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

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 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 with the Albuquerque Journal editors on the proposed budget, 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 the full Journal article quoted entitled “Keller releases $1.4B budget proposal” is here:

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

It’ s clear from review of the 2022-2023 proposed budget that it is far from being bland as Keller suggests. It contains line items that Keller no doubt does not want to make major announcements on, or being confronted with, by the public or for that matter the press. This blog article is an in-depth review of the budget with major highlights on line-item spending.

BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

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 general fund provides funding for city essential and basic services such as police protection, fire protection, the bus system, solid waste collection and disposal, the zoo, aquarium, the city’s museums maintenance, city libraries, the bus system, senior and community centers, swimming pools and parks and road maintenance. According to the proposed 2022-2023 budget, in 2021 the city had 6,536 full time employees and under the proposed budget will have 6,916 for an increase of 380 full time positions or a 5.8% increase.

The increase includes $107.8 million in Gross Receipts Tax (GRT), $3.5 million in property tax, $7.2 million in other taxes, $3.1 million in enterprise revenue, and $57.8 million in inter-fund and fund balances. Gross Receipts Tax (GRT), enterprise revenues, and property taxes together make up 61% of the City’s total revenues. GRT is the City’s major source of revenue and is estimated at $529.7 million or 38% of total resources for fiscal year 2023. Property Tax comprises 12.4% of total revenue. The various enterprises operated by the City are estimated to generate 10.6% of total revenue in fiscal year 2023.

The 2022-2023 proposed budget includes $13 million for a city-wide 2% cost-of-living increase for the city workforce which is subject to negotiations for union positions. According to the 2021 enacted budget, the City of Albuquerque employs 6,259 full time employees. The link to the enacted 2021-2022 budget is here:

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

LARGEST DEPARTMENT BUDGETS AND INCREASES

There are 28 city departments. The Police Department and the Fire and Rescue Department are the two largest departments for City operating appropriations, primarily due to their large workforces. The two departments together comprise 26.8% of the total fund appropriations of $1.4 billion and 43.1% of the General Fund appropriations of $841.8 million in fiscal year 2022-2023.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The postscript to this blog article contains budget information other city departments.

ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) continues to be the largest city budget out of 27 departments. The fiscal year 2023 proposed General Fund budget is $255.4 million, which represents an increase of 14.7% or $32.8 million above the fiscal year 2022 level.

The fiscal year 2022-2023 proposed General Fund budget for APD is $255.4 million, which represents an increase of 14.7% or $32.8 million above the FY/22 level. The proposed General Fund civilian count is 665 and sworn count is 1,100 for a total of 1,765 full-time positions.

APD’s general fund budget of $255.4 provides funding for 1,100 full time sworn police officers, with the department fully funded for 1,100 sworn police for the past 3 years. However, there are currently 888 sworn officers in APD. The APD budget provides funding for 1,100 in order to accommodate growth.

The APD budget is increased to accommodate for an immediate 8% in police pay and another 5% in police pay to begin in July because of the new police union contract.

The APD budget provides for a net total increase of $1.2 million in overtime pay to accommodate the police union contract hourly rate increase that went into effect on January 1, 2022.

In fiscal year 2022, a memorandum of understating agreement was approved increasing the hourly rate of pay for 911 operators in an effort to retain emergency service operators and offer a competitive wage for a total personnel cost of $737 thousand.

Technical adjustments include funding of $6.4 million for a 5% increase in hourly wages and longevity for sworn officers in accordance to year two of the approved police union contract and 2% Cost of Living Adjustments for civilian positions, subject to negotiations for positions associated with a union. An adjustment of $2.6 million for health benefits, insurance administration, life insurance and 0.5% State mandated Public Employees Retirement increase for the employer’s share.

A net total increase of $1.2 million in overtime is included for the APOA hourly rate increase that went into effect January 1, 2022. In fiscal year 2022, 63 full-time civilian positions were added at a total cost of $4.9 million including benefits and reduction of $134 thousand in contractual services for a net cost of $4.7 million to support the daily operations and/or compliance with the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

APD ARRESTS WENT DOWN, AGAIN

APD statistics for the city budget years of 2019 and 2020 confirm that APD was not as “aggressive and proactive” doing its job of investigating and arresting people.

APD felony arrests went down from 2019 to 2020 by 39.51% going down from 10,945 to 6,621. Misdemeanor arrests went down by 15% going down from 19,440 to 16,520. DWI arrests went down from 1,788 in 2019 to 1,230 in 2020, down 26%. The total number of all arrests went down from 32,173 in 2019 to 24,371 in 2020 or by 25%.

The 2023 proposed budget released on April 1, 2022, contains APD arrest statistics and performance measures. Following are the statistics reported in the budget for 2020 and 2021:

The number of actual violent crimes in 2020 reported and investigated by APD was 6,685 and in 2021 the number increased to 7,073.

The number of actual property crimes reported and investigated by APD in 2020 was 32,135 and the number dropped dramatically in 2021 to 8,972.

APD made 10,945 felony arrests in 2020 and the number of felony arrests dropped to 6,621 in 2021.
APD made 19,440 misdemeanor arrests in 2020 and misdemeanor arrest dropped to 16,520 in 2021.
APD made 1,788 DWI arrests in 2020 and in 2021 DWI arrests dropped to 1,230.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMPLIANCE

The Fiscal Year 2023 budget contains a line-item budget of $22,094,000 for the Office of the Superintendent of Police Reform. At the end of December, Superintendent of Police Reform Sylvester Stanly “retired” after a mere 8 months on the job and a national search is being conducted to find a replacement. The city is advertising the position with pay to be $150,000 to $180,000 depending upon experience.

Included in the 2022-2023 budget is funding of $1.6 million for the Federal Court Appointed Independent Monitor assigned to audit APD’s progress in implementing the Court Approve settlement agreement. There is also an increase in one-time funding of $2.6 million for the Use of Force Contract, which is funding for 24 outside investigators hired on contract and assigned to the External Use of Force Investigation Team (EFIT) which investigates police use of force cases.

The EFIT has now been assigned with the task of the investigation of a backlog 660 sworn police use of force cases that APD was highly criticized by the Federal Monitor for its failure.

The budget also funds the CNM Academy and there is 33% increase in funding for the Civilian Police Oversight Agency, as a result of granting all requested increases to the CPOA budget.

In fiscal year 2022, 63 full-time civilian positions were added at a total cost of $4.9 million including benefits and reduction of $134 thousand in contractual services for a net cost of $4.7 million to support the daily operations and/or compliance with the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

The fiscal year 2023 proposed budget includes an additional 17 fulltime positions at a total cost of $1.4 million including benefits for 9 full-time positions for the internal affairs department, two victim advocates, three violent crime analysts, one investigative liaison to assist in non-critical tasks for homicide detectives, one fiscal program manager and one purchasing coordinator to support the daily operations of the fiscal department. There is funding of $46 thousand for one part-time crime stoppers assistant liaison position.

ALBUQUERQUE FIRE RESCUE

The Fire and Rescue Department (AFR) is the second-largest city department with funding at $107.6 million and reflects an increase of 11.6% or $11.2 million above the fiscal year 2022 original budget. The budget contains funding of $1.4 million for a 2% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). In fiscal year 2021, AFR was budgeted for 781 full time positions and in the 2023, AFR is budgeted for 812 full time positions.

AFR and the Fire Marshal’s office are involved with code enforcement actions against substandard or vacant commercial and residential properties and the “Addressing Dilapidated and Abandoned Property Team” (ADAPT program.) AFR is also involved with the “Humane and Ethical Animal Regulations and Treatment (HEART)” Ordinance for frequent 9-1-1 callers.

Within the AFR budget, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is funded. OEM assisted with the city’s response to the pandemic, activating volunteers and City workers on everything from the distribution of protective equipment to operating points of dispensation to get the vaccine to thousands of Albuquerque residents. The Fiscal Year 2023 budget for AFR creates 29 additional firefighter positions, most of them to improve response in high-volume areas. The AFR budget includes $1.4 million to send current AFR employees to paramedic school while maintaining proper staffing levels, and $2.4 million to increase call response capacity in high utilization areas.

ALBUQUERQUE COMMUNITY SAFETY DEPARTMENT

In fiscal year 2021, the Keller Administration created the Albuquerque Community Safety Department (ACS) with an initial budget of $2.5 million. The ACS consists of social workers and mental health care workers to deal with those suffering from a mental health crisis or drug addiction crisis and they are dispatched in lieu of sworn police or fire emergency medical paramedics.

The fiscal year 2022 budget for ACS was $7.7 million and the fiscal year 2023 proposed budget doubles the amount to $15.5 million to continue the service of responding to calls for service and perform outreach for inebriation, homelessness, addiction, and other issues that do not require police or EMT response.

The Albuquerque Community Safety Department (ACS) dispatches trained and unarmed professionals to respond to 9-1-1 calls that do not require a police or paramedic response. ACS is taking hundreds of calls per month, easing the burden on police and paramedics and improving outcomes on behavioral health calls.

The Fiscal Year 2023 budget of $15 million provides funding to add 74 new positions to make it a 24/7 round-the-clock operation across the city. The ACS will leverage existing contracts with behavioral health and substance abuse service providers, and make funding available to help social service providers scale up as needed to meet the demands of ACS.

The Community Safety Department will go from employing 58 in 2022 to employing 135 in 2023.

ADDRESSING THE HOMELESS

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.

The 2022-2023 budget continues with Mayor Tim Keller’s commitment to help the homeless including funding for the Gateway Homeless Shelter on Gibson which will be house in a renovated Loveless Medical center that the City bought for $15 Million.

The 2022 proposed budget provides major funding to deal with the homeless including the following funding:

• $750,000 for proposed “safe outdoor spaces,” often called government sanctioned encampments for the homeless. If approved by Council, will enable ultra-low barrier encampments to set up in vacant dirt lots across the City. There is an additional $200,000 for developing other sanctioned encampment programs.

• $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.

• $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.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Gateway Center and the Medical Respite facility at Gibson Health Hub are expected to be fully operational by year’s end.

• $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.

• Full funding for the Westside Emergency Housing Center which is operated 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.

SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVES

Safe Neighborhood Initiatives deals with making strong neighborhoods marked by clean and safe public spaces and a thriving environment. The Fiscal Year 2023 budget includes the following Safe Neighborhood Initiatives:

• Full funding for nuisance abatement, including the Code Enforcement Division of Planning and the ADAPT program in the Fire Marshal’s Office to continue voluntary abatement, condemnations and clean-ups of substandard commercial and residential properties. Three years ago, the Keller Administration gutted the Safe City Strike Force, an acknowledged best practices program that initiated upwards of 1,000 enforcement actions a year against substandard properties that were magnets for crime, and eliminated $1.5 million in funding and substituted the ADAPT program that emphasizes “voluntary” compliance with city codes an avoids condemnations and code compliance measures.

• An additional $350 thousand to expand the spay and neuter program to reduce the population of homeless animals in the City.

• An additional $500 thousand to create a “park ranger” program, equivalent to Public Service Aides, who will be dedicated to City parks, open space and trails.

• $615 thousand for improvements to Animal Welfare Department facilities.

• Full funding for emergency board-up activities and the Block-by-Block program.

SAFE COMMUNITIES PROGRAMS

Safe Community programs are ones that deal with issues such as substance abuse, homelessness, domestic violence and youth opportunity makes our community safer and stronger. The Fiscal Year 2023 budget includes the following funding for Safe Community programs:

• $1.8 million to develop what will be Albuquerque’s only medical substance abuse facility dedicated to youths likely housed at the Gibson Health Hub.

• Full funding for the Violence Intervention Program that deals with both APD and Family & Community Services departments, including the first phase of School-Based VIP in partnership with APS.

• $736 thousand to fully fund the Assisted Outpatient Treatment program.

• $730 thousand for a partial year of operation of a Medical Sobering Center at Gibson Health Hub, which will complement the social model sobering facilities available at the County’s CARES campus.

• Full funding for the “Automated Speed Enforcement” program, including hearing officers, where civil speeding citations are issued with the use of “speed van” surveillance cameras. The “Automated Speed Enforcement” program was announced last year to deal with speeding. It is a “semi-judicial” program that is similar to the controversial “re light camera” program that was dismantled 7 years ago. The program will be administered by the City Clerk and not the City Attorney. The City Attorney Office is currently funded for and staffs the Metropolitan Court Traffic Arraignment program. The Office of the City Clerk also manages the Office of Administrative Hearings and is responsible for conducting all hearings specifically assigned by City of Albuquerque ordinance, including animal appeals, handicap parking and personnel matters. The proposed fiscal year 2023 General Fund budget is $4.3 million, an increase of 47.7%, or $1.4 million above the fiscal year 2022 original budget.

• Full funding for service contracts for mental health, substance abuse, early intervention and prevention programs, domestic violence shelters and services, sexual assault services, health and social service center providers, and services to abused, neglected and abandoned youth.

• Full investment in youth programs in partnership with the Albuquerque Public Schools and nonprofits that keep our kids off the streets and out of harm’s way and youth violence prevention initiatives that aim to break the intergenerational cycle of crime and incarceration.

STIMULATING THE ECONOMY

The city has been working to support businesses and families through the economic challenges of COVID-19. The proposed fiscal year 2023 budget invests in business support and economic development programs. Highlights include:

• $5 million investment in the Local Economic Development Act (LEDA) fund, which has helped the City retain and attract businesses such as Netflix, NBC Universal, Los Poblanos, and Build With Robots.

• A $15 million reserve that will provide a local 4 to 1 match if the City is awarded a federal grant to create a “Space Valley” downtown.

• Streamlining the development process through $1.2 million in investments for process improvements, new technology, and additional staffing in the Planning Department.

• $1.1 million for the next phase of Job Training Albuquerque, a partnership with CNM Ingenuity that provides an opportunity for employers to skill up their workforce and provides an opportunity for employees to gain high-demand skills and industry specific credentials.

• $547 thousand to support the City’s hosting of sporting events, including the highly successful USATF track meet and tennis, pickleball, bicycle and running events.

• Funding for the next cohort of Tipping Points for Creatives, a highly successful initiative to enhance our creative economy using an “increment of one” approach.

• Full recurring funding for the Small Business Office, which has provided technical assistance to help local businesses access COVID relief programs, navigate permitting processes, and connect to resources for starting up and scaling up.

WORKFORCE YOUTH PROGRAMS

The Keller Administration since taking office 4 years ago has emphasized youth development programs to deal with crime and poverty by investing in programs that get youth off the street with before- and after-school and summer programs. COVID dramatically changed many needs of those programs. As the city populace emerges from the pandemic, the City is focusing on returning to pre-COVID levels of access and participation in summer and before- and after-school programs.

The Fiscal Year 2023 budget proposes to continue youth programming by fully funding the Head Start program in the General Fund, funding to sustain our highly successful Youth Connect system of youth programming, and support to aquatics. Funding is included for a new youth “sobering center” to provide addiction counseling and mental health services.

ONE TIME EXPENDITURES

Because of the volatility of the economy, including rising inflation and gas prices as well as fluctuating gross receipts tax revenues, the 2022-2023 proposed city budget contains significantly more onetime expenses in fiscal year. Nearly 11% of all general fund spending is line itemed for one-time expenditures which means once the projects are completed there will be no recurring budget expenses.

One-time money expenditures included in the budget are the following:

$10 million in nonrecurring money for city buildings, including potential upgrades to City Hall, the police headquarters and other city facilities.
$10 million for a “cost escalation fund” that will help complete existing construction projects amid soaring prices.
$5 million for future Local Economic Development Act (LEDA) grants,
$5 million for city vehicles.
$3 million for housing vouchers.
$2.6 million for a police use-of-force review consultant.
$2 million for dog parks.
$1.8 million for events sponsored by the Department of Arts and Culture.
$1.5 million to subsidize the free city bus service.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There are a few major takeaways in Keller’s proposed budget. The proposed budget in no way can be considered bland as Keller suggests.

HISTORICALLY HIGH BUDGETS

Last year’s $1.2 Billion dollar budget was the largest budget in the city’s history and that record has been broken. The 2022-2023 proposed city budget is $1.4 Billion containing $841.8 in general fund spending with an increase of $127 million, or 17.8%, making it the single largest budget in the city’s history.

APD FUNDING UP, PERFORMANCE MEASURES DOWN

The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) continues to be the single largest city budget out of the 27 departments with a proposed general fund budget is $255.4 million, which represents an increase of 14.7% or $32.8 million above the fiscal year 2022 level. The problem is that for the 4th year in a row 1,100 full time police officer potions are fully funded, yet APD has only 888 sworn police.

Despite all of APD’s funding, APD’s felony arrests, misdemeanor arrests and DWI arrests are down for the 4th year in a row. APD made 10,945 felony arrests in 2020 and the number of felony arrests dropped to 6,621 in 2021. APD made 19,440 misdemeanor arrests in 2020 and misdemeanor arrest dropped to 16,520 in 2021. APD made 1,788 DWI arrests in 2020 and in 2021 DWI arrests dropped to 1,230.

13% PAY RAISES FOR VERSUS 2% COLA FOR CITY HALL WORKFORCE

In 2021 the city had 6,536 full time employees and under the proposed budget will have 6,916 for an increase of 380 or a 5.8% increase.

On February 4, it was reported that the Keller’s administration had negotiated a new police union contract making APD the best paid law enforcement agency in the region by increasing hourly wages and longevity pay and creating a whole new category of “incentive pay”. All of APD sworn police officers are members of the police union, including patrol officers, sergeants and lieutenants. All of APD sworn police were given combined pay increases of 13% under a two-year contract.

Under the signed union contract, APD’s starting wage is well above cities and law enforcement agencies of comparable size including Tucson, Arizona, $54,517, and El Paso, Texas, $47,011. Under the contract terms, longevity pay increases by 5% starting on July 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year starting at $2,730 per year with those who have 5 years of service and with incremental service years up to 17 years or more who will be paid $16,380.

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 contract provision placing a cap on the amount of overtime any officer can be paid.

Pay increases should be based on merit and productivity and not failure. Giving 13% pay raises is tantamount to awarding failure to a union membership that is resisting the Department of Justice Police reforms, a police department that has failing performance measures when it comes to felony arrests and homicide investigations, a department that is failing to deal with spiking violent crime rates and a department that continues to have overtime pay scandals because of failed leadership. This is what you get from a Mayor and a City Council that refuses to hold anyone truly accountable for mismanagement and negligence.

City Executives and Department Directors are considered “at will” employees and serve at the pleasure of Mayor Keller. There are 28 city departments. There are 30 City Hall Executive Positions and Department Directors identified in the top 250 wage earners for the 2021 calendar year. When Keller was first elected 4 years ago, beginning pay for Department Directors was approximately $116,000 but over the last 4 years, the pay has increased to roughly $130,000 a year. Keller has also given his top executive staff pay raises of as much as 20% to 30% for essentially doing the same job.

The 2022-2023 proposed budget includes $13 million for a city-wide 2% cost-of-living increase. Buried in the 2022-2023 budget is the fact that the city hall workforce excluding APD sworn police, is approximately 5,916 (6,916 total workforce – 1,100 sworn) who will be given a mere 2% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) but subject to union negotiations.

A 2% COLA to the city hall workforce is laughable given the fact that the annual inflation rate for the United States is now 7.9% and the cost of gas has also hit historical highs. Mayor Keller should be embarrassed spending $127 million, or 17.8%, over last year’s budget, increasing the pay to APD and his executive staff by significant amounts and then providing a mere $13 million for a city-wide 2% cost-of-living increase to city workforce.

APD OVERTIME FUNDING INCREASED

A net total increase of $1.2 million has been added in overtime to APD’s proposed budget. A line item giving the total of the overtime pay budgeted cannot be found. The APD budget contains one line item entitled PD-Off Duty Police OT Program with the proposed 2023 budget reported as $1,800,000. No other line item funding can be identified in APD’s budget for APD overtime. APD sworn officers are paid “overtime” at the rate of time and a half.

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.

It was 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. It was the 7th audit performed on APD overtime practices since 2014. The 6 prior audits resulted in 17 findings and recommendation made to stop the overtime pay abuse. 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.

Review of the 2019, 2020 and 2021 city hall 250 highest paid wage earnings reveals 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.

CITY HALL SANCTIONED HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS

Since being elected Mayor in 2017, Mayor Tim Keller has made it a top priority to deal with the city’s homeless crisis. $900,000 out of a $1.4 Billion dollar budget does not sound like much, especially to help the homeless, unless where you live and your own peaceful use and enjoyment of your home are affected.

Buried in the Keller proposed 2022-2023 proposed budget is $750,000 for proposed “safe outdoor spaces,” often called government sanctioned encampments for the homeless. If approved by Council, it will enable ultra-low barrier encampments to set up in vacant dirt lots across the City. There is an additional $200,000 for developing other sanctioned encampment programs.

These are definitely 2 appropriations that come as “surprise”. Keller has yet to make any sort “announcement” of city sanctioned encampments no doubt realizing just how controversial it will likely be to have such encampments spread throughout the city. 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 with little or no input from the surrounding neighborhoods.

City hall sanctioned encampments need to be fully vetted by the city council and until such time the Keller Administration can present how sites will be selected and specific locations, the City Council would be wise to eliminate the funding and demand a separate resolution.

SPEED VAN ENFORCEMENT

The proposed fiscal year 2023 General Fund budget for the City Clerk is $4.3 million, an increase of 47.7%, or $1.4 million above the fiscal year 2022 original budget. The reason for the increase is full funding for the “Automated Speed Enforcement” program. Simply put traffic citation and traffic code enforcement by APD and patrolling the streets of the city are a thing of the past and no longer a priority as is evidenced by the steep decline in traffic court arraignments. The City Attorneys office oversees and provides attorneys and paralegals for the Metropolitan Traffic Arraignment program where city attorneys and paralegals have replaced sworn police at arraignments. The 2022-2023 proposed budget reflects that in 2020, the legal department managed 19,650 traffic cases at arraignment and in 2021, it processed 4,044 cases.

The “Automated Speed Enforcement” program was announced last year as a solution to the city’s chronic problem of car speeding and reckless driving that has become a deadly problem. Under the program, speeding “civil citations” will be issued by speed van “surveillance cameras” and administrative hearings by the city will be held. The “Automated Speed Enforcement” program includes funding for hearing officers and the program. It is a “semi-judicial” program that is similar to the controversial “re light camera” program that was dismantled 7 years ago. The program will be administered by the City Clerk and not the City Attorney. The “Automated Speed Enforcement” program is a program that should be administered by the City Attorney’s office and not the City Clerk. The City Attorney Office currently is funded for and staffs the traffic court arraignment program.

LINE ITEM FOR ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES

Spending nearly 11% of all general fund spending on one-time line item expenditures is in no way “bland”. What is critical is for the city council to get a complete report on the status of each before the approve the overall budget.

CONCLUSION

The City Council budget process is one of the very few times that the council can bore deep down into each of the city department budgets. All too often, Mayor’s and their political operatives view the City Council more of an annoyance as opposed to being a legitimate oversight function.

All to often, it becomes a process of members of the City Council asking the Mayor and his top executives the main question “What is it in this budget do you not want us to know about?” or put it another way “What is it that you are hiding or lying about?”

The City Council will now review the budget and can make changes as it sees fit. There will be 3 public hearings on the budget. The council will make amendments during its own deliberation process. The council must approve a budget by May 31 or the Mayor’s budget must be adopted as is and with no changes.

_______________

POSTSCRIPT

OTHER MAJOR DEPARTMENTS BUDGETS

Other major departments budgets worth noting in the 2022-2023 budget listed from highest to lowest budgets in the 2023 proposed budget are as follows:

The SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT provides residential and commercial trash collection, disposal, and the collection of residential recycling. The department oversees large-item disposal, graffiti removal, weed and litter abatement, median maintenance, convenience centers, and neighborhood cleanup support. Other services include operating the City landfill in compliance with State and Federal regulations and educating the public about recycling and responsible waste disposal. The proposed budget is $89.8 million, of which $67.1 million is to fund operations and $22.6 million is in transfers to other funds. The Solid Waste Management Department’s proposed fiscal year 2023 operating budget reflects an increase of 3.8% or $3.3 million above the fiscal year 2022 original budget level. In 2022, the department budget lists 505 full time positions and and in 2023 there 524 full time positions listed.

The FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES has total funding at $72.4 million. Under the 2023 budget, its funding will be increased by 24%. Family and Community Services in 2022 is budgeted for 323 and in 2023 it is budgeted for 335 full time positions.

The AVIATION DEPARTMENT operates two municipal airports: The Albuquerque International Sunport , which covers approximately 2,200 acres on Albuquerque’s east side; and Double Eagle II (DE II) Reliever Airport, which covers approximately 4,500 acres on Albuquerque’s west side. The proposed fiscal year 2023 operating budget for the City’s two airports, including transfers for capital and debt service needs, is $69.2 million, or an increase of 4% from the fiscal year 2022 original budget of $66.5 million employing 293 in 2022 and employing 298 in 2023.

The DEPARTMENT OF ARTS AND CULTURE is comprised of seven divisions. The Albuquerque Biological Park (BioPark) operates the Zoo, Aquarium, Botanic Gardens, Heritage Farm, Bugarium, Tingley Beach and the Albuquerque Museum. The fiscal year 2023 proposed General Fund budget for the Department of Arts and Culture of $49.7 million and reflects an increase of 7% or $3.3 million above the fiscal year 2022 level. The Department of Arts and Culture in 2022 is budgeted for 399 and in 2023 it is budgeted for 403 full time positions.

The TRANSIT DEPARTMENT provides fixed route (ABQ Ride) and rapid transit (ART) bus service for the Albuquerque community and Para-Transit (SunVan) service for the mobility impaired population. The Fiscal year 2023 proposed budget for the Transit Department Operating Fund is $62.8 million, an increase of $13.5 million above the fiscal 2022 original budget. The department has listed 546 full time postions for 2022 and has 552 full time positions listed for 2023.

The PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT serves the recreational needs of the residents of Albuquerque and the surrounding metropolitan areas. The department is organized into the following divisions: park management, recreation services, aquatics, open space, golf, parks design, planning and construction. The proposed FY/23 General Fund budget is $54.2 million, an increase of 17.1%, or $7.9 million above the FY/22 original budget. The Parks and Recreation Department employs 318 in 2022 and will 329 in 2023.

The DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT (DMD) operates and maintains City streets, storm drains, traffic signals, street lighting, parking operations and the development and design of capital public buildings. The fiscal year 2023 proposed General Fund budget is $39 million, a decrease of 45.5% or $32.5 million below the fiscal year 2022 original budget. The major reason for the decrease is that many functions and divisions of the DMD were transferred to General Services Department including the department’s divisions of security, facilities maintenance, energy, Gibson Medical Center, Law Enforcement Center and stadium operations resulting in a total decrease to DMD’s budget of $37.8 million. Total full time positions for the Municipal Development Department will go from 546 in 2022 to 334 in 2023.

The GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT (GSD) is a new department in fiscal year 2023 with the key responsibility of centralizing maintenance of major City facilities such as the Albuquerque Government Center, the Baseball Stadium and the Convention Center, which includes contract management. This department will assume responsibility for the facilitation of security and fleet operations throughout the City. GSD also includes Energy and Sustainability as well as the Law Enforcement Center and Gibson Medical Center. The fiscal year 2023 proposed General Services budget is $39 million and includes a move of facilities, security, Gibson Medical Center, 3% Energy CIP from Municipal Development, Convention Center and Railyards from Economic Development, and Fleet Services from Finance and Administrative Services. The number of full time employees for the General services department in 2021 is 247.

The PLANNING DEPARTMENT’S fiscal year 2023 proposed budget is $21.9 million, an increase of $5.2 million or 31.6% above the fiscal year 2022 original budget. The planning department will add 21 new positions, including 10 “to streamline and expedite” development review processes, and new departmental software. In Code Enforcement, eight positions are added to increase the division’s ability to respond to customer inquiries, provide quicker review times for building permits, and to properly enforce new ordinances and initiatives. The total cost for positions and associated operating increases the budget by $571 thousand of which $28 thousand is one-time.

The CITY ATTORNEY and the Legal Department advises the City in all legal matters, and consists of six main divisions: the Litigation Division; the Employment Law Division; the Municipal Affairs Division; the Division of Property, Finance, Development and Public Information; the Policy Division; and the Compliance Division. The Litigation Division appears on behalf of the City in all courts in New Mexico and before administrative and legislative bodies. The legal department is responsible for managing and defending the City, its elected and appointed officials, and departments before all federal and state courts in relation to civil rights and tort related claims. The proposed fiscal year 2023 General Fund budget is $9.7 million, an increase of 22% over the fiscal year 2022 original budget. In 2021, the legal department employed 78 full time employees and in 2023 it is budgeted to employ 83.

The OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK maintains official records for the City of Albuquerque, administers the public financing program for municipal elections, manages and administers all municipal elections, accepts construction and contracting bids from the general public, as well as accepts service of process for summons, subpoenas and tort claims on behalf of the City of Albuquerque. The City Clerk is the chief records custodian for the City of Albuquerque and processes requests for public records pursuant to the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IRPA). The city clerk receives upwards of 10,000 public records requests each year. The Office of the City Clerk also manages the Office of Administrative Hearings and is responsible for conducting all hearings specifically assigned by City of Albuquerque ordinance, including animal appeals, handicap parking and personnel matters. The proposed fiscal year 2023 General Fund budget is $4.3 million, an increase of 47.7%, or $1.4 million above the fiscal year 2022 original budget. The city clerk has 28 full time employees.

Other much smaller budgeted city departments include Senior Affairs, the Human Resources Department, the Office of the Mayor, Office of Chief Administrative Officer, the Office of Inspector General, Office of Internal Audit and the Civilian Police Oversight Department. Smaller departments such as City Support, Finance and Administrative Services, and Human Resources have large appropriations because of the number and type of funds managed within the departments.

The link to the proposed 244-page, 2022-2023 budget to review all city department budgets is here:

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

On March 24, Der Führer Former President Trump filed a 108 page federal lawsuit against former US Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and 26 other people and entities claiming they all claims conspired to undermine his 2016 campaign by falsely tying him to Russia. The lawsuit asks for more than $24 million in costs and damages.

In his federal lawsuit, Der Führer Trump names dozens he has accused during his 4 years in office years of orchestrating a “deep state” conspiracy against him. Those accused include Clinton, Clinton campaign advisors, former FBI Director James Comey and other FBI officials. He specifically identified retired British spy Christopher Steele and his associates who prepared a dossier on Trump’s business dealing with Russa and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The lawsuit alleges in part:

“Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust … They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump.”

The federal lawsuit takes aim at Der Führer Trump’s main political opponents and highlights the grievances that he has complained about in the past. Trump claims Democrats and government officials perpetrated a “grab bag “of offenses, from a racketeering conspiracy to a malicious prosecution, computer fraud and theft of secret internet data. Many of the key elements of Trump’s far-reaching accusations in the lawsuit have previously been debunked by the Justice Department inspector general and by a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The civil suit alleges that Clinton and top Democrats hired lawyers and researchers to fabricate information tying Trump to Russia. It goes on to allege that they promoted the lies to the media and to the US government in order to destroy his chances of winning in 2016 Presidential election. Trump claims they were assisted by “Clinton loyalists” at the FBI, who abused their powers to investigate him out of political hostility towards him.

Trump claims that Clinton and the other defendants conspired to trigger an “unfounded investigation” by the FBI into potential Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election. Multiple federal judges upheld the legality of that investigation, which was later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller and uncovered dozens of connections between Trump associates and Russian officials.

The investigation established that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Trump win, through a hack-and-leak operation against Clinton, and with a sophisticated disinformation campaign targeting US voters on social media. The probe also found that Trump’s campaign sought to capitalize on Russia’s interference, though it did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump aides and any Russians.

Links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/politics/trump-sues-hillary-clinton/index.html

PROBE INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

In the morning of July 27, 2016, then candidate for President Der Führer Trump encouraged Russian hackers to find emails that had been deleted from Hillary Clinton’s private server that she used while serving as secretary of state.

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing … “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Trump said at a press conference in Florida.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-russia-clinton-hack_us_5b48d9d0e4b0e7c958faf810

On July 27, 2016, Vladamir Putin and Russia were listening and heeded Trump’s call for help to get him elected President. According to the federal indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for their involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, the Russian hacking occurred on July 27, 2016 and hours after Trump gave his press conference and encouraged Russian hackers to find Clinton’s emails.

TWO WAIVES OF INDICTMENTS

On Friday, July 13, 2018, the Justice Department announced charges against 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking offenses during the 2016 presidential election.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1196225/12-russians-accused-of-hacking-democrats-in-2016-us-election.html

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the indictments as part of the ongoing special counsel probe into potential coordination between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia.

The Russians were accused of hacking into the computer networks of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and then releasing stolen emails on the internet in the months before the election.

In making the announcement Rosenstein said:

“The internet allows foreign adversaries to attack Americans in new and unexpected ways. … Free and fair elections are hard-fought and contentious and there will always be adversaries who work to exacerbate domestic differences and try to confuse, divide and conquer us.”

Rosenstein, who said he had briefed President Donald Trump on the indictment, said there was no allegation that the hacking altered any vote count or that any Americans were knowingly in communication with any of the Russian officers. The statement that the hacking did not alter any vote is laughable and what is important is that Trump asked for the hacking and Putin and Russia accommodated his request.

The indictment states that on July 27, 2016, the same day as Trump’s press conference, Russian hackers, “for the first time,” attempted to break into email accounts, including those used by Clinton’s personal office.

Notably, the indictment specifies that the hack happened in the evening, meaning the Russian officials could have done it after Trump’s press conference.

On December 17, 2019 Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced that 20 people and 3 companies had been charged in the investigation of Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election to help Trump get elected.

The charges included 4 former Trump campaign and White House aides and 13 Russians accused of participating in a clandestine social media campaign to sway American public opinion in the 2016 election to get Donald Trump elected.

SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION COMPLETED

On May 29, 2019, US Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller ended his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He did so with a remarkable, 10-minute public statement taking no questions. Special Counsel Mueller announced he was closing the special counsel’s office saying “Our investigation is complete”, He announce his resignation and returned to private life.

You can view the statement in full here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdQypBnitXM

Mueller outlined 5 primary conclusions of his investigation and made it clear that the next steps belong to the United States Congress to decide to impeach, convict and remove President Trump.

The 5 major points made by Robert Mueller in his statement were clear:

1) Had he been able to clear the president on the question of obstruction, he would have done so, but he did not. Mueller noted the Justice Department’s longstanding policy against indicting a sitting president and said that his office was never able to even consider bringing charges against Donald Trump, either openly or under seal until Trump left office.

According to Mueller:

“We concluded that we would not reach a determination—one way or the other—about whether the president committed a crime. … Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation.

Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

And second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”

2) What happens now is up to the United States Congress. Mueller went out out of his way to describe how his investigation team had gathered and preserved evidence for future investigators, adding pointedly “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

3) Americans should be deeply concerned by Russia’s broad and systemic interference with the 2016 election. According to Mueller, “There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.” In his report, Mueller made cleat Russian efforts were aimed at hurting Democrat Hillary Clinton.

4) Mueller doesn’t intend to say anything further but if he testifies before congress, he will not deviate from his report and said:

“Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. The report is my testimony.”

5) Mueller took deliberate issue with the accusations Trump and others have made that his investigation had been conducted by conflicted, angry Democrats on a witch hunt by saying:

“I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.”

https://www.wired.com/story/robert-mueller-breaks-silence-russia-investigation/

THE FULL LIST OF MUELLER INDICTMENTS AND PLEA DEALS

The two-year Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election led to indictments and successful prosecution of 38 individuals, including many very close associates of Trump. Those indictments were:

1) GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS: former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He was sentence to 14-days in jail sentence.

2) PAUL MANAFORT: Trump’s former 2016 Presidential Campaign Chairman, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018, though Mueller’s team said that he later breached that agreement by lying to them. He was sentenced to a combined seven and a half years in prison.

3) RICK GATES: A former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statement charge and one conspiracy charge. He was sentenced to 45 days in prison and 3 years of probation.

4) MICHAEL FLYNN: Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

5) MICHAEL COHEN: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts, tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations, related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York that Mueller had handed off. But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

6) ROGER STONE: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story. He was convicted on all counts after a November 2019 trial.

MANAFORT and GATES were charged with a series of offenses related to their past work for Ukrainian politicians and their finances. PAPADOPOULOS and FLYNN Both admitted making false statements to investigators to hide their contacts with Russians. COHEN admitted making false statements to Congress.

7) RICHARD PINEDO: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.

8) ALEX VAN DER ZWAAN: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

9) KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.

10 to 23) 13 RUSSIAN NATIONALS AND THREE RUSSIAN COMPANIES: All were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

24-38) 12 RUSSIAN GRU OFFICERS: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

The link to the unedited and fully quoted news source is here:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

A ROADMAP FOR IMPEACHMENT BUT NOT REMOVAL

Despite the fact that the special counsel’s report on Russian interference did not come to a conclusion as to whether President Trump obstructed justice, the Mueller Report did disclose at least 10 “discrete acts” in which Trump may have “obstructed justice”. Mueller left it up to congress to decide for themselves if there was obstruction of justice.

Any one of the 10 acts could form the basis of impeachment by the Democratic Controlled US House of Representatives, but not necessarily result in a conviction by the Republican US Senate. The Mueller Report says the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice can be divided into “two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the president’s motives.”

The first phase of obstruction of justice took place before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey after Trump had been reassured by Comey he was not personally under investigation. After Comey was fired by Trump and after Mueller’s appointment as special counsel, the report states Trump realized or knew he was under investigation for possibly obstructing justice, and he changed course and became more aggressive to discredit the investigation.

The Mueller report states:

“At that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts both in public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

CBS News did an exceptional summary of the 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice. Following are the 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice quoting a CBS News article with the link below:

1.”THE CAMPAIGN’S RESPONSE TO REPORTS ABOUT RUSSIAN SUPPORT FOR TRUMP”

“The first instance of possible obstruction detailed in the report occurred during the 2016 campaign, when questions first “arose about the Russian government’s apparent support for candidate Trump. The report states that while Mr. Trump was publicly skeptical Russia had released emails from Democratic officials, he and his aides were also trying to get information about “any further Wikileaks releases.” The report also notes that despite Mr. Trump’s insistence he had no business connections to Russia, his namesake company was trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. And once the election was over, Mr. Trump “expressed concerns to advisers that reports of Russia’s election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election.”

2.”CONDUCT INVOLVING FBI DIRECTOR COMEY AND MICHAEL FLYNN”

“The second instance involves Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who left the administration just weeks into Mr. Trump’s presidency after he misled FBI agents and top administration officials — including Vice President Mike Pence — about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn had said he had not discussed sanctions on Russia with Kislyak, a lie that Pence and others then repeated. The day that Mr. Trump found out Flynn had lied to Pence and the FBI, he had dinner with Comey, whom he asked for “loyalty.” Mr. Trump then secured Flynn’s resignation on Feb. 13, 2017. “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over,” he told an outside adviser, who disagreed with the president’s assessment. That same day, Mr. Trump had another meeting with Comey and encouraged him to stop investigating Flynn. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,” Mr. Trump said. The president then asked Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo “stating that the president had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel’s Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered.”

3.”THE PRESIDENT’S REACTION TO THE CONTINUING RUSSIA INVESTIGATION”

“The third instance involves then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was debating whether to recuse himself from the Russia investigation in February 2017, as well as Comey. Mr. Trump asked White House Counsel Don McGahn to talk Sessions out of recusal,and became angry when Sessions announced he would recuse himself on March 2. The president then asked Sessions to “unrecuse” himself. After Comey testified to Congress that there was an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump reached out to his CIA and NSA directors to help “dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort.” Comey had told Mr. Trump he wasn’t under investigation, and, against Mc Gahn’s advice, the president twice called the FBI director to ask him to say that publicly.”

4.”THE PRESIDENT’S TERMINATION OF COMEY”

“The fourth instance stems from Mr. Trump’s decision to fire Comey, which directly led to Mueller’s appointment. Mr. Trump decided to fire Comey in May 2017 — days after the FBI director declined to tell Congress that Mr. Trump wasn’t under investigation. After Mr. Trump dismissed Comey, the White House insisted he had done so at the recommendation of the Department of Justice. In reality, Mr. Trump had not consulted with the Justice Department before deciding to fire Comey. In conversations that followed, Mr. Trump indicated the Russia investigation was the real reason he had let Comey go: “The day after firing Comey, the president told Russian officials that he had ‘faced great pressure because of Russia,’ which had been ‘taken off’ by Comey’s firing. The next day, the president acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice’s recommendation and that when he ‘decided to just do it,’ he was thinking that ‘this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’”

5.”THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL AND EFFORTS TO REMOVE HIM”

“The fifth instance revolves around Mr. Trump’s reaction to Mueller’s appointment. Upon hearing the news that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had tasked Mueller with investigating the Russia matter in May 2017, the president privately declared it was “the end of his presidency.” Mr. Trump then demanded Sessions’ resignation, although he did not accept it at the time, and told aides Mueller had conflicts of interest that should preclude him from acting as the special counsel. It was then reported in June that Mueller was investigating Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice, prompting the president to publicly attack Mueller and the Justice Department. Within days of the first report, he told Mc Gahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had conflicts of interest and must be removed. Mc Gahn ignored the request, explaining that he would rather resign.”

6.”EFFORTS TO PREVENT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE”

“The sixth instance stems from the June 2016 meeting between top campaign aides and “a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as ‘part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.’” Mr. Trump told his aides “not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the email would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited.” Donald Trump Jr., who had been present at the Trump Tower meeting, wrote a press release saying “the meeting was with ‘an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign’” — a line that was edited out about the president. Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer then denied to reporters the president had “played any role” in Trump Jr.’s statement.

7.” FURTHER EFFORTS TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKE CONTROL OF THE INVESTIGATION”

“The seventh instance has to do with Mr. Trump’s repeated attempts to have Sessions “reverse his recusal.” Mr. Trump asked Sessions to do this in the summer of 2017. The following December, Mr. Trump told Sessions he would be a “hero” if he took control of the investigation. Additionally, in October 2017, the president asked Sessions to “take [a] look” at investigating Hillary Clinton.”

8.”EFFORTS TO HAVE MCGAHN DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ORDERED HIM TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED”

“The eighth instance concerns Mr. Trump’s efforts to get Mc Gahn to dispute press accounts that the president had instructed him to try and get rid of Mueller. In early 2018, Mr. Trump told White House officials to tell Mc Gahn to rebut the stories, but Mc Gahn told the officials the stories were true. Mr. Trump then personally appealed to Mc Gahn, telling him in an Oval Office meeting to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the president also asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the president’s efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the president,” the report states. “McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the president to be testing his mettle.”

9.”CONDUCT TOWARDS FLYNN, MANAFORT”

“The ninth instance stems from Mr. Trump’s response to the prosecutions of Flynn and Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman, as well as an individual whose identity was redacted. “After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the president and began cooperating with the government, the president’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn ‘s attorneys reminding them of the president’s warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said ‘still remains,’ and asking for a ‘heads up’ if Flynn knew ‘information that implicates the president,’” the report states. When Flynn’s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the president’s personal counsel said he would make sure that the president knew that Flynn’s actions reflected ‘hostility’ towards the president. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump praised Manafort during his “prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating. At one point, he praised Manafort as “a brave man” who refused to “break.”

10.”CONDUCT INVOLVING MICHAEL COHEN”

“The tenth and final instance of potential obstruction concerns Mr. Trump’s behavior toward Michael Cohen, his onetime personal lawyer. Mr. Trump profusely praised Cohen when he remained loyal to the administration, at one point personally calling to encourage him to “stay strong,” only to criticize him viciously when he began cooperating with the government. After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the president publicly asserted that Cohen would not ‘flip,’ contacted him directly to tell him to ‘stay strong,’ and privately passed messages of support to him,” the report states. Cohen also discussed pardons with the president’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message, he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the president publicly criticized him, called him a ‘rat,’ and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.”

The link to the full unedited CBS News report here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

A link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/05/30/mueller-did-not-clear-trump-could-not-indict-trump-up-to-congress-or-voters-to-remove-trump/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is downright bizarre that Trump would now file a federal lawsuit, unless it is his attempt to distance himself from his association and admiration of Vladimir Putin and the invasion of Ukrain by Russia. The problem is that the general public has a very short memory. Trump’s and his associates’ dealings with Russian over the years can only be considered some of the darkest days of this country when a President of the United States actually curried favored with a known enemy of the United State and its democracy.

Der Führer Trump’s filed federal lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and 26 other people and entities claiming they all conspired to undermine his 2016 campaign by falsely tying him to Russia was very quickly labeled as frivolous and without merit. Like the 56 federal lawsuits file by Trump in states to contest the 2020 Presidential election, the lawsuit will likely be thrown out for lack of evidence, but that does not mean his party and his cult followers will not believe what he has alleged.

The lawsuit may be frivolous, but the damage Der Führer Trump has done to our democracy may never be repaired as he is allowed to continue his assault on many levels, aided by the Republican party, to destroy it at its very core.

Twice the traitor Trump was impeached, and twice the Republicans failed to go to the defense of our democracy by convicting him. The Republican Senate failed to impeach even when they themselves witnessed firsthand how he orchestrated a full assault on the capitol on January 6, 2020 to stop the certification of Joe Biden as President.

There is little doubt that the seeds of enablement to Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukrain were sown during the 4 years Trump was in office.