Every 10 years, the City Charter requires that the Council appoint a committee composed of an equal number of representatives from each of the 9 Council District to review and make recommendations regarding redistricting the 9 Council Districts based on information from the Federal Census. The Committee was tasked with using the population data from the official 2020 U.S. Census along with any other pertinent information to make a report recommending changes in the Council District boundaries that the Committee decides are necessary based on constitutional principles governing voting rights, population, compactness and other related factors.

The Committee was made up of 18 members, one voting member and one alternate member from each of the 9 City Council Districts. Research & Polling, the most reliable and accurate polling company in New Mexico and for decades has been help with congressional and legislative redistricting. The firm was hired as consultants and provided the committee with 5 initial Concept Maps, titled Map A through E. In addition, the City and Research & Polling contracted with DistrictR, an online mapping tool that allows the public to submit their own maps with 5 maps submitted by citizens.

CURRENT CITY COUNCIL MAKE UP

After the December 7, 2021 City Council runoff election, the city council is split 5 Democrats to 4 Republicans, but ideology split 5 conservatives to 3 progressives and one moderate. The breakdown by name is as follows:

DEMOCRATS

District 1 Conservative Democrat Louie Sanchez
District 2 Progressive Democrat Isaac Benton
District 3 Moderate Democrat Klarissa Peña
District 6 Progressive Democrat Pat Davis
District 7 Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn

REPUBLICANS

District 5 Conservative Republican Dan Lewis
District 4 Conservative Republican Brook Bassan
District 8 Conservative Republican Trudy Jones
District 9 Conservative Republican Renee Grout

EIGHT MAPS RATED AND RECOMMENDED

On June 29, the Redistricting Committee held its very last meeting and voted to select 8 maps they would rate and recommend to the City Council. The committee voted on a 5 – 4 vote to send all 8 maps to the city council with their recommendation. A final written report was released on July 1. Ultimately, the city council will decide maps it will adopt or reject and for that matter come up with their own map ignoring the recommendations of the committee. The 8 maps are labelled as follows:

Research & Polling Concept Map A,
Research & Polling Concept Map D,
Research & Polling Concept Map E,
Citizen Map 1,
Citizen Map 2,
Citizen Map 3,
Citizen Map 4, and
Citizen Map 5.

On June 29th the Redistricting Committee met for the final time. The committee decided not to settle on a single map but rated and ranked each of the 8 maps. After rating each map, the committee voted to send all 8 maps to the City Council for their consideration and final selection. the Committee rated each of the 8 maps on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 to 4. The rating scale was:

4 – Strongly recommend
3 – Recommend
2 – Neutral/ mixed feelings
1 – Do not recommend
0 – Strongly do not recommend 3

The link to review all 8 redistricting maps is here:

https://documents.cabq.gov/council/2022%20Redistricting%20Report.pdf

On June 29 the Redistricting Committee voted to rate and ranked the maps as follows:

1. Concept Map A scored the highest with a total rating of 24 and an average rating of 2.7.
2. Citizen Map 2 scored the second highest with a total rating of 19 and an average rating of 2.1.
3. Concept Map D scored the third highest with a total rating of 16 and an average rating of 1.8.
4. Citizen Map 1 scored fourth highest with a total rating of 13 and an average rating of 1.4
5. Citizen Map 5 scored fifth highest with a total rating of 12 and an average rating of 1.3
6. Citizen Map 3 scored sixth highest with a total rating of 9 and an average rating of 1.0
7. Concept E map and Citizens Map 4 tied for seventh highest place each with a total rating of 7 and an average rating of 0.8

THE REDISTRICTING MAPS

Following is a detailed description of the 8 redistricting maps, identifying current city councilors, that have been forwarded to the City Council for their review and final selection.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In the interest of clarity, each one of the city council district numbers are followed by the last name of the incumbent city councilor, i.e. District 2 (Benton)

1. Concept Map A

Concept Map A scored the highest with a total rating of 24 and an average rating of 2.7. The objective of this map was a minimal change map to account for population changes and minimize voter confusion. No incumbents are displaced nor paired against each other. The city council districts are identical to current districts with respect to Districts 3 (Peña), 4 (Bassan) and District 9 (Grout). However, District 5 (Lewis) lost population. Its boundary with District 1 (Sanchez) moves north to the bluff south of the Petroglyph Estates. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river between Central and I-40 to Coors taking the West Mesa and Pat Hurley neighborhoods from District 1 (Louie Sanchez). District 6 (Davis) moves west into District 2, (Benton) from Buena Vista to I-25 between Gibson and Lomas. District 6 (Davis) also takes the University West area (including Carrie Tingley Hospital) from District 2 (Benton). District 7 (Fiebelkorn) moves south into District 2 (Benton) from I-40 to Lomas between I-25 and Carlisle not including the University West area. District 8 (Trudy Jones) moves into District 7 (Tammy Fiebelkorn) from Montgomery to Comanche between Wyoming and Eubank.

2. Citizen Map 2

Citizen Map 2 scored the second highest with a total rating of 19 and an average rating of 2.1. Citizen Map 2 stated objective was to decrease the population deviation in District 8. No incumbents are displaced nor paired against each other. Citizen Map 2 is identical to Concept Map A with respect to Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 9. However, District 8 (Jones) moves further south into District 7 (Fiebelkorn) than in Concept A to Candelaria between Wyoming and Eubank.

3. Concept Map D

Concept Map D scored the third highest with a total rating of 16 and an average rating of 1.8. The objective of this map is to provide a different orientation of the eastside districts by creating a foothills district and a far NE Heights district. Two incumbents are paired against each other with incumbents from District 4 (Bassan) and District 8 (Jones) paired in District 8 (Jones). The Concept D map is identical to Concept A with respect to Districts 1, 3, and 5. District 9 (Grout) becomes a Four Hills/foothills district, it follows Juan Tabo to Montgomery and basically goes from Four Hills to El Dorado High School. District 8 (Jones) becomes a far NE Heights district. From the east side of the city, the southern boundary follows Montgomery to Juan Tabo, then follows Spain to Wyoming, up to San Antonio, then follows San Antonio to I-25 then crosses I-25 along Paseo del Norte. District 4 (Bassan) takes everything south of District 8 (Jones) and north of Candelaria between Juan Tabo and I-25 except for the neighborhoods between Comanche and Candelaria and Carlisle and I-25 which go into District 7 (Fiebelkorn). District 7 (Fiebelkorn) mostly takes everything between I-25 and Juan Tabo south of District 4 (Bassan) and north of Lomas. District 7 (Fiebelkorn) does not include University West, which is in District 6 (Davis) and does go south of Lomas to Central between Wyoming and Juan Tabo. District 6 stays mostly south of Lomas except for University West and runs from I-25 in the west to Wyoming in the east. South of Central, District 6 goes to Eubank. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river to Coors between Central and I-40 and stays west of I25. Moves north into District 4 (Bassan) to Paseo del Norte.

4. Citizen Map 1

Citizen Map 1 scored 4th highest with a total rating of 13 and an average rating of 1.4. This map was originally submitted by Scotti Romberg. The stated objective of the map was to achieve city council districts that were more equal in population. No incumbents are displaced nor paired against each other. Citizen map 1 is identical to Concept A map with respect to Districts 3 (Peña), 4 (Bassan), 5 (Lewis), and 6 (Davis). In contrast to Concept A, the West Bluff area north of I-40 and east of Coors moves from District 1 (Sanchez) into District 2 (Benton). Compared to Concept A, District 9 (Grout) moves west into District 7 (Fiebelkorn) moving from Eubank to Easterday Dr between Constitution and I-40. District 8 (Jones) takes two precincts additional from District 7 (Fiebelkorn) between Eubank and Moon and Comanche and Candelaria compared to Concept A

5. CITIZEN MAP 5

Citizen Map 5 scored 5th highest with a total rating of 12 and an average rating of 1.3. Citizen Map 5 was originally “the Fairness for Our Future” map plan. The stated objective of the map is to increase representation for the west side and create an additional majority Hispanic district. Incumbent from District 6 (Davis) and District 7 (Fiebelkorn) are paired against each other in District 7. The incumbent from District 2 is moved to District 6 (Davis). Both City Council Districts 2 (Benton) and 6 (Davis) cross the river to Unser between Central and I-40. District 6 (Davis) takes in Barelas. The other districts are similar to the current alignments.

District 5 (Lewis) is very similar to Concept A. District 1 (Sanchez) moves a little further north into District 5 (Lewis), keeping District 5 (Lewis) on the negative side of the allowable population deviations. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river to Unser between Los Volcanes and I-40 and takes the two West Bluff precincts north of I-40 and east of Coors. District 2 (Benton) stays north of Bell between 2nd and Buena Vista and keeps the Huning Castle neighborhood,but loses the Albuquerque Country Club to District 6 (Davis). District 2 (Benton) crosses I-25 to Carlisle into District 7 (Fiebelcorn) between I-40 and Montgomery. District 6 (Davis) crosses the river to Unser between Central and Los Volcanes. District 6 (Davis) also crosses the river south of Central to the Arenal Main Canal. District 6 (Davis) stays south of Central between Buena Vista and San Mateo and then moves to Lomas between San Mateo and Wyoming. District 9 (Grout) moves west from Eubank to Wyoming south of Menaul. District 9 (Grout) also stays south of Indian School as District 8 moves south. District 8 moves south from Menaul to south of Indian School and east from Eubank to Morris. The boundary between Districts 4 and 8 changes slightly with District 8 moving north into District 4 from San Antonio to San Franciso east of Ventura and District 4 moving east into District 8 from Wyoming to Moon between Academy and Spain. District 4 (Bassan) moves south into District 7 (Fiebelkorn) from Montgomery to Comanche between Carlisle and San Mateo. District 7 (Fiebelkorn) takes UNM and the north campus area from District 6 (Davis). District 7 (Fiebelkorn) moves south of Lomas to Central between UNM and San Mateo. District 7 (Fiebelkorn) curves around District 9 (Grout) to Indian School between Eubank and Morris.

6. CITIZEN MAP 3

Citizen Map 3 scored sixth highest with a total rating of 9 and an average rating of 1.0. This map was originally the Historic COI Revised map. The stated objective of Citizens Map 3 Citizen’s is to place the historic core of Albuquerque into a single district, District 2 (Benton). No incumbents are displaced nor paired against each other. Citizen Map 3 is identical to Concept A with respect to City Council Districts 1 (Sanchez) and 5 (Lewis). Citizen Map 3 is also identical to Citizen Map 1 with respect to Districts 8 (Jones) and 9 (Grout).

Two districts crossing the river – one north of Central to Coors and one south of Central to Atrisco ditch. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river to Coors between Central and I-40 and retains the core of Downtown. District 2 (Benton) crosses I-25 to Girard between Avenida Cesar Chavez and Lomas. Crosses Lomas to take in University West. District 3 (Peña) stays west of the Atrisco ditch south of Central. District 6 (Davis) takes the Huning Castle neighborhood and the part of Barelas south of Anderson. The northern and eastern boundaries of District 6 (Davis) are the same as current boundaries. District 4 (Bassan) moves south into District 2 (Benton) from Montaño to Comanche west of I-25.

Citizen Map 3 is identical to Concept A with respect to Districts 1 (Sanchez) and 5 (Lewis). Citizen Map 3 is also identical to Citizen Map 1 with respect to Districts 8 (Jones) and 9 Grout). Two districts cross the river one north of Central to Coors and one south of Central to Atrisco ditch. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river to Coors between Central and I-40 and retains the core of Downtown. District 2 (Benton) crosses I-25 to Girard between Avenida Cesar Chavez and Lomas. Crosses Lomas to take in University West. District 3 (Peña) stays west of the Atrisco ditch south of Central. District 6 (Davis) takes the Huning Castle neighborhood and the part of Barelas south of Anderson. The northern and eastern boundaries of District 6 (Davis) are the same as current boundaries. District 4 (Bassan) moves south into District 2 (Benton) from Montaño to Comanche west of I-25.

7. CONCEPT E MAP AND CITIZENS MAP 4 TIED FOR SEVENTH

Research and Polling Concept E map and Citizens Map 4 tied for seventh highest place each with a total rating of 7 and an average rating of 0.8. Both these maps have a dramatic effect on splitting up two districts. The Concept E map splits up the downtown area between Districts 2 (Benton) and 6 (Davis). The citizens Map 4 concept map splits up the two mid-heights Districts 6 (Davis) and 7 (Fiebelkorn).

THE CONCEPT E MAP

The Concept E map objective was to redistribute the downtown area between Districts 2 (Benton) and 6 (Davis) . This map has the incumbents from District 2 (Benton) and District 6 (Davis) paired off in District 2 (Benton). The Concept E map is identical to Concept A with respect to Districts 1 (Sanchez) and 5 (Lewis). On the east side of the city, the districts all move a little clockwise so that District 6 (Davis) can come into Barelas and the southern part of downtown. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river to Coors between I-40 and Central and to the ditch south of Central. The southern boundary of District 2 (Benton) stays mostly along Central east of the river. District 2 (Benton) stays west of I-25 north of I-40 and west of Carlisle between I-40 and Central. District 2 (Benton) moves north into District 4 (Bassan) from Montaño to Osuna west of I-25. District 6 (Davis) stays south of Central west of Carlisle and south of Lomas between Carlisle and Wyoming. District 9 (Grout) moves west from Eubank to Wyoming, staying south of Indian School. District 8 (Jones) moves south from Menaul to Indian School and west from Eubank to Wyoming. District 4 (Bassan) moves into District 8 (Jones) taking everything north of Montgomery west of Eubank and Juan Tabo. District 7 (Fiebelkorn) stays west of Wyoming and moves north into District 4 from Montgomery to Academy. District 3 (Peña) stays west of the ditch south of Central.

CITIZEN MAP 4

Citizen Map 4 was originally the citizens map prepared and submitted by Democrats City Councilors Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn. The stated objective of Citizens Map 4 was to “rethink the orientation of the two mid-heights districts 6 (Davis) and 7 (Fieblekorn) without adjusting the other districts. The incumbents from District 6 (Davis) and District 7 (Fiebelkorn) are paired in District 7 (Fiebelcorn). Citizen Map 4 is identical to Citizen Map 2 with respect to Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. City Counsil District 2 (Benton) takes the two precincts north of the Kirtland Addition. Districts 6 (Davis) and 7 (Fiebelkorn) take on a vertical rather than horizontal orientation. District 6 (Davis) takes everything south of Menaul between San Mateo and Eubank as well as the neighborhoods between Candelaria and Menaul between Louisiana and Eubank. District 7 (Feibelcorn) stays south of Montgomery, east of I-25 and mostly west of San Mateo.

PRINCIPLES OF REDISTRICTING OUTLINED

The City Council Resolution creating the 2022 Redistricting Committee gave specific guideline rules the committee was to follow when considering district boundaries. According to the Council Resolution, City council Districts are to be contiguous, relatively compact with as few geographic extremes as possible, attempt to preserve communities of interest, adhere to existing precinct lines, except where divided by municipal boundaries, and follow Constitutional principles governing voting rights. Further, the City Council redistricting committee were allowed to preserve the core of existing districts and consider the residence of incumbents. However, the committee was not to use partisan election data or registration data in designing redistricting maps.

The City Council Redistricting Committee was required to follow 5 major principles for redistricting. Those principles were as follows:

1. Population Equality

Districts shall be substantially equal in population accordance with the principle of “one person – one vote” as defined by law and case law. For the City of Albuquerque, districts shall not deviate from the ideal population by more than 5 percent. The ideal population of each city council district is defined by dividing the total population of the City by nine city council districts.

2. Minority Voting Rights

Districts will be designed to provide appropriate participation in the electoral process for protected racial and ethnic groups in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, federal voting rights legislation and case law. It is important to avoid diluting minority voting strength, however, pursuant to United States Supreme Court decisions, race shall not be the predominant consideration in the creation of election districts.

3. Compactness

Districts will be created which are not bizarre in shape. Compactness of a district is sometimes affected by irregular outer boundaries of a jurisdiction. While there are many measures of compactness, no single measure has been accepted as the most appropriate to use.

4. Contiguity:

Each district will be contiguous, that is, each district will be made up of one district part, not two or more separated from the rest of the district by another.

5. Communities of Interest

Districts will be designed, if possible, to respect communities of interest. Communities of interest which may be considered include but are not limited to maintaining the core of existing districts; location of incumbents (i.e. keeping current elected officials unpaired in the new districts); physical features; neighborhoods; cultural/historical traditions; and precincts. However, accounting for communities of interest is subordinate to maintaining population equality, contiguity, and preserving minority voting rights.

2020 CENSUS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS

From the 2010 Census to the 2020 Census, the City of Albuquerque grew by 3.4%. However, this growth was not distributed evenly through the City, resulting in the population deviation of some districts exceeding the ideal population by more than +/- 5%, the maximum allowable by state law.

The districts that had a population deviation of greater than +/-5% are District 5 (Lewis) (+15.9%), District 6 (Davis) (-7.1%), and District 8 (Jones) (-8.2%). Therefore, at a minimum, District 5 (Lewis) needs to lose population, and both Districts 6 (Davis) and 8 (Jones) need to gain population.

While some districts currently fall within the allowable deviation range, they could be impacted by the ripple effect of modifying the districts that do need to change. Additionally, there are currently three wholly contained city council districts west of the Rio Grande. Combined, these three westside districts exceed the ideal population by approximately 14,500 people. This is about a quarter of a district. Thus, the westside districts need to shed a significant amount of population to a district crossing over from east of the Rio Grande.

The link to the final 2022 City Council redistricting report that also contains current and proposed City Council District Maps is here:

https://documents.cabq.gov/council/2022%20Redistricting%20Report.pdf

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Now that the redistricting committee has done its work, it is up to the City Council to decide what to do and what concept map to adopt or for that matter draw their own concept map if they want. The council is on summer break for the month of July and will likely decide in September what to do with redistricting. The City Council is under no legal obligation to adopt any one of the 8 maps and conceivably reject all 8 maps and start from scratch and ignore the rankings.

It is easy to see how the redistricting of all 9 City Council Districts could affect the balance of power on the City Council with one or more District becoming a swing District. With that point in mind, Concept Map A, appears the one concept map that will maintain the status quo.

Two others have the potential of creating more than one swing district, with one on the west side or one in the southeast area of the city. Concept Map 3 has two districts crossing the river, one North of Central to Coors and one South of Central to Atrisco ditch. Citizen Map 5 also makes a great effort to create a Hispanic majority district.

Citizen Map 4 was originally the citizens map prepared and submitted by city Councilors Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn. There is little doubt that Davis/Fiebelkorn concept map is the most radical map of all the 7 maps under consideration. All 7 other maps make adjustments that are very minor in comparison and essentially “tweaks” the existing Districts, respecting the existing borders and neighborhoods and communities.

The one map that should be rejected without question is the Davis/Fiebelkorn Citizen redistricting Map 4 and it can only be considered an abomination. It is a prime example of gerrymandering at its very worse designed to protect newly elected incumbent Tammy Fiebelkorn while the departing city councilor Pat Davis thumbs his nose at his own City Council District 6.

City Councilor Pat Davis is nothing but the hypocrite he is when he says:

“I think we should have some different voices on the City Council. … If you look at it now, the entire east side of the city is represented by white folks, and I think that shows the current districting is leaving some people out of the process.”

Tammy Fiebelkorn is also being a hypocrite and opportunistic to say after a mere 5 months in office:

“One of the baselines of redistricting is that we find ways to make marginalized communities have a voice. … [and give] large, culturally significant populations [a more united voice on the council].”

Pat Davis may want to look into a mirror at himself and while he is at it tell Tammy Fiebelkorn that she is not a woman of color. They are both one of those “white folks” that Davis complains about. Both pretend to know what “marginalized communities” are as they essentially stick their noses into minority issues when they both can be considered “white privilege”.

Fiebelkorn is not talking about her own district when she says she wants to help the marginalized, ostensibly meaning minorities. She is referring to the International District, an area of the city she thinks she knows what is needed as far as representation on the city council is concerned, but an area she does not want to be included in her new, realigned district.

City Councilor Fiebelkorn does not currently represent the Nob Hill area, yet she is now advocating just that by cutting out a large portion of her existing district while ignoring those she currently is supposed to be representing. Fiebelkorn wants to “raid” District 6 and absorb the highly progressive Nob Hill area, knowing full well it will increase her own reelection chances.

It is not at all difficult to figure out what progressive Democrats Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn are up to. It is more likely than not that Pat Davis has already decided not to run for another term and he now sees the opportunity to help his progressive ally on the city council Tammy Fiebelkorn. Given her performance on the City Council thus far, it is hoped she will be a one term city councilor.

On June 3, Tammy Fiebelkorn said in an email:

“I have active dialogue with D7 constituents all the time and work with them on a variety of projects.”

Fiebelkorn has been in office a mere 5 months. Confidential sources have said what she has actually done since taking office 5 months ago is meet with her progressive supporters, especially those who are animal rights activists, has attended one Neighborhood Association meeting and meets with and listens to and takes direction from progressive Democrat City Councilor Pat Davis.

The dynamic duo of Fiebelkorn and Davis have come up with a City Council redistricting map that amounts to nothing more than a “political movida” to increase Fiebelkorn’s progressive base. The dramatic border revisions proposed by Councilors Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn will have a direct and negative impact on the International District and Nob Hill and the entire District 7 she represents.

The City Council is currently on summer break and will not reconvene until the August 1 or August 8. Registered voters are encouraged to go to the city web page and review all 8 City

CONTACT YOUR CITY COUNCILOR

The voting public needs review all the redistricting maps make their opinions known about the proposed redistricting maps. Otherwise, the council will vote and it will be 10 years before the public can make thier opinions known.

The email address to each City Councilor and the Director of Counsel services are as follows:

lesanchez@cabq.gov
louiesanchez@allstate.com
ibenton@cabq.gov
kpena@cabq.gov
bbassan@cabq.gov
danlewis@cabq.gov
LEWISABQ@GMAIL.COM
patdavis@cabq.gov
tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov
trudyjones@cabq.gov
rgrout@cabq.gov
cmelendrez@cabq.gov

On July 1, it was reported that APD Lieutenant Jim Edison who was fired in November 2021 for overtime pay abuse has been reinstated by the city at the same rank pursuant to a settlement reach between Edison and the City. Edison had been with the department for 14 years. He was terminated after an Internal Affairs investigations found he had claimed more overtime hours than he had worked, that he lied to investigators and that he retaliated against the supervisor who initiated the investigation into his conduct. Edison appealed his termination by APD alleging he did nothing wrong and that he was entitled to the overtime claimed and paid.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2513251/apd-lieutenant-fired-in-scandal-reinstated-ex-accusations-of-overtim.html

EDISON’S TRANSFER

Lieutenant Jim Edison’s alleged overtime pay abuse dates back to early 2020 during the first days of the pandemic. At the time, he was transferred to the Chief’s Office to head up APD’s COVID-19 response. Edison was responsible for coordinating testing, contact tracing, pandemic-related stats, emails and phone calls. Edison’s job in the Chief’s Office was primarily administrative desk work. When he was transferred to the Homeland Security Division, his new commander raised questions about the hours he was claiming.

KRQE NEWS 13 INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

According to a March 14, 2021, KRQE 13 Investigative Report, over the course of one year, Lieutenant Jim Edison was paid $242,758 which consisted of a base pay and overtime pay. To put this staggering amount into perspective, hourly based pay for APD Lieutenants in 2020 and 2021 was $40 an hour or $83,200 a year. In other words, Edison was paid $159,558 in overtime in addition to his $83,200 base pay resulting in $242,758 paid in the one year reviewed. Edison was paid $186,944 in 2020 and $173,672 in 2021. In 2020, more than $95,000 was paid in overtime.

Edison was paid upwards of 3 times his base pay all because of overtime which is paid at the rate of time and a half. KRQE reported that in order for Lieutenant Jim Edison to be paid $242,758 yearly figure in 2021, Edison “cheated” on his overtime pay claims every day for a full year. Even though Edison’s overtime pay claims violated APD personnel rules and regulations, APD’s top command staff in the chief’s office failed to oversee it and approved it without any questions.

APD CALL OUT TIME

According to payroll records reviewed by KRQ, on a daily basis, including weekends, Edison claimed thousands of hours in “call-out overtime”. APD policy on “call-out overtime” is that it is paid to off-duty officers who are called back to work outside their regular shift. For example, if there is homicide call out, the Homicide Detective who goes to the crime scene is paid time and a half for reporting to duty in the middle of the night.

Whenever Edison was off-duty and forwarded a voicemail to someone else, Lieutenant Jim Edison claimed two hours of call-out overtime. Records reflect that it was not uncommon for Lieutenant Jim Edison to send emails at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. and then claim call-out overtime.

Examples of Edison’s overtime pay claims that were found by reviewing payroll records are as follows:

January 8, 2021: Edison went to Lowes to “pick up supplies” and claimed an hour call-out overtime.

January 13, 2021: Edison put in for a half-hour of overtime to investigate who parked in a deputy chief’s parking place.

January 16, 2021: Edison claimed 12 hours in time and a half call-back overtime for making phone calls and sending emails from his home on his day off.

January 22, 2021: Edison documented 7 minutes of off-duty work and claimed 8 hours overtime.

January 31, 2021: On his day off, Edison accounted for 22 minutes of work and then claimed 10 hours and 30 minutes call-out overtime.

February 2, 2021: Before work, Edison emailed a routine spreadsheet to a Deputy Chief and put in for two hours call-out overtime.

From April 2020 to April 2021, Edison claimed $132,964 in questionable overtime payments. Whenever Edison was off-duty and forwarded a voicemail to someone else, he claimed 2 hours of call-out overtime. It was not uncommon for Edison to send an email at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. and then claim call-out overtime.

The link to the entire KRQE investigative report is here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/larry-barker/worst-ive-seen-apd-overtime-scandal-uncovered/?fbclid=IwAR2TIlXiLXq-846jXOXDUDGq5Yi59yUVGkaiGMJWrc4A0eRKVX6acvV__Qg

A link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/03/21/another-day-another-apd-overtime-dollar-scandal-apd-lieutenant-paid-159558-in-overtime-in-2021-400000-overtime-paid-to-4-sworn-in-2020-initiate-civil-collections-criminal-time-card-fraud-act/

WHAT THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION FOUND

The Internal Affairs investigation found that Lieutenant Jim Edison was frequently claiming 2 hours or more of overtime for any task he did outside of work hours. An example given is that he would send a master spreadsheet of COVID-19 numbers to his supervisor every morning around 3 a.m. and claim two hours of overtime when the actual time worked was routinely under half an hour. The Internal Affairs investigator concluded that “overall, Lt. Edison could have combined work or completed [his work] during his shift to cut down on overtime.”

The Internal Affairs investigation found that:

“the department failed to adequately re-address and supervise Lt. Edison’s behavior in January 2021 and February 2021, which allowed Lt. Edison to continue to violate the same and additional policy violations.”

Internal Affairs also found that Deputy Chief Michael Smathers failed to ensure Edison was correctly coding his overtime hours and failed to identify that what he was claiming was not within department policy. Smathers received an 8-hour suspension and a letter of reprimand.

CITY SETTLEMENT TERMS WITH EDISON

Edison appealed his termination and reached a settlement agreement with the city in May. Edison’s private Attorney Tim White said Edison was reinstated and has been assigned to the Aviation Department.

Edison threatened to file a lawsuit against the city for wrongful discharge and retaliation based on alleged violations of his civil rights and the New Mexico Whistleblower Protection Act.

The major terms of the settlement agreement negotiated with the city include the following:

1. The city agreed to withdrew its decision to terminate Edison and removed the discipline from his record.

2. Although Edison returned to the department as a lieutenant, he agreed to “self-demote” in the next several months and undergo an audit of his previous pay records to determine whether he was overpaid. No later than November 18 Edison will “voluntarily and irrevocably demote to the rank of sergeant or to patrol officer” and he will not be eligible for any promotions.

3. Instead of the 120-hour and 80-hour suspension he was initially handed, Edison will serve a 96-hour suspension with 16 hours held in abeyance for six months as long as he isn’t subject to further discipline.

4. The city agreed to pay all of Edison’s his back pay since the date of his termination and will pay Edison an additional $20,000. At the time of his termination Edison was paid $40 an hour or $83,200 a year. According to the city’s transparency portal, Edison is now making $43.20 per hour and has earned more than $50,000 so far this year which includes his back pay.

5. The city will conduct an independent audit of Edison’s pay records from February 2020 through May 21, 2021, and “determine whether his claims for overtime were consistent with the law.” If the audit determines Edison was overpaid “the city will first confer with employee for reimbursement and may thereafter pursue collection of overpaid amounts through appropriate judicial process.” If the audit finds that Edison was underpaid, he will be paid as required by the CBA.

6. Edison “retains all rights to deny audit findings and to oppose reimbursement for any reason.”

7. Edison denies he committed any misconduct, and the city denies all allegations he had raised against it.

The link to the quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2513251/apd-lieutenant-fired-in-scandal-reinstated-ex-accusations-of-overtim.html

TWO SEPRATE COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED

An anonymous complaint to Albuquerque’s Civilian Police Oversight Agency (CPOA) launched an Internal Affairs investigation into Lieutenant Jim Edison’s overtime pay abuse. The CPOA investigator concluded Lieutenant Jim Edison violated rules, regulations and codes of conduct by cheating on his overtime. He was handed a two-week suspension.

Despite APD’s investigation, Edison continued to misrepresent overtime on his timesheets which led to a second Internal Affairs investigation. Edison’s supervisor was Deputy Chief Mike Smathers. Even though Edison’s daily overtime clearly violated APD policy, Deputy Chief Smathers never questioned the overtime work claimed by Edison on his timesheet and routinely approved his time on the department’s payroll system.

The Internal Affairs Investigator concluded Deputy Chief Smathers violated multiple rules and regulations by failing to review Edison’s timesheets. Smathers received a one-day suspension for his conduct as a result of the civilian police oversight agency investigation.

In a second Internal Affairs probe, the Investigator concluded Smathers violated APD rules and policy a second time by failing to review Lt. Edison’s timesheets. According to internal affairs Detective Anastacio Zamora:

“There is no evidence Deputy Chief Smathers conducted any follow-up with anyone [except Lt. Edison] to ensure things were done correctly.”

Deputy Chief Smathers was given a written reprimand for his role in the Internal Affairs case. Albuquerque’s Superintendent for Police Reform, Sylvester Stanley, who retired after 8 months on the job, made the final decision to discipline Deputy Chief Smathers.
APD Police Chief Harold Medina bent over backwards to defend Deputy Chief Smathers saying the one-day suspension was appropriate. Medina had this to say:

“Up here on the fifth floor of the Police Department, the executive staff, we’re so busy that to go through the fine details of looking through somebody’s timesheets is not something that we’re going to be carving out time for. … Jim Edison deceived Deputy Chief Smathers and Deputy Chief Smathers took accountability for that and was disciplined.

The biggest thing that Deputy Chief Smathers did wrong is he had faith and belief in Jim Edison. Jim Edison betrayed that trust. And it’s very difficult for me to paint a negative brush on Deputy Chief Smathers for being a good leader, respecting his people, listening to his people and believing in his people.”

https://www.krqe.com/news/larry-barker/worst-ive-seen-apd-overtime-scandal-uncovered/?fbclid=IwAR2TIlXiLXq-846jXOXDUDGq5Yi59yUVGkaiGMJWrc4A0eRKVX6acvV__Qg

POLICE UNION CONTRACT PROVISIONS OF OVERTIME PAY

In October 2021 Lieutenant Jim Edison was fired, not for overtime pay abuse, but for retaliation against the supervisor who had turned him in for his overtime pay abuse. After Edison was terminated for retaliation against a supervisor, Chief Harold Medina said that Edison “wasn’t exactly breaking the law” when it came to the overtime claimed and paid and that he was taking advantage of the union collective bargaining contract.

Under the police union contract, sworn police are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half of their regular straight-time rate when they perform work in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek. Time worked over 40 hours per week is compensated at time and a half of the officer’s regular rate of pay or in the form of “compensatory time.” Compensatory time is the award of hours as already worked to be paid and is calculated at the rate of 1-1/2 times the hours actually worked. The maximum accrual of comp time for any officer is 150 hours.

Following is the exact language of the police union contract:

“3.2 Overtime
…

3.2.1 Employees shall be entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half their regular straight-time rate when they perform work in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek.

3.2.1.1 The workweek shall consist of seven (7) consecutive days beginning at 0001 each Saturday, or the tour starting the nearest to that time.

3.2.1.2 The workday will be any regularly scheduled, consecutive twenty-four-hour period beginning at the start of the employees regularly assigned shift.

3.2.1.3 In accordance with Subsection 2.5 (FLSA) of this Agreement, the workdays, days off and start times of the shifts will be fixed and will not vary from week to week. The bid will include a variety of work schedules for the four (4) day workweek. A number of work schedules will include a schedule of one (1) start time for two (2) days and another start time for the other two (2) days. Additionally, a number of the schedules will include a schedule of one start time for three (3) days and another time for the other day.
…

3.3.1 Time worked over 40 hours per week will be compensated at 1-1/2 times the officer’s regular rate of pay, or in the form of compensatory time. Compensatory time will be computed at the rate of 1-1/2 times the hours actually worked. The maximum accrual of comp time for any officer, including Aviation Police, is 150 hours.

3.3.2 Upon separation of employment from the Albuquerque Police Department and Aviation, an officer is limited to cash-out of no more than forty (40) hours of unused comp time at straight time pay. Any accrual of comp time over forty (40) hours must be used 6 months prior to separation.

… .”

The 48 page APOA police “Collective Bargaining Agreement” (CBA) with a 3 page addendum can be down loaded as a PDF file at this link:

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

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT UNDER POLICE UNION CONTRACT

On December 30, 2021, the Mayor Tim Keller Administration signed off on a collective bargaining agreement with the Albuquerque Police Officers Association (APOA) for the time period of effective January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. The collective bargaining agreement is identical in terms and conditions to the expired contract except as to pay rates.

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

1.3. Recognition

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

1.3.2. The City of Albuquerque extends to the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association representing such unit of employees the following rights:

1.3.2.1 To represent the employees in negotiations and in the settlement of grievances.

1.3.2.3 To exclusive representation status during the term of this agreement as provided in the Employee Relations Ordinance.
… .

Term of the Agreement, This Agreement shall become effective on the first full pay period following ratification by the rank-and-file membership, approval by the Mayor, and signature by the parties, and shall remain in full force and effect through June 30, 2020.”

The link to the “Collective Bargaining Agreement” can be downloaded as a PDF file at this link:

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

Note that paragraph 1.3.1 of the union contract provides that APD sergeants and lieutenants, although management, are allowed to be members of the police union. Under the police union contract, they are required to work a 40-hour work week and are then paid time and a half for all time reportedly worked over their 40-hour work week hours. Overtime pay must be approved in writing by supervising personnel and in advance where possible.

The collective bargaining agreement between the city and the police union includes patrol officers, detectives, sergeants and lieutenants provides that when officers are called into work outside of regular hours they are guaranteed pay for a minimum of two hours at the rate of time and a half.

POLICE UNION CONTRACT VIOLATES NEW MEXICO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES BARGAINING ACT

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

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

The link to the statute is here:

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

Simply put, the provision of the APD police union contract that provides that the Albuquerque Police Officers association is the exclusive representative for regular full time, non-probationary police officers through the rank of Lieutenants in the APD violates the provision of New Mexico Collective Bargaining Act that provides that public employee, other than management employees … may form, join or assist a labor organization. APD Sergeants and Lieutenants by their very definitions, duties and responsibilities are management positions, yet they are allowed to be part of the police union that represents them during union contract negotiation and in the settlement of grievances meaning personnel disciplinary actions.

Approximately 16 years ago, then APD police captains were allowed to join the police union and that was deemed as unacceptable in that they were management. The positions of Captain were reclassified and re named Commanders and were excluded from union membership and further made at will positions. The biggest rational for no longer allowing Captains nor Commanders from being members of the union is that they are management, and inherent conflict of interests exists when management is allowed to be part of the union.

SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT RELEASED

On Friday, August 6, 2021, a long-awaited special audit report on overtime abuse by the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) was released by the New Mexico State Auditor. The 64-page audit covered the time period of January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020. According to the audit, it was the 7th audit performed on APD overtime practices since 2014. The prior 6 audits resulted in 17 findings and recommendation made.

The audit reported that there was an absolute failure to carry out and implement the changes needed to solve the overtime problem. The audits further identify that certain APD police union contract terms and conditions violated the Federal Labor Fair Standards act and that the union contract has contributed significantly to the overtime pay abuse by rank-and-file police officers.

The link to the entire 64-page audit report is here:

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

LIETENANT JIM EDISON FOLLOWS IN THE FOOTSTEPS APD SPOKESMAN SIMON DROBIK AND MANY OTHERS

The overtime pay scandal involving Lieutenant Jim Edison is a repeat of what happened a mere two years ago, except then it involved APD Public Information Officer Simon Drobik. On Friday, April 12, 2019, it was reported that the APD Civilian Police Oversight (CPO) Agency recommended the dismissal of APD Master Police Officer 1st Class and Public Information Officer Simon Drobik as well as his former supervisor for overtime pay abuse.

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

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

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

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

Excessive overtime billing has been a persistent problem at APD. Since 2014, seven audits or investigations have examined the issue and found deficiencies in the way the city tracks overtime and corrects officers who may be taking advantage of the system.

LISTING OF 250 TOP PAID CITY HALL EMPLOYEES

Edison and Dolbrik are not the only one who have learned to double and even triple their yearly pay with time and a half overtime. At the beginning of each calendar year, City Hall releases the top 250 wage earners for the previous year. The list of 250 top city hall wages earners is what is paid for the full calendar year of January 1, to December 31 of any given year.

Review of the 2019, 2020 and 2021 city hall 250 highest paid wage earnings reveals the extent of the staggering amount of overtime paid to APD Sergeants and Lieutenants. The lopsided number of APD sworn police officers listed in the top 250 paid city hall employees is directly attributed to the excessive amount of overtime paid to sworn police officers.

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

Police officers first class, senior police officer’s 1st class, master police officers 1st class, sergeants and lieutenant are all members of the APD police union. They are classified employees and can only be terminated for cause. The amounts paid are two and a half times and at times 3 times more than their base yearly hourly pay primarily because of overtime pay which has been the subject of abuse and scandal in the past, including timecard fraud.

All patrol officer positions, and the positions of sergeant and lieutenants are classified employees, meaning not at will employees, and are permitted to be part of the police union and as such are paid time and a half for overtime worked under the union contract.

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

2019

In 2019, there were 70 APD patrol officers first class, master, senior in the list of 250 top paid employees in 2019 earning pay ranging from $108,167 to $188,844. Hourly pay rate for Patrol Officers was $29.00 an hour to $31.50 an hour depending upon years of experience.

In 2019, there were 32 APD Sergeants in the list of 250 top paid employees earning pay ranging from $109,292 to $193,666. Hourly pay rate for APD Sergeants was at the time $35 an hour, or $72,800 a year. In 2019, there were 32 APD Lieutenants in the list of 250 top paid employees earning pay ranging from $108,031 to $164,722. Hourly pay rate for APD Lieutenants was at the time $40.00 an hour or $83,200 yearly.

2020

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

The link to a related blog article is here:

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

2021

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

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

The 6-figure compensation being paid to sworn police can be attributed directly to “overtime” paid. There are nearly a dozen different types of overtime programs within APD. The categories where APD Officers can earn overtime include holiday work, tac-plan initiatives, training, call outs, calls for service, special events, administrative work, investigations, and court appearances. DWI check points and special events like the Balloon Fiesta and security detail for high profile dignitary visits are all events that require an extensive amount of overtime. The police union contract entitles a police officer to be paid “time and a half” when overtime is worked on any given day or week and has a mandatory 2-hour minimum overtime charge for court appearances even if less time is worked.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Police officers earning excessive overtime is nothing new. It has been going on for years and is very common knowledge. From a personnel management standpoint, when you have a select few that are taking home the lion’s share of overtime, it causes moral problems with the rest. Excessive overtime paid is a red flag for abuse of the system, mismanagement of police resources or the lack of personnel.

During the last 10 years, the Albuquerque Police Department has consistently gone over its overtime budget by millions. In fiscal year 2016, APD was funded for $9 million for over time but APD actually spent $13 million. A March 2017 city internal audit of APD’s overtime spending found police officers taking advantage of a system that allows them to accumulate excessive overtime at the expense of other city departments.

A city internal audit report released in March 2017 revealed that the Albuquerque Police Department spent over $3.9 million over its $9 million “overtime” budget. For the last 3 years, APD has exceeded its overtime budget by as much as $4 million or more each year. In 2019, APD spent $11.5 million paying sworn police overtime when the budget was $9 million.

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

RESTRUCTURE 40 HOUR APD PAY SYSTEM TO SALARY PAY SYSTEM

As an alternative to paying overtime and longevity bonus, the City should do away with APD hourly wage and time and a half for overtime for sworn police and implement a salary structure based strictly on steps and years of service. A complete restructuring of the existing APD 40-hour work week and hourly wage system needs to be implemented.

A base pay salary system should be implemented for all APD sworn personnel. A base salary system with step increases for length of service should be implemented. The longevity bonus pay would be eliminated and built into the salary structure. Mandatory shift time to work would remain the same, but if more time is needed to complete a workload or assignments for the day, the salaried employee works it for the same salary with no overtime paid and a modification of shift times for court appearances.

REMOVE LIEUTENANTS AND SERGEANTS FROM UNION

APD Lieutenants and Sergeants, and Patrol Officers are all are “classified” positions and can only be terminated for cause. APD Lieutenants and Sergeants are included in the police collective bargaining unit. Any and all disciplinary actions taken against APD Lieutenants and Sergeants are governed by the union contract. They have “due process rights” including progressive disciplinary actions and rights of appeal.

APD Lieutenants and Sergeants are on the front-line management that oversee those officers who serve under their command. APD Lieutenants and Sergeants are primarily responsible for making sure that all Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) are followed and further it is they that must review and approve overtime. The excessive overtime paid over the years to rank and file police is a reflection of Lieutenants and Sergeants not doing their jobs of oversight and prevention of overtime abuse.

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

Simply put, under the New Mexico collective bargaining act, APD Sergeants and Lieutenants are public management employees, and they should be prohibited from joining the police union. Its Labor Law 101 that federal law prohibits management from joining unions. Simply put the police union contract violates state law when it allows the management positions of Lieutenants and Sergeants to be part of the union.

APD Lieutenants and Sergeants need to be removed from the collective bargaining unit and made at will employees and paid yearly salaries and not hourly pay. This is essential from a management standpoint so that they can be held accountable for failure to act and failure to oversee those they are responsible for and not become part of the problem. There is a built-in conflict with Lieutenants and Sergeants being part of the union and being torn between management policies and procedures and union priorities that are a complete opposite to management priorities.

CITY HALL FOLDS LIKE CHEAP SUITE

City and State Audits are worthless and an exercise in futility unless they are relied upon to take aggressive follow up action. The overtime gaming system by APD sworn personnel must be stopped, but that will never happen unless and until city hall and the mayor’s office takes it seriously. All too often City Hall folds like a cheap suite by terminating an employee for violation of personnel rules and regulations, as is the case with overtime pay abuses, only to turn around months later to reinstate and pay backpay wages when the employee appeals a termination.

Despite all the city and state audits on APD overtime pay abuses and extensive findings of fraudulent conduct, not once has the city ever initiated civil collection actions to recover fraudulent overtime paid. At a bare minimum, the City Attorney needs make demand for reimbursement of the pay or initiate civil collection action for reimbursement of overtime paid that can be proven as fraudulent.

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

The fact that criminal action is never brought by prosecutors for timecard fraud gives a sense of security to city employees and allows them to ignore personnel rules and regulations and to commit overtime pay card fraud. One guaranteed way of stopping anyone within APD from gaming the system is to abolish the existing system of overtime pay. Until the APD salary structure is changed, APD will always have sergeants and lieutenants making two, three and even four times their base salary.

ENACT CHANGES TO CITY PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS

The Keller Administration and the City Council need to act and take steps to remove Lieutenants and Sergeants from the police bargaining unit. They need to be made “at will employees” in order to conform with state law and federal law that prohibits management from joining the police union. The Albuquerque City Council can enact a resolution that states it is city policy that Lieutenants and sergeants are management positions and under state law are not permitted to join a union. Otherwise, overtime pay abuse and gaming of the overtime pay will continue as it has for so many years.

___________________

POSTSCRIPT

On July 6 the Albuquerque Journal published the following editorial:

Editorial headline: Rehiring troubled Lt. raises APD union issues

BY ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD
PUBLISHED: WEDNESDAY, JULY 6TH, 2022 AT 12:02AM
UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, JULY 6TH, 2022 AT 12:15AM

There are multiple reasons lieutenants (and sergeants) shouldn’t be in the union that represents APD to the city.

One example is Lt. Jim Edison.

Edison, fired in mid-November after internal investigations found he claimed more overtime hours than he worked, is back on the force. As a leader, he should be setting an example for other officers and held to a higher standard.

Instead, it appears he gamed the city’s collective bargaining agreement like few others, raking in a whopping $224,000 from April 2020 to April 2021. That followed $173,672 in 2021 and $186,944 in 2020. His regular pay is $43.20/hour.

Once discovered, an APD spokesman said Edison was untruthful about his OT and retaliated against the supervisor who initiated the investigation.

Edison did not go quietly as a member of the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association. He appealed his termination, reached a settlement agreement with the city in May and is now working in APD’s Aviation Department. Chief Harold Medina says Edison “wasn’t exactly breaking the law; he was taking advantage of the CBA.” Union membership does have its privileges.

City Councilor Louie Sanchez, a former APD officer, has asked how an APD lieutenant with 14 years of experience can be trusted to enforce the law and testify truthfully in court when he cannot truthfully fill out a time sheet? We would add how can he be trusted to mold younger officers, set a tone for accountability and help lead the department?

Edison did a huge disservice to the majority of APD pros who obey and enforce the letter of the law — rank and file, as well as the brass.

He should not be able to use the union contract to cover his tracks and stay on the force. It’s a long-simmering issue the city needs to revisit when the CBA — which represents officers, lieutenants and sergeants — comes up for renegotiation.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2513907/rehiring-troubled-lt-raises-apd-union-issues.html

On Friday, July 20, 2018, Santa Fe District Court Judge Sarah Singleton ruled in the case that the state of New Mexico violated the constitutional rights of at-risk students by failing to provide them with a sufficient education. The consolidated lawsuit was filed by the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. The Plaintiffs argued that the New Mexico public schools are inadequately funded.

The Court ruling centered on the guaranteed right under the New Mexico Constitution to a sufficient education for all children. The lawsuit alleged a severe lack of state funding, resources and services to help students, particularly children from low-income families, students of color, including Native Americans, English-language learners and students with disabilities.

REPORT FROM YAZZIE-MARTINEZ COUNCIL

In the 2019-2020 school year, the Albuquerque Public School System (APS) formed the Yazzie-Martinez Council to deal with implementation of the public education mandates of the Yazzie-Martinez consolidated lawsuit. The council includes parents, some students and instructors. Half of the council must be made up of people who represent the communities of students identified in the Yazzie-Martinez lawsuit.

The panel told the APD board that during the coming semester, the council said it hopes to integrate its members into standing district committees and departments, including curriculum and instruction, special education, and the Indian Parent Committee. The goal of the panel is pave the way for systemic change in the district by providing research and advice on key issues.

On June 8, the Yazzie-Martinez Council updated the APS board on the input it has had during an instruction and accountability meeting. It was reported that the council has been involved with several APS projects, including its strategic framework, federal funding applications, assessing needs for Native American students, and coming into compliance with New Mexico’s Black Education and Crown acts from last year.

New Mexico’s Crown Act prevents school districts from discriminating against students for hairstyles or headdresses based on race or culture. Earlier in the week, the school board discussed possible changes to APS policy for discipline and dress code.

Other district initiatives were discussed. APS is anticipating it will receive over $75.5 million in at-risk funding during the coming fiscal year.

Chief of Schools Yvonne Garcia said the council’s goals include bolstering its numbers in the coming months and told the APS Board that its struggling with membership. She said that that the council will give “ongoing feedback, and not just when things get large.”

Progress was reported in a few of the areas. However, it was reported that New Mexico still has a way to go before the needs of “at risk” students are fully met.

YAZZIE-MARTINEZ ACTION PLAN DISCUSSED

On June 8, the APS School Board held discussions on the New Mexico Public Education Department’s draft action plan on the Yazzie-Martinez lawsuit. A few board members expressed concern about the draft’s career-planning component’. APS Board members said more needed to be done to encourage a diverse array of students into college-bound tracks and vocational paths.

APS Board President Yolanda Montoya-Cordova said this:

“Where I feel the plan falls really flat is really around the career education and career-planning piece. They just tell schools to do it – ‘just do it.’ … I don’t feel that there’s really a strong vision or cohesion around that whole concept.”

APS Board Member Josefina Domínguez chimed in and said this:

“I also think we need to police ourselves very carefully about who gets encouraged to do a non-college path, because history can very easily … repeat itself.”

Superintendent Scott Elder has said that the new language in APS policies was part of “(creating) an environment where … all students feel comfortable and welcome.”
Spokeswoman Monica Armenta said APS has gathered feedback on dress code and discipline issues for around a year. The changes will go before the board for final approval the week of June 13.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2507289/aps-pushes-to-include-at-risk-voices-in-its-operations.html

YAZZIE V. STATE/ MARTINEZ ACTION PLAN

On May 14, the New Mexico Public Education Department released a detailed plan to address the landmark public education court case of Yazzie v. State/Martinez and mandated reforms to improve the New Mexico’s failing public education system and offer better and equal opportunities for all students. The Public Education Department has asked for written feedback from the public on the plan. The window for opportunity for public input closes on Friday, June 17 at 5 p.m.

The release plan by the Grisham administration is and includes improvements for every aspect of the education system. The link to review the plan is here:

https://mcusercontent.com/fe07174c30216027e5fab1fde/files/8d56cdcc-64d5-1494-dd06-04dfb8209cfd/Martinez_Yazzie_Discussion_Draft_2022.05.09.pdf?link_id=0&can_id=bd62d9bf2703bf57b545d3ed888c0bab&source=email-feedback-requested-nm-ped-releases-draft-plan-to-address-martinezyazzie-ruling&email_referrer=email_1541133&email_subject=feedback-requested-nm-ped-releases-draft-plan-to-address-martinezyazzie-ruling

According to the draft of the plan, it should be considered as a companion to the New Mexico Public Education Department (NMPED) 2022 Comprehensive Strategic Plan which offers remedies to the Yazzie/Martinez decision embedded throughout. According to the plan, the work that lies ahead for NMPED and schools will require systemic change to address the needs of the students and families impacted by decades of neglect and underfunding, including students with disabilities, Native American students, English learners, and economically disadvantaged students. These students account for over 70% of the population in New Mexico’s public schools.

The action plan states that for New Mexico students and their families to realize their full potential, it is incumbent upon both NMPED and its partners, especially the school districts, to do their part in ensuring educational equity, excellence, and relevance for all students. By implementing the recommendations in this plan, all of New Mexico’s public-school students will benefit.

According to the plan of action, NMPED is planning a future in which students are engaged in a culturally and linguistically responsive educational system that meets their academic, social, and emotional needs.

To that end, this action plan is focused on the following long-term goals:

1. Assuring external factors like race, language, economic status, and family situations do not equate with lower rates of success in educational achievement and career prospects.

2. Increasing academic proficiency in math, science, and languages to ensure that all students graduate well prepared for the ever-changing world of college, career, and civic engagement.

3. Eliminating achievement gaps among New Mexico students, particularly English learners, economically disadvantaged students, Hispanics, Native Americans, African Americans, and students with disabilities.

4. Respecting, honoring, and preserving students’ home languages and cultures by implementing culturally and linguistically responsive instruction and learning for all students.

BIG-PICTURE GOALS

The action plan contains some very big picture goals for public education in New Mexico.

Graduation rates in the last few years have been in the low to mid-70s. The education department wants the statewide graduation rate to get to 90% by 2027. Education leaders also want to close graduation gaps between ethnicities and disadvantaged students.

Another target is improving reading and math proficiency rates. PED leaders want those up by 50% in the next four years.

The plan also focuses on teachers, class sizes, and building on recent successes, including increases in funding. Just this year, the state legislature passed pay raises for teachers and more money for Pre-K programs.

Since the lawsuit, the state has boosted help for economically disadvantaged students, those with disabilities and English learners. It’s also upped funding for more reading programs, extended learning time and more and better internet access.

Outside of funding, PED leadership points out the launch of equity councils and the work to create a response team just for the lawsuit.

The link to news source material is here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-metro/ped-releases-plan-addressing-martinez-yazzie-lawsuit/

HOW PED ACTION PLAN TO BE USED

The general public and public education advocacy groups have until June 17 to review and comment on the Public Education Department (PED) action plan released. The education plan is likely to drive immediate reforms by the state Public Education Department. The plan is also intended to generate discussion and budget priorities during the 2023 Legislature that will begin in mid-January.

In addition to the Public Education plan put forth, Native American advocacy groups and tribal leaders submitted their own action plan in 2019 calling it the “Tribal Remedy Framework.” The 2019 plan submitted by the tribes cites language of the Yazzie v. State and Martinez lawsuit and then makes recommendations and suggests funding to carry out the recommendations.

The Public Education Action plan will be used in part by the State District Court Judge assigned the Yazzie v. State and Martinez case to determine whether the state court continues to keep watch over spending and initiatives to improve public education. The 2018 District Court ruling found that the state investments in education, as well as academic outcomes of students, proved that “the vast majority of New Mexico’s at-risk children finish each school year without the basic literacy and math skills needed to pursue post-secondary education or a career.”

PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING

The PED Action Plan makes no funding recommendations. However, it highlights the increases in public education enacted by the 2022 legislature, including teacher salary raises and overall education funding increases. New Mexico funds its schools through the state budget and gross receipts tax revenues and oil and gas production revenues and does not relying on property tax revenues. According to Legislative Finance Committee analysts, public education funding accounts for around 45% of the $8.5 billion general fund budget. Unlike most other states.

The Lujan-Grisham Administration in the action plan point out an overhaul of social studies standards that expands focus on Native American history and identity. Those changes have been welcomed by education advocates.

Lujan Grisham spokeswoman Maddy Hayden said the draft is intended to provide a long-term guide and that more specific details will be added after the public comment period. Hayden had this to say:

[“The education reforms were developed] collaboratively across many agencies and there is shared understanding and accountability on the part of agencies to get this critical work done. ”
The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2503688/nm-advocates-review-plan-aimed-at-education-deficits.html

2022 NEW MEXICO LEGISLATIVE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC EDUCTION

During the 2022 New Mexico legislative session, annual spending for public education increased dramatically. Annual spending on K-12 grade public education was increased by $425 million to $3.87 billion, a 12% boost.

Starting July 1, the base pay for teachers will rise to $50,000, $60,000 and $70,000 depending on the level of a teacher. According to a fiscal impact report, New Mexico’s average teacher salary was just under $55,000 a year. That’s lower than Colorado, Texas and Utah, but higher than Arizona and Oklahoma. Legislators also approved a measure to allow Indigenous language teachers to be paid at the same rate as their peers, even if they don’t have an undergraduate degree. For Native American language teachers paid as teaching assistants in many districts, their salaries could triple

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/nm-teacher-pay-increase-bill-heads-to-governors-desk-after-unanimous-house-vote/6393826/

During the 2022 New Mexico legislative session, 3 bills sponsored by Rep. Derrick Lente, D-Sandia Pueblo passed that were are in response to the historic 2018 Yazzie/Martinez court ruling that said New Mexico has denied several groups of students, including Native Americans, their constitutional right to an education. House bills 87, 88 and 90 allocated more than $70 million to tribal entities to help offer culturally relevant lesson plans and access to virtual and after-school programs for those students.

House Bill 87 appropriated $20 million from the state’s general fund to the Indian Education Act to provide educational funding for tribes starting July 1, 2024. The money will be used to create culturally relevant learning programs, including Native language programs, for students in the K-12 system. The Legislative Education Study Committee report said each of the state’s 23 tribal entities would receive $547,826 per year.

House Bill 88 appropriated $21.5 million to help tribal education departments develop learning plans and programs for students, extend learning opportunities and support tribal school libraries. Each tribe and pueblo will get $250,000 a year, with the exception of the Navajo Nation, which would get $500,000, according to the bill’s fiscal report.

House Bill 90 was aimed at higher education. It appropriated $29.6 million to four state colleges and three tribal colleges for 53 initiatives, such as building a Native American teacher pipeline and expanding high school-to-college programs to encourage those students to attend college. The bill’s fiscal impact report says it is assumed the bill would go into effect 90 days after the last day of the Legislature.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2022/02/01/bills-to-address-yazzie-martinez-court-ruling-advance%ef%bf%bc/?mc_cid=21ff84b79b&mc_eid=d03b0979c3

APS SCHOOL BOARD APPROVES $2 Billion Budget

On June 1, the Albuquerque Public School Board approved a nearly $2 Billion dollar budget for the upcoming fiscal year the commenced-on July 1, 2020. It was a split vote of 4 to 3. Board members Yolanda Montoya-Cordova, Peggy Muller-Aragón, Barbara Petersen and Josefina Domínguez voted yes on the proposed budget, while Danielle Gonzales, Crystal Tapia-Romero and Courtney Jackson voted no. Several board members expressed concerned over how much the $1.936 billion budget had grown from last year’s $1.868 billion. They also questioned where cuts were made.

The biggest portion of the budget goes to the operational fund which accounts for nearly 45% of the total budget at over $869.1 million. APS is projected to spend $10.3 million more than it will collect this year. That amount is less than last year, when the district’s deficit was around $45 million. The district’s savings from vacancies will be approximately $7.9 million. $2.4 million will also be used from APS’ $52.7 million cash reserve to balance the budget.

During the June 1 meeting to approve the budget, information on the proposed budget included staff allocations, “at-risk” funding and programs and budget cuts. The cuts presented included 70 support staff positions, 36 elective courses and 27 administrative positions being cut across all grades. Only 16 instructional positions were cut.

The approved budget includes spending of over $27.6 million on increases for teacher salaries and over $39.5 million on 7% raises for public education staff.

APS employee raises will be paid in two phases with 3% payments for this year’s fourth quarter then followed up with an additional 4% raise next fiscal year. Teacher raises will be increased if they don’t reach the average $10,000 minimum salary increases for teachers, or the new minimum $15 per hour wage.
On May 31, APS and the Albuquerque Teachers Federation announced a tentative agreement on raises for many instructional support providers. The agreement guarantees some 850 licensed employees would be given the same minimum salary increases that were legislated for teachers earlier this year.

Over $3.5 million is set aside in the proposed budget for other at-risk service providers. During last week’s meeting, Executive Director of Budget Rosalinda Montoya said those included nurses, counselors, social workers and other instructional support providers.

STATE FUNDING INCREASES

State funding will sharply increase in the coming fiscal year that starts on July 1. The state funding increase is the direct result of raises approved by the 2022 legislative session for teachers and other public education employees. APS received $719.3 million in 2022 and is expecting $787.4 million in state funds next year. Despite the over $68 million rise in state funds, APS expects increased costs will exceed money from the state by over $12.2 million.

During its last meeting, the board also approved emergency money for fuel allocated by the Public Education Department. In May, APS was allocated $467,898 for increased fuel costs in 2022. Transportation is expected to run the district over $21.4 million. APS estimated fuel cost increases at $373,000.

Link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2504216/aps-board-up-against-deadline-for-nearly-2b-budget.html

COMMENTARY

On Friday, May 13, legislative economist told the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee that state revenue collections for the current budget year are up by more than $440 million than was projected in December 2021. The large cash infusion to the state no doubt will allow for more spending in areas to deal with the public education mandates of the Yazzie v. Martinez landmark decision.

On June 29, the online news agency the New Mexico Sun published the following news article written by staff reported Andy Nghiem:

HEADLINE: Former Albuquerque city councilor criticizes Keller’s initiative to ‘shake down’ downtown business owners

“Local attorney and former Albuquerque City Councilor Pete Dinelli minced no words when describing Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller’s recent downtown crime initiative, calling it a “shakedown.”

According to the City of Albuquerque website, Keller announced a new public-private crime initiative, which asks business owners to contribute to a fund that would be used to pay for additional officers stationed downtown.

“The TEAM program requiring private funding for police protection is as messed up as any mayor can get with a police department. There is absolutely no excuse for Mayor Keller and Chief (Harold) Medina to ‘shake down’ downtown business owners to pay for police protection,” Dinelli told the New Mexico Sun. “APD (Albuquerque police department) has the largest city budget with a $255.4 million budget and with a 14.7% increase. The city is projected to have over $100 million more in gross receipts this coming fiscal year, yet Keller and Medina want downtown business owners to pay and donate for more police protection they have a right to demand and expect. Keller and Medina proclaimed they are working in a resource-constrained environment, when what really exists is gross incompetence by Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina to manage APD resources.”

Representatives from some of Albuquerque’s downtown businesses are skeptical of Keller’s pitch to have them pay more for more police manpower. KOAT 7 News reported that Stuart Dunlap, CEO of The Man’s Hat Shop, said he thinks it is “out of line.”

“I think it’s very silly,” Dunlap told KOAT 7 News. “We already pay taxes for police protection. We pay property taxes. We pay business tax. We buy a business license. Having additional money come in from business owners downtown is completely out of line, I think.”

In a recent op-ed published in the New Mexico Sun, Dinelli contends that APD has the resources it needs but lacks the personnel. “APD is awash with unused funding. Yet Keller and Medina seek private funding, telling downtown business owners they need to take ‘control of their own future’ by paying for police protection.”

Earlier this year, the AP News reported on Albuquerque’s rise in crime, as the city recorded 117 killings in 2021, “shattering” its previous record by 46% and amassing enough violent crimes per 10,000 people to place Albuquerque in the top-ten most violent cities with a population over 100,000.”

https://newmexicosun.com/stories/627968899-former-albuquerque-city-councilor-criticizes-keller-s-initiative-to-shake-down-downtown-business-owners

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 June 29, the national news agency CNN published an article on its web page written by CNN staff reporters entitled “7 takeaways from Tuesday’s shocking January 6 hearing”. The article was written by CNN staff reporters Marshall Cohen and Zachary Cohen with contributions made by Alex Rogers. Below is the edited written news article follow by the link. The link contains video clips from the hearing itself.

“The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection reconvened Tuesday for a hastily scheduled hearing, featuring blockbuster testimony from Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

Hutchinson has cooperated extensively with the investigation, having sat for four closed-door depositions. She revealed how then-President Donald Trump and his inner circle were warned about the potential for violence on January 6, and how Trump wanted to join the throngs of his supporters at the US Capitol.

The testimony bolstered the narrative that the committee has been driving toward over the last few weeks: That Trump incited and supported the insurrection as part of a desperate power grab to steal a second term, and that many of his top advisers thought his schemes were illegal.

Here are takeaways from Hutchinson’s key testimony.

1. TRUMP AND HIS CHIEF OF STAFF WERE WARNED ABOUT VIOLENCE, INCLUDING ATTENDEES BEING ARMED AT RALLY

Hutchinson really moved the ball forward in terms of establishing that Trump was personally aware of the potential for violence yet forged ahead on January 6 with his attempts to rile up his supporters to interfere with the joint session of Congress to certify President Joe Biden’s victory.

She said Trump was told that morning that weapons were being confiscated from some of his supporters who came for his rally. Later, when Trump and his team were at the Ellipse — the large oval lawn on the south side of the White House — and before his speech, Trump barked out orders to his staffers to “take the mags away” — referring to the metal detectors — because the people in the crowd, “they’re not here to hurt me.”

Trump also said, “I don’t fuckking care that they have weapons,” according to Hutchinson. This is particularly shocking, because Trump then encouraged the same crowd to march to the Capitol while lawmakers were affirming Biden’s win. Hundreds of Trump’s diehard supporters soon stormed the Capitol, many carrying knives, bear spray, metal poles, tasers and a few guns.

…

When Hutchinson told her boss, Meadows, about early reports of weapons getting confiscated, Meadows didn’t even look up from his phone, according to Hutchinson. Two days earlier, he told her that “things might get real, real, bad on January 6.”

“The potential for violence was learned or known before the onset of the violence, early enough for President Trump to have taken steps to prevent it,” said Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the panel’s GOP vice chair. She added that Trump could have urged his supporters not to march to the Capitol, or condemned the violence more quickly, but didn’t, because he “had something else in mind.“

2. TRUMP INTENDED TO GO THE CAPITOL AND PUSHED TO DO SO UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE

The select committee effectively proved as much on Tuesday by featuring a mix of damning witness testimony and White House records that show Trump intended to join his supporters at the Capitol and was pushing to do so just minutes before the violence began to escalate.

It was previously known that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol, but Hutchinson’s testimony established for the first time that people around Trump had advance knowledge of this plan.

The reality of Trump’s intentions became clear to national security officials in real time as they learned the Secret Service was scrambling to find a way for the former President to travel to the Capitol while he was on stage urging his followers to march, according to National Security Council chat logs from that day that were revealed for the first time during Tuesday’s hearing.

The NSC chat logs provide a minute-by-minute accounting of how the situation evolved from the perspective of top White House national security officials on January 6 and, along with witness testimony delivered on Tuesday, contradict an account by Meadows in his book where he says Trump never intended to march to the Capitol.

“MOGUL’s going to the Capital … they are clearing a route now,” a message sent to the chat log at 12:29 p.m. ET on January 6 reads — referring to the former President’s secret service code name.

“MilAide has confirmed that he wants to walk,” a 12:32 p.m. message reads. “They are begging him to reconsider.”

“So this is happening,” a message sent at 12:47 p.m. states.

Hutchinson also testified that some in Trump’s orbit had made clear days before January 6 that Trump wanted to travel to the US Capitol.

She told the committee Tuesday that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told her on January 2 — four days before the US Capitol was attacked by Trump supporters — that “we’re going to the Capitol” on January 6, and that Trump himself was also planning to be there.

3. AIDE RECOUNTS SECONDHAND INCIDENT WHERE TRUMP REACHED FOR STEERING WHEEL

Hutchinson testified Tuesday that she heard a secondhand account of how Trump was so enraged at his Secret Service detail for blocking him from going to the Capitol on January 6 that he lunged to the front of his presidential limo and tried to turn the wheel.

She said that Tony Ornato, then-White House deputy chief of staff, said that Robert Engel, who was the Secret Service agent in charge on January 6, repeatedly told Trump on their way back to the White House after Trump’s Ellipse speech that it wasn’t safe to go to the Capitol.

According to Hutchinson, Ornato recounted Trump screaming, “I’m the fucking President. Take me up to the Capitol now.” Trump then “reached up toward the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel,” Hutchinson remembered learning. She added that, according to Ornato, Trump used his other hand “lunge” at Engel.

Engel and Ornato have both testified to the committee behind closed doors, but their statements were not used in the hearing Tuesday.

After the testimony, a Secret Service official familiar with the matter told CNN that Ornato denies telling Hutchinson that the former President grabbed the wheel or an agent on his detail.

The Secret Service, through the Department of Homeland Security Office of Legislative Affairs, notified the committee Tuesday afternoon that it will make the agents involved available to testify under oath, the official said. The agents are also prepared to say under oath that the incident itself did not occur.

The lead agent, Engel, previously testified before the committee and described the interactions with Trump on January 6, including the former President’s desire to travel to the Capitol, but he was not asked about an altercation or being assaulted, the official said.

Asked about the Secret Service disputing the testimony, a committee spokesman said, “The committee trusts the creditability of a witness who is willing to testify under oath and in public but is also willing to hear any and all information that others may have that would aid in their investigation.”

Hutchinson also recounted a separate Trump tantrum after then-Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press in December 2020 there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

“I remember hearing noise coming from down the hallway,” Hutchinson began. She saw the President’s valet in the dining room, changing the tablecloth, ketchup dripping down the wall, and a porcelain plate shattered on the floor.

“The President was extremely angry at the attorney general’s … interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall,” Hutchinson said. “I grabbed a towel and started wiping the ketchup off the wall.”

The anecdote came up as the committee questioned Hutchinson about Trump’s state of mind after losing the election.

4. CIPOLLONE WARNED: ‘PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE AND THE BLOOD’S GONNA BE ON YOUR FUCKING HANDS’

Trump defended the rioters chanting for the hanging of then-Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, according to Hutchinson.

Hutchinson relayed a conversation she observed between White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Meadows after they discussed with Trump the chants to inflict violence on Pence.

“I remember Pat saying something to the effect of ‘Mark, we need to do something more. They’re literally calling for the vice president to be f**king hung,'” Hutchinson recalled.

Meadows replied, “You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong,” according to Hutchinson.

Cipollone responded, “This is fuckking crazy. We need to be doing something more.”

Hutchinson testified that Cipollone had previously rushed into Meadows’ office after rioters breached the Capitol and told Meadows what had happened, and said they needed to go meet with Trump.

“Mark, something needs to be done, or people are going to die and the blood’s gonna be on your fucking hands,” Cipollone told Meadows, according to Hutchinson. “This is getting out of control.”

5. ‘THERE WAS A LARGE CONCERN’ IN WHITE HOUSE OF THE 25TH AMENDMENT BEING INVOKED AFTER RIOT

Trump delivered a speech on January 7, 2021, finally acknowledging that Biden would be inaugurated in part because there was a “large concern” by the White House that Pence and the Cabinet could invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from power, according to Cassidy’s testimony.

Hutchinson also testified that Trump did not want to include references in the speech to prosecuting the pro-Trump rioters, but instead wanted to float pardons for them. After the White House Counsel’s office pushed back, Trump did not mention pardons in that speech.

If the 25th Amendment had been invoked, Trump could’ve put his presidency up for a vote before Congress, where two-thirds would have been necessary to kick him out.

“There was a large concern of the 25th Amendment potentially being invoked, and there were concerns about what would happen in the Senate if it was,” Hutchinson testified.

The thinking at the time was that Trump needed the speech “as cover” to protect himself from the threat of his Cabinet trying to oust him from power, Hutchinson said. She said that was a “secondary reason” for Trump to give the speech; the first was that Trump needed to condemn the violent attack to try and prevent it from becoming his legacy.

While Trump gave the speech effectively conceding the election, he wanted to remove calls for “prosecuting the rioters or calling them violent” from early drafts of his January 7 speech, according to Hutchinson, but wanted to float pardons to his supporters.

“He didn’t want that in there,” Hutchinson said. “He wanted to put in that he wanted to potentially pardon them.”

“He didn’t think that they did anything wrong,” said Hutchinson, referring to the pro-Trump rioters. “The people who did something wrong that day-or-the person who did something wrong that day was Mike Pence, by not standing with him.”

6. HUTCHINSON SAYS TRUMP’S CONDUCT ON JANUARY 6 WAS ‘UN-AMERICAN’ AND ‘UNPATRIOTIC’

In emotional and powerful testimony, Hutchinson said Trump’s behavior on January 6 was “unpatriotic” and “un-American.”

The committee asked Hutchinson to describe her real-time reaction from January 6, when Trump attacked Pence in a tweet at 2:24 p.m. ET, which was after his supporters invaded the Capitol, forcing Pence, lawmakers, and staffers to run for their lives.

“As a staffer … I remember feeling frustrated, disappointed, and really, it felt personal. It was really sad,” Hutchinson said. “As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic. It was un-American. We’re watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie. And it was something that was really hard in that moment to digest. … I still struggle to work through the emotions of that.”

Her condemnation of Trump’s behavior may shed some light on her motivations for coming forward with so much damaging information about January 6. Committee members have heaped praise on Hutchinson and other Republicans who have testified, calling them patriots.

7. COMMITTEE TEASES EVIDENCE OF WITNESS TAMPERING

The committee has secured testimony from some major witnesses’ members of Trump’s inner circle, even members of his family. But Cheney suggested during the hearing that there might be a Trump-imposed blockade of sorts, and that the panel has evidence of witness tampering.

She said one witness — whom the committee did not identify — testified that: “What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I’m on the team, I’m doing the right thing, I’m protecting who I need to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump world.”

Another unidentified witness said they were told by someone in Trump’s orbit that Trump was “thinking about you” and that “he knows you’re loyal” and hopes that “you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.”

Cheney said the committee takes this “seriously” and will be considering “next steps,” potentially hinting at a criminal referral, for possible witness tampering or obstruction. Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the committee chairman, issued a public plea for more cooperation, saying to potential witnesses that if “you discovered some courage you had hidden away somewhere, our doors remain open.”
Trump has denied all wrongdoing regarding January 6 and the related investigations.

The new evidence from the committee is consistent with a years-long pattern of behavior by Trump, who has repeatedly used private and public channels to pressure people who could testify against him. This happened with his former lawyer Michael Cohen and his 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort during the Russia investigation, and with a US ambassador during the 2019 impeachment hearings.

Trump has also retaliated against people who provided damaging public testimony against him, including a top White House national security official and his ambassador to the European Union, who both described his pressure campaign against Ukraine during House impeachment hearings in 2019.

POLLS SAYS TRUMP SHOULD BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED

Two major polls have been released on the question if former President Donald Trump should be criminally charged for his role in the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol to stop the Congress from certifying Joe Biden as President.

ABC NEWS/IPSOS SURVEY

On June 26, it was reported that an ABC News/Ipsos survey, published, found that 58% of respondents believe that the former President Donald Trump should be charged with a crime for his role in the Jan. 6 attack, up from 52% in an ABC News/Washington Post poll from earlier this year.

The poll surveyed 545 adults after the third day of hearings, which detailed how Trump turned his supporters against the then-Vice President, Mike Pence. Among those surveyed, 28% were Democrats, 26% were Republicans and 40% were independents.

The results of the survey are mostly divided along party lines, with more than 90% of Democrats saying that Trump bears a “great deal” or “good amount” of responsibility for the attack on the capital, compared with only 21% of republicans.

More than 60% of independents polled say that the former president should be charged.

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2022/06/20/majority-of-americans-say-trump-should-be-charged-for-jan–6–a-new-poll-finds

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS-NORC POLL

On June 39, The Chicago Tribune reported that a survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 48% of U.S. adults say the Republican former president should be charged with a crime for his role, while 31% say he should not be charged. An additional 20% say they don’t know enough to have an opinion. Fifty-eight percent say Trump bears a great deal or quite a bit of responsibility for what happened that day.

“The poll was conducted after five public hearings by the House committee investigating Jan. 6, which has sought to paint Trump’s potential criminal culpability in the events that led to deadly insurrection. But it was taken before Tuesday’s surprise hearing featuring former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. Her explosive testimony provided the most compelling evidence yet that the former president could be linked to a federal crime, experts say.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-jan-6-trump-poll-20220630-hjobouq5qfck5bzoyvlxg5qt6i-story.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

From a legal and criminal prosecution standpoint, the testimony Cassidy Hutchinson was a game changer. Based on her testimony, there are two major federal charges that Trump can and should be charge with.

Those crimes are:

1. Obstructing an official proceeding of the United States Congress and the certification of the election.

2. Incitement of a riot by encouraging the crowed to march on the capitol.

STATE OF MIND

The biggest hurdle federal prosecutors will have to deal with in criminally charging Trump is proving his “state of mind”. Trump’s defense will no doubt argue that what he said to the crowd on January 6 was protected “free speech”. Courts have routinely set this bar very high in the context of political speech because the First Amendment broadly protects speech of that type.

It is well settled Supreme Case law that only incitement to “imminent unlawful action” is sufficient. It must be shown that the speaker had to know that the crowd would immediately break the law. A political statement by the President of the United States will be viewed as protected by the First Amendment, most likely by the current United States Supreme Court, but even they cannot ignore concrete evidence, action and admissions revealing state of mind.

In order to convict Trump of criminal charges, federal prosecutors will be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump had the “corrupt” state of mind. That burden of proof would apply to the charges of inciting a riot and obstructing an official proceeding of the United States Congress.

STATE OF MIND OF INCITING A RIOT

The most damaging testimony of Hutchinson that eviscerates any defense of free speech is Trump said he didn’t “fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me”. Trump was repeatedly warned that there could be violence, he knew the crowd was armed and Trump went so far as to order the metal detectors removed from the area so that his supporters could listen to his speech without being disarmed first by the secret service.

Hutchinson’s testimony was a firsthand account of the events as they unfolded and reveals for the first time Trump’s state of mind that would be admissible in court against Trump on the charge of inciting a riot. Hutchinson testified repeatedly that she was present during conversations Trump had with Trumps Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and others and that she took notes.

Hutchinson testified that Trump clearly announced his disregard for potential violence by his supporters, and she heard firsthand from people who described the president’s fury at being told he could not lead his followers on their march to the Capitol where the presidential vote was to be certified.

Hutchinson’s testimony was clear that Trump wanted to go to the capitol that day after his speech where he inflamed the crowd to march on the capitol and became angry and said “I’m the fucking president, take me up to the Capitol now” to which Bobby Engel, the head of Trump’s security detail, responded, “Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing” and telling Trump he could not go because it was too dangerous. Simply put, this testimony was the “smoking gun” needed to prove that the person speaking meant to incite imminent violence.

OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDING OF CONGRESS

Hutchinson provided testimony of evidence showing Trump obstructing an official proceeding. That charge also requires “corrupt” intent. In the most dramatic testimony of the day, she testified that an angry Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of his official vehicle when Secret Service agents refused to take him to the Capitol. She also testified that when an agent physically blocked Trump from seizing the wheel, Trump himself placed his hand on the agent’s “clavicles,” just under his neck.

Trumps actions inside the President’s vehicle is evidence of Trump’s criminal intent. Before Hutchinson’s testimony, Trump was viewed as someone who gave a speech, did not act and returned to the White House while the Capitol was under attack, declining to call off his supporters or to call in police or troops.

The truth revealed by Hutchinson was that Trump was demanding to go to the Capitol as the siege was occurring and would have been there if he hadn’t been kept from doing so by the Secret Service. When Trump demanded to know why an unscheduled trip was not accommodated and the secret service said it was too dangerous, he became enraged. Trump wanted to be there leading the charge into the capitol.

The link to quoted news source is here:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/28/cassidy-hutchinson-jan-6-testimony-00042985

The online news agency Reuters reported that there are 3 other potential felony charges tha could be brought against Trump

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

In the March 2 filing, the committee said it was likely that Trump and others conspired to defraud the United States, which criminalizes any effort by two or more people to interfere with governmental functions “by deceit, craft or trickery.”

In addition to Trump’s efforts to pressure Pence, the committee cited his attempts to convince state election officials, the public and members of Congress that the 2020 election was stolen, even though several of his allies told him there was no evidence of fraud.

According to video testimony shown on Tuesday by the committee from Kayleigh McEnany, Trump’s White House press secretary at the time, Trump was so enraged by then-Attorney General Bill Barr’s interview with the Associated Press saying there was no evidence of election fraud that Trump threw his lunch at the wall, breaking a porcelain dish and leaving ketchup dripping down the wall.

SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY

Prosecutors already have charged more than a dozen members of the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups who were at the Jan. 6 riot with seditious conspiracy, a rarely used statute that makes it illegal to overthrow the U.S. government by force.

To prove seditious conspiracy, prosecutors would need to show Trump conspired with others to use force, said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former federal prosecutor.

“While her testimony is consistent with that theory, it does not alone establish it,“ McQuade said.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

At the end of Hutchinson’s testimony, Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican, presented possible evidence of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

Cheney showed messages to unidentified witnesses advising them that an unidentified person would be watching their testimony closely and expecting loyalty.

If the committee has evidence that the people who sent the messages had a “tacit understanding” with Trump, prosecutors could use it to show there was a conspiracy to tamper with witnesses, said Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston.

“They were setting the table for witness tampering and likely have other witnesses coming in to nail that down,” he said.

The fact that Cheney did not identify the sender of the messages suggests it may be “more of a shot across the bow to get the person to knock it off,” McQuade said.

https://www.reuters.com/

CONCLUSION

Any and all doubts that Donald Trump is a fascist who was hell bent on overthrowing the United State Government should be laid to rest by the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson. Hutchinson’s testimony established that Trump and his associates conspired for weeks, planned and orchestrated an armed crowd to disrupt and stop the peaceful transfer of power and to stop the government function of certifying the election.

What is clear is that Trump knew the crowd was armed, he ordered that metal detectors not be used to keep his supporters out. Trump was warned repeatedly of the potential violence. Once the crowd was assembled, Trump inflamed them to storm the capital to stop the congress from certifying the election. The angry mob Trump inflamed did his bidding and stormed and vandalized the United States Capitol. What is even more clear is that Trump wanted to go to the capitol himself to lead the charge of invading the capitol building.

There is little doubt that the testimony presented by loyal members of Trump’s own administration revealed a man so desperate to hold onto power that he attempted to interfere with the peaceful transition of power and to overthrow the United States democracy.

It could and will happen again if Der Führer Trump runs for President in 2024, unless of course he is indicted and convicted for the crimes he committed with his failed attempt to overthrow our democracy.

Links to a related blog articles are here:

Key Takeaways Of June 21 And June 23 United Sates House Hearings On January 6 Capital Riot

Take Aways From 3rd Day of January 6 Capitol Riot Congressional Hearinings; Der Führer Trump Lashes Out And Claims January 6 Riot “A Simple Protest That Got Out Of Hand”; Trump: The Once Future Fascist Who Wants To Be President Again

Calls are being made for the impeachment of Republican Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh for lying under oath during their Senate confirmation hearings. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn the two landmark abortion cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The decision returns decisions on the legality of abortion back to the states.

On June 24, Democrats Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accused the conservative justices of lying without mentioning them by name. In a joint statement, Pelosi and Schumer said in part:

“Several of these conservative Justices, who are in no way accountable to the American people, have lied to the U.S. Senate, ripped up the Constitution and defiled both precedent and the Supreme Court’s reputation, all at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they’ve relied on for half a century.”

Also,Florida Democratic Congressman Charlie Crist, who is running against incumbent Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in November, said that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached if they lied under oath during their Senate confirmation hearings.

Crist said in a Facebook post;

“Today’s ruling makes clear that Republican Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to Congress when they testified, under oath, that in their view Roe v. Wade was settled precedent. Perjury is a crime. If perjury is found to have occurred, the correct remedy is impeachment.”

https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/crist-calls-for-kavanaugh-gorsuch-to-be-impeached-over-abortion-ruling/article_73614887-1ece-58d5-b353-388aad8bb3de.html

Democrat West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin who voted to confirm Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court despite opposition from his party, said he was “alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided” and that he had “trusted [them] when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent.”

Republican Main Senator Susan Collins, a pro-abortion rights Republican who voted to confirm all of former President Donald Trump’s nominees to the court, said it had “abandoned a 50-year precedent at a time that the country is desperate for stability,”.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2022/06/24/manchin-trusted-gorsuch-and-kavanaugh-not-to-overturn-roe—heres-how-key-lawmakers-reacted-to-courts-decision/?sh=48b831665630

On June 24, Republican Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski issued the following statement after the Supreme Court released its decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, to overturn Roe v. Wade, placing the responsibility on states to set their own abortion laws:

“Today the Supreme Court went against 50 years of precedent in choosing to overturn Roe v. Wade. The rights under Roe that many women have relied on for decades—most notably a woman’s right to choose—are now gone or threatened in many states. … Alaskan courts have interpreted abortion rights as protected under our State Constitution, but with this decision, women in other parts of the country will face a different reality that limits their health decisions, even in extreme circumstances. In the wake of this ruling, it is up to Congress to respond. I introduced legislation in February to protect women’s reproductive rights as provided in Roe, and I am continuing to work with a broader group to restore women’s freedom to control their own health decisions wherever they live. Legislation to accomplish that must be a priority.”

https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/release/murkowski-reacts-to-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade

WHAT THE CONSERVATIVE GANG OF SIX SAID DURING CONFIRMATION HEARINGS

Here’s what the 6 justices who reversed ROE v. WADE said in each of their Senate confirmation hearings.

REPUBLICAN JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS

During his 1991 confirmation hearing Republican Justice Clarence Thomas was asked whether the Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose. Thomas declined to comment on his views on Roe saying:

“I do not think that at this time that I could maintain my impartiality as a member of the judiciary and comment on that specific case.”

Thomas also refused to say whether he thought Roe was correctly decided, saying he had no “personal opinion.” Once he was seated on the court, however, Thomas made his views clear. By 2020, he wrote a dissenting opinion saying that the court’s “abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled. … The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. ”.

REPUBLICAN CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS JR.

Republican Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the majority 6-to-3 to uphold the restrictive Mississippi antiabortion law, but he criticized his conservative colleagues for taking the additional step of overturning Roe v, Wade.

During his 2005 confirmation hearings, Roberts said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the court.” He told senators then that he believed strongly in the “vindication of the rule of law.” Roberts said that overruling precedent like Roe is “a jolt to the legal system”.

Roberts told the Senate in part:

“I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn’t answer the question. It just poses the question. And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of stare decisis.”

REPUBLICAN JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO

Republican Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the majority opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade said during his 2006 confirmation hearing that Roe was an “important precedent of the Supreme Court.”

Alito’s views on abortion weren’t secret during his confirmation hearing. In 1985, when applying for a new job in the Justice Department, he wrote in a cover letter that, as a “life-long registered Republican” he was “particularly proud” to have worked on cases arguing “that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.” The letter became a focus of questioning during his confirmation hearings.

In his 2006 confirmation hearing, Justice Alito was pressed on whether overturning Roe would undermine the legitimacy of the court. Alito declined to call the ruling “settled law.” Alito did say that Roe was “an important precedent” that has “been challenged on a number of occasions” and told the Seante:

“It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time … The more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. … I think that’s entitled to considerable respect, and of course, the more times that happens, the more respect the decision is entitled to, and that’s my view of that. So it is a very important precedent … ”

Democrat Illinois Senator Richard J. Durbin asked Alito:

“John Roberts said that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. Do you believe it is the settled law of the land?”

Alito responded:

“If settled means that it can’t be re-examined, then that’s one thing. … If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis, and all of the factors that I’ve mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way.”

Alito joked with the Senate panel about the level of precedent the abortion rights cases had earned, when asked whether Casey was a “super precedent or a super stare decisis.” Alito told the Senate committee:

“I personally would not get into categorizing precedents as super precedents or super-duper precedents, or any —” he began, before Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania interrupted to confirm he said “super duper,” a question that was met with laughs. Alito said:

“Any sort of categorization like that … sort of reminds me of the size of laundry detergent in the supermarket.”

Least anyone has forgotten, Justice Alito is the same supreme court justice who blurted out during one of President Barrack Obama’s State of the Union Address “Not true!” when the President made statements critical of a court ruling on campaign donations.

REPUBLICAN JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH

During his 2017 confirmation hearings, Republican Neil M. Gorsuch would only characterize Roe as “a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court” reaffirmed by several subsequent cases including in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.”

Gorsuch said that precedent fills out U.S. law and he said this:

“A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law. What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward.”

During his 2017 confirmation hearing, Gorsuch refused to signal how he would rule in future cases on abortion and said this:

“For a judge to start tipping his or her hand about whether they like or dislike this or that precedent would send the wrong signal … It would send the signal to the American people that the judge’s personal views have something to do with the judge’s job.”

When California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein pressed him on whether Roe had achieved a status as a “super-precedent,” Gorsuch just said that the ruling “has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that.”

REPUBLICAN JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH

In his 2018 confirmation hearing, Republican Brett Kavanaugh was questioned repeatedly about Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Kavanaugh echoed Gorsuch by saying that Roe was an “important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times.” Kavanaugh also indicated during his Senate confirmation hearing that he would be open to overturning “settled law,” including Roe, citing a long list of past Supreme Court cases that had been overturned.

Kavanaugh told the Senate:

“[Roe v. Wade] is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times. … It is not as if it is just a run of the mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.”

California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein pressed Kavanaugh and asked him what he meant by “settled law” and whether he believed Roe to be correct law, Kavanaugh said he believed it was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and should be “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis,” the notion that precedents should not be overturned without strong reason.

When questioned by conservative senators he said there’s a model for overruling settled precedents, that begins with evaluating whether the prior decision was “grievously wrong” a term that would surface in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh explained it this way:

“You follow the decision that has been set forth by the Supreme Court, subject to the rules of stare decisis. And you see that time and again. That is part of stability. That is part of predictability. That is part of impartiality. That is part of public confidence in the rule of law that it is not just going to move pillar to post, that the law is stable and foundational. … Again, it is not — Brown v. Board shows it is not absolute. And that is a good thing, but it is critically important to the impartiality and stability and predictability of the law.”

REPUBLICAN JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT

In her 2020 confirmation hearing, Republican Justice Amy Coney Barrett was more reserved on the Roe v. Wade precedent during her confirmation hearings. During her confirmation process, reports surfaced that Barrett had once openly advocated for overturning Roe v. Wade in a 2006 ad published in the South Bend Tribune by St. Joseph County Right to Life group, which she and her husband signed. Barrett was, at the time, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.

During her confirmation hearing, Barrett said she was committed to obeying “all the rules of stare decisis.” Barrett had this to say:

“If a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. … I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else.”

Barrett was also pressed on why she would characterize Brown v. Board of Education, but not Roe v. Wade, as super precedent.

She said at the time:

“Roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that does not mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. The Board that no one questions anymore.”

The links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-justices-said-roe-abortion-confirmations-rcna35246

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/justices-roe-confirmation-hearings/

WHAT THE CONSITUTION PROVIDES FOR ON IMPEACHEMENT

Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides that he House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment”. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 assigns the Senate sole responsibility to try impeachments. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 provides that the sanctions for an impeached and convicted individual are limited to removal from office and potentially a bar from holding future office.

With respect to United States Supreme Court Justices, the House of Repres¬ent¬at¬ives has the exclusive power to impeach Supreme Court Justices and the Senate the exclusive power to hold a trial to determine whether removal is appropriate. The House can impeach a Supreme Court Justice with a simple majority vote. However, a Supreme Court Justice may only be removed from office following a trial and a vote to convict by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

The United States Constitution provides little guidance as to what offenses constitute grounds for the impeachment of federal judges. As with other government officials, judges may be removed following impeachment and conviction for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”; otherwise, under Article III, Section 1, judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior” essentially making Supreme Court Justice appointments lifetime appointments.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/impeachment-and-removal-judges-explainer

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Historically, Supreme Courts are referred to by the last names of the Chief Justice presiding at a given time who is appointed by the President, such as the the Marshal Court, the Warren Court, the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court and now the Roberts court. With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, what the country now has is the Der Führer Trump Court.

It is indeed a sad commentary when the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices is being openly discussed because of the belief that 3 Justices of the Supreme Court appointed by Der Führer Trump lied and mislead elected officials to get their lifetime appointments. The sad commentary is that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh could be impeached in particular for lying to the congress by the House of Representatives with a simple majority only to be found not guilty by the United States Senate with a two-thirds majority vote needed in the Senate to convict, which will never happen as long as there are 50 Republican Senators.

The outcome of their impeachments would be identical to the outcome of the 2 impeachments of Der Führer Trump where 50 Republican Senators refuse to convict Der Führer even though they were eyewitnesses and victims to the January 6 riot that Der Führer Trump orchestrated to overthrow the government.

If Democrat Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Susan Collins really feel they have been lied to by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, they should come out and say that both Justices need to be impeached and removed. Simply put, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying to congress. The House of Representatives with a simple majority could vote to impeach but it is likely both would be found not guilty by the United States Senate where a two-thirds majority is needed to convict.

The United States Supreme Court since its very inception has been viewed with a unique sense of mystic or awe and respect because it consistently interpreted the United States Constitution as a “living, evolving document” meaning one that evolved and allowed and protected civil rights and remedies to conform with changing times, changing norms, changing viewpoints. Without such constitutional evolution, slavery would still exist in the United States, woman would not be allowed to vote, discrimination based on a person’s gender, race, color or religion would be allowed, interracial marriage would be illegal, and the doctrine of “sperate but equal” and Jim Crow laws would still be the law of the land.

Part of the greatness of the Supreme Court has always been that the public has had a tremendous respect for the Supreme Court because it has been viewed by and large as “fair and impartial” and “a political” not subservient to any political party nor religious philosophy or beliefs. With the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the denial and reversal of a well settled constitutional right for women, the United State Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy and credibility with the American people.

The Supreme Court is now the Der Führer Trump Court. It has become is a political, religious court not to be trusted by the American people.