It has been reported that a lawsuit has been filed in State District Court to have Albuquerque’s proposed mandatory sick leave ordinance known as the “Healthy Workforce Ordinance” invalidated declaring that it is a form of “voter fraud” and alleging it is an unconstitutional ordinance. (See April 4, 2017 Albuquerque Journal, page A-1, “Lawsuit targets proposed sick leave ordinance”.)

The lawsuit also seeks to set aside changes to Albuquerque’s minimum wage ordinance enacted by city voter referendum a few years ago.

It is not at all surprising that the lawsuit was filed by the association of Commerce and Industry, the New Mexico Restaurant Association and the National Association of Industrial Office Parks.

The lawsuit is clearly a “pre-emptive strike” to subvert the possible passage of the ordinance by voters.

The lawsuit is nothing more than a fear and loathing of voters and the working class by the business community.

The “Healthy Workforce Ordinance” is not even the law yet but hopefully will be placed on October’s ballot by the Albuquerque City Council for voter approval.

ALBUQUERQUE’S MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE

Increasing the hourly minimum wage for work to a “living wage” level that a person can live on and perhaps support a family has been hotly contested for many years.

In the 2016 Presidential election it was argued that the minimum wage should be $15 dollars an hour.

During the 2017 New Mexico legislative session, the legislature enacted an increase of New Mexico’s minimum wage from $7.50 an hour to $9.25 an hour which was vetoed by Governor Susana Martinez.

When elected officials in congress and the states for that matter, refuse to do the right thing and fail to look out and take care of the working class, many times voters take matters into their own hands on a local level and push for public referendums and vote to fill the leadership void.

In 2012, by a two-to-one ratio, voters in the City of Albuquerque decided to raise the City’s minimum wage from $7.50 per hour to $8.50 per hour.

The amended Ordinance also requires a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to the minimum wage and Albuquerque’s current minimum wage is $8.75 per hour.

Employers who provide healthcare or childcare benefits equal to or in excess of an annualized cost of $2,500.00, the minimum hourly rate payable to those employees is $1.00 less than the then-current minimum wage.

The Mayor, many Albuquerque City Councilors and the business community at the time opposed and actually campaigned against the minimum wage voter initiative.

Opponents argued increasing the minimum wage would destroy small businesses, especially the restaurant and service industries in Albuquerque.

None of the “doom and gloom” predicted happened and for four (4) years the minimum wage ordinance has been in effect.

Other New Mexico communities such as Santa Fe increased their minimum wage.

After enactment of the City’s minimum wage ordinance, the Mayor did not object to his appointed City Attorney saying the City did not have the resources to enforce the law against all businesses who violated the minimum wage law.

The current attitude of City Hall is that workers need to go to court on their own if they were not being paid what they were entitled to under the ordinance.

One lawsuit was filed by a group of waiters and waitresses and they prevailed.

THE PAID SICK LEAVE ORDINANCE

In the summer 2016, supporters of “Healthy Workforce Act” gathered enough valid petition signatures from registered voters to place the initiative on the ballot.

The Southwest Organizing Project, among other organizations, led the campaign to get the signatures.

The campaign needed 14,218 signatures of registered voters but at least 24,000 valid signatures were gathered and submitted for verification.

The Bernalillo County Commission declined the Albuquerque City Council’s request to put the initiative on the November, 2016 ballot with a State District Court upholding the Commission’s decision not to put it on the ballot.

The District Court ruling makes it likely that the mandatory sick leave initiative will be placed on next year’ s 2017 municipal election ballot at the same time as the Mayor and City Council races.

A silver lining is that this may increase the 2017 Municipal election voter turnout if the Albquerquer City Council in fact puts it on the ballot.

The Healthy Workforce Act will require business owners to pay one (1) hour of sick leave for every thirty (30) hours worked.

Part time workers normally are not afforded paid sick leave and will likely be the biggest beneficiary from the ordinance.

Large employers would be required to offer seven sick days per year after working 40 hours a week for a full year. Workers with smaller businesses would earn five sick days per year.

The sick leave ordinance is in a real sense is an extension of increasing the minimum wage initiative passed by voters three years ago.
It is a first step toward a living wage.

The “paid sick leave” initiative will help the working class who have no rights, who are mostly “minimum wage” or low hourly wage workers and who are overwhelmingly “at will” employees in the private sector.

“At will” employees can be terminated without any cause or notice by their employers.

“At will” employees have little or no employment rights and no real vested rights in their jobs except those already required by law such as being paid the minimum wage.

Federal and state laws governing working conditions also provide protections to workers and prohibit sexual harassment and retaliation.

I support the mandatory sick leave initiative and intend to vote for it.

ENFORCING MINIMUM WAGE AND HEALTHY WORKFORCE ACT

The existing minimum wage ordinance and the sick leave ordinance if enacted by voters need to be enforced by the City, and not by the hourly wage workers, because these are the City’s ordinances.

Every single business in Albuquerque is required to register and have a license to do business and must agree to adhere to all enacted city ordinances and laws. Businesses cannot pick and choose what laws and City Ordinances they want to follow.

The City Attorney’s office and Planning Department have the authority to enforce existing ordinances.

Businesses licensed by the City can be ordered to follow the minimum wage law or the City will take court action to have their business licenses revoked and secure Court Orders to shut down the businesses for violating the law.

The City Attorney’s Office needs to do the right thing and enforce the existing minimum wage ordinance and the sick leave ordinance if enacted by the voters.

A COALITION OF THE USUAL OPPOSING SUSPECTS

A coalition of 26+ major business organizations has been formed to raise a significant amount of money to oppose the initiative, not only in Court, but in this year’s municipal election. The coalition includes as members:

• Apartment Association of New Mexico
• Associated Builders and Contractors
• Associated General Contractors New Mexico
• Albuquerque Economic Forum
• Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce
• American Subcontractors Association of New Mexico
• Commercial Association of Realtors New Mexico
• Greater Albuquerque Association of Realtors
• Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce
• Home Builders of Central New Mexico
• National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP)
• New Mexico Association of Commerce and Industry
• New Mexico Restaurant Association
• New Mexico Utility Contractors Association.

Notice not a single “mom and pop” or small business is listed?

What is interesting is a few of the organizations that oppose the sick leave ordinance have said publicly it’s a good idea in concept, many businesses voluntarily provide for paid sick leave, but they feel it will be an accounting nightmare and do not like the “red tape”.

The truth is, most of the coalition members do not like being on the financial hook for increasing wages or benefits they have to pay to their employees or being told by government what they should pay their employees.

Arguments that are being used to oppose the sick leave initiative are identical or similar to those made against increasing the minimum wage and include:

1. It will destroy small businesses
2. Businesses cannot afford it
3. People will be laid off
4. A small business will have to cut down on hours offered to work
5. Too much “red tape” to prepare and keep track of sick leave
6. Too much government regulation or intervention
7. No need for it, because many businesses already pay sick leave
8. Unskilled workers are already paid enough
9. “At will” employees do not want such a benefit

The arguments made against the sick leave ordinance, as was the case with the minimum wage, have little or no merit and no credible financial impact studies or compiled data has been offered to substantiate the claims, at least not yet.

I doubt if any of the coalition members listed will go bankrupt or be severely harmed financially by the sick leave ordinance, and for that reason, they should be ashamed of themselves. They need to be more appreciative of their employees.

The sick leave benefit will help attract and keep hardworking employees.

CONCLUSION

During Albuquerque’s 2017 municipal election, voters need to demand and ask where the candidates for Mayor and City Council stand on the issue and say what they will do if elected on enforcing the ordinances.

http://www.freeabq.com/2017/04/03/mayoral-field-likely-to-shrink/

As this story notes, I agree and predict City Councilor Dan Lewis, State Auditor Tim Keller, attorney Brian Colón, former Bernalillo County Commissioner Deanna Archuleta and County Commissioner Wayne Johnson will secure the required signatures to get on the ballot mainly because of their experience running for office, their organizations and their fundraising ability.

I added retired Albuquerque police officer Michelle Garcia Holmes, University of New Mexico student Gus Pedrotty and Old Town resident Stella Padilla to my list of those who I think will make the ballot because of the “hustle” and hard work I have seen from all three of these candidates.

There is still a lot of time to gather qualifying signatures, and I hope all the 14 announced candidates make it on the ballot, but I acknowledge that is not likely.

To me, the more choices we have, the better for the City.

The more candidates we have will encourage a healthy discussion of issues and it will improve voter turnout.

Four years ago, only 19% of eligible voters voted in the election.

Political commentators all too often discount motivated candidates who are hardworking, that are clear underdogs and who have some very good ideas.

Simply put, I tend to identify with underdogs and voters at times prove political commentators wrong .

It never ceases to amaze me when the Mayor, the City Council, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) and the Albuquerque Police Officers Association (APOA) ignore the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree mandated reforms and argue that what is needed to solve APD problems are more sworn police officers.

Most if not all candidates for Mayor also say little about the DOJ consent decree reforms and say to improve APD they will terminate APD Chief Gordon Eden and hire more police officers with a few of the candidates for Mayor saying we need 1,200 sworn police.

The recent APOA police union reaction to the Mayor Berry’s 2017-2018 proposed budget was to complain that the Mayor’s budget does not have any money for police raises, that APD officer’s pay is not competitive with other departments in the region and that there are not enough cops patrolling our streets, despite a $7 million increase in the APD budget.
(See April 1, 2017 Albuquerque Journal article “Police union: Budget ignores lack of cops”, Metro & NM section, page C-1 and https://www.abqjournal.com/980486/police-union-budget-ignores-lack-of-cops.html).

EXCESSIVE OVERTIME PROOF OF SEVERE UNDER STAFFING

APD police officers in general are some of the best paid police in the country with a very generous retirement program where a police officer can retire after 25 years of service and earn 90% of their “high three” salary for the rest of their lives.

The average and normal yearly salary paid APD Police Officers First Class after about one year on the job is $56,000 a year.

However, during the last 7 years, the Albuquerque Police Department has consistently gone over its overtime budget by millions to the detriment of other city departments and other city employees.

A total of 124 of the 250 top wage earners at city hall are employed by the Albuquerque Police Department and include patrol officers, sergeants, lieutenants, commanders and deputy chiefs, assistant chief and the chief with annual pay ranging from $95,000 a year up to $166,699 a year. (See City of Albuquerque web site for full list of 250 top city wage earners).

Five (5) APD Patrol Officers First Class are listed in the top 250 city wage workers as being paid $146,971, $145,180, $140,243, $137,817 and $125,061 respectfully making them the 6th, the 7th, the 10th, the 12th and the 20th highest paid employees at city hall.

There are listed 66 Patrol Officers First Class in the list of the top 250 wage earners at city hall earning more than $95,000 a year and as much as $146,000 a year.

Combined, there are a total of 91 APD sworn police officers and sergeants who are named in the top 250 wage earners and city hall.

The fact that any APD Patrolman First Class are paid as much as between $95,000 to $146,000, or two to three times their normal salary, in any given year should be very concerning because it is a red flag for trouble.

Excessive overtime reflects at the very least a severe lack of personnel.

The Mayor’s proposed 2017-2018 budget contains funding for 1,000 sworn officers.

Albuquerque City Councilor Ken Sanchez says the proposed budget should have recommended funding for 1,100. (See https://www.abqjournal.com/980486/police-union-budget-ignores-lack-of-cops.html )

Councilor Sanchez forgets the fact that APD has averaged only 850 sworn police officers for the last three consecutive years.

APD SEVERELY UNDERSTAFFED BECAUSE OF FAILED MANAGEMENT POLICIES

Seven years ago, APD had 1,100 sworn police officers and an emphasis was placed on community based policing.

Seven years ago when Berry became Mayor, APD employed more police officers in it history and was the best trained, best equipped and the best funded department in its history.

In 2010, the first year Mayor Berry was in office, Berry unilaterally refused to pay negotiated 5% salary increases to police negotiated in good faith, abolished the police car take home policy and abolished incentive pay bonuses to experienced officers that encouraged delaying retirement.

APD moral plummeted and the exodus of experienced officers began because of Berry Administration policies and mismanagement of APD.

Today, APD cannot recruit and hire enough officers to keep the department at the 1,000 level of sworn officers let alone 1,100 suggested by City Councilor Ken Sanchez and the 1,200 suggested by a few of the candidates for Mayor.

APD is severely understaffed and struggling to implement expansive and expensive Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed to and mandated reforms.

The number of APD sworn officers has fallen from 1,100 officers to 835 over the past seven years in large part because of extensive retirements, extreme low morale resulting in experienced officers deciding to retire sooner than later, changes in the Public Employee Retirement Association benefits, failed APD management, heavy workloads and intense scrutiny by the Department of Justice resulting in the DOJ consent decree.

Although APD has 835 sworn police officers, only 436 are assigned to the field services, less those on annual leave or sick leave, spread out over three shifts, and taking 69,000 911 priority one calls not to mention priority 2 and 3 calls for service.

Recruiting a younger, new generation of sworn police officers and growing the size of the police department has become very difficult and unachievable for any number of reasons.

APD’s poor and negative national reputation and Albuquerque’s high violent crime rates are not conducive to attracting people who want to begin a long term career in law enforcement in Albuquerque.

The DOJ oversight requirements and the increased dangers in being a police officer in a violent city such as Albuquerque has had an impact on recruitment.

APD consistently has thousands of applicants that apply to the police academy every year as evidenced by the number of “interest cards” submitted which is the first step to applying with APD.

The overwhelming number of police academy applicants fail to get into the academy for any number of reasons including failing to meet minimum education and entry qualifications, unable to pass criminal background checks, unable to make it through psychological background analysis or they fail polygraph tests or perhaps even lie on their applications.

Once in the police academy, many cadets are unable to meet minimum physical requirements or unable to handle the training and academic requirements to graduate from the academy.

The APD Police Academy is unable to keep up with retirement losses and for a number of years graduating classes have averaged 35 to 40 a class, well below the number to keep up with yearly retirements.

The City needs 1,200 sworn police officers to effectively return to community based policing that will reduce crime, but to accomplish that will take time, major changes in management and a major financial investment.

LARGE JUDGMENTS AND HIGH CRIME RATES ARE RESULT OF A POORLY MANAGED APD

From 2010 to 2016 the City has paid out which has paid out $63.3 million to settle law enforcement civil rights cases. (See Albuquerque Journal https://www.abqjournal.com/979783/mayor-berrys-final-budget-reflects-lean-times.html?fb_action_ids=1526888497445496&fb_action_types=og.likes)

I can only imagine how much good could have been done with over $63 million dollars.

Since 2010, APD officers have shot over 41 people in police misconduct cases and excessive use of force cases.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that in 2015 violent crime and property crime in Albuquerque increased in by 9.2% and 11.5%, respectively.

In 2015, murders in Albuquerque spiked by 53%.

Since 2010, Albuquerque’s violent and property crime rates have dramatically increased.

According to the Bernalillo County District Attorneys Office, from 2009 to 2015, Albuquerque’s violent crime rate jumped 21.5% and the city is fifth-most violent city in the country on a per capita basis while the nation’s violent crime rated dropped by 13.7%. (See June 23, 2017 Albuquerque Journal, page A-1, Justice council challenges DA’s criticism of court rules.)

The Federal Monitor found that “APD’s system for overseeing and holding officers accountable for the use of force has failed and the serious deficiencies revealed point to a deeply-rooted systemic problem”.

The Federal Monitor found that the “deficiencies, in part, indicate a culture of low accountability is at work within APD, particularly in chain-of-command reviews.”

More must be done to aggressively implement the DOJ reforms, solve the staffing shortages and address APD’s leadership crisis.

Dramatic, sweeping changes and a new approach to APD management is in order.

A PROPOSED SOLUTION

The City Council by ordinance can create a Department of Public Safety with an appointed civilian Police Commissioner.

The Police Commissioner would be appointed by the Mayor with advice and consent of the City Council.

The Chief of Police would be appointed by the Police Commissioner but serve at the pleasure of the Mayor with advice and consent of the City Council.

The Police Commissioner would assume direct civilian oversight, management and control of APD.

A national search for a Police Commissioner and Chief of Police needs to be conducted.

A Police Commissioner and Chief with extensive and proven leadership in managing a municipal police department must be hired, not political operatives.

The civilian Police Commissioner would assume primary responsibility for implementation of all the DOJ-mandated reforms and only be removed for cause by the Mayor.

The Police Commissioner would completely overhaul and restructure APD, appoint new chiefs, commanders, lieutenants, academy director and a 911 manager and each would report directly to the Chief of Police, with the Police Commissioner in the Chain of Command as the Commissioner determines to be necessary and appropriate to carry out his or her duties.

The civilian Police Commissioner would be responsible for preparing budgets, personnel management and enforcement of personnel policies and procedures and imposing personnel disciplinary action.

The Chief of Police would be responsible for day-to-day operations of APD, public safety initiatives and management of sworn staff and report directly to the civilian Police Commissioner.

The Public Safety Department would consist of four civilian staffed divisions and managed by the Police Commissioner:

1. Personnel and training, for recruiting, hiring, internal affairs investigations and police academy;
2. Budget and finance;
3. Information technology support and crime lab; and
4. 911 emergency operations center with a civilian manager.

“Deadly use of force” cases would continue to be investigated by the Critical Incident Review Team and the final reports with finding and recommendations submitted to the Police Commissioner.
The APD Internal Affairs Unit would be abolished.

The investigation of police misconduct cases including excessive use of force cases not resulting in death or nor serious bodily harm would be done by “civilian” personnel investigators.

The function and responsibility for investigating police misconduct cases and violations of personnel policy and procedures by police would be assumed by the Office of Independent Council in conjunction with the City Human Resources Department and the Office of Internal Audit where necessary.

The Office of Independent Council would make findings and recommendations to the Police Commissioner for implementation and imposition of disciplinary action.

The city needs to fund and implement a non-negotiated major hourly rate increase for entry level sworn officers, excluding management, to improve recruitment, retention and morale.

Sign on bonuses, tuition debt payoff and mortgage down payment bonuses need to be offered to new recruits.

Yearly experienced officer retention bonuses must be made permanent.

APD needs to “triple down” on recruitment and dramatically increase the size and number of police academy classes per year.

If necessary, the City Council needs to consider a public safety tax to pay for APD’s staffing expansion, pay incentive programs, needed training programs, DOJ-mandated reforms, equipment acquisitions and 911 emergency operations, staffing and equipment.

CONCLUSION

Until aggressive action is taken with APD and the Department of Justice mandated and agreed to reforms, APD will continue to spin out of control, violent crime will continue to rise and Albuquerque will continue to see dramatic spikes in crime.

I am extremely excited to share my son Mark’s announcement on the opening of his new law firm which bears the Dinelli name. I have seen my son in court and he has developed and grown into a fine trial attorney. Please share this blog article.

Family, friends and colleagues:
I am beyond proud to announce my most recent monumental career change – the opening of the Dinelli Law Firm, specializing in all types of personal injury.
The core of my experience is related to civil litigation, where I am both challenged and invigorated daily. Throughout my career, I have helped many individuals work towards the successful resolution of claims through negotiation, mediation, arbitration and trial.
Should you, a friend or loved one be in the unfortunate situation where a personal injury attorney is needed, I hope you will keep me in mind. At this time, I am gladly accepting referrals for:
-Motor vehicle and Motor Cycle Collisions
-Trucking Accidents
-Medical Malpractice
-Wrongful Death
-Slip and Falls
-Dog Bites
-Nursing Home Negligence and Abuse
-Other Serious Injuries
For those interested, my new contact information is as follows:
The Dinelli Law Firm
503 Slate Ave NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
(505) 582-2157 (Phone)
(505) 393-5063 (FAX)
mark@dinellilaw.com (Email)
www.dinellilaw.com (coming soon)
Thank you for your unyielding faith and support over the years. I am greatly looking forward to this new and exciting adventure!
Sincerely yours,
MARK DINELLI

http://www.freeabq.com/2017/03/30/apd-still-stalling-on-reform/

Two years ago, soon after Federal Court Monitor James Ginger was appointed, I met with him in the United States Attorney’s Office and tried to convince him that APD Chief Gordon Eden and his command staff were not committed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed to and mandated reforms.

During our meeting, I told the Federal Monitor that Chief Eden and his command staff were “running the clock out” on the DOJ reforms until the end of Mayor Berry’s term.

I recommended to the Federal Monitor that it was time for the appointment of a civilian police commissioner to take charge of the reform effort or that the Federal Court should appoint a “special master” to take over APD to implement the mandated and agreed to DOJ reforms.

Federal Monitor James Ginger told me that the APD command staff were being “friendly and cooperative” and he was optimistic that APD would implement the reforms.

Two years ago, I recall vividly telling Albuquerque City Councilors Pat Davis, Isaac Benton, Ken Sanchez and Diane Gibson that APD was “running the clock out” on the DOJ reforms until the end of Mayor Berry’s term, but they did not believe me.

I told City Counselors that time was of the essence and the Albuquerque City Council needed to take immediate action to remove the APD command staff, appoint a civilian Police Commissioner to implement the DOJ consent decree reforms and remove Internal Affairs from APD and civilianize APD oversight.

The city councilors I talked to told me there was nothing the Albuquerque City Council could do and that we needed to wait until a new Mayor was elected.

Albuquerque has now had at least two years of delay by the Albuquerque City Council and we can expect more delays.

On November 12, 2016, the Albuquerque Journal published an article reporting that city Community Policing Councils were frustrated with Chief Eden not attending their meetings, the Police Oversight Board complaining that Chief Eden ignored its findings and discipline recommendations, and the city attorney, instead of Chief Eden, was often the person who publicly explained the reform efforts.

APD Forward, an APD oversight group, also said Eden had not been present for many settlement-agreement meetings.
(See November 12, 2106 Albuquerque Journal article “Police reform groups say APD Chief not involved” at https://www.abqjournal.com/887736/groups-where-is-eden.html)

An APD statement issued to the Albuquerque Journal for the November 12, 2016 article described Chief Eden as having a “very good sense, very good understanding and a hand in” the reforms.

The truth has always been that Chief Eden and his command staff have never been committed to implementing the DOJ reforms as evidenced by their actions and I said so in my November 12, 2016 blog article entitled “Eden Knows Exactly What He Is Doing And Should Be Fired For It”.

The Berry Administration, Chief Eden and his command staff are lying when they say they are committed to the DOJ mandated reforms and proof of the lie is contained in the second, third and the fourth progress reports submitted by Federal Monitor James Ginger to the Federal Court.

In his second report to the federal court, Federal Monitor James Ginger accused the City Attorney of what he called, “delay, do little and deflect” tactics saying his relationship with her was “a little rougher than most” compared with top attorneys in other cities and where he has overseen police reform.

The July 1, 2016 federal monitor’s third report states “Across the board … the components in APD’s system for overseeing and holding officers accountable for the use of force, for the most part, has failed … the serious deficiencies revealed point to a deeply-rooted systemic problem. … The deficiencies, in part, indicate a culture [of] low accountability is at work within APD, particularly in chain-of-command reviews. …”

The November 1, 2016 fourth federal monitor’s report states that when “excessive use of force” incidents are investigated by the APD Critical Incident Team, it“ [deploys] carefully worded excuses, apparently designed not to find fault with officer actions” and “[uses] language and terminology apparently designed to absolve officers and supervisors of their responsibility to follow certain CASA (Court Approved Settlement Agreement) related provisions.

During a city council briefing by Federal Monitor James Ginger on one of his reports, City Councilor Dan Lewis asked the Federal Monitor who is ultimately responsible for APD.

When the Monitor said the City Council was responsible for police oversight, the City Council Committee Lewis was chairing all had a good “uncomfortable” laugh and Lewis rephrased his question apparently not liking the truth he got from Dr. Ginger and wanting Ginger to say the Mayor.

Under City’s Police Oversight Board (POB) ordinance, Chief Eden is required to explain in writing why he disagrees with discipline the POB has recommended for police officers.

In fifty-four (54) cases in which Eden has disagreed with the POB, he has offered no explanation as to why he has any disagreement with the POB.

The Albuquerque Free Press now reports City Councilors are joining with Albuquerque’s civilian police oversight agencies and charging that APD Police Chief Gorden Eden is deliberately thwarting all attempts at civilian oversight.

The Albuquerque Free Press quotes City Councilor Isaac Benton saying “Their relationship sounds like he [Eden] is just stonewalling them. … The problem is the attitude of leadership at APD, and under this administration the attitude has not been helpful.” Really Councilor Benton and exactly how has your attitude and leadership been in reforming APD been helpful in any way?

The Albuquerque Free Press reports Councilor Pat Davis saying “APD is playing cute with the process” and that the department “is not following the spirit” of the city’s oversight law or the reform process. Really Councilor Davis, and who is being cute now after you were told what was going on before you got elected two years ago?

Councilor Ken Sanchez said he’s “concerned” about “why they [APD] are not responsive.” Really Councilor Sanchez, and why are you concerned now after seven years of APD spiraling out of control while you watched?

Councilor Brad Winter, who helped write the POB oversight ordinance, said, “the whole City Council is concerned.” Really Councilor Winter and why any concern now?

And City Councilor Dan Lewis, who is now running for mayor, and who prides himself saying he voted to bring in the Department of Justice to investigate APD, does not even return ABQ Free Press phone calls for comment yet Lewis claims he will replace Eden even though Lewis has never complained publicly about Eden’s job performance nor demanded Eden’s resignation.

For the last seven (7) years, the Albuquerque City Council has been an absolute failure in exercising their oversight authority over APD.

Chief Eden and the entire chain of command of APD need to be removed and replaced with a new generation of leadership committed to the reform process before any real progress will be made with the DOJ agreed to and mandated reforms.

What is just important is that we need an entire City Council and a Mayor that are as equally committed and determined to implement the DOJ mandated reforms and not just give it lip service.

District Attorney Raul Torrez is requesting the New Mexico Supreme court to clarify the recently enacted “no bond” rule enacted by voters. (See March 30, 2017 Albuquerque Journal, page A-1 “DA asks high court to clarify no-bond rules; Efforts to hold dangerous defendants often blocked”.)

District Attorney Raul Torrez is also asking the New Mexico Supreme Court to direct 2nd Judicial District Stan Whitaker, a former Assistant US Attorney and prosecutor, to reconsider his recent order that denied his office’s attempt to keep two suspects in jail without bond until trial, one suspect charged with armed robbery and another charge with shooting his ex-girlfriend.

Torrez claims he is frustrated that district judges are blocking his efforts to keep dangerous criminals in jail until their trials.

What Torrez is saying in other words is that he is frustrated that judges are enforcing our constitutional rights of “presumption of innocence” and “due process of law”.

Attacking our Judicial system and judge’s rulings is a familiar tactic of President Donald Trump and others who want to ignore our laws.

All judge’s take an oath of office to preserve, defend and protect our constitution.

Judges are strictly prohibited by the Supreme Court Rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct from commenting on pending cases and voicing opinions that call into question their fairness and impartiality, especially in criminal cases.

Judges are prohibited by the Code of Judicial conduct from defending their decisions and sentencing in a public forum outside of their courtroom so criticizing judges is like “shooting fish” in a barrel.

What happened at the bond hearing is clearly the District Attorney’s problem.

The District Attorney’s office could have, and should have, offered more evidence to support the “no bond hold” relating to the two defendants identified in the news article.

The “no bond” amendment approved by voters is very clear when it says “bail may be denied by a court of record pending trial for a defendant charged with a felony if the prosecuting authority requests a hearing and proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community.”

This could have been easily done by the District Attorney’s office seeing as one defendant was charged with armed robbery and robbing up to 50 businesses and the other was charged with shooting his ex-girlfriend.

Judges cannot make rulings based upon emotions and public outcry’s.

Judges need to have evidence to “hang their hats” on to have their rulings sustained and upheld on appeal.

At the bond hearing, the District Attorney’s office did not offer any clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions existed to protect the public and only offered the criminal complaint filed with the court.

A criminal complaint is not a conviction, is not clear and convincing evidence, but merely an accusation of probable cause that must be proven in court to get a conviction.

Testimony from the investigating officer as to the violent nature of the allege crimes committed and perhaps testimony from the victims and injury inflicted could have been easily offered to the court.

Probation officers for those charged and who are familiar with the charged defendants could have also been called to testify.

The new “no bond rule” designed to make it easier for prosecutors to keep dangerous criminal defendants in jail until their trial was never meant to be a circumvention of our constitutional rights.

“Presumption of innocence” and “due process of law” are two of our most critical rights guaranteed under our constitution and offer protections against overzealous prosecutors and overzealous law enforcement officials.

The right to a reasonable bond pending a trial to guarantee appearance at trial and prevent a person from fleeing is also a critical right.

No judge can set bail amounts that are so unreasonably high to prevent a defendant from posting bail solely because of their financial inability to post the bond.

The new “no-bond” rules requires prosecutors to present supporting evidence that shows there are no reasonable release conditions that will protect the public.

It is not surprising, and indeed appropriate, for Torrez to petition the New Mexico Supreme Court for guidelines on how to interpret the “no bond” hold rule.

However, I predict that the New Mexico Supreme Court will find that Judge Whitaker did not abuse his discretion and will affirm his ruling denying that the suspects be kept in custody with no bond.

I suspect that the New Mexico Supreme Court will rule that the “no bond” rule is very clear and unambiguous and that District Attorney Torrez and his office and all other District Attorneys in the state need to step up their game, do their jobs, and present clear and convincing evidence to the courts to allow the courts to find a charge defendant is a danger to the public and to issue a “no bond” hold until trial.