The Albuquerque Police Department has released its Annual Use of Force Report for the year 2022.  The annual Use of Force report is required under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) with the U.S. Department of Justice.

It was on November 14, 2014, the City of Albuquerque and the United State Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into the CASA after an 18-month long investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that found that the Albuquerque Police Department engaged in an pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force”, especially when dealing with the mentally ill. The DOJ investigation also found a “culture of aggression” existed within the APD.

This blog article is a summary and analysis of the 2022 APD Annual Use of Force Report. It discusses the reason why the city will likely see more police officer invoklved shootings as a violent city becomes the norm.

CLASSIFICATIONS OF USE OF FORCE LEVELS

A review of the classifications of Use of Force levels by APD  policy is in order before review of the statistics.

Level 1 force is defined as  force that is likely to cause only transitory pain, disorientation, or discomfort during its application as a means of gaining compliance. This includes techniques which are not reasonably expected to cause injury, do not result in actual injury, and are not likely to result in a complaint of injury (i.e., pain compliance techniques and resisted handcuffing). Pointing a firearm, beanbag shotgun, or 40-millimeter launcher at a subject, or using an Electronic Control Weapon (ECW)  to “paint” a subject with the laser sight, as a show of force are reportable as Level 1 force. Level 1 force does not include interaction meant to guide, assist, or control a subject who is offering minimal resistance.

Level 2 force is defined as  force that causes injury, could reasonably be expected to cause injury, or results in a complaint of injury. Level 2 force includes: use of an Electronic Control Weapon (ECW), including where an ECW is fired at a subject but misses; use of a beanbag shotgun or 40 millimeter launcher, including where it is fired at a subject but misses; OC Spray application; empty hand techniques (i.e., strikes, kicks, takedowns, distraction techniques, or leg sweeps); and strikes with weapons, except strikes to the head, neck, or throat, which would be considered a Level 3 use of force.

Level 3 force is defined as force that results in, or could reasonably result in, serious physical injury, hospitalization, or death. Level 3 force includes: all lethal force; critical firearms discharges; all head, neck, and throat strikes with an object; neck holds; canine bites; three or more uses of an ECW on an individual during a single interaction regardless of mode or duration or an ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; four or more strikes with a baton; any Level 2 use of force, strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject; and uses of force resulting in a loss of consciousness.

USE OF FORCE REPORT KEY FINDINGS

The 2022 Use of Force Report provides the following key findings:

• In 2022, APD used force in 590 force incidents. A force case can include multiple people who are involved in a single incident or offense report.
• In these 590 incidents, there were 626 force interactions where a single person had force used with them in response to resistance. A force interaction is limited to one involved person at one point in time.
• Compared to 2021, there was an 18% decline in the number of force interactions from 764 to 626.
• Compared to 2020, there was a 35% decline in force interactions from 960 to 626.
• 358  or 57%  force interactions were classified as Level 2 force.
• 587 people were involved in force interactions. 5% of people were involved in more than one force interaction; 26 people were involved in 2 incidents and 6 were involved in 3 interactions. No individual was involved in more than 3 use of force interactions during this year.
• The median age of people involved in force was 32 meaning that half of involved individuals were 32 or under and half were 32 or over.
• 25 out of 590 cases were deemed out of policy (4%). Four percent (26 out of 626) of force interactions were out of policy.
• In every 1,000 calls for service, force was used 1.64 times, down 16.7% from 2021.
• Force was used in 4.4 out of 100 custodial arrests, down 20% from 2021.

POLICE SHOOTINGS UP, USE OF FORCE DOWN

In 2022, there was a record-high number of 18 police officer involved shootings. The breakdown of the 18 shooting is as follows:

14 of the people were armed or trying to arm themselves,

8 fired a gun

2  had an edged weapon, including a set of nail clippers in one case.

In 3 of the shootings, the “perceived weapons were ultimately determined not to be lethal” and included a key fob, a phone and landscaping rocks.

USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS

The annual use of force report shows that APD used force fewer times  in 2022 than in preceding years. According to the report, Albuquerque police officers used force on residents 626 times in 2022. This is the lowest total number since APD began tracking use of force data in 2018. The number also represents an 18% decrease from 2021 and a 35% decrease since 2020, when APD officers used force 960 times.

Of the hundreds of force cases investigated in 2022, a total of 26, or 4%, were found to have violated policy.  The decline in the overall number of use of force incidents is in sharp contrast to APD recording a record-high number of police shootings in 2022.

APD officers used force 0.2% of the time during calls for service and 4.4% of the time when arresting someone.  This was a decrease of 16% and 20% respectively from the 2021 use of force incidents. Level 1 use of force incidents accounted for 164 incidents, or 26%, of cases last year.  57% of  use of force incidents by APD officers were  classified as Level 2.   104 use of force instances, or 17%,  fell into the Level 3 category, which includes police shootings.

RAW DATA ON USE OF FORCE

The raw data in  2022 Annual Use of Force Report is as follows:

The types of force used most often by APD officers to subdue a suspect were as follows:

25% hand-to-hand combat.

20% resisted handcuffing.

14% involved resisting physical restraint.

Officers used force once on more than 550 people, twice on 26 people and three times on six people. Nobody had officers use force on them more than 3 times last year.

Of the people that force was used on in 2022, 17% were armed and 69% were unarmed.

16% were homeless

36% were experiencing a crisis or had a mental illness.

Last year 460 officers used force against a person. Of those, 268 officers used force once or twice and 16 did so 9 or more times.  APD reported that 75% of those officers are assigned to specialized units where force is more likely. One officer used force 17 times in 2022.

Officers used force once on more than 550 people, twice on 26 people and three times on six people. Nobody had officers use force on them more than 3 times last year.

The SWAT team was utilized 69 times, 15 times for a domestic dispute, 14 for a pre-planned warrant arrest and 10 times for a wanted person.

Police dogs were used by officers 269 times, helped detain someone 89 times and, of those, bit someone 16 times.

282 people were injured by an officer. The most common injuries were scrapes, complaints and cuts.  The least common injuries were broken bones, a bloody nose and pepper spray.

Officers used force once on more than 550 people, twice on 26 people and three times on six people. Nobody had officers use force on them more than three times last year.

According to the report, police dogs were used by officers 269 times.  Canines helped detain someone 89 times and, of those, the animal bit someone 16 times.

The SWAT team was utilized 69 times, 15 times for a domestic dispute, 14 for a pre-planned warrant arrest and 10 times for a wanted person

Officers used force once on more than 550 people, twice on 26 people and three times on six people. Nobody had officers use force on them more than 3 times last year.

LOCATION, ETHNICITY AND AGE

According to the report, officers used force most in the Southeast Area Command 32% of the time and in Northeast Area Command 20% of the time.  Force was used the least in the Southwest Area Command with 11%  and in the Northwest Area Command with  9%.

APD’s report found that force was used most on Hispanic at 49%, non-Hispanic white people at 21%  and Black people at 11%. Black people make up 3% of the city’s population, according to census data, while Hispanics make up 49% of the population  and non-Hispanic white people make  37% of  the population.

The average age of person that officers used force on last year was 28. In all, 27 people were under the age of 18 and two were over 65.

The link to review the entire 42 page 2022 APD Annual Use of Force Report is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/apd-2022-annual-use-of-force-report-final.pdf

REACTION TO REPORT

Albuquerque Police Department (APD) spokesman Gilbert Gallegos  shared  more recent data that showed officers used force less in the first half of 2023 compared with last year, mostly due to half as many Level 1 cases. He also said, going forward, APD officials expect Level 1 use of force to go up and Level 2 to go down due to take-downs now being considered a Level 1, unless the takedown leads to injury or likelihood of injury.

Last year saw the highest number of Albuquerque police shootings in the department’s history with officers shooting 18 people in a single year, injuring 3 and killing 10.  The report called the record-breaking total “a concern for APD” and said “The department is working to ensure policy and training encourage alternatives to deadly force whenever feasible.”

Barron Jones of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico said APD’s decreasing use of force “should serve as a lesson for other police departments throughout the state.”   Jones said this:

“APD still has a great deal of work to do.  … We remain concerned that APD still has a big problem in using deadly force against unarmed community members, particularly those experiencing mental health crises.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/apd-releases-data-on-officers-use-of-force-in-2022/article_23df0066-388c-11ee-88ce-a7db92439eeb.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

PUBLISHED REPORT ON 18 APD SHOOTINGS

It was on December 23, 2022, the Albuquerque Journal published on its front page, above the fold, a remarkable story entitled “APD looks to curtail police shootings” with the sub headline “Officers have shot 18 people so far this year, resulting in 10 deaths”.  The news story reads in pertinent  part as follows:

“In the midst of a spike in shootings by its officers the Albuquerque Police Department is working to change policies so they can use “less-lethal” force earlier in an encounter – in the hope of preventing the need for deadly force.

Additionally, the department’s executive staff and city attorneys will review this year’s 18 shootings by officers to see if they can identify and address any trends. Among those incidents 10 people were killed and three were injured. In five cases no one was struck.

The number of shootings has alarmed advocates, and discussions of the increase dominated a recent federal court hearing on APD’s reform effort. Last year APD officers shot at 10 people, killing four, injuring five, and missing one.

But Chief Harold Medina said he’s been contemplating changes for a while and APD has already been working on them with the Department of Justice and the independent monitoring team overseeing the reforms.”

Medina said he wants APD’s executive staff and city attorneys to meet and look for trends among this year’s 18 police shootings and identify changes to be made.  Medina said this:

“We had already been trying to change the policy. …  But as we heard everybody’s concerns during the [December 6 federal Court] hearing, I really felt there was a way we could do this better. That’s when we got these ideas of we should meet to look at all the cases at once as a whole. …  One of my big frustrations right now is our processes take so long – like we identified issues but by the time we get everything approved through everybody it takes months.”

“Right now they go through the individual cases and if somebody there can remember or they tie into something in the past, that’s a benefit and they could try to make it a trend. … We are now purposely putting all the cases in front of them … and they’re going to have little different data points that we could look at and the goal is to look at them all together at the same time and see if they can identify anything that’s of a concern.”

The link to them full Journal article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2559458/apd-to-address-spike-in-police-shootings-by-changing-policies-looking-for-trends.html

CITY’S OVERALL CRIME STATISTICS

Albuquerque is at the forefront of New Mexico’s high violent crime rate.  According to legislative data released, the city had about half of the state’s violent crime in 2022 but has just 25% or so of its total population.  The Albuquerque Police Department reported that in November, 2022 gun law violations spiked 85%.

The last 2 years have also been two very violent years for Albuquerque.  The number of homicides in the city have broken all-time records.  In 2021, there were 117 homicides, with 3 declared self-defense reducing homicide number to 114.  In 2022, there were 120 homicides, a historical high.

It was on  March 16, 2023 the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) released the 2022 crime statistics along with crime statistics for 2021 for a comparison. During his March 16 press conference announcing the City’s 2022 crime statistics, APD Chief Harold Medina embellished that a  3% drop in  overall total of crime and a 4% decrease in Crimes Against Persons and the 2% decrease in Crimes Against Property was positive movement.

The slight 3% decrease in overall crime was over shadowed by the 24% spike in CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY which are largely made up of drug and gun offenses and a 71% increase in murders over the last 6 years.  Chief Medina presented a vertical bar graph that revealed that over the last 6 years, Albuquerque has had a dramatic 71% spike in homicides.  The number of homicides reported over the last 6 years is as follows:

2017: 70 homicides

2018: 69 homicides

2019: 80 homicides

2020: 78 homicides

2021:  110 homicides

2022:  120 homicides

On March 16, in addition to reporting that there has been a 71% spike in homicides, APD officials reported that over the past 6 years there has been a 28% increase in Aggravated Assaults which by definition includes the use of a firearms. Following are the Aggravated Assaults numbers:

2017: 4,213

2018: 5,156

2019: 5,337

2020: 5,592

2021: 5,669

2022: 5,399

Crime rates in Albuquerque are high across the board. According to the Albuquerque Police’s annual report on crime, there were 46,391 property crimes and 15,765 violent crimes recorded in 2021.  These numbers place Albuquerque among America’s most dangerous cities.

All residents are at increased risk of experiencing aggravated robbery, auto theft, and petty theft.  The chances of becoming a victim of property crime in Albuquerque are 1 in 20, an alarmingly high statistic. Simple assault, aggravated assault, auto theft, and larceny are just some of the most common criminal offenses in Albuquerque. Burglary and sex offense rates In Albuquerque are also higher than the national average.

17^TH FEDERAL MONITOR’S REPORT

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

Primary Compliance 100%

Secondary Compliance 100%

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

Once APD reaches 95% compliance in all 3 compliance levels and maintains it for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed.

On June 6, during a hearing on the 17^th Federal Monitor’s Report, Federal Monitor James Ginger made it clear that APD continues to make impressive gains in the compliance levels over the past year.   Although APD is making gains in in implementing the reforms, it was also clear that there have been more APD police officer shootings in 2022 than during any other year before.  In 2022, there were 18 APD Police Officer involved shootings,10 of which were fatal.  In 2021 there were 10, four of which were fatal.

A review of shootings by APD police officers between 2018 and 2022 identified three common circumstances:

1. When officers are attempting to apprehend violent suspects;
2. When individuals are experiencing some kind of mental health episode;
3. When people with little criminal history are under the influence of drugs or alcohol and make bad decisions.

Albuquerque Police Department has released data before that shows  there have been 56  police shootings dating back to 2018. Of the cases reviewed, 85% involved people who were armed with a gun or a weapon that appeared to be a firearm.  About 55% of the cases involved people under the influence of drugs or alcohol, while only 2 cases in which intoxication did not play a role. Without toxicology tests, it was unknown whether drugs or alcohol played a role in the remainder of the cases.  Statewide, authorities said the number of shootings in which officers opened fire stands at 50 for the year 2022.

The link to the quoted news source article is here:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/albuquerque-marks-record-number-police-shootings-2022-93084096

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Albuquerque residents can take some comfort that the 2022 Annual Use of Force Report shows that APD used force less in 2022 than in preceding years. According to the report, Albuquerque police officers used force on residents 626 times in 2022. This  is the lowest total number since APD began tracking use of force data in 2018. The number also represents an 18% decrease from 2021 and a 35% decrease since 2020, when APD officers used force 960 times

There is no doubt that the city residents  should also be absolutely alarmed over the fact that there has been a spike in police officer involved shootings given the fact such shootings, and accompanying litigation and judgements against the city, is what brought the Department of Justice to the City in 2013 in the first place. When it comes to APD Police Officer Involved shootings, history is repeating itself despite millions spent and implementation of the settlement reforms over the last 9 years.

A VIOLENT CITY THE NEW NORM 

Albuquerque has changed and APD has changed over the 9 years since the CASA was negotiated. The city has become more violent and APD has been trained in constitutional policing practices.  It’s because of the city’s dramatic increase in overall crime rates that there have been more police officer involved shootings as police officers are finding themselves in more predicaments where they feel the need to protect themselves and not attempt to deescalate a situation and use force or deadly force.

The  tragic reality is the city will likely see more  police officer involved shootings  even if APD achieves 100% compliance in the 3 settlement compliance levels and as all 271 mandated police reforms under the settlement are implemented and as the DOJ prepares to leave.  A violent city  has become our new norm.  

On August 17, the online news agency New Mexico Sun published the below 750-word Dinelli opinion guest column on Mayor Tim Keller’s  proposed $80 Million Rail Trail project.

HEADLINE: Keller’s Rail Trail: Paradise Road or Homeless, Drug Skid Row?

By Pete Dinelli,

On July 22,  Mayor Tim Keller was joined by world-renowned architect Antoine Predock to announce plans for the Albuquerque Rail Trail project. Predock is the designer of  the project. The project is a 7- to 8-mile multi-use pedestrian and bike trail circling downtown that will connect key destinations in the downtown area.  The total projected cost is $80 Million with $40 million already set aside for the project.

As designed by Predock, the Rail Trail will consist of 11 major sections all in the Downtown area from the Rail Yards to the Sawmill District, Old Town, Tingley Beach, the Barela’s neighborhood, and back around in a 8-mile loop. The trail will show major attractions like scenic stops along the Rio Grande, tourist spots, and a unique raised trail area with a plaza beneath for shops and food vendors over by the convention center. It will also have a redone underpass with lighting at Central and 1st Street highlighting the Historic Route 66. Other features include a tree-like, geometric structure wrapping over the bike path, which will be rooted in spaces that could be used for retail or other purposes.

By any measure, spending $80 Million dollars on an 8-mile bike trail and pedestrian walkway is a difficult sell to the general public which is the likely reason Mayor Tim Keller and his administration conveniently did not put it on the ballot for voter approval, especially when it comes to a legacy project the Rail Trail represents to Keller.  Keller calling an $80 million bike trail and pedestrian walkway “the largest public works undertaking since we literally built the zoo and the tram” that will transform the city is typical Keller public relations tactics.  Keller forgets the $125 Million ART bus project he completed down the middle of central that has destroyed historic Route 66.

City officials said they are working to have the trail fully lit with street lights and security officers. Given the openness and length of the trail, the entire length of the trail will likely become a magnet for crime. It’s not at all hard to envision panhandling, drug dealing, prostitution solicitation, pickpocketing purse snatching and shoplifting at the merchandise vendor stations and the homeless camping along the Rail Trail. At a minimum there will be the need for police to patrol the entire length of the trail and to have it closed down at night like a city park and to prevent illegal camping.

Project architect Antoine Predock places what he and Mayor Keller believe is an iconic Albuquerque image front and center: the tumbleweed. Predock envisions a giant, electric tumbleweed placed at Central Street and the rail road tracks. Predock proclaims the image of a tumbleweed rolling down the road is part of every resident’s experience enshrined in pop culture. During the July 22 presentation Keller became downright giddy with excitement with a grin on his face and a smile in his voice as he talked about the 25-foot neon tumbleweed when he said:

“When this happens, no one will think of Albuquerque without the neon tumbleweed at the intersection of Route 66 and the railroad.”

Spending thousands of dollars on a 25-foot neon tumbleweed at the intersection of Route 66 and the railroad as a symbol for a City falls squarely into the category of “What the hell are they thinking?”  Frankly, the use of a 24 foot neon tumbleweed is embarrassing for a city known for its Sandia vistas, the International Balloon Fiesta, Route 66, its history and diversity.

A tumbleweed conjures up images of windswept dust and desolation.  It conjures up the images of Albuquerque being nothing more than a dusty and dying little town in New Mexico as tumbleweeds, dirt and debris are swept by the winds through the vacant streets of a once vibrant community.

There are so many other symbols that could be and are reflection of the city as a whole and that can even be whimsical at times. Those images include chile ristras, luminarias, images of the tramway, hot air balloons during a balloon glow, a vintage train, a vintage convertible driving down Route 66, mariachis playing, Indian jewelry, pottery and tribal dancers, hand-carved and painted wooden santos, bultos and retablos, and crosses.  Whimsical images of a “big enchilada” and even Bugs Bunny saying, “I should have taken a left at Albuquerque” could be used.

The 25-foot neon tumbleweed is artwork that needs to be scraped as not a fitting symbol of the city.

Pete Dinelli is a native of Albuquerque. He is a licensed New Mexico attorney with 27 years of municipal and state government service including as an assistant attorney general, assistant district attorney prosecuting violent crimes, city of Albuquerque deputy city attorney and chief public safety officer, Albuquerque city councilor, and several years in private practice. Dinelli publishes a blog covering politics in New Mexico: www.PeteDinelli.com.

https://newmexicosun.com/stories/648804669-keller-s-rail-trail-paradise-road-or-homeless-drug-skid-row

__________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

The New Mexico Sun is part of the Sun Publishing group which is a nonprofit. The New Mexico Sun “mission statement” states in part:

“The New Mexico Sun was established to bring fresh light to issues that matter most to New Mexicans. It will cover the people, events, and wonders of our state. … The New Mexico Sun is non-partisan and fact-based, and we don’t maintain paywalls that lead to uneven information sharing. We don’t publish quotes from anonymous sources that lead to skepticism about our intentions, and we don’t bother our readers with annoying ads about products and services from non-locals that they will never buy. … Many New Mexico media outlets minimize or justify problematic issues based on the individuals involved or the power of their positions. Often reporters fail to ask hard questions, avoid making public officials uncomfortable, and then include only one side of a story. This approach doesn’t provide everything readers need to fully understand what is happening, why it matters, and how it will impact them or their families.”

The home page link to the New Mexico Sun is here:

https://newmexicosun.com/

On September 23, the very first Republican debate for President in 2023 was held Milwaukee, Wisconsin before an audience of 4,000 at the Fiserv Forum. The debate was sponsored and telecast exclusively by FOX News. Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum of Fox News were the moderators who presided over the debate.

Former President Donald Trump, although having qualified, declined to participate seeing no need because of his huge lead in all the polls. The candidates in alphabetical order who qualified and who  participated were North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Former Governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, former Vice President  Mike Pence, businessman billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy and South Carolina US Senator Tim Scott.

The national news organizations CNN and Politico published the following news articles on the internet, each giving a totally different perspective:

CNN: 7 Takeaways From First Republican Presidential Primary Debate By Eric Bradner, Daniel Strauss and Arit John, CNN

With Donald Trump skipping the first 2024 Republican presidential primary debate, eight of his primary rivals – most of them men wearing ties similar to the bright red one regularly worn by the former president – brawled for second-place status Wednesday night.

Vivek Ramaswamy, the 38-year-old entrepreneur and first-time candidate, was alongside Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the center of the stage – and he was the central figure for much of the night. Ramaswamy clashed with former Vice President Mike Pence over his experience, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley over foreign policy, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie over Trump, and more.

And because he has positioned himself as a defender of Trump, Ramaswamy was, at times, a stand-in for the former president, who momentarily ceded the stage Wednesday night but will take it back Thursday when he turns himself in at the Fulton County jail in Georgia as he faces election subversion charges.

For all the fireworks in the two-hour showdown, the debate had the feel of an undercard. Trump has retained his massive lead in the polls despite his legal woes, and nothing that happened Wednesday night is likely to turn the race on its head.

The former president’s absence meant several candidates who have positioned themselves as strident critics of the former president were denied opportunities to directly confront him. Christie, who Ramaswamy said is running a campaign “based on vengeance and grievance” against Trump, spent more time brawling with the entrepreneur than the former president. Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson went long stretches of the debate without being acknowledged.

Meanwhile, for North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, the most significant development Wednesday was that he was able to participate in the debate at all. Burgum was taken to a Milwaukee emergency room Tuesday after suffering a high-grade tear of his Achilles tendon.

“I think I took it too literally when they said, ‘Go to Milwaukee and break a leg,’” he joked.

The debate played out in front of a rowdy crowd of about 4,000 people at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee. The crowd’s reactions – including jeers and boos when candidates criticized Trump – at times drowned out the Fox News moderators.

Here are seven takeaways from the first 2024 Republican presidential primary debate:

1. CANDIDATES GO AFTER RAMASWAMY

With Trump absent from Wednesday’s debate, the target of most of the debate participants was not DeSantis or South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott or any candidate who has ever held elected office. It was political newcomer Ramaswamy. The first jab at the Ohio entrepreneur came from Pence: “Vivek, you recently said a president can’t do everything. Well, I’ve got news for you, Vivek. I’ve been in the hallway. I’ve been in the West Wing. The president of the United States has to confront every crisis facing America.”

That spurred a heated back-and-forth and light name-calling between the two candidates. Later, in the first bit of the debate, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie compared Ramaswamy’s answers to something cranked out by ChatGPT. Christie then capitalized on Ramaswamy rhetorically asking what a little-known guy with a funny name was doing on the debate stage by pointing out that the quip sounded awfully like Barack Obama’s old stump line about him being “a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him.”

At another point, Pence went after Ramaswamy when the entrepreneur said, “We are in the middle of a national identity crisis.” The former vice president replied, “We don’t have an identity crisis, Vivek. We are not looking for a new national identity.”

The pile-on aimed at Ramaswamy was surprising. He’s new to politics. At the same time, recent polling has shown him rising over other candidates who have spent, in some cases, decades in electoral politics. For Ramaswamy’s opponents, this is about scuttling any momentum he is having.

   2.  DESANTIS DOESN’T STAND OUT

DeSantis set the expectation that he would be the focal point of Wednesday’s debate. He was anything but.

He certainly didn’t speak the most. Though his campaign suggested his Republican opponents would have their “knives out” for DeSantis, he wasn’t on the receiving end of many attacks. And at a key moment – when the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they would support Trump if he is convicted in a court of law – DeSantis peeked around the stage to see how everyone else had responded before he half heartedly put up his right palm.

DeSantis, who earned the center-stage spot, appeared content to exit Milwaukee without risking his second-place standing in the polls. But he also did little to erase the impression, confirmed by polling, that he is closer to the rest of the pack than in a tier with Trump or in one of his own.

When he spoke, DeSantis largely leaned on rehearsed lines familiar to anyone who has heard him speak in recent months. Just as he does on the campaign trail, he opened the debate by declaring “Our country is in decline” and “We need to send Joe Biden back to his basement.” He joked about Hunter Biden’s paintings – a regular punchline when he visits early nominating states. He said under a DeSantis administration, people who cross into the United States illegally would end up “stone cold dead,” a promise he has repeated for weeks.

At times, moderators attempted to move DeSantis off his practiced remarks. When DeSantis touted his record on crime by declaring it was at a 50-year low in Florida, Fox’s Brett Baier interjected that crime was up in Miami. DeSantis clarified: “Well, statewide.” Asked if he would support a federal six-week abortion ban, DeSantis talked about his electoral victory in Florida. Pressed to give an answer, he replied as he has for weeks, by refusing to rule it out or get behind it.

DeSantis attempted to shed his reputation as a cold and stiff debater by forcefully speaking directly to Americans at home, often pointing directly at the camera, and by sharing anecdotes from an abortion survivor and a mother whose son died from fentanyl poisoning. He shared his biography – thrice mentioning his military service and talking repeatedly about his young family – an acknowledgment that voters may not yet know his story beyond the cultural clashes and Covid-19 policies that have made him a Republican star.

3. CHRISTIE DOESN’T HAVE A BREAKOUT MOMENT

If there was one candidate who was expected to emerge from Wednesday night with a knock-out punch of a moment, it was Christie. Nearly eight years ago, the former governor embarrassed Marco Rubio during the final debate before the New Hampshire primary by pointing out the Florida senator’s habit of repeating lines. While Rubio won more votes than Christie in the Granite State – coming in fifth to Christie’s sixth – the senator struggled to shed a reputation for being robotic.

Christie seemed ready to give Ramaswamy the same treatment. But while Christie’s “ChatGPT” line was reminiscent of his past debate performance, he failed to trip up the Ohio businessman. Instead, Ramaswamy went on to attack him over his criticism of Trump.

Asked if he would support the former president if he’s convicted of a crime, Christie said the party needs to stop “normalizing this conduct,” drawing boos from the crowd.

“Your claim that Donald Trump is motivated by vengeance and grievance would be a lot more credible if your entire campaign were not based in vengeance and grievance against one man,” Ramaswamy said.

Ahead of the debate, Doug Mayer, a senior adviser to the Christie campaign, told CNN the former New Jersey governor would turn anyone who defended Trump into Trump. But Christie’s attempt to attack the former president’s top defender onstage was met with more vitriol from the crowd.

“You make me laugh,” Christie said before the sound of boos drowned him out. The optics didn’t help: Fox News showed a split screen of Christie standing silently as Ramaswamy grinned until the moderators asked the crowd to let him finish.

4. CANDIDATES DRAW DISTINCTIONS ON ABORTION

Some candidates supported a 15-week federal abortion ban. Some said they were against efforts to pass a nationwide ban. And no one clearly stated they would sign a six-week federal abortion ban – even if they’d approved such laws as governors.

More than a year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion policy is still a tricky issue for Republican candidates caught between the need to demonstrate their anti-abortion bona fides and address the realities of the political landscape, where voters have rejected stringent abortion restrictions and the candidates who backed them.

At one end of the spectrum stood Haley, who sparred with Pence over the possibility of passing a federal ban. Haley called on the other candidates to “be honest” with the American people about the low odds of getting 60 senators to overcome a filibuster and approve a federal abortion ban. She instead pushed for consensus on issues such as encouraging adoption and allowing doctors and nurses with moral objections to the procedure the right not to perform them.

“Consensus is the opposite of leadership,” Pence said in response. But even Pence wasn’t willing to go further than endorsing a 15-week federal abortion ban, the cutoff offered in a bill South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced last year.

“A 15-week ban is an idea whose time has come,” Pence said. Scott also backed the 15-week ban onstage.

Two candidates who have signed six-week abortion bans into law – DeSantis and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum – stopped short of saying they would do the same nationally. Burgum said his opposition to a national ban stems from his support for the 10th Amendment. DeSantis, asked if he would sign a federal six-week ban, simply said he would “stand on the side of life.”

“I understand Wisconsin will do it different than Texas,” DeSantis said. “But I will support the cause of life as governor and as president.”

5. DESANTIS TRIES, BUT FAILS, TO DUCK JANUARY 6 QUESTION AFTER BEING PRESSED BY PENCE

When moderators asked DeSantis whether Pence was right to reject Trump’s pressure campaign to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the Florida governor attempted to dodge – ignoring what he’d been asked and complaining about the “weaponization” of the federal government.

But Pence dug in, putting DeSantis on the spot.

“The American people deserve to know whether everyone on this stage agrees that I kept my oath to the Constitution that day. There’s no more important duty, so answer the question,” he said.

“Mike did his duty. I’ve got no beef with him,” DeSantis said, attempting to quickly move on.

The moment illustrated how cautious the Florida governor is of alienating Trump’s base.

Christie, though, mocked DeSantis’ answer, calling it “a pre-canned speech.”

He said Pence “deserves not grudging credit; he deserves our thanks as Americans.”

6. HALEY LEANS TOWARDS THE GENERAL ELECTION

Haley, the former South Carolina governor and US ambassador to the United Nations under Trump, brought onto the stage Wednesday a message that was geared more directly for a general electorate than those of her rivals.

What’s less clear is whether she did enough to impress Republican voters to get there.

Haley balked at a federal abortion ban, saying the reality of the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to break the filibuster and the need for a House majority means “consensus” is necessary on the issue. She also said contraception should be available to all women.

She was one of the few candidates to acknowledge that climate change is real.

She was the first to criticize Trump by name, pointing to rising spending during his presidency. She praised Pence’s actions on January 6, 2021, despite Trump’s pressure on the former vice president to seek to overturn the 2020 election result. Haley also called her former boss the “most disliked politician in America.”

“We cannot win a general election that way,” she said.

And she hammered Ramaswamy during an exchange over Russia, as Haley defended the United States’ support for Ukraine.

“You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows,” she said during one of the night’s most animated exchanges.

7. SCOTT STICKS TO MR. NICE GUY ROUTINE

The plan for Scott going into the debate was to stick with his “kill ‘em with kindness” attitude. For the first part of the debate, he did that. The problem was that approach kept him out of most of the exchanges. While the other candidates were debating and skirmishing over abortion, Ukraine or whether Trump should be pardoned, Scott wasn’t really in it. He did try and insert himself with warnings about the “weaponization” of the federal government and crime in America. But all of his comments and arguments faded into the background as candidates piled on Ramaswamy or Christie praised Pence for his actions on January 6, 2021.

When Scott did get a chance to weigh in on the southern border, illegal immigration and fentanyl, he offered a long answer about how important and easy it would be to finish Trump’s border wall.

“As the next president of the United States, I will make that border wall complete,” Scott said, extending each word in that concluding sentence. He paused for applause. There was none.

Ahead of the debate, Republican strategists argued that this was the approach Scott wanted to take because it’s his authentic self. The question now is if the South Carolina senator will stick with it going forward.

The link to the full CNN report with videos and photos is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/23/politics/takeaways-republican-debate/index.html

POLITICO: The spiciest moments of the first GOP debate

By KIERRA FRAZIER, MEGAN MESSERLY, BENJAMIN GUGGENHEIM, BEN LEONARD, JESSICA PIPER and ALICE MIRANDA OLLSTEIN

Trump wasn’t on stage. But the debate didn’t lack for intense exchanges.

Mike Pence and Chris Christie knocked Vivek Ramaswamy as a know-it-all novice.

Nikki Haley leaned into being the only woman on stage.

And no matter whether former President Donald Trump is convicted of a crime, he still has the support of most of his rivals.

The first Republican presidential debate of the 2024 election did not lack for fireworks, even with the absence of its frontrunner Trump.

Here’s a look at the must-see moments of the two-hour showdown:

PENCE WON’T VOW TO PARDON TRUMP

Former Vice President Mike Pence refused to vow to pardon former President Donald Trump if elected — though he didn’t close the door to that possibility, either, after being goaded onstage by Vivek Ramaswamy.

“Join me in making a commitment that on day one you would pardon Donald Trump,” Ramaswamy challenged Pence.

“I don’t know why you assume Donald Trump will be convicted of these crimes,” Pence replied. “That is the difference between you and me. I have given pardons when I was governor of the state of Indiana. It usually follows a finding of guilt and contrition by the individual that’s been convicted.”

Trump, Pence’s former running mate, is currently facing dozens of charges across four indictments. In one case, a federal indictment against Trump related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Pence could end up serving as a key witness against the former president.

“If I am president of the United States, we’ll give fair consideration to any pardon requests,” Pence said onstage Wednesday night.

CANDIDATES SAY THEY WOULD SUPPORT TRUMP — EVEN IF HE’S CONVICTED

Asked if they would support Trump as the party’s nominee even if he was convicted of a crime, 6 of 8 candidates raised their hands — with varying degrees of enthusiasm — with only Christie and Hutchinson indicating they would not support the former president again.

Christie, shaking his fist slightly, spoke up first after the question, side-stepping the issue of prosecutors that many Republicans have criticized as politicized, but calling attention to Trump’s underlying behavior.

“Someone has to stop normalizing this conduct,” the former New Jersey governor said, though his comments were met with displeasure by some in the audience as well as on the stage.

“Booing is allowed, but it does not change the truth,” Christie added.

ATTACKS ON RAMASWAMY DOMINATED THE FIRST HOUR

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis may have had the No. 1 spot on the debate stage. But it’s the man in the No. 2 spot, Vivek Ramaswamy, who’s taken the most incoming over the first hour of the two-hour melee in Milwaukee.

Mike Pence and Chris Christie piled on Ramaswamy, who entered the debate as a star on the rise while DeSantis has been sliding in polls. They’ve attacked him on his age and his political inexperience — Pence called Ramaswamy a “rookie,” Christie derided him as an “amateur” — as they look to stop his climb.

And the former federal prosecutor took Ramaswamy, who’s repeatedly pledged to pardon Trump if elected president, to task for defending the former president against the multiple criminal investigations he’s facing.

“You’ve never done anything to try to advance the interests of this government except to put yourself forward as a candidate tonight,” Christie said. “I did it as U.S. attorney, I did it as governor. And I am not going to bow to anyone.”

It all made DeSantis somewhat of an afterthought over the first hour, limiting his screen time and his speaking time.

PENCE’S RIVALS DEFENDED HIM ON JAN. 6: ‘MIKE DID HIS DUTY’

GOP presidential candidates were faced with a key question Wednesday night: Did Pence do the right thing on Jan. 6?

“Absolutely,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said, who was the first candidate to answer the question.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum agreed with Scott, though Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis danced around the question.

 “It’s not about Jan. 6, 2021, it’s about Jan. 20, 2025, when the president is going to take office,” DeSantis said. DeSantis later clarified and said “Mike did his duty. I got no beef with him.”

Pence has defended his actions on Jan. 6 and has said former President Donald Trump “had no right to overturn the election” on Jan. 6.

Pence refused former President Donald Trump’s pressure to overturn President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory when presiding over the certification of the election results.

“I made it clear and hoped that the issues surrounding the 2020 election and the controversies around Jan. 6 would not come to this, come to criminal proceedings,” Pence said. “The American people deserve to know that the president asked me in his request that I reject or return votes. He asked me to put him over the Constitution and I chose the Constitution.”

CANDIDATES CLASH OVER A NATIONAL ABORTION BAN

DeSantis touted signing a six-week abortion ban in Florida — which has yet to take effect, pending a court review — but dodged a direct question on whether he would sign a similar federal ban into law, saying only that he would.

“I will stand on the side of life,” he responded. “I understand Wisconsin will do it different than Texas. I understand Iowa and New Hampshire will do it different. But I will support the cause of life as governor and as president.”

Haley also ducked a direct answer on the question, as she has in the past, arguing that a national ban isn’t likely to garner the needed 60 Senate votes to pass. Instead, she called for narrower legislation.

“Can’t we all agree that we should ban late-term abortions? Can’t we all agree that we should encourage adoptions? Can’t we all agree that doctors and nurses who don’t believe in abortions shouldn’t have to perform them? Can’t we agree that contraception should be available? Can’t we all agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?”

Other candidates jumped in with more direct responses.

Pence and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) voiced support for a national ban, arguing that failing to do so would allow blue states to continue providing abortions.

“We can’t leave it to Illinois. We can’t leave it to Minnesota,” Scott said.

Pence also hit Haley for her answer, calling it “the opposite of leadership.”

Burgum, who signed a 6-week ban in North Dakota, was the sole candidate to come out swinging against a federal ban, saying it would violate the principles of federalism in the Constitution.

It’s notable, as the candidates struggle with how far right they want to go on abortion, that the field in general is to the right of voters in New Hampshire, the first primary state, on the issue. Six in 10 New Hampshire voters opposed overturning Roe v. Wade. More than 70 percent identify as “pro-choice.” The state allows abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions afterward. Candidates tend to downplay or not mention their abortion stances when campaigning in the state. DeSantis, for instance, doesn’t talk about the six-week ban he said in the debate he was “proud” to sign.

HALEY TOUTS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BEING A WOMAN

Nikki Haley was the only woman on the Milwaukee debate stage Wednesday night.

And, within the first half hour of the program, the former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador made sure people knew that — stepping into a spat between former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and biotechnology entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy on climate change.

Haley offered up a riff on a Margaret Thatcher quote, “This is exactly why Margaret Thatcher said, ‘If you want something done, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.’”

Minutes later, Haley fired back at former Vice President Mike Pence for touting that he would sign a 15-week abortion ban into law at the federal level — pointing out that there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to pass such a measure.

“No Republican president can ban abortions any more than a Democrat president can ban all those state laws,” Haley said. “Don’t make women feel like they have to decide on this issue when you know we don’t have 60 Senate votes.”

Haley has been eager to distinguish herself as the only prominent female candidate in a field full of men. GOP voters, however, haven’t been quick to embrace Haley just because of her gender.

“CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX”

GOP candidates during the first Republican debate argued over climate change, with Vivek Ramaswamy calling it a hoax.

“I’m the only candidate on stage who isn’t bought and paid for, so I can say this,” Ramaswamy said, though he caught some shade. “Climate change is a hoax…The reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.”

Ramaswamy’s remarks were booed by the crowd and slammed by former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who compared the entrepreneur to ChatGPT and former President Barack Obama.

The question started when Fox moderator Martha MacCallum asked: “Do you believe in human behavior causing climate change? Raise your hand if you do.”

Before anyone could make a move, Ron DeSantis took the floor.

“We are not schoolchildren. Let’s have the debate,” DeSantis said, before launching into a response bashing Biden and the media.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, meanwhile, called for China and India to cut emissions.

“First of all, we do care about clean air, clean water. We want to see that taken care of, but there is a right way to do it. The right way is first of all, yes, is climate change real? Yes, it is. But if you want to go and really change the environment, we need to start telling China and India that they have to lower their emissions.”

CANDIDATES CLASH OVER THE WAR IN UKRAINE

The GOP divide on Ukraine was on full display during the debate, with Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis saying they would cut off funding to Kyiv while others defended U.S. aid to the embattled nation.

“I find it offensive that we have professional politicians who will make a pilgrimage to Kyiv, to their pope, Zelenskyy, without doing the same for the people in Maui or the south side of Chicago,” he said, referring to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine.

DeSantis was more hedging, saying that he would stop aid to Ukraine unless European governments stepped up to “pull their weight.”

Those calls to stop Ukraine funding earned applause in the room, but were not shared by all candidates. Nikki Haley accused Ramaswamy of wanting to “hand Ukraine to Russia” and “let China eat Taiwan.”

“You are choosing a murderer” over an ally of the U.S., Haley said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I wish you success on your future career on the boards of Lockheed and Raytheon,” Ramaswamy retorted, naming two large U.S. weapons manufacturers.

“You have no foreign policy experience and it shows,” Haley shot back, earning raucous applause in the arena.

HALEY GOES AFTER HER COMPETITORS ON SPENDING

Former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley laid into four of her opponents for raising the national debt during the opening moments of the first GOP presidential debate in Milwaukee on Wednesday.

Haley took aim at former President Donald Trump for adding $8 trillion to the national debt, while also taking shots at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and former Vice President Mike Pence for voting to raise the debt ceiling during their time in Congress.

Republicans, she said, are responsible for the nation’s ailing economy, not President Joe Biden.

“No one is telling the American people the truth. The truth is that Biden didn’t do this to us, our Republicans did this to us too,” Haley said.

Haley pointed to $7.4 billion in earmarks requested by Republicans in the 2024 budget compared to the $2.8 billion asked for by Democrats.

“So you tell me who are the big spenders,” she said. “I think it’s time for an accountant in the White House.”

Haley additionally criticized the passage of the $2.2 trillion Covid-19 stimulus bill, as well as congressional action that required states to keep more than 90 million people continuously enrolled in Medicaid during the pandemic.

The link to the Politico report is here:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/23/first-republican-debate-highlights-00112617

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The August 24 debate between the 8 Republican candidates for President can only be described as a political slugfest between 4 of the candidates who looked liked they were applying to be Trump’s Vice President as they talked and argued and at times yelled at each other. The three candidates who Trump would never likely think about making his running mate given their strong opposition to him are Mike Pence, Chris Christy and Asa Hutchinson.  When it was all said and done, no candidates made a mistake that would end their candidacies.  That does not matter because all  8 of the candidates are so far behind Trump in the Republican polls they might as well concede the election to him right now.

VIVEK RAMASWAMY IS DEBATE WINNER

If one was forced to declare the winner of the debate it was 38 year old businessman and billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy who essentially became the stand in for all things Trump. Ramaswamy is estimated by Forbes Magazine to to be worth at least $950 million and he made his money in “biotechnology” where the company he founded  purchased patents from larger pharmaceutical companies for drugs that had not yet been successfully developed, and then bring them to the market.

Ramaswamy came across brash and confident, much like Trump, and is coming up in Republican polls tying at times with DeSantis. He can be described as Trump without the indictments and crimes but he is genuinely intelligent with a business degree from Harvard and a law degree from Yale law school, that is until he opens his big mouth. Ramaswamy is a vocal supporter and defender of all that is Trump and he  has promised to pardon Trump if elected president. Ramaswamy has also promised to pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, and has called Snowden’s actions “heroic”.

He opposes affirmative action, he opposes teaching critical race theory.   He declares himself as pro-life, and has said, “I think abortion is murder.” He supports state-level six-week abortion bans, with exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the woman’s life, but opposes any kind of federal ban.

Ramaswamy favors raising the standard voting age to 25, which would disenfranchise a portion of the U.S. electorate. Voters under 25 made up nearly 9% of voters in the 2020 general election. Ramaswamy has said he would allow citizens between 18 and 24 to vote only if they are enlisted in the military, work as first responders, or pass the civics test required for naturalization. Ramaswamy supports voter ID laws. Ramaswamy supports making Election Day a federal holiday while eliminating Juneteenth as federal holiday. Ramaswamy called Juneteenth, which celebrates the emancipation of African-Americans from slavery, a “useless” and “made up” holiday, and asserted it was “redundant” to Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Presidents Day.

Ramaswamy claims that climate change is a hoax but has said that he is “not a climate denier” and he accepts that burning fossil fuels causes climate change.  He has said that global climate change as “not entirely bad” and that “people should be proud to live a high-carbon lifestyle”  and that the U.S. should “drill, frack, and burn coal.” He has criticized what he calls the “climate cult” and said that as president, he would “abandon the anticarbon framework as it exists” and halt “any mandate to measure carbon dioxide“.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Ramaswamy#:~:text=Ramaswamy%20claimed%20that,burn%20coal.%22

RAISING A HAND FOR TRUMP

The most memorable event during the debate was when all the candidates were asked if they would support Trump as the party’s nominee even if he was convicted of a crime.  What came as a shock was that  6 of the 8 candidates raised their hands.  Only Christie and Hutchinson indicated  they would not support the former president again.

If that is the case, all 6 of those candidates have essentially conceded the race to Trump. Its a reflection of the strangle hold Trump not only has on the Republican party but as well as the candidates themselves. Not one  of the 8  will win the nomination by trying to “Out Trump – Trump.”  Supporting a convicted felon who said the constitution should be suspended is beyond comprehension. Trump should go ahead and plead guilty to all the charges and just go ahead and campaign for the Republican nomination as a convicted felon, but then again campaigning from a jail cell will be difficult for him.

 

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

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

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

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

31% AGREED TO PAY CUT

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

CAO Rael said this in a statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The links to quoted news source material are here:

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

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

REFORMS ACHIEVED UNDER THE CASA

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

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

Primary Compliance 100%

Secondary Compliance 100% 

Operational Compliance 92% 

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

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

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

COMMENATARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

POLICE UNION PRESIDENT’S EFFORTS TO DISCREDIT REFORMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

WILLOUGBY OWES COURT, MONITOR AND CITY APOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICE UNIONS REAL BEEF WITH THE REFORMS

The police union leadership have said in open court that the mandated reforms under the consent decree are interfering with rank-and-file officer’s ability to perform their job duties. According to Willoughby, police officers are afraid to do their jobs for fear of being investigated, fired or disciplined.

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

FINAL COMMENTARY

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

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

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

___________

POSTSCRIPT

REVISTING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INVESTGATION OF APD

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

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

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

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

REVISTING THE CASA

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

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

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

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

POLICE UNION OBSTRUCTION TACTICS

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

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

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

“Sergeants and lieutenants, at times, go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete” …  Some members of APD continue to resist actively APD’s reform efforts, including using deliberate counter-CASA processes. For example … Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) disciplinary timelines, appear at times to be manipulated by supervisory, management and command levels at the area commands, letting known violations lie dormant until timelines for discipline cannot be met.”

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

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

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

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

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

COURT RULING

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Johnson wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUDGE CITES RICHARDSON PAY TO PLAY SCANDALS

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

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

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

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

SOUR GRAPES FROM PROSECUTOR

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

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

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

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

CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC REVISTED

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

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

The link to the quoted source material is here:

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION INCLUDES REPUBLICANS AS WELL

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

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

DIRTY DOWNS DEAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

TWO OTHER NOTEABLE REPUBLCAN SCANDALS

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

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

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

FINAL COMMENTARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONFLICTING DATA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPPOSITION EMERGES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPLACING HOUSING

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

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

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

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

Griego said this:

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

EDITOR’S COMMENTARY

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

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

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

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

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

Seidel said this:

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

CAPPING SHORT TERM RENTALS OCCURING STATEWIDE

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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