Governor Lujan Grisham has called for up to $475 million to be spent on single time pandemic relief measures during this year’s 60-day legislative session that started on January 19. The Governor did not tell lawmakers what specific programs should be funded leaving that up to them.

Legislation is progressing through committee hearings in the 2021 Legislative session that will have a direct impact on New Mexico’s service industry and employees. Two are Pandemic Relief funding and one is paid sick leave.

PANDEMIC RELIEF FUNDING

On Thursday, February 4, the State Senate Finance committee approved two separate pandemic relief bills on a unanimous vote with no dissent. Senate Bill One (SB-1) bill calls for $600 rebates for New Mexico workers who make less than $15 per hour. It also calls for a 4-month tax suspension for restaurants, breweries, dining establishments, including food trucks.

REBATES TO ESSENTIAL WORKERS

In the June and November Special Legislative session held in 2020,the New Mexico lawmakers passed two separate pandemic relief packages. The November relief package was objected to by many legislators because it did not include hazard-pay bonuses to “essential” workers making less than $15 an hour. These are workers who have been at the front lines of the pandemic working at grocery stores, hospitals and other businesses.

According to Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, such workers will benefit from the$600 rebates in that it targets New Mexicans who qualified for the state’s Working Families Tax Credit in 2020. Wirth told the Senate Finance Committee:

“These are the essential workers that have been holding our economy together and deserve our thanks.”

RESTAURANT TAX RELIEF

Under the Senate Bill approved by the Senate Finance committee, a “tax holiday” for restaurant and brewery sales was approved to in effect from March through June. According to the legislation, sales made during the 4-month time period would allow to be deducted from gross receipts tax and the state would offset any revenue loss incurred by New Mexico cities and counties as a result.

Sen. Crystal Diamond, R-Elephant Butt, told the Senate Committee that while tax relief could help keep some struggling restaurants afloat, allowing restaurants and bars to reopen with relaxed capacity limits would have a much bigger impact in keeping such establishments from permanently shuttering. At this point, the tax relief is already too late for many restaurants that have already closed.

WAIVER OF LIQUOR LICENSING FEES

The Senate Finance committee endorsed a separate bill that directed the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing, Alcohol and Gaming Division to temporarily waive the fees for liquor licenses. All bars in New Mexico had to pay liquor license fees last year, despite being closed for most of the year due to public health orders issued by Governor Lujan Grisham.

The pandemic and the Governor’s mandatory closures and limited occupancy restrictions for indoor and outdoor dining to slow the spread of the virus has had a dramatic impact. Some supporters are saying that upwards of 30% of businesses closed will never reopen again and have gone out of business.

The state Taxation and Revenue Department said taxable gross receipts from New Mexico’s hospitality and food industries are down 21.8% or by more than $445 million over the 2019 year’s levels through the first five months of the current budget year.

WHERE THE FUNDING WILL COME FROM

The relief package is an estimated $185 million for the rebates and restaurant tax breaks alone. The financing will come from the state’s cash reserves. The states cash reserves are upwards of $2.5 billion, which is 35% of the state’s overall spending.

Senate Bill 1 will be scheduled for debate and a final vote by the Senate during the week of February 8. The goal is to get the recovery package to the Governor by the end of the month to be signed into law. The bills will take effect immediately upon being signed if they pass both legislative chambers with at least a two-thirds majority vote.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2356345/pandemic-recovery-bills-moving-quickly-at-roundhouse.html

MANDATORY PAID SICK LEAVE LEGISLATION

House Bill 20 is legislation that would require New Mexico employers to offer paid sick leave to their workforce. On Thursday February 4, the bill passed the House Labor, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on 5 to 3 vote. Democrats voted YES in favor and Republicans voting NO Before the vote, the sick leave bill was amended to incorporate ideas from a competing bill.

Under House Bill 20, employees would accrue at least 1 hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked. Employees could use up to 64 hours of earned leave in a 12 month period, unless the employer offers a higher limit. The sick leave accrual would apply regardless of the size of the business.

The sick leave proposal includes a provision for supplemental leave during a public health emergency, expanding what’s otherwise called for in the law. Under the legislation, employees could use sick leave accrued for medical care, caring for a family member or for absences related to domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking.
Employers who violate the act would be liable for three times the wages they should have paid the employee, or $1,000, whichever is greater.

Sponsors of the bill are Democratic Representatives . Christine Chandler of Los Alamos and Angelica Rubio of Las Cruces. Both representatives told the House committee the sick leave proposal will help protect employers and employees alike, by limiting the chances for illness to spread within a workplace. Rubio for his part told the committee:

“This is the one thing that workers need right now, particularly because of what they’re exposed to on the front lines.”

OLÉ New Mexico has been a major advocate of paid sick leave the last 4 years in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, advocating both the city and county governments to enact such legislation and placing the measures on the ballot where it has failed. Eric Shimamoto, a member of OLÉ New Mexico told the house committee:

“If this pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that staying home when you’re sick is taking care of everyone.”

OPPOSITION TO SICK LEAVE ORDIANCE

The paid sick leave legislation drew aggressive opposition from business owners and business groups. They argued forcefully that the amended bill did not address concerns about the cost and paperwork burden on small businesses. Terri Cole, president and CEO of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce had this to say in an interview with the Albuquerque Journal after the house committee hearing:

“We provided the committee with several reasonable ways to limit the financial impact this onerous mandatory leave bill will otherwise have on small businesses and their workers. While this one committee chose to ignore the input of the business community, we can’t imagine the governor, House leaders, and Senate leaders share the belief that small businesses shouldn’t be accommodated and included in the conversation.”

The link to the Albuquerque Journal article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2356375/sick-leave-proposal-takes-shape-in-house.html

The paid sick leave Bill 20 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, for yet another committee hearing where it could pass, voted down or be tabled. If the bill passes the House Judiciary Committee is will then be forwarded to the full House Chamber for consideration and if it passes there, it will be forwarded to the State Senate for further committee hearings.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The pandemic relief bills can not be enacted soon enough and signed by the Governor. The state’s reserve fund of $2.5 billion is being used for what is it intended to be used for: economic and financial crises. The relief was needed yesterday.

As for the sick leave legislation, its goals and objective are worthy of support, but the timing of the enactment could not come at a worse time. Mandatory pay of sick leave is a hard sell given the fact unemployment applications are at historical highs in New Mexico and so many businesses in the service industry have closed down, and probably permanently. Forcing mandatory payment of sick leave is difficult to justify during a pandemic and with so many business closures and even the 25% customer occupancy rules in place.

All bars in New Mexico have been closed since March under the Governor’s pandemic health care orders resulting in severe economic consequences. House Bill 8 was introduced for consideration by the 2021 New Mexico Legislature by New Mexico State Representative Dayan Hochman-Vigil, a Democrat from Albuquerque. The legislation would make significant changes to New Mexico’s liquor laws.

HB 8 would allow restaurants, grocery stores, liquor stores, craft distillers, small brewers and bars to offer “home delivery” of bottled alcoholic spirits. Under the legislation, restaurant deliveries would be limited to beer and wine sales that would require a minimum food purchase of $25.00. All the other liquor sales businesses would not have a food sale restriction or a purchase quantity requirement.

HB 8 would create a new type of license that would allow restaurants to serve hard liquor, and not just wine and beer, without the purchase of an expensive dispenser license. If House Bill 8 were to pass, bars owners would be allowed to take alcohol delivery orders without opening their establishment. The argument made it would provide a stream of revenue for the struggling industry during the pandemic. The new license would allow restaurants to pay a yearly fee of $3,000 to the state to sell liquor.

NEW MEXICO HOUSE COMMITTEE TABLES HB 8

On February 6, 2020, the following article written by reporter Robert Nott with the Santa Fe New Mexican was published by New Mexico Political reports, with link following the article:

HEADLINE: “NEW MEXICO HOUSE COMMITTEE TABLES SOME PROPOSED LIQUOR LICENSE CHANGES”

BY ROBERT NOTT, SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN

“Members of a House committee on Friday tabled two bills that would change the way liquor licenses are distributed in New Mexico after several license holders spoke in opposition, arguing the measures would render their licenses, some worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, nearly worthless.

Maestas introduced a separate bill that would offer limited tax breaks to existing license-holders to mitigate their potential losses. He said the bill will get a hearing sometime next week.

The link to the article is here:

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2021/02/06/new-mexico-house-committee-tables-some-proposed-liquor-license-changes/?mc_cid=90c481db30&mc_eid=d03b0979c3

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The sale of liquor in the state is one of the most highly regulated industries in virtually all states. Licenses usually have ongoing qualifying mandates for renewal and at times have terms as to how long the license is effective and must be renewed. There is a liquor license revocation process in place, such as revoking a license if liquor is sold to minors. Normally, licenses issued by a state do not give vested property rights to those individuals who apply for and issued the license to be able to sell or transfer on the open market. Dispenser licenses are viewed as “speculative investments” that accrue in value, and that was never the intent of the legislature.

The biggest problem with the existing New Mexico state liquor control laws is that they create the problem of granting a “property right” to those who were originally issued state licenses by allowing them to be sold or leased on the open market. The state did so for the sole purpose of putting a cap on the number of liquor licenses in order to avoid the proliferation of liquor businesses in a county, city or neighborhood. It was a good idea at the time and was intended to have an impact on the state’s alcohol abuse problem and DWI rates.

If New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the New Mexico Legislature truly want to encourage economic development and help locally owned businesses, liquor license reform must be included in the equation. It is likely such reform will require sweeping changes to level the playing field for all that want to apply for liquor permits.

Its encouraging that HB 8 was tabled for now in that other legislation is being written that will indeed be far more likely to achieve liquor licensing law reform

Links to related blog articles are here:

Liquor License Reform Requires More Than Home Delivery Sales; Abolish “Dispenser Licenses” That Give Property Rights; Return To State Licensing As Giving Permission And Not Giving Property Rights

John B. Strong Guest Column: Revisiting Liquor License Reform

On December 18, 2020, President Joe Biden announced the appointment of Congresswoman Debra Haaland as United State Secretary of Interior. The appointment is historic because once confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Haaland will become the first Native American woman to be part of any presidential cabinet. Haaland has yet to be confirmed by the United States Senate and has not resign from congress. She did vote for the 2nd Impeach of President Trump over his inciting of the January 6, 2021 storming of the capitol. It is speculated that Haaland will be confirmed in late March by the Senate at which time she will resign her congressional seat.

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

The timing of Haaland’s resignation from congress will have a major impact on when a special election is held to replace her. Haaland will remain in her U.S. House seat through the Senate confirmation process. If she is not confirmed first, she would remain in congress. If and when of Haaland’s resignation from congress will determine when the New Mexico Secretary of State must call for a special election. The word “if” is used only because over the years more than one cabinet nominee has had to withdraw after US Senate hearings and vetting. Some Republicans are already voicing opposition to her nomination over he opposition the oil and gas drilling and support of environmental efforts.

Under New Mexico law, a special election must be held between 77 to 91 days after the seat is vacated. In 2019, the New Mexico legislature changed its law on the process used to fill vacancies in the United States House and Senate. Under the new law, there are no primary elections. Instead, New Mexico’s 3 recognized political parties central committees (Democrat, Republican and Libertarian Party) will meet and nominate their own candidates at least 56 days before the special election.

In the Democratic Party, only members of the State Central Committee residing in Congressional District 1 will vote to fill the vacancy. There are about 170 members from the Albuquerque district on the Democrat Central Committee and sources have confirmed more that a number of candidates have already begun calling State Central Committee members in the Democratic and Republican parties.

THE RACE TO REPLACE

Since the December 18 cabinet appointment announcement, the race to replace Haaland has become very crowded. One virtual debate amongst the Democratic candidates was held on February 4 by the mid heights Indivisible Nob Hill organization.

Following is a listing of the identified announced candidates:

ANNOUNCED DEMOCRATS

1. State Senator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, who ran for the position in 2018 and came in 3rd in the primary. She is a fomer UNM Law School professor and the wife of State District Court Judge Victor Lopez.

2. NM State Rep. Melanie Stansbury who has been twice elected to the New Mexico House and has served as an environmental adviser in the Obama White House.

3. NM State Representative Patricia Roybal Caballero, serving as a member of the House of Representatives from the Bernalillo County 13th district. She was elected in 2012, and assumed office on January 15, 2013. In the New Mexico State Legislature, Rep. Roybal Caballero has served as House Democratic Caucus Chair (2014-2016), Vice Chair of the House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee (2013-2018), Vice Chair of the House Labor, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee.

4. New Mexico State Representative Georgene Louis, Bernalillo County District 13. She is an attorney and has served in the legislature since 2013. She is the chair of the House State Government, Elections & Indian Affairs Committee, a a member of House Judiciary Committee and the House Rules and Order Committees.

5. Highly respected trial attorney Randi Mc Ginn, a former Assistant Bernalillo County District Attorney and Special Prosecutor of the two police officers charged in the murder of homeless camper James Boyd. She is also the widow of the late Supreme Court Justice Charles Daniels.

6. Karie Converse, trial attorney and formerly with the New Mexico Office of the Federal Public defender.

7. Victor Reyes, Legislative director for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. He is a community organizer, environmental advocate and a strong progressive. Mr. Reyes served as the chair of New Mexico’s Community Development Council where he oversaw the investment of tens of millions of dollars of federal funds in infrastructure and economic development projects in New Mexico. As the political and legislative director of Conservation Voters New Mexico, he led the successful opposition to anti-conservation legislation in the 2015 state legislative session. As the Campaigns Director for ProgressNow New Mexico, he championed progressive candidates and issues.

8. Francisco Fernández According to his campaign web page, Mr. Fernandez is a “5th generation Burqueño” whose family history predates statehood. He grew up in multiple Albuquerque communities. He is the first in his family to graduate college and attended the Jesuit Catholic College of Loyola University, New Orleans. He is involved in the entertainment industry and has pursued a career in television and film production. You can review more on his candidacy at https://www.franciscofornm.com/meet-francisco

9. Selinda Guerro is a community activist. According to her web page, she is a working class BIPOC feminist community organizer. She is a single mother of six and a lifelong resident of Albuquerque. The link to her campaign web page is here to read more about her candidacy and background : https://www.thepeopleforcongress.com/

ANNOUNCED REPUBLICANS

As of Wednesday, January 3, the Republicans who have so far announced their candidacies are:

1. Eddy Aragon, CEO of the Rock of Talk radio station and conservative radio talk show host for “Rock the Talk”. Aragon also ran for Mayor four years ago Just recently, Aragon ran against State Republican Party Chairman Steve Pierce for Republican Party chairman proclaiming the party needed a new generation of leader. Aragon is an extreme, right wing conservative and staunch supporter of President Trump. Aragon is known for his sharp tongue approach on his radio programs that alienates both friends and foes alike.

2. Peggy Muller-Aragon, an Albuquerque Public Schools board member and wife of private attorney Robert Aragon who was a New Mexico State Representative and who himself ran for congress many years ago. His father was longtime New Mexico State Democratic Representative Bennie Aragon. Both Peggy and Robert Aragon were Democrats and one time but become Republicans many years ago.

3. Michaela Chavez, an Albuquerque bookkeeper who recently ran for state Senate and lost to Democrat State Senator Bill O’Neill.

4. Ronnie Lucero, who is involved with the Lexit Strike Force, a group that rallies for conservative Latino voters.

5. Jared Vander Dussen, a candidate who lost in the Republican primary last year to Michelle Garcia Holmes.

ANNOUNCED INDEPENDANTS

Former state Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn is running as an independent candidate. Dunn was a registered Republican and changed his party affiliation after leaving the Land Commissioners Office.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Even with a remarkable number of 14 candidates running to replace Debra Haaland in 1st Congressional District, voters can take comfort that they will not be inundated with TV commercials, at least until the major parties select their party’s nominees. For now, the scrambling and the campaigning is confined to the members of the State Central Committees. No doubt the lion’s share of the campaigning consists of candidates making phone calls to all members of the state central committees which are the hard-core party activists.

The hard-core activists on the Democratic Party State Central committee are most assuredly progressives with many Bernie Sanders supporters. For the Republican State Central Committee, the hard-core party activists are Trump supporters who have bought into all of his lies over the past 4 years and that the election was stolen. Republican Party State Party Chairman and former Congressman Steve Pierce will no doubt make every effort to nominate a strong Trump supporter the likes of Yvette Harrel as he eyes another race for Governor.

New Mexico, and in turn, the 1st Congressional District, is facing any number of problems that are bringing it to its knees. Those problems include the corona virus pandemic, business closures, high unemployment rates, exceptionally high violent crime and murders rates, poverty, children at risk, a lack luster education system and very little economic development.

On the federal level, issues the country is facing include a threat to our democracy and the election process, COVID relief aide to the state, systemic racism, preserving a woman’s right to choose, responsible gun control, equal rights, civil rights and LGBTQ Rights, immigration reform, health care for all, increasing the minimum wage and paid sick leave, legalization of marijuana, campaign finance reform addressing “citizen united”, fair taxation for all, just to mention a few.

The State can go no longer afford to elect people to congress based upon promises and nothing but eternal hope for better times and for a better future and with no results. What is needed is a congressional representative that actually knows what they are doing, and are informed and will make the hard decisions without their eye on the next election or higher office nor some one who just wants to placate their base and tell them what they want to hear. A person who is willing to serve in the United State House for a number of years with an emphasis on constituent services and not use the office as nothing more than a stepping stone for higher office down the road. Let’s hope the candidates who are running for Congress will concentrate on what’s important to the 1st Congressional District and not strictly to their party dogma or personal gain but one truly committed to public service.

Good luck to all the candidates and thank you for making the commitment to run for office during these difficult days for our country and our state.

It has been reported by two separate news outlets that Democratic Governor Michell Lujan Grisham has given $7,400 to $18,000 pay increases to her personal staff while at the same time she and legislators were taking back a 4% raises promised to teachers, state employees and essential workers. The Governor also issued a hiring freeze for state government as a cost saving measure.

It was on June 18, 2020 that the Governor was forced to call a special legislative session to deal with the state’s deficit and to adjust the state budget amid historical deficits the result of the COVID-19 pandemic business closures and the collapse in oil revenues. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and New Mexico lawmakers were faced with more than $2 billion budget deficit that they dealt with during the special session. The state projected a $1.976 billion revenue loss for the Fiscal Year 2021 budget which began on July 1, 2020 and ends on June 30, 2021.

Links to the news articles are here:

https://thecandlepublishing.com/new-mexico-governor-quietly-gave-large-raises-to-her-staff-while-cutting-teacher-and-state-employee-raise/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2355906/govs-office-pay-raises-draw-fire.html

RAISES GIVEN TO POLITCAL OPERATIVES

Eight of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s executive staff received salary increases totaling $92,000 over the past year. The raises took effect in April, 2020, before the special session to deal with the budget shortfall. The increases range from 8% to 21%. All 8 of the executive staff are exempt employees who serve at the pleasure of the Governor, can be terminated without cause, and have little or no job descriptions other than the titles they hold. The new salaries paid range from $101,088 to $146,000.

On average state, school, and hospital employees paid from state and federal funds are paid between $30,000 to $40,000 a year. Last year at the time the Governor approved the executive salaries increases, the Governor told state employs who were paid under $15 an hour they would not get the 4% pay increase originally approved by the 2020 Legislature but would be given a 1% pay increase instead. For a worker making $12 an hour, that would have been less than $20 more a week.

THOSE WHO WERE GIVEN GOVERNOR’S RAISES IDENTIFIED

Five of the eight were given 8% salary increases while the other 3 were given 21%, 15%, and 10% respectively. Following is a listing of the “GREEDY 8” salary increases:

Tripp Stelnicki, Director of Communications, went from a salary of $88,399 paid in January 2020 to a salary of $107,000 in January, 2021, or 21% salary increase.

Melisa Salazar, Director of Boards and Commissions, went from a salary of $78,000 in January 2020 to a salary of $90,000 in January, 2021 or a 15% salary increase.

Matthew Garcia, Chief of Staff, went from a salary of $133,120 in January 2020 to a salary of $146, 016 in January, 2021 or a 10% salary increase.

Teresa Cosados, Chief Operating Officer, went from a salary of $135,200 in January 2020 to a salary of $146,016 in January, 2021 or an 8% salary increase.

Dominic Cabello, Cabinet Director, went from a salary of $133,120 in January 2020 to a salary of $143,770 in January, 2021 or an 8% salary increase.

Diego Arencon, Deputy Chief of Staff, went from a salary of $125,001 in January 2020 to a salary of $135,001 in January, 2021 or an 8% salary increase. Diego Rincon was promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff which was said to have justified the salary increase because he assumed additional duties and responsibilities. Ricon retired from the Albuquerque Fire Department as a “pipeman” over 3 years ago and for a number of years was the president of the Firefighters union. It is common knowledge that Rincon over many years has had a strong working relationship with the Governor and that he has been within her “inner circle” giving advice and support to her during her years as a Bernalillo County Commissioner and as a United States Congresswoman.

Carolyn Buerkle, Deputy Chief Operations Officer, went from a salary of $125,001 in January 2020 to a salary of $135,001 in January, 2021 or an 8% salary increase. Caroline Buerkle was promoted to and became Deputy Chief Operating Officer, which was said to have justified the salary increase because she assumed additional duties and responsibilities. Buerkle is known to be a close personal friend and travels with the Governor often.

Victor Reyes, Director of Legislative Affairs, went from a salary of $93,600 in January 2020 to a salary of $101,088 in January, 2021 or an 8% salary increase.

OTHER STATE EMPLOYEES

The Governor of New Mexico is paid $174,000 a year. (https://ballotpedia.org/Michelle_Lujan_Grisham)

The Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico is paid $85,000 a year. (https://ballotpedia.org/Lieutenant_Governor_of_New_Mexico)

A little less than two years ago on May 24, 2019 ,it was reported that Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham approved a 17% salary increase for all Cabinet secretaries. The raises took cabinet secretaries’ annual pay from $128,000 to $150,000. At the time, Governor spokesman Tripp Stelnicki said the raises would help the state compete with the private sector in getting the best candidates.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/new-mexico-governor-oks-pay-raises-for-cabinet-secretaries/5360282/

The 2020 New Mexico legislature that convened in January, 2020, teachers were given 6% pay raises and were scheduled to receive 4% starting last summer. That all changed when on June 18, 2020 t the Governor was forced to call a special legislative session to deal with the state’s deficit and to adjust the state budget amid historical deficits. All government pay raises were rolled back to 1% in the June special session. State employees were given 4% pay raises, but those too were eliminated or rolled back to 1%. According to news reports, some of the top staffers in the Governor’s Office, besides the eight who got raises averaging 10% didn’t receive increases either. According to the state’s online salary records the top executives in the Legislative Council Service and Legislative Finance Committee have not had their pay changed over the past year.

SWIFT CONDEMNATIONS FROM REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS AS DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP REMAIN SILENT

Not at all surprising, the pay increases drew immediate condemnation from Republican lawmakers. The Republican legislative leaders noted that at least a few of the changes came after the Governor’s public health restrictions began limiting private business activity which were accompanied by layoffs and increases in unemployment benefit applications.

House Republican Minority Whip Rod Montoya, R-Farmington had this to say:

“I thought the governor told us when she was shutting down the entire state that we were all in this together. … Apparently, we’re not all in this together. … [The raises are] very frustrating.”

Senate Republican Minority Leader Greg Baca, R-Belen, issued a written statement an said in part:

[Governor that Lujan Grisham] has chosen to prioritize political appointees over everyone else. … [She has used] her executive budget to reward the loyalty of her inner circle.”

Thus far, the House and Senate Democrat Leadership have not given any reaction to the raises.

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE RESPONDS

Nora Meyers Sackett, the Governor’s press secretary, responded in part to the criticism saying some of the raises were because of promotions and others were planned in 2019 but didn’t take effect until 2020.
Sackett said in part:

“[Salaries] do change when employees are promoted or their responsibilities are expanded, just like in any other office. … The office stays within its means as far as what is budgeted. [The Governor’s Office] staff play a critical role in the operation of the state’s executive branch and the governance of the state – all of which is amplified during a yearlong crisis. They coordinate state departments and agencies, all of whom operate under the executive’s leadership, as outlined by the state Constitution. … [Their work] has been particularly critical during the ongoing pandemic, as Governor’s Office staff have worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week to direct the state’s COVID-19 response and continue to provide important information to the public.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is no getting around it. No matter what any one can say, all 8 of the pay raises are a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do”. Lest anyone forget, Governor Lujan Grisham asked all state employees to take pay cuts. This was done after a full 8 years of no salary increases under former Republican Governor “She Who Must Not Be Named”.

Handing out $7,400 to $18,000 pay increases to personal staff and political operatives is one sure way to lose credibility with the public and state employees. The Governor’s political operatives need to ask themselves was it really worth it, and because of sure greed, they no doubt think they are worth it and deserve it.
__________________________________________________

POSCRTIPT

The following Albuquerque Journal Editorial was published on Tuesday, February 8:

Editorial: Governor’s big raises for her inner-circle staff are tone deaf and wrong
BY ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD

Monday, February 8th, 2021 at 12:02am

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham must think her communications director had a pretty good pandemic year sparring with Republicans, defiant businesses and churches, tweeting those focused on reopenings were a “death cult.”

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2357147/governors-big-raises-for-her-innercircle-staff-are-tone-deaf-and-wrong.html

The 2021 Albuquerque Municipal election for Mayor and City Council is about to officially start. March 1 is the first day candidates can declare to seek public finance beginning an 8-month election process.

Election day is Tuesday, November 2, 2021.

This blog article is a review of the requirements to get on the ballot, the requirements for public finance, a discussion of the jobs at stake as well as the roll “measured finance” committees will play in the election.

The municipal election is a “nonpartisan” race, meaning no one on the ballot will have a party affiliation listed. The New Mexico Constitution provides that all municipal elections be nonpartisan which is why the Albuquerque City Charter requires it and not because the framers of our charter thought it was a great idea. Notwithstanding, the Democrat and Republican parties are known to get very involved in one form or another either with volunteers, donations or both.

On the ballot this year will be the office for Mayor and the 5 odd numbered city council districts of the 9 city council seats. The council seats up for election are City Council seats 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9.

Although the municipal election is scheduled for November 2, 2021, there is a possibility that a runoff election will have to be scheduled within 30 days. Under the city’s election laws, a candidate in a slate of candidates must secure 50% plus one of the votes in order to avoid a runoff. If no candidate in a field of 3 or more candidates secures the required 50% plus one vote, a runoff is held between the 2 top vote getters.

THE INCUMBENTS

MAYOR TIM KELLER

Democrat Mayor Tim Keller has already made it known he is running for a second 4-year term but will probably schedule a formal announcement soon. Sources are saying the only potential opposition to Keller at this point is Democrat Bernalillo County Sherriff Manny Gonzales. It’s more likely than not the Republican party will recruit someone to run for Mayor.

TO THE VICTOR GOES THE SPOILS

The Mayor is paid $125,000 a year, but also at stake are 26 Department Directors who are at will employees and who serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and who are often paid much more than the Mayor. To emphasize the magnitude of the jobs that are at stake, following is a listing Mayor Keller’s top paid executives and their salaries. All are at-will employees who would be subject to removal if Keller does not win a second term and the new Mayor decides to fire them and replace them:

MAYOR’S APPOINTED EXECUTIVE STAFF SUBJECT TO ELECTION OUTCOME

The Mayor’s top appointed executive staff and pay include:

Nair, Sarita CA-Chief Administrative Office Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) $186,747.20
Rael, Lawrence D CA-Chief Administrative Office Chief Operations Officer (COO) $181,953.60
Bhakta, Sanjay FA-Finance Admin Svc Chief Financial Officer (CFO) $143,008.80

CITY DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS, DEPUTIES AND ASSISTANTS

Department Directors are appointed by the Mayor and are unclassified positions with starting salaries of approximately $116,000. The Mayor’s department directors and what they are paid are as follows:

Medina, Harold Chief Of Police $183,378.60 (Salary paid to Chief Geier before Keller fired)
Gonzalez, Arturo E Deputy Chief $140,498.63
Garcia, Eric J Deputy Chief $140,144.28
Dow, Paul Fire Chief $148,128.08
Aguilar Jr, Esteban A LG-Legal City Attorney $144,386.41
Mowery, David E Deputy Fire Chief $130,892.98
Frazier, Sean R Deputy Fire Chief 128,686.88
Nevarez, Danny S AW-Animal Welfare Director $139,886.00 (FORMER)
Osterloh, Brian A TI-Technology and Innovation Director $133,923.20
Simon, David J PR-Parks and Recreation Director $129,156.00
Leech, Mark T Technology and Innovation Deputy Director/DTI $128,884.60
Di Menna, Mark A EH-Environmental Health Deputy Director/EHSE $124,694.40
Montoya, Charles P MD-Municipal Development Director $124,088.00
Pierce, Carol M FC-Family Community Svcs Director $124,088.00
Chapman, Paul Ray TI-Technology and Innovation Assoc Chief Info Officer $123,073.60
Martinez, Jennifer Renee FA-Finance Admin Svc Director $122,414.40
Scott, Mary L HR-Human Resources Director $119,344.86
Van Etten de Sanchez, Mary CS-Cultural Services Director $119,020.00
Fleming, Baird E Cultural Services Bio Park Administrator $118,771.23 (FORMER)
Fanelli, Pamela S FA-Finance Admin Svc City Controller $118,771.22
Allen, Nyika AV-Aviation Director $117,648.01
Jaramillo, Synthia R ED-Economic Development Director $117,648.00
Sanchez, Anna M SA-Senior Affairs Director $117,648.00
Whelan, Matthew SW-Solid Waste Director $117,648.00
Duhigg, Katy M CC-Office of the City Clerk City Clerk $116,122.80 (FORMER)
Mitchell, Kenneth D Parks and Recreation Deputy Director-Parks & Rec $113,940.40
Williams, Brennon N PL-Planning Department Director $113,180.80
Lozoya, Melissa R. Municipal Development Assoc Director $113,169.64
Smith, Dean P CS-Cultural Services Assoc Director Library 113,211.20
Sourisseau, Kevin J Municipal Development, Deputy Director 112,041.60
Thompson, James Internal Audit City Auditor 111,195.20 (FORMER)
Truong, Loc T, Human Resources Deputy Director/HR 108,632.24

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/05/28/9864/

FIVE CITY COUNCIL POSITIONS

Albuquerque City Councilors are paid $30,600 annually and the Council President earns $32,600 annually. They are also eligible to join the Public Employees Retirement Association and earn a pension after they have served 5 full years. Health Insurance is also made available to them.

The City Council incumbents are as follows:

District 1, City Councilor Lan Sena (Democrat) : She represents Albuquerque’s Central West Side. She was appointed to the City Council in March 2020, by Mayor Tim Keller. Sources are saying she is running for a full term.

District 3, City Councilor Klarissa Peña (Democrat): She represents the southwest part of Albuquerque. She was elected to the City Council in October, 2013. Sources are saying she is running for another 4-year term.

District 5 City Councilor Cynthia D. Borrego (Democrat): She represents the Northwest part of Albuquerque. She was elected to City Council in November 2017. Councilor Borrego is the current President of the City Council and sources are saying she is running for a second 4-year term.

District 7 City Councilor Diane Gibson (Democrat): She represents Albuquerque’s mid-heights including uptown and parts of the near northeast heights. She was elected to the City Council in October 2013. Councilor Gibson is the Vice President of the City Council and sources are saying she is not running for a second term but that could change in no one emerges to run against her.

District 9 City Councilor Don Harris (Republican): He represents the far Southeast Heights and Foothills. He was first elected to the City Council in 2005. Sources are saying Councilor Harris is running for another 4-year term.

2021 CANDIDATE GUIDE

The City of Albuquerque “2021 CANDIDATE GUIDE” provides a detailed candidate calendar of deadlines on pages 6 to 12 of the guide. The Candidate Guide provides the dates and requirements for the filing of campaign finance reports.

The link to the Candidate Guide is here:

http://www.cabq.gov/clerk/documents/candidate-guide-2-0.pdf

DISCLAIMER: This blog article should is not a complete outline of all the mandatory requirements for the 2021 municipal election. Any candidate for municipal office should rely on the candidate guide as the definitive requirements and deadlines

PETITION SIGNATURES AND TIME LINES FOR PUBLIC FINANCE CANDIDATES

According to the City Charter and election code ordinances, candidates for Mayor and City council must gather nominating petition signatures from registered voters who live within the city limits.

MAYOR NOMINATING SIGNATURE PERIOD AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FINANCED CANDIDATES

From April 17 to June 19, 2021, candidates for Mayor must gather 3,000 signatures from registered voters within the City. Each name and signature on the nominating petition is reviewed and compared to the voter registration rolls and if the person who has signed the petition name is not on the voter registration rolls, it is disqualified. Therefore far more than 3,000 signatures are needed to take into account disqualified signatures. Consequently, as many signatures above the 3,000 requirement is recommended for a “buffer” in order to ensure the minimum number of nominating signatures are secured.

CITY COUNCIL NOMINATING SIGNATURE PERIOD AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FINANCE CANDIDATES

From May 31 to July 5, 2021, candidates for City Council must gather 500 qualifying signatures from registered voters within the district the candidate wishes to represent. Each name and signature on the nominating petition is reviewed and compared to the voter registration rolls and if the person who has signed the petition name is not on the voter registration rolls, it is disqualified. Consequently, as many signatures above the 500 requirement is recommended for a “buffer” in order to ensure the minimum number of nominating signatures are secured.

EDITORS NOTE: The petition signature timelines for Mayoral Candidates and Council Candidates highlighted above are for publicly financed candidates.

PRIVATELY FINANCED CANDIDATES SIGNATURE COLLECTON PERIODS

Privately financed candidates also have to collect petition signatures, however they do this much later in the election cycle.

Privately Finance Candidates for Mayor must gather more than 3,000 signatures from registered voters within the City and can only gather signatures from June 8 to August 10, 2021. Each name and signature on the nominating petition is reviewed and compared to the voter registration rolls and if the person who has signed the petition name is not on the voter registration rolls, it is disqualified. Therefore far more than 3,000 signatures are needed to take into account disqualified signatures.

Privately Financed Candidates for City Council must gather more than 500 signatures from registered voters within the district the candidate wishes to represent and can only gather signatures from July 6 to August 10, 2021. Each name and signature on the nominating petition is reviewed and compared to the voter registration rolls and if the person who has signed the petition name is not on the voter registration rolls, it is disqualified. Therefore far more than 500 signatures are needed to take into account disqualified signatures.

You can find these timeframes here:

http://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/privately-financed-candidates

PUBLIC FINANCING AVAILABILITY AND GUIDLINES

March 1 is the first day for Mayoral Candidates to submit Declaration of Intent to Seek Public financing. Council Candidates may file their intent to seek public financing at any point after until the Qualifying Period has closed.

Qualifying public financed candidates for Mayor and City Council are given a single lump sum of money from the city they can use to run their initial campaign and if they make it into a runoff election, they are given a significantly reduced lump sum amount in public financing for the runoff election.

According to the city’s public finance laws, public finance candidates are given $1.75 cents per voter for regular elections and from 60 cents for runoff elections. In the 2021 municipal election, candidate for Mayor who qualify for public finance will be given $661,309.25. If the Mayoral candidate makes it into the runoff, they are given an additional 60 cents per registered voter.

The qualifying public finance candidates for City Council are also given the same amounts per registered voter in their City Council Districts or approximately $41,000 to $51,000, depending on register voter counts. If the city council candidate makes it into the runoff, they are given an additional 60 cents per registered voter in their district.

Candidates for Mayor and City Council are given 2 months to collect nominating petition signatures from registered voters.

Under the city’s public financing laws, candidates for Mayor are only given 8 weeks to collect the 3,779 qualifying donations of $5.00 which is a very difficult and daunting task unless you’re an incumbent and have a built in advantage of people relying on you for a job and have done it before for you. In 2017, there were 8 candidates for Mayor with only 1 candidate qualifying.

Public finance candidates for Mayor and City Council must agree in writing to a spending cap and can only spend what the city gives them.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Public finance candidates for Mayor and City Council can only accept $5.00 qualifying donations from registered city voters. Privately finance candidates can accept campaign donations from any legal source and from individuals, businesses and corporations within the city, county state or out of state and there is no city registration required.

EXPLORATORY PERIODS AND “SEED MONEY”

Candidates for Mayor and City Council who apply for public finance may “test the waters” before filing for candidacy by being allowed to raise “seed money” for their campaigns and determine their viability.

March 1 to April 16, 2021 is designated as the exploratory period for Mayor to collect “seed money” for a campaign for Mayor. Donations of $250 in seed money from individuals is allowed with a total aggregate of $132,261.85 allowed.

April 25 to May 30, 2021 is designated as the exploratory period for City Council candidates to collect “seed money” for their campaign.

City Council Candidates in all 5 City Council Districts on the November ballot can collect up to $250 in seed money contributions from voters in their Districts, but there is an aggregate cap on the total amount of seed money because of different voter registration numbers in each City Council District. The aggregate of seed money contribution limits for each city council district is as follows:

City Council District 1: $8,205.40
City Council District 3: $8,000.00
City Council District 5: $10,097.80
City Council District 7: $8,838.80
City Council District 9: $8,358.20

CAUTION: Participating candidates shall not have, within one year prior to the declaration of intent to seek public financing, raised or expended any monies in excess of the pre- and post- Exploratory Period contribution limits with the intent or effect of campaigning for elected office.

QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS

Public financed candidates are required to solicit $5.00 qualifying donations, with the donations made to the city and not to the candidate and those donations can only come from registered city voters. Qualifying public financed candidates for Mayor and City Council are given a single lump sum of money from the city they can use to run their initial campaign and if they make it into a runoff election, they are given a significantly reduced lump sum amount in public financing for the runoff election.

Candidates must receive Qualifying Contributions from 1% of the registered voters in the city or district the candidate wishes to represent. For the 2021 Municipal elections, following are the required number of qualifying $5.00 donations that must be collected:

Mayor: 3,779

City Council District 1: 411
City Council District 3: 315
City Council District 5: 505
City Council District 7: 442
City Council District 9: 418

QUALIFYING PERIOD TO COLLECT $5 DONATIONS

A very short time period is given to collect the $5.00 qualifying donations.

Candidates for Mayor can collect the $5.00 donations only from April 17 to June 19, 2021, approximately 8 weeks to collect the 3,779 donations.

Candidates for City Council can collect the $5.00 donations only from May 31 to July 5, 2021, or approximately 4 weeks. Note the varying number of $5.00 donations for each council district.

PUBLIC FINANCE AMOUNTS AND SPENDING LIMIT

Once candidates for Mayor and City Council collect the minimum number of qualifying $5.00 donations, the city advances to the candidates in one lump sum public financing. In exchange for the public financing, the candidates must sign and agree to spend no more than what they are given for the campaign. Following are the amounts that will be advanced to qualifying candidates:

Mayor: $661,309.25

City Council District 1: $41,027.00
City Council District 3: $40,000.00
City Council District 5: $50,489.00
City Council District 7: $44,194.00
City Council District 9: $41,791.00

IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS ALLOWED

Candidates who have qualified for public financing are allowed to collect but must claim “in-kind” contributions, which are contributions of goods or services and not cash contributions. In kind contributions for public finance candidates have the following caps for individual in-kind and aggregate in-kind contributions :

Mayor: $6,250.40 individual, $132,261.85 aggregated

City Council District 1: $1,499.68 individual, $4,102.70 aggregated
City Council District 3: $1,499.68 individual, $4,000.00 aggregated
City Council District 5: $1,499.68 individual, $5,048.90 aggregated
City Council District 7: $1,499.68 individual, $4,419.40 aggregated
City Council District 9: $1,499.68 individual, $4,179.10 aggregated

PRIVATELY FINANCED CANDIDATES HAVE NO FUNDRAISING OR SPENDING LIMITATIONS BUT CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS

Unlike publicly financed candidates, who may only spend the funds given to them by by the City, privately financed candidates have no fundraising or spending limits. Privately financed candidates can raise and are free to accept campaign contributions from whatever legal source they want including contributions from individuals, businesses and corporations within the city, county, state or out of state and there is no city voter registration required.

Privately financed candidates can spend whatever amount they want on a campaign. Public finance candidates can only accept the $5.00 qualifying donations from registered city voters and agree in writing to spend only what the city gives them.

There are, however, limits on individual contributions privately financed candidates can accept from donors. Specifically, Article XIII, Section 4(e) limits the total contributions from any one person, with the only exception being the candidates themselves, and the private contribution cannot exceed 5% of the salary of the elected official at the time of filing the Declaration of Candidacy.

The individual aggregate amounts that can be collected by privately financed candidates from donors for the 2021 Mayor and individual city council races are as follows:

Mayor: $6,250.40

City Council District 1: $1,499.68
City Council District 3: $1,499.68
City Council District 5: $1,499.68
City Council District 7: $1,499.68
City Council District 9: $1,499.68

MEASURE FINANCE COMMITTEES

Public financed candidates are required to solicit $5.00 qualifying donations to the city and those donations can only come from registered city voters. All public finance campaigns and public finance candidates are required to agree to a spending cap in writing and are prohibited from soliciting and asking for any other donations. Public finance candidates are said to be at a distinct disadvantage to privately financed candidates when it comes to what can be raised and spent. That is not at all the case with the involvement of measured finance committees.

Under the City of Albuquerque’s campaign finance laws, a Measure Finance Committee is a political action committee (PAC), person or group that supports or opposes a candidate or ballot measure within the City of Albuquerque. Measure Finance Committees are required to register with the City Clerk within five (5) days once they have raised or spent more than $250 towards their purpose.

All Measure Finance Committees must register with the Albuquerque City Clerk, regardless of the group’s registration as a political action committee (PAC) with another governmental entity, county, state or federal. Measure finance committees must also file financial statements at the same time the candidates running for office report.

Measure finance committees are not bound by the individual contribution limits and business bans like candidates. However, a Measure Finance Committee that receives aggregate contributions more than 30% of the Mayor’s salary from one individual or entity, must incorporate the donor’s name into the name of the committee. No Measure Finance Committee is supposed to coordinate their activities with the individual candidates running for office, but this is a very gray area as to what constitutes coordination of activities and it is difficult to enforce.

KELLER’S CAMPAIGN MOBILIZATION

City hall confidential sources are reporting that Mayor Tim Keller has been aggressively organizing his 2021 campaign for the last 6 months. Keller has sought early endorsements from City Councilors who will be on the ballot with him and other elected officials as well. He is also asking for help in collecting the necessary nominating petition signatures and the necessary $5.00 donations to qualify for $661,309.25 in public finance presumably he goes that route. The amount of public finance has doubled from 4 years ago thanks to the changes in the public finance laws made by the City Council last year. Keller will also be relying on his city volunteer group of upwards of 3,000 that resembles more of a fan club that he organized soon after getting elected 3 years ago.

On August 8, 2018, it was reported that Keller hired his longtime political consultant and 2017 Mayor campaign consultant Alan Packman to work for the City in the Department of Innovation and Technology (IT). The IT Department oversees the 311 citizens call center. As of August 27, 2020, Mr. Packman is paid $80,329 a year. Mr. Packman reports directly to Keller. The 311-call center is the “eyes and ears” of city government working directly with the general public. It’s likely Packman has been working on Keller’s campaign for reelection in the off hours ( wink, wink) at least that is what is mandated by personnel rules and regulations. Only Keller and Packman really know for certain what projects Packman works on and what events Packman attends with Keller.

KELLER’S $1.3 MILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN FOR MAYOR WILL REPEAT ITSELF

Keller will likely qualify for the $661,309.25 in public finance as he did 4 years ago by collecting 3,779 qualifying $5 donations made to the city by registered voters. There is little doubt amongst political city hall observers the Mayor Tim Keller will once again count on measured finance committees to raise him millions more as he did 4 years ago.

During the 2017 race for Mayor, Keller was the only candidate out of 8 candidates that was able to secure public financing. In 2017, Keller was given $342,952 by the City in public finance in exchange for agreeing not to spend or raise and spend anymore. Keller made a big deal out of going the public finance road to run for Mayor saying he was opposed to dark money and collecting large donations for campaigns thereby being indebted to donors. Keller even went so far as to brag that by accepting public finance he was “walking the talk.”

The truth was, Keller’s public finance campaign was seriously underwritten by at least 3 “measured finance committees” that raised thousands of dollars to promote Keller for Mayor.

“ABQ Forward Together” was the progressive measured finance committee that was formed specifically to raise money to promote progressive Tim Keller for Mayor. The measured finance committee chairperson was a former campaign manager of Tim Keller’s when he successfully ran for State Senate. “ABQ Forward Together” raised over $663,000 for Keller’s 2017 bid for Mayor. The amount included cash donations or in-kind donations from the Working Families Party, Ole and the Center for Civic Action.

During the 2017 Mayor’s race, Keller received significant support in one form or another from the progressive organizations of OLÉ of New Mexico, the New Mexico Working Families Party, and Progress Now New Mexico. All 3 organizations or their membership in one form or another became very involved with the 2017 Albuquerque Mayor’s race.

When it was all said and done, a total of $1,358,254 was actually spent on Tim Keller’s 2017 successful campaign for Mayor. According to City Campaign finance reports, Keller was given $506,254 public finance money, $663,000 was raised by the measured finance committee ABQ Forward for Keller, $67,000 was spent by ABQFIREPAC on Keller’s behalf and $122,000 was spent ABQ Working Families for Keller for a total of $1,358,254.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/01/02/2018-year-to-reform-city-public-campaign-finance-laws-revised-article/

A HIDEOUS THREAT TO MUNICIPAL ELECTION

The fact that measure finance committees are not bound by the individual contribution limits and business bans like candidates is what makes them a major threat to warping and influencing our municipal elections and the outcome. Any Measure Finance Committee can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money and can produce negative ads to destroy any candidate’s reputation and candidacy.

The influence of big money in elections allowed by the US Supreme Court decision Citizens United is destroying our democracy. 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. It is disingenuous for any public finance candidate to secure taxpayer money first to run their campaigns, agree in writing to a spending cap, and then have their political operatives or supporters solicit or create a measure finance committee to help them get elected and spend massive amounts of money to give them an unfair advantage in the first election and then the runoff.

Voters need to follow the money and demand to know where the outside money known as “dark money” is coming from for any Measure Finance Committee and find out exactly who is trying to influence the election for the candidates. Voters need to beware of the candidates and their political consultants who are seeking help from measured finance committees to be fully informed as to who they are indebted to once they have been elected.

FINAL COMMENT

The city is facing any number of problems that are bringing it to its knees. Those problems include the corona virus pandemic, business closures, high unemployment rates, exceptionally high violent crime and murders rates, continuing mismanagement of the Albuquerque Police Department, failed implementation of the Department of Justice reforms after a full 6 years and millions spent, declining revenues and gross receipts tax, high unemployment rates, persistent and increasing homeless numbers, a lack of mental health and counseling programs and very little economic development, just to mention a few.

The city can go no longer afford to elect a Mayor and City Council based upon promises and nothing but eternal hope for better times and for a better future. What is needed are elected officials that actually know what they are doing and will make the hard decisions without their eye on the next election or to placate their base. It is hoped that there will be more than just one candidate opposing all incumbents. What is needed is a healthy debate on solutions and new ideas to solve our mutual problems. Such a debate can only happen with contested elections. Let’s hope candidates who truly care about the city will run for Mayor and City Council with far more than just one or two running for each office.

Related links are here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/publicly-financed-candidates

The link to the 2021 Candidate Guide is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/clerk/documents/office-of-the-city-clerk-2021-candidate-guide-12-30-20-3.pdf

The link to Public Finance General Information is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/publicly-financed-candidates/publicly-financed-candidates-general-information

The link to Election Matching Funds information is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/publicly-financed-candidates/election-matching-funds

In response to the protests over police use of force in the aftermath of the May 2020 killing of African American George Floyd was killed while in the custody of Minneapolis, Governor Lujan Grisham and the Legislature took steps to deal with holding law enforcement accountable for civil rights violations, excessive use of force and deadly force.

The New Mexico legislature took steps to consider enactment of a state civil rights law. The goal is to create a civil rights cause of action against law enforcement and public government employees that would specifically prohibit the defense of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is viewed as a major barrier or obstacle to holding police officers accountable when they use excessive force.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham called upon the New Mexico Legislature to create a Civil Rights Commission. It was in June that the 2020 New Mexico Legislative Special session convened during which the “New Mexico Civil Rights Commission” was created. On November 12th, the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission voted 5 to 4 in favor of enactment. of a “New Mexico Civil Rights Act.”

HOUSE BILL 4

House Bill 4 was introduced for consideration in the 2021 New Mexico Legislature enacting a “New Mexico Civil Rights Act.” New Mexico House Speaker Brian Egolf and Representative Georgene Louis, D-Albuquerque are the sponsors of Bill 4.

The New Mexico Civil Rights Act would allow plaintiffs to file a lawsuit in state court against a public body or someone working on the public’s behalf to recover damages for violations of their civil rights under the New Mexico State Constitution. Public bodies and agencies already can be sued in federal court for violating the United States Constitutional rights and plaintiffs can recover monetary damages if they’re successful. However, New Mexico does not have a similar state law allowing the victims of state constitutional violations to recover damages in state court.

The New Mexico Civil Rights Act would allow legal claims to be filed in State District Court over alleged infringements of free speech, freedom of religion and other constitutional rights. According a legislative analysis of the bill, the New Mexico Constitution may offer broader protections or cover rights that don’t exist under federal law.

The practical effect under the current law is that whenever wrongful death cases are filed involving a police officer shooting and civil rights violations, the case is removed to federal court where federal case law applies. In the state of New Mexico, the overwhelming number of police officer involved shooting cases result in settlements and no jury trials.

The proposed state Civil Rights Act will create a separate state cause of action and in turn a framework to recover for alleged constitutional infringements under state law. The proposed law would allow plaintiffs to seek only compensatory or actual damages, but not punitive damages. In other words, judgments secured in a state court cause of action would only be the actual costs associated with the injuries, such as medical bills for injuries or losses incurred, including property damage.

The primary purpose of the new Civil Rights Act is to abolish the “qualified immunity” doctrine in a state cause of action that does not exist yet but will be created under the new state civil rights act. The defense of “qualified immunity” would be abolished as a defense that would cover virtually all government employees, not just law enforcement.

The doctrine of “qualified immunity” is a United States Supreme Court defense doctrine used as a defense by law enforcement and public officials in federal cases. The elimination of the qualified immunity defense raises the serious question if government agencies that are not self-insured will lose their insurance coverage or even be able to afford it.

Under the proposed legislation, individual law enforcement and other government officials would not be “personally liable” to pay actual or punitive damages awarded by a jury, a judge or agreed to in a settlement. Under the proposed Civil Rights Act, such damages would be paid by the public agency or body that employs the law enforcement officer or government employee.

Damages being paid by the public agency or body that employs the law enforcement or government employee sued is already required under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The new act would require public government entities to keep a file of all judgments and settlements under the proposed Civil Rights Act and make the records available under the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA).

Another question raised is if law enforcement and government employees will feel compelled or be required to carry some form a liability insurance on their own. The actual cost of such insurance is very real to government agencies already cashed strapped and to low wage government employees such as teachers. Teachers will be particularly vulnerable to charges that they are infringing on the rights of students first amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion.

Links to news sources are here:

https://www.newsbreak.com/new-mexico/santa-fe/news/2102340921572/nm-civil-rights-act-recommended
https://www.abqjournal.com/1517914/nm-civil-rights-act-recommended.html

“QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” DEFENSE EXPLAINED

Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity created by the United States Supreme court that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations. In 1982, the United State Supreme Court in the landmark case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), held that federal government officials are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court reasoned that “the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority.”

The qualified immunity defense is used in cases involving police officers. Qualified immunity protects a police officer from lawsuits alleging that the officer violated a plaintiff’s rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. The Qualified immunity doctrine balances two important interests. Those interests are the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.

When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case. Violations of constitutional rights would include the right to be free from excessive police force or unjustified deadly force for money damages under federal law so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law.

Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. The result is that courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible. Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions.

HB 4 APPROVED BY FIRST HOUSE COMMITTEE

On Monday, January 25, the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, House Bill 4, passed the State Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee on a 5-3 vote. It will now be presented for a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee which will likely be the last stop before reaching the full chamber. The testimony taken and the vote revealed just how controversial the legislation really is and the financial impact to government funding it will have,

House Speaker Brian Egolf, a cosponsor of the bill had this to say:

“We will begin to make the New Mexico Constitution more of a living document. Something that has greater meaning to the people of our state and will also hold public officials and public employees who commit misconduct—hold them accountable.”

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/new-mexico-civil-rights-act-passes-first-house-committee/5990300/#:~:text=House%20Bill%204%2C%20or%20the,a%20cosponsor%20of%20the%20bill.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2337954/nm-civil-rights-law-passes-first-hearing.html

EXPECTED ARGUMENTS MADE IN SUPPORT

Supporters of the act emphasized the need for the legislation primarily concentrating on the need to hold law enforcement and government bodies accountable in state court for civil rights violations. Amongst the type of cases cited in support of the need of the act were the shooting of a woman having a psychotic episode by Bernalillo Sheriff’s Deputies and the wrongful arrest of a high school teenager by and APD Detective because of mistaken identity. News accounts of the committee’s hearing glossed over what happened in the two cases offered in support of the legislation. The two cases merit review.

THE ELISHA LUCERO SHOOTING

Tijeras resident Elaine Maestas, whose younger sister Elisha Lucero, was shot 21 times by Bernalillo County sheriff’s deputies in 2019 and she had this to say during the January 25 committee hearing in support of the Civil Rights Act:

“For me, it’s unbelievable that police are entrusted to make life-and-death decisions, yet they’re held to some of the lowest standards when it comes to accountability”.

It was in July, 2019, mentally ill Elisha Lucero, 28, was shot to death in front of her RV, which was parked in front of her family’s South Valley home. Deputies had responded to the home after a relative called 911 saying Lucero had hit her uncle in the face. According to the 911 call, a relative said Lucero was mentally ill, needed help, and was a threat to herself and to everybody else. Just one month prior, Lucero had called BCSO and asked to be taken to the hospital for mental health issues.

According to the lawsuit by the Lucero family, when deputies arrived, they said Lucero initially refused to come out of the home. The 4-foot-11 Lucero, naked from the waist up, rushed out running and screaming and armed with a kitchen knife attacking the officers. The Sheriff Deputies pulled their revolvers and shot Lucero. The sheriff deputies were not wearing lapel camaeras The sheriff deputies reported that they were fearful for their lives. According to an autopsy report, Lucero was shot at least 21 times by the Sheriff Deputies. The autopsy also revealed Lucero had high levels methamphetamine in her system.

On March 6, 2020, it was reported that the family of a mentally ill Elisha Lucero, 28 settled their lawsuit with Bernalillo County for $4 million dollars.

A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY

On December 5, 17-year-old Albuquerque High School Student Giselle Estrada was charged by a criminal complaint with the murder of Calvin Kelly. The criminal complaint was “sealed” in Juvenile Court meaning no one had access to it nor able to read it without the court unsealing it for review. A warrant was issued for Estrada’s arrest, she was notified by the public defender and she turned herself in.

Estrada was booked into the juvenile detention center on an open count of murder, armed robbery and conspiracy charges in the July 10 slaying of Calvin Kelly. APD Detectives for their part said Estrada’s refusal to speak left them with no choice but to book her on the charge of murder and jail her once she turned herself in. Estrada’s defense counsel repeatedly told APD and the District Attorney office that they had the wrong person and it was a case of mistaken identity.

A full 5 days after Estrada turned herself in and was booked, and as she sat in jail, another suspect was apprehended who told the APD detective they had identified and arrested the wrong person. Estrada was released on her own recognizance after spending 5 days in jail and with the charges dismissed. It turns out that the investigating officer relied on false information to identify the teenager and failed to follow up investigation the identity.

On December 3, 2020. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on Estrada’s behalf seeking unspecified monetary damages against the City of Albuquerque. The lawsuit alleges that APD Detective Carter’s actions amounted to a false arrest and deprivation of state constitutional rights. It is highly likely that the city will settle Estrada case for a significant amount given the cities policy to settle cases that are viewed as clear cut and the city attorneys office reluctance to defend cases of police misconduct.

https://www.koat.com/article/teen-who-was-wrongly-arrested-charged-with-murder-files-lawsuit-against-city-of-albuquerque/34867293#

EXPECTED OPPOSTION MATERIALIZES

As expected, the New Mexico Civil Rights Act was met with strong objections of city, county and school agencies with all expressing fears about the cost of new legal claims. Opponents of the bill worry state and local governments won’t be able to afford the costs of lawsuits filed under the act. New Mexico counties warned that they will lose insurance coverage if the Civil Rights Act is past and said it would increase the risk of taxpayers having to cover the tab for hefty legal claims.

Opponents also argue that money would be better spent on police training to prevent misconduct in the first place. Police chiefs and representatives of cities, counties and schools across the state said the proposal would raise insurance costs and do nothing to improve police training. Legislative analysts estimated the proposal will likely cost the state government and the Association of Counties about $20 million a year.

Roswell Mayor Dennis Kintigh testified against the legislation. Mayor Kintigh is a former FBI agent and police chief. According to Kintigh, local governments will face the choice of raising taxes or cutting services to accommodate increased insurance costs and legal claims. He also said qualified immunity is a common-sense standard and said in part:

“It provides reasonable protection for those who have acted reasonably in difficult situations … On the street, you have to make decisions in a split second. You don’t have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight.”

Farmington Police Chief Steve Hebbe said the proposal “does not do anything to achieve true police reform.”

COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITY OPPOSITION

Representatives from the Association of Counties and the New Mexico Municipal League told the house committee the proposed Civil Rights Act would allow suits without a cap on damages and provide for the recovery of attorney fees. City and county representatives said they can already be held accountable in state court for law enforcement misconduct. Both the county and city associations said the Civil Rights Act is not needed in that plaintiffs can file under the state tort claims act for violations of the state constitution, though damages are capped at a little over $1 million.

THE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES OPPOSITION

The state Association of Counties helps insure 29 of the 33 county governments in New Mexico. The Association estimates the cost of litigating and setting civil rights claims would jump a whopping 66%, upwards of $13 million a year.

Grace Philips, General Counsel for the New Mexico Association of Counties (NMAC), said New Mexico counties are already being warned by their insurance providers that they will lose their “law enforcement insurance” coverage if the bill is passed and signed into law. The insurance is an extra set of insurance called reinsurance and is essentially insurance for an insurer.

Philips told the house committee that the loss of extra insurance coverage for the counties of Bernalillo, Santa Fe and Doña Ana counties, would mean they would have just $2 million to respond to law enforcement and detention claims, down from the $10 million coverage the counties now have. According to Phillips:

“You can already sue law enforcement. .., All [the legislation] does is make those cases more expensive and more profitable for attorneys who would be allowed to collect their fees on top of whatever the lawyer got for their client. … It reduces monies available to compensate people who are harmed. … and when counties don’t have insurance coverage to pay claims, the money to pay claims comes directly from the county budget. … Legal judgments could also be assessed on property taxes.”

The link to news source for quotes is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2354365/taxpayer-impact-of-civil-rights-bill-sparks-debate.html

THE NEW MEXICO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OPPOSITION

AJ Forte, executive director of the Municipal League and a former risk management director for the state, told the house committee the civil rights claims could be enormous. Forte noted New Mexico’s largest ever jury award was awarded in a wrongful death case involving the FedEx shipping company with a judgment totaling $165 million. According to Forte:

“If a jury decides that a constitutional violation is worth, say, $165 million, as they did in the FedEx case … we’ll no longer be talking about cost to insure; there just won’t be any money left. There is no liability fund in the state that has such a balance.”

The link to news source for quotes is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2354365/taxpayer-impact-of-civil-rights-bill-sparks-debate.html

HOUSE SPEAKER BRIAN EGOLF RESPONDS

On November 13, 2020, Retired New Mexico State Supreme Court Justice Richard Bosson, the Civil Rights Commission’s chairman, had this to say in a written statement:

“[The proposed law will] provide a legal vehicle for New Mexico citizens to fully enforce rights granted them by the New Mexico Constitution without importing artificial obstacles to the truth-seeking process such as qualified immunity.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1517914/nm-civil-rights-act-recommended.html

Before the 2021 legislative session even began, House Speaker Brian Egolf said he supported the proposed Civil Rights Act said he intended to push for its passage during the upcoming session and said:

“I think giving New Mexicans the ability to vindicate their constitutional rights in a New Mexico courtroom is of fundamental importance.”

Speaker Egolf told the committee, a house committee he appointed, that he disputed that it would increase costs. According to Egolf, government agencies already face greater exposure in federal court than would be allowed under the proposed state Civil Rights Act. Egolf said he expects lawmakers to consider amendments to address some of the financial concerns, including the possibility of a cap on damages to protect small local governments.

According to Egolf, the public should not lose sight of the opportunity to better hold public officials accountable for civil rights violations. Egolf said expects lawmakers to consider amendments to address some of the financial concerns, including the possibility of a cap on damages to protect small local governments. Egolf also described the insurance concerns as being blown way out of proportion and put it this way:

“Opponents of the bill are driving a message of dollars and cents … because they can’t talk about the real people who are involved in these cases. … I think this is going to provide a lot of New Mexicans with greater access to justice. … The dollars-and-cents issue will be sorted out. … If people aren’t out violating the constitutional rights of New Mexicans, there really isn’t anything to be concerned about.”

The link to news source for quotes is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2354365/taxpayer-impact-of-civil-rights-bill-sparks-debate.html

House Speaker Brian Egolf has pushed back before on the claims that enacting a civil rights statute to hold government accountable in cases of flagrant violations is needed, in addition to the federal causes of action that are already in federal law. Egolf scoffed at the argument that employee misconduct or wrongdoing will lead to costly legal claims. Egolf pointed out that plaintiffs would still have to prove their cases before a court under the proposed Civil Rights Act and which would not allow the legal doctrine of qualified immunity to be used as a defense in such cases. According to Egolf:

“Getting rid of qualified immunity doesn’t throw the doors open to anyone who wants to get a big check from the government.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1522751/proposed-nm-civil-rights-act-could-be-costly-legislators-told-law-enforcement-local-officials-wary-of-law.html

BRIAN EGOLF, ATTORNEY AT LAW

New Mexico Speaker of the House Brian Egolf is the first named principal attorney in the law firm of Egolf, Ferlic, Martinez and Harwood, PC. The law firm is a highly respected Santa Fe group of trial attorneys known for their assertiveness. The firm specializes in part in ligation in the areas of civil rights, personal injury and wrongful death. According to its web page, the Egolf law firm:

“proudly advocates for citizens whose civil rights have been abused and violated by government agencies and others who fail to understand the strength and purpose of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of New Mexico. Standing up for citizens against illegal and improper government action is a hallmark of the Firm’s mission statement, and our lawyers are aggressive in defending the rights of the underdog.”

The link to the Egolf law firm web page is here:

https://egolflaw.com/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

On November 12th, when the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission voted to recommend the enactment of a “New Mexico Civil Rights Act”, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Bosson said about enactment: “If there’s going to be a cost, that should fall, in our opinion, on the Legislature”. Bosson’s comment was nothing more than a reflection of a person use to making rulings usually for the benefit of just one party. Justice Bosom with his remark was not at all sensitive to the responsibility of the legislature and county and municipal governments to delivery essential services such as police protection, fire protection and education needs of its children and social services. Former Justice Blossom all too conveniently ignores the legislatures financial responsibility to its constituents who ultimately pay for judgments that will materialize as a result of a new cause of action.

It should come as no surprise that plaintiff’s lawyers, such as Speaker of the House Brian Egolf, are in favor of enactment of a Civil Rights Act and getting rid of the qualified immunity defense. To put it mildly, plaintiff’s lawyers simply do not like the “qualified immunity defense” created by the Federal Courts because it makes it much more difficult to recover damages in civil rights cases filed against law enforcement. It is not as much about “holding government employees accountable for misconduct” as it is making it a lot easier to prove a case and recover a larger judgment against a “deep pocket” such as government agencies.

APPEARANCES ARE EVERYTHING IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC PERCEPTION

What cannot be dismissed lightly and that should not be ignored, is that New Mexico Speaker of the House Brian Egolf is a New Mexico plaintiff’s trial attorney and a very successful and prominent one. He and his firm over the years has represented many a client plaintiff adverse to government entities in a courtroom. Lest anyone forget, attorney at law Brian Egolf sued the state of New Mexico just a few years ago over the medical marijuana residency requirements. Egolf voted on amendments to the medical marijuana law then turned around and sued the state over the changes in the law. Egolf’s actions as an attorney then as now with the Civil Rights acts raises more than a few questions of “conflict of interest” and the “appearance of impropriety” in the courtroom of public perception.

It’s absolute arrogance when New Mexico House Speaker Egolf says “Opponents of the bill are driving a message of dollars and cents … because they can’t talk about the real people who are involved in these cases.” Egolf chooses to ignore that real people will be on the receiving end as defendants of frivolous law suits that can destroy the career of a police officer, firefighter, teacher and other government worker.

The two high profile cases where “victims” of police misconduct case testified in the house committee reflect that the current legal system works. The family of a mentally ill Elisha Lucero, 28, who was shot and killed by BCSO officers settled their lawsuit with Bernalillo County for $4 million dollars. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (ACLU) filed a lawsuit in the Estelle Estrada mistaken identify case seeking unspecified monetary damages against the City of Albuquerque alleging that the APD Detective’s actions amounted to a false arrest and deprivation of state constitutional rights. It is highly likely that case will be settled before it ever gets to courtroom jury.

What Speaker Egolf said “Getting rid of qualified immunity doesn’t throw the doors open to anyone who wants to get a big check from the government” is true, except of course when an injured party retains the services of an aggressive plaintiff’s attorneys like the Egolf law firm. When New Mexico House Speaker Egolf says “I think this is going to provide a lot of New Mexicans with greater access to justice”, it is more likely than not he recognizes that it will include many of the present and future clients of the Egolf law firm.

There is no doubt that Speaker of the House Brian Egolf, like many of his fellow unpaid New Mexico lawmakers, needs to make a living and be gainfully employed. That’s normal for our citizen Legislature and is not a problem in and of itself. What is questionable is a Speaker of the House, or any other high-ranking legislator in leadership positions, to advocate for dramatic changes in the law that ultimately enriches themselves or their clients. Egolf sponsoring the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.

A SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT EXIST

At the absolute center of the debate is whether the State Of New Mexico should go out of its way to create a whole new cause of action for violation of civil rights under state laws and state constitutional rights to ease the burden of proof to recover damages in a court of law free of any “qualified immunity” defense. It’s likely that the state law would also need to mandate some form of “election of remedies” providing that a plaintiff alleging violation of civil rights must decide to either to proceed in state court or in federal court under the civil rights act commonly referred to as a 1984 cause of action.

Many argue that a New Mexico Civil Rights Act is needed to stop the “culture of aggression” or systemic racism and stop the excessive use of force or deadly force by law enforcement. When it comes to the Albuquerque Police Department (APD), the city is already getting a handle on the problem. For the past 6 years, APD has been under a federal court consent decree that mandates 271 reforms that APD and the city are still struggling to implement under the watchful eye of a federal judge and a federal court appointed monitor. Albuquerque has paid out upwards of $64 million dollars over the last 10 years for excessive use of force and deadly for cases and civil rights violations stemming from a “culture of aggression” found by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Other groups of public employees that will likely be affected by the enactment of the legislation are teachers and firefighters. It is easy to see how teachers could be accused of violating a student’s free speech and freedom of religion in science classes, history classes and sociology classes. Firefighters could also be easily accused of interference with rights of privacy or civil rights violations under any number of fact scenarios involving emergency procedures and administering medical care.

From a practical standpoint, it makes little or no sense to enact a Civil Rights Act that creates a new cause of action for violations of state constitutional rights by government employees, abolishing qualified immunity only to have a Tort Claims Act that mandates a defense and payment of judgments for damages. It appears with the enactment of a Civil Rights Act as proposed, damage to a plaintiff, the liability of a government employee and the taxpayer wind up in the exact same place as to who pays for the damages under the Tort Claims Act. The only benefit of such legislation is to make recovery in state court a lot easier than in federal court.

The enactment of the Civil Rights Act is a solution looking for a problem to solve.

Links to two previous and related blog articles are here:

Proposed State Civil Right Act Is Solution Looking For A Problem; Will Be Costly

Commission Recommends “Civil Rights Act” On 5 – 4 Vote; Abolishing “Qualified Immunity” Against All Government Officials And Law Enforcement Personnel Proposed; NM Legislature Will Make Final Decision