On Saturday, August 11, 2018, Democratic Wards 11A, 11B, and 11C held a joint Democratic Ward meeting.

About 65 people attended and most were and older crowd, 55 and older.

Mayor Tim Keller and State Senator Jerry Ortiz Pino spoke and did a fine job of addressing the many issues facing Albuquerque.

Among the topics discussed were APD, crime and the ART bus project.

Mayor Keller did say he is hoping the ART buses will be up and running by winter.

Mayor Keller reported that things are still being negotiated with the ART Bus manufacturer and that the city is still on the hook to pay for the buses already delivered.

One thing made clear is that the batteries of the buses will not allow them to be driven the 350 miles originally contracted for and that additional charging stations will need to be constructed.

Further, the buses cannot be easily modified, such as adding doors to opposite sides, that would allow them to be used on regular bus stops and the platforms constructed are all that they can be used on.

Further, it will take upwards of two years to order and get different buses from another manufacturer.

The “One Leadership Theme” Mayor Keller discussed is the philosophy of acknowledging Albuquerque serious problems that need to be acknowledge and respond with solutions.

With respect to APD, Mayor Keller talked about APD reorganization and working on a “downtown police district”.

The goal is to locate a facility, perhaps at Alvarado Transportation Center for example, to be able to have police officers patrol the Downtown area.

A downtown police station will require more sworn police, officers that APD does not currently have.

APD currently has 878 sworn police with the goal to hire 100 more over the next year.

Mayor Keller reported there are 44 cadets in the APD Police Academy with another 22 laterals hired.

Based on past performance numbers, the APD Academy in all likely graduate between 25 to 30 officers’ and the officer shortage will be affected by retirements.

Mayor Keller intends to increase funding for winter sheltering of the homeless.

The Mayor pointed out that the old west side detention facility is now, and for a number of years, provided winter shelter for the homeless.

The Homeless are housed in the common areas of the old jail with the use bunk beds and pods for limited privacy.

Keller announced that more funding has been provided for afterschool programs.

One interesting proposal Keller intends to announce is a “children’s cabinet” to get more input from kids.

Keller also talked about his economic development plan and his “increment of one” program with an emphasis on economic base jobs and businesses.

Keller noted that property crime rates have declined, but Albuquerque’s homicide rate continues to rise.

Mayor Keller disclosed that the overwhelming majority of murders in Albuquerque involve domestic violence or drugs.

Albuquerque’s Homicides rate continues to rise.

Mayor also talked about how successful the newly renovated civic plaza and fountain has increased night time activity on the plaza.

Keller discussed a volunteer’s initiative to help with clerical duties with APD.

During the question and answer session at the joint ward meeting, Mayor Keller addressed the Top Golf veto override.

Keller said that the override was an exception not the rule saying he gets along just fine with the council.

As examples of getting along with the council, Keller cited the tax increase enacted by the council he signed after promising not to increase taxes without a public vote and the council increasing funding for projects he wants such as after school programs, the Safe City Strike Force and public safety.

Mayor Keller closed with talking about a roll out of a volunteer program and his One Albuquerque campaign.

The ultimate goal is to develop a core of volunteers that can help the city and APD with matters such as fingerprint processing and records keeping and clerical duties.

The volunteer program is part of Keller’s “One Albuquerque” initiative to encourage civic involvement with city issues.

Mayor Keller briefly discusses the city’s economic development plan to assist small business owners.

District Judge Sarah Backus of Taos is taking a tremendous amount of heat and criticism for releasing five adults arrested at a remote northern New Mexico compound. The 5 have been accused child abuse, suspected of murdering a child in an exorcism and accused by prosecutors of training children to carry out terrorist armed attacks, heinous crimes by anyone’s definition if true.
Things got so bad that the Taos County Courthouse was closed after credible threats of physical violence were made against the Judge and others.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1208891/judge-getting-threats-over-ruling-in-taos-compound-case.html

DISTRICT COURT RULING AND RATIONALE

The New Mexico Constitution provides that defendants can be held in jail without bond before trial “only if prosecutors show by clear and convincing evidence that they are so dangerous that no release conditions will reasonably protect public safety.”

According to news accounts, prosecutors argued during the lengthy 4 hour bond hearing:

1. That some of children at the compound were being trained to use guns in preparation for attacks on educational, law enforcement and other institutions with information coming from two teenagers, ages 13 and 15, who were interviewed by an FBI agent. The FBI agent testified that he was told that the children were undergoing firearms and tactical training to attack “corrupt” institutions that would be identified by the dead boy, who was to be resurrected as Jesus in the coming months.

2. Prosecutors offered as evidence a letter inviting another person to come to the compound and follow Allah until “he makes you die as a martyr”; the guns found at the compound and books about combat found there; weapons training and a trip to Saudi Arabia undertaken by Siraj Ibn Wahhaj; and the “magical thinking” shown by accounts from children who lived at the compound.

At the conclusion of the more than 4-hour hearing, District Judge Sarah Backus ruled that the District Attorney failed to meet the burden of proof as required by New Mexico law. District Court Judge Backus ruled that prosecutors had not shown by clear and convincing evidence what the Muslim group’s plan were so dangerous that no release conditions would reasonably protect public safety.

Judge Backus did express serious concerns about the “troubling facts” especially with the discovery of a child’s body at the compound. Notwithstanding the Judge said from the bench:

“The state alleges that there was a big plan afoot, but the state hasn’t shown, to my satisfaction, by clear and convincing evidence, what that plan was”. The court noted that people in the compound were living in an unconventional way, but that many in northern New Mexico live in unconventional ways.Further, the court noted that no one in the group has a criminal record except Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, who is accused of kidnapping his child from the boy’s mother in Georgia. Siraj Ibn Wahhaj is still being held in custody because of the kidnapping charge. At the conclusion of the bond hearing, the Judge set a $20,000, unsecured signature bond, with house arrest in new accommodations, ankle bracelets to monitor the defendants and other restrictions for each defendant.

The day after the hearing, District Judge Backus filed a written court order.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1209212/taos-judges-written-order-elaborates-on-controversial-compound-decision.html

The written court order says the District Attorney “apparently is inviting the Court to consider media reports [which are hearsay that the Court cannot consider as evidence], conjecture and assumption to piece together evidence of sufficient dangerousness” to justify incarcerating the defendants without bail until trial. The District Court Judge noted in her written ruling that while a boy’s body was found at the compound, the District Attorney’s office:

“has not charged any of the defendants with any crime related to the death of the child. … The State has not charged the defendants with any crime related to possession of any firearms. … No charges are pending regarding any actual threats of terrorism. No actual threats of terrorism or any credible evidence of a substantive plan was produced regarding the same. … The State offered a hand-written ‘manifesto’ of sorts but completely failed to establish in any way its origin.”

“The State did not produce any evidence of any history of violence that would cause the Court to conclude that they are a danger to the community or are unlikely to appear at hearings or to abide by their conditions of release,” the judge wrote.

The DA’s Office said in court that Siraj Ibn Wahhaj took a trip to Saudi Arabia and suggested that he became radicalized on his return. The District Attorneys office noted that devout Muslims are required to travel to Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, once in their lifetimes.

“The State apparently expected the Court to take the individuals’ faith into account in making such a determination … The Court has never been asked to take any other person’s faith into account in making a determination of dangerousness. The Court is not aware of any law that allows the Court to take a person’s faith into consideration in making a dangerousness determination.”

THREE LEVELS OF BURDEN OF PROOF

In order to understand the District Court’s ruling, an explanation of the escalating levels of burden of proof need to be elaborated upon.

Under the United States Constitution, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” and are entitled to due process of law, no matter how heinous the crime. Further, an accused is entitled to be given an opportunity to post a bond and to be released from jail until trial.

The bond posted is determined by the court, usually at an arraignment on charges, and the amount of bond set is intended to insure the defendant’s appearance.

In our criminal justice system, there are 3 very distinct escalating levels of evidence that must be proven by the prosecution:

1. “Evidence of Probable Cause”,
2. “Clear and Convincing Evidence” and
3. “Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.”

What is always confusing is bond hearings such as that involving the 5 Taos defendants are often confused with preliminary hearings or trials on the merits. The burden of proof for all three hearings is significantly different but always the responsibility of the prosecutors to meet.

“Evidence of probable cause” is a lower level of proof used for preliminary hearings or grand jury proceeding to charge someone with a felony. Evidence of probable cause is evidence presented showing it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed by the accused. Evidence of probable cause is evidence that leads you to believe that the accused committed the crime and it only provides enough grounds to charge but not to convict.

Clear and convincing evidence is the “medium level” of burden of proof standard which is a more rigorous standard to meet than “Evidence of Probable Cause”.

In bond hearings such the one involving the 5 Taos defendants, accused defendants can be held in custody without bond only if prosecutors show by “clear and convincing evidence” that they are so dangerous that no release conditions will reasonably protect public safety.

Black’s Law dictionary defines “clear and convincing evidence” as evidence that “is positive, precise and explicit, as opposed to ambiguous, equivocal, or contradictory proof, and which tends directly to establish the point to which it is adduced, instead of leaving it a matter of conjecture or presumption.”

Evidence of probable cause and clear and convincing evidence are less rigorous standard to meet than proving guilt by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

In criminal trials, any defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of evidence that exists in our criminal justice system.

The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that the established facts or evidence presented in a case lead the jury or the court to only one logical conclusion: that the defendant is guilty of the charges.

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/beyond-reasonable-doubt-matters-criminal-law/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

To quote Judge Backus “The canons of judicial ethics require that judges not concern themselves with public opinion and base their decisions in the law and the evidence presented in Court.” Given the evidence presented by the District Attorney against the 5 Taos defendants, it was not surprising that the court ruled the way she did in that that there was no “clear and convincing evidence” as required by the law.

The Taos District Attorney is appealing the District Court Judge’s ruling, in all probability to the Court of Appeals, in releasing the defendants which is the appropriate approach.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/da-to-appeal-ruling-to-release-nm-compound-suspects-on-bond/5031927/?cat=500

Another approach is to ask the District Court to reconsider her decision and review conditions of release and allow more evidence to be presented by the prosecution showing immediate danger to the public and flight risk.

A third option is for the District Attorney to seek a “Writ of Superintending Control” before the New Mexico Supreme Court to review the District Court’s Ruling.

It is highly likely that the Court of Appeals will not reverse the decision and find that there was no abuse of discretion by the judge.

Notwithstanding, the public perception is terrible and the District Attorney does not have many options other than appeal or seek more evidence to be presented to review conditions of release of the defendants. What is extremely troubling are the efforts by the Republican Party and state GOP Chairman Ryan Cangiolosi to make the ruling of District Judge Sarah Backus political by saying:

“Judge Backus has put New Mexicans at risk by releasing suspected terrorists back into the community.”

Cangiolosi makes the accusation even though no actual threats of terrorism or any credible evidence of a substantive plan was produced by the District Attorney and presented during the bond hearing. There is no doubt Cangiolosi would have kept his big mouth shut if the Judge was a Republican.

What is really disgusting is that our fool for a Governor just had to get into the act of publicizing the ruling when she said:

“I strongly disagree with this decision. … Unfortunately, it highlights for the entire nation how extreme the New Mexico Supreme Court has been in dictating pretrial release for all kinds of dangerous criminals.”

What makes Governor Susanna Martinez remarks so egregious is that she is a former 16 year elected Las Cruces District Attorney and a license New Mexico Attorney and she should know better.
With her remarks, Governor Martinez shows how ignorant of the law she really is or that she is just a pandering fool, but probably both.

Vilifying Judges is a popular tactic perfected by President Trump and the Republicans such as Dan Lewis when running for Mayor and Wayne Johnson running for Mayor and State Auditor to gin up their conservative base. What is not appropriate and downright dangerous conduct is for anyone to threaten any judge with physical harm over a ruling they make.

Martinez as a New Mexico attorney is an officer of the court, and her total failure to condemn people threatening the courts is a low as you can get even for the likes of this Republican Governor who cannot leave office soon enough.

The Bernalillo County Commissioners voted by 3-2 not to add the “Democracy Dollars” initiative on the November general election ballot.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1208997/democracy-dollars-ballot-initiative-fails.html

Supporters had predicted that the measure would pass by a 4-1 vote and placed on the ballot by the County Commission.

A minimum of 19,480 signatures from registered city voters were required on the petition for ballot placement and consideration by commissioners.

Advocates for the measure had submitted a petition with more than 28,000 signatures to the City Clerk’s Office.

It was totally discretionary and the responsibility of the Bernalillo County Commission to put the measure on the November 6, 2018.

Democrat Steven Quezada and Republicans Lonnie Talbert and James Smith voted against adding the question on the November ballot, while Democrats Debbie O’Malley and Maggie Hart Stebbins voted to put it on the ballot.

The proposal would have directed the Albuquerque City Council to establish an ordinance providing for issuance and redemption of $25 coupons as donations to candidates for city elections.

The proposal would have also change the date for municipal elections from its usual October date to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November on odd-numbered years.

The measure had it passed in November general election by all county voters would have instructed the Albuquerque City Council to amend is campaign finance law providing for public finance campaigns, which is strictly a city of Albuquerque system for its municipal elections.

Bernalillo County does not have any form of public finance for any of its elected officials.

The proposal would have directed the Albuquerque City Council to establish an ordinance providing for issuance and redemption of the coupons.

The City’s public finance system was enacted by city voters in 2005 in a municipal election and it was a City Council initiative.

Under the Democracy for Dollars proposal, all registered city voters and all residents, would be given $25 Democracy Dollars coupons issued by the city to contribute to their choice of qualified candidates.

Under the system proposed, $25 vouchers will be given or mailed to all registered voters.

Eligible residents who were not registered voters could have also obtained the $25 vouchers by applying to the City Clerk.

Municipal candidates would then redeem the dollars with the city clerk, up to a limit, for funds to spend in support of their municipal campaigns.

Under a successful City Charter amendment, the amount for mayoral candidates would have increased to $1.75 per voter.

Under the system, City Council candidates who take public financing receive $1 per voter in their district, usually around $30,000 to $45,000.

Mayoral candidates get approximately $380,000 and if they make it into a runoff another $118,000.

Notwithstanding the city public finance laws, measured finance committees are allowed to solicit and spend unlimited amounts of money.

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LAWS

It is no clear from the petition if undocumented residents will also have the right to apply for the $25 vouchers, an if so, it would violate federal campaign finance laws.

Section 52 U.S. Code § 30121 of the federal statutes governs contributions and donations by foreign nationals to candidates for office or political campaigns and states:

“PROHIBITION: It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to contribute or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) [It shall be unlawful for] a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b)“FOREIGN NATIONAL” DEFINED: As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means: a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States … [as defined by federal statute] and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by [federal statute] … ”

Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules and regulations defines individuals who are considered “foreign nationals” and are subject to the prohibition to include foreign citizens, not including dual citizens of the United States, and immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

The $25-dollar coupons or vouchers called “Democracy for Dollars” clearly have a value once redeemed and fall within the definition “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value.”

Foreign nationals who knowingly and willfully engage in the prohibited activities of donating to candidates for office or political campaigns may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/

REACTION TO COUNTY COMMISION VOTE

Heather Ferguson, executive director of Common Cause New Mexico, had this to say about the County Commission vote:

“We’re really disappointed that the county commission decided to take an action tonight that was against the wishes and will of 28,000 of their constituents. … Every single one of the residents of Albuquerque are their constituents here in the county, and that was silencing their voices. It was incredibly disappointing to hear.”

County Commissioners expressed concerns about the proposal, especially about how the coupons would be tracked, used and distributed.

After the county commission meeting, Democrat Steve Quezada had this to say:

“I think that public financing is important, especially to Democrats who don’t have access to a lot of dollars. … I [also] think we need to look at how that’s done and how that’s structured. There were too many holes. I had too many questions, and why am I making a decision that the city councilors aren’t doing? I hate to throw them under the bus, but really, this is their decision. I feel bad because [the election advocates] worked really hard, and I’m sad that it’s going to be further down the road, but we still have public financing in place.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

“Democracy Dollars” was seriously flawed from the get go as outlined in this blog article:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/08/13/democracy-dollars-to-be-given-to-all-residents-not-just-registered-voters/

There are 4 major points the majority of Bernalillo County Commission picked up on about “Democracy Dollars that were clear flaws:

1. The Bernalillo County Commission would be involved with a decision that instructed the Albuquerque City Council to amend its public finance laws that were enacted in a 2005 municipal election amending the City Charter.

2. The $25 vouchers are to be mailed or given to all registered voters as well as any resident of the city who is not a registered voter but who applies for a voucher.

3. The issuance of $25 vouchers to all city residents of the city and not just registered voters would result in a financial liability far above and beyond what is already in the city budget for publicly financed candidates.

4. The $25 voucher system proposed could be very easily abused and undermined by a candidate who decides to go around and just buy the voucher’s outright from residents at a lesser cost of say $5 to $10 for an example and then turn the purchased voucher into the city to collect the full $25.

The “Democracy Dollars” are really “free vouchers” provided to all city to residents in an apparent attempt to supplement the $5.00 qualifying donations from registered voters to the city that are now required to secure public financing.

The entire public finance system enacted by city voters in 2005 needs to be completely over hauled to make it easier for candidates to qualify for public financing, especially the collection of the $5.00 qualifying donations.

Getting on the municipal ballot and qualifying for public finance is by far where the problems are with the existing system as are the influence of “measured finance” committees.

On January 2, 2018, I posted my blog article with recommendations for changes to the City’s public finance and election code laws.

Following is a listing of the recommendations:

1. Allow four (4) months and two (2) weeks, from January 1 to May 15, to collected both the qualifying donations and petition signatures, and private campaign donation collection.
2. Allow the collection of the qualifying donations from anyone who wants, and not just residents or registered voters of Albuquerque. Privately finance candidates now can collect donations from anyone they want and anywhere in the State and Country.
3. Once the allowed number of qualifying donations is collected, the public financing would be made immediately available, but not allowed to be spent until starting May 15.
4. Permit campaign spending for both publicly financed and privately financed candidates only from May 15 to the October election day.
5. Return to candidates for their use in their campaign any qualifying donations the candidate has collected when the candidate fails to secure the required number of qualifying donations to get the public financing.
6. Mandate the City Clerk to issue debit card or credit card collection devices to collect the qualifying donations and to issue receipts and eliminate the mandatory use of “paper receipts”.
7. Increase from $1.00 to $2.50 per registered voter the amount of public financing, which will be approximately $900,000, and allow for incremental increases of 10% every election cycle keeping up with inflation.
8. Allow for additional matching public financing available for run offs at the rate of $1.25 per registered voter, or $450,000.
9. Albuquerque should make every effort to make municipal elections partisan elections to be held along with State and Federal elections by seeking a constitutional amendment from the legislature to be voted upon by the public.
10. Any money raised and spent by measured finance committees on behalf a candidate should be required to first be applied to reimburse the City for any taxpayer money advanced to a public finance candidate or deducted from a publicly financed candidates account and returned to the city.
11. City of Albuquerque campaign reporting and finance ordinances and regulations need to define with absolute clarity that strictly prohibit the coordination of expenditures and campaign activities with measured finance committees and individual candidate’s campaigns in municipal elections.
12. A mandatory schedule of fines and penalties for violations of the code of ethics and campaign practices act should be enacted by the City Council.

The “Democracy for Dollars” initiative was a pathetic attempt at campaign finance reform.

Common Cause and Democracy for Dollar’s missed the mark totally by promoting just another way for candidates for office to collect donations for their campaigns instead of promoting meaningful campaign and election reform for our municipal elections.

Rather than condemning the County Commission for not going along with them with Democracy Dollars, Common Cause should approach Mayor Tim Keller and the Albuquerque City Council and demand a complete overhaul of the city’s campaign finance law and of the election code.

FOR MORE ON REFORMING CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS SEE:

2017 Mayor’s Race Needs Public Finance Reform

A System Designed For Failure

Father Eric Griego Defends His “Public Finance” Child

2018 YEAR TO REFORM CITY PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS

Following is the full August 14, 2018 Albuquerque Journal Editorial.

Editorial Headline: Keller’s right, Topgolf override not worth a fight
By Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board
Tuesday, August 14th, 2018 at 12:02am

“The fight between the Albuquerque City Council and Mayor Tim Keller’s administration over economic development incentives for Topgolf came to a head last week with the Council’s 7-2 vote to override Keller’s veto of the incentives.

And while Keller could certainly challenge the economic development package in court, it would be better for everyone involved to simply put the matter in the rearview mirror and move on, which is exactly what Keller appears ready to do.

“From the beginning, we were pleased to welcome Topgolf to Albuquerque, but we felt that this deal missed the mark,” Keller said in a statement following the vote. “… We continue to work with the council on a variety of initiatives under the steady leadership of Council President (Ken) Sanchez.”

The economic development project includes $400,000 of city general fund money unspent from the fiscal 2018 budget. The deal also includes the city reimbursing 50 percent of incremental city gross receipts tax revenue, up to $1.8 million, to assist the site developer with costs of land, building or infrastructure. Also included is a $326,000 appropriation from the city transportation infrastructure tax to extend Culture Road from Montaño to Desert Surf Circle.

Among the criticism has been that the city is spending money to subsidize an out-of-state corporation and that Topgolf is getting an unfair advantage over a similar company looking to set up shop in Albuquerque.

Keller has called it a “raw deal for taxpayers,” saying it would bring low-wage, low-skill jobs and send the wrong signal that the city is prioritizing out-of-state companies over similar local efforts.

Keller is right to point out this is a bad deal for taxpayers, but the money and energy that would be spent on a legal battle fighting the Council is better spent on other economic development priorities.

For the sake of taxpayers, councilors should do a better job of vetting future projects. Better yet, perhaps they should stay in their lane and leave it to the mayor – and the economic development experts the city employs – to pursue economic development projects that could truly benefit Albuquerque’s economy.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1208579/kellers-right-topgolf-override-not-worth-a-fight.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

This Journal Editorial headline and the editorial itself in the political world is akin to hell freezing over when such an editorial is written about a Democrat by the Republican leaning Albuquerque Journal.

On March 15, 2018, I published my blog article “Boxing Match Between Mayor Keller And The Albuquerque Journal.”

The article lists the numerous editorials that have been critical of the Mayor in just the first 3 months of his term.

Mayor Keller’s threat to sue the council also seemed a little posturing on his part and not taken too seriously by many political observers.

With this Journal Editorial, it would appear that the Journal has now settled into the fact that Albuquerque does indeed have a Democrat for Mayor who is doing a better job than their all-time favorite Republican Mayor of the last 8 years.

Only time will tell before the Journal editors wake up and discover what they have done, and say it was all a dream.

In September, 2017, the Journal did a double endorsement of Democrat Brian Colon and Republican Dan Lewis.

On November 15, 2017 hell froze over when the Albuquerque Journal endorsed Tim Keller for Mayor over Republican Dan Lewis.

You can read the full the March 15, 2018 blog article “Boxing Match Between Mayor Keller And Albuquerque Journal” here:

Boxing Match Between Mayor Keller And Albuquerque Journal

You can read the full November 10, 2017 blog article “Hell Freezing Over” here:

Hell Freezing Over

This is yet another blog article on the topic:

You Gotta Pick Your Battles

The Albuquerque City Clerk’s Office has announced it has certified enough signatures of registered voters to allow the measure “Democracy For Dollars” to be placed on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot.

A petition with more than 27,000 signatures was submitted to the City Clerk and 19,480 signatures had to be certified as registered voters.

Supporters of the measure have said publicly that they believe they have the votes of at least 4 county commissioners out of 5 who will vote to put it on the ballot.

Under the system proposed, $25 vouchers will be given or mailed to all registered voters.

Eligible residents who are not registered voters can also get the $25 vouchers by applying to the City Clerk.

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LAWS

It is not clear from the petition if undocumented residents will also have the right to apply for the $25 vouchers, an if so, it would violate federal campaign finance laws.

Section 52 U.S. Code § 30121 of the federal statutes governs contributions and donations by foreign nationals to candidates for office or political campaigns and states:

“PROHIBITION: It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to contribute or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) [It shall be unlawful for] a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b)“FOREIGN NATIONAL” DEFINED: As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means: a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States … [as defined by federal statute] and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by [federal statute] … ”

Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules and regulations defines individuals who are considered “foreign nationals” and are subject to the prohibition to include foreign citizens, not including dual citizens of the United States, and immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/

EXISTING PUBLIC FINANCE SYSTEM

Under the now existing city public finance system, candidates for Mayor and City Council who elect to take public financing must collect a specified number of $5.00 donations and those $5.00 can only come from registered Albuquerque City voters and no County voters can donate.

City Council candidates are required to collect upwards of 850 to 900 $5.00 donations and Mayor candidates are required to collect 3,000 $5.00 donations.

Because the November election is a statewide and county election, the Bernalillo County Commission is required to vote to place it on the ballot.

The ballot initiative if passed would instruct the Albuquerque City Council to amend the city charter and add it to the public finance ordinance enacted in 2005.

Common Cause New Mexico is one of the major proponents of Democracy Dollars and was instrumental in helping secure qualifying signatures.

According to the Common Cause web site, the benefits of Democracy Dollars are:

“The system would require no additional city funding and would enable working- and middle-class candidates to compete against wealthy or well-connected candidates.

A wide range of Albuquerqueans without big pocketbooks would be given a new way of participating in campaigns and having our voices heard.

Candidates could focus on the issues important to the communities they serve instead of dialing for dollars from big donors and special interests.

The Democracy Dollars system would enable a more diverse candidate pool the opportunity to compete in our elections and have a chance to serve in office.”

https://www.commoncause.org/new-mexico/democracy-wire/bringing-democracy-dollars-to-the-duke-city/

According to information distributed by “Democracy Dollars”, if the measure is approved by voters, the City Council would amend the public finance ordinance to “create a voucher system, giving every Albuquerque resident a voucher that could be contributed to the candidate of his/her choice, pushing candidates to interact with the people they intend to serve and be accessible-and accountable-to the community”

All registered voters would automatically be given the $25 “Democracy Dollars” vouchers while residents who are not registered to vote can apply for one.

Candidates for Mayor and City Council would redeem the vouchers with the city clerk for funds to spend only on their campaigns.

The voucher program supposedly will be funded by the city’s public financing fund that is already set up for candidates who qualify for public finance with the fund currently at about $3.5 million.

It is now up to the Bernalillo County Commission to place the initiative on the November ballot.

THE “DEMORACY FOR DOLLARS” EXPLAINED IN ITS OWN WORDS

A four and a half inch by five-and-a-half-inch post card is being distributed by “Albuquerque Democracy Dollars” that explains the proposal as follows:

1. Participating candidates agree to certain limitations.
2. Residents get democracy dollars in the mail. [$25-dollar coupons].
3. They give them to the candidates of their choice.
4. Candidates can redeem them for public funds.

The reverse side of the “DEMORACY FOR DOLLARS” promotional post card reads as follows:

 The system would require no additional city funding and would enable working and middle-class candidates to compete against wealthy or well-connected candidates.
 A wide range of Albuquerqueans without big pockets would be given a new way of participating in campaigns and having our voices heard.
 Candidates could focus on the issues important to the communities they serve instead of dialing for dollars from big donors and special interests.
 Very few Albuquerque residents vote in city elections. Even in the recent mayoral election, voter turnout was very low – 30% of registered voters. Who are they? 68% white, and 67% are over 50.

www.BurqueBucksBucks.org

ALBUQUERQUE’S DEMOGRAPHIC POPULATION

The estimated 2014 population of Albuquerque is 558,000, a slight increase from the 2010 census figures of 545,800.

SOURCE: http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/albuquerque-population/

According to the 2010 census, Albuquerque’s racial makeup was as follows:

• White: 69.7% (non-Hispanic: 42.1%)
• Hispanic or Latino of any race: 46.7%
• Native American: 4.6%
• Black or African American: 3.3%
• Asian: 2.6%
• Two or more races: 4.6%
• Other races: 15.1%

SOURCE: http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/albuquerque-population/

Based on the demographics, there are more residents of the city who are in an ethnic or race minority than there are white or non hispanic.

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

Common Cause and Democracy for Dollar’s have missed the mark by promoting just another way for candidates for office to collect donations for their campaigns instead of promoting meaningful campaign and election reform for our municipal elections.

Two years ago, an effort was made to place on the ballot a city voter petition initiative for mandatory paid sick leave, and the County Commission declined to put it on the ballot saying it was a city issue and should be on a municipal ballot.

Bernalillo County has no “public finance” system in place for any of its elected official’s.

“Democracy Dollars” is proposing major changes to the City of Albuquerque public financing system yet county registered voters will be voting in November on the measure when they are prohibited from voting in municipal elections.

“Democracy Dollars” should be placed on the 2019 City election ballot and not on a general election ballot.

There are two major points that need to be made clear to the County Commission and to voters about “Democracy Dollars”:

1.The $25 vouchers are to be mailed or given to all registered voters as well as any resident of the city who is not a registered voter but who applies for a voucher.
2. The issuance of $25 vouchers to all city residents of the city and not just registered voters will result in a financial liability far above and beyond what is already in the city budget for publicly financed candidates.

The argument that Democracy Dollars involves “no new taxes” conveniently ignores that it still involves taxpayer money that must come from the city’s general fund that is used for essential services and social services.

The City sets aside approximately $500,000 a year for public financing campaigns out of the general fund.

Supporters of Democracy Dollars claim it will be funded by a $3,000,000 surplus that has built up in the Open and Ethical Elections Fund and the annual allocations already in place.

There are approximately 558,000 Albuquerque residents.

To print and implement a voucher system for the estimated 558,000 Albuquerque residents will result in a minimum financial exposure to the city of $13,950,000 million dollars. (558,000 city residents X $25 voucher = $13,950,000 million)

There are approximately 360,000 registered voters in Albuquerque.

To print and implement a voucher system for just registered voters will result in a minimum financial exposure to this city of $9 million dollars. (360,000 registered voters X $25 voucher = $9 million).

An unintended consequence of “Democracy Dollars” will be to add yet another difficult layer of campaign solicitation effort by candidates on top of an already very cumbersome process to collect $5.00 qualifying donations that sets up most candidates for failure.

Candidates will be soliciting not only $5.00 qualifying donations but the $25 city issued coupons that are in reality a city subsidized contribution being called a “block grant” from taxpayers.

Enforcement to prevent violations of campaign finance laws will also be a major hurdle and costly to the city.

The $25 voucher system being proposed can be very easily abused and undermined by a candidate who decides to go around and just buy the voucher’s outright from residents at a lesser cost of say $5 to $10 for an example and then turn the purchased voucher into the city to collect the full $25.

It is very misleading to refer to as “small donors” those residents who are not able to make monetary contribution on their own to a political campaign when they are given a $25 voucher with the funding source in fact coming from the city general fund and taxpayers.

On August 11, 2018, a major proponent of “Democracy for Dollars” expressed the opinion at a meeting of 3 Democratic Wards that “Democracy Dollars” will encourage the immigrant community and the city’s minorities to become more involved and participate in municipal elections by being able to make donations via the vouchers and arguing public financing of campaigns increases voter turnout.

It is extremely doubtful that any voucher system such as “Democracy Dollars” or for that matter any form of public financing of campaigns is going to have any major impact on increasing voter turnout in Albuquerque’s municipal election by minorities or Anglos.

The past three Mayoral elections in 2009, 2013 and 2017 all had the public finance system in place that was enacted in 2005.

Democracy for Dollar organizers point out that in the 2017 mayoral election, voter turnout was very low at 30% of registered voters with the vote being 68% white, and 67% over 50.

In 2017, the only public financed candidate for Mayor and virtually all 5 public finance City Council candidates won their elections yet the voter turnout was still only 29%.

In 2009, all three candidates for Mayor, Richard Berry, Martin Chavez and Richard Romero qualified for public finance and each were given the same amount to spend.

In 2009, only 34% of eligible voters voted.

In 2013, only 1 candidate, yours truly, out of the 3 candidates for Mayor who made the ballot qualified for public financing.

Four years ago, the Albuquerque Municipal election had the lowest voter turnout since 1977 with only 19% of eligible voters voting.

The turnout for the October 3, 2017 municipal election was 29% with 8 candidates running for Mayor, only one qualifying for public finance, and two going on to a runoff, Tim Keller and Dan Lewis, both anglo.

The runoff between Tim Keller and Dan Lewis had a 28.7 percent turnout among registered voters.

https://www.sfreporter.com/abq-news/2017/11/16/voter-turnout-in-abq-runoff-nearly-matched-first-round-of-voting/

Albuquerque’s public finance laws are way too difficult to qualify for public financing in that in the very last 2 Mayor elections, only 2 candidates out of 19 candidates actually qualified for public financing.

The “Democracy for Dollars” plan has absolutely no impact on the effects of measured finance committees and the unlimited amount of money they can raise and spend on behalf or even against a candidate.

It is going to take more than a $25 voucher system and significantly more changes to put public financing directly in the hands of voters, especially with the existence of Citizens United in order to level the political donation playing field.

The one successful public finance candidate in the last two elections for Mayor, Tim Keller, received approximately $852,000 from measured finance committees in addition to his public financing of $506,254 representing final campaign spending of $1,358,254.

The “Democracy Dollars” are really “free vouchers” provided to all city to residents in an apparent attempt to supplement the $5.00 qualifying donations from registered voters to the city that are now required to secure public financing.

Every effort should be made to make Albuquerque’s public financing laws for municipal elections to legally provide for a “dollar for dollar” match to privately raised funds by candidates, thereby providing a real level playing field.

The entire public finance system enacted by city voters in 2005 needs to be completely over hauled to make it easier for candidates to qualify for public financing, especially the collection of the $5.00 qualifying donations.

Getting on the ballot and qualifying for public finance is by far where the problems are with the existing system as are the influence of “measured finance” committees.

The influence of big money in elections allowed by the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United is destroying our democracy.

Many highly qualified candidates for office all too often do not bother to run because of the inability or difficulty raising the necessary money to run.

Political campaign fundraising and big money influence are warping our election process.

Money spent becomes equated with the final vote.

Money drives the message, affects voter turnout and ultimately the outcome of an election.

Albuquerque municipal elections need campaign finance reform and enforcement.

The “Democracy for Dollars” initiative is a pathetic attempt at campaign finance reform.

For more analysis of Democracy Dollars see:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/08/06/democracy-dollars-a-new-form-of-dialing-for-dollars/

*************************************************************************************
POSTSCRIPT:

On January 2, 2018, I posted my blog article with recommendations for changes to the City’s public finance and election code laws.

Following is a listing of the recommendations:

1. Allow four (4) months and two (2) weeks, from January 1 to May 15, to collected both the qualifying donations and petition signatures, and private campaign donation collection.

2. Allow the collection of the qualifying donations from anyone who wants, and not just residents or registered voters of Albuquerque. Privately finance candidates now can collect donations from anyone they want and anywhere in the State and Country.

3. Once the allowed number of qualifying donations is collected, the public financing would be made immediately available, but not allowed to be spent until starting May 15.

4. Permit campaign spending for both publicly financed and privately financed candidates only from May 15 to the October election day.

5. Return to candidates for their use in their campaign any qualifying donations the candidate has collected when the candidate fails to secure the required number of qualifying donations to get the public financing.

6. Mandate the City Clerk to issue debit card or credit card collection devices to collect the qualifying donations and to issue receipts and eliminate the mandatory use of “paper receipts”.

7. Increase from $1.00 to $2.50 per registered voter the amount of public financing, which will be approximately $900,000, and allow for incremental increases of 10% every election cycle keeping up with inflation.

8. Allow for additional matching public financing available for run offs at the rate of $1.25 per registered voter, or $450,000.

9. Albuquerque should make every effort to make municipal elections partisan elections to be held along with State and Federal elections by seeking a constitutional amendment from the legislature to be voted upon by the public.

10. Any money raised and spent by measured finance committees on behalf a candidate should be required to first be applied to reimburse the City for any taxpayer money advanced to a public finance candidate or deducted from a publicly financed candidates account and returned to the city.

11. City of Albuquerque campaign reporting and finance ordinances and regulations need to define with absolute clarity that strictly prohibit the coordination of expenditures and campaign activities with measured finance committees and individual candidate’s campaigns in municipal elections.

12. A mandatory schedule of fines and penalties for violations of the code of ethics and campaign practices act should be enacted by the City Council.

You can read the complete blog article here:

2018 YEAR TO REFORM CITY PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS

Joe Monahan is a political blogger who publishes his political blog “New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan”.

On Wednesday August 8, Joe Monahan published the following excerpt that should be of interest to any city hall observer:

HEADLINE: “No one said it would be easy; Albuquerque still defined by crime and so is Mayor Keller.”

Try as he might with the latest PR techniques featuring a myriad of announcements on small ball stuff, ABQ Mayor Tim Keller remains behind the eight ball as a violent summer continues pretty much unabated in the state’s largest city.

The city is approaching 50 homicides for the year (47 so far) and that number has already been surpassed when you include all of BernCo.

The latest slaying was that of a 25-year-old man Saturday night in downtown ABQ, delivering a further blow to the city’s economic development even as Keller prepared the release of his economic plan.

Downtown ABQ, with often good cause, is perceived by tourists and visiting businessmen and women as a dangerous place to traverse.

Keller has resisted pleas from business owners to establish a downtown police district, something they assert he promised during the campaign.

The administration has claimed some success in reducing auto theft and other property crimes since taking power last December, but the spate of shootings and murders lend a sense of anarchy when it comes to getting crime truly under of control.

Patience is starting to wear thin, with not only the violence weighing on residents but the still uncertain leadership skills of APD Chief Michael Geier.

Mayor Keller’s economic plan has long concentrated on bolstering local businesses.

That’s good.

Because what major national business with good jobs, young employees and their families would want to come here given current circumstances?

CAMPAIGN ON CRIME

The ABQ crime wave has entered the Governor’s race, with Dem hopeful Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham releasing a TV ad that touts her success in winning federal funding for crime fighting:

“In Congress I got millions of dollars for our police. I can do even more as Governor.”

More money is always welcome but that is not ABQ’s problem.

The Mayor and City Council approved a quarter cent increase in the gross receipts tax that took effect July 1 that is expected to pump over $50 million a year into city coffers, the lion’s share of which will go to police and crime fighting.

That money is Mayor Keller’s last leg to stand on.

If a year from today we are still dealing with an orgy of violence, drug-dealing and horrid child abuse cases it won’t be for a lack of money, it will be for a lack of leadership.”

The link to Joe Monahan’s blog is here:

http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/

PUBLIC SAFETY ALWAYS ISSUE IN MAYORS RACE

In 2009, when Richard Berry ran against incumbent Mayor Marty Chavez and former State Senator Richard Romero, the rise in property crime and auto thefts were made a major issue by Berry.

Candidate Berry did a commercial standing next to his truck that had been torched after it was stolen and then found.

Berry proclaimed: “I will make Albuquerque the worse place to be a criminal.”

The ad was effective and Berry went on to become Mayor.

Eight (8) years ago when Berry took office, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) was the best trained, best equipped, best funded department in its history and was fully staffed with 1,100 sworn police officers.

Tragically, Albuquerque’s crime rates have been steadily climbing since 2012.

Since 2012, violent crime has grown by an astonishing 77%.

In 2013, when Berry ran for reelection, he argued that crime was down, when it was not, and his lies eventually caught up with him and he left office with an extremely low approval rating.

In 2013, drug crimes and property crimes were spiking and APD sworn police officer levels were dropping dramatically.

In eight (8) years during Berry’s 2 terms in office, APD went from 1,100 sworn police to a mere 853 with only 435 sworn police patrolling the streets and taking calls for service.

During the 2017 mayoral race, crime, public safety the Albuquerque Police Department and the DOJ reforms were the biggest issues.

In 2017, violent crime in the city jumped by 18 percent over the previous year.

In 2017, Homicides were up 23 percent, robberies were up by 43 percent, rapes were up 21 percent and aggravated assaults climbed by 4.2 percent.

The spike in crime in 2017 followed a 15.5 percent increase in violent crime in the city in 2016, and a 13.3 percent jump in property crime.

In June, for the second year in a row the city was named the auto theft capital of the nation by the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

In July, 2018, APD released the city’s crime statistics for the first half of 2018 comparing them to the first half of 2017.

APD reported that all major categories of property crime went down for the first time in 8 years.

However, there were 6 more murders in the first quarter of 2018 compared with 2017 which was a 50% increase.

Homicides have now dropped the first half of 2018 by 18% compared to last year which is great news.

Notwithstanding, the 18% drop in homicides, Albuquerque is still on track to break the all-time record high of 70 murders by the end of the year.

COMMENTARY

In politics, appearance all too often are everything, as is often what is not said nor done.

“Appearance politics” is something I suspect Mayor Keller is acutely aware of given that he is in public relations mode non-stop.

Mayor Tim Keller has taken photo ops to a new level by attending protest rallies to speak at, attending marches, attending heavy metal concerts to introduce the band, running in track meets and participating in exhibition football games as the quarterback and enjoying re-living his high school glory days, and posting pictures and videos on FACEBOOK.

It is also a very necessary and critical part of the job of being Mayor and he cannot be faulted for that point.

It is very good news that Albuquerque’s property crime rates for the first time in a number of years appear to be declining, but for how long and to what extent only time will tell.

Keller can take comfort and a degree of credit for bringing down property crimes for the first half of the year on his watch and he can breathe a little easier, but not for long.

Property crimes tend to be “seasonal” and increase in the summer time, so APD needs to continue with their efforts and vigilance.

The bad news is that the city’s murder rates are still way too high and the city is way too violent.

There is a big difference between governing and running for office.

When Tim Keller was running, he proclaimed that APD needed serious reform and promised to return to community base policing.

To his credit, Mayor Tim Keller is planning to spend $88 million dollars, over a four-year period, with 32 million dollars of recurring expenditures to hire 350 officers and expand APD from 878 sworn police officers to 1,200 officers by implementing a hiring and recruitment program to offer incentives, pay raises and bonuses to join or return to APD in order to return to community-based policing.

Keller’s plan to turn APD around is going to take more time than he may have to convince people that he has solved Albuquerque’s high crime rates, especially when there is blood in the streets and our children continue to be murdered the way 9 year old Victoria Marten’s was raped, murdered, dismembered and burned.

During the first year of his expansion plan for APD, Mayor Keller has 1,040 officers budgeted for which is 40 more sworn officers than the 1,000 budgeted for last year.

APD currently has 870 sworn police officers.

APD is now Mayor Keller’s department and APD’s homicide division has brought shame upon the department in botching case after case and their clearance rate is atrocious at less than 50% when at one time it was at least 85%.

Adding gasoline to the fire, even after a homicide is committed and defendants are arrested, cases are being dismissed because of shoddy and incomplete investigations, a failure to process scientific evidence such as DNA and with people arrested that did not even commit the crime having to be released.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/07/02/abq-report-apd-homicide-units-legacy-of-shame/

No amount of public relations, inspiring speeches, hand shaking and feel good FACEBOOK videos by Mayor Keller are going to bring down our crime rates to where they were 8 years ago.

Voters tend to be very fickle.

As Mayor Tim Keller approaches his first full year in office, people are beginning to demand far more results.

With the daily reports of homicides in the news, people are beginning to believe the change they voted for is not materializing and things are getting worse with APD and crime.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/08/08/abq-report-new-apd-worse-than-old-apd/

As Joe Monahan so accurately stated: “If a year from today we are still dealing with an orgy of violence, drug-dealing and horrid child abuse cases it won’t be for a lack of money, it will be for a lack of leadership.”

Those are harsh words, but it is reality politics and the nature of city elections.

Mayor Keller’s success with dealing with our crime rates and the management of APD with respect to the Department of Justice reforms will have a direct impact on Mayor Keller’s chances of being reelected or for that matter going on to higher office.

There is no amount of public relations that will prevent Mayor Tim Keller from being defined by our serious violent crime rates and he needs to act far more aggressively.

If our homicide rate is not brought under control by Keller, do not be surprised if one of Keller’s opponents in 3 years does a political ad in a morgue standing next to a coffin reminiscent of Berry standing next to his stolen and burned out recovered truck and saying that Keller has failed as Mayor when it comes to public safety.

For more on crime rates see:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/07/19/kudos-to-keller-apd-for-bringing-property-crime-down-but-still-carry-your-gun/