Public Perceptions

I've posted on more than one occasion that I don't support the creation of an ethics commission to advise legislators and state employees to behave ethically. I'm a firm believer that folks in our state and local governments know precisely what they are doing when they behave unethically. Rather than spend money on creating another government entity, I think we ought to vote the unethical out of office and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those that act illegally.

I thought the recent article by the Albuquerque Journal on the paid lobbying marketing practices of soon to be retiring Senator Joe Cararro somewhat ironic (subscription):

Carraro said in his deposition that he became interested in artificial turf in 2003 as a water-saving alternative and that, over the next few years, met Wickens and became familiar with Real Turf's product.

He said that, prior to being hired by Real Turf, he sought state money for artificial turf at the Paradise Hills ballfields. Real Turf got that job.

He said that he met Wickens in about the spring of 2004 and that Wickens frequently sought his advice on business matters over the following year.

Carraro said he eventually told Wickens he was going to have to start paying him and, in May 2005, he sent Wickens a letter that he called a contract proposal.
Carraro said his company, Public Perceptions, would provide marketing and business consulting services in exchange for the $5,000-a-month fee.

The letter also said there was "not a direct relationship" between Carraro's position as a senator and services Public Perceptions would provide.

Carraro also wrote that Public Perceptions wouldn't be involved with any government entity on Real Turf's behalf.

"There can never be a real or perceived conflict of interest regarding my positions as a state senator and president of Public Perceptions," he said, adding:

"Specifically, it should be noted that recommendations of your product to governmental entities given prior to this contract ... in no way bound you to the employment of Public Perceptions."

In his deposition, Carraro said his work for Real Turf included meeting with Wickens and other managers, reviewing management job descriptions, providing advice on marketing, writing advertisements and working on printed publications.
"I ... analyzed their business, figured out ways for them to make more money," he said.

Carraro said he stopped working for Real Turf because the company quit paying him. He also said he had become frustrated with Wickens' failure to implement many of his suggestions.

It sure would seem to that Senator Joe Cararro took great pains to leave a paper trail that would give the appearance that everything was on the up and up. Of course, it's not surprising that a State Senator who has spent twenty years in the system knows how to work the system. So, what makes Senator Cararro's antics ironic?

“We’ve all got our special interests we have to represent,” Carraro says. “My special interest is the little guy [Particularly, the little guy who is willing to spend $5,000 a month on consulting services] . But this is a big guy, big business, big interest state, and they come down here and make us vote the way they do. The poor of this state are going to stay poor because they don’t have lobbyists looking out for them.”

Carraro, who ran unsuccessfully last June in the Republican primary for US Senate, cites economist Milton Friedman and activist Cesar Chavez while comparing state politics to Orwell’s Animal Farm: “We’re all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.”

It would be an impressive oration if anyone was actually listening. But most of the senators have long since tuned Carraro out. Some fiddle with their laptops. Others talk on cell phones. Stuart Ingle, R-Roosevelt, chats with a colleague a few feet away from where Carraro is standing with the microphone. Mary Jane Garcia, D-Doña Ana, appears to be eating sunflower seeds. John Pinto, D-McKinley, appears to be fading in and out of consciousness.

Considering that legislators get to know each other pretty well, it's probably not surprising that Senator Carraro's colleagues opted to tune him out when he was putting on airs maligning registered lobbyist while taking money for.... uh, "marketing" services.

If Only We Had An Ethics Commission

If only we had an ethics commission to train state employees about ethical behavior, I'm sure this would have never happened:

A former employee of the state Children, Youth and Families Department and several other Silver City-area residents have been accused of defrauding the state of more than half a million dollars.

Andrea Munoz, 34, allegedly received kickbacks from people who were fraudulently reimbursed for child care services never provided. The alleged scheme involved the department's Child Care Program, which reimburses low-income parents for baby-sitting services.

Court documents allege 16 people admitted receiving checks from CYFD, cashing them and splitting the proceeds with Munoz between 2001 and 2006.

Romaine Serna, a spokeswoman for CYFD, said $574,000 was allegedly taken.

Serna said the scale of the alleged fraud is the largest the agency has encountered.

Yeah right. How about we just get rid of unnecessary government welfare programs that hand out checks? That would be a much better way of eliminating these situations. Every time the government doles out cash, the end result is fraud.

Forget Commissions and Just Prosecute

An opportunity to follow up on yesterday's post and conveniently respond to Matt Brix's comment (can always count on Matt for civil discourse on the topic of ethics):

Days after he took office in January 2007, Attorney General Gary King told me, through a spokesman, that an investigation of the scandal that toppled most of the state’s affordable housing system in 2006 would be a top priority.

Sixteen months later, some are beginning to wonder.

It’s not that nothing has happened. The AG has successfully obtained court orders to boot three tenants from homes owned by the Albuquerque-based Region III Housing Authority because they didn’t qualify for affordable housing. Two were employees of the authority and one was a board member.

What do you think? Could this have all been avoided if only we had had an ethics commission in place to "provide training for public officials and public employees" involved in this scandal?

Yeah, somehow I don't think so either.

Here's what it boils down to for me. I believe that the vast majority people are good and lead their lives in an ethical manner. They'll find a wallet and return it to its rightful owner. Forget the wallet, they'll find a bag filled with $140,000 and turn it in because they know in their "gut that to keep that money would be wrong."

Unfortunately, there are those that choose to ignore their gut. Those people are criminal. Those people should be prosecuted and thrown in jail. We don't need a commission to educate them on what is ethical, we need a prosecutor willing to do their job.

Matt, my friend, the people's government can be held accountable every day. We don't have to wait until an election. We can draw attention to prosecutors who fail to prosecute. We can shine a spotlight on those who conduct their unethical behavior in the shadows. We can even demand justice.

But, what we must not do is create yet another government commission that makes people feel like they don't need to be diligent and civilly active because of the assumption that some third party is going to take care of it for them. Just because many other states have chosen to rely on this crutch, does not make it right.

We Don't Need an Ethics Commission

Why is it the left always wants a government solution to a government problem?

Eli Lee on Clearly New Mexico answers why we need an independent state ethics commission. Shorter Eli: Manny Aragon.

Indeed, are we to believe that since 1992 not one member of the Legislature has had a conflict of interest or used influence inappropriately? Must questions of misconduct rise to the level of a state or federal indictment and prosecution before they are addressed?

We have a solution - a citizen driven, a personal responsibility solution. It's called elections. Every two or four years we have an opportunity to dump the riff-raff. Regardless, of the power an individual legislator may have hold in Santa Fe, they can be beat by a superior candidate.

Of course, people have to care enough to vote. And, people who are not going to be defined by holding an elected office need to run.

Democratic Vote Buying

There has been a lot of talk both in the local and national news about the Democratic Party's superdelegate system, and the role they may play in picking the Democratic nominee for President:

First-term Rep. Carol Shea-Porter supports Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, even though her New Hampshire constituents voted for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"It came to a virtual draw in our state" in last month's primary, she says of the mismatch in positions. "I think it's a moot question."

In her case, perhaps so. But Shea-Porter is not alone, and increasingly in the close Democratic race, the political intentions of delegates picked outside the primaries and caucuses are cause for controversy.

It turns out that one reason that superdelegates are going to vote against their constituents desire is cold, hard cash. It seems being a superdelegate is one way Democrats are able to pad their campaign coffers:

At least two of New Mexico's Democratic "superdelegates" — party leaders who might end up choosing the nominee for president if the race between U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton remains tight — have received campaign contributions from the candidates.

Obama's political action committee, Hope Fund, in 2005 made two contributions totaling $4,200 to U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman's 2006 re-election campaign. Meanwhile, Clinton's HILLPAC gave $5,000 to Gov. Bill Richardson's 2006 gubernatorial race.

Keep that in mind the next time you hear about Democrats calling for campaign ethics reform in New Mexico.

Debate Brings Character Flaw to Light

I had wanted to see the first debate between the Republican candidates for the 1st Congressional District, Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White and State Senator Joe Carraro, but both my kids had early basketball games and politics takes a backseat to family commitments.

Based on news reports, it looks like the most controversial part of the debate occurred before the candidates ever took the stage:

A Republican candidate for Congress objected publicly Saturday when the organizer of a county GOP forum that he and another Republican congressional candidate attended was closed to the media.

"It's a public meeting between two candidates for public office in a public place and it's closed to the media. What are you afraid of?" State Sen. Joe Carraro, who is seeking the GOP nomination in the 1st District, said after the meeting. "It needs to be transparent. We need to not go behind closed doors."

The Republican Party of Bernalillo County sponsored the meeting, which was attended mostly by GOP volunteers and activists and was held at an Albuquerque restaurant.

Ok, normally I would be the first one to agree that all debates by candidates for public office should be open. But, here is the thing. According to the meeting organizer, former State Representative Rory Ogle, both candidates agreed to a "no press" rule:

Ogle said he talked personally with Carraro and White about the rules ahead of time. Carraro denied that he agreed to closing the meeting ahead of time.

Sorry Senator Carraro you're lacking a bit of credibility here. I personally know all three parties involved and only the Senator's story rings untrue. If Senator Carraro had truly objected to the closed meeting ahead of time, he had ample opportunity to raise that objection long before that meeting took place.

Instead, he waited until the morning of the event to try and leverage some earned media by playing the part of the injured party and defender of open government. The problem is that no one is going to believe that Sheriff Darren White, a former news reporter who has never shied away from a little camera time, was personally against press attending the event. Plus, meeting organizer, Rory Ogle, had absolutely no reason to lie.

Senator Carraro's antics leave much to be desired and raise serious ethical questions regarding his personal integrity and character.

Disclaimer: I have made a financial contribution to Darren White's campaign.

Falsifying Success Becoming an Issue

In just a span of a couple of weeks, the City of Albuquerque has now twice been called to the carpet for fudging numbers. First, there was the expose on the City of Albuquerque's green claims (subscription):

It is a claim every Albuquerque resident who cares about global warming could be proud of: Since 1990, city residents have cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent.

It is also untrue.

The claim was contained in a report that was until recently featured prominently on the city's AlbuquerqueGreen Web site. As the nation's emissions of global warming-causing pollutants is on the rise, ours are going down, the report claimed.

But the report vastly overstated the city's greenhouse gas reductions. City officials acknowledged the problem and removed the report from a city Web site after the Journal requested supporting data.

It is not an isolated case. A Journal review shows the claims of greenhouse gas reductions and other "sustainability" successes made by the city are often exaggerated, misleading or wrong.

Not only is it not an isolated case, the Chavez Administration propensity to overstate success also appears not to be limited to green initiatives as one non-profit group discovered when checking on the City's claims (subscription):

Shortly after the city announced it had found homes for every "adoptable" shelter animal last month, a nonprofit group sent an employee over to check the claim.

The worker— from Alliance for Albuquerque Animals— walked through two city shelters and found 132 dogs and cats, seemingly ready for new homes.

The finding is evidence of a "culture of lying to the public about what's going on with shelter animals," said Debbra Colman, founder of the alliance.

Kind of makes you wonder what else the City may be lying about? Speaking of ethics in government, you can catch the video feeds from my most recent appearance on Eye on New Mexico here and here. The topic of the show was the ethics package being considered once again by the legislature.

Broadcasting Should Happen

I'm with Heath on this one. I had written before how wrong it was for Governor Richardson to veto prior efforts to get cameras into the Roundhouse for broadcasting. But, now that the money has been approved and is just waiting to be spent, it is wrong for this not to go into effect.

It is disingenuous for the Legislature to be considering any sort of ethics reform package, when they won't even take this simple first step toward providing more open and accessible government.

Flying the Grey Line

This is just classic Bill Richardson. Governor Richardson twice spends hard earned taxpayer money to put together an ethics task force to devise recommendations to keep government officials acting ethically, and then Governor Richardson ignores the intention of the law he signed (subscription):

What about the state's restrictions on gifts to public officials— which Richardson signed into law earlier this year with considerable fanfare?

Would it prevent the law firm from hauling the governor to Mexico for free or at a reduced price— such as the cost of a first-class airline ticket as allowed under the old federal rule?

Apparently not, because the Branch firm would not appear to be a "restricted donor" covered by the new gift ban, which limits gifts to $250.

One definition of a restricted donor is someone seeking to do business with a state agency that employs the public official receiving the gift.

If the state gift ban applied, the governor arguably would have had to pay the same full $20,000 or so that he would have had to pay as a federal candidate on campaign business.

While not officially confirming who took the governor to Acapulco, Reynolds said "no one considered a restricted donor has provided any kind of transportation for the governor without being properly reimbursed."

The Attorney General's Office said the Branch firm wouldn't fit the definition of a restricted donor based on information provided by the Journal.

The firm does some business with the state, but lawyer Turner Branch said last week his firm has no contracts with the Governor's Office.

You're kidding me, right? They do "state business", but have "no contracts with the Governor's Office." Hmm, I wonder if any of the state business contracts, which the Branch Law firm is enjoying, come under the supervision of a gubernatorial appointee, who serves at the pleasure of the Governor?

Taking a Look at The Government's Case

On October 25, 2007, the federal government filed two document notifying their intent to introduce evidence in the Metropolitan Courthouse kickback scandal. If you take a look at the filing, what is most interesting is not who is named, but who is not named as a "co-conspirator."

For example, despite the fact that lobbyists are often portrayed and perceived as evil and corrupting influences in the "wholesome" legislative process, the filing tells a different tale:

During the time that Defendant Michael Murphy was a board member of the Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Flood Control Authority (AMAFCA), he asked a lobbyist to deliver funds to two influential politicians. Defendant Murphy told the lobbyist that his payment from AMAFCA would be increased to pay for the funds that were to go to these two politicians. The total amount of the funds that was to be paid to these two politicians was approximately $30,000.00. The lobbyist refused to agree to this requested arrangement.

Now, it is interesting that the honest lobbyist is not named. But, I guess it's not to difficult for someone to do a little digging and figure out when Michael Murphy was elected to the AMAFCA Board, and then hop over to the Secretary of State's website and discover who was registered as a lobbyist for AMAFCA at that time.

However, the big question here that is not quite as easily answered is who are the "two influential politicians" that were supposed to receive $30,000 from Michael Murphy? It would be safe to assume we are not talking about Manny Aragon, since he is already identified in the filing as a co-conspirator. Are these unnamed influential politicians still serving in the Legislature? Are they Democrats or Republicans? Can they still be bought for $30,000?

Speaking of unnamed folks in the legislature:

During the 2003 legislative session, Defendant Aragon told a legislative staff member to redirect funds that had been allocated in 1999 to two other projects to the Metropolitan Courthouse for use as additional funding on that project. Defendant Aragon's statements, which caused the redirection of the funds, made additional funds accessible to the members of the conspiracy related to the building of the Metropolitan Courthouse.

Kind of makes you wonder who is this unnamed "legislative staff member" who aided and abetted in defrauding the taxpayers? The 2003 legislative session wasn't that long ago. Is this person still working in the legislature? Are they now assisting other politicians in making "additional funds accessible" for other building conspiracies?

I've got to run, but let me leave you with this thought...

The next time you read in the paper about "ethics reform efforts" being proposed by the Legislature, you might want to ponder if any of those serving on the ethics task force are actually the unnamed politicians from the conspiracy.

Not a Smart Move

The Albuquerque Journal has reported that Lt. Governor Diane Denish has decided to endorse District 6 City Council Candidate, Rey Garduño (subscription):

While [Mayor Marty] Chávez wouldn't comment on Denish's motivation for the endorsement, he said in reference to Garduño's conviction in a 1988 shoplifting case, that "given his background, it's unusual."

[Lt. Governor Diane] Denish said she was aware of the shoplifting case— in which Garduño pleaded no contest and was found guilty— but said it didn't dissuade her.

Garduño didn't reveal the incident on his initial response to the Journal's candidate questionnaire.

This seems just plain foolish to me. First, you've got to wonder what the Lt. Governor is thinking by stepping into this fight. Second, could she have picked a worse candidate to endorse? As near as I can tell, partisan politics aside, Mr. Garduño has two strikes against him.

First, you've got a guy running for office, on the taxpayers dime I might add, who was caught shoplifting. Sure, it happened almost 20 years ago. But, he was 45 years old at the time... FORTY-FIVE YEARS OLD AND SHOPLIFTING (subscription):

A police incident report said a Sears store employee accused Garduño of putting a $200 telephone in his bag and leaving without paying for it.

The charge was a misdemeanor and he was issued a citation.

Garduño said the incident was a misunderstanding. He had bought light bulbs and a lamp at Sears and was looking at the phone, he said. He didn't intend to leave the store without paying, he said.

"It's not something I planned to do," Garduño said. "It was a mistake."

Garduño said he didn't recall being found guilty. He thought the charge was to be dismissed if he agreed to go to school.

We're not talking about the mistake of an immature kid. We're talking about a man, who at 45 years of age, gets caught trying to walk out of a store with a $200 phone. Then, he makes matter worse by running for office and not owning up to his petty theft until he is caught again:

He said Tuesday that he misunderstood the question. A campaign spokesman said Garduño would submit an updated response to the questions. The campaign had thought the 1988 citation was akin to a traffic ticket, not a misdemeanor, the spokesman said.

I'm sorry. We're supposed to believe shoplifting is "akin to a traffic ticket?" Yet another great example of the caliber of candidates we get when the taxpayer is footing the bill for the election.

Gotta Love Publicly Funded Campaigns

It's amazing the caliber of candidates we can now enjoy in the City of Albuquerque - now that taxpayers get to foot the campaign bills. Let's take Council District Four for example where the incumbent, City Councilor Brad Winter, is enjoying a strong challenge from an opponent with an "impressive" record of academic achievement, Paulette De'Pascal (subscription):

City Council candidate Paulette de'Pascal claims she has a B.S. and an M.B.A., but she acknowledged Tuesday that she never took any classes for either degree.

The degrees de'Pascal listed as part of her education in a Journal questionnaire were obtained through Almeda University, an online university that gives clients credit for "life experience."

De'Pascal listed other educational programs on the questionnaire but acknowledged she didn't complete all of them.

Isn't it just grand how we're now allowing "qualified" candidates to run for office? You know, candidates who might otherwise have not been able to run because... well... because no one in their right mind would have given their campaign any significant level of funding support.

In attempt at fairness, I thought I'd see what Ms. De'Pascal had to say about this fiasco on her blog - oops, that didn't last too long, did it?

Would someone please explain to me again how publicly funded elections are supposed to make politics more ethical? Matt???

Completing the Ethics Hat Trick

So, what's ethical behavior look like? Well, I recommend you read this recent post by Heath Haussamen in it's entirety. Here is an excerpt:

[House Minority Leader Tom Taylor, R-Farmington] and his sisters have owned five acres of land next to the county’s DWI Treatment Center for years. They decided against selling the land for $240,000 some 15 years ago, hoping to someday do something with it.

The day has arrived. County officials were planning to turn an old detention facility in nearby Aztec into a meth treatment facility with the help of a $2.9 million grant from the state, but the jail was deemed unfit. As officials searched for a new location, they decided the best option would be adding on to the DWI center, the newspaper reported.

That meant they’d need land owned by Taylor. The lawmaker told the newspaper he didn’t want anyone to think he and the county were doing anything underhanded, so he didn’t want to sell the land to the county.

So he convinced his sisters to agree to donate it.

Funny, Representative Taylor didn't need a commission to advise him what might be ethical behavior. He didn't need new laws passed in order to determine what would be the right thing to do.

You know what folks? We don't need more laws. Instead, we need more leaders like Tom Taylor.

The Perfect Follow Up

Pass all the "ethics laws" you want, and it is not going to make a difference. Why? For the answer, one needs to read no further than today's Albuquerque Journal (subscription):

[Metropolitan Court Judge Theresa Gomez] judge who [while earning more than $93,000 a year] lived rent-free for 20 months in a $172,000 home owned by an affordable housing agency and dismissed traffic tickets issued to the agency's head has agreed to be reprimanded and pay $17,000 in back rent.

Mind you, that DOES NOT read "former" Metropolitan Court Judge Theresa Gomez. That's right, someone who ripped off taxpayers to the tune of $17,000 is still sitting in a position to render judgment.

Well, maybe she is truly repentant for her crime...

The judge has blamed the housing authority for a situation that she says has damaged her "professional reputation and perhaps my livelihood."

Uh, maybe not. Oh, and did I mention:

In an interview for that story, the judge said she had also dismissed traffic citations and canceled a related arrest warrant for Vincent "Smiley" Gallegos, then head of the housing agency.

It's good to know all is well in the Land of Enchantment. Maybe tomorrow we can talk about GO Bonds to support Affordable Housing.

Legislating Ethics

Big SIGH... An Albuquerque Journal poll has 88% of Democrats supporting stricter ethic laws.

You can't legislate ethics. Sorry, it would be nice if you could, but you can't. Why? Well, it's pretty simple. Ethical behavior is how a person acts when they think no one is looking and they believe there is no chance of them getting caught.

Somethings can be legislated, some can't. Ethics is one of those things that can't. Sure, you can pass new laws that make you feel better, but they won't make people behave ethically. Which leaves us with the question of whether or not we need new ethics laws?

Stop and think for a minute and you'll realize that we don't. Several elected officials have been indicted in the last couple of years under current laws, so we know there are laws on the books to punish those whose unethical behavior is illegal.

Now what's scary about this argument is that it puts me in agreement with New Mexico House Speaker Ben Lujan (subscription):

House Speaker Ben Lujan, D-Santa Fe, said he thought his chamber will endorse additional proposals next year, although he was hesitant about establishing a state ethics commission.

"The issue here is ethical conduct," he said of the proposed commission. "You're never going to be able to legislate morals. You have those rules in Congress and look at what is happening there."

And, you know what? Speaker Ben Lujan knows of what he speaks. So, where does that leave us? If we really want ethical politicians, then we as voters need to take the time to care enough to vote out those who do not act ethically. That's the solution, plain and simple.

Look, I've Said it Before

It's going from bad to worse for Governor Bill Richardson (subscription):

Gov. Bill Richardson said Thursday the state Transportation Department's headquarters project hasn't been tainted by campaign contributions and fundraising help from developer Gerald Peters.

"Of course not," he said in response to a question during a news conference.

"Look, I've said it before. There's no connection between donations and what happens in state government," Richardson said. "That's always been an established principle."

You know he's right. He has had to say it before - many, many times. There was that Guy Riordan problem. And, who can forget the Santa Fe Reporter's article on All the Governor's Men? Then there are all those state government jobs that were created for the Bill Richardson's favorite donors. Oh, and I almost forgot about that time that more than a few eyebrows were raised when "a developer's family members and their businesses contributed at least $130,000 to Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign several months after a family business was granted direct access to a city thoroughfare for a shopping-center project."

Well, at least the Governor has assured us that there is no connection between donations and what happens in state government.

Oops, Too Late to Avoid Taint

It looks like Governor Bill Richardson's Administration is in the middle of yet another sticky situation at a most inopportune time (subscription):

The Journal reported last week that the Transportation Department and SCS, a company affiliated with Richardson supporter and friend Gerald Peters, were discussing a headquarters of about 170,000 square feet— down from the 300,000 initially called for by the department.

In general terms, SCS is to build a headquarters and provide a Rail Runner station for the state free of charge in return for the right to develop the rest of the Transportation Department property.

The Journal also has reported that defendants in the Metropolitan Courthouse construction scandal in Albuquerque were linked to the early stages of the planned redevelopment on a 25-acre tract near downtown Santa Fe.

One of them was hired as project manager for the DOT redevelopment and two flew on state planes to out-of-state meetings about the headquarters redevelopment.

A new federal indictment alleges the same defendants in the courthouse case also conspired to corrupt another DOT project, which state officials have identified as the proposed redevelopment of its District 5 regional office on Santa Fe's southside.

That's an awful lot of defendants to be connected to a man running for President of the United States. It will be interesting to see if this reignites national investigations into other questionable Richardson activities.

Combine Governor Richardson's numerous gaffes on the campaign trail with his one degree of separation from several shady characters, and it becomes very clear why some folks are pretty disappointed with Governor Richardson:

The New York Observer’s Steve Kornacki writes that Bill Richardson “might just be the biggest disappointment of all” the White House candidates. The “hesitant, confused and jarringly inarticulate man the country has met this year is a far cry from the savvy and confident leader that his resume might lead one to expect.”

Stay tuned for more fallout.

More Government Mandates

Sorry for the blogging absence. It wasn't planned. Well, the absence was planned, but I had fully intended on blogging. The family and I took a little Northern NM/Southern Colorado pre-back to school escape and blogging just sort of fell by the wayside. That's not to say I couldn't have blogged from Chama, Telluride or Durango - I just decided not to do it.

After catching up on recent news stories, I'm glad I took the break. For starters there is this gem of a recommendation from the Health Coverage for New Mexicans Committee (subscription):

• That everyone in New Mexico be required to have health coverage.

Great, I love where this is is going. Maybe in the near future we can have state funded committees to recommend:

• That everyone in New Mexico be required to have life insurance coverage.
• That everyone in New Mexico be required to have pet insurance coverage.
• That everyone in New Mexico be required to have property insurance coverage.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

And, it looks like this is not the only committee working overtime coming up with foolish recommendations on how to solve all that is wrong with the world. The Ethics Committee is back in the saddle with yet another brilliant recommendation:

Lobbyists would have to reveal how much they are being paid and wear badges identifying themselves and their clients if state government adopts recommendations by a task force studying ethics reforms.

The panel, appointed by Gov. Bill Richardson, recommended the New Mexico Legislature consider these and other proposals in a special session.

“The public deserves to know who’s influencing our laws,” said task force member Fred Nathan, who heads a local think tank called Think New Mexico.

Why stop with making lobbyists wear badges at the Roundhouse? We all know that all lobbyists are evil people who do nothing but corrupt our democratic system. We also know that their devilish efforts are not limited to the thirty and sixty day session. These lobbyists can be found throughout the year at committee meetings as well as local coffeehouses and restaurants poisoning the minds of our honest and hard working elected officials.

Let's do this right and have a recommendation with some teeth. Pass a law to require, from this day forth, that all lobbyists sew a yellow star onto all of their clothing, so that they are easily identifiable to the good people of New Mexico.

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.

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.

Honor Among Lawyers

Oh, I'm so confused....

It is accepted as fact in New Mexico that former, fired and disgruntled U.S. Attorney David Iglesias served as the inspiration for the Tom Cruise character in a A Few Good Men. More than one local story has used it to bring a little bit of Hollywood to their coverage of Mr. Iglesias' firing for performance reasons:

After graduating from the University of New Mexico School of Law, Iglesias became a Navy judge advocate general. Early in his career, he was assigned to defend court-martialed sailors at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There, his involvement in a hazing case became the basis for Tom Cruise's character in "A Few Good Men."

But, here is where it gets weird. Former GOP State Party Chairman John Dendahl recently had a letter published (subscription) in the Albuquerque Journal where he points out that Mr. Iglesias is not alone in his claim to fame:

Political campaigns being what they are, we were pleased to tout Iglesias' story that he was the dauntless Navy court-martial prosecutor portrayed by Tom Cruise in the movie "A Few Good Men." Now I find sources, including Wikipedia, revealing the Tom Cruise character to be another Navy lawyer, Don Marcari, currently in private practice in Virginia. But the Cruise-plays-Iglesias myth lives on, adding gloss to the voluminous 2007 press Iglesias has attracted to obscure his justified firing.

Iglesias' résumé needs corroboration. Pending that, I'm reminded of Bill Richardson's claim of having been drafted to play major league baseball, debunked— but only after about 40 years.

It often takes the truth too long to catch up with a well-told lie.

So, I did a little bit of digging, and sure enough, there is another lawyer out there claiming to be the inspiration for A Few Good Men:

Don first gained national attention when his exploits as a young defense attorney with the U.S. Navy JAG Corp became the basis for the motion picture "A Few Good Men." For the last 19 years, Don has been fighting for injured people throughout North Carolina and Virginia. His skill in the courtroom has lead to his selection to the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association Board of Governors and the Ethics & Professionalism Committee.

Now who am I supposed to believe? The trial lawyer or the former U.S. Attorney with a well-documented history of honing his performance.

Who Will Go to Jail?

Ok, let's give Governor Richardson the benefit of the doubt for a minute. Let's assume that he has signed ethics legislation which limits campaign contributions because he wants to do some good. I know, considering that Governor Richardson has raised more money from questionable sources than anyone else in New Mexico, it's a stretch. But, let's be optimistic here in viewing this latest presidential campaign ploy (subscription):

Currently, there is no limit on gifts to most public officials or employees.

The new law will impose a $250 limit on the value of individual gifts that can be accepted by a state official, employee or candidate for state office.

There will be a yearly cap of $1,000 on the combined value of gifts that can be given to any one state government official or employee by a lobbyist, their employer or government contractor.

The gift restriction will cover items including food, lodging, transportation and tickets to sporting events or entertainment. However, exempted from the $250 cap will be retirement gifts to a state official or employee [hmm, this must be the deferred payment plan?].

Violations of the new law will be a petty misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine.

So, here is my question? Who is going to go to jail for six months when the $1,000 gift cap is exceeded? Will it be the lobbyist, who spent $475 on dinners and entertainment during the session on a particular legislator? Or, will it be their employer who maybe invited the legislator and his or her family to enjoy a couple of sporting events at a $475 value. Or, maybe the secretary who sends a card with flowers for a legislators birthdays at a cost of $55? Should it be the secretary if she was the last one to send a gift that puts them over the top?

This law is ridiculous. If they really wanted ethics reform to deal with gifts to legislators, then they should have just outlawed all gifts. Period, end of story.

ABQ Journal Editorial Non Sequitur

Talk about missing the mark, the Albuquerque Journal missed it today and missed it by a long shot. How can the editorial board of the state's largest daily newspaper be so easily duped as to believe "ethics reform" is going to have any effect on stopping crooks, thieves and swindlers?

Read this opening paragraph to today's editorial (subscription):

If having the former leader of the New Mexico Senate indicted in a multimillion-dollar kickback scheme doesn't scream "we need ethics reform," then probably nothing does.

Most states have limits on campaign contributions. Most have some form of an independent ethics commission empowered to oversee public officials. But in New Mexico, the sky's still the limit when it comes to campaign donations, and government officials are still expected to police themselves.

That is a complete and total non sequitur. What in the world does a construction kickback scheme have to do with campaign contributions? Anybody want to bet that Governor Richardson's folks walked into the editorial board and fed them this nonsense? Probably no need to bet, since the giveaway is found towards the end of the editorial:

Despite prodding from Gov. Bill Richardson, neither ethics measure was deemed worthy enough of lawmakers' attention to warrant up-or-down roll call votes. And that should get the public's attention.

Give me a break. Governor Bill Richardson has steered the biggest and most successful pay to play administration New Mexico has ever seen. Moreover, this is the Governor who fought tooth and nail to keep any campaign contribution limits from being thrust upon him before he ran for re-election. C'mon Journal, it was only a year ago, and it was reported in your pages (subscription):

Gov. Bill Richardson wants lawmakers to postpone work on broad ethics or lobbying reforms until next year and instead focus on anti-corruption proposals developed in the wake of a kickback scandal involving state treasurers.

Richardson's comments came Wednesday after a Senate committee unanimously approved a bill to prohibit campaign contributions and most gifts to legislators and state elected officials — such as the governor and treasurer — from companies and individuals providing investment or financial services to the state.

At the time, Governor Richardson gave some lame excuse about thirty days not being enough time to fully consider ethics reform. So, please explain to me, if thirty days is not enough time, then how the heck is a week and a half special session enough time?

It's mind blowing to me that the editorial board fell for such obvious political spin. They should be seasoned enough to have recognized it for what it was. An absentee Governor trying to save face for making a poor executive decision by forcing the legislature back into session right on the heels of a 60 day session.

Public Financing of Statewide Campaigns

Yesterday, the House voted to pass HB818, Public Financing of Statewide Campaigns. I was up in Santa Fe on business, so I had a chance to wander over to the Roundhouse and listen to some of the debate that took place on this bill.

Specifically, I caught Minority Whip Dan Foley make some very solid points against the bill. Points like, and I paraphrase:

1. Public financing means that any hate monger can run for office and get their message pounded home at taxpayer expense.
   
   
2. The bill gives unchecked power to the Secretary of State to determine who does and who does not qualify for public funding. Leading to the potential for more, not less corruption.
   

Others also spoke out including Representative Kathy McCoy, who made the point of correcting Speaker Ben Lujan's assertion that the bill had been unanimously endorsed by the ethics task force created by Governor Bill Richardson.

Looks Like a Duck, Smells Like a Duck

It's getting worse. First, in clear disregard of state law, Governor Bill Richardson sent out an email blast to 300,000 people asking for their financial support. This may be legal - the Attorney General recently weighed in - but it is doubtful whether it can be considered ethical. Worse, it seems to make a mockery of the proposed ethics legislation currently being considered.

Now, we have this (subscription):

The Washington Post in a political blog entry reported that the Dozoretzes hosted a "fundraising event" for Richardson on Friday and noted the couple has been chummy with the Clintons in the past.

The blog didn't point out that Ron Dozoretz has major business interests in New Mexico.

He runs the parent company of ValueOptions, which last fiscal year oversaw $300 million in mental health and substance abuse services under contract with New Mexico state government.

Richardson presidential campaign spokesman Pahl Shipley said the event was a "meet-and-greet" and not a fundraiser, adding he didn't know if anyone wrote checks to the Richardson camp.

Which raises the question... which is more unethical:

1. The fact that Bill Richardson is unquestionably raising money from those with business before the legislature during a legislation session.
   
   OR
   
   
2. A campaign spokesman who says, "he didn't know if anyone wrote a check."

I'm thinking #1 is unethical, and #2 is just plain insulting.