Bottled Water Initiative

What makes a Mayor decide that one of his priorities should be a crusade against bottled water (subscription)?

Mayor David Coss would like to see Santa Fe residents kick the bottled water habit.

But the mayor doesn't plan on taking the crusade quite as far as some of his national counterparts.

San Francisco's mayor recently banned city employees from buying bottled water when tap water is available, because of environmental concerns. Coss plans on taking smaller steps, at least for now.

"You've got to start, but you've also got to pick your battles," Coss said Friday.

"You've got to be careful saying, 'We're going to ban this.' ''

Maybe he thinks the bottled water is to blame for the recent No Confidence Vote on Mayor Coss' job performance:

City employees who are members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3999 expressed no confidence in Mayor David Coss by a 2-to-1 ratio Thursday.

Look closely at the picture below from the New Mexican. Bottle water clearly played an important role in influencing the outcome of the vote.


I know it sounds silly, but remember this is Santa Fe we're talking about.

You Got to Play, Now It's Time to Pay - Again

There have been many stories about the Pay to Play politics of Governor Bill Richardson. And, according to a recent article by Steve Terrell of the Santa Fe New Mexican, Governor Richardson's run for President is no exception:

So who is bankrolling Richardson’s campaign?

OpenSecrets.org (the Web site of the campaign finance watchdog group Center For Responsive Politics) breaks down contributions by the donor’s employer. By far, the biggest employer is New Mexico’s state government. State employees so far have coughed up $244,730 for the chief executive’s campaign.

So, is it normal for a presidential campaign to aggressively pursue donations from state workers (subscription)?

Mary Boyle, Washington, D.C., spokeswoman for the government watchdog group Common Cause, said it's unusual for a presidential candidate to bring in so much from state workers.

From one view, "It reflects well that people in state government must (like) him," Boyle said. From another view, "Questions could be raised as to whether state employees are being pressured to give out of fear their jobs will be in jeopardy if they don't," she said.

Hmm, my money is on the latter.

Sitting on Both Sides of The Fence

The Governor Bill Richardson we all know and love (subscription) is back:

Gov. Bill Richardson says on the presidential campaign trail that he wants to close a loophole that allows some gun buyers to walk out of gun shows without a criminal background check.

That's a 180-degree turnaround from his position as a candidate for re-election to the governor's office.

You've got to love a politician who can consistently talk out of both sides of his mouth - time and time again.

Spending Taxpayer Funds

Yesterday, the NM GOP put out a press release addressing the questionable ways some Democratic candidates have already begun to spend their taxpayer funded jackpots campaigns:

Recently filed campaign reports by candidates for the Albuquerque City Council paint a clear and convincing case against public financing for political campaigns. Joan Griffin, a candidate for City Council District 6, received $23,440 in taxpayer funds for her campaign, and in the past reporting period, doled out $400 to the Democratic Party of New Mexico. Paulette De’Pascal, a candidate for City Council District 4, received $31,692 in taxpayer funds for her campaign, and she also gave $400 to the Democratic Party of New Mexico.

“I wonder how many Albuquerque taxpayers know that they just handed over $800 to the Democrat Party,” remarked NM GOP Executive Director, Adam Feldman. “Ordinarily, such an expense wouldn’t even receive notice because, as it should be, when a candidate raises their own money, they are able to spend it on whatever campaign activities are necessary. But in this case, taxpayer dollars are being doled out to a political party, supposedly for a registered voters list that could have more easily been purchased at the city clerk’s office. What would prevent either candidate from dropping all of their money into the state Democrat Party?”

And in De'Pascal's case, taxpayer funded campaign dollars have also been wisely used at Starbucks. After all, there is no better way to ensure campaign success then to enjoy a publicly funded iced venti white chocolate mocha with whipped cream and a double shot of expresso. It provides that competitive advantage every candidate needs.

Now if these taxpayer exploiting candidates are successful at winning a council seat, they're sure to follow in the footsteps of their mentor and continue spending taxpayer money with reckless abandonment in the pursuit of a better political image:

But the question - when is a public service announcement a campaign ad - hasn't been answered.

It usually comes up during election season. It's back again sooner, in my mind at least, with the upcoming broadcast of a television special "Shaping the Future: Albuquerque's Economic Success." Mayor Martin Chavez provides voice-over and is featured prominently.

The city - you - spent $36,000 to produce the video. It will set us back another $20,000 to broadcast it five times on the four New Mexico TV stations before the end of July. (Considering the video is 30 minutes long, that's actually cheap compared to what it costs to air TV ads during election season.)

But before you judge, listen to the idea: The video is meant to reach out and let community members and business leaders know about economic development in the Duke City.

Hmm, that's an interesting spin... As a community member and burgeoning business leader, I've attended no less than three luncheons in the last six weeks that have educated me on the economic development in the Duke City - one by Albuquerque Economic Development, one by the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce and another by NAIOP.

I wonder what the Mayor is going to tell me in his taxpayer funded campaign commercial television special that I don't already know?

ABQ Journal Reporters on the Defensive

A Duke City Fix (DCF) post on First Mate Sandra Richardson's email detailing Captain Greg Payne's role in Honey Bee Paulette De'Pascal's campaign is generating a very animated comment discussion on the responsibility of MSM reporters.

Two of the Albuquerque Journal's reporters, John Fleck and Dan McKay have been pulled into the discussions. Most notable is this comment by Mr. Fleck:

"Great story. Better if true."

Corroboration is the difference between a wonderful tale (and a delightful blog item) and a defensible newspaper story - in this case, the difference between a bizarre email by a whack job and wrongdoing by a city official.

The problem is that Mr. Fleck's excuse for the Journal not covering the story (i.e. Mrs. Richardson is a "whack job") does not hold water. In fact, a quick Google search indicates that Mrs. Richardson is a very involved community member:

Albuquerque Tricentennial
Library Advisory Board
Participant in the Town Hall on Albuquerque's Energy Future
Quality of Life Initiative - Campaign Member

And the list goes on. I'm not sure why the Journal continues to ignore this story, but some of the DCF's readers have some great ideas about how the Journal might go about reporting it - if they were so inclined.

Greg Payne Responds To Sandra Richardson

I had some calls from folks yesterday wondering about the authenticity of that email I posted from Sandra Richardson yesterday. Well, I heard from Greg Payne himself, and now there is no doubt it's real:

Mario,

Following is my response -- on Sunday, July 15th from my own computer -- to the e-mail you've since posted from Sandra Richardson, dated July 14th.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Paulette, THE PLAN and the structure
From: greg@gregpayne.com
Date: Sun, July 15, 2007 8:44 am
To: "Sandra P. Richardson" <sprichardson@comcast.net>
Cc: ckb8249@msn.com, depascal@aol.com

Please forward this to Mike Collins. He'll be consulting Paulette on the campaign.

Thanks,

Greg

Greg feels confident that this indicates that someone other than himself would be working or "consulting" on the campaign. And, he asks people to consider if he were running the show, why would he want it forwarded to somebody else?

So my friends, what do you think? Don't be shy, go ahead and put your comments below.

Heatwave Results in Political Insanity

The general rule of thumb in politics is that the summer is supposed to be a slow time. After all, we're all thinking about barbecues, pools and vacations. No one wants to focus on campaigns... except in the City of Albuquerque.

This summer is going to go down in the history books as one of the most bizarre in recent history. Today's Albuquerque Journal Around the Metro (subscription) section has one City Councilor facing ethics complaint and the Mayor's Transit Director in the hot seat:

Councilor Raises Campaign Concern

City Councilor Brad Winter has called on the mayor to ensure that Transit Director Greg Payne isn't doing campaign work on city time.

He sent a letter to Mayor Martin Chávez this week. It stems from concern that Payne is helping Winter's opponent in this year's council race, Paulette de'Pascal.

Payne said Wednesday he has no role in de'Pascal's campaign and isn't doing campaign work for anyone on city time. He said supporters of de'Pascal had approached him about helping her, but he doesn't have the "time or energy to get involved."

De'Pascal said Payne "is not affiliated with my campaign in any way."

She said an employee in the mayor's office, Tony Pedroncelli, did help gather signatures— but not on city time.

Ok, probably not worth more than a head scratch. Or, at least that's what I thought until I had this email forwarded to me:

From: "Sandra P. Richardson"

Date: July 14, 2007 7:39:55 AM MDT

To:

Cc: "Sandra P. Richardson" ,

Subject: Paulette, THE PLAN and the structure

While you ask for structure, you resist it like a honey bee, flitting from person to person, seeking their advice and opinion...wearing yourself and us out. Not a winning strategy in any political campaign...especially this one. Hard to be the candidate and not the consultant, isn't it?

Yesterday, I was talking with Greg. We worked out what HE needs YOU to do and I fully support because I trust Greg and know that if you follow this Plan, you WILL win. If you continue to avoid, you can cost yourself the election.

Here's the structure we're committed to:

1. Greg is THE Captain of the team. He's the ONLY person to whom you seek political advice. He's THE strategist...period. (He's "gold" for this campaign.)

a. Do NOT undermine his efforts by being a "honey bee." Frustrating for him, frustrating for me, frustrating for you.

b. Everyone else is just signature helpers...NOT strategists. If you indulge in the "honey bee," you sacrifice winning...period.

c. "Loose lips sink ships." In this case, being a "honey bee" compromises your campaign. You cannot discuss the elements with anyone else. Period. This is not a tea party, this is WAR. Period.

2. I agree with Greg. I have made a commitment to him and to you. My role is to work with Greg, find out what his game plan is for that period of time and then work with you to make sure you follow. Period.

a. If you have a concern, you tell me so that I can tell Greg. Period. No honey bee.

b. You have to follow this structure to protect Greg and me and yourself. Period.

c. Greg is held ethically to very strict guidelines...he cannot indulge your need to hear from him every day...that's why we've worked out this plan.

d. I'm your coach ,as I committed mid May!! Period. As such, you MAKE time for me, first.

3. THE PLAN-structure:

a. Greg is the only Captain of this ship. He creates the strategy. He decides.

b. I am his First Mate. I report to the Captain. YOU report to ME. Period.

c. You are the candidate. You report to me....NOT "if you get time" between all the "flowers." You MAKE time. I'm not your mother...I'm your coach. This is the PLAN. You want to win? You follow Greg's Plan. Period.

d. Caleb is the manager of compliance and your schedule. He does NOT take a trip or day off to play without checking The Book first, assuring that nothing is due. He let's me know if and when he leaves...and assures ME that nothing is due. Period. He earns the money funded by the pubic. period.

e. EVERYONE else is a helper ONLY for door-to-door.

4. . Everyone else,EVERYONE else is NOT for you to discuss any strategy...you cannot indulge or you will sink your candidacy and us along with it!

a. They help with going door to door. Period.

b. They are NOT the ones you turn to for "What should I do."

1) Tony, et al, help you by walking door to door...period. He is NOT your strategist...he works for Greg in this campaign. He is not the "go-to" guy.

2) Eddie is NOT. You do NOT discuss stuff with him. He keeps you company on the door-to-door, Talk about other stuff. "Loose lips..."

3) Not your old buddies, relatives, especially girlfriends.

4) Not other candidates. This is not 8th grade.

5). NO one, nada, nil.

5. THE PLAN-Per Greg, this is what you focus on...and only this:

a. Keep walking getting signatures...lots and lots of signatures. that's ALL.

b. You do not need to do anything else unless it falls under "compliance."

6. Caleb, as the publically paid person, has the responsibility to organize the paperwork from the City Clerk's Office and be responsible for your compliance with the rules.

a. As promised, I will coordinate with him...not you.

b. He will inform you when and what you need to do and you will comply with whatever the paperwork says.

c. He can always check with Kelli on your behalf...you. do NOT.

d. as the paid manager, he does not take off unless he let's me know that all is okay, nothing is due. He tells me.

5. Caleb will maintain your calendar...you do NOT schedule without clearing with him...remember, "I have to check with my manager."

a. Real easy to do.

b. You cannot "try,"

c. You have to make that commitment to the campaign.

d. You make that commitment to those of us who are working (Greg, Caleb, me) for your success.

You wanted structure...I've been trying for several months to bring you structure with a little success but there's still too much frustration for all.

You owe your campaign the commitment to follow what Greg and I have the experience to know. YOU WOULD DEMAND THIS OF YOUR OWN CLIENTS!

The only way this campaign will fail is if you do not follow The Plan.. You absolutely must. Or, you're wasting your time and ours.

You have a tendency to bring this to everyone you know, get their input and cherry-pick what you think will work for you. BUT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN THE CANDIDATE.

You are not objective and the people you ask are not experts nor do they know the District 4 political scene nor will they have to "pick up the pieces" if this campaign "goes South."

No more 8th grade stuff. This is serious...for Greg, for me and for you. We all have a great deal at stake. You absolutely need to put your candidacy in Greg's hands. You have to trust him...

He's won every campaign. He's savvy and experienced and believes strongly in you...as do I. BUT, Paulette, you can be your own worse enemy. When you're unsure, you indulge in the "honey bee" syndrome, trying to get a secure feeling inside.

Campaigning takes personal discipline. Do what you do best: get signatures.. Can you imagine if you had 5,000 signatures what the impact would be on your campaign???

So, focus on just one thing: getting signatures...get to know as many constituents as you possibly can. You do this so well. Capitalize on your strength. Only you can do this part well.

Make time, first, for me to coach you on the background for issues that you will need at debate and forum time.

I expect your compliance to Greg's plan. Greg expects your compliance to his Plan.

Starting now...

Sandra 821-1347

sprichardson@comcast.net

And, if this wasn't bizarre enough, it turns out that there is a Mayoral Appointee to the City of Albuquerque Ethics Board named Mr. Cliff Richardson. I wonder if there is any relationship between Ms. Sandra Richardson and Mr. Cliff Richardson.

Weird stuff.

First You Actually Have to Be a Republican

I've watched with much amusement as Governor Richardson's favorite blogger has opened mouth and inserted foot a couple of times this week. Yes, I'm talking about New Mexico's premier politicial gossip columnist, Joe Monahan.

Staying true to form, our dear friend, Mr. Monahan, is trying to paint a picture of turmoil and dissension within the Republican Party of New Mexico. This time the tale he's spinning starts something like this:

Suffice it to say, Dog Days of Summer or not, the blogging Gods pulled the plug on the getaway, providing a reason we couldn't dream up even if we had dosed that iced tea with Drambuie. That reason is one Spiro G. Vassilopoulos, a Republican considering running against NM GOP US Senator Pete Domenici in the 2008 primary. Got your attention?

Now good ol' Joe may have got your attention, and mine, but in classic style, he either forgot to do his homework or just chose not to do it for the sake of sensationalism.

You see, if Senor Monahan had done his homework, he would have realized that even if Spiro G. Vassilopoulos is registered as a Republican, Mr. Vassilopoulos' money has a long history of being committed to the Democrats.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Go check out Political Money Line and see for yourself. Now, you are going to have to go back a ways, because it's been a good 13 years since Mr. Vassilopoulos has written a check for more than $200 to a candidate for federal office.

1. In 1994, he and his wife contributed $500 to Senator Domenici's campaign, but he reserved the big money, a $1,000 for Democrat Bob Krueger of Texas.
   
   
2. In 1990, he gave Senator Domenici another $500, but in the same campaign cycle he gave the Democrats, James Warren Lane of Texas $2,000 and Senator Jeff Bingaman, $333.
   
   
3. In 1988, he gave his $500 to Senator Jeff Bingaman.

In case math is not your strong suit, that leaves us with Mr. Vassilopoulos donating a total of $3,833 to Democrats and $1,000 to a Republican. Sorry, but in my book, anyone who gives their money almost 4:1, Democrat to Republican, does not get to call themselves a Republican.

And, anyone following politics in New Mexico for any length of time knows that a "republican" candidate with close allegiances to the Democratic Party doesn't have even the slightest chance of being taken seriously by the GOP faithful in a primary situation.

Tsk, tsk, Mr. Monahan.

A Rare Tom Udall Post

I don't spend a lot of time writing about U.S. Representative Tom Udall (D). Mostly, because he really doesn't seem to do much to write about - positive or negative. Sure, some bloggers and the MSM gave him a lot of ink when Udall was appointed to the House Appropriations Committee:

It wasn't an accident, fluke, luck or anything else of that nature. It had been in the works for a long time. And it was evidence that playing by the old rules still works quite well, thank you.

Udall had been working at getting a seat on this most powerful of all committees ever since former Rep. Joe Skeen announced his retirement almost five years ago. Skeen had been on the Appropriations Committee for many years and had chaired several of its subcommittees.

That made Skeen a "cardinal," a title given to Appropriations subcommittee chairmen because of the tremendous power they wield. Udall won't be chairing a subcommittee anytime soon, but that's where he's headed.

So, what does Representative Udall do after all of these years of trying to get into the powerful Appropriations Committee?

The House approval, on a 312-112 vote, would cut nuclear weapons spending by the Department of Energy by $396 million— 6 percent.

The Senate, meanwhile, is pushing a $213 million increase— 3 percent. To come up with a final spending plan, leaders of the two bodies must come together to reconcile the differences between the two spending plans.

Sorting out the differences in the nuclear weapons budget involve larger questions about how much money is available for related energy and water projects in fiscal 2008.

The House bill could mean the loss of 900 jobs at Sandia National Laboratories and even more at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Democrat Tom Udall, who represents Los Alamos, voted in favor of the bill. New Mexico Republicans Heather Wilson, whose district includes Sandia, and Steve Pearce voted against it.

Ouch.

How Much Computing Power Does One Campaign Need

Paulette de'Pascal, the taxpayer funded City Council Candidate in Albuquerque District 4, has raised more than a couple of eyebrows with her purchase of a $2,990.26 computer from the Apple Store at ABQ Uptown.

Now, I'm not one to question anyone's decision to buy an Apple computer. After all, I'm in advertising, you know, the industry that LOVES Apple. In fact, most of the computers in our shop are Apples. I've bought several in the last couple of years, which is why I'm kind of sitting here and scratching my head.

You see, $2990.26 is an awful lot of computer. Sure, Apple computers sell for a premium over most PC's, but $2990.26? You can get an iMac for as little $999, or even a MacBook laptop for as little as $1099 (what I've been using for the last three years). As someone who has run a campaign, I can tell you that would have all of the computing power Ms. de'Pascal could possibly need.

Instead, it looks like Ms. de'Pascal opted to use just shy of 10% of her taxpayer funded campaign resources to buy something like a MacBook Pro at $2,799+tax.

So, how does Ms. de'Pascal propose to fix this serious error in judgement? By returning the extravagant taxpayer funded purchase and buying something a little more sensible? Hmm... no. There is no way she is going to part with that really cool computer. Nope, her solution is to insult our intelligence by pretending to do the right thing by turning the outright purchase of this extravagant machine into a lease.

Ms. de'Pascal would like us all to forget this whole thing, and focus on the issues. The thing is, with all of the hoopla going on in Rio Rancho regarding inappropriate spending, it seems that this is the issue.

UPDATE: I stand corrected. Thanks, Billy. It looks like Ms. de'Pascal bought " bought 2 computers and 2 printers for [her] campaign." So, I guess she needed double the computing power. But , the inappropriate spending theme still rings true. If you were running a business campaign for six months (roughly the amount of time she has to spend taxpayer money on this thing) would you put NEARLY 10% of your resources into a capital investment? Probably, only if you were using SOMEONE ELSE'S money. Not the type of person I would want making budget decisions down at City Hall.

Illegal Immigrants Get Free Education

You might remember that two years ago, Governor Richardson declared a State of Emergency at the border. What you might not realize is that about the same time, the Governor let legislation pass that lets out of state illegal immigrants get a free ride at New Mexico colleges and Universities:

Poudre High School counselor Isabel Thacker found a way around that, and this fall will be the second year that some of the high school’s undocumented students will participate in a program that allows them to attend college at the University of New Mexico - many without paying for tuition and books.

“A bill passed in New Mexico in 2005 prohibited the state from denying education benefits based in immigration status,” said Terry Babbitt, director of admissions for the University of New Mexico. “We have to offer state financial aid to any student, regardless of their immigration status,” he said. New Mexico’s state financial aid, however, is intended for residents. Despite the apparent obstacle, a loophole in UNM’s residency requirements was discovered that allows the undocumented students from Fort Collins, CO to receive in-state tuition in New Mexico as well as an institutional scholarship that covers completely the cost of their tuition.

Got to love it. It is now cheaper to go to college in New Mexico if you are an illegal immigrant than if you are an American student paying in-state or out of state tuition - that's just wrong.

What's That Up In The Air?

It's a bird... It's a plane... It's Insurgent Candidate.


Governor Bill Richardson is not having a good press week. At a campaign stop in Iowa, Richardson made this "joke":

Mr. Richardson gave a speech and held a question-and-answer session with about 150 people at the United Steelworkers Local 105 hall in Bettendorf as part of his tour through Iowa this week.

"If you want to be part of an insurgency, I'm it!" Mr. Richardson told the crowd, getting some laughs.

This was an odd choice of words for the Democratic candidate who supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq - an action that the insurgents in Iraq would applaud. And, one Iowan blogger points out that they might also appreciate the Governor's efforts to redefined the word insurgent to mean underdog:

Mr. Richardson said later that being an insurgent candidate meant being the underdog, he said in a phone interview with The Dispatch/The Rock Island Argus/The Leader. "I don't want to be an underdog much longer."

Unfortunately for Governor Richardson, as long as his campaign is setting expectations that they fail to meet, he is going to continue to be the underdog candidate:

But prior to the debate, Richardson and his campaign tried to turn the tide of bad news in advance of the inevitable post-debate spin by letting go of a rumor that Richardson would, could or should out-fundraise fellow Democrat John Edwards for this quarter.

The Washington Post reported that “…New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is barely registering in most polls, has told other Democrats that he expects to raise more money than Edwards this quarter.”

This was an odd move to make because if he erred, it would set the scene for another public relations failure.

So when it turned out that Edwards (whoopsy) beat Richardson by $2 million, the spin-intended rumor hit the ground with a thud.

That “we-failed-to-meet-expectations” thud.

As if all of these PR gaffes weren't enough, when the Governor was called to the carpet for use of a gay slur in Spanish on the Don Imus show a year ago, Richardson had this response:

“In the Spanish I grew up speaking, the term means simply ‘gay,’ not positive or negative. It has been brought to my attention that the word also has a hurtful or derogatory connotation, which was never my intent. If I offended anybody, I’m sorry.”

Of course, there is one BIG problem with this response:

Gay News Watch reported that every official definition of the Spanish word has a negative connotation, and means a lot more than “not positive or negative.”

Definitely, not a good week for this "superhero".

Things That Make You Go, "Hmm."

The Albuquerque Journal today is just full of stories that leave you scratching your head...

Perfect example of what's wrong with taxpayer funded campaigns (subscription):

A new system for public financing of Albuquerque political campaigns has given about $32,000 to a City Council candidate who is in bankruptcy.

Governor Bill Richardson is upset that (subscription):

The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday reaffirmed its support for an agency investigation that determined US Airways did not violate federal alcohol regulations in the case of a Tesuque man [Papst]who killed five members of a family while driving drunk hours after getting off a US Airways flight.

However, we should be upset that after countless DWI press conferences and initiatives held by Governor Richardson, the fact remains that (subscription):

Records show Papst had been arrested for DWI at least five times in Colorado, Solano said.

Seems to me that it's the government, not the airlines that put this dangerous drunk on the road.

And in a follow up to Monday's blog post, the lines continued to to be blurred between UNM and the Governor's needs (subscription):

The director of the University of New Mexico Cancer Research & Treatment Center used her state e-mail account to help organize a private fundraiser for Gov. Bill Richardson's presidential campaign.

Hmm, I wonder if the ethics task force is planning to comment on this?

Putting You Money Where Your Mouth Is

Dr. Beth Everitt is going to "retire" from APS (read: look for another job) when her contract is over next June. And, surprise, surprise, Mayor Marty Chavez has inserted his two cents about the necessary qualifications of the next Superintendent (subscription):

Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chávez weighed in with his opinion Monday.

"We have a school district that's in a crisis," he said. "It's going to require somebody who's not afraid to make enemies, including on the board."

The Mayor has been a big proponent of the City taking a controlling interest in the school district. Something I think is pointless. However, here's an idea... Why doesn't the Mayor apply for the job? You know, put his money where his mouth is.

Dr. Everitt is leaving in June 2008, The Mayor is termed out in October of 2009. Instead of trying to run for the Democratic nomination for Governor against Lt. Governor Diane Dennish, a race he is bound to lose, he could campaign hard to be hired as the next Superintendent. It would be a big pay raise, and he could prove that his ideas for running the district are the way to go.

What do you say, Marty?

Richardson Sleight of Hand

Somethings never change, and Governor Bill Richardson's fiscal sleight of hand tricks remains one of them. Granted, the Governor only has time for an occasional visit now and again to the Land of Enchantment, but as this Albuquerque Journal Opinion piece points out Richardson's legacy is alive and well (subscription):

Gov. Bill Richardson's Cabinet just got more expensive. His choices to head up the Department of Health and the Department of Higher Education, a new slot under Richardson, together will be paid $156,650 more than their predecessors.

That won't strain the department budgets, however, because the University of New Mexico and New Mexico State University are picking up $379,750 in salaries for three new top officials in the departments.

Jeez, talk about double dipping - it's ALL TAXPAYER MONEY. But, it gets a whole lot worse. This is a classic example of hiring the fox to watch the hen house:

There are concerns other than financial. These officials oversee the institutions that subsidize their salaries or, in the case of Flores, cover it.

Hmm, I wonder what the Governor's Ethics Task Force thinks of this classic double dipping, conflict of interest scenario. As I recall, the task force is co-chaired by a member of each of the Universities in question.

Blogger Independence Day

I've decided that in honor of Independence Day, I'm taking my first blogging vacation. Check back next week. By the way, I wrote this with my new iPhone. Unbelievably, cool device. It blows away my Treo, and I was a Palm guy for at least the last seven years.