new mexico in depth 2015 legislative guide

NMDepth

In legislative guide

A look At how the NM legislAture

cAN be More trANspAreNt, Accessible ANd respoNsive

— ANd whAt’s keepiNg thAt froM hAppeNiNg

New Mexico In Depth

Illustration by Anson Stevens-Bollen – New Mexico In Depth

2 New Mexico In Depth • 2015 LegisLative guide

3New Mexico In Depth • 2015 LegisLative guide

Dear Reader, This guide differs from others you might have read. In what

way, you ask?Consider it our attempt to pull back the curtain on how the

New Mexico Legislature works and, in some cases, doesn’t. In other words, we are not interested in the spectacle and theat-rics of each year’s legislative session so much as how much in-formation state lawmakers share with New Mexicans about how they conduct the public’s business.

At a deep, profound level, one of the great innovations of de-mocracy is that it invests the public with the authority of over-sight of their elected leaders. To fulfill that responsibility, the public needs information.

New Mexico state lawmakers often acknowledge this reality in word – they like to say the Roundhouse is the People’s House – but not always in deed, it could be argued. I don’t mean to sug-gest New Mexicans aren’t welcome at the Roundhouse. They are, and state lawmakers often greet them warmly.

In a functioning democracy, the assumption is people have the knowledge to make informed decisions when elections roll around. But how much information do state lawmakers tru-ly share with New Mexicans about their day-in, day-out working out of the public’s business? How much do New Mexicans know about the sources of money that fill the campaign accounts of the state’s elected officials? How many New Mexicans know – and might question – the wisdom of letting the state’s elected officials police themselves when it comes to conflicts of interest and potential ethical violations?

These are all questions we pose in this guide in hopes of add-ing to a conversation that increasingly is occurring across the United States about what democracy looks like in the 21st Cen-tury as technological innovation and economics disrupt many of our nation’s cherished institutions.

It is our sincere hope that this publication helps New Mexi-cans participate more effectively in the 2015 legislative session.

Thank you in advance for reading the guide and joining us in this important conversation. You can find New Mexico In Depth at nmindepth.com. For webcasting of legislative hearings and floor debates from the Roundhouse, go to nmlegis.gov. The link for webcasting is on the right side of the Legislature’s webpage.

Trip Jennings

NMID executive director

New Mexico In Depth 2015 LegisLative guide

Jan. 18, 2015trip Jennings Executive director

Heath Haussamen Deputy director

Marjorie Childress Director of organizational development

Reporters Gwyneth Doland

Sandra Fish Matt Reichbach

Sherry Robinson Peter St. Cyr

Photographer Mark Holm

Layout and design Jason Harperillustrations

Anson Stevens-Bollensponsorship solicitations

Peter St. Cyrsponsorship design

Linda Lillow

special thanks to our volunteer columnists:

Sarah Nolan Paul Gessing

Susan Boe Viki Harrison

Janice Arnold-Jones Fred Nathan

New Mexico In Depth aims to invigorate New Mexico journalism through our reporting,

through working with other journalists as collaborators or mentors, and through

media partnerships that leverage collective resources, with the goal of telling in-depth

stories of people who represent our diversity and challenging power in a way that informs

and empowers people and communities. Learn more at NMInDepth.com.

This guide is produced in conjunction with NMID’s media partners: Las Cruces Sun-

News, Santa Fe New Mexican, Farmington Daily Times, Alamogordo Daily News,

Carlsbad Current-Argus, Ruidoso News, Deming Headlight and Silver City Sun-News.

ContentsArTiCLesVoters keep legislators from being paid ..........................4state ethics Commission ‘postponed’ ............................... 11State lags in disclosing campaign finance info ............. 14Other states lead in campaign finance disclosure ........ 16Webcasting brings increased access ............................... 18Short-term capital outlay projects scrutinized ............... 22Examples of faulty spending process dot the state ..... 25How legislation moves through the Legislature ............. 26

COMMenTArYHallway minutes and grocery lines don’t cut it .............. 29Free-market ideas for opening up the Legislature ....... 30Let the sunshine in during 2015 legislative session ....... 31Disclosure sheds light on money in politics ...................... 32Technology can build citizen-friendly process ............... 34Making state’s health care more transparent................ 35Why do many lawmakers fear transparency? ............. 37

Introduction


OPENING THE DOORTO THE INSIDERS’ CLUB

Illustration by Anson Stevens-Bollen – New Mexico In Depth


By HeAtH HAuSSAMeNNew Mexico In Depth

The week of Thanksgiving, state Rep. Bill McCamley made a 12-hour, 570-mile round trip from Las Cruces to Santa Fe to present his marijuana legalization plan to a leg-islative committee.

New Mexico’s lawmakers are the only in the nation who aren’t paid a salary. For his work, McCamley received expense reimbursements – $165 to cover food costs, which also would have had to pay for a hotel had he stayed overnight – and about $300, or 56 cents for each mile driven.

Neither do New Mexico’s law-makers receive money to pay for staff, offices, postage and phones. So McCamley paid an intern out of his political account to help prepare his presentation and travel with him.

That week, in addition to present-ing his plan, McCamley met with a constituent, did media interviews, drafted a memo on economic pol-icy and wrote thank-you notes to campaign donors. He worked only two days at the job that pays his bills. He sells solar power systems in Las Cruces.

Between his job and his legislative duties McCamley typically works 80-90 hours a week, he says.

“I’m pretty stressed out about it right now, but I want to do a good job as a legislator,” he said. “And I try to spend time with my girlfriend so she doesn’t leave me.”

McCamley’s experience illus-trates the challenges to serving in the New Mexico Legislature.

Unlike McCamley, many New

Mexicans can’t take a month or two off from work to attend ses-sions held each year in Santa Fe and meetings around the state in be-tween. Neither can they afford the costs of serving in a job that doesn’t pay and doesn’t reimburse many expenses.

Those realities create a Legisla-ture that includes a number of law-yers in addition to retirees and peo-ple who are independently wealthy. Many say the state’s Legislature doesn’t represent New Mexico’s so-cioeconomic diversity.

Critics of the current system cite another challenge to serving in the Legislature. Because New Mexico doesn’t pay for year-round profes-sional legislative staff, lawmakers are especially vulnerable to the in-fluence of special interests. Without professional staff, lawmakers often lean on lobbyists paid by outside interests to help decipher and, in some cases, even write legislation.

All of these factors converge to create an insiders club of sorts, an institution that is for the most part closed off from the public view, critics say.

21st Century update

The New Mexico Legislature retains an informal culture that evolved out of a world more than 100 years ago when the workload was less and citizen participation

wasn’t as possible as today’s trans-portation options and the Internet allow. There’s been a spike in the number of bills state lawmakers consider, the number of committee meetings they attend between ses-sions, and even the number of con-stituents they represent as the state’s population has grown. As a result, the time demand on legislators has increased dramatically.

The Legislature has made incre-mental reforms in recent years. It webcasts legislative meetings for people who can’t attend. It allows lawmakers to file bills before the session starts, increasing time for public debate and analysis of policy proposals.

But many believe it’s time for wholesale reform to create a law-making system that keeps up with the speed of the 21st Century.

In recent years, two bipartisan task forces have recommended paying lawmakers as an import-ant reform to improve the system. Proponents say it would increase diversity in the Legislature by mak-ing it possible for a greater number of New Mexicans to serve. It would also reduce the influence of spe-cial-interest money, many believe. Lawmakers are going to get paid somehow, the argument goes, so taxpayers should foot the bill in-stead of letting others, like lobby-ists.

In addition to increasing diver-

sity and reducing special-interest influence, paying lawmakers might open the door for other reforms. A sometimes-recommended reform – lengthening sessions to help with the increased workload – might gain more traction if lawmakers were paid.

Another longstanding problem is that committee meetings during sessions rarely take place when they’re scheduled, which makes cit-izen participation difficult in a state that’s roughly the size of Connecti-cut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Rhode Island put together. A transition from an unpaid, “citizen” legislature to a body whose mem-bers are paid might increase expec-tations of professionalism and pres-sure to start committee meetings on time.

It might also build momentum for other committee-related reforms, including archiving webcasts for later viewing and allowing remote testimony by video.

In addition to paying lawmak-ers, some think taxpayers should cover the costs of them doing their jobs, like the work the intern did on McCamley’s marijuana legal-ization proposal, instead of letting donor-funded campaign accounts pay those bills. Increasing the size of the Legislature’s staff might give lawmakers greater access to analy-sis that would reduce the influence lobbyists exert on the legislative process. It would also allow law-makers to rely on their own staff to research and write language for leg-islation that is sometimes currently provided by lobbyists.

Voters keep legislators from being paid for their work

Continued on 6 ➤

Paying lawmakers could reduce special-interest influence and

increase diversity in the Roundhouse


Sam Bregman Eric Loman

SERIOUS INJURY DWI LITIGATION

505.761.5700

BuzzsawS T R A T E G I E SGOVERNMENT & PUBLIC RELATIONS

Darren White, President505.200.9562

Alan Webber, who made a ca-reer in the business world, noted the speed that society moves to-day. The conversation about reform must start with the premise that the world has changed, said Webber, who ran unsuccessfully for gover-nor in 2014.

“The speed of change is faster. The world of technology is faster,” he said. “Lots of things that seemed self-evident (when New Mexico became a state in 1912) are much more complicated. We really ought to equip ourselves with the legis-lative structure to deal with these problems, to get ahead of them.”

Voter skepticism

But it’s unlikely legislators will be paid in New Mexico anytime soon. Voters would have to approve a change to the state Constitution to allow it. They’ve voted against sal-aries four times in the state’s histo-ry – in 1941, 1949, 1978 and most recently in 1990, when 75 percent rejected the proposal.

That matches with the mood of voters across the United States. Morgan Cullen, a policy analyst for the National Council of State Legislatures who focuses on pay, couldn’t think of one example, in a state where voters have to approve

pay increases for lawmakers, where that has happened. Cullen said Americans generally don’t realize “how much work it takes to get elected and then also serve.”

For example, in November, Ari-zona voters soundly rejected a pay increase that would have been the first for that state’s lawmakers in 16 years.

Brian Sanderoff, New Mexico’s most respected pollster, said voters here would likely also reject paying their lawmakers today.

“I think New Mexicans and Americans just have a skeptical at-titude about politicians these days in general,” Sanderoff said.

Not all New Mexicans oppose legislative salaries. Some NMID spoke with were enthusiastic about the idea.

“It’s possible that there are poor people out there that have some great ideas and would make out-standing leaders and lawmak-ers. They just need an incentive,”

said J.T. Perez of Las Cruces.In every other state, lawmakers

get a salary, though the amount dif-fers widely. It’s $100 per year in New Hampshire and more than $90,000 a year in California.

New Mexico lawmakers can par-ticipate in a generous pension sys-tem if they serve at least 10 years. But that’s arguably a reward after they’ve left office, rather than com-pensation that helps more New Mexicans put aside other life duties to serve.

McCamley thinks he and other lawmakers should be paid. When he was a Doña Ana County com-missioner, he served on a bipartisan task force convened by then-Gov. Bill Richardson that recommended paying lawmakers about $25,000 a year and giving each an expense reimbursement account of $10,000 per year. That would cost taxpayers just over $3.9 million a year out of more than $6 billion New Mexico spends to pay for state government.

The reimbursement account could be used to pay for staff, phones, and constituent services. Currently many, like McCamley, use campaign funds for such ex-penses because the other option is paying out of their own pockets.

“If campaign funds are used for the costs of serving constituents, the potential for undue influence might exist,” the task force’s 2007 report sates. “Legislators might be-come dependent on funds given to them by third parties that promote special interests.”

The task force’s recommendation went nowhere.

Mixed opinion

Some reject the idea that pay would reduce special-interest in-fluence. Eric Griego, a private in-vestigator in Albuquerque, pointed to members of Congress, in Wash-ington, whose current salary is $174,000 a year.

“Yet still they are beholden to special interests and largely ignore those who they are supposed to rep-resent,” Griego said. “… Why would it be any different in New Mexico?”

Bernie Digman, a Las Cruces cof-fee shop owner, agreed. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that allowed

It’s possible that there are poor people out there that have some great ideas and would make out-standing leaders and lawmakers. They just need an incentive.“

— J.T. PerezLas Cruces

“Continued on 8 ➤

Continued from 5 ➤


Medical Cannabis,its the Law.

NaturaLLy OrgaNiC & 100% COMpassiONate

Organtica, inc. is a proud partner and supporter of...

thanks to the compassionate law makers and citizens of our great state, over 12,000 sick and suffering new mexican voters today have the legal right to access medical cannabis through...

Organtica, Inc. Is a New Mexico Not-for-profit corporation established in 2009 and is dedicated to the fulfillment of the L&ECUA • www.Organtica.com

The Lynn & erInCOmpassIOnaTeUse aCT

Helping New Mexico’s most vulnerable patients, citizens & voters Since - 2007.

• NMSA 1978


NM Comunidades en Accion y de Fe | 133 Wyatt Drive #1, Las Cruces, NM 88005(575) 618-6228 | www.OrganizeNM.org | Twitter @OrganizeNM

NM CAFé works to change policies that directly impactour lives in New Mexico. We believe the stories ofeveryday people hold the power to make changethrough organized action and faith at the center.In 2014, we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 inLas Cruces and engaged over 11,000 voters. We arecommitted to racial equity and justice in New Mexico.

corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money influ-encing elections.

“Paying legislators in today’s cli-mate would in no way reduce the influence of dark money or outside money, so I’d have to say until we can truly get big money out of pol-itics it makes no sense to pay them more,” Digman said.

Diane Snyder, a former state sen-ator who has also worked as a lob-byist, supports giving legislators a stipend for expenses. She said she spent thousands of dollars of her own money each year while she was serving.

“Most just don’t have that kind of money,” Snyder said. “I don’t.”

Roy Lemons of Belen said he sup-ports paying legislators.

“Why would anyone expect

someone to work for free? I feel that if paid, just maybe these peo-ple would do more for the people of New Mexico,” Lemons said.

A 2007 report issued by a bipar-tisan task force convened by law-makers recommended creating a commission that would determine legislative pay rates.

“Common sense dictates that the men and women who make finan-cial sacrifice and commitment to serve as New Mexico legislators be fairly compensated for their ser-

vice,” the task force’s report states.

Getting what you pay for

But voters “have the last word” on paying lawmakers, Sanderoff noted. So how do those who support the idea turn public opinion?

Webber suggested a grassroots effort that starts with convening a citizen study group to explore re-form and build buy-in. Eventually lawmakers would have to vote to put any proposal on the ballot. Or

they could convene a constitutional convention to explore more wide-spread changes to how the state Constitution structures the Legis-lature.

Webber supports paying lawmak-ers but doesn’t think it’s the only necessary reform.

“That’s not my idea of a sys-tem-wide look at what would make the Legislature a body that would help New Mexico guide a smarter path into the future,” he said. “It’s one idea.”

But it is one idea that could open the door to other reforms by ex-panding the Legislature’s capacity, diversity, professionalism and in-dependence. Javier Benavidez, who runs the nonprofit Southwest Orga-nizing Project in Albuquerque, said paying lawmakers would

Why would anyone expect someone to work for free? I feel that if paid, just maybe these people would do more for the people of New Mexico.“

— Roy LemonsBelen

“Continued from 6 ➤

Continued on 10 ➤


IN SESSION

STEVE TERRELL

@steveterrell

PATRICK MALONE@pmalonenm

MILANSIMONICH@MilansNMreport

When the New Mexico Legislature is in session, so are we, with a

dedicated team of top names in statehouse coverage reporting from

inside the Roundhouse each day. Don’t miss a beat as we present the

full picture — both in- and outside the hearing room — on the issues that

matter to you most.

Every bill, every hearing, count on The Santa Fe New Mexican. @TheNewMexican | #NMLEG

Want to know as it happens?Don’t miss a tweet. Follow us:

santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature


“change the dynamic” by reduc-ing special-interest influence in the Roundhouse, where currently lob-byists don’t even have to wear badg-es identifying themselves as lobby-

ists. Many other states require such disclosure.

“If you’ve got a great lobbyist, that matters a lot more than whether a proposal benefits the New Mexico public,” Benavidez said about the current system.

For now, it seems, voters get what they’re willing to pay for. McCam-ley, for example, has to put in the necessary hours at the job that pays his bills.

That sometimes takes precedence over his constituents.

“There’s a good probability you’re going to spend more time on things you’re being paid for because that’s how you eat,” McCamley said. “If you’re paying people, there’s a good chance they’re going to spend more time on legislation.”

Jody Crowley Las Cruces“We should reject the whole idea that government should be an amateur operation. that means having longer sessions, adequate support staff, and professional level pay. Won’t happen, but we can dream. … I am rejecting the idea that legislating should be a hobby like fishing or amateur theatricals. Legislating is serious business and should be considered a serious job, paid accordingly.”

Pam Wolfe

Las Cruces“I agree that administrative help during the off-campaign/session cycle seems to be something many legislators really need/want. these guys work like crazy. It would benefit the constituents if they had some administrative help. I think it would be a productive use of revenue.”

Kathy McCoy

former state legislator“I’m neutral on legislator salaries, but what I wanted more than anything else was some administrative help with the duties of the office... things like research, mailings, and constituent services. And a shared local office space to meet with people would have been great. Always meeting in coffee shops and bagel joints just seemed unprofessional. Perhaps a ‘salary’

resolves some of these issues, but it also might draw people who ‘are in it for the money.’”

Mitch Hibbard

Piñon“We will never be represented by a citizen legislature until it is a paid position. No normal average citizen can afford to take the sessions off, not to mention the numerous committee meetings between sessions. that is why we are represented by those with extraordinary incomes, wealthy retirees and, for some reason, several involved with public school administration.”

Barbara Alvarez Las Cruces“Legislators definitely need to be paid. Whether they are in Santa Fe for 30 or 60 days, they are away from their regular jobs and either using leave or just not earning money. this limits the pool of possible legislators to those who can *afford* to be away for a month or two to the wealthy or those who have generous leave plans at work. While regular pay may not completely eliminate the tendency to ‘hold the hand out’ to benefactors, it may reduce this somewhat.”

Antonio “Moe” Maestas current state legislator“Paid, full-time, legislators is better for democracy. It would take… a

forward-thinking governor to push for it. Legislators are reluctant to have it be a campaign issue that can be used against them.”

edwina Hewett

Mountainair“I do not support wages/salaries. … elected seats are not full time jobs; well, at least they shouldn’t be. Instead, all elected offices should be treated as the opportunity to be of service, be servants to their communities, states, and our nation. If you make those seats salaried positions, you will never, never get them out – look at the lower government offices on the county levels. the same people have rotated those seats long enough to go into retirement which has set up a scenario of the few governing the many.”

Stephanie L. DuBois Tularosa“I think a salaried position might be an incentive for qualified people to run for the state Legislature who are not independently wealthy. Right now it is extremely difficult for the average New Mexican to run for a legislative seat.”

Mark Boitano

former state legislator“the workload on a citizen legislator is enormous. I don’t think the position merits a salary because the upside of the time commitment for no

pay (is that) many legislators term limit themselves after a few terms. One practical way to increase the productivity of non-salaried legislators and reduce the influence of special interests is to give them staff during the interim and limit the number of bill introductions per session. … I like the idea of part-time interim staff for one and full-time for multiple legislators because it would give them tools to build capacity around issues their constituents are interested in. Much of the discussion at interim committee meetings is originated by special interests. I dislike the idea of an expense account. this would require more uncompensated time to report and raise questions of what type of expenses are allowable. Legislators have funds for expenses in their campaign accounts for which they are fully accountable.”

Kevin Bixby

Las Cruces“Legislators make a good 1-2 or more month salary with their per diem. trust me, I have friends who are legislators. their compensation above board (not counting what the well-heeled lobbyists give them under the table) is on par with a good nonprofit compensation. I personally do not know any legislators taking lobbying money on the side, by the way, because I would prefer to kill them than let them be my friends.”


What NeW MexICaNs are sayINGHere’s what some told NMID they think about paying lawmakers and giving them stipends for expenses


By PeteR St. CyRNew Mexico In Depth

New Mexico’s founders wanted a diverse legislature made up of farmers, teachers, bankers and oth-er hard-working people. Over the past 103 years, these “citizen legis-lators” have informed government policy, shaped budgets and created laws that govern our daily lives.

Year after year, the state’s un-paid representatives have headed to the Roundhouse prepared to serve the public. Some, however, have ended up serving themselves, friends and special interests.

The state’s constitution bars leg-islators from directly or indirectly earning benefits from legislation, but recusals from votes are rare and enforcement of state ethics laws is even rarer.

New Mexico regularly flunks eth-ics scorecards. And no one seems surprised when New Mexico’s risk for political corruption is ranked one of the highest in the nation.

Lawmakers have passed laws to strengthen the Gift Act, boosted conflict of interest provisions in the Governmental Conduct Act, capped campaign contributions, and updated campaign finance re-porting rules. But they’ve never agreed to set up an independent state ethics commission similar to those 42 other states rely on to in-vestigate and train elected leaders.

For years, groups like Common Cause, League of Women Vot-ers, New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce and even a task force Co-Chaired by for-mer Gov. Garrey Carruthers and then-University of New Mexico Law School Dean Suellyn Scar-necchia have tried to advance a state ethics commission. They contend an independently funded panel given the power to subpoena testimony and documents would increase accountability for lawmak-

ers and provide ethics training for officials, state employees and even lobbyists.

Lawmakers have considered but sent no bill to set up an ethics com-mission to the governor’s office. Last year, lawmakers denied voters a say on the issue when they killed a proposal to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Despite proponents’ rigorous ad-vocacy for an independent ethics panel, it doesn’t appear anything will change this year. Gov. Susana Martinez opposes the creation of a

state ethics commission. In her 2012 State of the State

address, Martinez made a point to remind legislators and agency staff-ers that, “Public service should be about serving the public — not set-ting up a future payday.” But Marti-nez isn’t convinced politicians can effectively watch over themselves. A former prosecutor, Martinez says she prefers that allegations of cor-ruption be investigated by law en-forcement agencies.

State Ethics Commission ‘postponed indefinitely’New Mexico is one of eight states without an

independent panel

Mark Holm – New Mexico In Depth

Freshmen representatives look through paperwork during a day of training at the Roundhouse in late 2014. New Mexico is one of a handful of states without a state ethics commission. In many states, such a commission helps prepare lawmakers for the some-times-difficult situations they will encounter as public officials.

Continued on 12 ➤


Newly elected House Speak-er Don Tripp, R-Socorro, is also skeptical of a state ethics commis-sion. Like Martinez, he wants the Department of Public Safety to set up a political corruption unit.

“Corruption is a crime and it should be treated like one,” writes House GOP Caucus Communica-tions Director Chris Sanchez on be-half of Tripp. “An ethics commission sounds good in theory and is worthy of debate and consideration, but any commission would have to be cre-ated in a way that ensures it doesn’t become a political weapon for parti-sans to punish their opponents.”

That argument doesn’t sit well with Common Cause New Mexico Executive Director Viki Harrison. She points to safeguards set up by

other states with established ethics commissions that impose conse-quences for citizens who abuse the system by filing frivolous or fre-quent complaints in “bad faith.”

Even with safeguards, recently retired state Rep. Tom Taylor sug-gests an ethics commission could be used to “drag people through the dirt.” And like Taylor, Senate Ma-jority Leader Michael Sanchez, the highest ranking Democrat in the Legislature, isn’t convinced that a state ethics commission is needed.

Legislators, Sanchez said, simply need to “hold themselves to a high standard” and follow ethics rules already in place in both chambers.

But, over time those stan-dards seem to have been attenuated by New Mexico legislators who’ve said they still need to earn a living.

After retiring from the Senate in

2013, Dede Feldman chronicled the ethical choices she and other law-makers have confronted in Santa Fe.

In her award-winning book In-side the New Mexico Senate: Boots, Suits, and Citizens, Feldman sug-gests resistance to an independent ethics commission “contributes to the impression that senators hold themselves above the law.”

“An independent ethics commis-sion could educate public officials on the legalities, enforce existing laws, and hold them accountable,” she wrote.

Still, the levers of power and pol-itics make it difficult for legislators to point fingers at their colleagues.

In 1992, Democratic Rep. Ron Olguin faced expulsion from the House after he was accused of so-liciting a $15,000 bribe for his

help in getting the Legislature to fund a crime counseling pro-gram. When Olguin initially re-fused to resign his seat, lawmakers secretly met behind closed doors to review evidence before they opted to publicly censure the Albuquer-que politician for “improper con-duct.” A jury voted to convict Ol-guin on two felony criminal charges after they heard the same evidence.

Six years later, then-Sen. Man-ny Aragon, a Democrat, created a controversy when he and former Sen. Les Houston were hired by Wackenhut Corrections (now GEO Group) to lobby for them in oth-er states at the same time Aragon participated in legislative hearings on building his employers’ private prisons in New Mexico.

Common Cause New Mexico is dedicated to restoring the core values ofAmerican democracy, reinventing an open, honest and accountable govern-ment that serves the public interest, and empowering ordinary people tomake their voices heard in the political process.505.323.6399 | nm.commoncause.org

We’re on a mission!Go to NewMexicoPledge.org and sign the pledge to:

Improve disclosure in elections

improve disclosure in lobbying activities

Establish a state ethics commission

Propose policy models to improve publiccampaign financing


Continued on 13 ➤


It’s impossible for the public to know if an ethics complaint was filed against Aragon in that case, because the Legislature’s Interim Ethics Committee doesn’t disclose an investigation until probable cause has been determined. But the committee took no public action against Aragon. In fact, it hasn’t taken action against any lawmakers caught in scandals since Olguin.

Since 1994, the Interim Eth-ics Committee has spent most of its time writing 11 advisory opin-ions on benign subjects like the proper use of government emails and stationery.

Even if an independent state eth-ics commission is eventually set up in New Mexico, don’t count on it being a silver bullet. Skeptics point

to Georgia, where 216 cases have been open for an average of three years. Thirty have been going on for seven years.

For Taylor, an ethics commission would face a daunting task develop-ing uniform standards of conduct since ethical boundary lines in New Mexico have been predicated on in-dividual beliefs and diverse cultural values.

“I don’t know how you put to-gether a group of people to make someone honest if they’re not al-ready honest,” Taylor said.

With the issue of a state ethics commission mired in legislative wrangling, New Mexicans, it ap-pears, will have to rely on lawmakers swearing an oath of office, spend-ing a few hours in biennial ethics training classes, and then policing themselves.



By SHeRRy ROBINSONNew Mexico In Depth

The rising tide of election spend-ing has lifted some boats and swamped others, drowning disclo-sure in the process.

With billions flowing through the nation’s political system, thanks to court rulings and flaccid legislation, many good-government groups, bolstered by public opinion polls, are eyeballing the role of money in politics.

Federal agencies and a number of states have increased transparency with new reporting requirements to try to stanch spending. But New Mexico remains on the movement’s sidelines despite persistent attempts by some lawmakers.

In December, the National In-stitute on Money in State Politics gave New Mexico an F – one of four states to earn zeroes across all categories – for not requiring inde-pendent groups to report spending to influence elections. Armed with this fire hose, advocacy groups that don’t coordinate with a candidate, campaign or political party can flood the system with so-called “dark” money.

New Mexico’s F follows a drub-bing in 2012, when the state re-ceived a D- for its lax campaign fi-nance laws from the State Integrity Investigation, a collaboration of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity, and Public Radio Interna-tional.

Two years ago, New Mexico had lots of company at the bottom. More recently other states and even communities have found the politi-

cal will to change campaign finance laws. New Mexico’s neighbors – Arizona, Utah, Colorado and Tex-as – all earned an A in December’s report, primarily for mandated re-porting of electioneering commu-nications.

Political scandals, a major moti-vator in other states, haven’t fueled reform here. Even after two former state treasurers and a former Sen-ate president went to prison, clean-up bills had a low survival rate or lacked teeth.

“Campaign finance reform in New Mexico is a never-ending struggle,” said former Sen. Dede Feldman, D-Albuquerque.

Feldman was one of a handful of

legislators who tried year after year to gain disclosure from state con-tractors and independent groups, set spending limits, establish pub-lic funding programs, and require cooling periods before retiring leg-islators can become lobbyists.

She and other reformers ran into opposition from political parties, elected officials and court decisions. Objections are typically rooted in familiarity, denial and self-pres-ervation, as well as an ideological aversion to new regulation.

“The system that brought legis-lators to power looks pretty good once they’re in office,” Feldman said.

Many party leaders have denied

there’s a problem and seemed in-sulted by any suggestion that they could be compromised. “You can’t legislate ethics,” both the Senate majority and minority leaders have said.

And yet opinion polls show the public’s increasing concern with corruption, the influence of money in elections, and transparency. Ear-ly this year, a Common Cause New Mexico poll found that 87 percent of voters want large political contri-butions from individuals, corpora-tions, political action committees, nonprofits or unions to be made public.

State lags in disclosing campaign finance information


New Mexico was one of four states to earn an F in December for not requiring independent groups to report spending to in-fluence elections. New Mexico’s state lawmakers are not expected to pass legislation to better its scores on campaign finance regulations during this 60-day legislative session.

Continued on 15 ➤


Sen. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, is among those who have pushed to modernize New Mexico’s campaign finance law. His bill has died on ad-journment four years in a row. Still, Common Cause’s Viki Harrison is optimistic. Wirth’s bill had support but ran out of time each year, she said.

“We’re reaching out to all the leg-islators and trying to get them on board,” Harrison said. In the 2015 session, she said Rep. Jimmy Hall, R-Albuquerque, will carry the bill.

Caging the beast

States have three basic channels for regulating campaign finance: disclosure, contribution limits and public financing, according to the National Conference of State Leg-islatures.

All states require candidates, committees and political parties to disclose the amount and source of contributions. And most limit con-tributions.

When New Mexico passed its Campaign Reporting Act in 2009, it was one of just five states that had not limited contributions. The new law followed “more than a decade of intense struggle with legislative leaders in both parties who were re-luctant to change the rules of a game they had won,” writes Feldman in her book Inside the New Mexico Senate: Boots, Suits and Citizens.

The act currently limits donations to a political party or committee to $5,400 for each primary and each general election for statewide office, and to $2,500 for a non-statewide office such as a legislative seat or a district judgeship.

It also requires individuals and organizations to report donations;

corporations and political action committees must report their do-nations to political parties. But while federal rules require individ-uals to list their employers, New Mexico has no such rule. A contrib-utor to a state or local race must list only his or her occupation, which shields employers and their rela-tionships from view. Also, the law permits an anonymous donation of less than $100 or, for a fundraising event, multiple cash donations up to $1,000.

Lobbyists are forbidden to do-nate or solicit a donation between Jan. 1 and the end of the legislative session. They can provide meals, tickets, drinks and gifts during the session. They’re supposed to report expenditures larger than $500 with-in 48 hours.

“Many of the donations are not cash,” the State Integrity Investi-gation report said. “This is a very sleazy part of New Mexico politics. Partisanship is a lifestyle for many people.”

New Mexico’s lax disclosure laws mean we can’t learn the amount of independent spending in state elec-tions, the identities of targeted can-didates, and whether the spending supported or opposed the candi-dates.

In other words, if a group wants to pay for an ad that blasts a can-didate without urging a vote for or against, the state requires no dis-closure, nor does it ask about the

contributors. But 31 states do re-quire such information, up from 25 in 2013. And the Federal Elections Commission requires reporting on these independent expenditures in races for the U.S. House, U.S. Sen-ate, and president.

The State Integrity report in 2012 also blasted New Mexico’s monitor-ing and enforcement of campaign finance laws, which it called lax to nonexistent.

The secretary of state must ran-domly audit at least 10 percent of

campaign reports, but the sampling and thoroughness are insufficient, the report said. The SOS may inves-tigate violations, and the attorney general or district attorneys may enforce the act. But they’re all elect-ed officials with party affiliations.

The state has been more suc-cessful with implementing public financing. New Mexico provides public funds for use in election campaigns of the Public Regulation Commission and certain state judi-cial offices.

Recently, former state Republican Party Chairman Harvey Yates cred-ited the 2009 law with the success of his party’s candidates. In his view, the law helps incumbents, candi-dates with name recognition, and wealthy contenders.

That may be why Senate Major

Celebrating 25 YearsDefending Your Right to Know

JOIN FOG TODAYwww.nmfog.org or 888.843.9121

FOG is a member-supported, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that is the state’s leading advocate for transparency.

EDUCATION • ADVOCACY • ENFORCEMENT

Continued on 16 ➤


Many of the donations are not cash. This is a very sleazy part of New Mexico politics. Partisanship is a lifestyle for many people.“

— State Integrity Investigation report

“


ity Leader Michael Sanchez is still leery of campaign reform bills.

“We haven’t been able to come up with a bill that doesn’t have loop-holes,” Sanchez said in an interview. “The last time we did this, I warned them, we’re opening the door to problems.”

Court hurdles

Doc Weiler, the late and much-liked lobbyist for the Association of Commerce and Industry, said in 1981, “The public has a right to know who is supporting what can-didates, and we have no problem with that.”

In recent years, groups on the left and right have had a problem with that. Court challenges have ren-dered New Mexico laws “fluid and uncertain,” according to Common Cause.

During the 2008 primary, three progressive groups used mailers to defeat Democratic legislators. For-mer Attorney General Gary King wanted them to disclose their con-tributors, but the groups argued that they were exempt from disclo-sure as educational organizations. The court agreed. As a result, the state can’t make an organization register as a political committee if its primary goal isn’t the election or

defeat of a candidate, even if it does some work that could be consid-ered political.

In 2010, Citizens United con-vinced the U.S. Supreme Court that political spending by corporations and unions is protected speech under the First Amendment. The decision spawned a host of organi-zations that can accept donations in any amount without revealing do-nors, as long as they abide by a few rules.

In 2012 the Republican Party of New Mexico successfully chal-lenged state spending limits on po-litical committees that don’t coordi-nate with candidates.

Bottom line: It’s all but impossible to track such spending by outside groups in New Mexico’s state and local races.

Cleaning up campaign finance won’t be easy, Feldman said.

“But for those who think that the way we finance and run campaigns is the reason we can’t solve political and economic problems at any level – it’s worth the fight,” Feldman wrote in her book. “And for those who yearn for old-fashioned matanzas and retail politics instead of endless e-blasts, hate mail, and negative commercials that even the candidates can’t control — it’s our only hope.”

By SHeRRy ROBINSONNew Mexico In Depth

The State Integrity Investiga-tion in 2012 awarded just one A in campaign finance, to Con-necticut.

“Connecticut has the best cam-paign finance laws in the coun-try,” The Hartford Courant pro-claimed in June.

In 2004 Connecticut’s governor pleaded guilty to federal corrup-tion charges. Pay-to-play deals had earned it the nickname “Cor-rupticut.” A year later, the Legis-lature created a public campaign finance program and banned contributions from special inter-est groups. This year, Connecti-cut withstood an advertising war bought by super PACs, but 84 percent of winners used the pub-lic finance program.

Maine in 1996 pioneered the “Clean Elections” program, which allows candidates to finance their campaigns almost entirely with public funds. Maine, Ari-zona and Connecticut have seen more young people, women and minorities become candidates. Elections are more competitive. The number of uncontested races dropped, while voter turnout in-creased.

But in 2011 the Supreme Court rejected Arizona’s matching pro-vision, which prompted some candidates to abandon the sys-tem. It’s unclear how the decision

will affect future races.Massachusetts last summer

passed the Disclose Act, which requires PACs that run television, print or online ads to list the top five contributors in the ad. It also increased the number of reports required. Common Cause Con-necticut described it as “one of the strongest disclosure laws in the country.”

Arkansas has a new constitu-tional amendment that prohibits elected officials from accepting gifts from lobbyists, prohibits corporate and labor contribu-tions to candidates, and requires a two-year time out before legis-lators can become lobbyists.

In Colorado, residents can learn through a new system what issues or bills lobbyists plan to push during the legislative session.

Communities across the nation stepped up.

Two-thirds of Tallahassee, Fla., voters, from liberal to conserva-tive, backed a referendum to limit donors to $250 per city candi-date, create an ethics board, and require retiring politicians to wait two years before becoming lobby-ists.

And dozens of communities in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Flor-ida and Illinois passed mostly non-binding resolutions favor-ing constitutional amendments that would allow elected officials to set campaign fundraising and spending limits and to temper the impact of Citizens United.

Other states lead the way in campaign finance disclosure


Online at NMPoliticalReport.com

The best political coverage for New Mexico. Period.

Political ReportNew Mexico

Political Report

http://articles.courant.com/2014-06-11/news/hc-ed-lawsuit-would-destroy-connecticut-campaign-f-20140611_1_the-dga-women-voters-republican-governors-association

http://www.commoncause.org/states/massachusetts/press/press-releases/senate-unanimously-approves.html

http://www.commoncause.org/states/massachusetts/press/press-releases/senate-unanimously-approves.html%22%20%5Ct%20%22_hplink



http://www.brenn

http://www.brenn

http://www.huffingto


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Is New Mexico’s “Job Creation”problem related to impedimentson economic freedom within thestate? Economic freedom is the fundamental right of everyhuman to control his or her ownlabor and property. In an eco-nomically free society, individualsare free to work, produce, consume, and invest with limitedgovernmental interference.

Policies like “right to work,” lowor no taxes on work and invest-ment, and Constitutional limitson spending preserve economicfreedom and have contributedsignificantly to making ourneighbors prosperous.

CHANGE IN TOTAL NONFARM PAYROLLS SINCE THE US RECOVERY STARTED

New Mexico can learn about job creation from our neighbors.

No Yes Yes Yes Yes No4.90% 0 5% 5.25% 4.54% 4.63%7.30% 0 5% 6% 6.50% 4.63%31.90% 19% 20.30% 23.40% 21.50% 20.80%

No Yes Yes Yes Yes YesYes No No No No No

Right to Work ProtectionsTop Personal Income Tax RateCorporate Income Tax Rate*Government Percent of EmploymentConstitutional Tax/Spending RestraintTax Services/Business Inputs at High Rates (Gross Receipts Tax)

NEW MEXICO STATE TAX ANDREGULATION COMPARISON

*New Mexico and Arizona are currently phasing in corporate tax rate reductions

New Mexico Texas Utah Oklahoma Arizona Colorado

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

a lot


By GWyNetH DOLANDNew Mexico In Depth

When Hanna Skandera presented the Education Department’s budget to a legislative committee in early December, Katie Stone missed it. Stone, the mother of a child with disabilities, was hoping to find out how much money the budget would put toward special education.

But something — the kids, her software business, the animals on her small farm or the fact that ep-ilepsy has left her unable to drive — kept her away from the Round-house and away from her desk, where she might have watched a live webcast of the Legislative Fi-nance Committee’s meeting.

“I was really praying that one of the members of the committee would focus on asking about [spe-cial ed funding] because the de-tails are totally hidden in one line of the budget,” Stone said. “Because I wasn’t able to watch I don’t know if anybody asked and, no offense to the press, but it doesn’t seem like the issue got the remotest bit of at-tention from reporters.”

As of 2014, at least 39 states al-lowed recordings of their floor ses-sions to be watched on demand. Al-though the New Mexico Legislature began webcasting floor and com-mittee meetings in 2009, members have resisted repeated calls to save the footage, archiving it online for people to go back and watch later.

New push for archiving

Rep. Jeff Steinborn said he plans to reintroduce a proposal to archive proceedings from the House floor and committees in this year’s ses-sion. Steinborn’s 2014 resolution passed unanimously through two committees but never made it to the floor for a full vote.

The House and Senate each make their own rules on webcasting, so it would be up to senators to start ar-chiving their meetings. They’ve re-sisted calls for archiving in the past, and the 2014 election didn’t change the dynamics in that chamber.

Keeping video records of the Legislature’s proceedings is a move supported by open government groups, a bipartisan swath of law-makers and issue advocacy groups across the political spectrum. But it’s also been rejected by a biparti-san group of lawmakers in the past.

“Remember, the majority of New Mexicans have day jobs and are unable to watch the work of their lawmakers,” said Susan Boe, the ex-ecutive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government. “Archiving and posting the web-casts means that everyone in the state — from Gallup to Hobbs — can participate in our democracy.”

Paul Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation, a free-market policy institute, agreed.

“It’s very difficult to figure out what happened in the committees

DemocRacy on DemanDWebcasting has brought increased access to the Legislature, but without archiving the view is limited

Heath Haussamen – New Mexico In Depth

the New Mexico Senate installed webcams like this one in 2010 to webcast floor sessions.Continued on 20 ➤


Former PRC Commissioner Jason Marks is proud to support

New Mexico in Depth’s 2015 Legislative Guide

“Ethics should mean what Commissioner Jason Marks has publicly and vocally advocated for…

accountability through as much disclosure as possible.”

—Albuquerque Journal, 4/4/2010

BUSINESS LAW

CIVIL LITIGATION

REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS

REAL ESTATE

1011 Third Street NW | Albuquerque, NM 87102505.385.4435 | [email protected]

if you’re not there, “ Gessing said. “I respect the idea that archiving could drive the discussions out into the hallways, and frankly that’s the way a lot of politics gets done any-way, but a significant majority of other business does get discussed in committees. And that’s important.”

Cost of archiving has dropped

Some lawmakers’ early objections to archiving focused on the cost and technological challenges of ar-chiving. Those concerns are waning with advances in technology.

In 2011, Rep. Jim Smith, R-Sand-ia Park, introduced a bill that would have required webcasting and ar-chiving of most public meetings of state and local bodies in New Mexico. The proposal had a lot of

support in the Legislature, Smith said, but was doomed by the high price tag of the equipment and staff that would have been required. Al-though initial investment in equip-ment and services would have cost an estimated $4 million to $8 mil-lion, continuing costs would have been lower.

“Nowadays with relatively inex-pensive large hard drives it’s not as expensive as it would have been then,” Smith said.

Until that happens he’d be hap-py to see the Legislature lead the way by archiving its own meetings. “I would love to see that happen and a lot of people would. It real-ly wouldn’t be very hard to record them,” he said.

Lawmakers and political use

Politics are also in play. The rules governing the existing webcasts prohibit the official footage from

being used for political purposes, for example in campaign ads. But it’s unlikely the Legislature could stop anyone from capturing footage from the live webcasts and posting it, for example, on YouTube.

Rep. Steinborn said he has heard concerns from colleagues who re-main worried that recording will make it easier for opponents to comb through the footage for am-munition against them. “There have been objections about taking our quotes out of context and using people’s words against them in a political sense,” Steinborn said.

That’s not an issue in the U.S. Congress, where C-SPAN video of debates in the House and Senate are in the public domain and can be used for any purpose.

Continued on 21 ➤

Nowadays with relatively inexpensive large hard drives it’s not as expensive as it would have been then.“ “

— Rep. Jim Smith, R-Sandia Park, on the cost of webcasting and archiving

public meetings in New Mexico



Although he said he shares a con-cern that the video could be used to obscure or distort the truth about lawmakers or issues, public access should be paramount, said Rep. Smith. “I don’t think it’s fair at all to say the public can’t use the webcast for whatever reason.”

recording committee votes

Supporters say another advan-tage of saving footage of commit-tee meetings would be to have a record of how members voted during committee meetings. Most states archive some or all of their legislative committee meetings (33 plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico).

“It’s amazing to me that a lot of the committee votes (in New Mexi-

co) aren’t recorded,” said Sen. Sand-er Rue, R-Albuquerque. “That’s important for people, concerned citizens, to be able to go back and do their research.”

According to the Senate’s rules, voice votes aren’t recorded in the meeting’s minutes the way roll call votes are. Recording votes takes more time and often voice votes can make a committee’s work move more quickly. But many of the votes that effectively kill bills (called “ta-bling”) are the ones not written, making it difficult or impossible to find out why some bills never make it out of committees.

“We say these things are open, but some things aren’t,” Sen. Rue said. “It’s like being a little bit pregnant. You’re either transparent or you’re not. You can’t parse it out.”

Continued from 20 ➤ Solar EnErgy PowErS ThE Economy!

Las Cruces owned Sunspot Solar Energy is leading the way in renewable energy.

• Nationally ranked #40 among Top 100 Residential Solar Companies• Nationally ranked #128 among Top 250 Solar Contractors

• Providing clean renewable power, jobs and prosperity to New Mexico.Solar EnErgy Tax CrEdiTS arE Working!

575-541-3533 www.SunspotSolar.com • 642 S. Alameda Blvd. • Las Cruces, NM

Solar Power World magazine, Sept. 2013Janet & Mellow Honek, New Mexico’s solar experts!


By SANDRA FISHNew Mexico In Depth

New blinds for an Albuquerque library. Renovations to the dam that supplies water to Las Vegas. Vehi-cles for a Farmington senior center. A movie backlot in Las Cruces.

Those are just a few of the more than 1,100 projects that made the cut when New Mexico lawmakers pared a $4 billion wishlist to more than $398 million in capital outlay spending in 2014.

But some question whether the state is making the best use of mon-ey when lawmakers divvy up mon-ey for small local projects instead of focusing on long-term building goals.

“We’re diluting our efforts when it comes to the long-term priori-ties,” said Sen. Pete Campos, a Las Vegas Democrat who has repeat-edly – and unsuccessfully – tried to reform the process.

New Mexico appears to be the only state that allows lawmakers to divide a set amount of money in a method often known as “pork-bar-rel politics,” said several experts Sandra Fish – New Mexico In Depth

Mora County’s new two-story courthouse sits unfinished behind a chain-link fence. Since the 2007 decision to build a new, $7.25 million courthouse, the project cost has ballooned.

www.joemonahan.com

The inside storyon the vote,the people and thepolitics that driveNew Mexico Politics.

Joe Knows.

The inside storyon the vote,the people and thepolitics that driveNew Mexico Politics.

Joe Knows.

Short-term capital outlay projects scrutinized

Continued on 23 ➤

Let’s stop treating overdose as a moral failure and start treating it as a problem to be solved. Governor Martinez and state legislators: Start by declaring overdose a public health emergency in New Mexico.

http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/legislator_details.aspx?SPONCODE=SCAMP


New Mexico In Depth talked with. Defenders say the process ensures

the needs of small cities and coun-ties aren’t overlooked in the capi-tal budgeting process and results in more equitable distribution of bond money across New Mexico’s population.

But opponents criticize the pro-cess for failing to fully fund proj-ects, some of which are left unfin-ished for years. Critics say some projects end up in the budget that aren’t part of local governments’ long-range plans.

“It ends up costing more in the long run,” said Tom Clifford, cabi-net secretary for the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA). “And it undercuts confidence in the program.”

Campos will be back with a re-form bill when the Legislature meets Jan. 20 for its 60-day session.

With Republicans – presumably allies of Martinez – in control of the House, his chances might be better, though it’s difficult to say.

“We don’t anticipate any changes to the capital outlay process, but we certainly welcome the discussion,” House Speaker-elect Don Tripp of Socorro said in a statement.

setting standards

New Mexico’s processes for capi-tal projects meet many of the stan-dards set forth in a report earlier this year from the National Associ-ation of State Budget Officers:

• Defining capital expenditures: New Mexico defines a capital proj-ect as one that costs $5,000 and will have a life cycle of at least 10 years, which is the typical term of bonds issued to pay for such projects.

• Established planning processes: New Mexico state agencies are re-quired to submit and update long-term plans for capital needs. The process is optional for cities and counties, but many participate.

• A system to prioritize projects: The Department of Finance and Administration and legislative staff prioritize projects based on health and safety concerns, urgent need and other factors.

• Clear policies on debt financ-ing: New Mexico is one of 19 states that require voter approval for gen-eral obligation bond issues to fund projects.

Yet while the state’s process meets nationally accepted standards on paper, the way state lawmakers div-vy up money for projects is unusual.

It ends up costing more in the long run. And it undercuts confidence in the program.“ “

–Tom Clifford, cabinet secretary for the Department of Finance and Administration,

on the current capital outlay project system

Continued on 24 ➤


New Mexico is Growing with Solar!Ben has grown up with solar and so has New Mexico.

• 310 megawatts of solar installed, 10th in the nation• 93 companies employ over 2000 people• 34% price reduction since 2010

Positive Energy Solar has been growing in New Mexico since 1997.

Contact Positive Energy Solar today.PositiveEnergySolar.com

Las Cruces • Albuquerque • Santa Fe • Los Alamos

Ben age 4, 2007

http://nmdfa.state.nm.us/Office_of_the_Secretary_1.aspx

http://nmdfa.state.nm.us/ICIP.aspx

http://nmdfa.state.nm.us/ICIP.aspx

http://nmdfa.state.nm.us/Office_of_the_Secretary_1.aspx


Each year many priority projects identified by the executive and leg-islative branch are funded.

But a significant amount of capital outlay cash – $100 million in 2014 – is divided among individual law-makers. So last spring, each House member received a bit more than $714,000 and each senator received $1.25 million to allocate to projects they wanted in a process that many consider highly political.

“Communities come to a legisla-tor. One wants a senior center proj-ect, another wants roads,” Campos said, adding, “We all want to help at all levels.”

Tim Keller, a former Albuquer-que Democratic senator who is now state auditor, sees both sides of the capital outlay conundrum.

“It’s an antiquated procedure held

over from a time when there was very little central administration,” he said.

On the other hand, Keller said, “It is equitable. It is the most equitable distribution of pork in the entire country. It is a bill. It’s as transpar-ent or as opaque as any other bill. We vote on it.”

Such divvying up of cash by in-dividual lawmakers isn’t standard procedure, said Michael Paga-no, dean of the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago,

who has studied state capital spend-ing processes.

“It certainly wouldn’t be in the textbooks about how to do capital improvement planning,” Pagano said. “In fact, it would be the illus-tration about how not to do capital improvement planning.”

That’s because New Mexico’s state lawmakers sometimes choose proj-ects that aren’t part of a prioritized list and that don’t meet guidelines for minimum cost and lifespan.

For instance, 453 projects total-ing more than $43.6 million were included in the 2014 capital outlay bills but weren’t in any long-range plans filed with the state, according to DFA records. Another 35 proj-ects in the 2014 list fall below the $5,000 threshold for capital proj-ects.

Clifford said that’s a problem for Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, who vetoed $30 million in capital projects from 2012 to 2014, often citing concerns about projects that appeared to be pork rather than es-sentials.

“She’s very uncomfortable sign-ing off on projects that haven’t been through some kind of vetting pro-cess,” Clifford said.

And often, projects aren’t ready to build, so the money isn’t spent im-mediately.

“We probably have $450 million sitting there that can’t be used,” Campos said.

how others do it

Pagano pointed to Utah as one state with a textbook system for funding capital projects.

There, a board appointed by the governor holds hearings and prior-itizes projects, sending a list to the governor. The governor’s office uses that list to create its own priorities and both lists are sent to the legis-lature.

“They debate it out from there,” said Marilee Richins, a spokes-woman for Utah’s Department of Administrative Services, which oversees the process.

And Campos likes Oklahoma’s process. That state has a planning commission with citizens appointed by the governor, the state House and the state Senate that prioritizes cap-ital projects. The commission sub-mits the list to the legislature, which has 45 days to remove projects from the list. But none can be added.

“The legislature still has some oversight over what happens, but they are not directly choosing the projects,” said John Estus, spokes-man for the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Ser-vices.

Estus said that state’s system is “the complete opposite of New Mexico’s.”

“The system we have is designed to keep politics out of it as much as possible.”

efforts at reform

For years, Campos has tried to get politics out of New Mexico’s system.

He writes frequent op-eds advo-cating reform. He even wrote his 2004 University of New Mexico dissertation on the state’s capital outlay process.

Communities come to a legislator. One wants a senior center project, another wants roads. We all want to help at all levels.“ “

–Sen. Pete Campos, D-Las Vegas, on the distribution of funds divided among individual lawmakers


Continued on 25 ➤

"For a Better Life"

Serving 12,000+ New Mexico Patients

1592 San Mateo Lane, Santa Fe, NM 87505 | Call: 505.982.2621 Web: www.newmexicann.org | Email: [email protected]

http://www.ok.gov/bondadvisor/Capital_Planning/index.html

http://www.ok.gov/bondadvisor/Capital_Planning/index.html

http://www.abqjournal.com/330626/opinion/haphazard-capital-funding-is-fixable.html

http://www.lasvegasoptic.com/content/another-perspective-capital-outlay

http://www.pntonline.com/2012/02/09/their-view-state-should-consider-projects-responsibly/

http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2011/02/fix-new-mexico%E2%80%99s-capital-outlay-system-now/

http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2011/02/fix-new-mexico%E2%80%99s-capital-outlay-system-now/

http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/legislator_details.aspx?SPONCODE=SCAMP


Campos’ proposals sometimes pass one house or another. And while other lawmakers rarely speak out against the reforms, they have yet to see the governor’s desk.

“It’s a very touchy subject,” he said. “They won’t speak against it. They quietly, sometimes collective-ly, work to make sure it’s not heard or that it’s killed in the other house.”

Sen. Carlos Cisneros, D-Questa, also has sponsored capital outlay reform bills that met similar failure.

Martinez supports such reform efforts, Clifford said.

“We were generally supportive of both bills, Sen. Campos’ and Sen.

Cisneros’ bills, from the last couple of sessions,” he said.

But almost two years ago, Mar-tinez took matters into her own hands. She issued an executive or-der requiring local governments to have up-to-date general audits

before capital outlay money is re-leased and giving the DFA greater regulatory authority over distribut-ing capital outlay money.

At the time, 61 local governments didn’t meet the audit requirement. Today, only 16 haven’t completed audits, Clifford said.

“The system truly needs reform, and we’re making it administrative-ly,” Campos said.

Continued from 24 ➤ search a list of 2014 capital outlay projects by going to NMInDepth.com.

By SANDRA FISHNew Mexico In Depth

MORA — The Mora County Courthouse may be the ultimate monument to problems with New Mexico’s often-piecemeal approach to capital projects.

The shell of an elegant two-story building sits empty, surrounded by chain-link fence, while county of-fices operate from a cluster of tem-porary trailers nearby.

Voters in the county of about 4,700 people approved a $2.65 mil-lion bond issue to remodel the ex-isting courthouse in 2004.

But asbestos and other problems halted the remodel in 2005, lead-ing to a 2007 decision to tear down the old courthouse and construct a new, $7.25 million building with the local bond proceeds and state money.

The state appropriated $1 million in capital outlay to the project in 2006, another $1 million in 2007 and $200,000 in 2008.

But by 2009, the cost had bal-looned to $12.1 million, leaving the building an empty shell. In 2010,

$500,000 in federal stimulus mon-ey was used to put doors and win-dows on the building.

Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed $1.5 million for the courthouse in 2012, as part of a larger $23 million in vetoed capital projects. While not mentioning the courthouse specifically, Martinez issued a blis-tering veto message chastising law-makers for divvying up money for projects that often weren’t request-ed or were funded at only a fraction of the cost.

A state audit later that year crit-icized the awarding of a contract to the architectural firm that also drew up the request for proposal for that contract, a conflict of in-terest under New Mexico law. Ul-timately, 21 percent of the money spent on the courthouse went to that architectural firm.

That conflict of interest was among the dozen findings Mora County agreed to resolve after the audit.

The following year, the state awarded $1,845,000 in capital out-lay cash, followed by $245,000 in 2014.

But the shell still isn’t finished.“We will probably need an addi-

tional $7 million this session,” said Sen. Pete Campos, D-Las Vegas, who represents the area. “It may be more when all is said and done.”

About 60 miles southwest of Mora is the Bradner Dam, also in Campos’ district. The reservoir is one of two primary water storage areas for the historic city of Las Ve-gas, one of many in New Mexico severely affected by drought.

That dam is in a state of disrepair, leaking water, and needs to be ex-panded, city officials said. So Marti-nez included it in her push for water projects as a capital outlay priority in 2014. The project received $10 million in state money. The city plans to issue $12 million in its own bonds, but will still need another $6 million to complete the work. It’s likely lawmakers will be asked for that money in future sessions.

While the dam project is one many cite as an example of how capital outlay money can help communities, there are others that weren’t on any long-range list of capital desires.

One example: The $550,000 in-cluded in the 2014 bill for “cine-matic infrastructure” in Las Cruces. Eleven Las Cruces area legislators included the project in their indi-vidual capital outlay requests.

But the project wasn’t requested by the city, wasn’t in the state’s long-term project plan, and “it’s still in the conceptual stage,” said Gary Camarano, economic development coordinator for Las Cruces.

The idea is to build a sound stage on city property, along with facades and sets that could be used in a va-riety of nearby locales. An August Board of Finance document lists “anti-donation issues” with the project. State law prohibits capital outlay money being used for proj-ects that primarily benefit private interests.

But Camarano said lawmakers might be asked to revise language on the project next session.

“Las Cruces offers a different en-vironment than Santa Fe or Albu-querque,” Camarano said. “We’re looking to participate in what peo-ple are calling the ‘Hollywood in the desert.’ ”

Examples of faulty spending process dot the state

NMDepth

In

.com

http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/legislator_details.aspx?SPONCODE=SCISN

http://nmdfa.state.nm.us/uploads/FileLinks/6583a4770de841daa2d07b9e130326e7/EO_2013_006.REQUIREMENTS.FOR.GRANTS.pdf

http://nmdfa.state.nm.us/uploads/FileLinks/6583a4770de841daa2d07b9e130326e7/EO_2013_006.REQUIREMENTS.FOR.GRANTS.pdf


How legislation passes — or doesn’t pass — the LegislatureBy MAtt ReICHBACH

New Mexico In Depth

Each year dozens of bills pass the Legislature to become law.

The process itself can seem sim-ple. The legislation merely has to pass the House and Senate with a majority of votes and then be signed into law by the governor.

Simple? Well, there is more to it – and

there are a lot of hurdles to clear.Some bad news on legislation can

come when it is first introduced and is assigned to committees that will consider it before it gets a floor vote.

If the bill gets three committee as-signments in the House or Senate, it is generally considered bad news. It is difficult enough to get legisla-tion through two committees in ei-ther chamber before a session ends; a third committee assignment can doom legislation.

Which committees the bill is as-signed to also matters. Some have reputations for sitting on legislation that the chair doesn’t like; the com-mittee chair may just have a bad personal relationship with the bill’s sponsor.

If the legislation does pass through committees, then it has to navigate the House and Senate floor and the potential challenges it can face there. Again, amendments that are added during debate on the House or Senate floor can neuter legislation. Or the House or Senate can reject it.

Once a bill passes a chamber, it starts the process all over again for the second chamber — but with

more potential pitfalls. Legislation that is otherwise in-

nocuous could get caught up in a larger fight between the two cham-bers. If the Senate feels the House is not hearing enough legislation that passed the Senate, the Senate could refuse to hear House bills until that changes, and vice versa.

This year, there is an added ten-sion between the two chambers, as

Republicans will control the House and the Democrats control the Sen-ate. The dynamic between the two chambers isn’t clear yet.

A late amendment can also doom legislation. Legislation must pass both the Senate and House with identical language from each cham-ber to be sent to the governor. So a late change, for example, by the House of a Senate bill may leave the

legislation without enough time to get concurrence – the process by which the House and Senate desig-nate lawmakers from each chamber to try to come up with compromise language so the bill can pass the Legislature.

Time is important. A filibuster – where a lawmaker gives an extend


two new House members, Rodney Montoya, left, R-Farmington; and Rick Little, R-Chaparral, prepare for this year’s 60-day legis-lative session during a day of training for lawmakers in late 2014.

Continued on 28 ➤


Proud to sponsor the New Mexico In Depth Legislative Guide to inform New Mexico citizens about issues facing the State and the upcoming legislative session.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to

assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

First Amendment to the US Constitution


NEW MEXICO’S LARGEST FULL-SERVICE MARKET RESEARCH AND PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH COMPANY Serving a wide variety of prominent New Mexico clients since 1986

5140 San Francisco Rd NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109 | www.rpinc.com | 505.821.5454

❚ Survey Research❚ Focus Groups❚ Litigation Support❚ Mapping/GIS❚ Demographic Services❚ Redistricting

Promoting Commerce. Promoting Community. Promoting Character.

HobbsChamber.org HobbsChamber @HobbsChamber

ed speech on the chamber floor often with the intention of blocking the passage of a bill – near the end of the session could doom the tar-geted legislation as well as numer-ous bills scheduled for a hearing after it.

This isn’t to say that all legislation is automatically doomed.

The phrase, “You’d be surprised how fast things can happen,” is ban-died about a lot at the end of the legislative session.

In 2013, legislation related to tax breaks reached a late agreement be-tween leadership in the House and

Senate. The legislation passed at the buzzer — some say after the buzz-er — after being greased by both chambers at the last minute.

And, of course, a bill that seems dead isn’t necessarily dead. A mem-ber of the political party that con-trols a chamber can bring back a bill that is tabled.

Late in the session, so-called “dummy bills,” or blank pieces of legislation introduced just before the mid-legislative session dead-line (Feb. 19 is the bill introduc-tion deadline for the 2015 session), come into play. The legislation can be used to substitute substantive legislation at the last minute.


SOUTHWESTORGANIZING PROJECTE M P O W E R I N GC O M M U N I T I E S

s i n c e 1 9 8 0

“We must treat poverty like we would treat drowning.There is no time to lose.”

–Hongxi

As the 2015 New Mexico StateLegislative Session works toaddress our state’s desperatepoverty, dismal child well-being, highest in the nationincome inequality, and vastracial/gender inequities, weurge our state’s elected offi-cials to work with the urgencythat the good people of NewMexico deserve. The game-changing opportunities torealize a bright future for NewMexicans to come are withinour grasp. ¡Arriba Nuevo Mexico!

The SouthWest Organizing Project211 10th Street SW, Albuquerque, NM 87102

(505) 247-8832 | www.swop.net


t’s December 2012. We are coming off a great campaign to engage unlikely vot-

ers as my organizer and I run through logistics of taking people to Santa Fe during the upcoming legislative session to lobby for drivers licenses and foreclosure prevention legislation. The cost? $8,000.

“OK, do we think people can pack one meal?” I ask. “Make sure the church announcements let people know that they should get there no later than 4:45 a.m. We can train people on the bus. We’ve got time.”

Getting people from Southern New Mexico to the legislative session is not easy or cheap. Since 2011, NM Comunidades en Acción y de Fé, the organization I run, has trained and transported hundreds of people of faith to lobby for poli-cy changes, and to exert our power and values for our families and communities.

Our leaders and clergy have worked with legislators on ending predatory foreclosure practices, preserving drivers licenses for all New Mexicans, advocating fair and open elections, and raising the minimum wage.

At first, navigating how the Roundhouse operates was a chal-lenge. It was apparent that the informal channels of power and relationship ran deeper than the formal, less-utilized channels.

We attempted to meet with legislators during “office hours.” There were none. Instead, we could

get something more like “hallway minutes.” Allies suggested we learn where legislators like to eat lunch and stake them out.

Really? This is how we do democracy in New Mexico?

Power resides in relationship

Most Americans, like New Mex-icans, believe we should be able to change our political system if we know the rules. Tell us how to influence decisions and have the power to dictate what happens in the lives of our families and I reck-on we’d do it.

But following the rules doesn’t get many New Mexicans there. Full-time jobs don’t meet ends, a college education doesn’t guarantee a ticket to the middle class and, despite 60 years of a single political party in charge of the Legislature, we still have the hungriest kids in this country. The real power in this state is shrouded from view.

In organizing we say power resides in relationship. If you are at the Roundhouse for any number of days you see the same people pass-ing you in the stairwell and circling the top floors.

Currently, power resides with people who can afford time and money to spend 30-60 days in San-ta Fe each year, people who speak English and can express a public policy analysis in the dominant language, people who can travel around the state to interim com-mittee hearings, have cell phone numbers and know which restau-

rants and bars legislators frequent.If you can’t sustain that kind of

schedule, you have to get your point across while in line at the grocery store – if you’re lucky enough to run into your legislator there.

This is a problem. Increased civic engagement is key to attain-ing racial and economic dignity. Structures channel power. Infor-mal structures lessen the power of the many, muddle political trans-parency, and increase the power of those who created and sustain the informal power structures that often don’t serve the real needs of New Mexicans.

Ideas for improvement

Here are some changes I believe would keep our Legislature in right relationships with real New Mex-icans and ensure the democratic process we deserve.

•Mental model shift – Legislators must see people as citizens, not consumers, of government. Many legislators want to know “What do you want? What can I do for you?” Instead, they should ask citizens for their perspectives: “What do you see happening? How should we do this differently? Who should we be engaging?” They should be looking to understand.

•Create localized and formal structures for feedback – Let’s have office hours around the state with staffs and schedule. Allow people to know they matter enough to take up formal time in the life of a legislator in addition to grabbing a few minutes in line at the grocery store.

•Make the work of governing

a full-time job – We call ours a “citizen legislature” but it’s not a citizen-represented Legislature. Because legislators aren’t paid and work erratic schedules, New Mexico is run by lawyers, busi-nesspeople, and well-resourced or retired individuals. This creates in the Legislature an implicit bias and narrow perspective of what works for our families and, therefore, un-even outcomes and power centers.

CAFé’s leaders feel power and influence at city hall and in Wash-ington D.C. We can make appoint-ments. We are engaged in analysis. People are paid to listen and act on our behalf as constituents.

Not so when we step into the halls of the Roundhouse. Someone is compensating our legislators, it just isn’t us taxpayers. Let that sink in.

Regardless of who is in charge, ordinary, low- and moderate-in-come New Mexicans will always be subject to poor pathways and access to power structures. Formal channels help give the most mar-ginalized a voice.

I am fully aware that may be against the interests of some on both sides of the political aisle. But democracy can’t survive in private corners of restaurants, interrupting dimly lit steak dinners.

Nolan is the executive director for NM Comunidades en Acción y de Fé (NM CAFé). She was born and raised in Vado and currently lives in Las Cruces with her daughter Eva.The views in this column are the author’s alone and do not reflect the views or opinions of New Mexico In Depth.

Commentary

Hallway minutes and grocery lines don’t cut it

Sarah Nolan

I


hange comes slowly in New Mexico’s Legisla-ture. Nonetheless,

there are several basic things legislators can do to improve citizen participa-tion and open government in the Roundhouse.

New Mexico’s Constitu-tion contains no requirements for individuals running for the Legisla-ture to collect a particular number of signatures to get on the ballot. Nonetheless, such requirements have been in place for decades.

Every year it seems some legislator is kicked off the ballot for insufficient attention to detail or signatures. During the 2014 election, incumbent Democratic Rep. Sandra Jeff was thrown off the ballot for insufficient valid signatures. Jeff ran as a write-in candidate and was handily defeated.

Clearly, these signature require-ments have a significant impact on both Democrats and Republicans. More importantly, they often deprive voters of choices on Election Day.

But this pales in comparison to the law’s impact on third parties

and independents. If a ballot-qualified party has shown that it has a modi-cum of voter support, then logically the candidates nominated by such a party have a modicum of voter support. New Mexico is the only state that forces the nominee of a qualified

party to submit a petition.One other state, Maryland, had

such a requirement, but that state’s highest court struck it down in 2003.

New Mexico has had fewer minor party and independent candidates on the ballot for the last 13 years than any other state. Yet more New Mexi-cans than ever are calling themselves “independent.” The registration of “decline to state” comprises a larger voting bloc than either Democrats or Republicans.

It is time to open up New Mexico’s legislative races.

Using technology

In addition to opening up legisla-tive elections to third parties, New Mexico’s legislators should strongly consider allowing remote testimony

before legislative committees as a means of opening the political pro-cess to new voices outside of close geographical proximity to Santa Fe.

New Mexico is, after all, the fifth-largest U.S. state in land area, making it difficult for interested parties to make their way to Santa Fe for committee hearings during legislative sessions.

Washington State’s Legislature recently allowed its first remote tes-timony. Nevada has been doing it for years. In Washington, those wishing to testify remotely before the Legisla-ture in Olympia can make their way to a local community college that is set up with the basic technology to testify. Needless to say, this saves tremendous travel time, opens up the process, and is good for the environ-ment.

The technology has been around for years. Allowing for remote testi-mony would enable those who want to participate in the process, but can’t afford a lobbyist or can’t get away from their business or family, to have their voices heard in Santa Fe. It is time for New Mexico’s Legislature to step into the 21st Century by making remote testimony a readily available option at community colleges across the state.

To further open up the Legislature to oversight from average citizens, all legislative hearings and floor sessions should be filmed and made available in real-time and archived online. Filming floor sessions was a nice starting point, but if New Mexico is ever to become a model of open government, these public meetings should be made truly available to the public whether they reside in Santa

Fe or Hobbs.Lastly, it is time for the Legislature

to make transparency a reality on New Mexico’s Sunshine Portal, sun-shineportalnm.com.

The first thing to do is to make sure all state employee salaries are available on the portal. This is, after all, public information already.

And New Mexico’s government employee pensions should be added to the Sunshine Portal. California has done this at that state’s equivalent of our Sunshine Portal, known as Transparent California.

According to a recent “meta-study” by the Competitive Enterprise Insti-tute, New Mexico’s public pensions are arguably the most under-funded among the 50 states. Our pension system is certainly among the most troubled in the nation. Yet, voters and taxpayers are given little infor-mation about which government workers are receiving the most gen-erous pension payouts and what, if any, abuses might be taking place.

New Mexico’s taxpayers are paying the bills. It is time to give them the information they need to understand how their money is being spent.

Gessing is president of New Mex-ico’s Rio Grande Foundation, an independent, non-partisan, tax-ex-empt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual re-sponsibility. The views in this column are the author’s alone and do not reflect the views or opinions of New Mexico In Depth.

Commentary

Free-market ideas for opening up the Legislature

Paul Gessing

C

BWD Global.comCommunications. Strategy. Social Media.

“Over 30 years experience. Timely and accurate public policy polling.”

bwdglobal.com

Bruce W. Donisthorpe


his year the New Mexico Foun-dation for Open Government (FOG) celebrates

its 25th year educating, advocating and litigat-ing for transparency in government. We hope that our anniversary year will also mark the most transparent legislative session in New Mexico history.

What would such a session look like?

Philosophically, the session would reflect the attitude and belief — from the lawmakers to the security guards — that the people have a right to know. We already are doing a good job of welcoming the people into the Roundhouse. Most mornings school buses line up outside the west entrance, de-livering hundreds of New Mexico students to watch democracy at work. Daily, the Capitol rotunda has advocates promoting their causes, while tens of tables in both lobbies offer brochures and services from blood pressure screenings to makeshift massages. The galleries of both houses quickly fill with citi-zens wanting glimpses of their local legislators. And with live webcast-

ing, citizens can view the action from the comfort of their home offices.

The real work, though, happens in the committee rooms that line the hall-ways radiating out from the rotunda on the third floor. Until 2009, some of these committees were

closed to the public. These were conference committees that meet every session to reconcile differenc-es between House and Senate bills. With the help of many advocates these important committees, which are regularly used to hammer out final details of the state budget, were finally opened to the public.

Much remains to be done, though.

The Legislature needs to webcast all committee meetings, including those during the interim period. We also need to archive all commit-tee and legislative sessions.

City councils and county com-missions need to schedule and post all meetings under the Open Meet-ings Act and provide agendas 72 hours prior to their meetings. That same discipline should be followed at the Legislature. Geographical-ly, New Mexico is the fifth-larg-est state, with citizens scattered

throughout the region. Some New Mexicans travel five or six hours to testify at a committee hearing only to find the hearing has been can-celed or moved to another date.

Better yet, let’s allow remote testimony at committee hearings so citizens in Las Cruces, Farm-ington or Hobbs can go to central locations to deliver remarks. Such a system has worked well in other large states like Alaska, Nevada and Washington.

Speaking of advance notice, wouldn’t citizen participation in the legislative process improve dramati-cally if we had 72 hours of notice of votes on bills? Even 24 hours of no-tice would be a vast improvement.

Though FOG was instrumental in opening up conference commit-tees, many deals are still being cut behind closed doors, whether at the Roundhouse or the Bullring. Those secret deals may be good for special interest groups, but they do not ul-timately benefit the state in general. Secrecy undermines trust in our elected officials and the democratic process.

As a related issue, the Legisla-ture needs to hear the voice of the people, not just lobbyists. Lobby-ists can serve an important role, explaining technical issues to our

lawmakers. However, increasingly, their voices drown out the voices of the people. Perhaps we need to follow Rep. Jeff Steinborn’s (D-Las Cruces) suggestion that lobbyists need to wear special badges or red hats while walking the halls of the Roundhouse.

Finally, emails of legislators need to be produced pursuant to Inspec-tion of Public Records Act requests. Other public officials have to turn over their emails. Why not the men and women who make our laws? A couple of years ago a last-minute rule passed both houses by wide majorities that shielded legislators’ emails from public view. This is unfortunate. The public’s business needs to be conducted in public.

We know sunshine helps our gardens grow and attracts tourists to our state. Sunshine also is good government! Let’s make 2015 the sunshine session.

Boe is executive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, the state’s leading advocate for transparency in public records and public meetings. The views in this column are the au-thor’s alone and do not reflect the views or opinions of New Mexico In Depth.

Commentary

Let the sunshine in during 2015 legislative session

Susan Boe

T

nMid wiLL be CoveRing tHe 2015 LegisLative session Find our complete

coverage online at


ast year Common Cause New Mexi-co commissioned a poll to find out

how voters felt about money in politics. One thing that became abun-dantly clear from the results was that disclosure of campaign contribu-tions and expenditures is hugely important to our citizens: 86 per-cent of the respondents – across the political spectrum – wanted to know who is funding candi-dates.

And that was before this year’s election, where tracing the mon-ey through a myriad political action committees (PACs), candi-dates, political parties, and non-profits became even more daunt-ing to ordinary citizens who just wanted to know who paid for the barrage of ads, calls and direct mail that was trying to influence them. This year “dark money” accounted for $216 million in campaign expenditures nation-wide, and super PACs accounted for another $51 million according to preliminary reports from the Center for Responsive Politics. Much of this money comes from afar and is spent independently of local campaigns. Inquiring minds want to know who these people are and what they expect from politicians in return for the money they spent!

We desperately need to adapt our Campaign Reporting Act to these new, opaque methods of campaigning by independent groups. Specifically we must re-quire that the sponsors of adver-

tisements and the con-tributors who finance them are disclosed. These contributions now threaten to dwarf ordinary donors and even the candidates’ own efforts.

We also need to define when expen-

ditures are coordinated between independent groups and candi-dates, and if they are coordinated, require them to be counted as in-kind contributions, which are limited under New Mexico law. These changes – incorporated into a House bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Smith – would make state law consistent with recent court decisions and allow New Mexicans to see who is funding our elected officials. Then, if they are more responsive to the big contributors, voters can hold them accountable.

But ordinary citizens can’t do that if the information is not readily available online, displayed in a coherent, searchable and sortable fashion. To accomplish this, we are supporting an appro-priation to upgrade the Secretary of State’s website and to create a better enforcement mechanism to identify violations and omissions.

Speaking of technology, we are longtime supporters of the Sunshine Portal, which is a great first step in making information about state operations available to citizens. Now we need to build on this foundation to reveal more information about state contracts and taxes so we as taxpayers can see whether we are paying a fair

or exorbitant price for the goods and services the state buys. We need to know whether businesses both inside and outside of the state are competing on a level playing field, or one that has been tilted toward big contributors.

Again, for this information to be meaningful, it must be in a searchable database.

One area where New Mexico lags behind other states is in the disclosure of lobbyist activities. In recent sessions there have been more than six lobbyists for every legislator, often with access that ordinary citizens can only imag-ine. In many states, lobbyists – or their employers – must reveal how much lobbyists are paid, who they are lobbying and what issues they are working on. They cannot be legislators who recently retired (either willingly or un-willingly) or relatives of current legislators.

In New Mexico lobbyists register, file expenditure and contribution reports – but of-ten these are indecipherable or non-existent, purged after only a few years. To update the Lobbyist Regulation Act, the secretary of state should upgrade the lobbyist site, publish reports more quickly and in a more searchable fashion. These reforms are included in a bill by Rep. Jeff Steinborn which also increases lobbyist registra-tion fees and requires lobbyists to report on which legislators they are meeting with and which issues are discussed. The public deserves to know.

In addition, lobbyists should wear a badge identifying them

as a lobbyist while in the round-house – standard practice in other states.

The Legislature has come a long way in the past seven years to open up its proceedings to ordinary New Mexicans who may not be able to travel to Santa Fe. Citizens can now watch House and Senate floor sessions online and most (but not all) commit-tee hearings are webcast as well. After debating a decade, legisla-tors agreed to open conference committees to the public. Now the Legislature should finish the job – webcast all committees, archive all proceedings and make sure that all committee votes, in-cluding those to table measures, are recorded and accessible. Only then can citizens feel that their elected officials are truly account-able.

These are bipartisan, common-sense reforms that will go a long way in reducing the negative impact money has over our po-litical system. Most importantly, they will return the power to the people, and ensure our interests are heard in the Roundhouse. As a result, our elected leaders can focus on policies to move our state forward, including bringing jobs to New Mexico, something we desperately need.

Harrison is executive director of Common Cause New Mexico. The views in this column are the au-thor’s alone and do not reflect the views or opinions of New Mexico In Depth.

Commentary

Disclosure: the way to learn the price we pay for money in politics

Viki Harrison

L


Over 80% of school

seniors saymarijuanais easy to

obtain.

Prohibitionsends an incredible

number ofAmericans throughthe criminal justice

system, ruiningcountless

lives.

Legalizingand regulatingmarijuana will

bring the nation’slargest cash crop

under the rule of law.

There is noevidence that

imposing criminalpenalties on

marijuana usereduces its

use.

Marijuanais safer than

alcohol.

Arrestingand prosecuting

marijuana offendersprevents policefrom focusing

on real crime.

D E C R I M I N A L I Z E

It Saves Money!Sponsored by Natural Rx.

505.433.4947 www.strategies360.com

Strategies 360 is the leading strategic communications, public affairs and research firm in New Mexico and the west. With experts in government relations, PR and grassroots organizing, we guide our clients to success.

New Mexico expertise with national reach.


ince 2009, major strides have been made in building a more

accessible legislative process. Floor sessions and committees are webcast as a matter policy. Interim com-mittees that meet around the state between sessions are also web-cast. It is time for archiving the public record.

It is also time to be actively respectful of our citizens’ time. We need a schedule-change no-tification system. If the airlines, transit systems, plumbers and cable services can let customers know, with reasonable accuracy, the estimated time of arrival, departure or completion, surely this is possible at the Legisla-ture.

One of my greatest frustra-tions during my service in the House was seeing citizens from around the state waiting for a bill to be heard, but the hearing never happened. No explana-tion. No notice. Nothing was more disheartening than to en-counter citizens who had driven or waited hours to attend a hearing, when the staff knew the schedule had changed.

The people who didn’t know were the ones taking off work, counting on babysitters, and traveling to and waiting in the capitol to give their input. Doesn’t matter where you live – if you take the time to go to the capitol in Santa Fe for a hear-

ing, receiving a heads up that the schedule has changed is re-spectful.

In 2009, many members struggled with the webcasting changes enabled by technology. Today’s technology is even more agile and, with

compliments to the Legislative Council staff, the systems and tools available to the Legisla-ture are robust. That means resistance to change, which is commonplace in other sectors, is, well, futile.

As the new leaders in the House of Representatives make their mark, they have the opportunity to truly involve the citizens of New Mexico in the process. It is time to add a real-time schedule-change notification tool to “My Round-house” at nmlegis.gov/lcs/roundhouse.

Being respectful of our citizens’ time is good manners and just commonsense. If a committee chair knows that a scheduled hearing will be delayed, notification to the My Roundhouse system could en-able mobile notification of the

schedule change. Do not argue that not everyone will get the notice. Someone in a group will have a phone that has text or email notification capability.

Keep in mind, there are many reasons for schedule changes – from the bill sponsor being stuck in another committee, to negotiation between legislators to create a better bill, to the sponsor pulling the bill from the schedule, or to the staff recognizing that the committee simply cannot hear all 50 bills scheduled on a specific day.

Now, I have been waiting in an airport and received the dreaded electronic notification: “Flight cancelled. See ticket agent!” At least I knew, and be-cause I knew I had options. I as-sure you that a group traveling from Lordsburg would like the option of knowing of a sched-ule change at the Legislature. If they are only 50 miles out from

Lordsburg, they would have the option of turning around.

By being respectful of our citizen’s time, more citizens will have the opportunity to partic-ipate. In my book, more citizen participation creates better representative government.

This type of communication will require the commitment of the staff at the capitol. Person-ally, I would appreciate notices saying something like: “House or Senate is still on the floor. Current estimated start time for afternoon committees is 3 p.m.”

The Legislature has a unique culture. Timeliness is not neces-sarily the primary function. We now have the tools to enable the most important input to that process, that of John and Jane Citizen. A real-time notification system would improve citizen participation (and satisfaction) and ensure improved effective-ness of the process of represen-tative government.

Arnold-Jones, a Republican, is a former New Mexico House member from Albuquerque. The views in this column are the author’s alone and do not reflect the views or opinions of New Mexico In Depth.

Commentary

Janice Arnold-Jones

Technology can build citizen-friendly legislative process

S

Read Janice arnold-Jones on the importance of answering your door when a political candidate knocks at NMInDepth.com.

The Legislature has a unique culture. Timeliness is not necessarily the primary function. We now have the tools to enable the most important in-put to that process.

NMDepth

In

.com


ealth care pricing has been likened by Prince-

ton economist Uwe Reinhardt to shop-ping blindfolded in a department store, and then months later re-ceiving an indecipher-able statement with a framed box at the bottom that says: pay this amount.

Indeed, here in New Mexico it is easier to find the price and quality of a toaster than it is of a common medical procedure. Because information about price and quality is essential to almost every market transac-tion, this lack of transparency means that health care is more expensive than it would other-wise be.

The high cost of health care has devastating consequences. Over 62% of personal bank-ruptcies in the U.S. are attrib-utable to illness and health care debt, up from 8% in 1981. Many of these medical debtors are middle-class homeowners, and more than three-quarters of them had health insurance.

Health insurance costs are also a major driver of the na-tional trend toward part-time employment, as they make em-ployers less willing and able to hire full-time workers with ben-efits at a time when we urgently need to create good private sector jobs for New Mexicans.

Finally, health care costs are a

heavy burden on state taxpayers, with over 27% of New Mexico’s annual budget going to health care. As health care spending outpac-es the growth of the rest of the economy, it threatens to crowd out spending on priorities

like public schools and higher education.

How did we get to this point? A century ago, patients paid directly for their health care and knew exactly what it cost. Over the ensuing decades, the rise of private health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid discon-nected patients from the cost of their care.

That situation is predicted to change with the recent trend toward higher deductibles and growing out-of-pocket costs. For example, Bronze health insurance plans under the Af-fordable Care Act have average deductibles of more than $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.

Economists believe that these higher out-of-pocket costs will cause patients to be more sen-sitive to prices, which will help contain overall costs. However, this ignores one crucial detail: the lack of transparency makes it impossible for patients to comparison shop for the highest quality, most affordable care.

That is why Think New Mexi-co has proposed the creation of a user-friendly website where

New Mexicans can find the price and quality of the 100 most common medical proce-dures. This is not a new idea: a total of 14 states, including Arizona, Colorado, and Utah, have already established similar websites, and another five states are actively working to create them.

These websites are already making a difference. A 2013 study by researchers at the Uni-versity of Chicago found that the price of common elective procedures dropped by an aver-age of 7% in states with trans-parency websites. For example, hip transplants averaged $2,800 less in states that had the web-sites.

Making quality data, such as rates of avoidable errors and readmissions, transparent is just as important as price. If quality information is not provided, many patients will assume that higher-priced care is higher quality. After all, in most mar-kets, “you get what you pay for.”

However, numerous studies have found that, when it comes to health care, cost and quality are not correlated. In fact, if anything there is a slight nega-tive correlation because avoid-able errors, infections, and read-missions make the health care costs spike. (It is important that quality metrics be “risk-adjust-ed,” taking patient populations into account so that they do not disincentivize hospitals from treating the sickest patients.)

Making risk-adjusted quality data transparent incentivizes health care providers to compete to improve it. As the old say-ing goes, “what gets measured gets done.” For example, when Pennsylvania began publishing hospital-acquired infection rates in 2006, the statewide infec-tion rate fell by 7.8% within a year. This not only improved the quality of care and saved many lives, but it also lowered costs since the average cost of hospitalization in that state was $53,915 when an infection occurred, and only $8,311 when it did not.

A health care price and quality transparency website in New Mexico will similarly save both lives and dollars by making health care more patient-cen-tered and more of a free market. That is why leading doctors like Dr. Barry Ramo have endorsed our proposal, along with state-wide and national organizations like the League of Women Voters New Mexico and Costs of Care.

Nathan is Executive Director of Think New Mexico, a re-sults-oriented think tank whose mission is to improve the qual-ity of life for all New Mexicans, especially those who lack a strong voice in the political process. The views in this column are the au-thor’s alone and do not reflect the views or opinions of New Mexico In Depth.

Commentary

Making state’s health care more transparent

Fred Nathan

H


Mother Nature called… your medicine is ready.

505-888-2699 | MinervaCanna.com

Serving New Mexico patients since 2010


hen I was a reporter in Connecti-

cut, it was exhilarating and exhausting to report on scandals that climaxed with that state’s governor pleading guilty to corruption and going to federal prison.

I had dug through piles of government documents, talk-ed to sources, all in the hopes of trying to nail down how a government official had crossed the sometimes-blurry line be-tween right and wrong.

Fortunately for the public – and reporters like me – Con-necticut provided some help along the way.

An independent state ethics commission had analyzed some of the Connecticut governor’s actions and found them ques-tionable.

There were small things too. In Connecticut, thanks to its campaign finance disclosure laws, the public – and reporters – could begin to chart the re-lationships between the people who gave money and the polit-ical candidates who took it. For example, Connecticut required – and still does – campaign contributors to list who they work for, not just their occupa-tion. In 2015, 10 years after I left Connecticut, all New Mexico requires is for contributors to

list their occupation, not employers.

The state Cap-itol in Hart-ford also aired legisla-tive hearings and floor debates on its legisla-tive TV channel. That made it easy for the public – and reporters

– to follow crucial votes and debates when not attending.

And then there was the “nametag” mandate for lob-byists trying to influence Connecticut state lawmakers.The idea was to make it eas-ier for members of the pub-lic to identify who the lobby-ists were.

Politics, like much of life, is relational and it’s especially true in a legislative body, wheth-er the U.S. Congress, the Con-necticut Legislature or in Santa Fe.

So, imagine my disorienta-tion in 2005 when I moved to New Mexico to work for the Al-buquerque Journal covering Gov. Bill Richardson and our state’s Legislature.

New Mexico’s campaign finance laws weren’t – and still aren’t — as strong as Connecti-cut’s were in 2002. And only recently have New Mexico state lawmakers begun webcasting legislative hearings and floor debates. But don’t expect to be able to watch them after the fact. The Legislature doesn’t

archive them. And lobbyists in Santa Fe still

don’t wear nametags. It took me years to put

names with faces of many of the lobbyists in Santa Fe — and it’s my full-time job to know these kinds of things. Can you imag-ine how disorienting the Capitol is for a member of the public who attends a hearing for the first time and doesn’t know who anyone is.

A short disclaimer: Some-times lobbyists get a bad rap. In my experience, most are friend-ly and helpful. A long time ago, I learned what many journalists discover – you can’t do your job well in a state Capitol with-out getting to know the “wall leaners,” the lobbyists and other denizens milling around the Capitol’s hallways during a leg-islative session who know how the place works.

But my friendliness with lawmakers and lobby-ists doesn’t negate the fact that a state capitol functions as a sort of insiders club, which can be a problem when it’s the public’s business lawmakers are charged with doing.

Take, for example, what New Mexico tells the public about how lobbyists do their jobs.

We know, based on informa-tion from the New Mexico Sec-retary of State’s office, that from May 2013 through April 2014 individual lobbyists reported

spending $443,058 on gifts and meals to lawmakers and elect-ed officials leading up to and during the 2014 session.

Of that spending, 10 lob-byists spent between $10,232 and $27,750 each, for a total of $156,116, or 35 percent of the total spending by lobbyists.

But we don’t know what is-sues or bills lobbyists were paid to try to influence. New Mexico, unlike states such as Colorado and Wisconsin, doesn’t require lobbyists to list what issues or bills they are lobbying on.

Add it all up — the weak campaign finance laws, the lack of archived legislative hearings and floor debates, the absence of lobbyist nametags and infor-mation about what bills they’re seeking to influence – and I wonder sometimes what New Mexico’s state lawmakers are afraid of? Why don’t many of them support making it easier for the public to understand how business is conducted at the Roundhouse? What do they fear if New Mexicans were able to better understand how their government works?

These are questions worth asking in 2015.

Jennings is New Mexico In Depth’s executive director. The views in this column are the author’s alone and do not reflect the views or opinions of New Mexico In Depth.

Commentary

Trip Jennings

Why do many lawmakers fear transparency?W


In addition to the sponsors of this legislative guide, New Mexico In Depth thanks the following for their generous support of our mission in 2014.

Susannah Abbey • Mary Ellen Capek • Marjorie Childress • Beck and Cooper law firm • William J. Corbett • David Craig • Mickey Curtis • Brian Egolf • Susan Fitzgerald • Shannon Freedle • Nate Gentry • Sarah Gustavus •Elizabeth Gutierrez • Frances Haussamen • Wally and Carol Haussamen • Roberta Henry • Terri Holland • Trip Jennings • Don Kurtz • John Landrum • Wendy Lewis • Trish Lopez • Alfredo Lujan • M FIVE Martini Grill •Daniel Macke • Patricia Martinez-Lopez • Bill McCamley • Felicia McCracken • Elizabeth McGrath • Rorie Jan Measure • David Morgan • Erin Muffoletto • Maggie Toulouse Oliver • Alan Packman • Lucas Peerman •Suzanne Prescott • Lawrence Rael • Hilda Raz • Pamela Roy • Angelica Rubio • Allen Stenger • Floyd Vasquez • John Wertheim • Aletta T. Wilson • Peter Wirth • Vennie E. White • Patrick Woolsey • Tashia WyacoSpecial thanks to: KUNM Public Radio • The McCune Charitable Foundation • W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Thornburg Foundation

GUIDE SPONSORS:Agenda, LLCBregman & Loman, P.C. Buzzsaw StrategiesBWD GlobalCommon Cause New MexicoConservation Voters New MexicoDoña Ana CountyDrug Policy Alliance Farmington Daily TimesThe Garrity Group Public RelationsHobbs Chamber of Commerce IATSE Local 480Jason Marks Law, LLC Joe MonahanKOB-TV Channel 4Las Cruces Sun NewsLaguna Development Corp.Minerva Canna Group, Inc.Natural RxNew MexicCann Natural MedicineNew Mexico Comunidades en Accion y de FeNew Mexico Foundation for Open Government New Mexico Political Report New Mexico RailrunnerNew Mexico Turn AroundOrgantica, Inc.Positive Energy SolarResearch & Polling, Inc. Rio Grande FoundationSanta Fe New MexicanSouthWest Organizing ProjectStrategies 360 Sunspot Solar EnergyUNM Hospital Neurological Sciences

CHAMPIONS

This guide would not be possible without dedicated Transparency Champions who believe that open and accountablegovernment is the foundation of a strong democracy. NM In Depth thanks them for their commitment and support!

T ransparency CHAMPIONS

Janice E. Arnold-Jones and John JonesBarry BitzerChris Cervini

William DaumuellerDiane Denish

Valerie EspinozaSusan FitzgeraldMark FleischerCollin Hunter

Tom Johnson-Institute for Analytic JournalismTim Keller

Trish LopezDaniel Macke

Felicia McCrackenMichelle and Donald Meaders

Debbie O'MalleyAlan PackmanKyla Thompson

Alan Webber

League of Women VotersRio Grande Foundation67


“UNM knows my heritage.That’s how they knew surgery would save me.”

—Candy R.neurosurgical patient

“It’s one thing for your doctors to know your family medical history. It’s quite another for them to understand 500 years of your family’s heritage. In my case, it meant they knew me, they knew how prevalent my condition was in my family, and they knew how to help. Learn more about my story at UNMHSLifeStories.org.“

Neurological Sciences

UNM-30566_Neuro_Candy_9889x9494_LGA.indd 1 12/19/14 11:20 AM


The Garrity Group Public Relations | 4110 Wolcott Northeast, Suite B | Albuquerque, NM 87109 | 505.898.8689 | garritypr.com

Trust in State Government Officials

Access Television as a News Source Access Newspaper as a News Source

Follow the conversation @GarrityPR #NMLEG #GPSPolitical Get the survey www.garritypr.com

Favorability of Oil and Gas Industry

Favorability of Public Schools

Trust of Teachers

Republicans, Democrats and IndependentsOH MY!

The Garrity Perception Survey Insight on Political Perceptions of Favorability and Trust

New Mexico-based, The Garrity Group public relations firm helps small companies to be heard and large organizations to be understood. Clients benefit from services including media relations, issue and crisis

management, digital/social media and insights on NM’s diverse Hispanic market.

The Garrity Perception Survey is in its fifth year, reporting on perceptions of New Mexico residents. During the 60-day legislative session, we will feature statewide survey insights through our twitter and website.

*The Garrity Perception Survey has a 95% level of confidence.

62%39%

32%

Republican

Democrat

Independent

44%New Mexico

74%78%75%

Republican

Democrat

Independent

75%New Mexico

13% Republican

14% Democrat

12% Independent

14% New Mexico

60%67%

53%

Republican

Democrat

Independent

58%New Mexico

65%67%

53%

Republican

Democrat

Independent

66%New Mexico

38%52%

24%

Republican

Democrat

Independent

New Mexico 44%

new mexico in depth 2015 legislative guide

Documents