison chose to send each morning, early hours example 0300 hour, and claiming an automatic 2-hours. [Deputy Chief Michael] Smathers did not require this work at that time and never ‘called him to work’ to complete those at that time during the period investigated.”

The city has never demanded nor sued Edison for reimbursement for the questionable overtime paid.

MEDINA PROCLAIMS “EDISON WASN’T EXACTLY BREAKING THE LAW”

On Thursday, March 31, the Albuquerque Journal reported that APD Chief Harold Medina met with its editors and reporters ostensibly to discuss a wide range of issues that APD is confronted with, including APD overtime pay abuse. Such meetings are standard and occur on a regular basis with elected officials including the Mayor and the District Attorney and government officials.

Referencing prior audits of APD’s overtime uses and abuses, Medina told the Journal editors he thinks the department has improved. Medina had this to say:

“Look at the audit reports – it said hold people and supervisors accountable to create that culture. … That’s what we’re doing. He was held accountable.”

The Journal story noted that the union represents officers, lieutenants and sergeants. In a remarkable revelation that was not elaborated upon in the Journal news story, Chief Medina said:

“Edison wasn’t exactly breaking the law, but he was taking advantage of the terms within the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the union to claim more overtime than he actually worked.”

What Medina said is worth repeating “Claim[ing] more overtime than he actually worked?” Really? REALLY? That is what is called gaming the system for personal gain and profit. Ostensibly, Medina was not asked and did not say if what Edison did was unethical or a “gaming of the system” for personal gain and profit which arguably would be breaking the law by perpetrating fraud. Presumably, Chief Medina was not asked by the Journal if lieutenants and sergeants should be removed from the collective bargaining unit and it would have been reported.

The link to the full quoted Journal article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2484244/more-overtime-misconduct-at-apd-leaves-2-councilors-stewing.html

EDISONS’ DEFENSE

Edison’s attorney Tim White insists his client did nothing wrong. He said Edison followed standard operating procedures and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. White insists that everything was above board and that his client really did “work those hours”. He pointed out that Edison had to create the department’s response to COVID-19 from “ground zero” and was the only one working on it for the first six months.

“What really happens is, Jim takes that call and whether he takes it live or whether he takes a voicemail, listens to it, and then refers that piece to one of the subordinates in the unit, he’s still working. … He’s having to wait to see what that person that he has sent the work to needs. Do they need to call him back? Is he going to still be involved? And until that call comes back from whoever he’s sent the work to, he’s on the clock.”

EDISON TERMINATED

Lt. Jim Edison was fired in mid-November for being untruthful following internal affairs investigations. Edison was with APD for 14 years before he was fired. According to APD Spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos, Edison received an 80-hour suspension and a 120-hour suspension for two complaints about his overtime pay. Edison was also investigated for retaliating against a commander who raised the issue involving his overtime pay. Edison was fired before his suspensions were served.

According to APD Spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos, Edison was fired because “there was a determination that he was untruthful” in the 2 investigations involving the overtime pay and the one involving the retaliation claim. APD Deputy Chief Smathers for his part received a verbal reprimand and an eight-hour suspension without pay for lack of supervision of Edison.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2484244/more-overtime-misconduct-at-apd-leaves-2-councilors-stewing.html

SIMON DOLBICK ANOTHER CASE STUDY IN EXCESSIVE OVERTIME PAY

The overtime pay scandal involving Lieutenant Jim Edison is nothing more than a repeat of what happened a mere 2 years ago involving APD Public Information Officer and patrol officer Simon Drobik. On Friday, April 12, 2019, it was reported that the APD Civilian Police Oversight (CPO) Agency recommended the dismissal of APD Master Police Officer 1st Class and Public Information Officer Simon Drobik as well as his former supervisor for overtime pay abuse.

The CPO Agency investigation found that in 2018, Drobik was paid $192,973 making him Albuquerque’s highest-paid employee in 2018. The investigation also found that his supervisor was one of the city’s top 11 paid wage earners. The investigation found that throughout 2018 Drobik violated overtime and pay policies more than 50 times by getting paid simultaneously for being on call as a spokesman for APD and working “chief’s overtime” and paid time and a half stationed at local businesses.

On May 2, 2019 it was reported that State Auditor Brian Colon announced that his office had begun an investigation of Drobick.

https://www.abqreport.com/single-post/2019/05/02/BREAKING-State-Auditor-Investigating-Human-Robot-Simon-Drobiks-Overtime-Claims

For successive years, as APD Spokesman, Drobik was routinely among the highest earners in the city. Drobik ranked No. 1 among all city employees in 2018 by being paid $192,973. In 2019, Drobik was ranked as the 7th highest wage earner in 2019. When Drobik retired in July 2020, he had already collected $106,607 for the year when his base pay rate was listed as $31.50 per hour, or $65,520 a year according city records ($31.50 per hour X 2,080 hours a year= $65,520).

The city has never demanded nor sued Drobik to reimburse the city for any questionable overtime paid found by the investigations.

CHRONIC OVETIME PAY ABUSE

Since 2014, there have been 7 audits investigating APD’s overtime pay abuses. The audits resulted in 17 findings and recommendation made to stop the overtime pay abuse, but they were never fully implemented by APD management nor former Republican Mayor Richard Berry and Democrat Mayor Tim Keller.

On Friday, August 6, 2021, the New Mexico State Auditor’s long-awaited special audit report on overtime abuse by the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) was released. The 64-page audit was performed by the Albuquerque accounting firm Porch & Associates LLC. The audit covers the time period of January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020. The link to the entire 64-page audit report is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sIsbWAGpIC2mDFs8bsbQ1BhYDOSXH8Ig/view

The State Audit released found that problems identified in previous 6 investigations and audits persisted and the city did not track its progress in addressing recommendations. The 2021 special audit found there was an absolute failure by APD command staff to carry out and implement the changes needed to solve the overtime problem.

The released audit identified that certain APD police union contract terms and conditions are in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act and that the police union contract has contributed significantly to the overtime pay abuse by rank-and-file sworn police officers.

The links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/audit-makes-recommendations-for-apd-overtime-policies-practices/

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-department-audited-for-overtime-pay-for-7th-time/37248257

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/audit-apd-continues-to-abuse-overtime/6199260/?cat=500

On October 26, 2020 the City’s Internal Audit Department released a performance audit that found over $400,000 paid in overtime to 4 police officers. The release audit found that 4 APD Officers claimed over 2,000 hours of paid overtime, paid at the rate of time and a half, during the fiscal year of July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020.

LISTING OF 250 TOP PAID CITY HALL EMPLOYEES REVEALS EXTENT OF PROBLEM

At the beginning of each calendar year, City Hall releases the top 250 wage earners for the previous year. The list of 250 top city hall wages earners is what is paid for the full calendar year of January 1, to December 31 of any given year. Review of the 2019, 2020 and 2021 city hall 250 highest paid wage earnings reveal the extent of the staggering amount of overtime paid to APD Sergeants and Lieutenants. The lopsided number of APD sworn police officers listed in the top 250 paid city hall employees is directly attributed to the excessive amount of overtime paid to sworn police officers.

Police officers first class, senior police officers 1st class, master police officers 1st class, sergeants and lieutenants comprise the collective bargaining unit for the APD police union contract. All are classified employees and can only be terminated for cause.

For the past 3 years in a row, over half of the top 250 wages earners at Albuquerque City Hall are APD sworn police officers in the ranks of police officer first class, senior police officer 1st class, master police officer 1st class, sergeant and lieutenant. All earned between $113,126.08 to $199,414.69 a year. All were paid hourly wages for 40-hour work week and all are paid time and a half for overtime pay.

For both the years of 2019 and 2020, 160 of 250 top paid city hall employees were police who were paid between $107,885.47 to $199,666.40.

In 2019, there were 70 APD patrol officers first class, master, senior in the list of 250 top paid employees in 2019 earning pay ranging from $108,167 to $188,844. Hourly pay rate for Patrol Officers was $29.00 an hour to $31.50 an hour depending upon years of experience. In 2019, there were 32 APD Sergeants in the list of 250 top paid employees earning pay ranging from $109,292 to $193,666. Hourly pay rate for APD Sergeants was at the time $35 an hour, or $72,800 a year. In 2019, there were 32 APD Lieutenants in the list of 250 top paid employees earning pay ranging from $108,031 to $164,722. Hourly pay rate for APD Lieutenants was at the time $40.00 an hour or $83,200 yearly.

In 2020, there were 69 patrol officers paid between $110,680 to $176,709. In 2020, there were 28 APD Lieutenants and 32 APD Sergeants who were paid between $110,698 to $199,001 in the list of the 250 top paid city hall employees paid between.

For the calendar year of 2021, 126 of the top 250 city hall wage earners were sworn police officers ranging from the rank of patrol officer 1st class through to the rank of Lieutenant. The 2021 listing of APD sworn personnel reveals that between the ranks of Senior Police Officer and Lieutenant were paid between $130,000 to over $199,000 in 2021 because of overtime. In 2021, there were a total 52 sworn police officers in the ranks of Police Officer First Class, Senior Police Officer and Master Police Officer in the listing of the top 250 top city wage earners. For 2021, there were 27 Sergeants and 30 Lieutenants listed in the top 250 city wage earners working for APD.

The links to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2021/08/16/state-auditor-brian-colon-foolish-saying-his-audit-on-apd-overtime-abuse-will-result-in-100-compliance-160-police-union-members-made-between-110000-to-200000-in-2019-and-2020-because-of-overt/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/02/17/third-year-in-row-over-half-of-top-250-city-wage-earners-sworn-police-apd-police-union-contract-violates-federal-and-state-labor-laws-after-over-6-months-special-state-audit-has-not-reduced-apd/

HISTORY OF OVERTIME PAY EXCEEDING APD BUDGET

During the last 10 years, the Albuquerque Police Department has consistently gone over its overtime budgets by millions. In fiscal year 2016, APD was funded for $9 million for over time but APD actually spent $13 million. A March, 2017 city internal audit of APD’s overtime spending found police officers “gaming the system” that allowed them to accumulate excessive overtime at the expense of other city departments. A city internal audit report released in March, 2017 revealed that the Albuquerque Police Department spent over $3.9 million over its $9 million “overtime” budget. In 2019 APD paid $17.9 million in overtime and in 2020 paid $18.3 million in related overtime costs.

Under the union contract, sworn police are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half of their regular straight-time rate when they perform work in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek. Time worked over 40 hours per week is compensated at time and a half of the officer’s regular rate of pay, or in the form of “compensatory time.”

There is no police union contract provision placing a cap on the amount of overtime any officer can be paid. Compensatory time is the award of hours as already worked to be paid and is calculated at the rate of 1-1/2 times the hours actually worked. The maximum accrual of comp time for any officer is 150 hours.

A link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/03/30/apd-overtime-pay-abuse-and-recruitment-tool/

POLICE UNION CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

At the epicenter of APD’s excessive overtime pay is the police union contract. For that reason, certain terms of the contract merit review. The 65 page APOA police “Collective Bargaining Agreement” (CBA) can be down loaded as a PDF file at this link:

“CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE AND ALBUQUERQUE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2022 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023”

https://www.cabq.gov/humanresources/documents/apoa-jul-9-2016.pdf/view

Three sections of the police union contract are worth noting. Those sections are:

“Recognition

“ 1.3.1 The APOA is recognized as the Exclusive Representative for regular full time, non-probationary police officers through the rank of Lieutenants in the APD … .

EDITOR’S NOTE: It is under this provision that APD sergeants and lieutenants, although management, are allowed to be members of the police union. Under the police union contract, they are required to work a 40-hour work week and are then are paid time and a half for all time reportedly worked over their 40-hour work week hours.

1.3.2. The City of Albuquerque extends to the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association representing such unit of employees the following rights:
1.3.2.1 To represent the employees in negotiations and in the settlement of grievances;
1.3.2.3 To exclusive representation status during the term of this agreement as provided in the Employee Relations Ordinance;”
…

Following are the union contract provisions governing payment of overtime, compensatory time and the Fair Labor Standards Act provisions

3.2 Overtime

… during the term of this Agreement the Parties will abide by the conditions of the 12-Hour MOU [Memorandum of Understanding].
3.2.1 Employees shall be entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half their regular straight-time rate when they perform work in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek.
3.2.1.1 The workweek shall consist of seven (7) consecutive days beginning at 0001 each Saturday, or the tour starting the nearest to that time.
3.2.1.2 The workday will be any regularly scheduled, consecutive twenty-four hour period beginning at the start of the employees regularly assigned shift.
… .
3.2.1.4 The Department shall retain the prerogative to implement either a four ten hour or five eight hour work schedule.
3.2.1.6 For the purpose of computing overtime, paid leave shall be considered time worked, as per Subsection 2.5 (FLSA).

3.3 Compensatory Time

… during the term of this Agreement the Parties will abide by the conditions of the 12 hour MOU.
3.3.1 Time worked over 40 hours per week will be compensated at 1-1/2 times the officer’s regular rate of pay, or in the form of compensatory time. Compensatory time will be computed at the rate of 1-1/2 times the hours actually worked. The maximum accrual of compensatory time for any officer, including Aviation Police, is 150 hours.
3.3.2 Upon separation of employment from the Albuquerque Police Department and Aviation, an officer is limited to cash-out of no more than forty (40) hours of unused comp time at straight time pay. Any accrual of comp time over forty (40) hours must be used 6 months prior to separation.

3.4 Fair Labor Standards Act

3.4.1 Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), paid leave is not considered time worked for the purpose of computing overtime and the regular rate for the purpose of computing overtime includes all remunerations.
3.4.2 … during the term of this Agreement the Parties will abide by the conditions of the 12 hour MOU. The parties hereto agree that for the purpose of computing overtime, paid leave will be considered time worked and the regular rate includes the hourly rate with no other remunerations included. Under 7K of the FLSA, the parties agree that for the purpose of computing overtime, the pay schedule will be a 7-consecutive-day, 40-hour workweek.
3.4.3 Applications of the FLSA as it pertains to the exempt status of positions will not change from current practice.

POLICE UNION CONTRACT VIOLATES FEDERAL

One of the most dramatic findings in the Porch & Associates Audit is that the APD police union contract violates the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the Fair Labor Standards Act provides:

“Paid leave is not considered time worked for the purposes of computing overtime”.

The audit points out that the union contract says “for the purpose of computing overtime, paid leave will be considered time worked” and the provision needs to be negotiated and says the City can save thousands of dollars in overtime by insisting that the APOA police union and APD follow the actually follow the Fair Labor Standards Act. The audit also said the City should not bargain away what is established by law.

The audit recommends that the City negotiate with the police union to remove the guaranteed overtime and replace it with actual time. Actual time would start when the officer leaves their home, or work assignment if after a normal shift, through the time they get home.

APD POLICE UNION CONTRACT VIOLATES STATE LAW

The New Mexico Public Employees Bargaining Act, Sections 10-7E-1 to 10-7E-26 H (NMSA 1978), governs the enforcement of the city’s collective bargaining agreement with the APD police union. Section 10-7E-5 provides for the rights of public employees and states in part

“Public employees, other than management employees … , may form, join or assist a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining … .”

The link to the statute is here:

https://www.pelrb.state.nm.us/statute.php

By virtue of their job duties and responsibilities over lower ranking sworn police, Sergeants and Lieutenants are management. Simply put, the police union contract violates New Mexico’s collective bargaining laws by allowing Sergeants and Lieutenants to be a part of the collective bargaining unit.

FRAUD CAN BE BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL

A victim of fraud has the options of initiating a civil cause of action against a perpetrator to recover a loss the result of fraud or to file criminal charges.

In very general terms fraud is defined as “the false representation of facts, whether by intentionally withholding important information or providing false statements to another party for the specific purpose of gaining something that may not have been provided without the deception.”

Fraud is an intentional deceptive act designed to provide the perpetrator with an unlawful financial gain. Often, the perpetrator of fraud is aware of information that the intended victim is not, allowing the perpetrator to deceive the victim for personal gain. Timesheet or time card fraud is when an employee puts down hours they did not work and collects payment for those hours not worked.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fraud.asp
https://www.ontheclock.com/Blog/Time-Sheet-or-Time-Card-Fraud.aspx

Under New Mexico criminal law, fraud is defined as follows:

“Fraud consists of the intentional misappropriation or taking of anything of value that belongs to another by means of fraudulent conduct, practices or representations” When a person is convicted of fraud, full restitution is usually made a part of the sentence. Under New Mexico criminal law, it is the amount of the value of the property misappropriated or taken that determines the degree of the charges brought and sentences imposed.

It is a fourth degree felony when the value of the property misappropriated or taken is over five hundred dollars($500) but not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500). A fourth degree felony convictions carry a basic sentence of up to 18 months in prison and a fine up to $5,000.

It is a third degree felony when the value of the property misappropriated or taken is over two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) but not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). A third-degree felony convictions carryss a basic sentence of up to three years in prison and a possible fine of up to $5,000.

It is a second degree felony when the value of the property misappropriated or taken exceeds twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). The basic sentence for most second-degree felonies is up to nine years in prison, plus a maximum fine of $10,000″
.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter30/article16/section30-16-6/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There a number of things that need to be done immediately to stop the APD overtime pay abuse.

THE CITY COUNCIL

The city council needs to demand that the Keller administration negotiate new terms of the police union contract in order to once and for all put a stop to APD’s decades long overtime pay abuses. Among the terms that need to be negotiated are:

1. Remove Lieutenants and Sergeants from the police bargaining unit and make them at will employees in order to conform with state law and federal law that prohibits management from joining the union.

When the Porch & Associates Audit says that there is a failure of APD supervisors to properly monitor and pre-approve officer overtime, what it fails to disclose is those supervisors are the management positions of lieutenants and sergeants who are allowed to join the APD police union despite being management.

Instead of enforcing limitations on overtime and preventing the overtime abuse, many sergeants and lieutenants simply participate in excessive overtime pay practices themselves and likely approve all overtime submitted by their subordinates to keep them happy and to maintain a working relationship with them and to garner favor with them.

2. Negotiate a term that makes it clear that “paid leave is not considered time worked for the purposes of computing overtime” in order to comply with the Federal Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA).

3. Negotiate a term that whenever it is determined that overtime was paid in violation of APD standard operating procedures and overtime policy, the overtime pay must be refunded to the city either in single lump sum or garnishment of wages.

INITIATE CIVIL ACTION TO RECOVER OVERTIME PAID

One or more of the audits have identified just a few of the most egregious fraudulent overtime claims have been paid to APD employees, yet the city had done nothing to secure reimbursement for unauthorized overtime pay. Despite all the city and state audits on APD overtime pay abuses and extensive findings of inappropriate conduct, not once has the city ever initiated civil collection actions to recover the overtime paid. At a bare minimum, the City Attorney needs make demand for reimbursement of the pay or initiate civil collection action for reimbursement of overtime paid.

The city does have grounds for a civil cause of action to recover the fraudulent overtime pay. To that end, the City Attorney should make immediate demand for repayment of all fraudulent overtime pay and if refused by the employee, terminate them and immediately file a civil collection claim against the employee.

CRIMINAL INVESTGATION BUT NO CHARGES

Despite repeated referrals to the New Mexico Attorney General of audits revealing overtime pay fraud, not once has the New Mexico Attorney General ever brought criminal charges. If the Attorney General is incapable, unable or simply unwilling to initiate any criminal actions, he needs to make that known and refer the overtime abuse to the Bernalillo County District Attorney. Not once has the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office been asked by the Mayor’s Office to step in and investigate time card fraud by the Albuquerque Police Department.

CONCLUSION

The answer to the Journal’s editorial question “How many overtime scandals will it take for the Albuquerque Police Department … to end them once and for all?” is it will take APD oversight watchdogs such as the Mayor, the City Council, the State Auditor, the Attorney General and the District attorney to do their jobs and actually do something when it comes to enforcing the law.

The Attorney General or the District Attorney need to prosecute, the City attorney needs to sue to recover overpayments and the Mayor and City Council need to negotiate new APD contract provisions to remove police management from the union, place a cap on overtime and enforce it or abolish overtime and make all APD sworn “at will” which will eliminate overtime pay requirements.

Otherwise, we can expect more audits costing thousands that will collect dust on shelfs and not worth a damn other than the value of the paper they are written on.

Twelve hours and done! That is all it took for the New Mexico legislature called into a special session on April 5 to spend $698 million on tax rebates and cash payments and another $50 million spending package for upwards of 500 projects designated by lawmakers throughout the state. It was Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s controversial veto of the $50 million in projects passed during the 2022 regular session that prompted the “special session” in the first place. The cost of special sessions is about $50,000 per day.

TAX REBATES

House Bill 2 was the tax rebate bill legislation. It passed the House on a 51-13 and a few hours later won Senate approval on a 35-1. The overwhelming support in both the House and Senate results in the measure going into effect immediately upon the signature of Governor Lujan Grisham.

The enacted legislation provides for $500 in tax rebates to individual filers and $1,000 to married couples filing jointly. An estimated 1.4 million New Mexicans, or upwards of 66%, of the state’s population will qualify. All tax filers will be paid automatically. Half of the rebates will be paid by the end of June, and the second half will be paid in August.

There is no income requirement attached to the round of rebates as was the case with the rebates passed in the regular session. The new round of rebates passed will be in addition to tax rebates of $250 for New Mexicans who reported making less than $75,000 last year that were ratified during this year’s 30-day legislative session as part of a broad tax package.

People who do not pay taxes, such as low-income seniors, will have to apply for their rebates. The enacted legislation creates a $20 million fund that will provide similar payments to non-taxpayers. Applicants will get a cash rebate on a first-come, first-served basis until the funding is exhausted.

The total cost of the rebates is upwards of $677 million, spread equally between this and next year’s budgets. The enacted legislation sets aside $20 million for payments to non-filers and $785,000 to cover administrative and other costs. The final cost is upwards $698 million.

Los Alamos Democrat Rep. Christine Chandler, a and co-sponsor of the bill, said the legislation will help New Mexicans facing high gasoline costs and other price increases. Chandler has this to say on the house floor before passage:

“It’s intended to lift the burden on so many households in New Mexico.”

The state can afford the rebates in large part because New Mexico has become the nation’s second largest oil producer in the country and for the last 2 years has had significant increases in revenues. Economists for the Legislative Finance Committee report that revenues for the 2 fiscal years is already at $500 million to $700 million higher than the most recent estimate from December.

REUBLICANS ALWAYS FINDING REASONS TO COMPLAIN

When the special session was first announced, Senate Minority Leader Greg Baca, a Republican from Belen, called the decision to hold a special session a political stunt and said in a statement:

“This special session is nothing more than a desperate attempt by the Governor to salvage her bid for reelection. … Her vindictive veto of a reasonable spending bill to fund law enforcement equipment, senior centers, aftercare programs, and other needs is inexcusable.”

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/governor-calls-special-session-to-address-spending-bill-gas-prices/6422664/?cat=513

Once the special session began, Democrats unanimously supported the legislation while Republicans were split, especially in the House. Republicans, even though they voted for the measure, still found reasons to complain about passage of both measures.

Republican opposition complained about immigrants, questioned the legality of parts of the legislation, questioned the timing of the assistance and whether one-time rebates and relief payments are an effective and sustainable way to address inflation and complained about the broken tax system. Republican Rep. Jack Chatfield of Mosquero said “This rebate will not fix New Mexico’s broken tax system” knowing full well fixing the New Mexico’s tax system was not the reason for the special session.

Republicans again harped and complained about immigrants and allowing immigrants,regardless of legal status, to qualify for the tax rebates. House Minority Whip Rod Montoya, R-Farmington, went so far as to say lawmakers “need to have the debate openly” on who could benefit from the assistance.

Republican Representative Ryan Lane seemed to take issue with his own parties leadership about immigrants when he said:

“I just think the issue is not really whether you’re undocumented or not, that’s not my problem. It’s are you paying taxes into the state system because again, we’re talking about taking taxpayer dollars that we can now collect from our citizens and return those back to the citizens again.”

House Majority Leader Javier Martínez, D-Albuquerque, said immigrants, regardless of legal status pay taxes and deserve to qualify for economic relief the same as anyone else. Martínez had this to say:

“We can disagree on policy all day long. … We should never revert to dehumanizing other people. You know, over the last few weeks because of this global crisis in oil prices, fuel prices, too many New Mexicans have had to make a choice between putting food on the table and filling up their gas tank with gas.”

Democrat Representative Roger Montoya had this to say:

“Anytime we can bring relief to our families, I’m a big supporter of that. I think that this particular rebate gas tax, whatever they want to call it, is useful. I think it will help. I think it’s probably not enough in the bigger picture because inflation is increasing at a rate that is devastating to those working families.”

Republican lawmakers also debated the timing of the payments in an election year when all 70 House seats and statewide offices, including the governor, the attorney general and the secretary of state, are on the ballot. The primary election is June 7, and the general election is November 8.

Republican Representative Randal Crowder, R-Clovis, noted that the second rebate payment would come amid the general election campaign and had this nasty little observation:

“If the public is hurting, front the money. … It appears this is somewhat a political decision rather than a fiscal decision to split it into two buckets of money.”

Democrats strongly disputed political motivations shaped the payment schedule. Democrat Rep. Christine Chandler said the intent was to spread the payments over 2 fiscal years to avoid having the current fiscal year taking the full hit. The current fiscal year end June 30 and the new fiscal year begins July 1, 2022 and ends June 30, 2022.

The links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2485779/special-session-underway-at-roundhouse-2.html

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/legislature/lawmakers-back-in-santa-fe-to-discuss-fuel-rebate-revised-junior-spending-bill/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/special-session-wrap-tax-rebate-plan-spending-bill-move-to-governors-desk/6438211/?cat=500

https://www.koat.com/article/nm-lawmakers-attempt-to-increase-the-amount-of-money-you-could-be-getting-back/39632627

After the special session ended, the state Republican party released a statement blasting the the rebate measure as a “political stunt” even though 21 of the 35 legislative Republicans, both senators and representatives, voted in favor of the rebate legislation. Kim Skaggs, the executive director of the Republican Party of New Mexico had this to say:

“These rebates are another manipulative move by the Governor and amount to bribery for votes.”

Republican Senator William Sharer, who pushed for even larger rebates during the regular session, said during the single-day special session that he viewed the financial relief as more of a refund than a rebate and said this during a Senate committee hearing:

“This isn’t a gift from anybody, the way I see it. … This is taxpayer money that was simply more than we needed.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2486266/hefty-tax-rebates-mark-fiscal-shift-for-new-mexico.html

$50 MILLION SPENDING PACKAGE PASSES

On March 9, Governor Michell Lujan Grisham announced that she had vetoed Senate Bill 48, also known as the “Junior Bill” enacted by the 2022 New Mexico 30-day legislative session that ended on February 17. The bill would have authorized $25.2 million in one-time spending and another $25.2 million in ongoing spending. The bill was crafted by the individual legislators and was in addition to the $8.5 billion budget and the $827.7 capital outlay bills.

Senate Bill 48, gave each lawmaker a certain amount of money to allocate as they chose. Members of the House got $360,000 each and senators had $600,000. It passed by unanimous votes. The money would have gone to a wide-ranging set of programs and priorities picked by lawmakers. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham vetoed the measure saying it did not represent sound fiscal policy with some projects not fully vetted, some still in the design stage and some projects not fully funded.

The Governor’s veto of Senate Bill 48 resulted in a very public clash between lawmakers and the Governor. There was a growing number of New Mexico legislators, including Democrats, who expressed support for calling themselves into “extraordinary session” to allow them to override Governor Lujan Grisham’s veto of a $50 million spending bill. After a few weeks of back and forth discussions between the Governor and legislative leaders, the Governor agreed to convening a special session with a two item agenda: tax relief and rebates and another version of the $50 million “Junior Bill.”

On April 5, the both the New Mexico House and Senate moved quickly during the special session to enact Senate Bill 1 spending $50 Million for upwards of 500 projects that legislators had proposed. Senate Bill 1 passed the Senate on a 39-0 vote in the afternoon and sailed through the House 63-0 a little after 8 p.m., a mere 11 hours after the session started.

Senate Bill 1 is essentially a rewrite of Senate Bill 48 that the Governor had vetoed. Some technical changes were made and $200,000 worth of projects were removed. The enacted bill does contain a major change improving the legislation. Legislators agreed to a requirement that each lawmaker’s funding allocations in the spending bill be disclosed publicly. Legislators reworked the language to provide more information on their projects. Projects included in the bill will be posted no later than 30 days after adjournment of the special session, or by May 5.

Lujan Grisham spokeswoman Nora Meyers Sackett said the “transparency provision” was critical for the Governor’s support and she had this to say:

“The governor’s veto of the previous iteration of the bill hinged in part on the lack of transparency in the junior bill appropriation process. …In working with the Legislature to revise and improve the bill, she has been abundantly clear about her expectation that information delineating what funds were allocated by each legislator is published.”

People will be able to go online and see what that money would be used for in their areas. Democrat Senate Majority Peter Wirth has this to say:

“30 days after today, all the member project lists will be disclosed. So there will be a searchable database just like with capital outlay projects so you will be able to see exactly what I, Senator Wirth, put into the Junior Bill. Again, that was something that was flagged and I believe we addressed.”

Not surprising, Republicans again complained and questioned the Governor’s motives. Republican State Senator Crystal Diamond of Elephant Butt suggested the governor’s veto of the original “Junior Bill” enacted was a “punitive” act not motivated by transparency concerns. Diamond said lawmakers had added many transparency measures in recent years.

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2485939/lawmakers-revive-vetoed-spending-bill-add-new-disclosure-mandate.html

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/special-session-wrap-tax-rebate-plan-spending-bill-move-to-governors-desk/6438211/?cat=500

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is pretty pathetic that New Mexico Republicans are so malcontent about anything Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan and Democrats do to the point that all they do is “piss and moan” about legislation they vote for in a special session.

What Republicans are likely upset about is that the Governor managed to upset the entire legislature, including Democrats, with her veto of the Junior Bill, and then dramatically turned things around working with the Democratic leadership and calling a special session on her own terms that results in passage of $698 Million for tax rebates and $50 Million for 500 capital projects legislators wanted satisfying both groups.

Republicans must complain because they can take little comfort in having a TV weatherman “blowhard” who knows New Mexico only from a green screen and a wild eyed, right-wing Trump extremists riding a horse leading a posse looking for “radical socialists” and wanting to build a wall as their front runners for Governor.

It sure does look like Albuquerque City Councilor “Re-Tread Extraordinaire” Dan Lewis acts like a spoiled child and throws angry little tantrums with the things he says and does especially when he does not get his way on the City Council. Two recent cases in point are the city council’s 1 to 8 vote against a repeal of a gross receipts tax and Mayor Keller’s veto of a resolution that would mandate vaccinations for COVID by city employees. Another time occurred on December 6, 2021 when he reacted with hostility to a published blog article that questioned his record on the city council. What is now happening is that the Dan Lewis private persona of nastiness and vindictiveness is being made public as he seeks to run for Mayor again in 2025.

REPEAL OF GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ENACTED 4 YEARS AGO FAILS ON 1 TO 8 VOTE

During the April 4 city council meeting, the Lewis resolution calling for the repeal of the gross receipts tax hit a “brick wall” when the legislation failed on an 1 to 8 vote. Lewis was the only city councilor to vote for his legislation. Lewis failed to get a single vote of support from any other city councilor, including one of his biggest supporters “Democrat in Name Only” Louie Sanchez.

The tax increase past 4 years ago yielded upwards of $50 million annually to start. However, it is now forecast to generate upwards of $79 million by the 2023 fiscal year. Lewis wanted to reduce the tax increment to 1/4 of 1%. The repeal would effectively save consumers 10 cents for every $100 spent on goods and services. The repeal would have also reduced the city’s cumulative take by about $26 million.

The debate on the Lewis resolution to repel the gross receipts tax was extremely confrontational. Dan Lewis accused Mayor Tim Keller’s administration of spreading “lies” about his proposal to cut the city’s gross receipts tax rate. Lewis went so far as accusing the Keller administration of distributing an email that mischaracterized the impact of his proposal proclaiming the email was filled with “misinformation and lies.” Lewis ignored that other councilors voiced concern that a tax cut could hurt city operations.

Albuquerque Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Rael called Lewis’ accusations “a bit of a stretch” and encouraged “civility,” even when councilors disagree with the mayor on policy. Lawrence Rael has decades years of service with the city, including serving as Chief Administrative Officer in the past. Rael is known to avoid confrontations with counselor’s in the press and is not known for grandstanding. For Rael to encourage civility by Lewis is a clear indication of just how bad things have gotten with Dan Lewis and his personal vendetta against Mayor Tim Keller.

Councilor Louie Sanchez expressed to some extent support for Dan Lewis even when he voted no on the repeal and said this:

“I support Councilor Lewis’ fight to get money back to the people’s pockets … [but] we have a major crime crisis in this city and times are uncertain, so I’m not sure diverting money away from public safety is the right thing.”

Sanchez did not offer what he meant when he said “the right thing”, but he likely meant Republican.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2485715/councilor-lewis-proposed-tax-cut-falls-on-18-vote-ex-other-councilo.html

VACCINE MANDATE FOR CITY WORKFORCE

It was on March 21 that the Albuquerque the City Council passed the Dan Lewis City Council resolution that prohibited imposing an employee vaccine mandate and from penalizing those who do not. The vote was 5 to 4 vote with Republican Councilors Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout, Trudy Jones and lone Democrat Louie Sanchez voting to support it. All the 4 remaining Democrats Isaac Benton, Klarissa Peña, Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn voted no.

On April 2, it was reported that Mayor Tim Keller vetoed the anti-vaccine measure. In his veto message to the City Council, Mayor Keller wrote that city leaders have more pressing concerns than “manufactured ideological disputes” and noted that he has never imposed a COVID-19 vaccine requirement and Keller said “In this context a ban on vaccine mandates is an answer in search of a question.”
According to the Keller veto message, the city made vaccines readily available, took other safety precautions, and had therefore “successfully navigated a middle road” between those who strongly supported and strongly opposed such rules. In his veto message, Mayor Keller said this:

“City leaders need to come together to address crime, homelessness and housing, youth programming and services to seniors. We know that the best way to do that is to maximize our City’s flexibility to adjust to any new fiscal, health or public safety challenge. We know that manufactured ideological disputes do not advance our vision for a safe and healthy city.”

In response to the Keller veto, Republican City Councillor Dan Lewis had this to say:

“The majority of the council wanted to give our city employees some peace of mind. … Apparently, the mayor wants the ability to make them get a vaccine they don’t want or need.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2484885/keller-registers-third-veto-in-a-month.html

https://news.yahoo.com/keller-registers-third-veto-month-040100897.html

The Lewis response about the Keller veto was typical “right wing” Trump ignorance when he says “the mayor wants the ability to make them get a vaccine they don’t want or need.” The science is clear that the covid vaccine is indeed needed and effective to prevent the spread of the disease. The law is just as clear that an employer can require vaccination as a condition of employment.

It turns out the anti-vaccine legislation for city employees was not needed. It was sponsored by Republican Dan Lewis for show and headline. Mayor Tim Keller had suggested a vaccine policy earlier this year, announcing in January his administration would roll out a vaccine-or-test requirement to comply with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules. Keller then backtracked after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked those OSHA rules.

Democrats City Councilors Pat Davis, Isaac Benton, Tammy Fiebelkorn and Klarissa Peña voted in opposition, and rightly so saying the city should not cede its ability to regulate its workforce because the public relies heavily on services and having “the staff available to them.” It is well established law that the private sector can mandate vaccinations as a condition of employment and that an employee can be terminated for refusal to get vaccinated.

Not requiring inoculation of city employees and then allowing those same city employees to deal with the general public no likely creates a liability issue for the city if a member of the public becomes infected with COVID by a city employee.

HISTORY OF A GRUDGE

Least anyone forget, 4 years ago Mayor Tim Keller signed off on a gross receipts tax that was primarily dedicated to public safety breaking a campaign pledge not to raise taxes without a public vote, even for public safety. The tax was enacted 4 years ago on 8-1 bipartisan vote as the city was facing a 40 million deficit and severe budget cuts.

Keller made the pledge not to raise taxes unless voted on during a TV debate for Mayor with none other than City councilor Dan Lewis who gave up his council seat to run for Mayor. The council’s 2018 tax required that the city spend at least 60% of tax proceeds on public safety and that expired two years ago. Keller won the 2017 runoff against Lewis by a decisive landslide by securing 60,219 votes or 62.20% against Dan Lewis who secured 36,594 or 37.8% of the vote. In 2021, Dan Lewis again ran for his City Council seat and won it to return to the city council.

On January 10, 2022 the newly elected Albuquerque City Council met for the first time. After losing the vote to become City Council President to City Councilor Isaac Benton, Dan Lewis immediately introduced 4 separate resolutions outlining what he intended to pursue in the coming few months and to hold Mayor Tim Keller and his administration accountable for past actions. Those resolutions were:

1. Repeal the 3/8 of the 1% gross receipts tax enacted 4 years ago.

The city council enacted a 3/8 of 1% gross receipts tax four years ago on an 8-1 bipartisan city council vote. Lewis is proclaiming it’s a financial crutch the city does not need and reversal would put money “back into the pockets of hard-working Albuquerque citizens.” That’s a good sound bite from Lewis, but the amount of money Lewis wants to return to citizens is roughly 10 cents which the tax represents on every $100 they spend in the city.

2. Bar the city from mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce.

Lewis says the bill answers concerns he has heard from police officers and firefighters about a potential vaccine requirement. Lewis claims he has been vaccinated himself but said he has a “big issue” with mandating them for city workers. According to Lewis “Many of them I know said they would quit[with mandated vaccines].”

3. Repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency.

The resolution revoked most of the mayoral public health emergency authority the City Council added at the onset of the pandemic. The resolution past the city council on a 5 to 4 vote, Mayor Keller vetoed it and the council failed to override the veto.

4. Direct the city administration to consider and “to the extent advisable,” push to renegotiate the terms of the federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

The settlement mandates 271 reforms of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). The settlement was entered into on November 14, 2014 after a Department of Justice investigation found that APD engaged in a pattern of excessive use of force and deadly force and had a “culture of aggression.” The City Council Resolution can only be considered offered for show by Lewis in that it will have no affect on the settlement. The settlement is a Federal Court Order that the City Council has no authority over.

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS USED BY LEWIS TO INTIMDATE AND SHAME

City Councilors Republican Dan Lewis was sworn in on January 1st . Within weeks after being sworn in, Lewis began to demand that Mayor Tim Keller again nominate his top executive staff, who has been confirmed by prior counsels, so they could hold confirmation hearings and be allowed to vote to reject them for the positions they held. City Councilor Dan Lewis had this to say about his demand that all the names be submitted a second time:

“I’m going to always defend the authority of the council, and any authority that has been given to it by the charter and the people of the city.”

It soon became painfully obvious that the only reason Dan Lewis demanded Keller’s top executives previously confirmed be re submitted for a second time for confirmation was to try and shame and intimate them and to vote against them. On March 7, City Clerk Ethan Watson was confirmed on a 7-2 bipartisan vote of the city council but not before Lewis crossed examined Watson over his job performance during the 2021 municipal election. Dan Lewis questioned Watson’s impartiality in administering the city’s taxpayer-funded public campaign finance system, ignoring the fact that Watson is license attorney and as such an officer of the court who has taken an oath of office himself.

Lewis focused on Watson’s move to reject mayoral candidate Manuel Gonzales’ application for the money on the grounds he’d submitted fraudulent documentation, questioning if he’d applied the same scrutiny to Keller’s campaign. Lewis ignored that a state judge ultimately upheld Watson’s decision. Lewis at one point became very condensing and mean spirited when he asked Watson “how we can trust you moving forward in future elections?”. This coming from Dan Lewis who engaged in smear tactics and lies against his opponent incumbent Democrat Cynthia Borrego to get elected saying she was in favor of “sanctuary city polices” and the releasing of violent criminals. Dan Lewis paid Republican Political Operative Jay McClusky to run his campaign.

Dan Lewis was elected to the city council for a second term in 2013, the same year that Republican Mayor Richard Berry was elected to a second term. Republican Mayor Berry did not submit relevant reappointments for confirmation a second time, despite a request from then-council President Ken Sanchez to do so. Not at all surprising Dan Lewis then did not “defend the authority of the council” and said nothing at the time no doubt because it was a Republican Mayor that he needed to curry favor with but now he says something because he is dealing with a Mayor that beat him in a runoff in 2017.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2478932/city-clerk-is-reconfirmed-despite-litany-of-questions.html

RESPONDING TO A BLOG ARTICLE

In response to a blog article written on December 6, 2021 about Dan Lewis and his past record as a city councilor, Dan Lewis wrote Pete Dinelli a series of emails and said this:

“Pete, write about me all you want. I don’t care. From what I hear nobody reads this crap anyway. … you make no sense at all. Are you still defending this failed mayor? I’m not trying to get the support of anyone … . I have nothing to prove. But you better believe that this mayor will be accountable now. … I’ve read many of your articles and honestly you don’t make any sense at all. I was the biggest critic of Berry and you know it. I get it, he kicked your ass and you’re still not over it. I see a lot of poison and insanity coming from you. Always glad to talk and I’m always available. Feel free to call any time. But honestly I’m not sure if you really want to hear any of the truth. I’m blocking these emails. Nothing here that’s anywhere close to productive.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Mayor Tim Keller has vetoed 3 city council resolutions all past within a month. The common theme of all 3 vetoes is that the vetoed legislation was sponsored by conservative Republicans with the passage of the legislation accomplished with the vote of west side conservative Democrat Louie Sanchez. In addition to vetoing the “anti-vaccine” resolution, Keller vetoed the resolution to repeal or limiting mayoral authority during a public health emergency sponsored by Dan Lewis. Keller also vetoed the “plastic ban” repeal legislation sponsored by Republican Brook Basaan.

DINO LOUIE SANCHEZ

Although the City Council is split 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans, Conservative Democrat Louie Sanchez has allied himself with all 4 Conservative Republicans. Both Dan Lewis and Louie Sanchez have pledged to hold Mayor Tim Keller and his administration accountable for their actions. Since commencing his term on the City Council, Louie Sanchez has aligned himself with Republican Dan Lewis and the other 3 Republicans on major Republican sponsored resolutions calling for the repeal of past Democrat initiatives. Sanchez voted for Lewis for City council President. Sanchez has voted for the Republican sponsored repeals of Democrat sponsored legislation including the city policy mandating project labor agreements on major city public works projects and voted to repeal the ban on the use of plastic bags at business. Democrat Louie Sanchez is now considered by many as a DINO (Democrat in Name Only), especially after forming a political action committee (PAC) to raise money and oppose incumbent Democrats in the legislature who he claims are too progressive or not moderate enough for his liking.

WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON WITH DAN LEWIS

When Mayor Keller says in a veto message “manufactured ideological disputes do not advance our vision for a safe and healthy city”, it is a clear shot across the bow to Dan Lewis. To put it mildly, there is no love lost between Mayor Tim Keller and Albuquerque City Councilor Dan Lewis. Least anyone forgets, in 2017, both Keller and Lewis ran for Mayor and in a runoff and Keller prevailed winning the election by a landslide with a 62.2% vote to 37.8% vote for Lewis.

Dan Lewis has already made it known privately to many of his supporters that he intends to run for Mayor again in 2025, perhaps again against Tim Keller. With that in mind, it is clear he intends to be as disruptive as possible on the city council in order to generate the news coverage he so covets. He will be very successful if Democrats like Louis Sanchez allow it to happen. Keller’s veto pen may be the only way that the obstructionist, vindictive tactics of Dan Lewis and Louie Sanchez can be stopped.

In private, Dan Lewis is known to be highly confrontational with anyone who disagrees with his right-wing ideology, especially when his record is exposed. In short, he is thin skinned and confrontational and he gets very personal. If anyone at city hall reads this “crap” today please let Dan Lewis know about it, perhaps read it to him, an offer to change his diaper.

The link to a related blog article are here:

Hypocrite Dan Lewis Objects To 4 Outgoing City Councilors Doing What He Did 4 Years Ago; “All That Crap” Nobody Reads And Getting “Your Ass Kicked”; Expect 4 Years Of Lewis Hypocrisy As Lewis Runs For Mayor In 2025

Dan Lewis and Louie Sanchez Are The New “Twiddle Dee” and the “Twiddle Dum” of Albuquerque City Council; Their Agenda Of Obstruction Has Limited Success; Keller and Medina Push Back; Expect More Antics