On November 5, 2018, New Mexico voters, with a 75% majority, voted for a constitutional amendment to establish an independent statewide ethics commission with subpoena power. New Mexico was one of only 6 states without an independent ethics commission.

On March 15, 2019, state lawmakers reached a compromise on creating a new, independent ethics commission. The enacted legislation signed into law by the Governor creates an ethics commission that is empowered to oversee state public officials, including state lawmakers, state employees and constitutionally elected officials, including the governor, the lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, public land commissioner and state auditor, or candidates for those offices, to those prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions from January 1 through the end of each year’s legislative session. However, the ethics commission has no authority over school board members and local officials such elected Mayors or City Councilors.

A seven-member commission was created and is empowered to fine public officials if they are found by the commission to have violated civil provisions of state laws. There is no authority to suspend or remove from office elected officials. The Ethics Commission has been empowered to issue advisory opinions to officials as well as to educate officials regarding what is and is not permitted conduct.

AGENCY UP AND RUNNING

On January 4, 2020, a little more than 10 months since the NM Legislature enacted the creation of the Ethics Commission, it was reported that the Ethics Commission is fully operational and accepting complaints to investigate.

The state agency is led by a seven-member board and State law authorized the commission to begin accepting ethics complaints on January 1, 2020. It needs to add staff for that work after hiring an executive director in September.

The Commission plans to meet every other month, although it can meet as often as it wants depending on the volume of complaints and related work, including issuing rules and regulations.

The Commission has established a website and according to news reports, it may issue its first advisory opinion next month. The commission has office and meeting space in Albuquerque, although it has held meetings in other parts of the state.

The New Mexico Legislature funded the ethics commission with $500,000 in the state budget for the fiscal year that began on July 1, 2019. The commission is seeking a supplemental appropriation of $385,000 to $400,000. For the 2020-2021 fiscal year, the agency is requesting a little over $1.1 million.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1406564/new-state-watchdog-ready-to-investigate-ethics-complaints.html

FEARS OF INADEQUATE FUNDING

Fears are beginning to mount that the 2020 New Mexico Legislature now under way will not be getting enough funding to carry out its work. The ethics commission is in the awkward position of having to ask lawmakers, elected officials it has jurisdiction to investigate individually, for more funding to operate.

Democrat State Representative Daymon Ely from Corrales helped craft 2019 legislation outlining the commission’s procedures and power. He said he is “hopeful” the agency will get the necessary money this year but that he is “nervous” about the funding . House Appropriations and Finance Committee is still crafting a final budget for the commission that will have to be approved by both the State House and Senate.

Ely expressed concerns about the funding by saying:

“I do think going forward, this poses a problem. … You don’t want the ethics commission that’s going to oversee the Legislature having to get out the tin cup every year – that’s a potential conflict in the system.”

The current House budget for the Ethics Commission concentrates on spending for this year and next year. The commission received $500,000 in this year’s budget to begin operations. A problem is that legislative analysts projected it would require close to $1 million to operate the commission for a full year.

The State Ethics Commission requested a $385,000 “supplemental appropriation” to help carry out its work this year and the request is backed by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. The budget proposal under consideration by the House Appropriations Committee does not provide for any of the “supplemental appropriation” for this fiscal year that ends June 30.

Next year’s budget is also under consideration this session. For the fiscal year starting July 1, the State Ethics Commission is requesting a little over $1.1 million in funding. The governor is recommending slightly more at $1.2 million. The budget under consideration in the House provides for about $986,000 based on a recommendation by the Legislative Finance Committee.

According to State Ethics Commission Executive Director Jeremy Farris, the agency will have a very difficult time handling ethics complaints through the end of the fiscal year which ends on June 30, with the new budget starting July 1, if it is not given the $385,000 “supplemental appropriation” . According to Farris, denying the supplemental appropriation will delay the launch and creation of the agency. The agency has startup costs, such as purchase of furniture and has work to do including developing training materials and issuing advisory opinions.

A February 3, update from the State Ethics Commission revealed that the House Appropriations and Finance Committee (HAFC) has increased the amount of supplemental funds the Commission is set to receive for FY 20 to $200,000 which is up from the Legislative Finance Committees (LFC’s) recommendation of a $0 allocation. Currently, House Bill 2 still has the Commission set to receive the Legislative Finance recommended amount of $985,000 for FY 21 which is approximately $155,000 less than the Commission’s request.

COALITION SUPPORTS FULL FUNDING

A coalition of civic groups and activists, many that worked for the last 40 years and pushed for establishment of the commission, including Common Cause New Mexico, New Mexico Ethics Watch, the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government and the League of Women Voters announced their support for fully funding the State Ethics Commission. According to Executive Director of Common Cause:

“It is an investment in good government which will pay off in many ways – increased public trust and even economic development. ”

SOURCE OF THE CONFLICT IN FUNDING

Governor Lujan Grisham wants to give the state’s independent Ethics Commission significantly more operating money than lawmakers. She is recommending the full $385,000 supplemental appropriation request to help the commission get up and running in its first few months of operation. The Legislature’s is proposing giving only half the amount. The Governor is also recommending a quarter million more for the agency in its first-full year of operation than is the Legislature, $1.24 million compared to the Legislatures $985,000 recommendation.
(Sources:

Executive Budget Summary at https://www.governor.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FY21-Executive-Budget-Recommendation-1.pdf , pages 18 and 49 and

House budget bill at https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/20%20Regular/bills/house/HB0189.pdf pages at 43-44.)

Heather Ferguson, director of Common Cause New Mexico, had this to say about the funding conflict:

“The Legislature doesn’t want to come up with the funds to ensure that [the Ethics Commission] can fully do its job.”

Political observers and commentators believe that the major source of friction between the Ethics Commission, the Governor and the Legislature is the mission of the commission itself. Simply put, the commission’s mission it to investigate ethics complaints against elected and government officials. Many of today’s state lawmakers over the years have repeatedly opposed the creation of the commission for fear of attacks prior to elections. A critical part of ethics complaint investigations are staff hearing officers that must be hired be hired with the requested funding. The hearing offices will assume investigations in in the first months prior to the June primary election.

The competing budget proposals between the Commission, the Governor and the Legislature should not come as any surprise. Such conflicts have been problematic in other states that already have ethics commissions. Some state legislatures with ethics commissions have underfunded the agencies in order to hamper their mission or to even shut the agencies down completely with lack of funding.

According to the on line news agency “New Mexico In Depth”, a coalition of organizations that support a strong ethics commission is exploring the creation of a funding source divorced from the Legislature’s budget making authority. Such a funding source would prevent budget cuts that could easily come on a whim initiated any legislator upset with the commission and severely undermine the commission’s effectiveness.

http://nmindepth.com/2020/01/31/governor-lawmakers-tussle-over-funding-for-ethics-commission/

AUTHORITY TO SET SALARY FOR LEGISLATORS PROPOSED FOR ETHICS COMMISSION

Senate Joint Resolution 7 would make the State Ethics Commission the sole authority to set the salaries of hundreds of state and county elected officials. It is proposed constitutional amendment if approved by lawmakers would go before voters on the November 5, 2020 general election ballot. Senate Joint Resolution 7 cleared the Senate Rules Committee on a 6-4 vote and has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Albuquerque Democrat State Senator Daniel Ivey-Soto, a co-sponsor of the proposal, said it would be a way to “de-politicize” the setting of salaries and said:

“The only way for salaries to not be political is for us to be out of the salary business altogether. ”

Democrat State Senator Clemente Sanchez, Grants, objects to the proposal describing it as a “backdoor” way to create salaries for legislators, and questions whether the State Ethics Commission is the right agency for the work by saying:

“I have a problem with an outside group that’s not elected by anyone making a decision on appropriations. ”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1415310/lawmakers-debate-funding-for-ethics-commission.html

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

There is clearly a major conflict of interest or a built-in threat to the continuing functioning of a viable Ethics Commission when it is forced every year to ask for funding to continue with its existence and its work. A major guarantee for the continuation of the Ethics Commission is that it was created by a constitutional amendment with a 75% majority vote by taxpayers. Legislators cannot unilaterally repeal the amendment and as such legislators have no choice to fund it to allow it to carry out its mission.

AGENCY FORMULA FUNDING SOURCE PROPOSED

There is an urgent need for a funding source separate or independent from the Legislature’s budget making authority to prevent commission budget cuts. Given the legislature’s duties and authority over all appropriations for agencies, it will be difficult to set up such a funding source without conflict, at least not without a court challenge, but it can be done.

One option would be enacting funding legislation that would provide for ongoing and pre-approved budgets with a formula mandating a small fraction of 1% of each state approved agency budget. As each agency’s budget is approved by the legislature it would automatically approve the funding of the ethics commission without decreases or increases The financing amounts from each agency would be dedicated strictly for the Ethics Commission and would not be subject to annual review or appropriation modifications by the legislature.

Any funding not spent or in excess of what is needed would revert back to the states general fund. Such a funding formula would be similar to the principal used in development programs that mandate a certain percentage of a developments and financing be dedicated for projects that are to be used by the general populace. An amendment to this year’s budget could be added to provide the funding formula for the Ethics Commission.

LEGISLATURE SHOULD REJECT GIVING ETHICS COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO SET SALARIES

The New Mexico Legislature is one of 14 State Legislatures in the Country that is considered “part time” and with low pay. New Mexico is one of only a few states that do not pay lawmakers an annual salary. New Mexico legislators receive a $161 stipend each day they are at the Capitol or attending committee meetings. Many legislators are retired or work in careers or are self-employed that allow them to serve in Santa each year for the session.

Every year during a session almost like clock work, an attempt is made to establish salaries for the legislature. Senate Joint Resolution 7 is this years version and it calls for a voter approved constitutional amendment that would make the State Ethics Commission the sole authority to set the salaries of hundreds of state and county elected officials. The bill is shortsighted and would be a major mistake. Such authority will create conflict with virtually all legislators and elected officials who could easily harbor grudges if they feel they are not being paid enough.

What will also be problematic is that not only salaries would have to be paid, but funding for the legislators retirement fund. The truth be know, New Mexico has out grown a citizens legislature and is in need of a full time legislature, but trying to establish a pay system on the backs of newly created agency is ill advised and will be considered sneaky by the general public.

CREATION OF ETHICS COMMISSION LONG OVERDUE

When it comes to the creation of Ethics Commission, it was long overdue for decades. New Mexico has had more than its fair share of public corruption scandals over the years.

A rogue’s gallery of unethical conduct, fraud, theft and abuse of power and influence in New Mexico politics includes Former Democrat State Senator Manny Aragon, two former Democrat State Treasurers, Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil, former Republican Secretary of State Dianna Duran, former Democrat State Senator Phil Griego, former Republican State Senator Monica Youngblood, former Republican New Mexico Taxation, and Revenue Secretary Demesia Padilla. Most recently, on December 7, New Mexico State Senator Richard Martinez, after a two-day bench trial, was found guilty of aggravated drunken driving and reckless driving. He was sentenced on January 7, 2020 to 5 days in jail, which he served and was released in time for the 2020 session. Senator Martinez refused to resign from the Senate, voluntarily resigned as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and he is seeking reelection.

Unproven allegations of “pay to play” plagued the 8-year tenure of Democrat Governor Bill Richardson with a federal grand jury investigation resulting in no indictments and no finding of “pay to play”. Then Republican United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico Gregg Forate, with an obvious strong Republican partisan bias, released a scathing letter of condemnation that accused the Richardson administration of “corrupting” the government contract award process. Former Governor Richardson withdrew his nomination to serve in President Obama’s Cabinet because of the federal investigation.

During the 8-year tenure of former Republican Governor “She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”, allegations of unethical conduct and undue influence with the award of the billion-dollar, 20-year Downs Race Track Lease, dubbed the “Dirty Downs Deal”, occurred. What also occurred was a federal grand jury investigation of the Republican Governor’s number one political consultant and campaign manager relating to misuse of her inauguration funding.

EMPOWER COMMISSION WITH AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND OR REMOVE

One area that merits serious consideration by the New Mexico Legislature is to empower the Ethics Commission with the authority to suspend or remove a public official or give the Commission the authority to seek from a District Court or Supreme Court the suspension or removal from office elected officials who have been found to have engaged in nefarious or unethical conduct. Further, the Ethics Commission should be given authority over local elected officials such as Mayors and City Councilors.

The statewide Ethics Commission should eventually help rebuild trust in a state government that has experienced way too much corruption throughout the decades. However, it will be able to do so only if it is empowered with real authority to suspend or remove someone for nefarious or unethical conduct. Otherwise, the Commission will be an exercise in futility to hold nefarious and unethical officials actually accountable for their actions short of criminal prosecution, forced resignations or hoping that they will be voted out of office.

For 16 years prior to becoming the first female Hispanic Republican Governor in New Mexico, “She Who Must Not Be Named” served as the elected Dona Ana County District Attorney. It was during the time she served as a prosecutor she contracted a serious case of the “Tough on Crime Virus”, and much like the corona virus, she never fully recovered from it. In fact she spread the virus to get elected Governor to gin up support from her conservative Republican base.

The Former Governor Republican was known during her entire 8 years in office of rolling out year, after year, after year, “tough on crime legislation” she knew would not pass, even during the 30-day short sessions, which are supposed to deal with budgetary matters. The former Republican Governor wanted to toughen criminal sentences for a number of offenses ignoring the root causes of crime.

During the 2018 thirty-day legislative session, the former Republican Governor wanted to reinstate the death penalty, wanted a bill to toughen penalties for people who commit crimes while on probation or parole and wanted to restore the death penalty for people convicted of murdering children and law enforcement. She also wanted a three-strikes proposal that would require life sentences for repeat offenders convicted of a third violent felony. According to the former Republican Governor, the laws would have targeted “the worst of the worst.”

It has become worrisome to Democratic political observers that the Former Republican Governor and her political hatchet man left the “Tough on Crime” virus in the Governor’s Office. During this year’s 2020 legislative session, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has allowed to be placed on the agenda 3 “tough-on-crime” bills currently making their way through the Legislature. To many of her supporters, Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is showing signs of “get tough on crime” fever by supporting Republican sponsored legislation.

TOUGH ON CRIME LEGISLATION

The three bills placed on the 2020 legislative agenda by Democrat Governor Lujan Grisham are House Bills sponsored by Republican State Representative Bill Rehm. The bills are House Bill 35, House Bill 113 and House Bill 114. All 3 have already cleared one committee. The bills will now be heard in the House Judiciary Committee.

House Bill 35 would increase the sentencing enhancement for using a gun to commit a crime from 1 year to 3 years for a first offense, and from 3 years to 5 years for the second offense. The enhancement time is mandatory prison time. A judge would not have any discretion to suspend the prison time in favor of probation, no matter the circumstances.

A historical note of the one-year enhancement for using a gun to commit a crime is when former District Judge Gene Franchini, who later became a New Mexico Supreme Court Justice, resigned over the one-year firearm enhancement. Judge Franchini chose to resigned from the district court bench rather than impose the mandatory jail sentence for use of a fire arm in a crime. The Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault with a gun when he brandished a gun during a heated argument at a traffic stop, and threatened someone, but did not discharge the firearm. Judge Franchini announce his resignation at the defendant’s sentencing, refused to sentence the man and said he could not live with his conscience and a law that required a mandatory jail sentence of one year.

House Bill 113 would change the crime of being a “felon in possession of a firearm” from a 4th degree felony to a 3rd degree felony. The basic sentence for the crime would be doubled from 18 months to 3 years. Under House Bill 18, the definition of a “felon” would include anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony no matter the time passed. Under the current law, the definition of a felon includes only those who have completed a prison sentence in the previous 10 years from the date of the most current conviction.

House Bill 114 would make it a 3rd degree felony to carry a firearm while trafficking a controlled substance. A 3rd degree felony carries a sentence of three years in prison and up to $5,000 in fines.

EDITORS NOTE: The postscript below to this blog article contains a discussion of the current penalties and sentencings for conviction of felonies under the New Mexico Criminal code.

RATIONALE FOR INCREASING PENALTIES

State Representative Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, the sponsor of all three bills, said he “hopes” the laws will curb the high violent rates crime rates in Albuquerque. Rehm also said he believes the bills would make criminals “think twice” about getting a gun or using one during a crime.

According to Rehm:

“We have violence all across the state, but in particular in Albuquerque right now. …What we’re trying to do in a bipartisan way… is push these bills to get them on through to try to address some of the violence we see. We know that being a criminal, you make bad decisions. … If you’re in possession of a firearm and you’re already making a bad decision … this is going to go ahead and say, ‘Don’t have a firearm with you.’ “

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham said her administration is taking an “all-of-the-above” approach to battling high crime rates in Albuquerque and other parts of the state and said:

“[These measures are] smart on crime by targeting the “worst of the worst” and said the approach includes more substance abuse and mental health treatment programs and she added “I’m trying to do all of that. … I don’t know when those things became mutually exclusive.”

Tripp Stelnicki, the governor’s spokesman, in a statement said:

“The bills would pave the way for judges to impose longer prison sentences for violent criminals, and that would keep our communities safer. … And while no law can deter all crime, these bills certainly would prevent some crime by keeping violent felons off our streets for longer periods of time.”

OPPOSITION VOICED

Civil rights advocates, community groups and defense lawyers oppose all 3 bills arguing increasing criminal penalties and mandating more time in prison are not the answer to the State’s high crime rates. They argue that more severe sentences do little to deter crime or make communities safer in the long run.

New Mexico SAFE is a coalition of more than 30 faith-based, nonprofit or community organizations representing the homeless, women, Native Americans, immigrants and others. The coalition analyzed the 3 house bills on whether it would make the community safer and whether it’s apolitical, fiscally responsible and evidence-based. NM Safe graded all three bills and did not award any of the bills higher than a “C” grade.

New Mexico SAFE pointed out that drug trafficking is already a second-degree felony for a first offense and carries a basic sentence of nine years. The mandatory enhancement bill, House Bill 35, would create a new crime with an additional three-year sentence, and a person could be charged with it regardless of whether a gun was used, fired or even shown.

Under House Bill 35, each count a person is charged with could be separately enhanced. For example, if a person is charge with the commission of 3 felonies in one crime event (ie: possession of a controlled substance, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit a felony) and it is a first-time offender, that person could receive an additional 10 to 15 years added to the basic sentences for each crime committed. The mandatory enhancement could have the dramatic effect of significantly increasing the number of people in New Mexico prisons.

Jennifer Burrill, vice president of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association had this to say about the 3 bills:

“[The bills are] “failed tough-on-crime policies … I think it’s a backwards movement in terms of trying to address the root causes of crime in our communities. … I don’t think that this is going to solve anything. If the goal is to reduce crime, [these bills] won’t do it. This will only incarcerate and warehouse people. … [The mandatory enhancement] makes us lose sight of humanity, that people grow and change. … One of the things we see with just a simple felon in possession of a firearm is that, let’s say, someone moves back in with their parents and their dad has a gun in the house, they can still be charged with felon in possession of a firearm because it was within their household.”

Steven Robert Allen, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, believes a better use of resources would be to invest in substance abuse treatment and programs and had this to say:

“If one thing is for certain, it’s that the war on drugs and the resultant mass incarceration crisis that’s been caused over the past several decades hasn’t done anything to increase public safety in our communities.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1415714/gov-backs-tough-on-crime-bills.html

1980 NEW MEXICO PRISON RIOT BEST EXAMPLE OF HOW WRONG WAREHOUSING “WORST OF THE WORST” FELONS

Over 40 years ago, on Feb. 2, 1980, New Mexico’s and the nation’s bloodiest prison riot in US history occurred when inmates seized the state penitentiary south of Santa Fe and holding 12 correction officers hostage. The riot lasted 36 hours. One inmate was beheaded, another inmate’s face was burned off with an acetylene torch, other inmates were beaten to death with pipes or killed with a tear gas gun. A piece of rebar was driven through one inmate’s head ear to ear. The reasons for the brutal murder of “inmate on inmate” included that those who were killed were “snitches” or informants.

Investigation of the prison riot primary cause revealed it was prison overcrowding, or warehousing of prisoners, poor prison conditions and the prison’s disciplinary system. The Santa Fe prison was built in the 1950s. The prison was designed to hold 900 inmates but on the night the riot began, it held 1,157 inmates. Thirteen grand jury reports in the years before the riot were critical of inmate living conditions, overcrowding and the prison’s disciplinary system which were also found to have contributed to the riot.

The 1980 prison riot ultimately lead to the state entering into what is called the Duran Consent Decree for federal court oversight of the state’s prison system that governed the way the state ran prisons and treated inmates. It took 20 years before a federal court found the state was in substantial compliance with the decree except in the area of mental health. It took another two years for the state to meet the mental health care standards for inmates.

BERNALILO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 65% DISMISSAL, MISTRIAL AND ACQUITAL RATES

On May 22, 2019, State District Court Judges Stan Whitaker and Charles Brown wrote to the New Mexico Supreme Court that statistics revealed an alarmingly high mistrial rate, acquittal rate, dismissal rate in cases where the District Attorney tried cases charged by grand jury versus those cases charged by preliminary hearings. Statistics presented by the District court showed that overcharging and a failure to screen cases by the District Attorney’s Office is contributing to the high mistrial and acquittal rates.

Out of 378 charged cases in the 10-month period of July, 2018 to April, 2019, there were 128 convictions from guilty verdicts and guilty plea agreements, 174 acquittals from not guilty verdicts, DA dismissals, directed verdicts and other types of dismissals and 72 mistrials. Translated to percentage numbers, of the 378 cases charged, 34.92% were convictions, 46.03% were acquittals and 19.05% were mistrials. In other words, of the 378 charged cases resulted in either a mistrial or acquittal when presented to a jury.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/05/28/district-court-exposes-da-torrez-65-dismissal-mistrial-and-acquittal-rates-mayor-keller-tries-to-bail-out-da-torrez-from-preliminary-hearings/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The 1980 New Mexico prison riot needs to be remembered as a tragic lesson learned the hard way that warehousing the “worst of the worst” felons does not solve much. “Get tough on crime” and imprisoning the “worst of the worst” are political slogans and popular words that help win elections but are, at best, only an attempt to treat the symptoms of very deep cultural problems. “Lock- em up and throw away the key” does not solve the underlying causes of crime. It never has and it never will.

HOUSE BILLS 35, 113 AND 114 ARE MISPLACED, WILL NOT REDUCE CRIME AND SHOULD BE REJECTED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Virtually every argument being made in support of the 3 bills have been heard before. Increased and mandatory sentencing has proven ineffective in reducing crime. Criminals hell bent on committing any crime with a gun do not sit down with the criminal statutes to figure out what the penalties are for using a gun or the risk they are running at sentencing. Someone who is angry enough to shoot someone dead or who suffers from acute mental illness and wants to kill are not going to “think twice” about committing a crime as Representative Rehm says. No doubt Representative Rehm has sincere intentions, but his philosophy has long been discredited. Violent criminal intent cannot be rationalized with in any way. The most violent criminals are not going to kill thinking about how long they may be in prison if caught, convicted and sentenced.

MANDATORY ENHANCEMENTS USED AS BARGAINING CHIPS

Citizens, voters and elected officials who want longer prison sentences always forget that a sentence to prison is at the very end of the criminal justice process. Before a sentence can be imposed, a case but be investigated by law enforcement, sufficient evidence must be secured to ensure a conviction, a person must be arrested, the person must be charged and then tried and convicted. It is the District Attorney’s Office that decides what felonies are to be charged, it’s a jury that decides guilt or innocence, unless a defendant pleads guilty, and it’s a judge that imposes the prison sentence time.

Increased sentencing penalties and mandatory enhancement penalties will result in overcharging and a failure to screen cases properly by the District Attorney. Overcharging a case by the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office is a very common practice as was already reported above. Many mandatory enhancement charges will wind up becoming simply “bargaining chips” to secure a voluntary plea agreement to a lesser included offense and sentencing agreement usually at significantly reduced penalties.

Another point too often forgotten by the tough on crime advocates is that once you imprison someone for a crime, they become wards of the state. A prisoner’s health, safety, welfare, food and lodging and medical care must be paid for by the taxpayer. It is far too easy for elected officials to say imprison someone, but there must be a willingness on their part to pay and build jails and house and feed those you want behind bars.

TRANSFORMING JUDGES INTO SENTENCING ROBOTS

The primary reason for the separation of powers doctrine is to prevent the 3 branches of government from interfering with each other’s functions, duties and powers. Mandatory sentencing enhancement is nothing more than the legislature usurping the power and authority of the courts. Under the law and the code of judicial conduct, judges are required to be fair and impartial, seek justice, protect the public and honor the constitutional rights of an individual defendant.

Judges must do their very best to follow the law and see to it justice is served. Mandatory enhanced sentencing provisions strip judges from any and all discretion as to sentencing. Mandatory and enhance sentencing relegate Judges to the function of unthinking and uncaring sentencing robots totally disregarding the facts and circumstances of a crime, ignoring the background of a person to be sentenced and ignoring pre-sentence reports and recommendations.

Judges need to be empowered with deciding if a person can be rehabilitated in any meaningful manner and returned to society. Mandatory enhancement provisions do not allow a judge to impose any type of probation or suspension. A defendant’s criminal record, the extent of injury caused, the impact of the crime on the victim or the community, and the extent to which the defendant has addressed life circumstances, such as drug addiction, which may have contributed to the criminal behavior, become totally irrelevant with mandatory sentencing. This is not how the criminal justice system is suppose to work.

GOVERNOR’S BUDGET PRIORITIES BEST APPROACH TO REDUCING ROOT CAUSES OF CRIME

The root causes of crime in New Mexico are painfully obvious. They include poverty, drug addiction, lack of education, untreated mental health problems and failed social intervention. The Governor’s 2020 proposed budget is a major step to address all of the root causes of crime.

New Mexico’s children are the number 1 priority for Governor Lujan Grisham in her Executive Budget for the 2020 session. Nearly half of the state spending increase proposed will go toward education programs, from early childhood through higher education. The Governor’s budget requests full funding of the “Early Childhood Department” that will focus state resources on children from birth to 5 years of age. A major goal of the new department, coupled with other investments, will be more New Mexico children growing up to secure gainful employment as adults who don’t require government services.

The Governor’s 2020 Budget seeks funds the multi-agency Behavioral Health Initiative (BHI) for $28.7 million. The $28.7 million increase includes funding to build a new behavioral health network, including community-based health services, to effectively address substance use disorders, and addressing the behavioral needs of individuals in the criminal justice system.

The Governor’s 2020 budget contains a continuation of critical investments in economic development to create well-paying jobs and successes in diversifying and expanding the economy. The 2020 proposed Executive Budget contains funding to continue the successful investments made using the Local Economic Development Act (LEDA) program of $40 million. $10 million will be used for rural infrastructure projects. The LEDA program has successfully encouraged businesses to come to New Mexico to stimulate economic growth in the state and leveraged $2.3 billion in private investments over the last six years. The goal is to create 2,500 jobs in the 2020 fiscal year.

PUBLIC SAFETY

There are 33 duly elected County Sheriffs in New Mexico and upwards of 150 municipal police departments, each with their own jurisdiction, philosophy on law enforcement and priorities. The same goes for the duly elected District Attorneys and virtually all the Courts in the criminal justice system. No Governor has any authority over them and their priorities. Any increase in penalties and mandatory enhancements will be subject to how the criminal justice system handles those enacted by the legislature.

The only authority that a Governor has over law enforcement is with the New Mexico State Police and the Department of Homeland Security. The Governor at this point is doing the most she can when it comes to public safety with her Executive Budget including funding for the Department of Public Safety budget at $163.9 million, which will provide for a total of 60 new State Police officers, including equipment and training. Additional funding is included for ten new staff for forensic labs, including six new forensic scientists and a new data-sharing system that will address gaps in inter-agency communication, as well as $6.3 million for state police recruitment and retention initiatives.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE NEED FOR RED FLAG LAW

Rather than concentrating on trying to increase criminal penalties and taking an “all-of-the-above” approach as the Governor has said to battling high crime rates, she should concentrate on areas that she can truly influence in reducing our murder rates. The proposed Red Flag law is one such area.

Domestic violence cases are some of the most common cases involving the use of a handgun. According to an annual study published by the Violence Policy Center, women are more likely to be killed by men in New Mexico than nearly any other state. New Mexico has ranked among the top 10 states with the highest rates of women killed by men during the last decade. Current statistics are 1 in 3 New Mexico women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime. 18,000 domestic violence calls were made in 2017 with 8,000 calls made in Albuquerque.

The Violence Policy Center promotes gun control and found that each state at the top of the list of women killed by men have a high rate of firearm ownership which no doubt includes New Mexico’s gun culture. You never hear from violence crime defendants at time of being sentenced “I was going to use a gun but instead used a bat to crush the skull because I did not want to do the time on a mandatory enhancement for using a gun.”

If the New Mexico legislature is truly interested in bringing down the states violent crime and murder rates, rather enacting enhancement penalties, they should enact the Red Flag law pending and supported by the Governor. Under the proposed red flag law, family members or law enforcement can petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a gun owner or a person in possession of a gun who may present a danger to themselves or others.

The action is civil in nature and it is not a criminal action nor a civil commitment proceeding to determine mental competency but a request for an “extreme-risk protection order”. It will require a sworn affidavit explaining in detail the facts and circumstance as to why the order is needed against a person. A judge could then issue a 15-day emergency order to seize the weapons and ammunition from that person and would schedule a hearing to determine if there was a need for a one-year order. When the court order expires, the guns and ammunition would then be returned to the individual.

For more see:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/new-mexico-s-rate-of-women-killed-by-men-among/article_eb7e4a2c-273d-5eb6-8007-e5936639b64f.html

https://www.womenshealth.gov/relationships-and-safety/domestic-violence/effects-domestic-violence-children

https://www.unicef.org/media/files/BehindClosedDoors.pdf

CONCLUSION

The New Mexico Legislature needs to spend more time and money building schools, funding mental health care facilities and drug addiction counseling programs and economic development creating jobs that will resolve the root causes of crime as opposed to building jails to warehouse criminals. House Bills 35, 113 AND 114 increasing penalties and mandatory enhancements are misplaced and will have little or no effect on crime. All three bills should be rejected by the New Mexico legislature.

The priorities of Governor Lujan Grisham identified in her submitted budget in the long run, if sustained during all her time as Governor, will reduce our crime rates. In the meantime, the Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham needs to be given a “tough on crime” vaccine to break her fever and her coughing for enactment. The Governor’s offices also needs to be disinfected to get rid of the “tough on crime” virus left by her Republican predecessor “She Who Must Not Be Named”.

_______________________________

POST SCRIPT

CRIMINAL SENTENCING PENALTIES IN NEW MEXICO AND JUDGE’S DISCRETION

Discussion of the current penalties under the New Mexico Criminal law is in order to understand what is being proposed in three pending New Mexico Legislature house bills.

Under the New Mexico criminal code, felony crimes are categorized into five classes: capital felonies, first, second, third, and fourth-degree felonies. A capital felony is the most serious crime in New Mexico, a first-degree felony is the second most serious felony crime, and second, third and fourth-degree felonies are the least serious felonies.

Capital felonies in New Mexico are premeditated murder, felony murder which is murder committed during the commission or attempted commission of a felony, aggravated criminal sexual penetration, and depraved mind murder. Capital felonies carry the penalty of life in prison

First degree felonies in New Mexico include murder, criminal sexual penetration of a minor and other serious sexual crimes, kidnapping, and robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. First degree felonies carry a prison sentence up to 18 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines

Second degree felonies include robbery, shooting at or from a motor vehicle, sexual exploitation of a minor, the manufacture of child pornography, and drug trafficking including manufacturing, selling or possession with intent to sell illegal substances. Second degree felonies carry a prison sentence up to 9 years in prison and up to $10,000 in fines

Third degree felonies can include voluntary manslaughter, aggravated battery, some sex crimes, and aggravated stalking. Third degree felonies carry a prison sentence up to three years in prison and up to $5,000 in fines

Fourth degree felonies include involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, burglary, graffiti and property damage over $1,000, and shoplifting items with a value between $500 and $2,500. Fourth degree felonies carry a prison sentence of up to 18 months in prison and up to $5,000 in fines.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/new-mexico-felony-class.htm

http://www.attorneys.com/felonies/new-mexico/www.nmbar.org/Public/KnowtheLaw/KTLcriminalmatters.html

SENTENCING DISCRETION

“Under New Mexico law, the [District Court] judge in a felony case usually has some discretion to decide what sentence a defendant will receive. Unless the crime carries a mandatory minimum or [mandatory enhancement], such as one, five, ten or twenty years in prison, the judge can sentence the defendant to unsupervised or supervised probation rather than prison, even in a felony case.

Whether the judge allows a defendant in a felony case to serve part or all of his sentence on probation and the length of any prison sentence usually depends on factors such as the defendant’s criminal record, the extent of injury or damage caused, the impact of the crime on the victim or the community, and the extent to which the defendant has addressed life circumstances, such as drug addiction or gang involvement, which may have contributed to the criminal behavior.”

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/new-mexico-felony-class.htm

For related blog articles see:

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham Announces Long Anticipated 2020 Legislative Agenda For Session That Begins January 21, 2020; Committee Work Has Already Begun

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham Proposes $7.68 Billion Dollar Budget; LFC Releases Own Budget; Children And Education Once Again Biggest Priorities

Governor Lujan Grisham’s 2020 Legislative Agenda: Education, Recreational Pot, PERA Solvency, Public Safety, “Red Flag” Law; No Tax Code Overhaul

On January 30, Channel 7 in one of its Target 7 investigation reports, revealed that the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) unknowingly hired Amir Chapel, a three-time felon a who was convicted of forgery, misuse of a credit card and robbery in the early to mid-2000s, one crime each committed in the states of Texas, California and Illinois respectively.

Chapel was hired at an annual salary of $72,000 as APD’s Policy and Compliance Manger for the federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement. The position is a civilian mid management position and as such he is not a sworn police officer. He worked at APD’s downtown main headquarters. His job duties were to review and make sure APD’s policies were up to date and followed the city’s settlement agreement with the Department of Justice.

HOW IT HAPPENED

Target 7 submitted an open records request for Chapel’s employment records, and from the records obtained, it was able to piece together what happened. Chapel also resigned on the very day the employment records were released by the city.

It was in May, 2019 that Chapel was first hired. According to his city work application, he gave a wrong birth date and Social Security number. APD memos obtained revealed that during the hiring process in April 2019, Chapel checked a box on a city form indicating he had never been convicted of a felony. On the form he said he was born in 1981, but his driver’s license says he was born in 1980. A memo from investigators says Chapel didn’t use his own Social Security number on a document used for a background check. According to emails, with the information Chapel provided, he passed a background check and was classified as being eligible for hire. On his resume, he lists high-ranking APD officers as references. When Target 7 asked the city for a list of people interviewed for the job, it was told a list did not exist.

After Chapel was hired, the APD received a tip about his criminal record. When Chapel’s supervisor found out he was a convicted felon, the APD supervisor on October 7 emailed all APD commanders and deputy chiefs saying Chapel was “not available” to do his job due to “unforeseen circumstances”. Surprisingly, APD emails show Chapel returned to work on October 14, seven days after the previous email that said he was not available and after APD learned of his felony convictions and the discrepancies in the application process.

The city refused to do an on-camera interview on the hiring, but did issue the following statement:

“The city cannot comment on personnel matters. APD typically runs background checks, which are conducted by a contractor, and which generally provide criminal history information for the last seven years.”

CITY PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS; MORAL TURPITUDE

The City’s personnel rules and regulations are very clear that applicants for jobs are ineligible for employment if they are fraudulent or make a false statement on an application or if they have a prior conviction of a felony involving “moral turpitude”.

“Crimes involving moral turpitude have been defined to be those crimes that involve conduct that is reckless, evil, and/or morally reprehensible. Specifically, a crime may be considered a crime involving moral turpitude if it has any one of the following characteristics:

1. Shocking to the public conscience;
2. Vile or depraved;
3. Contrary to the rules, morality, and duties of society.”

https://www.aerlawgroup.com/what-are-crimes-involving-moral-turpitude/

The 3 crimes of forgery, misuse of credit card and robbery committed by Chapel are considered as crimes of “moral turpitude” with any one being enough to disqualify a person for employment by APD.

City personnel rules and regulations require that criminal background checks must be done on any potential employee that is being hired for sensitive positions at city hall and all positions at APD, including all civilian positions. The background checks are mandatory and must be completed before anyone is hired and before they start to work at APD.

CHANNEL 7 TRACKS DOWN CONVICTED FELON HIRED BY APD

Target 7 was able to track down Amir Chapel where he still lives in Albuquerque in order to get his version of what happened. Chapel said he never interviewed for his position because he knew two commanders at APD who reached out to him about the job. Proclaiming “… I didn’t lie” Chapel insisted he didn’t do anything wrong, he said legally he didn’t think he needed to check the box indicating he was a felon because the convictions were so old. His felony convictions happened in 2002, 2003 and 2007. Chapel would not explain why he used different Social Security numbers and dates of birth on his application and directed further questioning to APD Chief Michael Geier and City Attorney Estaban Aguilar.

APD UNION’S PRESIDENT PILES ON

Although Amir Chapel was not a sworn police officer and not a member of the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association, the union president felt compelled to comment. The police union is now demanding every civilian employee hired by the police department in the past year to have their background checks audited.

Union President Shaun Willoughby had this to say:

“How did this slip through the cracks? You’re the police department! … He was a high-level management, civilian employee of the police department. … This falls on the management of this police department. This should have been caught by this police agency and it wasn’t caught and that is a problem. … This is a police department where integrity and trust and honesty mean something. How many people slipped through the cracks? Are we auditing this? What are we doing to prevent this from happening in the future?”

The entire Target 7 News Report can be viewed at this link:

https://www.koat.com/article/apd-unknowingly-hires-3-time-felon/30716033

APD SWORN POLICE ASSIGNED TO DOJ COMPLIANCE BUREAU

On August 1, 2019, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) issued a “Staffing Snapshot” that reported the extent of resources and personnel dedicated to implementation of the Department of Justice (DOJ) mandated reforms under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) with APD’s Compliance Bureau.

According to the staffing report, APD as of August 1, 2019 has a total of 972 sworn officers with 600 officers assigned to the field services patrolling 6 area commands and neighborhoods. 61 officers are reported to be assigned to DOJ Compliance Bureau. The staffing report has a breakdown of sworn officers assigned to the various departments. You can view the APD staffing breakdown here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/08/08/apd-staffing-levels-970-sworn-police-300-more-needed/?fbclid=IwAR3bIE5NoLYcBMu96hMUmnmVhOMimMOONil-hV18lrrQpalpc35D3ryE0WE

The APD Compliance Bureaus consists of the Internal Affairs Professional Standards Division, Policy and Procedure Division, Accountability and Oversight Division, Internal Affairs Force Division and the Behavioral Health and Crisis Intervention Section. One of the major concentrations of the bureau is the ongoing cooperation with the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree (CASA) and its implementation of its terms and conditions. Internal Affairs deals with the investigation police misconduct cases. Crisis Intervention deals with the crisis intervention teams who deal with the mentally ill. Policy and Procedures deals with the review and writing of standard operating procedures.

The staffing reported for the Compliance Bureau is 1 Deputy Chief, 3 Commanders, 1 Deputy Commander, 6 Lieutenants, 10 Sergeants and 40 Detectives for a total of 61 which is 6.28% of the department sworn police officers. Confidential APD sources are reporting that the actual number of sworn police officers assigned to the compliance bureau is now at 70 sworn police.

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

It’s embarrassing enough that APD unknowingly hired a three-time felon who was convicted of crimes of moral turpitude of forgery, misuse of a credit card and robbery. What adds a major element of incompetence is that he was being paid $72,000 a year to be APD’s Policy and Compliance Manger for the Federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). There is no way he would have been hired for such a sensitive position had a standard background check been conducted.

Other very difficult questions that need to be answered are:

1. Was the position ever advertised and how many people applied?
2. What are the minimum qualifications for the position and did Chapel possesses the experience and background for the job?
3. Was a background check even conducted and what did the city pay for it on contract?
4. Is there any truth to the statement that Chapel was never interviewed for the position because he knew two APD commanders who reached out to him about the job and if so, why was there no interview and who are the APD commanders that acted as references?
5. Does Mayor Keller or Chief Geier intend to take any personnel actions to hold anyone accountable for what happened?

For the past 5 years, APD has been struggling to implement the Department Of Justice mandated reforms. APD has upwards of 70 sworn police that are involved with the reform process and the compliance bureau. The City has also hired a former federal magistrate to work on policy and procedures for the DOJ. It is difficult to understand, given the amount of personnel assigned to the DOJ compliance bureau, why there was a need to hire Chapel in the first place.

It is very disappointing but not at all surprising that APD refused to go on camera for an interview. APD Chief Geier and for that matter, Mayor Tim Keller tend to shy away from bad press or answering hard questions that call into question the competency of City actions and of APD. That was the norm with the prior Republican Administration. However, Mayor Tim Keller from day one of being elected Mayor said there would be “transparency” with what city hall did and he further said he and the city would acknowledge their mistakes, learn from those mistakes and take action to correct those mistakes.

There is absolutely nothing transparent by acknowledging a mistake issuing a press release saying “The city cannot comment on personnel matters …” . By refusing to make any comment other than the statement issued, the Keller Administration opened the garage door to allow the Union President to pile on, which he did.

What is pathetic is that you have the police union president piling on and no doubt savoring the moment, demanding an audit of all civilian APD hires over the last year and making statements like:

“How did this slip through the cracks? You’re the police department! … This is a police department where integrity and trust and honesty mean something.”

The union president needs to be reminded he is part of the police department. This is the same union president who said about the crime rate reductions Mayor Tim Keller reported that were in fact seriously flawed and false:

“I don’t think this was done intentionally, but I think the public is going to have a credibility issue with the Police Department, and this administration [in particular], and we need to work together as a team to prevent this from ever happening again.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1397614/city-to-review-two-years-of-crime-data-after-recent-discrepancies.html

This is also the same union president who called Mayor Tim Keller dishonorable for issuing an apology about the culture of aggression found within APD.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1104351/keller-misstep-irks-apd-officers.html

Mayor Keller and Chief Michael Geier need to get out in front on this controversy and provide and explanation as to why there was a failure to conduct a complete background check. A far better explanation is needed from the APD command staff as to what happened with the hiring and termination of a 3 time convicted felon in a highly sensitive position. Otherwise the controversy will only fester.

On January 28, after more than two hours of emotional testimony, Senate Bill 5 entitled the “Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act” also known as “The Red Flag Gun Law”, passed the Senate Public Affairs Committee on a party-line vote of 4 Democrats for and 3 Republicans against. The legislation is sponsored by Senator Joseph Cervantes of Las Cruces, Representative Damon Ely of Corrales and Representative Joy Garratt of Albuquerque. The legislation is backed by Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, who added it to the agenda of the 30-day session.

The Senate Public Affairs Committee hearing was held in the Senate chambers to accommodate the audience. In an extraordinary move of caution, the over 200 people who showed up to attend the hearing were screened for weapons upon entering the Senate Gallery.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/red-flag-law-bill-clears-first-hurdle/5626424/?cat=500

In argument before the committee, State Senator Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, one the bill’s sponsors, cited last year’s shooting rampage in El Paso, Texas where the gunman targeted Hispanics and New Mexico’s high rates of gun deaths and suicide as reasons to enact the legislation. Senator Cervantes had this to say:

“It’s time that New Mexico provide a mechanism for law enforcement and family members to protect themselves when individuals announce their intentions to do harm.”

Opponents of the Red Flag law questioned law enforcement agencies’ ability to temporarily store seized guns and also argued the proposed law would be misused in heavily contested divorce cases.

As what happened last year, this year’s red-flag gun bill once again has strong opposition from the states elected County Sheriff’s with 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs opposing the measure. Upwards of 20 elected county sheriffs showed up for hearing, they were allowed to carry guns in the chamber and all argued that if Senate Bill 5 became law, it would infringe on individual’s constitutional rights.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/sheriffs-oppose-red-flag-gun-legislation-in-new-mexico/5603938/?cat=500

New Mexico State Police Chief Tim Johnson and top Albuquerque Police Department officials, including APD Deputy Chief Harold Medina support the bill.

Governor Lujan Grisham has acknowledged that getting the bill to her desk will be hard but said she’s confident it will happen and had this to say:

“It will not stop all gun violence. … It will not stop all suicides. But if it saves one life, it’s worth it.”

If lawmakers pass the law, New Mexico would join 17 other states and the District of Columbia with “extreme risk protection orders.” Those states that have enacted “red flag” laws are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington.

WHAT THE BILL DOES

Under Senate Bill 5, a relative, household member or law enforcement officer would file a sworn affidavit and petition in state District Court seeking an extreme-risk protection order to prohibit someone from possessing firearms that pose a serious threat to themselves or others. The petitioner would have to disclose whether there’s any other pending legal action between the two parties. A judge could issue a 15-day emergency order to seize the weapons and ammunition from that person. There would also an option for a one-year firearm prohibition, based on a “preponderance of evidence” to determine if there was a need for a one-year order. When the court order expires, the guns and ammunition would then be returned to the individual.

According Representative Ely, one of the sponsors:

“This bill is a good balance between people’s rights to bear arms and public safety … It protects the public. It protects people who might be an imminent threat of suicide, and it protects law enforcement. That’s what this bill does.”

According to Governor Lujan Grisham the bill assures due process for gun owners by saying:

“You have to have a sworn affidavit, you’re under oath so there are real repercussions for someone who might use this in a negative way because that’s not the intent here at all.”

Red flag laws have been approved in 17 states and the District of Columbia. While the laws differ, many states have enacted them in response to mass shootings, such as the February 2018 shooting in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead. Red flag laws have survived court challenges in some states.

Supporters describe Senate Bill 5 as a common-sense way to save lives by taking guns from people who are an immediate threat.

Opponents say the law will result in abuse and could result in innocent people losing their guns. Zac Fort, the President of the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association said his organization opposed the red-flag law saying previous versions of the bill failed to protect the rights of gun owners. You can also anticipate the National Rifle Association (NRA) will oppose the legislation in some manner.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1407846/governor-asking-lawmakers-to-approve-red-flag-law.html

After the Senate Public Affairs Committee meeting, state Senator Joseph Cervantes, who is also a respected trial attorney, said he felt confident the proposed law will be upheld as constitutional if challenged. Cervantes added the bill will be amended in the coming days based on feedback from law enforcement officials and others.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1414362/extreme-risk-gun-bill-advances-on-party-line-vote-in-senate.html

NEW MEXICO SUICIDE RATE

Most gun deaths in New Mexico are a result of suicide and therefore the state’s suicide rate is a critical part of the debate. Overall, the state suicide rate is 21.9 deaths per 100,000 people, which is more than 50% higher than the national average. Ten counties in New Mexico that are largely rural areas of the state have suicide rates at least twice the national average, which is 14 suicide deaths per 100,000 people. Studies in states that have “red flag laws” and that have “risk-based firearm seizure laws” were associated with reduced suicide rates.

UNITED STATES HISTORY OF MASS SHOOTINGS

Since 1995, the United States has had 95 mass shootings, including seven of the 11 deadliest. Three of the 11 biggest mass shootings in American history have now taken place in the United States during the last two years.

There is no doubt we have a deadly mass shooting epidemic on our hands.

The mass shooting with guns in the last 10 years include: Orlando, Florida (49 killed, 50 injured), Blacksburg, Va. (32 killed), San Ysidro, Cal (21 killed), San Bernardino, (14 killed), Edmond Oklahoma (14 killed), Fort Hood (13 killed), Binghamton, NY (13 killed) Washington, DC (12 killed), Aurora, Colorado (12 killed), Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Conn (21 children and 6 adult staff members killed) and the largest mass shooting in this country’s history that occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada with at least 59 dead and at least 515 wounded and the Parkland/Stoneridge High School shooting that resulted in 17 children’s deaths. Since 1995, the United States has had 98 mass shootings, including seven of the 11 deadliest. Three of the 11 biggest mass shootings in American history have now taken place in the United States in the last two years. . There is no doubt we have a deadly mass shooting epidemic on our hands.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The biggest criticisms against “red flag” laws are that they violate a citizen’s United States Constitution Second amendment right to bear arms. Such an argument resonates with the New Mexico gun culture. Another major criticism is that a person’s constitutional right of due process of law is violated when a court can issue a temporary “ex parte” order to seize guns from people without an evidentiary hearing and without any notice, but that is not what the proposed red flag law does. Both arguments are made by the 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs opposing the proposed measure.

Governor Lujan Grisham has said a “red flag” law will make communities safer and for that reason she has attempted to work with the Sheriff’s to reach a compromise, but has been unable to win support for a “red flag” law thus far from the Sheriffs. The New Mexico Sheriffs Association opposes “red flag” laws believing they are ineffective and that they infringe on Second Amendment constitutional rights to bear arms.

Sheriffs are elected officials just like the Governor, and as such the Governor has little control over how they should approach law enforcement. For that reason alone, the Governor needs to do whatever she can to convince all New Mexico Sheriff’s to support the law. Also, Attorney General Hector Balderas should lend his weight and prestige of his office to get the law enacted. Included in the discussions with the elected Sheriff’s should be an offer of state funding to support the enforcement of the law.

What is shameful is that elected county sheriffs are far more concerned about “second amendment rights” that allows almost anyone, including those who pose a harm to themselves and others, to have a firearm of their choosing. The elected sheriff’s hide behind the 2nd Amendment so as not to protect or enforce the rights of others who have the rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” just as much guaranteed under the constitution as the right to bear arms.

The elected sheriffs who oppose the meaningful gun control legislation that the red flag law represents ignore their duty and responsibilities to serve and protect the general public that elected them preferring to promote their own “pro gun” political philosophy and their own personal interpretation of the law. The public’s safety and enactment of laws for the protection of those that easily become victims of gun violence, even by family members, should be law enforcement’s number one priority, not enforcing only those laws they feel that conform to their own “pro gun” philosophy. The enactment of laws is the responsibility of the legislature, not law enforcement. The meaning and interpretation of the laws enacted is the responsibility of the court’s, and not of law enforcement.

The two major gun control measures enacted by the 2019 New Mexico Legislature, one requiring back ground checks on private sales of guns and the other requiring domestic violence abusers to surrender firearms, were a good start to address New Mexico’s gun culture. The problem is, no one knows for certain to what extent those laws are being ignored by the elected sheriff’s. Notwithstanding, the enactment of a “red flag” law will be another small step in the right direction. Far more needs to be done by the New Mexico legislature to combat gun violence and to keep the public safe from those who pose a risk to themselves and others.

Unless congress enacts responsible gun control measures, which is not at all likely, we can expect more mass shootings at soft targets such as schools, movie theaters, malls, department stores and major public events like concerts and at state fairs. The mass shootings will again be followed by the predictable cycle of news coverage, more outrage, more nighttime candle vigils, more funerals, more condolences, more rhetoric demanding action. It could easily happen in New Mexico.

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the New Mexico State Legislature are wise to do all they can and enact the red flag law, and if one suicide can be prevented and if just one shooting by a mentally ill person can be prevented by it, it is worth it.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of Montgomery, Alabama defines a hate group as:

“an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

According to its web page, the SPLC does not list individuals as hate groups, only organizations. Organizations on the SPCL hate group list:

“vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity, prejudices that strike at the heart of our democratic values and fracture society along its most fragile fault lines.”

The SPCL defines a “group” as an entity that “has a process through which followers identify themselves as being part of the group. This may involve donating, paying membership dues or participating in activities such as meetings and rallies. Individual chapters of a larger organization are each counted separately, because the number indicates reach and organizing activity.”

REASONS SPLC GIVES TO COMPILE LIST OF HATE GROUPS

The reason given by the Southern Poverty Law Center for identifying and tracking hate groups is as follows:

“Hate groups tear at the fabric of our society and instill fear in entire communities. American history is rife with prejudice against groups and individuals because of their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or other characteristics. As a nation, we’ve made a lot of progress, but our history of white supremacy lingers in institutional racism, stereotyping and unequal treatment of people of color and others. Hate also plays a particular role in crime and thus the existence and location of hate groups is important to law enforcement. The U.S. Department of Justice warns that hate crimes, more than any other crime, can trigger community conflict, civil disturbances, and even riots. For all their “patriotic” rhetoric, hate groups and their imitators are really trying to divide us; their views are fundamentally anti-democratic and need to be exposed and countered.”

https://www.splcenter.org/20171004/frequently-asked-questions-about-hate-groups#hate%20group

Race, religion and sexual orientation are the most common targets of hate groups. For that reason, the New Mexico statistics are worth review.

NEW MEXICO RACE, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION BREAKDOWN

According to the United States Census, New Mexico’s approximate total population as of July 1, 2019 was 2,096,829. The Overall race or ethic breakdown is reported as follows:

Hispanic population: 49.1%
White or Anglo population: 37.1%
American Indian: 10.9%
African American: 2.6%
Asian: 1.8%

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/NM/RHI325218#RHI325218

The Williams Institute, a leading research institute on sexual orientation and gender identity law and policy at the UCLA School of Law, released the following data on New Mexico’s Same-Sex Couples and Their Families in New Mexico:

Same-sex couples: 5,825
LGBT individuals (18yrs+): approximately 45,000
Percentage of same-sex couples with children: 18%

http://www.outwordmagazine.com/inside-outword/glbt-news/1337-data-about-lgbt-population-in-new-mexico-released

JEWISH AND MUSLIM POPULATION NUMBERS

On January 15, 2015, a survey by the Jewish Federation of New Mexico was released and found the Jewish population in New Mexico is approximately 24,000 residents with a range as high as 31,000 or as low as 21,000.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/life/features/new-survey-finds-robust-jewish-community-in-new-mexico/article_7213ba2b-14e8-5758-a49f-5b208f603a93.html

On August 18, 2018, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported that according to the U.S. Religion Census, which reports the number of congregations by county in the U.S. for different faith groups, about 4,000 Muslims live in New Mexico, with about 450 in Santa Fe or about 0.3% percent of the city’s population.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/northern-new-mexico-muslims-focus-on-faith-holiday-as-taos/article_cbedfd47-69e9-52c5-b614-6f03d81dfe40.html

RELIGIOUS FAITH POPULATION BY PERCENTAGES

According to a Pew Institute “Religious Landscape Study of New Mexico Adults”, the state’s population has the following religion breakdown:

CHRISTIAN FAITHS

Catholic: 34%
Evangelical Protestant: 23%
Mainline Protestant: 14%
Historically Black Protestant: 1%
Mormon: 2%
Orthodox Christian: Less than 1%
Jehovah’s Witness: 1%
Other Christian: Less than 1%

Non-Christian Faiths:

Jewish: Less than 1%
Muslim: Less than 1%
Buddhist: 1%
Hindu: Less than 1%
Other World Religions: Less than 1%

Unaffiliated

Atheist: 3%
Agnostic: 5%
Nothing in particular: 13%

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/new-mexico/

NO HATE GROUPS FOUND IN NEW MEXICO

In 2018, Southern Poverty Law Center identified and tracked 1,020 “hate groups” throughout the United states and produced a map to illustrate the locations of the hate groups. You can review a listing of hate groups in each state by reviewing the map at this link and typing in the name of a state and a list will then appear for that state:

https://www.splcenter.org/20171004/frequently-asked-questions-about-hate-groups#hate%20group

New Mexico is the only state in the country that in 2018 the SPLC found had no organized hate group. But that does not mean the state has never had any in the past. Since 2000, the number of hate groups in New Mexico has varied from a high of 6 in 2013 to zero in 2004, 2005 and 2018. The hate groups found in New Mexico in the past have included the Christian Crusade for Truth, World Church of the Creator, National Socialist Movement, Civilian Combat Squad, New Mexico Skinheads, Frontline Aryans, 11th Hour Remnant Messenger, Supreme White Alliance and the Loyal White Knights of the KKK.

In New Mexico, the FBI documented 28 reported hate crimes in 2018, compared with seven reported incidents in 2017. Twenty-One of the hate crimes were based on race, ethnicity or national origin. Three were based on religion, three were based on sexual orientation and one on gender identity.

The finding of no hate groups in New Mexico in 2018 is in contrast to the FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics report for 2018 which found the number of hate crimes in New Mexico spiking to 4 times what it had been in 2017.

The SPLC interim research director Keegan Hankes said the two reports are not contradictory by saying:

“It is not necessary to have an organized hate group in your community for hate crimes to occur. … These are independent of each other. The presence of a hate group obviously contributes and marks the potential for hate crimes, hate incidents and hateful activity in your community.”

Hankes said the SPLC has been tracking “a massive spike in hate crimes” since Donald Trump was elected president. Hankes noted:

“One of the drivers of hate crimes is toxic political rhetoric particularly in describing immigrants. The language used resonates with fringe hate groups and provide them with “the ultimate validation of their world view. They feel emboldened and empowered, and that their ideas have [purpose].”

In order to underscore just how pervasive hate crimes are, Hankes pointed to the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, which annually collects data on crimes both reported and not reported to police. In the five years between 2013 and 2017, there were an average of 204,000 hate crimes each year.

STATES WITH THE FEWEST AND THE MOST HATE GROUPS

Excluding New Mexico, the states with the fewest hate groups in 2018 were Vermont and Wyoming, each with 1 group, Rhode Island and Delaware, each with 2, North Dakota and Iowa, each with 3 and Kansas and Alaska, each with 4.
The states with the largest number of hate groups were California with 83, Florida with 75, Texas with 73 and New York, with 47.

A DECADE OF HATE CRIMES

According to a recent Albuquerque Journal report, over the past decade, the most common types of hate incidents reported have been anti-Semitic, racial or ethnic graffiti in public parks and on public and private buildings. Accounts of hostile comments made toward people because of sexual orientation were reported as well as reports of university students using or being the target of racial slurs.

According to one Albuquerque Journal report:

“Increasingly, acts of violence have been directed at the homeless, some of whom were seriously injured or killed. While the homeless are not now a protected class of individuals, a number of organizations, including the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness, have called for legislation to add them as a protected class under the state’s Hate Crimes Statute.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1409573/2018-map-reveals-nm-has-not-hate-groups-ex-but-lack-of-such-groups-in-the-state-does-not-mean-there-are-no-hate-crimes-here.html

ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE’S TAKE

The Anti-Defamation League focuses on tracking anti-Semitic hate crimes. Scott Levin, Mountain States Regional director of the Anti-Defamation League agreed there does not have to be a hate group for hate crimes to happen and had this to say:

“It doesn’t take a group to commit a hate crime, people can act on their own. … They just might not be organized and meeting together. It may be a whole bunch of lone individuals with extremist ideologies. … Most hate crimes in the United States today are racially based, but there are certainly pockets where religion is going to be a bigger factor. … [Larger cities have larger populations of Jewish people] so there is a much higher incidence of anti-Semitic hate crimes there than in other parts of the country.”

NATIONAL STATISTICS

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center nearly 50% of race-based hate crimes were directed against African Americans. Hate crimes directed at LGBTQ individuals increased by almost 6%, including a significant 42% increase in crimes directed against transgender individuals. Anti-Hispanic hate crimes increased by 14%. Even though religion-based hate crimes decreased by 8% from 2017, nearly 60% of these hate crimes targeted Jews and Jewish institutions in 2018.

The FBI reported 7,120 hate crimes in 2018, a slight decrease from the 7,175 reported in 2017. The FBI’s statistics are based on the numbers collected from law enforcement agencies around the country which likely means there is an under count of hate crimes. The vast majority of law enforcement agencies are not required to report hate crimes for their jurisdictions. In many states, hate crimes are classified as an enhancement to other crimes and “are not a charge in and of themselves.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1409573/2018-map-reveals-nm-has-not-hate-groups-ex-but-lack-of-such-groups-in-the-state-does-not-mean-there-are-no-hate-crimes-here.html

The hate crimes reported in New Mexico mirror the national trend in that the most common type was race or religion based.

GANGS AT THE CENTER OF DRUG AND GUN VIOLENCE

New Mexico posted the nation’s second-highest violent crime rate and its highest property crime rate in 2018 driven by high crime rates in Albuquerque. According to Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI), in 2018 New Mexico had the second-highest violent crime rate and highest property crime rate in the nation. While the national crime rate in 2018 was around 369 violent crimes and 2,200 property crimes per 100,000 residents, New Mexico had 857 violent crimes and 3,420 property crimes per 100,000 residents. Front and center of the States drug and gun violence are gangs.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1376413/metro-surge-cost-1m-resulted-in-738-arrests.html

On May 24, 2019, it was reported by APD that gangs are driving much of the drug and gun violence crime and that city gangs are at the center of much of the city’s gun violence and drug trafficking. The report showed that APD can barely keep up with the problem and gave a summary of a number of gang and drug related murders, including teenager murders.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1321616/apd-makes-several-arrests-in-crackdown-on-gun-violence.html

The story reported something law enforcement has known for decades: gangs are a serious problem in New Mexico. In July 1990 the New Mexico Judicial Council did a survey that queried 30 local law enforcement agencies across the State on the extent of gang activity in their jurisdictions. The 16 responding agencies identified 127 gangs statewide with an estimated membership of between 4,200 and 5,800. A total of 111 of these gangs are in Albuquerque and comprise the majority of the total gang membership.

Evidence indicates that 80% of the State’s street gangs are involved in narcotics trafficking. Twenty percent of reported crimes committed by gang members are narcotics violations, 36% are violent crimes, and 40% are property crimes. Of the 111 Albuquerque gangs, 61 are Hispanic, 31 black, and 19 white.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=130829

Fast forward to October 15, 2012. It was reported that the then Mayor responded to rising violent crime rates by tripling the size of its Gang Unit to a 15 member team split into a plain-clothes squad dedicated to undercover investigative work and a uniformed task force to patrol the entire city of Albuquerque. According to APD at the time, there were as many as 246 active gangs in Albuquerque at the time and a total of 7,700 documented gang members.

https://underabq.tumblr.com/post/33669501709/gangs-of-albuquerque

GANG VIOLENCE VICTIMS

The following recent reports of murders support the point that drugs and gangs are at the center of Albuquerque’s violent crime problem:

In December, 2018, 15-year-old Collin Romero and 14-year-old Ahmed Lateef went reported missing on the west mesa. Weeks later, Sandoval County authorities found the boys dead in a shallow grave. Investigators say two Albuquerque teens were tortured and killed over marijuana. The Office of Medical Investigators (OMI) autopsy reports revealed that 15-year-old Romero was shot nine times and he was beaten and stabbed in his joints. 14-year-old Lateef was shot 19 times. Police say 19-year-old Stephen Goldman is the suspect in the murders.

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/autopsy-reports-reveal-grisly-details-about-murders-of-albuquerque-teens/

On April 10, 2019 APD detectives arrested Ryan Winter, 46, and his three children, who APD police say are gang members, Keith, 16, Kevin, 16, and Faith, 17, in connection with the vicious beating of a man and a woman on Feb. 9. Allegedly, the family tracked down the victims after a fight between Faith Winter and others, including the female victim. The Winters beat the woman with a gun and shoved a shotgun in the man’s face outside a gas station.

On April 16, 2019 APD detectives arrested Donald Crapse “a self-admitted motorcycle gang member” after allegedly witnessing him snort drugs outside a southwest Albuquerque home during a surveillance operation.

On May 7, 2019 police arrested Cesar Marquez and Adrian Marquez after APD received a call of a juvenile running around with a gun in a Walmart parking lot. According to a police spokesman “As officers entered the parking lot they heard multiple gunshots. ” Police found the 2 men in a blue Ford Mustang and identified Adrian Marquez as the suspect who fired off shots. Inside the car, detectives found a loaded gun and an ounce of cocaine.

On May 9, 2019 APD Detectives arrested Chris Salcido after a month’s long investigation alleging that he is gang member involved in several shootings and a “driver of crime and gun violence.” Salcido was caught at a southwest Albuquerque home after a standoff with police. Inside the home, they found three ounces of cocaine, two pistols and an assault rifle that had been reported stolen. Salcido has also been tied to several shootings and associated with 36 calls for service, including shots fired, suspected narcotics trafficking and aggravated battery.

On May 9, 2019 police arrested Dana La Monda and Juan Carlos Pacheco at a home in southwest Albuquerque after following up on reports of possible gang activity and suspected ties to several shootings. LaMonda was booked on a felony warrant for aggravated burglary of a firearm and Pacheco for separate charges.

On September 14, 2019 it was reported that 5 people were murdered and at least five injured in connection with three shootings in Albuquerque. APD Police said 3 of the 5 victims that were murdered were teens. Police identified them as Daniel Alexis Baca (17), Victoria Cereceres (16), and Noah Tafoya (18). The two other adults who died were identified as Christine Baca (36), and Manuelita Sotelo (77). The friends of 17 year old Daniel Alex Baca said friends said he died because of “the life he chose” and that was drug dealing and drugs.

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

One of the biggest sources of pride and comfort to New Mexico is that it is clearly a state of inclusion, diversity and tolerance where ethnic and religious groups accept each other and get along.

Many in New Mexico would strongly dispute the Southern Poverty Law Center’s report finding that New Mexico has no hate groups to report. That does not mean they do not exist. Many such groups, especially white supremacy groups, keep extremely low profiles, especially in a State like New Mexico that is classified a Minority-Majority State, where people of color far exceed the Anglo population. Further, the lack of listing of hate groups as was noted does not mean hate crimes do not happen in the state.

The real problem in the State of New Mexico are not hate groups but criminal gangs, drugs and violence. According to a law enforcement “Gangs of Albuquerque Report”, there are 127 gangs statewide with an estimated membership of between 4,200 and 5,800 involved with drugs, property crime and violent crime. The nightly local news is a constant reminder of how bad Albuquerque’s violent crime rates are.

With such high levels of violent crimes, especially in Albuquerque, a cynic would say “we do not need any hate groups when we have so many gangs.” In other words, you can take some comfort that there are no hate groups that will target you for your race, color, religion or sexual orientation. You should be safe from being a victim of a crime so long as you have no property or vehicle someone wants to steal, you do not have a home to break into, you do not do drugs and you can feel safe so long as you do not anger someone who has a gun and who will kill you.

______________________

POSTSCRIPT

For news coverage on gang related murders see:

https://www.koat.com/article/six-people-dead-in-separate-shootings-in-albuquerque/29029926

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/autopsy-reports-reveal-grisly-details-about-murders-of-albuquerque-teens/

https://www.abqjournal.com/1321616/apd-makes-several-arrests-in-crackdown-on-gun-violence.html

Each year, the “Point in Time” (PIT) survey is conducted to determine how many people experience homelessness on a given night, and to learn more about their specific needs. The PIT survey is conducted on only one night to determine how many people experience homelessness and to learn more about their specific needs. The PIT count is done in communities across the country in both urban and rural areas, and counting both sheltered and unsheltered homeless people.

The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for funding and to help understand the extent of homelessness at the city, state, regional and national levels.

HOMELESSNESS DEFINED

The City of Albuquerque contracts with The New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness to conduct the annual PIT survey. In even-numbered years, only homeless people who stay in shelters are counted. In odd-numbered years, a more comprehensive count is conducted counting people wherever they can be found including people sleeping in cars, in parks, beneath underpasses, commercial entry ways, alleys and anywhere they can be found.

According to city officials, The PIT count requires the use of the HUD definition of “homelessness” and counts only people who are sleeping in a shelter, in a transitional housing program, or outside in places not meant for human habitation. Those people who are not counted are those who do not want to participate in the survey, who are sleeping in motels that they pay for themselves, or who are doubled up with family or friends.

HUD defines homelessness as “an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, or has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation, or is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter.”

HUD defines “chronic homelessness” as “a person who has been homeless for one year, or has had four episodes of homelessness over three years with the combined episodes adding up to one year, and has a disabling condition that makes it difficult to obtain housing.”

According to the New Mexico Coalition To End Homelessness, the cause of homelessness and the number of homelessness can be described as follows:

“Homelessness is caused by poverty and a lack of affordable housing. Homelessness has grown dramatically since the 1970’s due primarily to the steady decrease in public benefits for people living in poverty including welfare payments and public housing. In part because of the decrease in spending for public housing, there has been a steady decline in affordable housing. According to the National Coalition to End Homelessness, between 1970 and 1995, the gap between the number of low-income renters and the amount of affordable housing units in the U.S. went from almost no gap to a shortage of 4.4 million affordable housing units.

People who experience homelessness in New Mexico include families with children, people who are working at low-wage jobs, people suffering from mental illness, those with substance abuse problems, migrant workers, runaway or throwaway teens, victims of domestic violence and veterans. In other words, people who experience homelessness are a diverse group of people with a variety of factors contributing to their homelessness.”

2020 PIT REPORT STATISTICS RELEASED

On January 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) report released the annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress containing the statistics for Albuquerque and New Mexico.

The link to the report is here:

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5948/2019-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us/

NATIONAL “POINT IN TIME” HOMELESS COUNT

The PIT survey found that an estimated 567,715 people nationwide, both sheltered and unsheltered, were identified as homeless which is a 2.7% increase over 2018. Overall homelessness declined in 29 states and the District of Columbia, but increased in 21 states.

Nationwide, 396,045 people experienced homelessness as individuals, meaning they did not have children with them. Individuals made up 70% of the total homeless population. Half of those who experienced homelessness as individuals were staying in sheltered locations.

According to the HUD report, the number of unsheltered homeless people nationally rose by 8.7%, which includes increases of 15% among unsheltered women and 43% among people who identify as transgender.

California has 53% of all unsheltered homeless people in the country, with 108,432 people living on the streets. California’s homeless numbers are nearly 9 times higher than the number of unsheltered homeless people in Florida, which had the second highest count at 12,476.

According to the report, African Americans “accounted for 40% of all people experiencing homelessness in 2019, despite being 13% of the U.S. population.”

The number of homeless Veterans went down. Compared to 2009 numbers there were 40% fewer homeless veterans nationwide during 2019. The number of homeless veterans in 2019 shows a 2% decline from 2018. In raw numbers that means 36,282 fewer homeless veterans than there were in 2009. The decline was attributed to partnerships between HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs in funding supportive housing programs for veterans.

NEW MEXICO “POINT IN TIME” HOMELESS COUNT

According to the PIT, New Mexico had the nation’s largest percentage increase in homelessness from 2018 to 2019 in the nation with an increase of 27%. New Mexico also had a 57.6% increase in chronic homelessness last year, also the highest in the nation. The percentage increase in Albuquerque’s homeless population alone rose by 15%. In New Mexico there were 2,464 homeless people in 2019 and of that total, 1,283 persons, or about 52%, were chronically homeless.

ALBUQUERQUE “POINT IN TIME” HOMELESS COUNT

The New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness was contracted by the City of Albuquerque to conduct the annual PIT count. The Coalition puts the number of homeless people in Albuquerque at 1,524 sheltered and unsheltered individuals. This 1,524 is 206 more than were counted in 2017 when 1,318 homeless people were counted in the city limits.

CITY’S NUMBER OF HOMELESS MUCH HIGHER

Under the PIT count, only homeless people who stay in shelters are counted in even-numbered years. Both sheltered and unsheltered homeless people are counted in odd-numbered years. Only those homeless people who can be located are counted, either sheltered or unsheltered, as well as only those who agree to participate in the survey. A 100% accuracy number cannot be determined, only an overall estimate.

The nonprofit Rock At Noon Day offers meals and other services to the homeless. Noon Day Executive Director Danny Whatley believes that based on Noon Day observations, the number of homeless people in Albuquerque is likely between 4,000 and 4,500. What is alarming is that according to Whatley, the fastest-growing segments are senior citizens and millennials defined ad ages 23 to 38 in 2019.

Government agencies and nonprofits report that the city’s homeless numbers are greater than the 1,524 found and the number of homeless in Albuquerque approaches 4,500 in any given year.

Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) is New Mexico’s largest school district, serving more than a fourth of the state’s students and nearly 84,000 students. APS spokeswoman Monica Armenta stated the number of homeless children enrolled in district schools, meaning kids from families that have no permanent address, has consistently ranged from 3,200 to 3,500. Johanna King another APS spokesperson said the number includes people who live in motels or who are doubled up with family or friends. APS serves many students in need with nearly two-thirds qualifying for the federal school meals program. The APS school district serves 29,000 breakfast per school day and 41,000 lunches per school day.

City officials have said the number of homeless in Albuquerque may be as much as 5,000. The centralized citywide system known as the Coordinated Entry System that the city uses to track the homeless and fill supportive housing openings reports that approximately 5,000 households experienced homelessness last year.

Links to news stories can be found here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1408348/nms-rise-in-homelessness-tops-nation-hud-reports-27-increase-in-one-year.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/1355819/annual-count-shows-citys-homeless-numbers-up.html

DESPERATE NEED FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Lisa Huval, deputy director for Housing and Homelessness for the Albuquerque Family and Community Services Department, when asked what was the reason for the increases in homelessness in the City and State, had this to say:

“One of the driving factors in the increase in chronically homeless people in New Mexico is what happened to our behavioral health system under the previous governor, with the dismantling of the behavioral health infrastructure as we knew it amid accusations of Medicaid fraud “This forced a number of providers to close their doors and caused lots of people to lose access to services. In many ways, we’re still recovering from that. … [Another part of the story] , is our state’s struggle with funding and supporting behavioral health programs at the scale they’re needed, and with folks being able to get into housing and being able to stay in housing.”

In June 2013, under the direction of the former Republican Governor, the Human Services Department (HSD) cut off Medicaid funding to 15 behavioral health nonprofits operating in New Mexico. In 2014, more than 160,000 New Mexicans received behavioral health services, with most of those services funded by Medicaid, according to the Human Services Department.

After the audits were completed, the former Republican Administration said that the outside audit showed more than $36 million in over billing, as well as mismanagement and possible fraud. Under the orders of the Republican Governor, Human Services Department agency brought in 5 Arizona providers to take over from New Mexico providers.

In early 2016, following exhaustive investigations, the Attorney General cleared all 15 of the healthcare providers of any wrongdoing and exonerated all of them of fraud. Even though the NM Attorney General found no fraud and cleared the nonprofits of fraud, the damage had been done to the nonprofits. With the Medicaid funding freeze, many of the 15 nonprofits could not continue and just went out of business leaving many patients without a behavioral health service provider.

Lawsuits against the state were initiated by 15 mental health care providers. The administration of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has announced it has entered into settlement agreements with at least 10 of the behavioral health care providers whose Medicaid funding was frozen in 2013.

EFFORTS TO BUILD FACILITIES

On November 5, voters approved general obligation bonds of $14 million for a city operated 24-7 homeless shelter that will house upwards of 300.

The 24-hour, 7 day a week facility to temporarily shelter the homeless within the city is critical toward reducing the number of homeless in the city. The city owned shelter would assist an estimated 300 homeless residents and connect them to other services intended to help secure permanent housing. The new facility would serve all populations, men, women, and families, and a “clearing house” function.
The city facility would have on-site case managers that would guide residents toward addiction treatment, housing vouchers and other available resources. According city officials, the new homeless shelter would replace the existing West Side Emergency Housing Center, the former jail on the far West Side.

The City is seeking another $14 million in capital funding from the 2020 New Mexico Legislature to build phase two of the city homeless shelter.

On January 13, 2020, the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness released a report stating that a one-time $262 million to build permanent supportive housing and fund short-term rental assistance will allow New Mexico to get another $30 million in federal dollars and end homelessness for an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 people across the state.

BERNALILLO COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TAX COLLECTED BUT FEW PROGRAMS FUNDED

On Feb. 26, 2015, the Bernalillo County Commission approved a 1/8 % gross receipts tax increase on a 3-2 vote to fund new behavioral and mental health services to improve access to mental and behavioral health care services in the county. The tax generates approximately $20 million annually.

When enacted, the county commission announced the intent for the tax was to invest the funding “in proven ways to better manage the high cost of addiction, homelessness and mental health problems”. According to a county commission announcement, “these issues impact families throughout the community and drive up the cost of public services, especially at the Metropolitan Detention Center.” The gross receipts tax costs shoppers one cent on a $10 purchase of goods and services.

https://www.bernco.gov/uploads/files/BH%20news%20release%20PDF.pdf

The 1/8th% gross receipts tax was supposed to be used for the purpose of providing more mental and behavioral health services for adults and children in the Albuquerque and Bernalillo County area. The intent is to provide a safety net system for those in need of mental health not otherwise funded in New Mexico.

When the Bernalillo County Commission approved the tax, it failed to develop a plan on how all the money would be used, including not identifying services to be provides, location of facilities and qualifiers to obtain the services offered. As a result of having no spending plan or identifying priorities, the tax has been collected but not spent. Since enactment of the tax in 2015, the tax has generated $91.6 million. Bernalillo County has approved a mere $20 million toward Behavioral Health Initiative projects with $70 million in tax revenue having accumulated but not spent.

The county has earmarked the bulk of what it has amassed for one-time expenditures. Those expenditures include $30 million for a new crisis triage center, $12 million for supportive housing and $4 million for the Bernalillo County CARE campus, formerly known as the Metropolitan Assessment and Treatment Services center, or MATS. The renovations to the CARE campus when complete will create an outpatient behavioral health clinic and living room space for peer-to-peer counseling sessions.

In November, 2019, the Bernalillo County Commission approved a resolution that permits “stakeholders, providers, community members, staff, commissioners, or other interested parties” to propose behavioral health service ideas through a website. Up until now, only county staff had been authorized to propose behavioral health service ideas. All program appropriations will require final approval of the County Commission. Under the new ordinance passed, each idea from stakeholders, providers, community members, staff and commissioners will go through a vetting process. A county commission appointed committee will ensure each proposal meets the criteria for an expenditure based on the behavioral health tax language approved by voters. A separate subcommittee of stakeholders and subject matter experts will also review the idea and recommend the next steps.

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

New Mexico having the nation’s largest percentage increase in overall homelessness at 27% and with 57.6% increase in chronic homelessness can only be considered shocking. It is yet another tragic statistic for the state. New Mexico is once again at the very top of another very bad list which includes poverty, violent crime and drug addiction.

One of the cruelest things that former Republican Governor “She Who Shall Not Be Named” did was when she ordered an “audit” of mental health services by nonprofits in New Mexico based on questionable information. The audit eventually devastated New Mexico’s behavioral health system. The process to rebuild the state’s behavioral health care services will be a slow process that no doubt will take years as will reducing homelessness.

According to some reports, approximately 80% of the cities chronic homeless are suffering from mental illness. The city does provide extensive services to the homeless that include social services, mental or behavioral health care services, substance abuse treatment and prevention, winter shelter housing, rent assistance and affordable housing development, just to mention a few.

It is extremely disappointing that Bernalillo County after enacting the behavioral health tax on February 17, 2015, and more than $90 million collected in taxes, very little progress has been made with implementing needed mental health care programs. What is difficult to comprehend is that after 4 years of collecting the tax, the County only now is trying to figure out how to spend all the taxes that have been collected.

After more than four years of collecting the tax and collecting $90 million in taxpayer funding, the County Commission needs to step up the process, be far more aggressive in identifying and implementing behavioral health programs so desperately needed after the decimation of the all the programs by the former Republican Governor.

The City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County and the State of New Mexico have a moral obligation to assist the homeless, especially those who suffer from chronic mental illness. More needs to be done by the city, county and state to reduce the ever-increasing numbers of homeless. The only way all three are going to be able to reduce the number of homeless is to reach a viable consensus and implement an aggressive plan on how to reduce the number of homeless. This will mandate the city, county and the state to work with virtually all the charitable providers, “pooling of resources” and work to get arrive at an action plan.

A good start of pooling of resources will be for the 2020 New Mexico legislature and Bernalillo County to allocate sufficient funding to help the city build the 24-7 homeless shelter and to establish perhaps a county wide shelter.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/08/30/we-have-moral-obligation-to-help-our-homeless/
____________________________

POSTSCRIPT: CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE SERVICES TO THE HOMELESS

The Family and Community Service Division of the City of Albuquerque has an annual approved operating budget of $79.7 million. The city spends $8 million a year to provide 775 vouchers for rental assistance and to move homeless people from the street into housing. In the 2019-2020 approved city budget, an additional $2 million was added to the fund which allowed another 125 to 150 people to get into housing.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/10/29/compromise-consensus-and-concessions-needed-for-city-homeless-shelter-vote-yes-on-bond-question-2/

Highlights to the increases in social services provided by the Family and Community Service Division contained in the 2019-2020 approved budget include:

$15 million in affordable housing contracts.
$8.2 million in homeless services.
$5.7 million in mental health and substance abuse contracts.
$18.2 million for homeless and behavioral health programs. Prior to the enactment of the gross receipts tax increase, these programs were originally projected to be cut by $2 million.
$1 million and over in funding of early intervention and prevention programs, domestic violence shelters, domestic violence services, sexual assault services, services to abused and for neglected and abandoned youth.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/04/02/billion-dollar-budget-reflects-dramatic-change-in-city-priorities/

The City of Albuquerque has at least 10 separate homeless service provider locations throughout the city. The entire general fund budget for the Department of Family and Community Services is approximately $41 million. The $41 million is not just exclusive funding for services to the homeless.

The service offered by the Family and Community Services Department are directly provided by the city or by contract with nonprofit providers. The services include social services, mental/behavioral health, homeless services, health care for the homeless, substance abuse treatment and prevention, multi-service centers, public housing, rent assistance, affordable housing development, and fair housing, just to mention a few.

The following homeless services are funded by the City of Albuquerque, HUD’s Continuum of Care grants, Emergency Shelter Grants, and other grants administered by the City of Albuquerque:

1. Emergency Shelters for short-term, immediate assistance for the homeless for men, women, families, emergency winter shelter and after-hours shelter. The city’s West Side Emergency Housing Center has up to 450 beds available. The shelter is now open year-round. The operating cost of the facility is $4.4 million a year.
2. Transitional Housing assistance designed to transition from homelessness to permanent housing.
3. Permanent Supportive Housing for homeless individuals dealing with chronic mental illness or substance abuse issues.
4. Childcare services for homeless families.
5. Employment Services and job placement for homeless persons.
6. Eviction Prevention or rental assistance and case management to prevent eviction and homelessness.
7. Health Care services for homeless individuals and families.
8. Meal program providing for homeless individuals and families in need.
9. Motel Vouchers or temporary vouchers for homeless individuals with immediate medical issues and families with children, where emergency shelters cannot accommodate them. The city spends $8 million a year to provide 775 vouchers for rental assistance and to move homeless people from the street into housing. In the 2019-2020 approved city budget, an additional $2 million was added to the fund which will allow another 125 to 150 people to get into housing.
10. The Albuquerque Heading Home program initiative which moves the most medically fragile and chronically homeless people off the streets and into permanent housing. Since its inception in 2011 to January, 2017, it has placed 650 people into housing that assists with housing and providing jobs.