Contact
Subscribe
|
Tweet
| (7) |
Democratic group’s ad unfairly attacks Martinez
The Democratic Governors Association’s new ad accusing Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez of wasting taxpayer money on “special bonuses for insiders” doesn’t pass the smell test – and the DGA’s own fact sheet in support of its ad actually helps prove that the ad’s attack is unfair.
Here’s the ad:
“Another political scandal. $350,000 of taxpayer money wasted on special bonuses for insiders,” the ad’s narrator states. “… Martinez, a local prosecutor, should have used the money to protect our borders. But newspapers caught her giving big bonuses to friends in her office – bonuses nearly three times higher than any other district.”
From fiscal years 2006 to 2009, Martinez gave employees $477,000 in “out of cycle salary increases.” About three-fourths of that money came from a federal program called the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative, the Martinez campaign said in a statement. Martinez has said the money went to employees in her office – the vast majority of them prosecutors – because of the additional caseload and responsibility related to prosecuting border-related crime and based on performance.
Susana Martinez
The problem for the DGA? One of the articles it cites in its fact sheet in support of the ad, from The Santa Fe New Mexican, includes this:
“But Ernesto Ortiz, director of the High Intensity Drug Traffic Area in New Mexico, said Tuesday that using Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative funds to give raises to prosecutors is legitimate.
“The funds, he said, are available to district attorneys in border states. Some district attorneys have used the funds for salaries, while others have used funds for such things as training and equipment, he said.”
There are other statements in the DGA’s fact sheet that support using the funds to pay prosecutors for the increased workload related to prosecuting border-related crime. In one, New Mexico’s U.S. senators – both Democrats – are quoted as arguing earlier this year, when the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative program was cut, that the program needed to be restored because it reimburses “state, county, parish, tribal, and municipal governments for costs associated with the prosecution and pre‐trial detention of federally‐initiated criminal cases declined by local offices of the United States Attorneys.”
“…Drug trafficking in the Southwest region is a serious threat to our homeland security and the federal government must provide meaningful support so that we can prosecute these crimes and stem the flow of illegal drugs throughout the United States,” the senators said, according to the DGA fact sheet.
The DGA fact sheet also quotes a San Antonio Express-News article as stating earlier this year that “Lawmakers from Southwest border states pleaded with colleagues on a Senate appropriations panel… to restore $31 million to a program that reimburses local governments for prosecuting drug smuggling cases. The Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative has been a frequent target of budget cutters… Sen. John Cornyn, R‐Texas, said that decision ‘puts our local law enforcement officials at a serious disadvantage in the war on drugs.’”
It’s true that Martinez gave significantly larger out-of-cycle increases to employees in her office than other DAs around the state. But the DGA has provided no evidence to show that the size of the increases wasn’t allowed.
The evidence shows that such salary increases were one way prosecutors were allowed to use the funds.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
7 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
NM Politics is fast becoming a lapdog of the Republicans.
Heath – you are my favorite watchdogger! Keep up the vigilance as these “political ad-fictions” start to pollute the airwaves between now and election. They all have the same narrative feel, and voiceover tonality. You are the one to separate fact from formula. Thank you.
There has been some real problems with Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative funds in Ms. Martinez office.
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice audited the New Mexico District Attorney Offices regarding Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative funds in 2007 and found this about Ms. Martinez’s Office:
“Questioned Costs Of $466,327 Must Be Returned To The DOJ by The Third Judicial District Attorney. Questioned Costs Of $466,327 Must Be Returned To The DOJ by The Third Judicial District Attorney. The OIG audit of the Third District Attorney involved 543 files and reimbursements of $1,723,254. Among the questioned costs are 42 cases totaling $147,131 determined ineligible for reimbursement as mandated by grant guidelines because there was no evidence of federal involvement. Third Judicial District Attorney findings include but are not limited to:
. $110,956 for 31 weapons cases not federally initiated;
. $36,175 for 11 probation violation cases not federally initiated;
. $41,683 received for 34 cases that were not prosecuted (Nolle Prosequi);
. $189,764 must be returned for cases resolved during the quarter ended September 30, 2004, for which no federal funds were available for reimbursement but submitted for reimbursement on the following quarter’s application;
. $77,185 in excess reimbursements due to using the case closure date instead of the shorter case disposition date; and
. $8,100 in cases that were disposed of prior to the inception of the Initiative.
DPS staff reviewed Third District Attorney cases identified in the OIG audit and found documentation supporting federal participation in 10 cases, which reduced the liability due the DOJ by $32,480. DPS withheld the Phase IX reimbursement of $287,957 to further offset the amount due. Payment of $145,889 was rendered by the Third District Attorney to cover the balance”
Inspector General report
http://www.justice.gov/oig/gra...
Interesting report on Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative funds
http://www.centerforinvestigat...
See the following report for details of audit
Here is the Department of Public Safety on the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative funds in 2007. This document should be read to see the problems with the District Attorney’s offices in New Mexico.
http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/l...
Without doubt there is a lot of attitude given to the District Attorney’s Office to use these funds, but there are also many ways to misused the funds like for bonuses. Also a poor job has been done in providing proper documentation for the federal money. I would rate Ms. Martinez a “D’ for her poor management of these funds.
The Dems are clutching at straws. This shows they have nothing to hang on Susana but nit picking. As the DA for Dona Ana County she has a class act and will be a good Governor for this state.
Let the nay sayers continue their attacks, it will only add votes to her side. People are not so gullible as they once were and the truth is well known.
Just because something is technically “allowed” doesn’t mean it’s the best use of the funds. I think it’s appropriate to question whether she used the money to accomplish the goals or just reward her favorite staff.
Heath –
While perhaps disingenuous, this add does not specifically allege that Martinez did anything wrong (although using the word ‘caught’ might imply wrongdoing, it does specify that it was by media).
What it does do is question her judgement in the dispersal of federal money. There’s no dispute on the fact that she decided to spend 350,000 of federal money to give raises to her staff. Perhaps they deserved it, it’s not my call. She did however make a financial decision, and just because it was legal doesn’t mean it was in the best interest of her community. I don’t know enough about her specific case to comment more on the legitimacy of the spending, other than to say that questioning a leader’s financial choices is a perfectly legitimate tactic in a campaign. If she is going to lead a state wide budget, I think that examining the her usage of federal grants in a legitimate issue.
It would be interesting to see the caseload of the Third Judicial District compared to the other districts. Does the 3rd prosecute more drug smuggling cases than other districts? Is the 3rd more understaffed than other districts?
Hooray horribly misleading political ads