Contact
Let voters decide on PRC reform
Heath Haussamen
The scandal-plagued Public Regulation Commission clearly needs structural reform. All that stands in the way of voters getting the chance to implement it is Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez.
I literally laughed out loud when I read this quote from Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez the other day:
“Do you honestly believe that if you have a degree you can’t mess up?” he asked NMPolitics.net’s Gwyneth Doland.
Sanchez was explaining to Doland his skepticism that increased qualifications for Public Regulation Commission members would help clean up the scandal-plagued agency. Doland later broke the news that Sanchez’s stance might doom three proposed constitutional amendments to reform the PRC in the current legislative session.
The quote made me laugh because, while a degree obviously doesn’t mean someone won’t “mess up,” a legislative subcommittee Sanchez co-chaired in 2002 studied the issue and recommended – you guessed it – increasing qualifications for PRC members.
“The members agreed that defining qualifications in law is important to ensure that commissioners have the background and experience necessary to understand the complex issues involved in decisions that impact the business and citizens of New Mexico,” that committee’s report states. Read the executive summary here.
Sanchez is now saying that 2002 report was intended to suggest options the Legislature could consider, not to endorse any specific idea.
Wrong! The report makes clear what the committee wanted:
- Though it didn’t endorse any specific proposals, the committee made clear that it thought commissioners needed to be better qualified: “This would include debate on whether commissioners should be appointed or elected, and would address the need for qualifications to ensure that commissioners have the background and experience necessary to understand complex regulatory issues,” the report states.
- An independent insurance office: “The regulation of insurance should be elevated from its current status as a division of the PRC to an independent department of insurance.”
- Moving corporate functions: “The responsibilities for corporations should be transferred to the secretary of state to consolidate commerce and industry documentation and records and create a more efficient system for business transactions in New Mexico.”
Saying you did something without doing anything
The report sat on a shelf for 10 years. It was the ultimate example of being able to say you did something without actually doing anything. Meanwhile, the PRC grew into one of the most scandal-plagued government agencies in New Mexico – one that has seen two elected officials forced from office because of felony convictions in recent years.
Now Think New Mexico proposes the same three ideas I highlighted from that 2002 report as constitutional amendments (Rep. Joseph Cervantes’ HJR 11, House Minority Leader Tom Taylor’s HJR 16, and Rep. Kiki Saavedra’s HJR 17). All three have passed the House unanimously.
But Sanchez told Doland he didn’t recall the 2002 report (he later read it and made the comments about it to other media), and he thinks lawmakers need to look at PRC reform “more carefully than in a 30-day session.”
In other words, he wants the Legislature to go back and redo the very thing it – and he – did a decade ago. Ten years and scandal after scandal after scandal after scandal later, he wants to start over again.
That’s outrageous. It’s preposterous. It’s laughable.
The importance of qualifications
The majority leader’s skepticism about increasing qualifications is common among anti-reformers and is shared by Republican Commissioner Ben Hall. The fact that Sanchez and Hall, who has had his own problems (here and here), share skepticism about anything makes me chuckle.
Sanchez’s position is also laughable because he has been at the forefront of questioning whether Hanna Skandera should be confirmed as public education secretary, saying because she has never been a teacher she may not meet the constitutional requirement of being a “qualified, experienced educator.” Does he think government officials should be required to meet certain qualifications or not?
Finally, the answer to the underlying question – would having better-qualified commissioners help our scandal-plagued PRC – seems obvious to me.
“Duh.”
The PRC regulates all sort of complicated industries. It’s arguably the most powerful regulatory board of its kind in any state in America. We ask commissioners to approve potentially lucrative regulatory changes. They make those decisions in part based lots of technical information tossed at them by companies that stand to profit, and who may also be wining and dining them and financing their campaigns.
In other words, make friends with the guy who has a vote but doesn’t know what he’s doing. He won’t understand what you’re asking him for, but if you’re his friend he’ll trust you and do what you ask.
It would help to have people on the commission who have the knowledge, experience or educational background that comes from having a college degree or five years of relevant experience, as Cervantes has proposed and members of the House unanimously agreed was a good idea. It would help to have people who have shown the discipline to earn that degree or experience on the commission.
Of course that doesn’t mean that those who have degrees “can’t mess up.” Sanchez’s question deflects attention from the real issue. For technical jobs like these, having some basic qualifications would help in the same way that being a lawyer helps the attorney general do his job (we do require that our AG be a lawyer).
Michael Sanchez stands in the way
The reality is that the PRC is the ultimate mid-ballot race that gets no attention. Voters tend to know who’s running for president, governor, and maybe U.S. Senate and House. Many know their local county commission and legislative candidates. In between are races for seats on a regulatory board no one notices.
That’s why Jerome Block Jr. got elected even though anyone who was paying attention should have known he had probably committed felony crimes before they voted for him. As I’ve written, inattention was also a big factor in Hall’s 2010 victory.
Voters agreed in 1996 to create an uber-powerful regulatory board but have since given little thought to what it is or does. Largely because voters aren’t acting as a watchdog, other structural reforms must be put in place to help the PRC function better. Hence, the proposed constitutional amendments.
Voters only get that chance to implement such reforms if the Legislature gives it to them. The entire House of Representatives has agreed to do just that.
I have to believe the Senate would also vote to present voters with that opportunity, if given the chance.
And all that stands in the way of that happening is Michael Sanchez.
13 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Here is a letter from Representative Terry McMillan, HD 37 (R) that is a reply to a letter from Charlotte Lipson of Las Cruces and has been circulated among Democrats in at least Dona Ana and Otero counties:
“I certainly favor these reforms of the PRC, which is, fact, a runaway fourth branch of government that is unaccountable to the other three branches. The function of the PRC is quasi-judicial in nature, similar to the local zoning commission. This means it renders decisions by interpreting statute. The PRC interprets statute in mediating between utilities and consumers. It was a mistake to ever allow members to be elected to these positions, which turned this into a political circus, including the perception by the public that the PRC is some kind of consumer watchdog agency. The PRC members should be selected, not elected, from a list of candidates with adequate credentials and abilities to do the job. The selection process should mirror the selection process for judges, and the PRC should be moved to the Judicial branch of government, as far from political considerations as possible.
“We have bipartisan efforts to make reform, and I support all these, but in effect, they do not go far enough. Brian Egolf from Santa Fe had the best reform bill in the legislature [I couldn't figure out which one McMillan in referring to--EW], and it accomplished most of what I mentioned above. It was defeated in committee principally because Democrats maintain a 3-2 advantage on the committee, and I expect that is the reason that Senator Sanchez will not allow these reforms to be heard. Representative Egolf and I have agreed to carry real reform legislation next session if we are both returned.
Terry McMillan MD”
This seems like a good idea to me, we certainly don’t want something this important to be rushed through in the short session. I personally haven’t read any of the PRC reform bills, so have no opinion, but just because it sounds good doesn’t mean the legislation proposed is well crafted. (Remember the Patriot Act?)
I’m sure there are people who comment here, who will defend Sanchez but if he’s about anything beyond the absolute use of power and pure politics, I’ve seen no evidence. I suppose that’s a form of intelligence, not that the State of New Mexico has seen any benefit from it.
I haven’t read the proposed legislation and don’t know what specifically, or how specific the new requirements are. Reasonable standards for certain positions might not fix everything, but I don’t think it would hurt. Saying you have to be an attorney to be a commisstioner, period, would be unreasonable. One of governments difficulties in operating well, besides the political, is lack of qualification in positions that do require more than an 8th grade education. But that aside, really, how much longer to we have to stare this bad clown act? It’s dysfunctional for many reasons as Heath described. Staring at it stupidfied while “studying it”, while waiting for the next headliine, indictment, conviction, or lower proifle damage and disservice to the state is not my preferred course of action. We don’t need elitism but we do need functionality, and that’s something we’ve seen, time and time again, that we do not have.
Heath, I agree with you completely.
But the problem is that other than you, Dr. J, Think New Mexico and me, it appears that no one seems to care either way (a slight exaggeration but I’m probably not far off).
Until the position of commissioner of NM’s 4th branch of govenment is elevated beyond a mid level race in the eyes of the electorate, the same level of apathy will exist and PRC reform efforts will be dead. It doesn’t matter that commissioners often make the news for their crimes and indiscretions. People. Just. Don’t. Care.
Then there’s industry. Where is PNM? Wouldn’t they benefit from having competent regulators? Sure, but they don’t seem to want to rock the boat. Then there are those who benefit from the status quo like the common carriers. They certainly don’t want more competition! These are reasons you don’t see any calls to action.
It would be nice to see more people engaged in this debate, but I will not hold my breath.
Interesting discussion, Dr J! What does anyone else think?
The terms of public service are the prerogative of the people, and not of public servants.
When the will of the people is clear, and legislators like Sanchez can simply defy that will, the way we are doing things isn’t working. We have lost control over power and resources that belong fundamentally to the people.
That control is not going to be legislated back to the people, or ordered back by a court, or returned by executive decree. The people will regain control over the spending of their power and resources only when they take it back.
All it requires is for enough people to show up somewhere and do something, and someone to point them to the place.
How many people would have to show up at the Roundhouse to make Sanchez and his cronies capitulate? 500? 5,000?
True Heath, but by creating proxies for an intelligent and informed populace we continue to put band-aids and manual overrides on a system that is still broken, I don’t see that as progress. I voted for Block, all my neighbors recommended him highly and said he had “good genes” from his father, who was very well liked up here. We really had no other choices either and little to go on in his resume, so I don’t feel too bad. The state did not collapse and go under due to anything he did or didn’t do, they are just not that impactful to most people’s lives in the grand scheme of things. Having worked for the PRC in a few projects, I think you are giving them far more importance than is necessary. Many other agencies and boards have more stroke and power to do things in NM and effect our economy and society, there are many checks and balances on the PRC not present in other agencies and boards. They are paid a lot, too much perhaps, I would vote to half their salaries, especially if lawyers get a strangle-hold on the PRC as is planned by these requirements and the supporters.
I can’t disagree with your point either. The ultimate solution to our problems is an electorate that does a better job of electing people. But absent that, are we to sit back and let them continue to elect Jerome Blocks? I don’t think we should settle for that.
I like the idea of a citizen legislature. Everyday citizens should be involved in setting the policy of how government will operate. But there are some jobs that need technical knowledge or experience – a good example is the constitutional requirement that the education secretary have a background in education, for example. I have a college degree and I don’t think I’m qualified to be education secretary, or a judge for that matter.
As for your assertion that this isn’t the most important agency by any means and that there are other high-paid officials, I’m pretty sure PRC commissioners are the highest paid elected officials in the state other than the statewide elected officials (governor, AG, etc). And they govern the most powerful state regulatory board in the nation. This is a unique job.
I can’t disagree Heath, but again, what are we trying to solve here? If it is fixing it so the great unwashed, ignorant populace has much less likelihood of electing an immoral, unethical, incompetent person? Fine, but those “highly paid jobs” go for a large percentage of elected officials these days in government, so why not minimum qualifications for all of them? I just don’t see the logic of singling out one agency (and not the most important by any means) for this if you want to solve some bigger problem, like corporations having more educated and knowledgeable people than government and better to influence them (I guess that is what you mean by saying corporations are going to hire qualified regulators? But I didn’t know they did, directly). This PRC requirement won’t solve that either.
The laws judges must follow are also written and passed by legislators… Yet I argue we should require judges to be lawyers. As for the types of scandal among PRC commissioners, I think that backs up my point. These are very high-paying jobs with prestige that don’t require qualifications other than getting elected. So they’ve attracted some people, like Block and Sloan, who had no business being elected officials.
Where else in our society but government would such jobs exist? Corporations are going to hire regulators with qualifications to regulate.
You mean do I disagree that judges and lawyers are just as unethical as citizens without law degrees? No. But I would argue that the body of law for magistrates is far different than regs the PRC must enforce. Remember those regs are written and passed by, many times, uneducated legislators, so why don’t the people actually writing the regs have to have a technical education? And when you and others pushing this elitist requirement mention “scandal plagued PRC”, why don’t you be honest and define what those scandals involved. Sexual harassment, assault and battery, drug addiction. Now tell me how the judges have never had such problems even with all those pricy law school degrees from UNM? And as for the AG requirements of a law degree, let’s look back at our AGs and tell me how well they have done fighting corruption, crime, etc.?
Dr. J, you bring up the courts. Our magistrate judges don’t have to be lawyers, but all other judges do. While it’s not a be-all, end-all solution, I would argue that requiring our judges to be lawyers is better than not. The problems in our magistrate courts seem to be worse than in district courts. I’ve written about more than one magistrate judge, for example, who violated a defendant’s rights because they didn’t understand the law. And I’ve spent a decade covering ethical issues judges have faced.
Do you disagree?
Good review Heath, but I had to laugh when you seem amused that Mr. Sanchez could flip-flop on an issue. Guess you forgot he is a professional politician, so that is nothing new, amusing, or surprising, but the sad state of politics all over America. As for his objection now, I agree with him as all rational, critical thinkers would. Only (didn’t) Think NM could actually believe a college degree, especially in law, would make an elected official fully competent, technically astute, moral, ethical, law-abiding, etc. So why don’t people just say they agree with that and move on to any other reasons for the elite requirements that all elected officials in NM and the nation do not need even though their jobs are obviously much more technical and demanding of education that the lowly PRC. The PRC is not even remotely like the Courts, but if you want to compare them then tell me how all those lawyers are doing these days? Like how they do their jobs and fully agree with all they do and of course none are corrupt, right? I am very afraid of all the details that our highly educated and highly ethical legislature would have to create to make this happen, since the bills only call for amendments to our constitution, not any details of what happens, that is up to our crack legislators. And I think Mr. Sanchez is showing a rare bit of reason and recognizing the reality of what could happen next, and that doesn’t make me laugh, but it makes me cry.