On October 10, 2019, the Albuquerque City Attorney’s Office announced that the city is appealing a federal judge’s ruling that the “Pedestrian Safety Ordinance” designed to eliminate or restrict panhandling on the streets of Albuquerque is unconstitutional. The language of the ordinance prohibits anyone from standing inside travel lanes, along interstate ramps on medians and prohibits “any physical altercation or exchange” between “pedestrians and occupants of vehicles in traffic lanes.” In other words it is also a prohibition not only against the individual panhandlers but prevents drivers of vehicles in traffic from giving anything to panhandler’s.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1376899/city-to-appeal-ruling-on-panhandling-law.htmlBACKGROUND

The “Pedestrian Safety Ordinance” was enacted by the City Council in November of 2017 despite repeated warnings that the ordinance was a violation of constitutional rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal lawsuit that sought a declaratory ruling from the federal court that the ordinance was unconstitutional, that the ordinance violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article II, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico. The city council ignoring legal advice made minor amendments to the ordinance.

In 2018, the ACLU sued the city and at the time of filing of the lawsuit, the ACLU of New Mexico staff attorney María Martínez Sánchez said in a news release:
“This [ordinance] is just another heavy-handed attempt by the city to criminalize homelessness and push poor people out of sight and out of mind. … People have a constitutional right to stand in public places and solicit donations, regardless of whether they’re looking for their next meal or raising money for little league uniforms”.

U.S. District Judge Robert Brack granted the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment in July of this year. Judge Brack ruled that the enacted “Pedestrian Safety Ordinance” was “an unconstitutional restriction on free speech because it is not narrowly tailored to meet the City’s interest in reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.”

Upon hearing the city’s intent to appeal the ruling, ACLU-NM senior staff attorney María Martínez Sánchez said the ACLU welcome the appeal and, in a statement, issued said:

“The District court correctly recognized that the law was an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights and struck it down.”

The City Hall has contracted outside council to handle the appeal and not the City Attorney’s Office. The decision to appeal was not made by the city council, but was made by City Council Services who instructed the outside council to proceed with the appeal.

CITY COUNCIL REACTION TO APPEAL

Albuquerque City Councilor Trudy Jones, the sponsor of the “Pedestrian Safety Ordinance” had this to say in support of the city appealing the case:

“I believe the citizens – the residents of Albuquerque – would really like to see something happen here, and we’re trying to do it in the best and, obviously, legal way.”
Republican Albuquerque City Councilor Don Harris, who is also a private attorney, had this to say about the appeal:

“I can understand how the court got there, but it was an incorrect ruling and it needs to be corrected. … I think the average person with common sense understands the medians are not meant for interacting with traffic.”

Democrat City Councilor Pat Davis said he would not take a position on the merits of the appeal but expressed the opinion the city has other law enforcement options to combat panhandling.

Mayor Tim Keller has not announced his position on the appeal.

COMMENTARY AND ANLAYSIS

City Attorney’s Office employs upwards of 33 attorneys yet City Hall felt the need to contract outside council to handle the appeal. It a very sad commentary that the City Attorney’s office does not have experienced attorneys and the know-how and the understanding how to appeal and defend a city ordinance. The city attorney’s office no doubt was involved with the review and drafting of the ordinance and they should be more than capable of handling the appeal for the city.

There is no doubt that “panhandling” is a problem on the streets of Albuquerque with drivers often becoming distracted, annoyed and angry when panhandlers become way too aggressive. Notwithstanding, based on settled case law on similar ordinances, it is more likely than not that the city’s appeal of the court ruling will be denied with the federal court of appeals again finding that it goes way too far and is unconstitutional.

The truth is the “Pedestrian Safety Ordinance” probably is not even needed. After the federal district court ruled the ordinance unconstitutional, the city began to make other efforts to solve the problem. Albuquerque Police Department (APD) has begun approaching panhandlers when they see them jaywalk or violate other existing ordinances and laws. APD cannot arrest anyone for a jaywalking offense alone, but they can cite panhandler’s resulting in a fine or appearance in court.

When the “Pedestrian Safety Ordinance” was first enacted, APD was still suffering from a severe shortage of police officers and still suffers from a severe crime wave. During the last year, APD has added 117 sworn police to the force and APD now employs 980 sworn police. APD has also initiated bike patrols in a few areas of town to promote “community based” policing. APD should now be able to develope a “Panhandler Welfare Check Tactical Plan” and increase patrols of all the major intersections and freeway entrance ramps that can be easily identified where panhandlers are known to frequent.

Existing laws governing trespassing, camping on public property and prohibitions on using traffic street medians need to be enforced with a police patrol presence and law enforcement contact to reduce panhandling and offer social services available. A tactical plan needs to include a form of “welfare checks on panhandlers” based on calls for service to APD to begin identifying the panhandlers and determine if the panhandler needs help or in real distress where social services can be offered such as shelter. Welfare checks to determine identity, addresses and perhaps do background checks on outstanding warrants can be done by officers in plain cloths and accompanied by a social worker with an offer of transportation to the city’s homeless shelter.

Until a measured law enforcement response respecting constitutional rights is taken, the panhandling will only continue to frustrate and anger the driving public.

On September 6, 2019, Mayor Tim Keller submitted his $29 million infrastructure bond tax package to the Albuquerque City Council to be financed by the City’s Lodger’s Tax. The Keller Administration labeled the lodger tax bond package as a “Sports – Tourism Lodger Tax ” because it will be used for a number of projects around the city labeled as “sports tourism opportunities.”

Originally, the Keller Administration said all the projects would be funded through savings achieved by refinancing existing lodgers’ tax bonds. The Keller Administration then backtracked and said the city would issue $29 million in new bonds and use lodgers tax revenue to make the payments on the bond debt.

Mayor Keller’s “Sports Tourism Lodger Tax” proposal came just a few months after the city hosted the National Senior Games. According to the Keller Administration, the National Senior Games featured nearly 14,000 athletes competing at 21 venues and had an estimated $34 million economic impact. Further, the lodger tax proposal came after New Mexico United professional soccer team expressed the desire for a permanent soccer stadium.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1363274/mayor-sends-28-million-proposal-to-city-council.html

On October 7, the City Council approved a $30.5 million “Sports -Tourism” lodger tax package on a unanimous vote to upgrade and build sports facilities throughout the city. Revenue gemnerated by the lodgers tax will be used to pay off the $30.5 million bond debt.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1375946/city-council-approves-new-lodgers-tax-bonds.html

LODGER TAX ADDED TO GROSS RECEIPTS TAX

New Mexico imposes a gross receipts tax on goods and service providers, which is passed on to the purchaser of goods or services. The gross receipts tax rate varies throughout the state from 5.125% up to 8.6875% depending on the city or county tax. It varies because the state rate is combined with the additional tax incremental tax rates imposed by counties and municipalities. In Albuquerque, the gross receipts tax is now at 7.875%.

The New Mexico Legislature enacted a “Lodgers Tax Act” that allows cities to impose an occupancy tax, or lodgers tax, on hotels, motels and overnight lodging accommodations. (3-38-13 to 3-38-24 NMSA 1978). Under the state law, a city may use the proceeds of the lodger’s tax to defray costs of:

“(1) collecting and otherwise administering the occupancy tax, including the performance of audits required by the Lodgers’ Tax Act …
(2) establishing, operating, purchasing, constructing, otherwise acquiring, reconstructing, extending, improving, equipping, furnishing or acquiring real property or any interest in real property for the site or grounds for tourist-related facilities and attractions or tourist-related transportation systems of the municipality, the county in which the municipality is located or the county;
(3) …
(4) advertising, publicizing and promoting tourist-related attractions, facilities and events of the municipality or county and tourist-related facilities, attractions and events within the area;
(5) providing police and fire protection and sanitation service for tourist-related facilities, attractions and events located in the respective municipality or county;
(6) …
(7)”

Under the authority given to it by the legislature, Albuquerque enacted its own lodger’s tax ordinance. Albuquerque’s lodger’s tax is 5% which added to the gross receipts tax brings the total gross receipts tax for lodging to 12.875%.

Albuquerque’s lodger tax ordinance adopted the identical language of the state lodgers’ tax. However, the city ordinance added one major requirement: one-half of the proceeds of the tax collected must be used for the purpose of “advertising, advertising, publicizing and promoting tourist-related attractions, facilities and events.”

The Albuquerque Lodger’s Tax ordinance reads as follows:

“Not less than one-half of the proceeds [of the lodger’s tax] shall be used for the purpose of advertising, advertising, publicizing and promoting tourist-related attractions, facilities and events. … .

… any balance of the [lodger tax] proceeds not used for [advertising, publicizing and promoting] may be used to defray the cost of …
(1) Collecting and otherwise administrating the tax …
(2) … lodger tax audits …
(3) Establishing, operating, purchasing constructing otherwise acquiring, reconstructing, extending, improving, equipping, furnishing or acquiring real property or any interest in real property for the site or grounds for tourist-related facilities, attractions or transportation systems of the municipality is located or the county.
…
(5) Advertising, publicizing, and promoting tourist related-facilities and attractions and events of the municipality or county and tourist facilities or attractions …
(6) Providing police or fire protection and sanitation services for tourist related events, facilities and attractions …
… “

The city’s lodger tax ordinance also establishes a “lodger tax advisory board”, a 7-member volunteer board appointed by the Mayor and approved by the city council. According to the ordinance, the Lodgers Tax Advisory Board “shall advise the Mayor and City Council on the expenditures of funds authorized … .”

City of Albuquerque Lodgers Tax Ordinance, ARTICLE 4 LOGERS TAX, 4-4-1 to 4-4-14.

You can read the lodgers tax ordinance here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/treasury-documents/lodgers-tax-ordinance.pdf

The city’s lodgers’ tax generated upwards $14.5 million in fiscal year 2019. According to a state-funded analysis by Tourism Economics, visitors to the Bernalillo county and Albuquerque area spent $2.1 billion in 2016, and in addition to lodging, they spent $523 million on food and drinks and $396 million on retail purchases. Visitors generated $77.7 million in local taxes, according to the study.

THE “SPORTS-TOURISM LODGER” TAX BOND FUNDING

The final lodger tax bond funding enacted by the Albuquerque City Council on a unanimous vote was increased from $29 million to $31 and includes $4.8 million in surplus funding for the projects. The additional funds come from the sale of vehicles and other city property.

Keller’s Chief Financial Officer Sanjay Bhakta said that growing lodgers tax collections and issuing bonds allows the money to have a greater impact than working with small annual surpluses. CFO Bhakta argued that favorable market conditions mandated that the city needed to move quickly. The city’s bond counsel also urged a quick bond sale due to favorable market conditions.

The City Council voted unanimously to issue the new lodgers tax bonds. The funding will be used to upgrade or build recreational facilities around Albuquerque.

Following are the projects to be funded by the lodger tax revenues:

• $10 million to improve Los Altos Park, including new softball fields, a BMX pump track and concession improvements. Los Altos Park is the busiest park in the city and the Keller Administration argues that improvements will help attract tournaments.

• $3.5 million for a soccer complex at an unidentified site with locker rooms that could host tournaments. According to the Keller Administration, the multi-use soccer facility would be available for use by Albuquerque Public Schools, the New Mexico Activities Association championships and other tournaments, and would serve as a practice field for New Mexico United.

• $3.5 million for the Jennifer Riordan Spark Kindness Complex (a West Side baseball venue formerly known as the Albuquerque Regional Sports Complex).

• $4.5 million to upgrade the Albuquerque Convention Center, including adding outdoor message boards, and potentially having the Kiva Auditorium host a larger range of events. The city council increased the amount by $1.5 million. There have been recent reports that the convention center roof is leaking, but no money is being set aside for roof repair.

• $2.5 million to buy property for balloon landing sites.

• $2.5 million to replace the city’s 16-year-old indoor track currently used by the University of New Mexico and for track and field competitions.

• $2 million for a “multiuse trail” linking East Downtown to Downtown.

• $1 million for the forthcoming Route 66 Visitors Center at Central and 136th Street. The visitors center will be for both tourists and locals and plans include a museum, taproom and large event space for social and event gatherings.

• $1 million for Isotopes Park upgrades, such as netting and field improvements. The Isotopes Park upgrades include nets to protect young children and families during games and field improvements to provide for an easier transition from baseball to other uses including concerts. The professional soccer team United New Mexico currently uses Isotopes Park for their professional games.

• $500,000 for a “Northwest Mesa gateway.”

The city’s finance officials and bond counsel urged a quick bond sale due to favorable market conditions, and the City Council voted unanimously to issue the new lodgers tax bonds.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1375946/city-council-approves-new-lodgers-tax-bonds.html

MAYOR KELLER BLINDSIDES LODGER INDUSTRY AND LODGER TAX ADVISORY BOARD

The unanimous city council vote was done over the objections of the Greater Albuquerque Hotel and Lodging Association (GAHLA) and the Lodgers Tax Advisory Board (LTAB). The local hotel industry generates and collects the taxes that will be used to pay off the $30.5 million bond debt that will pay for the projects. GAHLA requested additional time to evaluate the merits of the program as did the city’s Lodgers Tax Advisory Board.

Charlie Gray, the executive director of the Greater Albuquerque Hotel & Lodging Association (GAHLA), said the 120-member hotel association were only told of the $30 million lodger tax proposal when Mayor Tim Keller issued a news release about it to the public. GAHLA questioned devoting millions of dollars in lodgers tax revenue to a “sports – tourism” package that includes projects like new playing fields at Los Altos Park, netting at Isotopes Park, a new indoor track and a visitor center on West Central.

GAHLA said the city did not make it clear just how the spending would increase tourism. The organization demanded the Keller administration provide a “business case” for the projects before the city proceeded with the plan to issue the new lodgers tax bonds to pay for them. GAHLA wanted the council to delay the October 7 vote, but the council declined.

Rebecca Plutino, general manager of the Best Western Plus Rio Grande Inn told the city council before enactment of the lodger tax bonds:

“I certainly understand all the projects, and they all have benefit to our community at large, but what we’re talking about here is how to use lodgers’ tax to increase the pot. … When we get more overnight stays, gross receipts (tax) goes up.”

Members of the city’s Lodgers Tax Advisory Board (LTBA) said they knew absolutely nothing about the lodger’s tax plan until Mayor Tim Keller announced it on Sept. 7 in a press release. Board members complained they learned about it through media reports and were not requested to provide input. The proposal went to the City Council’s Finance and Government Operations Committee two days after the Keller announcement and the final City Council vote occurred on Oct. 7.

In an interview before the city council meeting approving the lodger’s tax bonds, Mayor Keller said the city “needed to move fast” due to advice from the city’s bond experts to secure lower interest rates to repay the funding. Keller shrugged off the complaints and claimed that Lodgers Tax Advisory Board still had time to offer input. According to Keller:

“… we’re going through the right process. They’re getting a chance to chime in before council , and that’s fine. … No, we didn’t have nine months to go over this.”

For more on vote and delay request see:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1371910/hoteliers-board-ask-city-to-slow-down-sports-tourism-plan-decision.html

On October 14th, the Albuquerque Journal published a guest column written by written by Michelle Dressler, President of the Greater Albuquerque Hotel & Lodging Association and entitled “Industry rates voice in where lodger tax goes; Will sports infrastructure plan boost tourism?” The guest column outlines and explains the hotel and lodger’s industry objections. The column can be read in the postscript to this article or at this link:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1377927/industry-rates-voice-in-where-lodger-tax-goes.htm

NEW MEXICO UNITED SOCCER TEAM SEEKS PERMANENT STADIUM

On Jun 27, 2019, it was reported that the highly successful New Mexico United professional soccer team is seeking a permanent home in Albuquerque after one year of existence in the city. The United Soccer League team said its top pick for a location for its stadium is Downtown. The team’s management is scouting locations for a new stadium in the Downtown corridor around from the Rail Yards to Sawmill districts.

United owner Peter Trevisani said United will not support a stadium where people don’t want to have it. United is in the midst of surveying neighborhoods and businesses on their feelings towards a new stadium popping up in their local community.

United clearly has momentum with its winning success and games getting over 12,000 attendance a game, the very kind of momentum needed to justify building a stadium. The United team currently plays at Isotopes Park under a two-year deal. Isotopes Park has a seating capacity of about 13,000 which include stadium seats and berm area seating. The Isotopes’ construction cost was $25 million and it completed construction in 2003.

https://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2019/06/27/new-mexico-united-eyes-location-for-future-stadium.html

During the October monthly meeting of Albuquerque Bar Association Luncheon, Mayor Tim Keller revealed that the city is looking at a minimum of 3 locations for a sports and event arena that can be used by the United New Mexico soccer team. Two inquiries have been made by the city with the United States Post Office to purchase the Post Office Main Office on Broadway, there is land available where the PIT arena, UNM Football Stadium and Isotopes Park are located and property on the Westside is under consideration.

USE OF LODGERS TAX FOR GENERAL POPULATION PROJECTS USE SNEAKY TACTIC LIKE USING REVENUE BONDS FOR “PET PROJECTS”

In January, 2017, it was reported that the former Republican Mayor and the Albuquerque City Council borrowed over $63 million dollars over two years to build pickle ball courts, baseball fields and the ART bus project down central by bypassing the voters. The $65 million dollars was borrowed with the Albuquerque City Councilors voting to use revenue bonds as the financing mechanism to pay for big capital projects.

Revenue bonds are repaid with gross receipts tax revenues. The City Council authorized $18 million dollars in revenue bonds for financing a variety of their pet projects and the city will be making annual payments for 22 years until 2038, which is beyond the useful life of many of the projects funded.

For full story see January 2, 2017 Albuquerque Journal “BYPASSING the Voters” at this link:

https://www.abqjournal.com/919263/revenue-bonds-find-favor-in-abq.html

With the use of revenue bonds, the previous Republican Administration and the then City Council were literally able to pick and choose what projects they want to fund and build without any public input or vote whatsoever, so long as they had seven votes on the city council.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2017/01/03/sneaks-we-is-when-funding-art-bus-project-and-capital-projects/

AVOIDING COMPLICATED GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND REQUIREMENTS IN FAVOR OF REVENUE BONDS

Normally, capital projects such as stadiums, sports complexes are funded by using general obligation bonds which require voter approval or revenue bonds approved by the city council. This is how the renovation and the reconstruction of the Isotopes Baseball Park Occurred.

There are complicated requirements associated with general obligation bonds and general obligation bonds (GO Bonds) must be voted on by the public.
General obligation bonds have major safeguards to protect the public with restrictions in place on how the bond funding must be dedicated and used. General obligation bonds also include public budget hearings while revenue bonds do not. General obligation bonds usually have shorter payoff period than revenue bonds.

Using revenue bonds for major capital projects that are repaid with gross receipts tax revenue cuts into revenues that should be used for essential services such as police protection, fire protection and government operations and personnel.

“ORPHAN MONTH” WINDFALL CLAIMED

In April of this years after the enactment of the city budget, the City’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Sanjay Bhaka revealed that the city would be collecting a $34.3 million windfall in gross receipts and property tax revenue created by a city accounting policy change. The fiscal year runs July 1 to June 30, but the city has traditionally applied June’s taxes to the following fiscal year because they do not arrive until August. CFO Bhaka referred to applying June’s revenues to the following year with the revenues received in August as an “orphan month”. The accounting policy shift extended the window in which the city can recognize the revenue and the accounting reset resulted in an extra $34.3 million in revenues.

According to CFO Bhakta, the accounting policy change was a “correction” of current practices and it aligns the city finances and accounting practices with state government financing and nearly all other governmental entities around the country. The $34.3 million according CFO Bhakta is a “one-time, lifetime” boost in revenues that the city cannot apply toward recurring costs. According to CFO Bhakta the $34.3 million windfall will be applied to numerous one-time investments the Keller Administration feels were important.

An option the city has is to divert all of the “orphan month” onetime $34.3 million windfall in gross receipts and property tax revenue created by the city accounting policy change to all of the proposed projects. The city’s fiscal year began on July 1, and the funding can be used for one-time projects.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

To be perfectly blunt, 7 of the 10 projects are not tourism related and are used overwhelming by the general public and not the tourist industry nor by the hotel or lodger tax industry. It is a real stretch of the imagination to say the projects will attract tourism. No amount of smiling and public relations and saying “we’re going through the right process” is going to change that fact. Without any financial analysis or actual proof to back him up, Mayor Keller and his administration simply argue that the projects will attract conventions or other sports-related tourism and events to Albuquerque.

It is a really big stretch and downright misleading to say that most of the projects are “tourist” and “tourism promotion” when they are obviously for general public use and not for tourism or promotion of tourism.

The projects and expenditures that are hard to justify as being tourist related are:

$10 million to improve Los Altos Park, including new softball fields, a BMX pump track and concession improvements.
$3.5 million for a soccer complex at an unidentified site with locker rooms that could host tournaments.
$3.5 million for the Jennifer Riordan Spark Kindness Complex, a West Side baseball venue.
$2.5 million to replace the city’s 16-year-old indoor track
$2 million for a “multiuse trail” linking East Downtown to Downtown.
$1 million for Isotopes Park upgrades, such as netting and field improvements. The Isotopes Park upgrades include
$500,000 for a “Northwest Mesa gateway.”

The projects and expenditures that can be legitimately argued as being tourist related are:

$4.5 million to upgrade the Albuquerque Convention and Visitors Center
$2.5 million to buy property for balloon landing sites.
$1 million for the forthcoming Route 66 Visitors Center at Central and 136th Street. The visitors center will be for both tourists and locals and plans include a museum, taproom and large event space for social and event gatherings.
$500,000 for a “Northwest Mesa gateway.”

LODGERS TAX CAN ONLY BE USED FOR ADVERTISING, PUBLICIZING AND PROMOTING” TOURISM

When you examine all the projects that will be finance by the “Sports Tourism Lodger” tax bonds, it is no doubt the projects are for the building of facilities and infrastructure. The glaring problem is the plain language of the lodger tax ordinance. It provides that at least one half of revenue generated from the lodger’s tax must be used “for the purpose of advertising, publicizing and promoting tourist-related attractions, facilities and events.”

The operable words in the city ordinance are “advertising, publicizing and promoting”. The debt of $31.5 million generated by the bonds will be paid by tax revenues that should be first applied to advertising, publicizing and promoting tourist-related attractions, facilities and events. Only after that is done can the funding be used to build, upgrade or make improvements to infrastructure and acquire or build facilities related to tourism.

It appears that Mayor Tim Keller and his administration became excited thinking that they found a revenue source with favorable bond market conditions and low interest rates to build sports facilities. It also appears they did not read or did not understand that the city’s lodger’s tax function should first be used for “advertising, publicizing and promoting” tourism.

KELLER’S INTENTIONAL SNUB

Mayor Keller intentionally ignored the Lodgers Tax Advisory Board and the Greater Albuquerque Hotel & Lodging Association. Instead, Keller and his administration came up with the sneaky title “Sports Tourism Lodger” tax bonds ostensibly thinking that using the term “tourism” would enable them to sell it to the public and city council and use the funding raised by the tax to build facilities to be promoted. No doubt Keller is surprised by the push back.

The Albuquerque City Council bought into the Keller argument of “Sports Tourism Lodger” tax. The city council unanimous vote really amounts to nothing more than just another money grab to finance construction projects and infrastructure they want without public input. This is identical to what they did when they voted $63 million dollars to build pickle ball courts, baseball fields and the ART bus project down central by bypassing the voters.

DO IT THE RIGHT WAY

Albuquerque is clearly carving out a major and significant niche in sports-related events and tourism. The huge success of the National Senior Games had an estimated $34 million impact on the local economy. The impressive championship success of the New Mexico United professional soccer team in its first year of existence attracting 12,000 fans a game and breaking attendance records cannot be overlooked. Attendance records are leading to discussion of building a permanent soccer stadium for the United Team.

If Mayor Tim Keller and the City Council truly want to proceed with the building a sport and event venue or stadium they needed to do it the right way with a ballot measure, use revenue bonds tied to ticket sales as was done with Isotopes Park renovations, or use the $34 million from the “orphan month” funding. Instead of being upfront, they were “sneaks”, raided the lodger tax fund and did a rush job to get what they wanted without any public input nor input from the industry that will be affected the most or input from the Lodgers Tax Advisory Board.

CONCLUSION

Mayor Tim Keller and the City Council would be wise to seek out further clarification if they had the authority and if it was legal to issue “Sports Tourism Lodger” tax bonds to build capital improvement projects and facilities for general public use contrary to the language, intent and purpose of the lodger’s tax ordinance. But then again, wisdom at city hall, especially when you get all excited for legacy projects, is in short supply these days.

What is in order is that New Mexico State Auditor Brian Colon should be asked to give an advisory opinion on the “Sports Tourism Lodger” tax bonds and how the money can be spent before the city issues the bonds and spends the money on all the projects in the first place.

Otherwise, Mayor Tim Keller and the Albuquerque City Council are inviting a lawsuit by the hotel and lodger industry to stop the issuance of the bonds and perhaps even scrutiny from New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas for waste, fraud and abuse of taxing authority by the city.

_____________________

POSTSCRIPT

On October 14th, the Albuquerque Journal published an opinion guest column entitled “Industry rates voice in where lodger tax goes” written by Michelle Dressler, President of the Greater Albuquerque Hotel & Lodging Association. Below is the guest column followed by the Journal link to it:

The Greater Albuquerque Hotel & Lodging Association (GAHLA) is concerned about the process for selecting projects and the manner in which the Lodgers Tax fund is spent. GAHLA represents over 100 lodging organizations and allied members with 7,480 guest rooms contributing to the fund.

As the generators of Lodgers Tax, we are troubled that the industry is not afforded the opportunity to provide advice and counsel on the use of the tax. Recently we have been blindsided by approved Lodgers Tax expenditures with no opportunity as stakeholders to be part of the conversation. The Lodgers Tax Advisory Board is also too often left out of the process. The mayor’s refinancing proposal to enhance “sports tourism infrastructure” and the One Albuquerque sculpture are just the latest examples of industry exclusion in the process.

GAHLA is committed to working with the administration and City Council to provide recommendations and suggestions on how best to use the tax to generate new room nights to grow city occupancy and increase revenues. Our objective is to set standards that will appropriately evaluate these projects for return on investment. When Lodgers Tax collections increase, so do gross-receipts taxes and employment.

We are currently studying the mayor’s proposal to refinance $9 million and purchase a new bond for $29 million using Lodgers Tax for improving infrastructure for sports tourism. We request time to study the proposals in the mayor’s package. We are requesting the data collected by the city when determining these projects. And we ask that a business case be developed for industry review and comment. What are the specifics of each project and how do they tie back to increasing overnight stays? We are currently creating a list of industry priorities for consideration. We appeal for an active voice in the process.

The Lodgers Tax Advisory Board was also not aware of the mayor’s sports-related tourism infrastructure package or the One Albuquerque sculpture purchase until they were announced in the press. This is simply not a good way to conduct city business and exemplifies why the ordinance regarding Lodgers Tax needs reform. We propose a formula for “level of impact” on the investment, and confirmation that occupancy tax expenditures clearly align with the intent of the law.

GAHLA will put forth a proposal for an amendment to change the Lodgers Tax ordinance to redefine the composition, roles and responsibilities, and the review and approval process for the Lodgers Tax Advisory Board. Expenditures must directly promote tourism and enhance the convention and lodging industry. Without strong industry oversight, the expectations and outcomes for the Lodgers Tax will continue to stray from the intent of the law by allowing for a broad and lax view of allowable uses. Redesigning the Lodgers Tax Advisory Board will address the issue of perceived misuse of the tax and strengthen accountability in spending. A strong and inclusive board with the ability to influence proposed uses of the tax is required.

Tourism is a bright spot in Albuquerque’s economy. Lodgers Tax collections have grown by over 10% in the past 12 months. The hospitality industry employs 44,000 citizens in Albuquerque. If we are to continue to grow tourism and expand our marketing efforts to help our destination become more vibrant, the fund must be protected. Making calculated and well-thought-out decisions, with guidance from the industry about the best possible use of this money, is paramount to our continued success.

GAHLA looks forward to working in conjunction with the hospitality industry at large, the city’s marketing agencies, the administration and City Council to use the occupancy tax responsibly and to keep our local economy growing.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1377927/industry-rates-voice-in-where-lodger-tax-goes.html

The Local Election Act (LEA) was passed by the New Mexico Legislature in 2018. The Local Election Act provides for consolidated local elections to be conducted in New Mexico.

The upcoming November 5, 2019 election will be the first consolidated elections for the City of Albuquerque, which will include 4 City Council races and City capital improvement bonds, elections for the Villages of Tijeras and Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Public School Board, a continuation of a tax levy for APS school maintenance, CNM, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control District and the Ciudad Soil and Water Conservation Board. Voters will get one ballot for the races that pertain to them when they go to vote based on their voter registration.

The race for City Council District 2 is one of the 4 Albuquerque City Council races that will be on the November 5, ballot and it is the most contested race. City Council District 2 is the city-center district encompassing downtown, old town, parts of the University of New Mexico and the entire valley east of the river and is heavily Hispanic. District 2 incumbent City Councilor Isaac Benton has 5 opponents who qualified for the ballot seeking to replace him. The candidates are: Steve Baca (D), Joseph Griego (D), Robert Raymond Blanquera Nelson (D), Zack Quintero, (D) and Connie Vigil, (I).

ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL CANDIDATE BIOS, QUESTIONS

Every election, and a few weeks before an election, the Albuquerque Journal sends out a questionnaire to candidates and ask them the very same questions. Further, the Journal editors invite the candidates to call in and make an appointment with the Journal Editorial staff, and the editors and perhaps along with a reporter, interview the candidates for the paper’s endorsement. Endorsement editorials are then published a week to 10 days before the actual election.

On Sunday, October 13th, 2019, the Albuquerque Journal began to run its long anticipated and first in a series of stories on the contested races for the Albuquerque City Council in the Nov. 5 election. You can read the full story on the District 2 City Council race published by the Albuquerque Journal at this link:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1377702/six-candidates-vying-for-district-2-council-seat.html.

Below are the candidate’s biographies or profiles published by the Albuquerque Journal with Journal questions and candidate answers that appeared at the end of the article:

STEVEN BACA

POLITICAL PARTY: No comment.
PLACE OF RESIDENCE: Albuquerque
AGE: 30
EDUCATION: Associate’s degree in psychology, certificate in criminal investigations from Santa Fe Community College (2016).
OCCUPATION: Freelance process server/skip-tracer since 2012.
FAMILY: Jacqueline Valdez, girlfriend of 7 years.
POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE: Political Convention 2016 Alternate Delegate, district captain for the non-partisan group Convention of States Action.
MAJOR PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: Obtaining my associate’s degree and certificate to further my career goals, while graduating under the National Society of Leadership and Success.
MAJOR PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: Obtaining every single signature to get on the ballot for City Council by myself. I wanted to see if it was possible, and it is.

Q: What specific steps do you think the city should take to address the homelessness crisis?
A: Crack down on public order crimes like trespassing, drug use, and camping on public property. If offenders don’t have a place to go, then a city shelter should be offered, but offenders can’t camp in city parks.

Q: Besides hiring more officers, what do you think the council could do to improve public safety?
A: End the McClendon Settlement Agreement, which would give APD Officers the to ability arrest for all misdemeanor crimes. The Department of Justice Settlement agreement needs to be ended or renegotiated to allow Police Officers to do their job.

Q: Do you think the city should pass a paid sick leave mandate? If so, would you support the paid leave ordinance passed by the Bernalillo County Commission or what changes would you propose?
A: No, the city should not pass a paid sick leave ordinance. Voters already decided this issue in 2017.

Q: What is your top idea for boosting the city’s economy?
A: Lowering Albuquerque’s gross receipts tax to lowest level in the state, which makes the cost of doing business in Albuquerque manageable.

Q: What can the city do to keep — and attract — more young people?
A: Focus on business-friendly policies, such as low taxes, which will create more jobs. Make the business licensing and zoning process quick, efficient, and free.

Q: What, if any, changes would you like to see to the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance?
A: As of right now, the city’s IDO is fair. It’s a new ordinance, so if needs arise, changes should be made accordingly.

Q: What is the greatest infrastructure need the city faces and how would you fund its resolution?
A: Repairing streets and sidewalks in older areas. We need to put an end to unneeded government projects: i.e. Albuquerque Rapid Transit, $30,000 crosswalks, $20,000 toilets, $53,000 statues, and corporate welfare.

Q: Under what circumstances, if any, would you support a tax increase?
A: I would never support a tax increase under any circumstances. There can always be cuts, like not giving millions to corporations such as NBC Universal, or spending money on illegal aliens.

Q: Would you support a tax increase to build a soccer stadium in Albuquerque?
A: Absolutely not.

Q: What has been Mayor Tim Keller’s best move so far and what do you think has been his administration’s biggest misstep?
A: I liked that Mayor Keller is an Albuquerque cheerleader and encourages advertisement and visits to our city. His biggest misstep is not fighting crime and failing to give APD the tools to do their job.

Q: What one issue would you like to focus on as a councilor the next four years?
A: Ending crime and giving our Police Department its teeth back.

Q: Have you or your business, if you are a business owner, ever been the subject of any state or federal tax liens?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been involved in a personal or business bankruptcy proceeding?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of drunken driving, any misdemeanor or any felony in New Mexico or any other state?
A: No, but to be honest, I have a few speeding tickets, all of which were deferred or dismissed.

ISAAC BENTON

POLITICAL PARTY: Democratic
AGE: 68
EDUCATION: Bachelor of Fine Arts degree (1973) and bachelor’s in architecture (1974) from the Rhode Island School of Design; studied liberal arts and sciences at Emory University (1969-1971)
OCCUPATION: full-time Albuquerque City Councilor; previously architect (retired)
FAMILY: Wife Elaine, two children
POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE: City Councilor since 2005; City Council president, (2017 and 2009); Committee of the Whole Chair (2016); Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee (2005-present, current chair); Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority Board (2006-2008, Vice-chair 2008 and 2006); Metropolitan Transportation Board (2006-present, chair 2016-17); Rio Metro Regional Transit District Board (2006-present, chair 2009-11); Mid-Region Council of Governments Board (2006-present); Albuquerque Bernalillo County Government Commission (2009-present, chair 2012); Alvarado Transportation Center Task Force; Railyards Advisory Board; Visit ABQ Executive Board.
MAJOR PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: My colleagues inducted me into to the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects in recognition of my career in social architecture, leadership within the Institute and service to the community.
MAJOR PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: Serving the great people and neighborhoods of our very unique and historic district.

Q: What specific steps do you think the city should take to address the homelessness crisis?
A: Strengthen collaborative behavioral health and addiction prevention. Construct “triage” centers with emergency on-site shelter and services. Increase partnerships for scattered-site supportive housing. Improve the coordinated systems approach, starting with collecting better data on Albuquerque’s homeless.

Q: Besides hiring more officers, what do you think the council could do to improve public safety?
A: Embrace community policing and bike patrols. Reduce gun violence, banning firearms in city facilities. Increase a Police Service Aide “pipeline” for the Police Academy. Encourage citizen neighborhood watches, crime reporting, participation in Community Policing Councils.

Q: Do you think the city should pass a paid sick leave mandate? If so, would you support the paid leave ordinance passed by the Bernalillo County Commission or what changes would you propose?
A: Yes. As a former small business employer, I know that flexible schedules and a humane understanding of employees’ family needs, like paid sick leave, are absolutely necessary to large and small business success.

Q: What is your top idea for boosting the city’s economy?
A: Having spearheaded the original purchase of the Railyards, I’m excited about city partnership therewith CNM’s film institute. A redeveloping Railyards will spur tourism, jobs, new housing and small businesses for our center city and district.

Q: What can the city do to keep — and attract — more young people?
A: Build walkable urbanism, quality public spaces and streets, affordable housing, transit, the creative arts economy and our great “sense of place.” Our Downtown, central historic neighborhoods, and the commercial corridors that serve them are key.

Q: What, if any, changes would you like to see to the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance?
A: Annual updates to the IDO are mandated, with localized public planning processes built into the framework. I’m facilitating that process, with an emphasis on protecting historic neighborhoods left behind during Albuquerque’s rapid growth and industrialization.

Q: What is the greatest infrastructure need the city faces and how would you fund its resolution?
A: District 2 has our oldest infrastructure. The needs are complex and challenging. Through bonding and federal grants, we need modern streets, modern storm infrastructure, restored tree canopy, transit and walkability that serve neighborhoods and businesses.

Q: Under what circumstances, if any, would you support a tax increase?
A: I would support a “sunsetting” tax increase for a serious known public need such as safety, or for economic investment where high return on investment and public benefits can be demonstrated.

Q: Would you support a tax increase to build a soccer stadium in Albuquerque?
A: No. The city extravagantly funded supposed “sports tourism” like softball fields on the far Westside with limited tourist appeal/payback. I support the Mayor’s proposal to fund a soccer stadium through existing funds and partnerships.

Q: What has been Mayor Tim Keller’s best move so far and what do you think has been his administration’s biggest misstep?
A: Under the Mayor’s leadership in partnership with Council, we’re rebuilding APD including critical investments in community policing. An early misstep was reversing Downtown walkability improvements, a misunderstanding of an existing city policy that was corrected.

Q: What one issue would you like to focus on as a councilor the next four years?
A: Preparing for climate change to make our city resilient and liveable for future generations. This includes stronger building energy codes, focused energy conservation, reforestation, renewable energy, alternative transportation options, storm drainage, water and local agriculture.

Q: Have you or your business, if you are a business owner, ever been the subject of any state or federal tax liens?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been involved in a personal or business bankruptcy proceeding?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of drunken driving, any misdemeanor or any felony in New Mexico or any other state?
A: No.

JOSEPH GRIEGO

POLITICAL PARTY: Democratic
AGE: 29
EDUCATION: Valley High School and Rio Rancho High School, attended Fresno State University, CNM, and Trident University.
OCCUPATION: Owner of Care tactics CPR since 2012
FAMILY: Single, two children
POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE: U.S. Navy (2008-2011), former police officer with Bosque Farms Police Department and emergency medical technician.
MAJOR PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: Becoming a small business owner right here in Albuquerque.
MAJOR PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: Of course being a father to two children.

Q: What specific steps do you think the city should take to address the homelessness crisis?
A: Serving as a Board Member of Heading Home we will continue to work with the City of Albuquerque … bringing together business leaders, medical professionals, and advocates to develop real solutions to our growing homeless populations.

Q: Besides hiring more officers, what do you think the council could do to improve public safety?
A: The Department of Justice oversight is causing many officers (to not want to become) a member of our police force. Begin the process of negotiating the exit of the DOJ. We need to recruit officers who can work within the (DOJ) framework.

Q: Do you think the city should pass a paid sick leave mandate? If so, would you support the paid leave ordinance passed by the Bernalillo County Commission or what changes would you propose?
A: The voters have spoken on this and voted it down. While I support paid sick leave, I believe we need … a common sense approach and agree … the county’s ordinance doesn’t quite meet the standard needed.

Q: What is your top idea for boosting the city’s economy?
A: Infrastructure. We need to make infrastructure our number one priority. We need to increase funding for LEDA (Local Economic Development Act) and also create incentives for local businesses to bid and win small projects such as curb and façade.

Q: What can the city do to keep — and attract — more young people?
A: My generation wants to see someone like me working in a position of City Councilor, first thing we can do is elect me to District 2.

Q: What, if any, changes would you like to see to the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance?
A: I think the IDO is a great starting point for us … to determine how we want to grow. We need to be better listeners to businesses and allow for flexibility for staff to help them be successful.

Q: What is the greatest infrastructure need the city faces and how would you fund its resolution?
A: Roads, lighting, and parks. New Mexico will have a billion dollars in new revenue this year. Infrastructure needs to be our number one priority and ask of the New Mexico Legislature and Governor.

Q: Under what circumstances, if any, would you support a tax increase?
A: We desperately need transparency of our city budget. If it was comparable across the entire city and was truly dedicated to what it was for.

Q: Would you support a tax increase to build a soccer stadium in Albuquerque?
A: I would support tax incentives for a public private partnership to build a soccer stadium.

Q: What has been Mayor Tim Keller’s best move so far and what do you think has been his administration’s biggest misstep?
A: The Mayor has been dealing with a hard situation left by the previous administration so being analytical of the problems and methodically addressing them is his strength. I don’t believe his administration has made many missteps but him endorsing candidates in this race is one.

Q: What one issue would you like to focus on as a councilor the next four years?
A: If elected I will increase accessibility to Early Childhood Education in District 2. I will rebuild our community centers and parks. I will improve our infrastructure. If I do not … I will not seek another term.

Q: Have you or your business, if you are a business owner, ever been the subject of any state or federal tax liens?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been involved in a personal or business bankruptcy proceeding?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of drunken driving, any misdemeanor or any felony in New Mexico or any other state?
A: I was charged with assault in 2017. Case was dismissed.

ROBERT BLANQUERA NELSON

POLITICAL PARTY: Democratic
AGE: 39
EDUCATION: Bachelor’s degree in psychology, bachelor’s degree in creative writing from the University of New Mexico (2003).
OCCUPATION: Nonprofit manager with The Grants Collective for three years; previously owner of RRN Consulting.
FAMILY: Lisa Nelson, no children
POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE: Chair, Housing and Neighborhood Economic Development Fund Committee, City of Albuquerque (2017-present).
MAJOR PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: In 2011, I helped found Albuquerque Heading Home, a community wide initiative to place the most chronically and medically vulnerable homeless in permanent affordable housing. I was a member of their Core Vision Team.
MAJOR PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: In 2017, I co-founded Young Asian Americans of Albuquerque, a community group dedicated to building community with Pan-Asian American youth.

Q: What specific steps do you think the city should take to address the homelessness crisis?
A: First, we must create our first Public Health Department to address the root causes of homelessness. Next, prioritize solutions that vulnerable communities need, such as more affordable housing and access to drug use rehabilitation.

Q: Besides hiring more officers, what do you think the council could do to improve public safety?
A: Creating a community-based Blue-Ribbon Commission on public safety, allowing for new and better solutions, such as hiring Police Service Aides as a way to reduce the cost of onboarding new officers.

Q: Do you think the city should pass a paid sick leave mandate? If so, would you support the paid leave ordinance passed by the Bernalillo County Commission or what changes would you propose?
A: Yes, I would support continually improving the ordinance and policy to make it easier for small businesses to afford. I would also support applying for grant funding for small businesses during a transition period.

Q: What is your top idea for boosting the city’s economy?
A: First, making Albuquerque the top city in the country to start a small business by reducing red tape and increasing small business support resources like micro-loans. Second, closing equity gaps to create an inclusive economy.

Q: What can the city do to keep — and attract — more young people?
A: As a city, we have foster industries that are conducive to the creative interests of recent graduates. That means being business-friendly to growing creative industries like tech, renewables, and film.

Q: What, if any, changes would you like to see to the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance?
A: Make the zoning process simpler and less restrictive for property owners. I would also work with community stakeholders to streamline zoning overall and make Albuquerque more attractive to the industries we want.

Q: What is the greatest infrastructure need the city faces and how would you fund its resolution?
A: The most critical infrastructure our city needs is financial infrastructure. We need more access to large amounts of capital for the kinds of projects that will turn our city into a hub.

Q: Under what circumstances, if any, would you support a tax increase?
A: No need to raise taxes when we have the opportunity to bring new money through federal grants and national investments. We will stop wasting money when the community is engaged in developing the solution.

Q: Would you support a tax increase to build a soccer stadium in Albuquerque?
A: No, because we can find better ways to pay for it.

Q: What has been Mayor Tim Keller’s best move so far and what do you think has been his administration’s biggest misstep?
A: Creating the Office of Equity and Inclusion was the most innovative thing the Keller administration has done, and his biggest missed opportunity is not addressing crime and homelessness at the root.

Q: What’s one issue would you like to focus on as a councilor the next four years?
A: The biggest priority is public health because the cycle of systemic poverty, homelessness, and crime are all public health issues. That means instituting our City’s first public health department and addressing our systemic issues.

Q: Have you or your business, if you are a business owner, ever been the subject of any state or federal tax liens?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been involved in a personal or business bankruptcy proceeding?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of drunken driving, any misdemeanor or any felony in New Mexico or any other state?
A: No.

ZACKARY QUINTERO

POLITICAL PARTY: Democratic
AGE: 28
EDUCATION: Juris Doctorate of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law (2019), Bachelor’s degree in economics and bachelor’s degree in government, New Mexico State University (2014).
OCCUPATION: Legal analyst with Roybal Mack and Cordova Law since 2019, Law clerk with the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty (2017-2018); City economist/economic development specialist with the city of Santa Fe (2014-2016).
FAMILY: None.
POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE: Former president of the statewide Young Democrats of New Mexico, former city economist, former Foreign Service Fellow.
MAJOR PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: I built and managed a statewide portal to connect graduates to jobs in New Mexico in order to keep our talent here. I also drafted and managed workforce contracts and investments between the city and the creative arts sector.
MAJOR PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: I served on the law review of UNM and wrote about how we need to prepare for climate change shifts that will affect our environment.

Q: What specific steps do you think the city should take to address the homelessness crisis?
A: We need to pass the bond for a homeless center and provide wrap-around services that connect people to mental health and addiction resources. This has not been a priority for council in over five years.

Q: Besides hiring more officers, what do you think the council could do to improve public safety?
A: We need to establish a residential burglary unit team within APD and invest in shot detection systems that help our officers triangulate gun related crimes.

Q: Do you think the city should pass a paid sick leave mandate? If so, would you support the paid leave ordinance passed by the Bernalillo County Commission or what changes would you propose?
A: I support paid sick leave and would want to see what businesses and workers within the city limits can provide and afford in order to make a fair and thoughtful decision.

Q: What is your top idea for boosting the city’s economy?
A: Connect 5,000 graduates to jobs in health care, tech, education, government, and the creative arts through a coordinated jobs plan. Promote a stronger local spend rule within city contracts and LEDA (Local Economic Development Act ) funds.

Q: What can the city do to keep — and attract — more young people?
A: The median age of our city is 38. This is not reflected in any office within our city. Having an intergenerational Council shows opportunity is possible and that we are inclusive and geared towards the future.

Q: What, if any, changes would you like to see to the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance?
A: Many neighborhoods lost protections they once had. The IDO calls for the city to review 12 community planning areas over five years, we need to invest in planning personal to cut that to two years.

Q: What is the greatest infrastructure need the city faces and how would you fund its resolution?
A: Although the city doesn’t govern APS schools, the city can and should work with the water utility authority to remove lead and update water lines that service our schools.

Q: Under what circumstances, if any, would you support a tax increase?
A: We’re anticipating an increase in revenue once we start taxing online purchases in two years and we just passed a tax increase. If critical services are not being met, I would support a tax increase.

Q: Would you support a tax increase to build a soccer stadium in Albuquerque?
A: There are other ways we should be utilizing taxpayer dollars right now, and there are other sources of revenue that we can look at for paying for a soccer stadium.

Q: What has been Mayor Tim Keller’s best move so far and what do you think has been his administration’s biggest misstep?
A: Best move has been prioritizing public safety after the previous administration and council cut public safety. His misstep is not moving fast on his promise to help business grow by an increment of 1.

Q: What one issue would you like to focus on as a councilor the next four years?
A: I would focus on core parts of public health and public safety. That would involve fully funding community policing and health care options that help us alleviate homelessness, behavioral health, and addiction.

Q: Have you or your business, if you are a business owner, ever been the subject of any state or federal tax liens?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been involved in a personal or business bankruptcy proceeding?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of drunken driving, any misdemeanor or any felony in New Mexico or any other state?
A: I was charged with trespassing on NMSU property in the desert when I was 16. I was building an Indiana Jones-themed zip line. Government didn’t agree with my use of land. Charges were dropped.

CONNIE VIGIL

POLITICAL PARTY: Declined to say.
AGE: 62
EDUCATION: Master’s degree in technical communications from New Mexico State University (1988); bachelor of science degree from New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (1980); completed fellowship work toward a master’s degree in microbiology from the University of New Mexico.
OCCUPATION: President of the Greater Albuquerque Business Alliance since 2018; K-12 science, English and substitute teacher (2015-2019); life insurance agent (2007-2016), Habitat for Humanity executive director (2003-2005).
FAMILY: One child.
POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE: Wells Park Neighborhood Association Board (April 2019-present); founder Albuquerque Roundtable Discussion Group (2013-2014); city council and school board representative in Star, Idaho (1996-1998).
MAJOR PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: Procurement of federal grant for a community center. Assisted in first pediatric bone marrow transplant in VT. Built three homes in two years with hundreds of volunteers from three states. Beating an incumbent!
MAJOR PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT: My amazing son Gabriel received a full scholarship, state symphony win two years, golf team and captain from eighth through 12th grade. I ran a half marathon in 3 hours at age 50 after back injury.

Q: What specific steps do you think the city should take to address the homelessness crisis?
A: Work with federal and state legislators to create long-term residential treatment centers for mentally ill and drug addicted, co-fund transitional housing/job campus, hold state and Bernalillo County accountable for tax received for behavioral health.

Q: Besides hiring more officers, what do you think the council could do to improve public safety?
A: Drug addiction fuels 99% of crime! Albuquerque lacks narcotics agents, leaving drug sales rampant! I would increase agents, and help APD enforce laws against violence, vandalism, theft, and public camping. Citizen safety is #1!

Q: Do you think the city should pass a paid sick leave mandate? If so, would you support the paid leave ordinance passed by the Bernalillo County Commission or what changes would you propose?
A: Albuquerque voters said no. I would work with state legislators to pass laws like Oregon’s, so federal tax credits could help smaller businesses comply. I support equitable and uniform leave laws for all New Mexicans.

Q: What is your top idea for boosting the city’s economy?
A: The path to economic success is a safe, and crime-free city! The steps: 1) stop drug sales, vandalism, theft and violent crime; 2) create addiction/mental treatment centers; 3) increased drug courts, and community service sentencing.

Q: What can the city do to keep — and attract — more young people?
A: Stop crime/create a safe environment to do business. Also, give tax incentives for long-term companies to stay and new companies to come to Albuquerque! Incentivize local recruitment from New Mexico universities.

Q: What, if any, changes would you like to see to the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance?
A: The IDO must align with pre-existing sector plans. I recommend a major review, simplification, and alignment with neighborhood plans. Also, mandatory resident/business input with sign notification on site for on any neighborhood development going forward.

Q: What is the greatest infrastructure need the city faces and how would you fund its resolution?
A: Maintenance of sidewalks, bike paths, streets and street lighting are the four top needs. Funding should be covered with existing taxes by ending frivolous spending on PR campaigns, and Civic Center slides!

Q: Under what circumstances, if any, would you support a tax increase?
A: None. The Mayor promised no new taxes. I recommend an audit on executive spending and moratorium on raises to top employees and campaign funding while we have a major crime issues, and failing infrastructure!

Q: Would you support a tax increase to build a soccer stadium in Albuquerque?
A: No. It’s best done with private funding once the team, and revenue stream is better established, and the Sunport Road extension is complete. I fully support and congratulate NM United for their outstanding accomplishments!

Q: What has been Mayor Tim Keller’s best move so far and what do you think has been his administration’s biggest misstep?
A: Tabling bus transfer station in North Valley. Lack of knowledgeable staff or long-term plan to stop crime, and solve the homeless influx to improve quality of life issues and business success in Albuquerque.

Q: What one issue would you like to focus on as a councilor the next four years?
A: Creating a solution to homelessness and associated drug and mental health issues and crime. This issue will be the #1 tipping point to Albuquerque improving and flourishing or collapsing as Portland, Ore., has.

Q: Have you or your business, if you are a business owner, ever been the subject of any state or federal tax liens?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been involved in a personal or business bankruptcy proceeding?
A: No.

Q: Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of drunken driving, any misdemeanor or any felony in New Mexico or any other state?
A: No.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The Albuquerque Journal’s line of questioning, although informative, were not at all exhaustive. Other questions or areas that could have been asked would include:

1. Candidates position on the gun control measures pending in city council.
2. The candidates position on the New Mexico legislatures attempt to legalize recreational use of marijuana and if they feel municipalities should have the option to opt out of allowing the sale in the community or have zoning authority over businesses who sell recreational marijuana.
3. City Public Campaign finance reform and if the candidates feel that the city’s campaign finance laws should be repealed.
4. The candidates position on education and if City of Albuquerque should have representation or be included on the Albuquerque School board, the University of New Mexico Board of Regents and the Community College of New Mexico Board?
5. The city council enacted a resolution making Albuquerque and immigrant friendly city. Should Albuquerque be a “sanctuary city” and should such a question be voted upon by the public?

All too often, city council races are ignored by many voters and the campaigns do not really heat up until the very last month of the campaign. Most city council races are won with direct voter contact and candidates going “door to door” looking for support and votes.

Each City Council District has approximately 75,000 residents. Historically, only 2,000 to 4,000 votes are cast in each City Council District. Low voter turnout in city elections with any luck will be a thing of the past with the municipal elections moved from October to November and with the consolidated election ballot.

Each vote can and does make a difference. Voters should demand and expect more from candidates than fake smiles, slick campaign flyers, and no solutions and no ideas. Our City needs more than promises of better economic times and lower crime rates for Albuquerque.

Voters need to demand answers and find out what candidates really stand for and what they intend to do once elected. Unless you vote, real change can never occur and if you do not vote you have no business complaining about the condition of our city.

Please vote on Tuesday, November 5 and get involved.

For a related blog article see:

2019 ABQ City Council Candidates And Issues

Below is a guest opion article submitted for publication on this blog by private business owner John B. Strong. Mr. Strong grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma and moved to New Mexico in 1997. He started and Art Gallery in Santa Fe in 2000 that he now operates with his partner Carlos Acosta. John Strong has been investing in startups since 2004. He is a co-founder or board member at several different companies, mostly in technology, healthcare, and financial services. Mr. Strong was recently the Chairman of Scout Security, a company that was taken over from Kickstarter to an IPO and listing on the Sydney Stock Exchange. Mr. Strong describes himself as being “obsessed with entrepreneurship and small businesses.” In the interest of full disclosure, John B. Strong is also a member of the Advisory Board of Devvio, a local firm mentioned in the article.

(NOTE: The opinions expressed in this article are those of John Strong and do not necessarily reflect those of the political blog www.petedinelli.com blog).

The following article is the article:

“Not many people yet realize that there is an emerging technology that is set to dwarf all others, including the internet and the advent of cellphones. This technology will be transformational to almost every industry in the world, and to us as individuals as well. It’s the blockchain, not to be confused with crypto currencies, which most people are now becoming at least aware of if not familiar with. Crypto currencies will basically reside on the blockchain itself, which is an immutable ledger of transactions. That doesn’t sound like such a big deal until you consider what it can do.

Blockchains cannot be altered or changed in any way, and if you place information or transactions on them, they are secure forever and unalterable. Consider what that means…. Your phone in the blockchain will never be able to be hacked, your emails are impossible to be read or be stolen, and credit card fraud would be a thing of the past. Instead of spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on closing costs and title fees on a real estate transaction, it will be done for a few dollars in a few seconds. Selling a car? Same thing. Voting?, there will be no way to steal a vote from someone else or alter the result in any way. Identity theft will be a bad memory. Sending money to someone anywhere in the world will be of no consequence at all.

Recently someone sent $1,000,000 for a total fee of .10 cents across the world and it was received in less than 30 seconds. The implications of this are staggering for almost every industry on earth, including insurance, financial services and banking, pharmaceuticals and healthcare, commerce and supply chain management of every kind, management of the Internet of things (IOT) and operations of government agencies and cities. Our children and grandchildren will laugh at hearing of the embarrassment of hacked emails, or phones. It is in short, a very big deal.

If you look back only one year ago, almost every high profile CEO including guys like Jamie Dimon (CEO of J P Morgan Chase) were characterizing this industry as fraud and pie in the sky. Today? Every single large business is scrambling to develop their own blockchain components.

So if you’re wondering why I titled this “Keeping up with Wyoming” here’s why…Wyoming, of all places has had the foresight to decide that it will stake its claim to this emerging industry. How? By passing a series of legislation to both legalize the different uses of the blockchain and crypto currencies, and to promote incubating blockchain and crypto startups in a friendly regulatory environment. Their legislature has passed no less than 13 laws governing the industry in the last year, including laws that:

1. Classify digital tokens as an asset instead of a security, this is important because regulating assets is the express purview of states. Wyoming is the first elected body “In the world” to do this.

2. Recognize direct property rights for individual owners of digital assets of all types

3. Creates a fintech sandbox to provide regulatory relief to financial innovators from existing laws for up to 3 years.

4. Authorizes a new type of state-chartered depository institution to provide basic banking services to blockchain and other businesses.

We all know that Capital ultimately flows to where it’s treated best. For digital assets within the US, I’m pretty confident that will end up being Wyoming, but it doesn’t have to be. Forbes has said that Wyoming means to be “The Digital asset Delaware” and Bloomberg has said that Wyoming aims to be the “Digital Asset Capital of the US”. There’s a lot to be gained here, and in New Mexico we can take our share of this easier than you may think. If we make a commitment to passing this type of legislation, we can certainly catch up to Wyoming quickly, and in some ways we can go further and be more regulatory friendly. We also have a secret weapon that they (and no other state) will ever have…. Two national labs in Los Alamos and Sandia, and along with them are thousands of Phd level brains that are tailor maid for this emerging industry.

In New Mexico we can be the Silicon Valley of this emerging technology, and also its logical home. The stakes are high, and the time to start is now, as there will soon be hundreds of these startups looking for the best regulatory and business friendly home to locate in, that also has the depth of talent nearby. In Wyoming, they are the most unlikely place to have made these efforts, but they are getting significant attention for having done so, while in New Mexico we really are the logical place for these businesses.

So what is actually keeping us from it? I’m not sure I know the answer to that question, as no one is asking the state to put up large amounts of money here, just legislation, and that doesn’t really cost anything. This industry doesn’t need subsidies like the film industry or financial support from the State. It just needs a nurturing legal and regulatory environment to get off the ground. We have an opportunity to gain thousands of high paying jobs, and possibly a couple of companies that can grow into behemoths if we play our cards right.

Think I’m kidding? Just take a look a one startup that’s already here. Devvio (www.devv.io) is a local blockchain platform founded by Albuquerque’s very own Tom Anderson. It is already the fastest platform in the world, able to process hundreds of times more transactions per second than Visa/Mastercard. They are already inking major contracts with Fortune 50 companies, and have attracted incredibly important leadership with global credentials, including Ray Quintana, a former Managing director at the hugely successful Cottonwood Technology fund, and General Vincent Stewart who recently retired as the Deputy Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, and prior to that was the Commander of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He is recognized as one of the three or four top global authorities on cyber security. Guys at his rank join the boards of companies like Microsoft or IBM, not small startups in New Mexico, so this is pretty impressive. He is arguably the most important person to join a New Mexico company in the last twenty years.

I have personally mentioned this to several of our top elected leaders (I won’t mention any names here) and do you think a single one asked if they could meet him at some point? Of course not, and that is a big part of the problem, we tend to think in the past and if we are lucky our leaders think a bit into the present, but not so much to the future.

So if you’ve read this thus far, the next time you meet one of your elected officials or political figures, ask them what they are doing to claim our share of the largest emerging industry on earth. And if they don’t know what your talking about tell them to study up. Our future may depend in it.”
___________________________

POSTSCRIPT:

See the below links for related article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/caitlinlong/2019/03/04/what-do-wyomings-new-blockchain-laws-mean/#7befce9b5fde

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/jackson_hole_daily/local/legislators-look-to-add-real-estate-banking-to-blockchain-laws/article_53830417-349a-5423-a8e4-6f5ccd51efe3.html

On Thursday, August 29, 2019, the Albuquerque Journal published a front-page story that Santa Fe State District Judge Bryan Biedscheid ruled that New Mexico must allow non-residents to participate in its medical cannabis program despite concerns raised by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the Department of Health. Matthew Garcia, general counsel for the Governor’s Office and Thomas Bird, the Health Department’s attorney, argued the change was aimed at providing reciprocity to residents of other states who have valid medical marijuana cards. It was also argued by the state’s attorneys that such a shift would encourage the transport of marijuana across state lines, which is illegal under both federal and state laws.

In announcing his ruling, the Judge said the language of the amended medical cannabis statute is clear, and that it does not allow the Department of Health to withhold identification cards to qualifying patients who live outside of New Mexico. According to Judge Bryan Biedscheid ruling, the language of the amended medical cannabis statute is clear:

“It does not allow the Department of Health to withhold identification cards to qualifying patients who live outside of New Mexico. … This statute, plainly and unambiguously, does away with the requirement of residence of the state of New Mexico … Continuing to insist on a showing of residence for eligibility in the program, when that has been taken out by the Legislature, is not appropriate.”

You can read the full Journal article entitled ‘Judge Opens Up Medical Pot Program To Out Of State Residents’ at the below link:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1359894/judge-opens-medical-marijuana-program-to-out-of-state-residents-govs-office-plans-to-appeal.html

In announcing that the State will appeal the court ruling, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham strongly criticized the ruling by issuing the following statement:

“We remain of the opinion that New Mexico’s medical cannabis program should not be bulldozed by an out-of-state litigant operating with his own financial interests at heart rather than those of the state’s medical program or of the many New Mexicans who depend upon it … [The ruling] contradicts both the intent of the legislative sponsor and the interpretation of the New Mexico Department of Health, and the state plans to appeal the decision.”

NM SPEAKER AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY SUES STATE REPRESENTING PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiffs’ attorney suing the state over the medical pot program’s patient registration is Speaker of the House Brian Egolf. According to the Journal story, Attorney Egolf argued that there was “no clear evidence” that the NM Legislature intended to require New Mexico residency. Egolf argued there is nothing to back up the concern that the change would impede the state’s ability to maintain regulatory control and he argued before the court:

“There is no evidence offered to support this theory [that] … anyone who’s driving through the state of New Mexico will be able to pull over to the side of the road to get a registry identification card like it’s a Snickers bar … That’s completely wrong.”

Egolf noted that the federal law prohibits U.S. government resources being used for the prosecution or dismantling of any medical cannabis program and New Mexico’s program will not be in jeopardy.

ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL

On October 1, 2019, the Albuquerque Journal published an editorial relating to Speaker of the House Brian Egolf’s involvement with the court challenge of New Mexico’s Medical Cannibis program. Below is the editorial with a link to the article:

EDITORIAL HEADLINE: “Did Brian Egolf Miss The Day In Law School Where They Cover Conflicts Of Interest?”

The Santa Fe Democrat currently serves as New Mexico’s Speaker of the House. Egolf, like many of his fellow unpaid New Mexico lawmakers, also has a day job as an attorney. That’s normal for our citizen Legislature and not a problem in and of itself.

Well, not unless a situation arises wherein Egolf’s role as a high-ranking legislator allows him to grease the skids for legislation that ultimately enriches him in his private law practice.

And if Egolf isn’t quite fully immersed in that sticky terrain, he’s at least ankle deep in it.

Consider: Egolf is currently representing medical marijuana magnate Duke Rodriguez in an ongoing lawsuit against the state of New Mexico.

While Rodriguez’s Ultra Health LLC has all but cornered New Mexico’s medical marijuana market, Rodriguez – himself a medical marijuana user – lives in Arizona. He is one of three people who live out of state who sued the state to be allowed to participate in New Mexico’s medical cannabis program.

As Journal reporter Dan Boyd reported Sept. 24, the case took its most recent turn on Sept. 23, when a judge ordered the New Mexico Department of Health to start issuing medical marijuana cards to out-of-state residents. The matter remains in limbo as the state Department of Health plans to ask the judge to reconsider, but it was still a clear, albeit not yet final, victory for Rodriguez’s bottom line – and, presumably, for his high-powered lawyer Egolf.

And therein lies the rub.

Egolf is clearly working his hardest to obtain a certain outcome for his client in the politically fraught world of medical marijuana. He also clearly wields tremendous influence over legislative matters, including laws around medical marijuana. Despite this apparent clash of interests, Egolf hasn’t included Rodriguez’s company on a list of potential conflicts of interest, nor has he recused himself in medical marijuana-related legislative matters.

When Republicans raised the issue back in 2017, Egolf said his work with the medical marijuana industry would not influence his work as a lawmaker. He also pointed out it would be tough to find clients who don’t interact with legislation in some way – a fair point – and, according to a 2017 Journal story, noted that, like other state legislators who are lawyers, he disclosed the law firm he works for and the state agencies he’s represented.

On Egolf’s side of the ledger, New Mexico Ethics Watch backed up his stance that he didn’t need to disclose medical marijuana clients as potential conflicts of interest. And perhaps that’s in line with the letter of the law.

But is that really what’s best for New Mexico? Why should only state agencies be included in lawyers’ disclosures and not private industry?
Perhaps it’s a good topic for New Mexico’s newly minted Ethics Commission to cut its teeth on. Because disclosure norms notwithstanding, having the guy who helps make the rules for an industry also represent that industry in court should raise some eyebrows.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1372801/speakers-work-on-medical-marijuana-suit-raises-concerns.html

SPEAKER OF NEW MEXICO HOUSE BRIAN EGOLF RESPONDS TO JOURNAL

On Sunday, October 6, the Albuquerque Journal Published Speaker of the House Brian Egolf’s response to its editorial as follows:

Headline: EDITORIAL ALL (MEDICAL POT) SMOKE, NO FIRE

BY REP. BRIAN EGOLF / SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, SANTA FE DEMOCRAT

Did the Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board miss the day in journalism school where they cover accuracy in reporting, especially in editorials?

The Journal’s Editorial Board should not allow these pages to be weaponized for politically-motivated and unfounded attacks. Yet a recent editorial (Oct. 1) regarding my work as a private lawyer representing a medical cannabis producer did just that. The outrageous nature of the attack against me and my character demands a response.

Political opponents have long muddied the waters in an attempt to discredit me and the entire medical cannabis compassionate-use program. Their arguments are false and have been repeatedly debunked.

At issue is how legislators maintain high ethical standards, prevent conflicts of interest, and ensure that our service does not give us a leg up in our everyday lives. I have studied and scrupulously followed the standards of ethical behavior for legislators during my 11 years of service in the Legislature and have championed the creation of the Ethics Commission to bring true transparency and clear ethical guidance to all public offices. I am confident that my legal work and my legislative service do not present a conflict of interest.

This paper’s Editorial Board takes the position that lawyers cannot serve in the Legislature without creating conflict with every vote, floor speech or bill introduction. This newspaper ignores, however, the law and the rules of ethical conduct for lawyers. It is absurd to think that a lawyer should recuse from a vote every time a client may be affected. For example, if that were the standard, no lawyer-legislator could vote on funding for roads because every client who uses our roadways would be affected.

As legislators, we must hold ourselves to the highest standard of ethics. For attorneys who are also legislators, the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys provide additional rules and requirements to ensure that our actions in the courtroom are kept strictly separate from our legislative service. Legislator-lawyers may not refer to our legislative service in the courtroom or take any action that gives the impression that we are using our legislative offices to gain an advantage for a client. I go to great lengths to abide by the spirit and the letter of the law in my courtroom conduct, as witnessed by judges, colleagues and clients.

The legislative process benefits from having people with diverse personal and professional backgrounds as lawmakers. As noted in a recent legal case, attorneys have unique experience to bring to public service. In a 2015 court order, a district court judge explicitly ruled that preventing a legislator from representing their clients in adversarial proceedings would “contravene clear statutory language and create serious disincentives for those most schooled in the law from taking up public service as state representatives.”

As citizen legislators, we must ensure that our behavior is not influenced by the promise of a specific benefit for ourselves or our families. We also must separate our professional lives from our legislative service. It is clear from the record that the medical cannabis legislation in question went through the regular legislative process and was not expedited in any manner. The bill was introduced and modified several times in the Senate and made its way through the process in the House with no particular speed. This record is available plainly on the legislative website, and I invite the public to examine the record for themselves. Unfortunately, the Albuquerque Journal “greased the skids” in its editorial process and thereby ignored facts, the clear record and the law to produce a political hit-job.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1374952/editorial-all-medical-pot-smoke-no-fire.htm

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It did not come as any surprise to Round House observers nor to political pundits that the Albuquerque Journal published a highly negative editorial criticizing Speaker of the House Brian Egolf for his involvement in the medical cannabis case and suing the state. Many wondered why it took so long given the Albuquerque Journal’s past history of such editorials against New Mexico legislators, especially Democrats in power. This is not the first time the Journal published an editorial criticizing Speaker Egolf.

What did come as a surprise is that Egolf felt it was necessary to respond to the Albuquerque Journal. Ostensibly, the state had no problem with Egolf representing the plaintiff in that Matthew Garcia, general counsel for the Governor and Thomas Bird, the Health Department’s attorney, did not object to Egolf representing the Plaintiffs. The Governor’s Office and the Department of Health did not ask the Court to remove Egolf from the case for any sort of perceived conflict, but the Governor did decide to appeal the ruling.

The problem Speaker Egolf has is that in politics, public perception by voters is often viewed as a reality. The public perception Speaker Egolf is dealing with is the perception that gives New Mexico politicians a very bad name and reputation.

Speaker Egolf in his letter argues in part as follows:

“… At issue is how legislators maintain high ethical standards, prevent conflicts of interest, and ensure that our service does not give us a leg up in our everyday lives. … Legislator-lawyers may not refer to our legislative service in the courtroom or take any action that gives the impression that we are using our legislative offices to gain an advantage for a client. … As legislators, we must hold ourselves to the highest standard of ethics. For attorneys who are also legislators, the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys provide additional rules and requirements to ensure that our actions in the courtroom are kept strictly separate from our legislative service. … As citizen legislators, we must ensure that our behavior is not influenced by the promise of a specific benefit for ourselves or our families. We also must separate our professional lives from our legislative service.”

The highest standard of ethics for any attorney and for that matter any elected official includes avoiding any and all conflicts of interest, appearance of a conflict and avoiding the appearance of impropriety. There is no doubt that private attorney Brian Egolf is a highly respected, accomplished and successful New Mexico trial attorney who honors the New Mexico Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of ethics prescribing the standards of ethical conduct for attorneys. However, that is not enough when it comes to also being an elected official at the same time and the public perception that goes with it.

Egolf is still Speaker of the House and he cannot separate that fact from his professional work as an attorney in a courtroom setting, especially when he argues against legislation he supported and voted for and turns around and then represents a client and paid by a client that is against that legislation, hence the perception of a conflict of interest by the public. It is true as Mr. Speaker argues that legislator-lawyers may not refer to legislative service in the courtroom or take any action that gives the impression that they are using their legislative offices to gain an advantage for a client. But it really does not matter. When you are an attorney and elected official, especially Speaker of the House, and you walk into a courtroom to challenge a law where you have legislative authority over, the impression of a conflict to many exists without a word having to be said. No introductory comments, assurances, disclaimers or disclosures before the hearing begins will eliminate the doubt and perception in the public’s mind.

Separating “professional lives from legislative service”, and for that matter personal lives, is virtually impossible when it comes to elected officials in the public eye, especially when you are the Speaker of the House, a position many feel is the second most powerful position in state government. Many voters no doubt agree with the Speaker’s comments “… At issue is how legislators maintain high ethical standards, prevent conflicts of interest, and ensure that our service does not give us a leg up in our everyday lives” and “ legislators must hold ourselves to the highest standard of ethics”. The problem is all too often is legislators do not uphold even minimum requirements of ethical conduct.

Least anyone forget, last fall former Democrat State Senator Phil Griego was convicted of fraud, bribery and other public corruption charges, and sentenced to 18 months in prison and more than $47,000 in fines. Griego was a licensed realtor by profession and as a State Senator voted for funding on a state property purchase and then represented the purchaser and Greigo was paid a $50,000 real estate commission. Then there is former tough-on-crime Republican State Representative Monica Youngblood who after arrested pressured police not to charge her because she always supported law enforcement issues and she was convicted of aggravated drunken driving and she lost her reelection bid. Now we have long time Democrat State Senator and retired magistrate Judge Richard Martinez, who presided over many DWI cases, is awaiting trial on aggravated DWI charges who refuses to resign and saying he is running for another term. Martinez refuses to step down as chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee that deals with DWI legislation and Senate leadership are reluctant to remove him as chair. Then you have the granddaddy of all unethical conduct when powerful Democratic State Senate President Pro Temp Manny Aragon, who was also a prominent trial attorney, went to Federal Prison for being paid millions in kickbacks for his role in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court Construction Project.

I totally understand Speaker Igolf’s arguments regarding the need to make a living as a private attorney, being bound by the canons of ethics for attorneys and at the same time being and elected official and held to a higher standard. I did it for 4 years as an Albuquerque City Councilor and as a practicing attorney with my own law firm. I can even sympathize with him when he is on the receiving end of negative Albuquerque Journal editorials seeing as I have had more than my own fair share of such editorials over my public service career and have endured the Journal’s insulting editorial wrath. I have never received an Albuquerque Journal endorsement the three times I ran for public office, and as a Democrat that did not surprise me in the least. Notwithstanding, media first amendment rights are a very critical part of the process and politicians all too often forget that point and we see that today on the national level with the worn out “fake news” comment used by so many.

Legendary New Mexico criminal defense lawyer Billy Marchiondo once said that you never to get into a “pissing match with anyone who buys ink by the barrel”. Marchiando made the remark after he sued the Albuquerque Journal for libel and slander when the paper accused him of having organized crime connections, and he lost the case. This is exactly what Mr. Speaker did when he went “tit for tat” with the editorial and wrote “Did the Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board miss the day in journalism school where they cover accuracy in reporting, especially in editorials?” and concluded with “… the Albuquerque Journal greased the skids in its editorial process and thereby ignored facts, the clear record and the law to produce a political hit-job.” Speaker Egolf may believe the editorial was 100% unfair or inaccurate to him, but the front page report was 100% accurate. Front page newspaper stories are read far more than newspaper editorials.

Making the excuse that the New Mexico Legislature is a “citizen legislature” where elected officials are not paid full time and they need to make a living is as hollow as it gets. All elected officials know what they are getting themselves into, including the the pay and the scrutiny, before they run for office. You do not enter into public service to become rich presuming your honest and not a crook. It’s the public service career they have chosen. That public service career includes the media and public’s scrutiny on ethics. If your work or your profession are affected or harmed being an elected official, you probably have no business running, need to get out of politics or at least get a thicker skin.

With his arguments before the court as a private attorney being paid by a client to oppose enacted legislation he supported, Mr. Speaker Egolf apparently does not understand or have any appreciation of what the public perceives, even if there is no violation of professional ethics or rules of conduct for attorneys. It’s the appearance that undermines credibility of elected officials. Egolf should have declined the medical marijuana patient registration case or at the very minimum had an associate argue the case for his firm before the court to avoid the public perception that Speaker Egolf had a conflict.

The newly created ethics commission needs to formulate specific rules of conduct or a “legislative code of ethics” for legislators and specifically define what a “conflict of interest” is for legislators, what a Speaker of the House can and cannot do when it comes to potential conflicts of interests, when they need to disclose and to recuse themselves from voting and disclose the identity of clients who pay them for a living. Otherwise, this is an issue our citizen legislators will continue to deal with.

Egolf has now created a major headache for himself in the event the Governor and the legislature seek to amend the law once again to include a residency requirement. Egolf will be forced to decide does he vote to amend the statute to include residency or as Speaker of the House does he do whatever he can to derail the legislation and take the position of his client and oppose it? And if the residency requirement passes, will Egolf turn around and then sue the state once again on behalf of his client? The House Democratic caucus who elected Speaker Egolf need to have a discussion of the matter.

Given the Speakers strong response to the Albuquerque Journal, it is apparent he feels he has done absolutely nothing wrong and it is doubtful he will change his opinion. One thing for sure, he needs to proceed with great caution knowing the media is watching his every move.

Federal elections laws are clear and provide that no one can solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a United States election. The specific law is as follows:

Federal statute 52 USC 30121 entitled “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals” provides:

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

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

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

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

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

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

(b) “Foreign national” defined

As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means-

(1) a foreign principal … except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States

IT IS ILLEGAL TO ACCEPT ANY ELECTION HELP FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

On June 13, 2019 Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, the head of the Federal Election Commission made it 100% clear that it is illegal to accept any election help from foreign governments by candidates running for President. In a statement released to the public she said:

“Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginning of our nation.”

Weintraub made it clear that any presidential campaign that receives an offer of help from a foreign source should call the FBI. Weintraub noted that there is a distinction as to the different types of communications saying talking with foreign governments is clearly part of the job of president. The FEC chair made it clear that soliciting, accepting or receiving “anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election” is illegal.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/trump-campaign-finance-law-fec-illegal-fbi

There are 3 specific instances of conduct by President Trump where he admitted to soliciting a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to interfere with a US Presidential election.

FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT: SOLICITING RUSSIA FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE

On July 27, 2016, while running for office, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump encouraged Russian hackers to find emails that had been deleted from Hillary Clinton’s private server that she used while serving as secretary of state when he said at a press conference in Florida:

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing … “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Trump

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-russia-clinton-hack_us_5b48d9d0e4b0e7c958faf811

On July 27, 2016, according to the federal indictment of the 12 Russian intelligence officers for their involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, the Russian hacking occurred hours after Trump gave his press conference and solicited Russian hackers to find Clinton’s emails.

The indictment states that on July 27, 2016, the same day as Trump’s press conference, Russian hackers, “for the first time,” attempted to break into email accounts, including those used by Clinton’s personal office. Notably, the indictment is very specific that the hack happened in the evening, meaning the Russian officials did it after Trump’s press conference where he asked for Russian help and Russia acted on Trump’s request.

EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE SOLICITED BY TRUMP

Three senior intelligence officials said the intelligence community has found clear evidence that Russia did indeed compromised or interfered with voter registries in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Texas and Wisconsin, and there are probably more.

(February 28, 2018 NBC News report: “U.S. intel: Russia compromised seven states prior to 2016 election”.)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/u-s-intel-russia-compromised-seven-states-prior-2016-election-n850296

Thirteen United States intelligence agencies found that Russia tried to influence our election in favor of Trump. According to an APRIL 18, 2019 Time Magazine report “Over the course of the 2016 election, a wide-ranging group of Russians probed state voter databases for insecurities; hacked the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee; tried to hack the campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio and the Republican National Committee; released politically damaging information on the internet; spread propaganda on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram; staged rallies in Florida and Pennsylvania; set up meetings with members of the Trump campaign and its associates; and floated a business proposition for a skyscraper in Moscow to the Trump Organization. The goal, as determined by the U.S. intelligence community and backed up by evidence gathered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was to damage the Clinton campaign, boost Trump’s chances and sow distrust in American democracy overall.” Instead of condemning Russian interference with the 2016 election, Trump denied it and accepted the help from Russia to discredit Clinton in order to get elected.

https://time.com/5565991/russia-influence-2016-election/

SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT: SOLICTING UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE BIDENS AND A “QUID PRO QUO”

“Quid pro quo” is Latin and simply translated means something of value given or received in exchange for something of value.

Trump withheld this past summer nearly $400 million in foreign aid to Ukraine already authorized by congress and as leverage for Ukrain to investigate Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Trump has repeatedly denied publicly that there was any “quid pro quo” when he used the funding as leverage to encourage Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pursue an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden.

According to a White House memo of the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart to “look into” his political rival and former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden’s son. The memo was compiled by White House officials who listened to the call and the memo is not a verbatim transcript. Trump has said that a transcript does exist but the transcript has not been released.

According to the memo, Trump asked for 3 favors that essentially would help interfere with the 2020 Presidential election by discrediting presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.

The 3 favors Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were to:

1. “Look into” his political rival and former Vice President Joe Biden

2. Trump asked Zelensky several times to speak with U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr to speak with Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and

3. Help investigate something to do with the Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ked3d/the-three-favors-trump-asked-the-ukrainian-president-in-new-transcript

EXCERPTS FROM MEMO RELEASED BY WHITE HOUSE

Following are the relevant excerpts from the 5 page memo released by the White House documenting the phone call:

Ukrain President Zelenskyy: “… I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelin [missiles] from the United States for defense purposes.”

President Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Ukrain President Zelenskyy: Yes, it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. …

President Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

…

Ukrain President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.

President Trump: Well, she’s going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything.

You can review the entire White House memo here:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgzvq/heres-the-full-transcript-of-the-call-between-trump-and-the-president-of-ukraine

Trump has insisted that his July conversation with Mr. Zelensky was “perfect” even after the release by the White House of the memo showing him imploring the Ukrainian leader to “do us a favor” by investigating the Bidens and other Democrats shortly after President Zelensky discussed his need for more American aid to counter Russian aggression in his country. The only thing that was mad perfect was that Trump wanted and solicited a “favor”.

TEXT MESSAGES CONFIRM QUID PRO QUO TO HAVE UKRAIN INTERFER WITH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

On October 3, House Democrats conducting the impeachment inquiry of President Trump released text messages provided to Congress by Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine who testified more than eight hours behind closed doors on Capitol Hill. The text messages revealed that U.S. ambassadors worked to persuade Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating Trump’s political opponents and explicitly linking the inquiry to whether Ukraine’s president would be granted an official White House visit and improve relations between the two countries.

You can read the text messages at the below link:

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/4/a4a91fab-99cd-4eb9-9c6c-ec1c586494b9/621801458E982E9903839ABC7404A917.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf

The text messages show how top US diplomats and Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, sought to advance Trump’s goal of getting the Ukrainians to investigate meddling in the 2016 election and investigate Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

On July 25, former U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations Kurt Volker texted the top Zelenskiy just before Trump spoke by phone to Zelenskiy as follows:

“Heard from White House – assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for a visit to Washington. ”

It was the July phone call led a U.S. intelligence official to file a whistleblower complaint that lead to the impeachment inquiry of Trump.

The released text messages reveal that Volker and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland repeatedly stressed the need to get the Ukrainians to agree to the exact language that Zelenskiy would use in announcing an investigation. In August, Volker proposed to Sondland that they give Ukraine President Zelenskiy a statement to use at a news conference citing “alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians” in interference in U.S. elections.

Volker and Sondland agreed that the Ukrainian president should say:

“We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections. ”

Burisma Holdings is the Ukrainian gas company that Hunter Biden joined its board in 2014 while his father was vice president. Zelenskiy never did make the statement.

On August 29, Zelenskiy aide Andrey Yermak texted Volker:

“Need to talk with you.” The text messaged reflected a panicking top aide to Zelenskiy reaching out to Volker after Trump unexpectedly halted upwards of $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine as he increased pressure on Zelenskiy to investigate.

The released text messages show Volker and Sondland playing an active role in advancing Trump’s goal of forcing the Ukrainian to investigate the former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

After Trump canceled a planned meeting with Zelenskiy in Poland William Taylor, a career diplomat who became the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, pushed backed in a text by saying:

“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH [an acronym for the White House] meeting are conditioned on investigations?”.

A full week later, Taylor told Sondland:

“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Sondland a few hours later texted Taylor and said:

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind …”

Sonland went on to suggest they stop discussing the matter via text messages ostensibly realizing that he was suggesting a meeting with Trump was a “quid pro quo” for Ukraine to first investigate the Bidens.

ARTICLE THREE OF IMPEACHMENT: SOLICTING SOLICITING CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE

On Thursday, October 4, President Trump publicly called on China and again Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden thereby again requesting help from a foreign power that could benefit Trump, this time in the 2020 election.

Trump proclaimed on the White House lawn before departing for Florida:

“China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine. … I would [also] say that President Zelensky [of Ukraine], if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens .. Because nobody has any doubt that they weren’t crooked.”

Democrat Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee leading the impeachment inquiry, said Trump’s solicitation for China to investigate Biden were further evidence of Trump’s betrayal of duty and said:

“The president of the United States encouraging a foreign nation to interfere and help his campaign by investigating a rival is a fundamental breach of the president’s oath of office. ”

Kate Bedingfield, former Vice President Joe Biden’s deputy campaign manager, said in a statement:

“What Donald Trump said on the South Lawn of the White House was this election’s equivalent of his infamous ‘Russia, if you’re listening’ moment from 2016 — a grotesque choice of lies over truth and self over the country ” referring to the on camera called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email servers.

Hillary Clinton for her part weighed in on Twitter by saying:

“Someone should inform the president that impeachable offenses committed on national television still count”.

President Trump and Attorney General Barr have solicited help from Australia and Italy to uncover information undermining the origin of Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Times of London reported that Trump sought help from Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain. Trump has pushed back against critics who have called such requests an abuse of power, arguing that there was nothing wrong with seeking foreign help to fight corruption.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-china-bidens.html

COUNT FOUR OF IMPEACHEMENT: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN 2016 RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE INVESTIGATION

On May 29, 2019, US Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller ended his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mueller noted the Justice Department’s longstanding policy against indicting a sitting president and said that his office was never able to even consider bringing charges against Donald Trump, either openly or under seal until Trump left office. According to Mueller:

“We concluded that we would not reach a determination—one way or the other—about whether the president committed a crime. … Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

Despite the fact that the special counsel’s report on Russian interference did not come to a conclusion as to whether President Trump obstructed justice, the Mueller Report did find 10 incidents in which Trump may have indeed “obstructed justice”. However, Special Council Mueller left it up to congress to decide if there was obstruction of justice. Any one of the 10 acts could form the basis of impeachment by the Democratic Controlled US House of Representatives.

CBS News did an exceptional summary of the 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice. In the postscript to this article is a listing of the 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice and quoting a CBS News article with the link below outlining the 10 instances of obstruction of justice.

COUNT FIVE OF IMPEACHMENT: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN UKRAIN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

On October 8, Trump administration moved to block ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland from testifying in the expanding impeachment inquiry. The administration directed Sondland, a Trump appointee whose texts with other officials in the U.S. and Ukraine caused a firestorm when they surfaced this week, not to appear before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees as scheduled. His testimony was to follow that of former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, who last week provided Democrats with a trove of messages in which he, Sondland, and Bill Taylor, Charge d’Affaires at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, discussed military aid to Kiev and a White House visit for new Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Sondland was a key player in the administration’s interactions with Ukraine and is seen as a central witness in the president’s apparent abuses of power. House democrats immediately announced they intend to subpoena him, and that the State Department’s efforts to stop Sondland from testifying will be considered obstruction of justice in their inquiry.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/trump-responds-to-impeachment-inquiry-with-more-obstruction-of-justice-gordon-sondland-testimony

There have now been two whistle blowers that have come forward with information. Given the pace of the scandal, it is more likely than not more obstruction of justice incidents will be alleged.

IMPEACHMENT PROCESS

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution provides as follow:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

High crimes and misdemeanor are whatever the House of Representatives say it is in Articles of Impeachment. The power and authority to bring Articles of Impeachment rests solely with the United States House of Representatives and articles of impeachment are passed by a simple majority vote. After Articles of Impeachment are passed by the House, the charges are forwarded to the United States Senate for a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. A trial is then conducted by the United State Senate for removal from office and two-thirds of the United Senate, or 67 votes, are needed to convict and to remove a President.

TREASON AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Treason against the United States is defined under federal law as when “a person, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United State” (18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason)

Under federal law, “obstruction of justice” is defined as an act that “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.” (18 U.S.C. § 1503). Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding, such as the firing of an FBI Director during an ongoing FBI investigation which is what the Russian probe investigation was all about.

For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know:

(1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and
(2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

A “high crimes and misdemeanor” can be whatever the House of Representatives say it is in Articles of Impeachment. It is clearly illegal and a felony for any President or for that matter Vice President, to solicit accept or receiving “anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election”. Vice President Mike Pence is also being implicated in the scandal. This would include asking another country or its leaders to investigate and provide “dirt” on a potential political opponent or their family.

Congressional Democrats with their Impeachment Inquiry are now at a crossroad when it comes to President Trump and Vice Prsident Pence with the end not at all guaranteed. If impeached by the House, Trump is not likely to be convicted and removed by the Senate. Trump will be the Republican nominee, unless he is forced to resign by the Republican controlled Senate. The eventual Democrat nominee is far from certain.

When you review the entire 466 page Mueller Report, the one conclusion that any reasonable person can come to is that the Russian probe uncovered evidence of a President “giving aid and comfort” to Russia to influence his election to become President and to hide or stop the Russia investigation to disrupt the 2016 election by firing FBI James Comey or both.

Articles of Impeachment in the US House of Representatives are passed by a simple majority vote. It is clear that the Democratic controlled House of Representatives now has more than enough grounds and votes for impeachment with Trump’s solicitation of foreign and even hostile government’s such as Russia and China for help.

What is as equally clear is that the Republican controlled United State Senate probably will not vote to convict and remove Trump from office. Republican Majority Floor leader has already said in his own re election commercials that Trump will not be convicted in the Senate as long as he is Majority leader. If all 48 Senate Democrats vote yes to convict, 19 Republican Senators still would have to vote with all the Democrats to convict and remove Trump from office. Nineteen Republican Senators voting to convict is not at all likely given Trumps strangle hold over the Republican Senators and the Republican Party, but that does not mean Trump should not be charged and impeached.

Impeachment of Trump seems to be all but certain by the House for his solicitation of Russia, Ukrain and China and other countries to interfere with our elections and for obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation. Trump’s active and very public solicitation of countries, some who very hostile towards the United State, to interfere with our elections is an afront to our democracy that cannot be ignored nor tolerated.

No one is above the law, including a dictator such as Trump who is desperate and who now do anything to hold on to power. Let the Republican Senators vote and show they put their own party and their own interests over the good and best interest of our country. As the impeachment process proceeds, voters will see that Trump and the Republican Senators who support him need to be voted out of office.

OCTOBER 10 UPDATE

On October 10, the New York Times reported that Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two of Rudy Giuliani associates, were arrested with one-way tickets out of the United States within hours after having lunch with Rudy Guiliani, Trumps personal attorney, at Trump’s International Hotel in Washington. Both were arrested after Federal prosecutors unsealed charges against the two men who have aided President Trump’s efforts to gather damaging information in Ukraine about his political opponents. Giuliani has been public about his hunt for damaging information about Democrats. The indictment of the two men gives a more complete picture of how Guiliani subcontracted part of the work to Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman.

Parnas and Fruman are executives of an energy company that donated $325,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC last year, which prompted a Federal Election Commission complaint by a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog accusing the men and the company of violating campaign finance laws. The two men were charged with making illegal campaign donations. According to the indictment, the two men are connected to a key element of the Ukrain pressure campaign and the effort to recall the United States ambassador to Ukraine, Marie L. Yovanovitch, after she became a focus of criticism from many of Mr. Trump’s allies. Parnas and Fruman donated money and pledged to raise additional funds in 2018, some amounts violating legal limits for a congressman who was then enlisted in the campaign to oust her.

You can read the full New York Time article here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/politics/lev-parnas-igor-fruman-arrested-giuliani.html

________________________________________

POSCRIPT

The Mueller report cited the following 10 incidents in which Trump may have “obstructed justice” but Mueller left it up to congress to decide if there was obstruction of justice:

1.”THE CAMPAIGN’S RESPONSE TO REPORTS ABOUT RUSSIAN SUPPORT FOR TRUMP”

“The first instance of possible obstruction detailed in the report occurred during the 2016 campaign, when questions first “arose about the Russian government’s apparent support for candidate Trump. The report states that while Mr. Trump was publicly skeptical Russia had released emails from Democratic officials, he and his aides were also trying to get information about “any further Wikileaks releases.” The report also notes that despite Mr. Trump’s insistence he had no business connections to Russia, his namesake company was trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. And once the election was over, Mr. Trump “expressed concerns to advisers that reports of Russia’s election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election.”

2.”CONDUCT INVOLVING FBI DIRECTOR COMEY AND MICHAEL FLYNN”

“The second instance involves Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who left the administration just weeks into Mr. Trump’s presidency after he misled FBI agents and top administration officials — including Vice President Mike Pence — about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn had said he had not discussed sanctions on Russia with Kislyak, a lie that Pence and others then repeated. The day that Mr. Trump found out Flynn had lied to Pence and the FBI, he had dinner with Comey, whom he asked for “loyalty.” Mr. Trump then secured Flynn’s resignation on Feb. 13, 2017. “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over,” he told an outside adviser, who disagreed with the president’s assessment. That same day, Mr. Trump had another meeting with Comey and encouraged him to stop investigating Flynn. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,” Mr. Trump said. The president then asked Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo “stating that the president had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel’s Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered.”

3.”THE PRESIDENT’S REACTION TO THE CONTINUING RUSSIA INVESTIGATION”

“The third instance involves then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was debating whether to recuse himself from the Russia investigation in February 2017, as well as Comey. Mr. Trump asked White House Counsel Don McGahn to talk Sessions out of recusal, and became angry when Sessions announced he would recuse himself on March 2. The president then asked Sessions to “unrecuse” himself. After Comey testified to Congress that there was an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump reached out to his CIA and NSA directors to help “dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort.” Comey had told Mr. Trump he wasn’t under investigation and, against Mc Gahn’s advice, the president twice called the FBI director to ask him to say that publicly.”

4.”THE PRESIDENT’S TERMINATION OF COMEY”

“The fourth instance stems from Mr. Trump’s decision to fire Comey, which directly led to Mueller’s appointment. Mr. Trump decided to fire Comey in May 2017 — days after the FBI director declined to tell Congress that Mr. Trump wasn’t under investigation. After Mr. Trump dismissed Comey, the White House insisted he had done so at the recommendation of the Department of Justice. In reality, Mr. Trump had not consulted with the Justice Department before deciding to fire Comey. In conversations that followed, Mr. Trump indicated the Russia investigation was the real reason he had let Comey go: “The day after firing Comey, the president told Russian officials that he had ‘faced great pressure because of Russia,’ which had been ‘taken off’ by Comey’s firing. The next day, the president acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice’s recommendation and that when he ‘decided to just do it,’ he was thinking that ‘this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’”

5.”THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL AND EFFORTS TO REMOVE HIM”

“The fifth instance revolves around Mr. Trump’s reaction to Mueller’s appointment. Upon hearing the news that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had tasked Mueller with investigating the Russia matter in May 2017, the president privately declared it was “the end of his presidency.” Mr. Trump then demanded Sessions’ resignation, although he did not accept it at the time, and told aides Mueller had conflicts of interest that should preclude him from acting as the special counsel. It was then reported in June that Mueller was investigating Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice, prompting the president to publicly attack Mueller and the Justice Department. Within days of the first report, he told Mc Gahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had conflicts of interest and must be removed. Mc Gahn ignored the request, explaining that he would rather resign.”

6.”EFFORTS TO PREVENT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE”

“The sixth instance stems from the June 2016 meeting between top campaign aides and “a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as ‘part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.’” Mr. Trump told his aides “not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the email would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited.” Donald Trump Jr., who had been present at the Trump Tower meeting, wrote a press release saying “the meeting was with ‘an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign’” — a line that was edited out about the president. Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer then denied to reporters the president had “played any role” in Trump Jr.’s statement.

7.”FURTHER EFFORTS TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKE CONTROL OF THE INVESTIGATION”

“The seventh instance has to do with Mr. Trump’s repeated attempts to have Sessions “reverse his recusal.” Mr. Trump asked Sessions to do this in the summer of 2017. The following December, Mr. Trump told Sessions he would be a “hero” if he took control of the investigation. Additionally, in October 2017, the president asked Sessions to “take [a] look” at investigating Hillary Clinton.”

8.”EFFORTS TO HAVE MCGAHN DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ORDERED HIM TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED”

“The eighth instance concerns Mr. Trump’s efforts to get Mc Gahn to dispute press accounts that the president had instructed him to try and get rid of Mueller. In early 2018, Mr. Trump told White House officials to tell Mc Gahn to rebut the stories, but Mc Gahn told the officials the stories were true. Mr. Trump then personally appealed to Mc Gahn, telling him in an Oval Office meeting to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the president also asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the president’s efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the president,” the report states. “McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the president to be testing his mettle.”

9.”CONDUCT TOWARDS FLYNN, MANAFORT, [REDACTED]”

“The ninth instance stems from Mr. Trump’s response to the prosecutions of Flynn and Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman, as well as an individual whose identity was redacted. “After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the president and began cooperating with the government, the president’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn ‘s attorneys reminding them of the president’s warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said ‘still remains,’ and asking for a ‘heads up’ if Flynn knew ‘information that implicates the president,’” the report states. When Flynn’s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the president’s personal counsel said he would make sure that the president knew that Flynn’s actions reflected ‘hostility’ towards the president. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump praised Manafort during his “prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating. At one point, he praised Manafort as “a brave man” who refused to “break.”

10.”CONDUCT INVOLVING MICHAEL COHEN”

“The tenth and final instance of potential obstruction concerns Mr. Trump’s behavior toward Michael Cohen, his onetime personal lawyer. Mr. Trump profusely praised Cohen when he remained loyal to the administration, at one point personally calling to encourage him to “stay strong,” only to criticize him viciously when he began cooperating with the government. After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the president publicly asserted that Cohen would not ‘flip,’ contacted him directly to tell him to ‘stay strong,’ and privately passed messages of support to him,” the report states. Cohen also discussed pardons with the president’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message, he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the president publicly criticized him, called him a ‘rat,’ and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.”

You can review the full unedited CBS News report here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

Mueller: Did Not Clear Trump, Could Not Indict Trump, Up To Congress Or Voters To Remove Trump