Good Intentions…Great Blessings

I always believed the phrase, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” was found in Dante’s The Inferno. I’m told it isn’t. Maybe I should have read the book. I’ve been meaning to do that since college, but like some other tasks, it just doesn’t seem to get done.

When I last posted a blog on this website, I was excited about the pending elections. I wanted to keep everyone informed about the House Republican candidates whom I had met and gotten to know. I started off boldly with information about Melinda Russ. My friend Melinda came close but did not win, so perhaps it is a good thing I didn’t write about any of the other Republicans.

By now, you all know Republicans were very successful in changing the make up of the House of Representatives. We went from 25 to 33 out of a total of 70, a huge improvement. I wish I could say I played a significant role in helping that come to pass, but that would not be true.

This past election season, and continuing through the holidays, I have been serving as the Chief of Police of the Roswell Police Department. This development happened suddenly and completely unexpectedly. My appointment came about because of the former chief’s sudden retirement at the same time the Deputy Chief was scheduled to retire. To further complicate matters, the City of Roswell had a new mayor elected in March and was in the process of finding a new city manager. It was a time of significant transitions for the City of Roswell, and I felt led to raise my hand and offer my services. The enthusiasm with which I was welcomed to my new position was startling.

Fortunately, I had no opposition in either the primary or general election and the City leadership graciously allowed me time to fulfill my duties on Interim Committees. However, I really could not engage in political activity like I had hoped.

This experience has been incredible. It has truly been a privilege and honor to lead the Roswell Police Department. I made it a priority to reach out and listen to all aspects of the community. I had to confront some difficult challenges but chose to meet them head-on if at all possible and not leave them for my successor to resolve.

On a daily basis I am awed and impressed with what we expect of our young police officers and how they rise to the occasion. My joke is that I have suits that are older than some of these officers. Many were not yet in school when I first put on a badge.

At the end of every shift sergeants prepare a brief overview called the "Sargeant's Log." This consists of statistics on arrests, citations and calls for service. The log also includes a very brief narrative of the more significant incidents on the shift. Every morning I get up and check my email to see the sergeant’s log for swing shift which is usually completed around 2:30 a.m. Later on before I leave for the office, I read the log for the midnight shift. In strikingly concise and colorless prose, these first line supervisors matter-of-factly describe events that would strain the limits of civilians.

There was an incident in which a young officer beat the ambulance to a call for an infant who had stopped breathing. He performed CPR on a three-week old child until the paramedics arrived. This same officer had experienced a similar tragedy in his own family very recently.

On another occasion a new officer heard the call for a drive-by shooting, spotted and stopped a suspicious vehicle (with four occupants). He controlled the situation until back-up arrived, recovered guns and made arrests. I could go on and on but won’t.

In addition to this, there are countless calls of domestic violence, drunkenness and disorderliness, fights, alarms, and the “unknown trouble.” Dispatchers will call these out and the officers respond without hesitation. Many times, I hear an officer get on the radio and inform Dispatch that he is closer and takes it upon himself to deal with the issue. As I said, I am in awe of them.

One Saturday evening I got to present a Medal of Valor to a young officer. He was beginning his midnight shift. Other members of the command staff and I went to him rather than call him in at a time convenient for us. Some months earlier this officer had been in a violent shooting incident in which another officer was wounded. Our hero pulled his comrade from harm, ensured he would be “ok” and returned to the gun fight.

I also spent over two and a half hours listening to recordings of my officers dealing with a couple of arrogant and belligerent citizens—a citizens who should be a role models and leaders of our community, yet behaved so badly that I was embarrassed for Roswell. The officers were very professional but that did not stop the individuals from complaining constantly, both during the encounter and latter. It is amazing what officers have to deal with, yet can never lose their composure.

Shortly, I will be leaving this position and heading back to Santa Fe. I have no reservations about returning to the Legislature. I am confident that is the role I am meant to fulfill. Nonetheless, I will be forever thankful for this special opportunity to serve alongside some truly incredible young men and women. They called me “Chief” … how blessed am I.

House Races 2010, First in a Series, "The New Spirit of the Old West"

Over the last few months I have gotten to know Melinda Joy Russ. Melinda was passing through Roswell last Sunday and stopped in to visit my wife and me. Carol actually met Melinda first when we were in Santa Fe during the session. While Melinda took a break from her travels we had a wonderful conversation.

Melinda Russ is the candidate running for Joe Campos’ old seat in District 63 (Santa Rosa, Vaughn, Ft Sumner, part of Clovis).

Some of you may know Melinda as Hoyt Pattison’s daughter. Hoyt served over twenty years in the House and was the Republican leader for many terms. He was a crucial part of the “cowboy coalition” back in the early 1980’s. Hoyt still comes to Santa Fe to help voice the concerns of New Mexico Agriculture. He is a real gentleman.

That said, Melinda is not resting on her pedigree. I like her focus on creating opportunity – feels like a breath of fresh air in an election cycle that’s mostly been about doom and gloom. “We are a nation of entrepreneurs, not employees,” Melinda told me. “Working for yourself is as much part of the American dream as homeownership. We need to make it less intimidating and less costly for anyone who has an idea and a work ethic to start a business. That's what New Mexico -- and America -- are all about.”

Check out Melinda’s website and photo-rich campaign blog at www.MelindaRuss.com.

This is an important race but a tough one. I’m supporting her and I encourage you to do the same.

Urban Legend

This had previously been posted as an essay on Heath Hausssamen's web site. This whole subject came up again in the Courts, Corrections and Justice interim committee meeting on July 1st. We spent half a day on this. This is an issue on which I part ways with my Libertarian friends. They are nice people but they have not seen what I have seen.


Urban legend: An apocryphal, secondhand story told as true and just plausible enough to be believed, about some horrific, embarrassing, ironic, or exasperating series of events that supposedly happened to a real person.

It is interesting, and a little troubling, how certain misconceptions get a grip on the public’s mind. One glaring example of this is the widely repeated claim that the state prisons are full of people who have been convicted of simply possessing drugs.

As someone who spent 24 years carrying a gun and a badge, most of that time working drug cases, including 14 years in Southeast New Mexico, I have known this was completely false. People don’t go to the pen for simply holding some dope.

In New Mexico simple possession of up to a half pound of marijuana is only a misdemeanor which does not allow for a prison sentence, only time in the county jail, if that.

One of the most recent manifestations of this myth was in September 2009 when a New Mexico “think tank” published a report damning the State’s drug laws because 853 people were supposedly sitting in prison for only a drug possession conviction. That report motivated me to write a letter to the Corrections Department because the Department was the source of that statistic. The written response I received showed that the 853 number was for inmates who had a Drug Possession Conviction plus other criminal convictions. In fact the number of people incarcerated for simple drug possession was 92. That is 92 out of almost 6,000 inmates.

However, even the 92 number is misleading. The Corrections Department sent me the names of the 92 inmates. Through the internet I was able to review the cases for these individuals. Randomly checking their cases revealed what I already knew. Even though they were listed as convicted of a simple drug possession they were, in fact, in prison because of probation revocation or for being a Habitual Offender.

What is a Habitual Offender, you might ask? Well that is someone who has already been convicted of at least one felony and is now convicted of another felony. The first subsequent conviction requires a mandatory one year sentence even if the sentence of the subsequent conviction is suspended. The second subsequent conviction results in a mandatory three year sentence. The third one requires an eight year mandatory sentence. All of these habitual offenders who are convicted of drug possession are in fact repeat offenders.

The individuals who are incarcerated because they have had their probation revoked had to work at getting into prison. In case after case judges have sentenced individuals to re-hab or drug court and they have failed to comply. Finally these persons are sent to prison because they have refused the second, third and sometimes even fourth chances offered to them.

One new thing I did learn is that some of these drug possession inmates are in the Corrections Department system because a judge has ordered a 60-day psychological evaluation at the facility in Las Vegas, NM. After the evaluation, they come back to the court for final disposition.

People just do not go to prison for simply having a bag of weed. Those who advocate for eliminating incarceration as an option fail, or refuse, to recognize that fact.

The effort required to turn drug lives around is huge. It requires a change of heart that must come from deep within. The threat of incarceration has been, for some, the crucial motivation necessary to start down the long and difficult road to recovery. Without that threat they would never begin the journey to true freedom. Instead, they remain a prisoner to their self destructive life style. Where is the compassion in that?

As I said we spent half a day discussing this Non-problem. At the end I made the public request of ALL the supporters of this issue to provide the names and case numbers of ten (10) inmates in the Corrections Department (out of over 6000) who were serving time simply for drug possesion, not probation violation, not habitual offender not psychological evaluation, just possesion. I still have not received any names. I am waiting....

Independence Day

This blog has been silent for way too long. There are many reasons for that condition. Some are valid such as the marriage of a daughter, a 30th wedding anniversary trip, and watching four grandchildren under the age of nine. Some are not—busy, lazy, or not sure what to say. In any case, an “inertia of silence” sets in, and as any engineer will tell you, inertia requires much energy to overcome.

The Fourth of July is a great day to overcome inertia. If you have not read the Declaration of Independence (there are certain phrases we seem to know by heart), it is worth your time to read it completely. One portion jumps out at me today.

…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

We are in an election year, and this is our opportunity to alter the government (note I did NOT say abolish).

It was powerfully pointed out to me this morning by a young student pastor (out of the mouth of babes…) that the Declaration did not make us free. It was a simple statement of principle. Inspiring, but without the focused efforts of men and women, powerless. It is important to remember that concepts, principles, and beliefs have no impact of and by themselves. We must act.

If you, as I, feel the State of New Mexico has been misgoverned, then I urge you to join me in the effort to revise, revamp and reform the State. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of the candidates running for office on the Republican ticket. I will endeavor to introduce as many as possible to you. I urge you to examine them and, if you feel led, to support them in as many ways as possible.

The road ahead is long and difficult, but I can think of no better day to begin than July 4th.

A Look Back at the Special Session

The Special Session ended Thursday, March 4th. This report is delayed because on Saturday, March 6th, my wife and I headed to Texas to work on wedding plans for my youngest daughter. We returned to New Mexico on March 12th, and I immediately headed to Albuquerque for the State Republican Pre-Primary Convention. I was back home on Saturday, then back in Santa Fe on Monday the 15th through Wednesday the 17th to file for re-election. More on that later.

The Second Special Session

The recently completed four day special session was notable in my mind for the sudden changes in intensity. We would have periods of idleness, suddenly interrupted with prolonged acrimonious debates on the floor of the House. These changes came with little warning. The periods of idleness grated on many of us on the Republican side. We felt that the taxpayer’s money and our time were being wasted. These lulls were caused by the Democrat caucuses or committee meetings with which most of us were not directly involved.

There were moments when I was not even sure if a budget would be passed. This was particularly true of Monday evening when, in a meeting of the Tax and Revenue committee, two Democrat representatives bucked their leadership and voted against the cigarette tax increase bill. The tax committee meeting was abruptly recessed so that political pressure could be brought to bear on these two independent Democrats.

For much of the next day, we Republicans waited to see if the carefully crafted political deals arranged behind closed doors over the preceding weekend by the Democrat leaders would fall apart. Ultimately the wayward Democrats were brought back into line. With the subtlety of a medieval battering ram, the Democrat political machinery methodically began the process of forcing tax increases and a budget deal through the New Mexico Legislature.

There were skirmishes, debates, and amendments offered and tabled over the next few days. As Republicans we stood up and pointed out the flaws in the logic and plans of the Democrats to no avail. You would think that the Republicans would have become frustrated and despondent, but amazingly, I felt we were more together as a team than at any other time. We had opportunities to gather outside the Capitol Building and learn about each other as individuals. We are not all in lock step agreement on all issues, but as Republicans we have certain core concepts that we hold dear. We have learned to respect each other regardless of any minor differences on any particular issue. Republicans in the House are a hard-working group who take their responsibility of being Legislators seriously. In the end, our spirits remained high because we knew that, in spite of our defeats, we were shining the light of truth on the falsehoods and hypocrisy of the Democrat positions.

Elections matter, and the ones coming up will matter a great deal. If we work together as Republicans, we can change the tone of the House of Representatives and bring sound, frugal, and disciplined stewardship to the expenditure of the taxpayer’s dollars.

With a Wimper Not a Bang

To use an oft repeated saying, “The session ended more with a whimper than with a bang."

Wednesday was the last full day, and we spent it going into committees, then floor session, then recess for more committees. We finally left the Roundhouse at 4:30 Thursday morning. We came back around 8 AM and finished at noon as required by the constitution. We passed some bills and some memorials, but we did not pass a budget for the fiscal year which starts July 1. We Republicans held firm and refused to support any tax increases. This unity, so far, has prevented the Democrats from imposing more taxes.

By now you will have heard that we are going back into special session on Wednesday, February 24th. We will see if Governor Richardson, Lt. Governor Denish and Speaker Lujan, together with their allies, have come up with a plan to really fix spending or if they just want to “increase revenue.”

The Republicans have said repeatedly we need to reduce spending. Efforts to raise more revenue through tax increases will cause more harm than good. States like Maryland and New Jersey have experienced drops in revenue after raising taxes. Some people just do not believe that. Not all of them are in Santa Fe.

During the session I received numerous e-mails. To give you an idea of the input we get, I want to share just a few:

--

No more cuts to public education and enough [sic] new revenues to fund the state budget. A balanced approach is needed. We already had $700 million dollars in cuts to the budget, now is the time to balance the budget with new revenue!

--

Put the food tax back on ALL food. We handled it before and we can do it again!

--

State agency employees provide the backbone of services and the economy of New Mexico, Historically, they have been underpaid in comparison to the private sector and over the last few years they have lost additional financial stability with mandated participation in union dues and work furloughs, increased PERA contributions and no pay raises, cost of living or otherwise.

Corporate combined reporting and a return to 2003 tax rates for the most wealthy are two measures that would contribute to a fairer resolution to increase state revenues that I am asking you to support. Increasing the state sales tax is also a means of fairly distributing the burden of the state's revenue shortfall.

--

I am a constituent from Ruidoso and am writing to urge you to support SB 207. I am also in favor of increasing the tax burden of the wealthiest citizens of this state instead of spreading their tax burden among those of us already paying their share.

--

I strongly recommend taxing the wealthy populations and big business to increase revenues instead of allowing the hardship on state employees and teachers through lay-offs and reduced salaries. The wealthy can take care of themselves; and in my opinion are in the position to shoulder the load. Their status in society requires the stronger helping the weak. They also are in position to contribute to the economy.

--

As you can see, the folks who want to increase your taxes are not bashful. They reach out to the Legislature. If you do not want to see an increase in your taxes, you need to speak up. Encourage your friends to do the same.

Constituent Letter

The following "Constituent Letter" was mailed out a few days ago. I meant to post this a few days ago but things have been very busy. More on that later



Dear friends & neighbors,

We have reached the half way point of this 30 day session and I want to report how we are progressing here at your legislature. I am mailing a limited number of letters to save money. I will also post this letter on my website www.denniskintigh.com. Please let your friends and family know they can find this on the web.

I introduced one bill, HB52 to repeal the Film Production Tax Credit. This bill would have eliminated a subsidy for the movie business, a subsidy that cost you, the taxpayer, over $80 million in FY2009. Film subsidies like these have been the subject of numerous studies. Some claim the public treasury gets $1.50 back for every $1 paid out. Other studies show a return of only 15 cents. To read some of these studies, both pro and con, go to my website www.denniskintigh.com and click on the “New Mexico Film Subsidy” icon. I have read and studied all of these reports. I don’t believe you are getting a fair return for your tax dollars.

A bill that came to the Health and Government Affairs Committee was HB73 “Taking of Certain Animal Species.” This bill deals with wildlife (deer, elk, antelope, etc.) that are eating crops of farmers, dairies, or ranchers. This bill aroused a lot of attention. I was concerned the sponsor was a representative from Albuquerque with no connection to agriculture or hunting. This bill was not scheduled to be heard by the House Agriculture Committee or the committee that routinely deals with wildlife issues, the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The bill would stop ranchers and farmers from being able to kill animals destroying their crops if the Department of Game and Fish fails to act promptly. Instead the state would pay for fencing or damages but fails to reimburse for installation.

Many things concerned me about the bill. One was cost. An increase in hunting license fees is supposed to cover the increased costs, but if they don’t then the department would “request” grant funds from the State Board of Finance. The cost did not seem well defined. The other major problem was how this bill was prepared and submitted. As I stated above, the sponsor is from the city and no committees associated with agriculture or wildlife were scheduled to hear this. We can and should do better. Those whose livelihood are at stake need to be included in this process. I have offered to work on a compromise. Unfortunately, I expect it to take more time than we have in this session.

I have also introduced a joint resolution to propose a constitutional amendment to term limit State Representatives and State Senators. The limits I have proposed are 12 years in each body. The arguments for and against have been out there for many years and I will not repeat them here. I will just say I believe it is the right thing to do.

Tax bills are moving slowly through the house. I have not seen any I can support. We must reduce the size of government and we are not doing that.

The pace of activity will grow more frantic as we approach the final few days. I have received many letters, e-mails, and phone calls/messages. I wish I had been able to respond. I have read them all. Please continue to contact me, I value your input and ideas. The best way is via e-mail at askdennis@denniskintigh.com.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. Kintigh

The Tax Showdown in Santa Fe

Please note: In this blog you will find a number of links to actual bills, evaluations of the bills, and votes. I really encourage you to follow these links.

The Legislature has finished the second complete week of work here in Santa Fe. Friday, February 5, all of the intense private negotiations within the Democrat’s party burst out into the public. Friday was the day the house debated and voted on the budget for Fiscal Year 2011 (starting July 1, 2010) and a fistful of tax increases.

For me, the day began about an hour before the 9AM floor session, and ended when I got home at 11PM after the House Judiciary committee adjourned. Of course, we get time and a half after 5pm. (That is a joke! As you know, we are the last volunteer legislature in the nation).

Although it was not voted on until 6PM, I would like to address the budget bill first. The bill can be found here. The sponsor was the Chairman of the House Appropriation Committee, Henry “Kiki” Saavedra. I disagree with Representative Saavedra on a number of issues, but he is one of the most respected members of the House of Representatives. He is a true gentleman.

The budget bill had way too much in the way of spending in spite of the best efforts of the Republicans on the House Appropriation Committee. The Republicans have an awesome team on this committee. They are Don Bratton, Jimmie Hall, Larry Larranaga, Kathy McCoy, and Jeanette Wallace. Ultimately, all the Republicans and many Democrats voted against the budget.

During the floor debate, Representative Larranaga put forward an amendment to cut spending, but we were voted down.

Earlier in the day, we fought to stop the Democrats from raising your taxes. Each bill has an analysis done which is documented in a report called the Fiscal Impact Report (FIR). The FIR is a handy and useful summary of the bill, and is prepared by the independent and non-partisan Legislative Finance Committee (LFC). The LFC staff is an incredible collection of public servants who do their best to give accurate and unbiased information to all legislators.

The first tax increase that we voted on was to raise the State gross receipts tax (GRT) rate from 5% to 5.5% (HB 119). Local communities have an additional gross receipts tax over and above that amount. The GRT is the same as a sales tax. As a result of this tax increase, the amount you pay at the store will go up. For example, the GRT in Ruidoso will go from 8.3% to 8.8%. The fiscal impact report (FIR) for this bill can be found here. The final vote on this bill was 34 to 32. New Mexico taxpayers will be paying an additional $239.8 million.

The second tax increase was to add an income tax surcharge on higher wage earners (HB 9). The FIR can be found here. The final vote on this bill was 36 to 32. The cost for this tax increase is $66.7 million.

The third tax increase involved changing the way businesses paid taxes (HB 120). The FIR can be found here. The final vote on this bill was 42 to 25. This will cost taxpayers $15.6 million.

The last tax bill would have changed the way deductions are treated on your State income tax (HB 270). The FIR on this bill is here. The final vote on this bill was 33 to 34. This was the one tax increase we were able to stop. This would have cost taxpayers $90.2 million.

The Democrat controlled House of Representatives has voted to increase the tax burden on the working people of New Mexico by almost $400 million. I am proud to say I voted against each and every one of these tax increases as well as the budget itself.

The fight over taxes and our budget moves to the Senate. While the Senate wrestles with these issues, we in the House will tackle some social issues put forward by the Governor.

The forecast calls for more storms—political storms and snow storms.

Back in Santa Fe

Welcome to Our New Web Page

As you noticed, our web site looks different. It has been revised and updated for this current session. I hope you like it. We are excited and pleased with it.

Back in Santa Fe

I am back in Santa Fe for the 30 day session of the Legislature. The weather here has been like that back home—cold and snowy. It is quite beautiful but it can make travel difficult. Fortunately we have a place to stay that is close enough to the Capitol for me to walk.

The Budget

We are now one third of the way through the session, and I have yet to see a clear plan of how to deal with the budget problems facing our State. The majority party has had a number of private meetings (called caucuses) in which I assume they have tried to reach agreement on how their party will resolve the budget problems. I am fearful that the “solution” offered by the majority party will consist primarily of tax increases.

In a previous blog, I have provided links to web sites that give background information on how the budget process works in New Mexico. I am going to repeat those links here.

The Budget Glossary explains the terms you see in the news. A number of essays describe various parts of the New Mexico budget. The Fiscal Structure of New Mexico really gives a good overview.

To get background information on the budget process, I encourage you to visit these sites. Current information on the budget can be found here. I strongly encourage anyone interested in government spending and taxation become familiar with how state government works.

The Film Subsidy

Again this year, I introduced a bill to eliminate the New Mexico Film Subsidy. Just like last year, my bill was tabled in the first committee. Unlike last year, more and more people are starting to ask serious questions about the value of this “bail-out for Hollywood.” You may have noticed on the front page of this web site, the icon for “New Mexico Film Subsidy.” If you want to learn more about the economic realities of film subsidy programs here and in other states, please click on that icon. We have analyses both pro- and con- regarding this subsidy.

The Optimist

In spite of the fact that our State is facing grave economic problems and revenues to the State Treasury have dropped significantly, I believe there is a silver lining to this very dark cloud. Government has grown way out of control and out of proportion to the needs of the citizens of this State. Those of us in positions of responsibility are now being forced to carefully and soberly examine the size, responsibilities, and scope of government. I believe that is a good thing. We must become leaner and more efficient. There is much to be done, and I don’t wish to imply that success has been achieved. But we have begun to ask the right questions and to seek the right answers.

New York Indictments and New Mexico

I have been surprised at the minimal attention given to the recent indictment of the heads of CDR, David Rubin, Zevi Wolmark and Evan Zarefsky, all of California.

CDR was the focus of attention when Gov. Bill Richardson’s nomination to be Secretary of Commerce was derailed. The governor’s name was withdrawn after it became known there was an ongoing federal probe into the relationship between CDR and the New Mexico Finance Authority (NMFA) and contributions to PACs controlled by Gov. Richardson.

That investigation was concluded in the late summer of 2009. U.S. Attorney Greg Fouratt sent a private letter to attorneys representing individuals under investigation, stating no charges would be filed. The letter, which was leaked to the news media and for which Mr. Fouratt was criticized, contained the little noted clause that it was “limited solely to each party’s conduct in NMFA’s award of financial work to CDR in 2004.” In light of the indictments returned in the Southern District of New York, it appears the clause was underappreciated.

The entire CDR controversy is long, complex and, for many, just too hard to understand. That is unfortunate, as I believe it is a significant issue that could have tremendous impact on New Mexico. Previous news articles have focused on the activities of NMFA, GRIP Bonds, friends of the governor, and contributions to political funds controlled by Gov. Richardson.

Indictment Basics

At this time I would like to look closely at the actual indictment returned on Oct. 29 in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). An indictment is a formal, written accusation of wrongdoing.

The SDNY is a federal court that covers a portion of the State of New York. The SDNY includes Manhattan, the Bronx and other counties near New York City. Populous states like New York often have multiple federal court districts, but here in New Mexico we have one federal district for the entire state.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY has long been considered a flagship office for the prosecution of federal financial crimes. This makes sense as Manhattan is where Wall Street and many major financial corporations are located.

This CDR indictment alleges nine specific crimes (or counts) were committed by Rubin, Wolmark and Zarefsky. The indictment is the result of an investigation by the FBI and the IRS in which evidence was presented to a federal grand jury. That grand jury concluded there is “Probable Cause” to believe the named defendants committed the specified crimes.

In my 24 years in the FBI, I have never seen a “ham sandwich” indicted as is routinely alleged by those who wish to trivialize a federal grand jury indictment. This is very serious. Top officials in the Department of Justice signed off on this document.

The CDR Indictment

The actual indictment is 39 pages long. The beginning has a very useful background section that explains the role of “brokers” in the issuance of municipal bonds.

Towns, school districts, housing authorities, and other government agencies, referred to as “issuers,” raise money for specific projects by selling bonds. These bonds are loans the agency will pay off over time. The money raised by selling these bonds is spent over time. The “issuers” will routinely invest the unneeded proceeds to earn money.

Think of it like getting a home improvement loan to cover numerous repairs, and you put the money in a savings account until you need to move it to your checking account. These “savings account” investments are done with financial institutions like banks and insurance companies, who are called “providers.” The individuals who represent these “providers” are called “marketers.”

“Brokers” like CDR are supposed to get the best deal for the “issuers” by getting multiple offers from numerous “providers” as bids submitted by “marketers.” In a perfect world a number of “marketers” send in sealed bids promising specific returns on investments to the “broker.” The “broker” then opens the bids and picks the “provider” offering the best deal.

The federal grand jury indictment charges CDR (the “broker”) rigged the bids with corrupt “providers” through crooked “marketers.” “Issuers” were cheated out of a fair return on the taxpayer’s money, while CDR and their cronies got kickbacks, the indictment alleges.

It is claimed in the indictment this scheme started back in 1998 and was ongoing until at least November 2006. The first count listed in the indictment is “restraint of interstate trade and commerce,” which addresses the bid-rigging allegation.

Counts 2 and 3 are conspiracy. “Conspiracy” is an agreement to commit an illegal act. That agreement is a crime in itself if some action occurred to fulfill the agreement, an “overt act.” Because it is an ongoing criminal enterprise, events which occur outside the statute of limitations can be presented at trial. The government must prove the agreement existed and that an “overt act” was committed (unless it’s a drug crime).

Count 2 alleges an agreement between CDR and a company only identified as “Provider A.” The overt acts allegedly involve CDR executives and “Marketer A,” the indictment says. Phone calls and events that occurred in late October 2003 are listed in the indictment.

Count 3 alleges a similar scheme involving “Provider B,” Marketers B-1 and B-2 and a “state housing agency.” This count identifies a phone call from New Mexico on May 20, 2004, as an overt act. Although reference is made to a “state housing agency” together with a call from New Mexico, there is nothing in the indictment that links this call to the ongoing Region III Housing Authority investigation and the indictment of former State Rep. Vincent “Smiley” Gallegos.

Marketer A, B-1 and B-2 are not identified, and this is usual because they are probably cooperators who have cut a deal. The identity of Marketer A, B-1, B-2 and Provider A and B will be known prior to trial. The identities of the victim “issuers” also are not revealed because that could lead to figuring out who is cooperating.

Counts 4, 5 and 6 are “Wire Fraud,” which means money allegedly was transferred electronically across state lines to further this criminal plan.

Count 7 alleges “false statements” by Evan Zarefsky to the FBI in November 2006. Two points here are:
• Never lie to the FBI. It’s a crime, even if you’re not under oath.
• This was a criminal act committed in late November 2006, which places the conspiracy well within the five-year statute of limitations and allows the prosecutors to bring in all of the criminal acts that occurred six, seven or more years ago.

Count 8 alleges interfering with administration of internal revenue laws. One of the acts presented in this count refers to a “state housing agency” and a phone call on May 19, 2004.

Finally, Count 9 alleges “Fraudulent Bank Transactions” in which the kickbacks to the CDR executives were concealed.

Conclusion

This criminal indictment paints a picture of a sophisticated criminal enterprise which operated in many states, including New Mexico.

While CDR’s involvement with NMFA was not addressed, these charges from New York suggest the existence of a pattern of criminal activity that was occurring at the same time as CDR involvement in New Mexico. So what did happen in New Mexico? Perhaps we will learn much about the inner workings of CDR as the New York case unfolds.

Significantly, Mr. Fouratt’s letter also did not “preclude the United States or the grand jury from reinstituting such an investigation without notification.”

David Rubin, Zevi Wolmark and Evan Zarefsky will be under tremendous pressure to reach a deal with federal prosecutors. As is always the case, the individuals who come forward first with the most useful testimony will get the best deal. Their attorneys know this.

These charges, together with the recent guilty plea by Saul Meyer in a case by the New York attorney general’s office, plus the Region III Housing Authority case by the New Mexico attorney general, promise to keep allegations of corruption in the forefront of the news.

The next year could be very interesting for New Mexico politicians.

The New Mexico Budget Mess

Budget Basics

As we are embroiled in a serious budget crisis, it is important for voters to have a clear understanding of the State budget process. Informed voters are effective advocates and the taxpayers of New Mexico must become both informed and effective.

Some very helpful information sheets have been prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC), a permanent agency of the legislature. The LFC is comprised of professional economists and analysts who work with the executive branch agencies to prepare the State budget each year. These information sheets include a Budget Glossary, “the Fiscal Structure of New Mexico”, and a collection of essays called “Finance Facts”.

The fiscal year for the State of New Mexico goes from July 1 to June 30. The fiscal year is the year in which June 30th falls. We are in FY2010. FY2009 ended on June 30, 2009, FY2008 on June 30, 2008, etc.

The terms “recurring dollars” and “one-time” dollars are used a lot. An example of a “recurring” dollar as an expense would be the salary and benefits of a state employee. A “recurring” dollar as income would be revenue from the state’s royalty from an oil well on state land. A “one-time” dollar would be the money spent or not-spent (saved) on repairing a highway. The concern is that we are using “one-time” dollars (saved by not fixing the road) to cover “recurring” expenses (the state employee salary). Eventually we run out of these “one-time” funds and we still have the “recurring” expenses.

Budget Background

A little background is appropriate at this point. In FY2004 when the first budget was passed under Governor Bill Richardson/Lt Gov Diane Denish, the State spent $ 4.127 Billion. By FY 2008, the last year before revenue began to drop, New Mexico was spending $5.994 Billion, an increase of 45 percent.

Then the economy started to collapse. Estimates of the amount of revenue the State could expect to collect began to fall. The estimate for FY 2010 dropped by $286 million between last October and December when in was projected that FY2010 would produce $5.733 Billion. The collapse in expected revenue continued and accelerated: February - $ 5.484 Billion; August - $ 5.052 Billion; this October - $ 4.833 Billion.

To put it bluntly our State tax revenue has cratered. We have gone from about $6 Billion to about $4.8 Billion, a drop of $1.2 Billion or around 20 percent in just over sixteen months. We are now expected to have the same income as we did in FY 2006 if things don’t continue to worsen.

Special Session

During this Special Session the legislature was to address two primary issues. The first was to transfer funds from the reserve accounts the State maintains to cover unexpected (by some) shortfalls for FY 2009. The final audited numbers for FY 2009 are not in yet, but it is estimated that the State needs to take about $210 million out of the reserves (think of it as a savings account) to cover operating expenses (think of this as the checking account).

The second issue was to reduce expenditures for the current fiscal year, FY2010, because tax revenue flowing into the State Treasury has failed to meet projections. This problem was not unexpected. In fact, in March 2009 ALL of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted AGAINST the FY2010 budget. We knew then that it did not deal with the problems this State was facing.

Spending for FY 2010 was cut, but only enough to cover about a third of the shortfall in revenue. The rest is to come from “one-time” dollars. Like many others, I believe we have simply delayed dealing with the real problem, and as a result, it will get worse.

Regarding the FY 2009 shortfall, the Richardson/Denish administration wanted what amounted to a blank check to pull funds out of reserves for both FY 2009 AND FY2010. That passed, but without a two-thirds majority. Therefore, the money cannot be moved for ninety days, and many of us believe that the funds cannot be taken legally from the restricted reserves. All of the Republicans voted against this transfer. This battle did not get the attention it deserved and could be the cause of some lawsuits and/or another special session.

The Future

In January we are to prepare a budget for FY2011. Many of us fear the problems will continue to get worse. Taxes are not expected to be back to FY2008 levels until FY2015 or later. Also in FY2011 the Federal stimulus money ends. This administration has been using these dollars to cover shortfalls.

To my “Tea Party” friends, you need to make sure your voices are heard in Santa Fe before and during the thirty day session. I guarantee you that the folks who want to raise taxes are speaking often and loudly.

Peace?

Recently the news media has been dominated by the national health care debate and the indictment of the former Secretary of State here in New Mexico. These and other local happenings have pushed off the front page the release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who was convicted in 2001 for the murder of 270 people in connection with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. He is terminally ill with cancer and is being allowed by the Scottish minister of justice to go back to Libya to die at home - an act of “compassion”.

This event went unnoticed by most individuals except for those who were directly impacted by that horrible act.

Scotbomb

In December of 1988 I was assigned to the criminal/reactive squad of the Washington field office of the FBI. At the time we were located in a ratty office building in a depressed part of Washington D.C. Squads were arranged in open bays with shoulder height partitions separating one squad from another. There was not a lot of rhyme or reason for the location of the squads and my squad was located next to one of the terrorism squads.

Pan Am 103 went down on December 21st carrying people home-bound for the Christmas holiday. Initially it was treated as a simple air disaster. Something routinely handled by the NTSB. Within a week it became obvious it was not mechanical failure that doomed those people, but rather a horrid act of terrorism and thus the responsibility of the FBI. Washington field office was designated as the “office of origin” for this investigation.

It was between Christmas and New Years, and I, unlike most of my colleagues, was working in the office. I had a minor case that had some court hearings scheduled. I remember the Supervisor of the terrorism squad stepping out of his office, looking around, seeing me and calling my name. That was how I was selected for the task force working Pan Am 103 - The case we knew as “Scotbomb”.

Over twenty years have passed and memories can fade, but some images never leave you. These events that would not make a good movie. There were no high speed chases or kicking in doors but there was drama… of the heart and soul.

I can recall sitting around the office that first Saturday, together with a couple of other agents, crafting a massive teletype to the field offices where victim’s homes were located. Within days a command post was established and a team of agents pulled together from various squads.

The plane went down in Lockerbie which is served by the Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary. This department is the smallest of the eleven law enforcement agencies covering Scotland. Scottish authorities put together a task force drawing officers from all of these departments.
A team of four or five detectives from Scotland came to Washington D.C. and were part of our command post across the hall from the SAC’s office.

I remember the Scots had at the time a very advanced data base system which was constantly updated by one detective. We, the FBI agents, were “cutting edge” in that we had all teletypes uploaded into a text searching program.

My job in those days before DNA testing was to coordinate the activities of FBI agents who went to victim’s homes to try and collect latent fingerprints which could be used to identify bodies. Eventually the officials in Scotland dispatched to the U.S. a special team of detectives lead by the commander of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary Their purpose was to personally tell the families of nine or so American families that they were not going to get their loved one’s complete body back. They would only get a portion. It was a “class act” and one that still impresses me today. My job was to arrange to have an FBI agent accompany each detective. While that process was going on, clearance was received to approach another ten or so families and tell them they would get nothing back.

Years later, I ran into one of the FBI agents who went out on one of those visits. He shared with me that they called one family ahead of time, told them they were coming, and when they got there, found two chairs waiting for them in the living room. Fifteen or so family members faced the agent and detective seeking answers to questions these law enforcement officers simply could not provide.

Another responsibility for me was to spend a week at the Pan Am reservation center in Northern Virginia. Every day a Pan Am employee and I went through reservation by reservation on the computer as I prepared a separate report detailing all the data for each of the reservations. Within a few years Pan Am would no longer exist as an airline, destroyed in part by trial lawyers hungry for spoils from this wounded institution of American aviation - a victim for a second time.

I recall our cramped little command post with no windows and tacky furniture was the scene of countless phone calls, meetings, and writing. On the wall was an 8 by 10 color glossy photo from the crash site of an empty shoe of a toddler. There are many other memories that all come crashing back in moments of quiet reflection.

I was released from the task force shortly after I completed the review of the reservation data. Tidbits from agents still working the case were relayed to me over the years. There was talk of a special trip to Malta and other breakthroughs.

In 1992 I transferred to the FBI office in Roswell and eight years later it looked like I might go to the Netherlands to testify in the Pan Am 103 trial. I was interviewed over the phone by a defense investigator, but I did not need to travel. One defendant, Megrahi, was convicted and another acquitted.

For me, the most compelling memory is of a conversation I had with the commander of the Dumfries & Galloway CID unit. I don’t recall if it was when he came to our home for supper one night or as we sat quietly in a bar with a cold drink, as cops often do.

The plane had crashed at night. Wreckage and bodies were strewn around the countryside. Eleven residents of Lockerbie were dead including one family completely wiped out. A local ice-skating rink was designated as a temporary morgue. The decision was made, and orders were issued, that the bodies were to be left untouched until daylight. However, the first half dozen or so bodies were all children brought in during the night. In spite of the orders to leave the corpses untouched until dawn, people would come across the body of a small child, and just could not leave them lying in the cold. They picked them up and carried them in their arms to the mortuary. I sat there frozen as this story was related to me, and it has haunted me for over twenty years.

There are good and noble people in Scotland. I have met some. Their honor has been soiled by the actions of a vile politician.

Justice

We constantly hear calls for pity, compassion, and forgiveness for criminals. These demands make a mockery of the pain and suffering of victims. Real justice demands the evil doer be held accountable. We must never forget that. Forgiveness is meant to be a personal act of release. Pity and compassion are to be reserved for the victims of misfortune. We have become uncomfortable with the task of holding people accountable for their actions. It is hard work plus we don’t want to be seen as “judgmental”.

In this day and age, we bestow compassion on the betrayers of public trust, and pity upon cold blooded killers. By doing so, we mock the grief and agony of the victims of crime. Some tell the victim to suffer in silence or just “let go”. That is wrong. The victim must be valued and vindicated if they, and the community, are to heal and know serenity or calm again. For as the saying goes “No justice, no peace”.

Provoking Thought

As May fades into June and summer begins to really “rev-up”, I find my calendar crammed full of activities such as family events (my father-in-law turned eighty this week) and outings associated with my legislative responsibilities. On Memorial Day my wife, Carol, and I drove to Tularosa to participate in a very impressive memorial service. I was honored and privileged to have been asked to speak. Tuesday, the next day, I listened in at a regional meeting of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association. They are a great group of people trying hard to keep the food on all of our tables. Wednesday I participated in a health care task force headed by the Mayor of Roswell. We are working on making sure rural communities have the physicians they need. Friday afternoon was consumed with a forum on juvenile detention concerns put on by CYFD. The social worker/law enforcement split was fully visible. In my mind the absolute number one responsibility is to protect the community.

All of that just in the last week!

While I could drone on with “How I spent my summer vacation” tales, I would rather offer for your consideration some works by other writers. Over the past few months I have discovered some articles that I have found particularly interesting and thought-provoking. One such essay is a piece by Bill Kristol titled “Let 1,000 Republican Flowers Bloom”. I came across this during the legislative session. I have wanted to share it for some time.

Taxpayers Deserve to See What They are Paying For

The following essay appeared on Heath Haussamen’ blog. It was in response to a column by Mr. Eric Witt, the Governor’s Deputy Chief of Staff. Through out this debate I have mentioned the study of the film subsidy by the Arrowhead Center of New Mexico State University. That study is available on line here. The Ernst & Young study touted by the film industry can be examined here. In addition the Legislative Finance Committee staff economist did a comparison of the two stufies. That analysis is found here. I urge every interested individual to read all three and form their own conclusions.

Taxpayers Deserve to See What They are Paying For

As a first time State Legislator, I have been surprised by the intensity of the interest in my position on the film industry subsidy, or as some call it “The Film Incentives.” The film subsidy program requires the State to pay film production operations 25% of their qualifying expenses. This program will cost New Mexico over $50 million. The question is “Is it worth it?” When my legislation to repeal the film industry subsidy died in committee on March 3rd, I expected that to be the end of the matter. However, a few days ago, Mr. Eric Witt, the Governor’s Deputy Chief of Staff, published an essay critical of my position.

The Studies

Several assertions in Mr. Witt’s column were incorrect. He touted the independence of a study done by the firm of the Ernst & Young and claimed that the study done by the Arrowhead Center at New Mexico State University is not quite as independent because its funding comes from the Legislature. But Witt fails to acknowledge that the Ernst & Young study was contracted by the New Mexico State Film Office and the State Investment Council (SIC). Both of these agencies are connected to the film subsidy program.

The Ernst & Young study claims that for every taxpayer dollar spent, the State or local government receives $1.50. Interestingly, the Ernst& Young study asserts that the film subsidies increase tourism, generating $.55 out of the $1.50, over a third of the purported benefit. However, there is no direct economic evidence to support this claim. This is just one example of the “curious” conclusions in the Ernst & Young study.

SIC Loan Program

Another part of the film subsidy program is the loan program administered by the troubled State Investment Council (SIC). Instead of interest payments to the State’s permanent funds, movie companies are to pay a percentage of the film’s profits. Amazingly, none of the films that have received “zero interest loans” have shown a profit. This SIC program cost the State over $12 Million in 2008.

Dialog

Following the debate of my legislation, I had a dialog with twenty to twenty-five individuals from the film industry. Unfortunately Mr. Witt was not present. The position of the opponents of my legislation after this two hour meeting was that there was no room for compromise with the industry. No one was willing to consider a cap on expenditures or a phase out of the program.

Secrecy

Mr. Witt is correct in stating that advocates of this program are happy to tout its reported benefits, but there is no way to obtain any real details to verify their claims. Early in the session I called and asked for data on film production reimbursements made by the Tax and Revenue Department. I received no information from my phone calls. Finally after three letters to the Secretary for Tax and Revenue, I received a list that consisted of seventy-two payments to film production companies. The Tax and Revenue Department has so far refused to provide me with the address, officers, registered agents, or owners of these film companies. Tax and Revenue has also refused to provide details regarding the qualifying expenditures made by these companies. This refusal to provide information essential to a fair evaluation of the program is the basis for my concern about secrecy.

Following my first phone call to the Tax and Revenue Department, I received a personal visit from Mr. Witt. During that visit, Mr. Witt stated it might be possible for him to arrange a situation where I could look at data unavailable to the public. However, I could not make copies, I would be prohibited from taking notes, and I would be responsible should the data make it into the public domain. I declined his offer.

The Need for Transparency

During my first session in Santa Fe, I actively pursued efforts to increase transparency in our State government. I submitted a bill to put the State budget online. This bill was tabled, but a memorial to study this concept was passed. I also did webcasting from the House Judiciary Committee. I firmly believe transparency is critical to clean, fair, and effective government. There are individuals who seriously support the incentive program for the film industry. There are others who have grave doubts about its appropriateness. The public is bombarded with conflicting claims and statements. The only real way to resolve this is with total transparency.

The Film Incentive program is estimated to cost us $50 million in 2010 at a time when state employees are taking a pay cut. The District Attorneys who are responsible for protecting us from dangerous criminals will have a 1.9 % budget cut this year. Many other agencies are also facing larger cuts. This film subsidy program is unique in that no other budget item in our state takes so much money from the public treasury with so little public accountability.

Who are getting these payments? What is the address of the production company getting the taxpayers’ money? Who are the officers/owners of these companies? Exactly what have they done to qualify for your money? Where and from whom did they make purchases and when? These are the types of questions I believe need to be answered about a subsidy program that will cost New Mexico taxpayers $50 million this year and more in the future.

The Film Incentive program demonstrates how the current lack of accountability and transparency raises doubts and concerns in the minds of the public. Whose interests are being served? New Mexico Taxpayers deserve to know the answers.

Let's Just Get More Information

This essay written by me was posted on Heath Haussamen’s blog and referred to in Joe Monahan’s April 22nd blog. An earlier editorial, critical of my concerns about the film industry, titled “Dumb and Dumber” appeared in certain newspapers.

Let's just get more information

At one point during this past legislative session a flood of emails, phone calls, and office visits deluged the capitol begging, pleading, and on rare occasions demanding that a particular piece of legislation be stopped. We were warned that, should this particular bill be allowed to become law, the effect would be catastrophic for New Mexico.

I am not referring to a sweeping piece of social legislation such as Domestic Partnership, the Freedom of Choice Act, or the Death Penalty. Rather the bill that produced this tsunami of reaction was a revenue bill--my revenue bill. HB 725 was a bill to repeal the Film Production Expense Rebate.

Although the bill was tabled in the first committee, some individuals (including a recent columnist) continue to demand that this subsidy must not be questioned, criticized, or touched. Any who take an opposing view are to be mocked and vilified.

Currently the State of New Mexico pays film production companies for certain activities. The most prominent part of the existing law is a 25% rebate from the State for all qualified direct production expenditures. In 2003 this program cost $1.1 Million. By 2008 the cost had increased to $47 Million, and it is expected to grow to $54 Million in 2010.

While it is obvious that certain individuals and companies have profited handsomely from these subsidies, the issue before this legislature and this administration is how to be good stewards of a dwindling supply of increasingly harder-to-produce tax dollars--dollars squeezed from a shrinking work force.

The two studies of the New Mexico Film subsidy program have produced widely differing conclusions. One study claims the return to taxpayers is $1.50 for every tax dollar paid out. The other study identifies the return to be only 14.5 cents on the dollar. There have also been additional studies of the effectiveness of these subsidies in Louisiana and California. The Louisiana study puts the return at 16 to18 cents on the dollar.

Much attention has been paid to the fact that California, in the middle of a budget crisis, has adopted new incentives to woo back film production. However, little has been said about the report from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. The California Legislature was advised to “reject the film tax credit”. That advice was ignored.

The recently adopted New Mexico state budget shifts an increased burden onto our public workers. These workers will now have their pay reduced by 1.5% to save the state $40 Million. In addition, the budget calls for dipping into the state’s savings to the tune of $136 Million.

How can this administration call on sacrifices and savings depletion while at the same time give away $54 Million to one protected industry? How do we face the struggling small businessman, the laid-off factory worker, or the state policeman and say that he or she must sacrifice, but this program cannot be questioned?

Obviously there are different perspectives on this issue. The studies mentioned above have one showing a return TEN times greater than other studies. Which is correct? I believe the answer can be found in closely reviewing the details of this program which are now hidden in secrecy. Exactly who is getting these tax dollars? What exactly have they done to justify getting your tax money? What is the actual benefit to the taxpayers of New Mexico?

This is a serious public policy problem that must be examined and resolved. That is not done by hurling verbal abuse at those who dare to express concern or think this is a grave problem. In my prior job with law enforcement, answers to questions like these were called “evidence,” and it is so much more helpful in public debates than witty comments or vindictive insults. Let’s have an open and public examination with a sober and serious discussion. I believe that is what the public deserves, and I believe that is how effective public policy is made.

The Last Few Days Part I

Although we had been working long hours at a hectic pace, the last week is an entirely new experience. The Round House goes into high gear, and the pulse of the political process races faster and faster. Saturday noon is the deadline for all legislative activity. For some, the need is to complete the approval process for an issue they hold dear. For others, the goal is to run out the clock on bills they find unacceptable. These conflicting motives coupled with long hours create an incredible tension throughout the Capitol.

The last week began with a Sunday floor session starting early in the afternoon and going well into the evening. We continued to have daily committee hearings and floor sessions up through Thursday. On Wednesday and Thursday we worked until midnight. Friday’s floor session began at 10AM and went without break until 3:30 Saturday morning. We returned at 8:30 that same morning to deal with the last few items working until noon which is the end of the session. So much occurred in that last week that I will need to break this report into at least two parts.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research, SB 77

The final week witnessed the other great moral debate of this session. We began the session with the debate over the death penalty, and largely concluded with the debate over embryonic stem cell research.

There are honest and good people on both sides of both issues. I believe life begins at conception, and that the responsibility of government is to protect the weak and the vulnerable. SB77 would authorize embryonic stem cell research. This is different from adult or umbilical cord stem cell research which is currently legal, accepted as ethical by all, and has been actively pursed well over a decade. SB77 was presented to the House Judiciary Committee on which I sit, and we had a lengthy discussion about the bill. The sponsor of the bill was Senator John Ryan, a Republican. He authored it for very personal reasons. Senator Ryan and I had a private and candid conversation before his appearance in the Judiciary Committee. He knew I was opposed to his legislation. I have tremendous respect for Senator Ryan, but I believe he is wrong on this issue.

The bill passed through committee and proceeded to the floor of the House. Because a Senator cannot present a bill on the floor of the House, a Representative must perform that task during the floor debate. SB77 was presented to the House of Representatives by Al Park (D-26) who is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The debate lasted a full three hours, and I took part in that debate. Since others eloquently put forward the moral and ethical concerns with SB77, I spent my time pointing out the problems in the way the bill was written. My intention was to try to convince any undecided representatives that the bill was flawed and should not pass into law. I do not know if I had any effect on the opinions of my colleagues, but the stem cell research bill was defeated by a vote of 38 to 30.

Private Meeting with Governor Richardson

Tuesday morning of the last week Representative Keith Gardner (R-66), the Whip for the Republican Party in the House, came up to me and said, “I need to see you in private.” My initial response was, “What have I done wrong?” Keith promptly assured me that I was not in trouble, but that he needed to share something with me. Governor Richardson wanted to have a private meeting with me, and that meeting would occur in Representative Gardner’s office which is right off the floor of the House of Representatives.

Governor Richardson asked to speak with me personally because he was preparing to make his decision on signing the death penalty repeal. He had heard about my speech on the floor of the House during our debate of the death penalty. The meeting between myself and Governor Richardson was a private meeting, and I will not share the details of what we said except that I expressed my sincere belief that the death penalty should be retained. I was extremely honored that Governor Richardson would seek me out for my opinion. He is a very prominent political figure who has played a major role on the national and international scene. He has been the dominant political figure in our State for well over a decade. I, on the other hand, am a freshman representative with the minority party. He did not have to ask for my input. Although I am disappointed with his decision, I am gratified that he sought me out and asked my opinion.

We are now home in Roswell. I will reflect on the session and post more thoughts later.

Into the Final Stretch

Transparency in Government

On Tuesday my House Memorial 78, Study Searchable Database of State Budgets, passed the House. This was originally a bill to require the State to make expenditure information available on line. I felt this was a government transparency issue that all legislatures would support, but fourteen (14) Democrats voted against my memorial.

Ineffective Counsel

Also on Tuesday I presented my “Ineffective Counsel” bill (HB 797) to the Consumer and Public Affairs Committee. If a criminal’s conviction is overturned because an appeals court has determined that the defense attorney did not do his job, the State has to let the criminal go free or re-try him. My bill would suspend the “ineffective” attorney from practicing law until he received more training and passed the bar exam (a test all attorneys must pass). Furthermore, the attorney, who didn’t do his job, would pay for the re-trial. Needless to say, defense attorneys did not like this bill and it was tabled.

Insensitivity to Crime Concerns

The number of bills that have been introduced that, in my opinion, weaken the ability of law enforcement and the criminal justice to protect the public has been astonishing. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have seen the constant stream of legislation to “help” criminals.

A few examples are as follows:

HB 285 Repeal the Death Penalty was introduced by Rep Gail Chasey (D-18), a retired educator and attorney. This was an intense debate in both the House and the Senate. I spoke extensively against this repeal in both committees and on the floor. It has passed the legislature and is on the Governor’s desk.

HB 396 Reliable Eyewitness Identification was introduced by Rep Joseph Cervantes (D-52), an attorney. This bill creates all kinds of new rules and regulations for police officers to follow. I won’t bore you with all of my objections, but let me note that when this was heard in Judiciary, the “expert witness” who sat with the bills sponsor was well known criminal defense attorney Michael Stout. I strongly spoke out against this in committee and on the floor. Unfortunately it passed the House by a vote of 34-31. All the Republicans voted against this bill.

HB 807 Jail Good Behavior Standards introduced by Rep Antonio “Moe” Maestas (D-16), an attorney. This bill strips the authority of Magistrate Judges to deny “Good Time” to individual convicted of misdemeanors. I publically opposed this in committee and on the floor. It was defeated on the floor of the House.

HB 866 Criminal Record Expungement Act by Rep Antonio “Moe” Maestas (D-16), an attorney. This would allow courts to conceal from the public certain convictions after specified time periods. It passed the Consumer and Public Affairs committee on a 3-2 vote and is currently in the House Judiciary committee.

Web-Casting

I have been attempting to do live Web-casting during my committee hearings. This is also being done by Representative Janice Arnold-Jones and Representative Candy Spence Ezzell. I got some attention in a political blog by Heath Haussaman at http://haussamen.blogspot.com/ posted on March 10, 2009 at 12:36PM.

Unfortunately I have had a number of technical problems. This is an all volunteer effort with borrowed equipment. I am not comfortable with the quality of the web-casts. I really wish the Legislature would do this with a team of professionals. Sadly there seems to be people of influence who do not want the public to be able to see want is happening in committees

Two Weeks to Go

More Sad News

I am sorry to report the death of two more family members of Legislators this week. Representative Ray Begaye (D-4) lost his mother and Representative Zachary Cook’s (R-56) father passed away. Please keep them and their families in your prayers.

The Film Industry Subsidy

On Tuesday evening I presented HB 725 which was a bill to repeal the Film Industry Production rebate. Currently Film Production companies get 25% of their qualifying expenses rebated to them by the state. This program will cost us an estimated $54 Million next year. We do not do this for any other industry.

Supporters claim that the state benefits from this program. I have studied various analyses of these issues and I am convinced this is a poor use of the taxpayer’s dollars.
I hope to be able to post these studies on line soon.

The hearing did not go favorably. The audience was packed with film industry people including leaders of their union. They all spoke about how they had personally profited from their employment in film production. I did not and do not dispute that they have prospered. The question is at what cost and who pays?

Immediately after the bill was tabled, at the suggestion of the committee, I met with representatives of the film industry. We talked for two hours. They were unwilling to compromise in any way. They would not yield on a cap, a reduction of the size of the rebate, or any sunset clause.

Here is a pretty good article about the committee hearing:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/SantaFeNorthernNM/2009-Legislature-Film-industry-wins-fight-to-keep-incentives

Some Additional Issues

As part of my inquiry into the film production rebates, I requested information about who has received these rebates: How much are they paid? How are their claims substantiated? The administration sent me a simple list with the names of 67 companies (many are duplicates) that have gotten your tax dollars but no details about how much they got, when they were paid, where they are located or what they did to deserve this money. I will continue to work at shining the light of day on this program. You have the right to know how your tax money is spent.

Finally it must be recognized that this is a very influential and powerful special interest group. They have the support of some of the most prominent politicians in this state. Based upon the reactions, I must have hit a nerve.

Transparency in Government

My bill to put the State’s budget on-line stalled in the House Appropriations Committee on Monday. The opposition was from the Information Technology Department which was concerned this would cost too much. At the suggestion of the Committee Chair, I went back and had my bill converted into a House Memorial. The Memorial calls for a study to be conducted on this concept and a report to an interim committee. The hope is to come back with a bill next session.

I went back to Appropriations on Friday and my Memorial was passed. It should come to the floor next week. I want to thank Representative Don Bratton (R- 62) and Representative Larry Larrañaga (R-27) for their assistance in getting this through Appropriations. I also appreciate the encouragement of the Chairman of Appropriations, Representative Henry “KiKi” Saavedra (D-10). They are all real gentlemen.

Web-Casting

I have begun live Web-casting. I have started with the House Judiciary committee. You can watch at www.nmgov.tv Please understand I am trying to keep the link open, run the camera, and do my work as a committee member all at the same time, so it is a little rough.

A Dramatic Week

SB12

Domestic Partnership has hung over this legislature since before the session began. We have wrestled with many issues, the budget, the death penalty, ethics reform and others, but always hovering over this body has been the fundamental question of “What is the definition of marriage?” This single issue has produced the majority of e-mail, letters and phone calls. I firmly believe in Traditional Marriage and was prepared to fight for it. I did not have to defend the institution, as the battle was won in the Senate. On Thursday, February 26th the Senate voted against SB 12 by a vote of 25-17. I was fortunate to actually be present on the floor of the Senate when the vote occurred. Those Senators who stood strong to defend Traditional Marriage are all heroes.

State Worker’s Pay

On that same day, I am sorry to say, the House was not as noble. First the House passed HB 854 which takes 1.5 % of the gross pay of teachers, state policemen, and other state workers. The pay cut is diverted into the worker’s retirement, and the state’s contribution from the General Fund is reduced by the same amount. This is done to save the state $40 Million in FY2010. There has been NO other effort to reduce spending. I voted against this bill.

The Budget for FY2010

Also on Thursday, we voted on the state budget for FY2010. If I am not mistaken, it was the first straight line party vote of this session. The debate was long and serious. Rep. Don Bratton (R-62), one the most respected members of the House Appropriations Committee, spoke extensively against the bill. The FY 2010 budget cuts into our reserves in the amount of $136 Million. The projected price of oil and gas products is way too optimistic. Except for the 1.5% cut from the paychecks of state workers, there is no reduction in State spending. These and many other problems make this a flawed budget. I joined all of the other Republicans and voted against this budget.

Budget Transparency Bill

My HB 452 which puts the State’s “checkbook” on line, made it through the first committee, Health and Government Affairs, on Tuesday, February 24th. I had meetings with individuals representing the State Department of Finance, municipalities and counties who suggested some changes. I was pleased to be able to work with these folks and put forward a better bill. The next stop is House Appropriations. That is a tough committee, but I am hopeful.

A Questionable Bill

On Saturday, HB 864 “Voting System Budget Adjustment” was brought to the floor for debate and vote. This bill was sent to ONLY one committee and had the “Emergency Clause” which means if it passes the Legislature, and the Governor signs it, it goes into effect immediately. The Fiscal Impact Report (FIR) has this brief explanation:

The federal auditors reviewing Secretary of State spending of a Help America Vote Act federal grant has rejected $6.3 million spent on advertising with media consultant A. Gutierrez and Associates … A possible resolution to the audit finding is to make an accounting shift of the unaccepted expenditures… However, this shift requires the Legislature to expand and reauthorize the $11 million appropriation made in 2006…

The entire FIR is here: http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/09%20Regular/firs/HB0864.pdf

The Attorney General is investigating this whole deal, but only AFTER the Feds said this money was misspent. Along with Reps Arnold-Jones and Larranaga, I asked a lot of questions during the debate. Many of us feel this is being done to protect the former Secretary of State. This is another example of the problems in this state that NONE of the proposed ethics legislation addresses. I hope the news media digs into this.

The bill passed, but without the “Emergency Clause,” so the soonest it could take effect is July 1, 2009.

Week Five at the Capitol

An Outpouring of Sympathy

On Wednesday, February 18, the Legislature paused briefly so most Senators and House members could journey to Roswell for the memorial service for Patty Jennings, the late wife of Senate president Pro Tem Tim Jennings of Roswell. The service was one of the largest I have ever attended and a large contingency of elected officials, including the Governor and Lt. Governor were there as well. The Jennings family has contributed greatly to this State. Everything I have heard confirmed what a dedicated public servant Patty Jennings was in her own right. Please keep the Jennings family in your prayers.

The Budget Battle

As I said last time, the revenue figures are looking very grim. The years of growing state government by almost 10% a year have come back to haunt us. This last week there was a lot of intense behind-the-scene discussion. A budget for FY2010 is being crafted, but my Republican colleagues are not happy with what they see. The proposed budget fails to recognize that state revenue is declining; therefore, state spending must also decline. It appears the administration will use the federal stimulus package to prop up the reckless spending behavior of the past. In 2003, when the Richardson/Denish Administration took office, the total State budget was $3.9 Billion. This year it is almost $6 Billion. The longer we put off dealing with over-spending, the worse it gets. As I was told once, problems are not like fine wines…they do not get better with time.

This will come to full scale floor debate on Wednesday or Thursday of this week.

Legislation Introduced

I have now submitted a total of seven bills. They are as follows:

HB 452 Budget Transparency Act
HB 648 Judicial Retirement from General Fund
HB 725 Repeal Film Production Tax Credit
HB 797 Ineffective Lawyer Penalties
HB 856 Controlled Substances in Newborn Babies
HB 857 Appeals from Magistrate to District Court
HB 858 Disbursements of Class Action Suit Funds

If you go online to http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/ and locate the box to the left, you will have a choice listed as "Legislation." Click on that, and go to "Bill Finder". You can then read any bill introduced by me or any other legislator.

The Film Production Tax Credit

There has been considerable media in the New Mexico media on HB 725, my effort to repeal the Film Production Tax Credit. This corporate welfare program cost New Mexico taxpayers $47 Million in FY2008. A study by the NMSU Office of Policy Analysis shows the "benefit" to taxpayers is about 15 cents on every dollar spent. Eliminating this program would save us $54 Million in FY2010. That is ten percent of the estimated budget shortfall. On Friday, I was interviewed about this by a reporter with the Santa Fe New Mexican. The article is here:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Film-turf-war

Keep in Touch!

It is important that I hear from you about legislation, both good and bad. Input from firefighters around our area equipped me to work with other legislators against a bad bill that would drain dollars out of the "Fire Protection Fund." We were outnumbered, but it is hoped that it will be stopped in the Appropriations Committee.

Local input is critical and needed in order for good legislation to pass and for bad legislation to be killed. Soplease feel free to express your opinion, I personally read every e-mail and letter from constituents. Remember, I'm here working for you!