Contact
It’s over: Legislature adjourns sine die
The Roundhouse in Santa Fe (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
The governor got the budget and tax reform she wanted. Three proposed constitutional amendments to reform the Public Regulation Commission passed. Many other proposals died as time ran out on the 2012 regular legislative session today. Read about it in our liveblog archive by clicking on the box below:
7 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
We would certainly agree on that EW-aif, I would say given their thin and minimal job responsibilities they should make no more than $35,000 per year. Having attended some of their meetings I can see they are covered up with high priced lawyers from both the right and left special interests groups, so they get lots of “free” help. I also think a much better amendment would be to just have them appointed by the Guv and approved by the Senate, like any other board, and give the Guv the power to determine what their charges and responsibilities are in that regard. That would have been a much easier and elegant way to handle this, but maybe not as political as some would like.
DJ, I agree that some of the proposals for PRC reforms are not optimum. I think that perhaps reducing their $90,000/year salaries might help, that much $$$ does seem to attract some lowlife types.
Thank you once again Think, the arguments you make about PRC rulings being overturned due to lack of process the commissioners should follow are good ones. I will also have to say that of all the arguments about the constitutional amendment to establish qualifications, I have not heard that one even once. Usually it is about the “scandal ridden” PRC, which involved assault and battery, sexual harassment, substance abuse and theft, things that all the college degrees and experience in the world will not prevent. If you wish to make the case for qualifications, you should use your argument and avoid the ones the press is using constantly in typical media sensation terms and breathless banter, that is what the citizens are hearing and why people are questioning your motives for these requirements. However, the weak part of your case is using any rulings of our notoriously biased and politically motivated Supreme Court and quotes from their members defining what “quasi-judicial” is in their opinion. They would overturn any ruling they personally disagree with politically, and since they are all Democrats it is easy to see when it will happen, our new Guv has also found that out and I don’t think you would call her unqualified for the job, or would you? And you should also not argue all our AGs and judges have been outstanding examples of qualified and competent individuals due to their job requirements, that too is a weak argument given the facts we have of their rulings being overturned, lack of prosecutions for corruption, etc., and judicial misconduct. Also it appears perhaps you should also have listed meeting attendance habits and performance and punctuality record among your qualifications, if that also led to PRC being overturned. But, regardless the more frightening things have to be that the people, mostly without all these proposed qualifications, are allowed to vote on this, and then our legislators, again many of which do not have these qualifications, are required to develop these requirements for PRC commish. Doesn’t that frighten you too? How could they operate with such a complex, critically important, and quasi-judical job in which they must set requirements without any of these themselves? Perhaps we should establish requirements for the members of that panel?
As we describe on our website (http://www.thinknewmexico.org/prc.html), we believe that reforming the PRC is essential because this agency regulates so many aspects of daily life in New Mexico, including gas, water, electric, telephone, and insurance rates. Unlike legislators and other policymakers, PRC commissioners are “quasi-judicial” officers. Among other legal duties, they are required to follow the rules of evidence in their hearings, avoid ex parte communications, and make their rulings by applying the relevant law to the evidence in the record.
Unfortunately, the PRC’s performance has been hampered by the fact that many commissioners have failed to properly understand their quasi-judicial role, which has led to many of their decisions being overturned by the courts (at great costs to taxpayers and the businesses involved). For example, in August 2011 the New Mexico Supreme Court struck down an energy efficiency surcharge that the PRC had approved because the agency had not followed its legally required ratemaking principles. Similarly, in June 2011 the New Mexico Supreme Court overturned a PRC decision establishing new telecommunications regulation because the PRC had failed to provide due process to all parties. In a powerful dissent in the 2010 case Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority v. NMPRC, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Bosson wrote (in response to evidence showing that only two of the five PRC commissioners had attended all of the hearings in a matter, and that it was unclear whether the absent commissioners had reviewed the record prior to making their decision): “Let us not forget that PRC commissioners sit in a quasi-judicial capacity; they adjudicate complex, technical matters that go to the heart of the public interest of our state. We would never tolerate judicial conduct like this; I see no reason to be more permissive of PRC commissioners.”
The New Mexico constitution already establishes qualifications for judicial and quasi-judicial elected offices including the Attorney General, Supreme Court justices, and appellate and district court judges. As it was passed by the legislature, the proposed constitutional amendment simply directs the legislature to establish qualifications for PRC commissioners – it does not specify what those qualifications must be. Think New Mexico proposed requiring either a four-year college degree or five years of relevant professional experience (because we recognize that not everyone has the opportunity to go to college), but the legislature may well decide to take a different approach.
Thanks for all that Think, I have seen your annual reports, I’m on your mailing list, and your 990s of course. What I don’t see is the list of your donors by amount given, I realize you don’t have to show all that, I am quite familiar with the non-profit world. I was merely noticing, what I considered after supporting your organization for a while, the sudden shift in lobbying this year from common sense and universal items like food taxes, smaller schools, full-day kindergarten, title insurance reductions, etc. to PRC “reforms”. I do wonder why PRC reforms are so vital, especially advanced educational and experience requirements for one small part of our government only, and that it could be classed in the same categories as your worthwhile and significant works that truly give those who lack a voice in government a say. I guess you consider lawyers, political science graduates, “public policy” graduates, etc. groups who lack a voice in government? Hardly, is what I would say. I “Think” it odd that a citizen can be elected as a mayor, city councilor, county commissioner, state representative, state senator, most all state-wide offices (save the AG, and see how well that works), governor, U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator, President, and yes even appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court without the high educational and experience hurdles you wish to set for the PRC. Something just seems odd about all this, and inconsistent, but that is just my opinion of course. I do welcome the election where the citizens will speak, but do you plan on spending your money to influence that as well?
Think New Mexico is very proud of the nearly 800 New Mexicans from across the state who financially support our work. We publish their names, along with the names of the local foundations and businesses that support Think New Mexico, in our annual report each year, as we have done since our founding (see page 19 of the most recent report for a map depicting the 93 New Mexico communities where our supporters live). The annual report also includes our complete financial statement, detailing our income and expenditures (note that Think New Mexico does not spend any money on meals, gifts, or contributions to elected officials). All of those annual reports can be accessed online at: http://www.thinknewmexico.org/annreps.html
Think New Mexico takes its commitment to transparency very seriously. On the “transparency” section of our website (http://www.thinknewmexico.org/transparency.html), you can find our most recent audit as well as the tax forms we file with the IRS each year. In 2002, the Rio Grande Sun newspaper praised Think New Mexico’s high level of transparency: http://www.thinknewmexico.org/pdfs/RioGrandeSunEditorial.pdf
Our mission is to improve the quality of life for all New Mexicans, especially those who lack a strong voice in the political process. In order to accomplish this mission, our staff works with policymakers to win passage of policy reforms, like the recent constitutional amendments to streamline the jurisdiction of the Public Regulation Commission and enhance the qualifications of PRC commissioners. Our staff members register as lobbyists and comply with all reporting requirements. These reports are available to the public and can be found on the Secretary of State’s website. Our real power comes from the grassroots support of thousands of New Mexicans who agree with the reforms we propose and who contact their legislators to urge their support.
Thanks to all, the live blog was very good for following the action. But one thing became abundantly clear during the session, and that was the sheer power and stroke of this shadowy organization called “THINK NEW MEXICO”. I have been on their email and mailing list for some time, but this session the PRC “reforms” showed how much unchecked, unquestioned, and unexamined power they have as a lobbying and political pressure special interest. I am sure the press and government watchdog groups have been lulled to sleep and neutered by this group so they will do and say nothing, but their activities were pure lobbying power of a high order. They are a non-progit “results oriented” (read lobbyists with stroke) organization that claims to be nonpartisan. However, considering the massive expenditures and reports and communications to so many sectors and legislators, I would be interested in knowing who is funding this and what their motives are. I am sure “THINK NEW MEXICO” would not allow release of their donors names, but something stinks here, and I also wonder if their employees are registered lobbyists and what communications and promises were made to our legislators to grease the skids for the massive, almost unread and unchecked passage of their agendas. Curious minds want to know. Now the battle goes to the people, and how much will “THINK NEW MEXICO” spend on that effort?