Contact
Subscribe
AFSCME wants GOP voters to pick Arnold-Jones
Janice Arnold-Jones
Even though it’s already endorsed Democrat Diane Denish in this year’s gubernatorial race, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees announced today that it wants Republican primary voters to pick Janice Arnold-Jones to take on Denish in November.
The members of AFSCME’s political action committee voted unanimously this week to recommend that AFSCME’s Republican members pick Arnold-Jones in the primary, according to an AFSCME news release.
The release states that the recommendation is based on “a number of good-government issues where AFSCME and Representative Arnold-Jones are on the same page – and where workers have relied on her to help solidify Republican support in the House.”
Examples include that Arnold-Jones “supports transparency in our tax code, in our contracting out, in government spending, and in our legislative process,” and that Arnold-Jones and AFSCME “also fought together at the Roundhouse for whistleblower protections, against double-dipping, and against wasteful taxpayer handouts to out-of-state mega-developers.”
“Too often people in both parties are caught up in pointing out differences, making straw men of the other side’s positions,” Patty French, chairwoman of AFSCME’s political committee, said in the release.
“What AFSCME members care about are electing folks who are ethical, who are willing to let the public see how government operates, who support whistleblowers, and who want to end abuses like double-dipping,” French said. “We’re lucky that, regardless of party and whatever their other differences may be, both Diane Denish and Rep. Arnold-Jones favor a practical, ethical, transparent approach to meeting the critical needs of New Mexicans.”
Another legislative endorsement
Arnold-Jones picked up another endorsement today, from Rep. Thomas Anderson, R-Albuquerque.
“I think Janice is the only one of the candidates running for governor that can actually control the state from the executive chair,” Anderson said in a release from the Arnold-Jones campaign. “I have served concurrently with Janice for nearly eight years and I believe she is obviously the sharpest legislator in the House.”
“Governors cannot bully their way into the governor’s office, and governors do not prosecute crimes,” he said. “Janice has the right experience. She knows how government works, and how it should work. She will be able to begin governing on day one.”
Anderson is the fourth legislator to endorse Arnold-Jones in the primary race.
Update, April 20, 3:45 p.m.
Arnold-Jones sent me the questionnaire she filed out that earned her AFSCME’s endorsement. Because of the discussion going in the comments section at the end of this posting, I figured it was worth adding. Click here for Arnold-Jones’ questionnaire.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
19 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mr. Bundy’s remarks seem genuine and well thought out. With the expected change coming to the Democrat Party nationwide in the fall, it makes sense to support a candidate that will approach the unions in a fair and even handed way, like Janice Arnold-Jones, even though she will likely disagree with most of their agenda. There is no hope for better solutions when people start with arms folded over a baseball bat or stack of legal papers…
That said, Mr. Bundy’s credibility would rise in the eyes of many if he would express concern over the posturing of the Albuquerque contingent of his AFSCME group with Mayor Berry. As the leader he sounds like he might be, now is the time to raise the gavel of discontent and publicly admonish that group for using war-like words, like ‘war’! When he does that, his intent in endorsing Janice Arnold-Jones expressed through his words here, will become more genuine than ever!
GeorgeCurry,
If it’s not too much of a bother, please read my answers to the questionnaire which I posted first and compare and contrast my answers with Ms. Arnold-Jones keeping in mind that we are both seeking to be the Republican primary winner in our respective races. Thanks in advance for your feedback.
After reading AFSCME’s questions and Arnold-Jones’ answers it’s a wonder this group endorsed her. Personally I think this endorsement speaks volumes about Arnold-Jones’ ability to pull in the Democrats and the Independents that the Republican nominee will need in November and that’s something for primary voters to seriously consider before casting their votes.
Heath thank you for posting the response of Rep. Arnold-Jones to the AFSCME questions. Her responses are well thought out, pragmatic and conservative. They may not agree with all she has to say but you get a sense that she would deal with labor unions in a fair fashion, taking in the concerns of the private sector. A balanced approach. It would be nice to see how Lt. Gov. Denish responed to the same questions. Can we get any feed back on that sir?
Here’s Arnold-Jones’ AFSCME questionnaire: http://nmpolitics.net/Documents/Arnold-Jones_AFSME_State_questionnaire_3-30-10.pdf
Thomas, I am huge fan of ethically redacted truth telling, as you know.
That’s why I was so perplexed when you argued that believing in it was the equivalent of believing in fairy tales.
The logical award here would be that your constituents would understand what your willingness to tell the truth means to them in practical terms, and then elect you.
.
Ched,
You are a government transparency guy. Let it be noted that I am the first candidate to provide my unredacted answers to the AFSCME candidate questionnaire for public viewing. I await some kind of award, thank you.
I’m wondering if we could see the responses of all of the candidates.
Is it unreasonable to expect them to show their responses to voters who are currently state workers, might someday become state workers, or who expect to have to pay more some day, for more state workers?
Many on the blog have asked for context and a copy of the questionnaire. So here it is and my answers. Unfortunately, I can’t put my narrative answers in bold or a different color type to questions 20/21/22/23, but my answer to question #23: Do you wish to receive a public endorsement from AFSCME? My answer is: “Only if my answers align with its (AFSCME) values and beliefs. Carter: I would hardly call this answer a pander for endorsement or, in your own word, “ironic.”
2010 AFSCME Questionnaire for State Candidates
This questionnaire is being sent to you by all of the members of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. We represent about 12,000 bargaining unit members across New Mexico including state and university employees and home based childcare providers.
Council 18 also represents city employees in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Rio Rancho, Espanola, Las Vegas, Silver City, Alamogordo, and Raton, and County employees in Bernalillo, Santa Fe, Dona Ana, Taos, and Grant Counties.
Please email your response to Carter Bundy at carterbundy@yahoo.com and Josh Anderson at joshandersonnm@yahoo.com or fax to 505-266-3155. You may also reach us by phone at 505-463-8499 (Carter) or 505-350-2200 (Josh) to arrange for hand delivery. We strongly recommend writing your responses after the questions in this document so that members can see the question and response right next to each other. Thank you.
AFSCME must receive a completed questionnaire for candidates, including incumbents, to receive our endorsement.
Candidate Name: Thomas Molitor
Office Sought: HR-23
Election Campaign Committee Name, Phone Number, and Address:
143 Armijo Ct
Corrales, NM 87048
505-553-3633
BASIC UNION RIGHTS
1. Do you support collective bargaining and the unions’ right to negotiate a contract containing wages, benefits, hours, and conditions of employment?
Yes X No
Additional comments:
2. Each state employee in the AFSCME bargaining unit, whether a member or not, enjoys the benefits of union representation such as contractually negotiated improvements in wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment and representation in grievance and disciplinary matters.
Under New Mexico law, no one ever has to be a union member, but all bargaining unit state employees who receive these benefits do have to pay a partial amount to cover the negotiating and implementation of contracts. Without this “fair share”, freeloaders would destroy unions as they’ve done in right to work states like Texas.
Current law prohibits automatic deduction of fair share fees from paychecks without a burdensome authorization process, even though there is no legal question that non-members must pay the fair share fee.
Do you support changing state law to allow for the automatic payroll deduction of fair share fees?
Yes X No
Additional comments
3. Will you support funding for state employees and university employees in the amount and manner as negotiated with the administration or Boards of Regents respectively?
Yes X No
Additional comments:
PRIVATIZATION
4. Do you oppose all privatization of publicly-provided services, including but not limited to Ft. Bayard Medical Center and Las Vegas Medical Center, veterans’ facilities, correctional facilities (including state support for privatized county facilities like Clayton), revenue collections services, and DOT jobs?
Yes No X
Additional comments
5. Are there any areas of state-funded government that are currently administered/performed by public employees for which you would support privatizing?
Yes No X
Additional comments:
6. Are there any areas of state-funded government that are currently privatized that you would bring in-house?
Yes No X
Additional comments:
RETIREMENT
7. Do you pledge to defend the current defined benefit retirement system in PERA and ERA, and to resist any move to a defined contribution system?
Yes No
Additional comments: Need to study the subject in more depth.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
8. We are in a national recession, and revenues are down significantly from previous years. The state has already cut over $700 million in funding for public safety, education, health care, and other core, vital services. State employees have already seen a pay reduction from furloughs and pension contribution swaps of almost three weeks worth of pay.
Meanwhile, the state continues to offer its very richest citizens a 40% tax break from the rates of the Johnson administration, and out-of-state corporations continue to avoid paying taxes by hiding profits in tax havens such as Delaware, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda.
Before cutting agencies, universities, children’s programs, and worker pay further, would you support each of the following?
a. Creating another tax bracket for upper-income New Mexicans to restore some progressivity to our personal income tax.
Yes No X
Additional Comments:
b. Suspending capital outlay for projects that have not yet been started.
Yes X No
Additional Comments:
c. Lobbying for and accepting additional federal stimulus monies.
Yes No X
Additional Comments:
d. Closing the corporate loopholes allowing companies to hide their profits (“combined reporting”).
Yes X No
Additional Comments:
e. Diverting a quarter cent of oil and gas taxes from the permanent fund to the general fund (not increasing taxes at all).
Yes No X
Additional Comments:
9. Will you pledge to make all of the above revenue enhancements permanent instead of phasing them out and creating another fiscal crisis in a few years?
Yes X No
Additional Comments:
10. What, if any, other revenue enhancement ideas do you have that you would vote to implement prior to additional cuts, and how much revenue do you believe each one would generate? Requires more analysis than space allotted here.
11. Tax increment financing (TIF) was created as a tool to encourage infill and to fight blight. Recently, developers have started using TIF in “greenfield” (undeveloped) areas. Instead of sharing infrastructure costs with government, developers are now using TIF as a corporate subsidy that makes taxpayers foot much more of the entire bill for growth.
Recent greenfield TIF measures will cost the state, city, and county general funds billions of dollars over the next few decades. Do you oppose all greenfield TIF?
Yes X No
Additional Comments:
12. Will you support legislation prohibiting future greenfield TIF in New Mexico, from not only the state but also cities and counties?
Yes X No
Additional comments:
HEALTH CARE
13. Do you support legislation that will ensure that every New Mexican has health coverage?
Yes X No
Additional comments:
14. Do you pledge to oppose any legislation that would put the burden of expanded health care on the public employees or retirees? (For example, some proposals would put the sickest New Mexicans who private companies won’t insure into state or retiree health pools, driving up costs for public employees)
Yes X No
Additional comments:
MINIMUM WAGE
15. Do you support indexing the state minimum wage to inflation?
Yes No X
Additional comments:
GOOD GOVERNMENT
16. Decades of legislation and different administrations have resulted in numerous contracts given to thousands of entities. That information is currently scattered throughout different agencies, but could fairly easily be compiled so that the current administration, legislature, and citizens would know how state funds are spent.
Would you support good government legislation requiring the state to compile and publicize a list of contracts over a certain dollar amount (commonly called a “contract expenditure budget”)?
Yes X No
Additional comments:
17. There are literally hundreds of different tax breaks and loopholes in current New Mexico law that deprive the state of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Some breaks make sense, while others may be outdated or may never have made sense.
Would you support good government legislation providing the administration, legislators, and the public with an annual list of tax breaks, their major beneficiaries, and the estimated amount of revenue lost (commonly called a “tax expenditure budget”)?
Yes X No
Additional comments:
18. Will you seek out and give weight to public employee union input on state Public Employee Labor Relations Board and State Personnel Office appointments?
Yes X No
Additional comments:
19. If elected would you be willing to meet on a regular basis with union representatives and consult with us on issues affecting public employees and other workers?
Yes X No
Additional comments:
GENERAL QUESTIONS
20. Are you now or have you ever been a union member? What are your proudest pro-labor accomplishments or moments? I have never been a member of a union.
21. How do you believe you can win the election? How would you differentiate yourself from your opponents in this race? I am a true fiscal conservative who believes we should “grow jobs not government.” I have spent my entire professional career in the private sector, creating jobs and shareholder value. I have a degree in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley as well as an MBA and believe my academic and professional business life separate me from my opponents who have none of my experience and qualifications. Unions perform their natural function when three conditions are observed: (1) association with the union is voluntary, (2) the union confines its activities to collective bargaining, and (3) the bargaining is conducted with the employer of the workers concerned. Please note: These functions are perverted the moment a union claims the right to represent employees who do not want representation.
22. What do you see as other major issues facing New Mexico, and how can you address them if elected? Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Education. Education. Education. When I am elected I will push for legislation that helps small businesses in New Mexico get access to credit, clear away red tape that raises their costs of starting and running a business, and lower their taxes in order to attract capital investment and job creation. I am for more freedom of choice for the education buyer (parents) and for more competitive choice in the education market (school choice).
23. Do you wish to receive a public endorsement from AFSCME? Only if my answers align with its values and beliefs.
24. Tell us about yourself! What is your birthdate? Where were you born? Where did you grow up? What is your current occupation? Any previous occupations? What is your educational background? In what ways are you or have you been involved in the community? Feel free to add information about your family or other interests.
I invite you to visit these two websites which will give you personal and professional background and qualifications information:
It’s important to put this endorsement in context, and Carter Bundy does, in his response: “Rep. Arnold-Jones answered the questionnaire, and was straightforward enough to include some answers we didn’t particularly like. Having said that, we think she’s the most pragmatic and experienced of the GOP candidates, and would be a reasonable person with an open door, even when we disagreed.”
She apparently was given the endorsement because she listens, she’s fair and she has an open door. That, and (as the article here states) she’s fought for transparency and open government. All told, it’s a reasonable thing for the union to have endorsed her.
I just hope a lot of “red meat” Republicans don’t overreact and not vote for this candidate because the “Big, Bad Union” supported a few of her efforts they happened to agree with.
Carter,
You say, “But it’s nice to find politicians in either party who are pragmatic and want to work with people to build alliances where there is common ground…” Carter: This is why I took the time to fill out your questionnaire and send it in with answers to all your questions including “Would you seek the endorsement of AFSCME?” I’m sure an earlier guest column of mine advocating that New Mexico become a Right to Work state didn’t set the stage for an open mind about my answers to your questions. You say it’s “ironic” I am seeking your endorsement? How so? I am one of those politicians who is pragmatic and wants to work with people to build alliances where there is common ground and said so on several of your questions in your questionnaire. I invite you to publish my answers to your questionnaire and let people see the kinds of questions you ask rather than dismiss me as “ironic.”
I think all need to put AFSCME into context when judging their actions. This article is quite informative:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243785248026055.html
One could mistake AFSCME with a political pressure group instead of a union. When you spend 32% ($63 million in 2008) of your members dues on buying political influence, that seems to be the primary purpose of the organization, and is far more than any other group calling itself a “union”.
The AFCSME endorsement must be taken in context.
They obviously give Rep. Arnold-Jones her do for being able to walk the talk. She is a straight shooter.
I do think it a bit odd that they will endorse Lt. Gov. Denish in November regardless of teh outcome of the June primary election. What I would like to see is the way Denish and Arnold- Jones responded to the AFCSME questionaire. It would give me and others some context on the perspective of their endorsement. Am I asking for to much Mr. Bundy? Or in the interest of open government would you provide this information to us please.
I agree with Bundy. I have long admired Arnold-Jones. I was particularly impressed that she sent a representative all the way from Albuquerque to the well-attended candidate forum in Mayhill. Martinez is also an impressive candidate but was not represented at this forum even though Las Cruces is much closer to Mayhill. (Doug Turner was the only R gubernatorial candidate to show up in person.)
Since Otero county is about 50% R registered AND we have a hot sheriff’s race on this year, it is really a good idea for the R statewide candidates to come to the local forums and meet the voters! (Hint: there is a forum in Weed on May 15 and one in Piñon on May 21.)
But for support of Democratic values, Denish is the best gubernatorial candidate.
SF Observer, I’m disappointed in the thoughtlessness of your post. It’d be nice if you didn’t hide behind anonymity, but that’s Heath’s call. I hope you’ll have the courage and decency to say who you are, because my guess is you’re supporting another candidate and are trying to sully Rep. Arnold-Jones’ good reputation with an ad hominem attack on AFSCME.
But despite your anonymity, I’ll address your substantive allegation anyhow, because I’m sure there are others who are as cynical as you. We listed seven very specific, significant issues on which Rep. Arnold-Jones sided with AFSCME. We don’t run a traditional scorecard for a number of reasons that anyone familiar with state legislative work would understand. As an example, some of the most progressive senators voted against the budget package because it wasn’t progressive enough, but we were lobbying hard to pass something that we thought was as decent as we could get out of that chamber. Do we really want to dock progressives for going the extra mile for us?
As for being “the most partisan union”, well, you’re not very familiar with our history. We’ve supported Republicans at the state, county, and municipal level (though, to be fair, none at the federal level) in the 8 years I’ve been here, and frankly the lack of research by you and Mr. Molitor (who made a similarly snide comment after, ironically, seeking our endorsement) is something that I’m not going to spend lots of time fixing.
AFSCME did indeed go after John Sanchez in 2002 and did so directly. We hid nothing and made the case that he wasn’t a terribly effective or involved legislator. We thought he was the likely nominee (he was pretty close to a lock by the time we did our mailing) and knew that his hard-core ideological approach was going to be bad for government services like public safety and education and the people who provided them. So then, as now, we didn’t hide our identity (like you are doing), we didn’t hide our disagreement with then-Rep. Sanchez’ positions, and we didn’t hide our intentions.
In this case, we’ve stood up for someone who has worked for good government for years. We are well aware that there are uninformed, cynical people who will not look at the genuinely bipartisan work engaged in by us and legislators on both sides of the aisle. In fact, out of that very concern, we ask if the person filling out our questionnaire would accept a public endorsement. Rep. Arnold-Jones said she would, and I contacted her prior to our committee’s press release to let her know that we were planning to do so. We have also been honest that we don’t agree with her on everything. For the record here, we’ve had several significant disagreements with her on budget issues, but that doesn’t change the fact that she’s been an incredibly effective, bipartisan, honest, pragmatic legislator.
You make one good point. On balance, Republicans are more hostile to both basic government services and to unions, so most of the time we support Dems. But it’s nice to find politicians in either party who are pragmatic and want to work with people to build alliances where there is common ground, and I imagine some Republicans rather enjoyed AFSCME’s taking the lead both at the Roundhouse and publicly in curtailing double-dipping.
As much as politics is important, it’s not the only lens through which to view public service. In fact, the goal of politics for some of us is to achieve policy goals, not just to obtain power. Some policy goals for AFSCME include cleaner, transparent government and curtailing wasteful, insider deals that sap the general fund and retirement funds.
We extended a detailed questionnaire to all of the GOP candidates (using publicly available email addresses). Rep. Arnold-Jones answered the questionnaire, and was straightforward enough to include some answers we didn’t particularly like. Having said that, we think she’s the most pragmatic and experienced of the GOP candidates, and would be a reasonable person with an open door, even when we disagreed. Why wouldn’t we support someone like that? It’s only if we were cynical and partisan that we wouldn’t, and I suspect if you found out we didn’t give questionnaires to Republicans or support ones with whom we had been able to work, you’d criticize that as well.
SFObserver raises a good point. What was Rep Jone’s scorecard with AFSCME?
Something stinks.
It’s disturbing to me that the most partisan public employee union in the state of New Mexico is endorsing a Republican in the primary for their “Republican” members. AFSCME has a history of meddling in Republican Party primary politics (say that 10 times fast) – remember when they dropped a bunch of money against John Sanchez before he was hardly half way through the primary in 2002? I’d be curious to see what Representative Jones has to say about this endorsement as well. Republicans don’t typically support what unions stand for because they’re on such disparate sides of the issue almost 90% of the time.
Well, I’m a Democrat, so I wish your take was accurate, but it’s not. About a quarter of our registered voters are registered as Republicans. Doesn’t mean they always vote that way, but some certainly do.
Also, I hope readers don’t take the headline as saying that we “want” Rep. Arnold-Jones in any political maneuvering way. The GOP will nominate whoever it chooses. We just felt it was important to recognize that there are a lot of non-partisan or bi-partisan good government issues, and to let our members know that Rep. Arnold-Jones has a great track record of supporting those issues regardless of party labels, lines, or political expediency.
This says: ” AFSCME’s political action committee voted unanimously this week to recommend that AFSCME’s Republican members pick Arnold-Jones in the primary,” Really??? You mean both of the Republican members of AFSCME?