Last week, Jim Collie, a retired Presbyterian pastor who lives in Albuquerque, donated $750 to NMPolitics.net.

“You’ve done your homework, or better said, for me, most importantly, you seem to almost always ask the next question – you don’t accept at face value an explanation or answer that has little merit, or obscures more than it clarifies,” Collie said in explaining why he supports NMPolitics.net with his money.

Collie recalls local media in West Texas during his childhood developing local stories that put the news in context. That doesn’t happen as often today.

“With localized reporting and stories of merit lost to the national homogenizers, what you are doing is so on target and so tasty as to be of great value,” he said. “Would you be insulted if I compared what you do with news to what organic gardening means to vegetable growers – the taste and value well worth the extra trouble? In other words, for this New Mexican: You pass the taste/value test.”

Not offended at all. I love the comparison.

Jim and the others who donated last week gave a combined $1,880, or just over 10 percent of the $18,000 I’m trying to raise by April 30 so I can hire a reporter. I want to publicly thank them for helping NMPolitics.net expand.

But your donations don’t just help the site grow – they keep it going.

Heath Haussamen

NMPolitics.net is supported in part by advertising and syndication of content, but donations are essential to its survival. And while I’m highlighting today the large donation Collie made, any amount helps – even $10. Make a donation by clicking here.

More details

You can give a one-time contribution in any amount, or you can sign up to have your credit or debit card automatically charged $10 or $20 each month with the ability to cancel at any time.

Those who sign up for automatic contributions will receive a monthly newsletter containing exclusive analysis and interesting tidbits about what’s happening in New Mexico and news about NMPolitics.net. Those who give a one-time contribution of at least $120 will also receive the monthly newsletter for a year.

If you’re already signed up to make monthly donations, you don’t have to do anything. Unless you cancel them, those contributions will continue automatically and so will the delivery of the newsletter to your inbox. If you receive the newsletter because of a one-time contribution you gave last year, you’ll need to make another donation of at least $120 to continue receiving it.

Your contribution will be publicly listed along with others on NMPolitics.net, and it’s not tax-deductible. Click here to read NMPolitics.net’s entire financial contributor policy.

If you can afford to do so, make a donation today by clicking here. Thanks for your support!

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

As long as lawmakers refuse to webcast and archive all their proceedings, the governor and others will do it for them. And those others will be champions of open government, while legislators will continue to look like they have something to hide.

I’m really tired of senators who refuse to webcast their own proceedings complaining about the governor doing it.

Senate President Pro Tem Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, complained this week that Gov. Susana Martinez’s webcasting is intended to “catch us for political purpose,” the Albuquerque Journal reported.

And Sen. Linda Lopez, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, said, “in addition to transparency, most of it will be used for campaigning, and we all know that.”

The governor started out last year assigning one employee to webcasting. That employee was stretched thin simply catching pieces of hearings that focused on the governor’s agenda.

Martinez has dramatically expanded her office’s webcasting this year. Two employees and an intern are pointing cameras at every hearing they can attend and posting everything they film online. The video is archived. Markers placed in the video help you find exactly what you’re looking for.

It’s an impressive and incredibly useful service that you can find here.

By contrast, the Senate still isn’t webcasting committee meetings. Thank goodness the governor is doing it, or New Mexicans who can’t travel to Santa Fe would have no access to critical hearings on important legislation.

Sen. Dede Feldman, D-Albuquerque, is sponsoring legislation this session that would require audio and video webcasting of Senate committees. That would bring the Senate up to the level of webcasting already in place in the House.

But if the Senate follows past precedent, Feldman’s resolution is headed for the trash heap. If the comments from Jennings and Lopez are any indication, they haven’t changed their tunes.

Technology gives people better access

The most egregious aspect of all of this is that lawmakers like Jennings and Lopez appear more concerned about politics than making government accessible to their constituents. Both represent districts outside Santa Fe, where those who voted for them may not be able to travel to the Roundhouse.

Do they care? If they do, they should support expanded webcasting.

In fact, the entire Legislature still falls short in this area. The House may webcast everything, but it doesn’t archive. You watch it live or you don’t watch it at all.

Most hearings take place during hours when most people are at work and can’t watch.

That’s why the governor’s webcasting is so useful. People can watch live or they can come back to it when they have time. People can watch an entire hearing or, using the markers Martinez’s staff has placed in the video, they can find the discussion of a specific piece of legislation or other issue and skip right to that.

That is a true use of technology to give people better access to their so-called “citizen” Legislature, which some would say is not all that citizen-friendly.

Anyone can use the video

Of course Martinez could use the video for campaigning. The video is in the public domain and anyone can use it.

That means lawmakers who are being filmed could pull some of their best moments out of the governor’s video and use it on the campaign trail. Political committees on the left and right could pull moments out of the video to campaign for or against lawmakers or issues. Challengers could use it to attack incumbents.

But even the legislative webcasting can be used for such purposes, despite the bogus disclaimer below the livefeed that political use is “prohibited.”

That’s called life in the 21st Century. There are cameras around you, be they official webcasting cameras in the backs of the House and Senate chambers or smartphones in people’s hands. That video can end up on the Internet.

It might be used against lawmakers, but they can also use it to promote themselves.

Embrace reality

I know that many of our lawmakers have a difficult time grasping this new reality and don’t want to change. But that isn’t an option.

Lawmakers need to embrace the fact that we live in the 21st Century. If they webcast every hearing themselves and archived the video, does anyone think the governor would continue spending her limited resources to duplicate their work? I don’t. I believe she’s doing this because they aren’t.

And she’s earning a reputation as a populist who is bringing government to the people in the process.

It’s telling that, on Wednesday, the progressive blog Clearly New Mexico, a project of the left-leaning Center for Civic Policy, promoted the governor’s webcasting of a hearing in a liveblog about that hearing. In spite of their differing views on the corporate tax bill being discussed, Republican governor and progressive nonprofit came together to bring transparency to a committee hearing that otherwise would have been off limits to anyone outside the Roundhouse.

This is not a partisan issue. It’s a about transparency, accessibility and accountability. As long as senators like Jennings and Lopez complain about webcasting, I can only assume they don’t want their constituents to know what they’re doing in Santa Fe.

What the senators need to do is quit whining and pass Feldman’s resolution. Then the Senate and House should pass resolutions implementing archiving of all webcasting.

As long as lawmakers refuse to webcast and archive all their proceedings, the governor and others will do it for them. And those others will be champions of open government, while legislators will continue to look like they have something to hide.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

I intend to add another journalist with his or her own skills and passions to NMPolitics.net’s reporting staff, but I need your help to make it happen. This year’s fundraising drive begins today, and I’m trying to raise $18,000. Donate today!

Gwyneth Doland has done a great job covering the current session of the N.M. Legislature for NMPolitics.net with articles, video and webcasting.

Her temporary position is ending at the conclusion of the session, and Gwyneth is heading to a different job. But her work has added a new dimension to the site, and I want to keep that going.

I intend to add another journalist with his or her own skills and passions to NMPolitics.net’s reporting staff – someone who will provide coverage of politics and government on a regular basis. But I need your help to make it happen.

NMPolitics.net’s annual fundraising drive begins today. This year I’ve set a goal of raising $18,000 (last year I raised $12,000), and I’m hoping to raise it by April 30. Click on one of the buttons on the right to make a donation.

I know this is a significant increase in what I’m asking you, NMPolitics.net’s loyal readers, to pitch in to help keep this site going. But I’m a firm believer in having a diversity of voices on the site. I’ve been able to dramatically expand the commentary section to include a plethora of viewpoints, but news coverage remains largely my responsibility.

It’s time for NMPolitics.net to grow.

Nearly 200,000 unique visitors came to NMPolitics.net in 2011. If even a small fraction of those – say, 5,000 – donated $10 apiece, we’d blow this year’s $18,000 fundraising goal out of the water.

Asking you to become a partner

In 2011, the Las Cruces Sun-News and other New Mexico newspapers in that media chain joined the growing trend of making most or all content available online only to people who subscribe. The Albuquerque Journal’s content has been behind a paywall for years.

Heath Haussamen

I remain a firm believer in keeping this site’s content free, and I have no plans to require you to pay to access it.

What I’m asking instead is that you become a partner in helping NMPolitics.net provide coverage that makes a difference in New Mexico, if you can afford to do so.

The site’s mission is, in the tradition of non-partisan journalism, to hold government and political leaders accountable through hard-hitting but fair reporting while also encouraging policy and political debate that promotes the common good.

You can help NMPolitics.net expand its capacity to carry out that mission.

Make a contribution today

You can give a one-time contribution in any amount, or you can sign up to have your credit or debit card automatically charged $10 or $20 each month with the ability to cancel at any time.

Those who sign up for automatic contributions will receive a monthly newsletter containing exclusive analysis and interesting tidbits about what’s happening in New Mexico and news about NMPolitics.net. Those who give a one-time contribution of at least $120 will also receive the monthly newsletter for a year.

If you want to see a sample of the newsletter, e-mail me at heath@haussamen.com and I’ll send you the January edition.

If you’re already signed up to make monthly donations, you don’t have to do anything. Unless you cancel them, those contributions will continue automatically and so will the delivery of the newsletter to your inbox. If you receive the newsletter because of a one-time contribution you gave last year, you’ll need to make another donation of at least $120 to continue receiving it.

Your contribution will be publicly listed along with others on NMPolitics.net, and it’s not tax-deductible. Click here to read NMPolitics.net’s entire financial contributor policy.

As it did last year, if NMPolitics.net succeeds in reaching its fundraising goal, the publisher of this site, Haussamen Publications, will make donations of $250 apiece to two organizations that share NMPolitics.net’s mission – the N.M. Foundation for Open Government and New Mexico First. The first fights for increased transparency in government, and the second leads the way in facilitating productive political and policy debate that promotes the common good.

I hope you’ll make a financial contribution to NMPolitics.net today. Click on one of the three buttons above to get started. As always, thank you for your support!

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

Hanging photos of foster children who are up for adoption in the halls of the Roundhouse would be a powerful statement about the priorities of state government. I hope the legislative branch changes its mind and grants the governor’s request to do it.

At her core, I believe Gov. Susana Martinez is driven by a desire to better the lives of children.

Say what you will about the policy proposals she thinks will improve New Mexico, or the job she’s doing as the state’s chief executive (I’ve certainly criticized her), but I’ve known Martinez a long time, and there is no question in my mind about her motivation.

As a former prosecutor who has put many child killers in jail, Martinez has little patience for anyone she views as standing in the way of that goal. In her mind, children are being hurt every day, whether it’s at the hands of abusers or by policies that don’t create the conditions for them to thrive in New Mexico.

And she can’t stand to see even one child suffer.

That motivation and her experience as a prosecutor are why I wrote last year that Martinez was up to the task of fixing the state’s troubled Children, Youth and Families Department.

I share Martinez’s motivation. I believe most people do, regardless of their political or other views.

So I was heartened in December when Martinez announced that a new gallery in the lobby of her office in the Roundhouse would feature portraits of foster children who are awaiting adoption. What a spectacular way to shine light on a huge need and to set the tone – in the office of the state’s chief executive – that government in New Mexico is working to better conditions for even the most needy children.

A statement about priorities

Martinez also asked the Legislature to allow that portraits of those children be hung in the hallways, in areas of the Roundhouse not under her control. This week, the director of Legislative Council Service denied that request. He said the decision would force him to OK other requests from nonprofit groups, some of them more controversial, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

That’s crap. This isn’t a request from a nonprofit. It’s a request from the governor to promote a state government program’s non-controversial goal – the adoption of children in the foster care system.

The legislative branch can’t promote a program it funds without having to also agree to promote nonprofit programs it doesn’t fund? That argument doesn’t make sense to me. The best-case scenario is that this is red tape at its worst.

I believe most legislators, like Martinez, are motivated by a desire to create a better state for the next generation. I know they’re all aware how far short we fall in so many areas related to children, including education, protection from abuse, and poverty reduction. We’re at or near the bottom of so many positive lists. I know lawmakers aren’t OK with that.

The Roundhouse’s hallways are decorated with a diverse and impressive display of artwork from New Mexicans. Adding a gallery with photos of some of New Mexico’s most needy children to that mix – with the goal of helping them find permanent families – would be a powerful statement about the priorities of state government.

A constant and visible reminder

And at a time when government finds it difficult to focus on the ball, and instead gets caught up in partisan politics and pressured by outside money, such a gallery would serve as a constant and visible reminder to government officials about why they’re there.

It’s about bettering the lives of New Mexicans. It’s about handing a better state to the next generation.

It happens one investigation that saves a child from abuse at a time. One early intervention that helps a child catch up developmentally at a time. One adoption at a time. One teacher who refuses to give up on a child who is struggling to read at a time. One New Mexican who becomes the first in his or her family to graduate from college at a time. One who finds a better-paying job than his or her parents had at a time.

Our governor and lawmakers can – and should – debate how to accomplish these goals. But they should be able to agree that those are the goals.

I hope Legislative Council Service Director Raúl Burciaga changes his mind, or that legislative leaders change it for him.

In the meantime, you can find information about foster children who are currently up for adoption by clicking here.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

To earn the public’s trust, Mitt Romney must demonstrate a commitment to openness. Between his efforts to keep records from his time as governor secret and his wishy-washy and flip-floppy statements on releasing tax returns, he hasn’t done it yet.

At the end of his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney spent nearly $100,000 in state money to replace computers in his office so he could keep records on the old computers secret.

Staffers personally bought the old hard drives to get them out of public hands. They also had e-mails and other electronic communications wiped from state servers – something that was unusual in Massachusetts and might be illegal in New Mexico.

I was shocked when I learned about that situation in December. It’s much worse than what former N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson did when he left office – passing his office’s records to the state archives center in a failed attempt to keep them secret.

Now come the GOP presidential nomination frontrunner’s wishy-washy and flip-floppy statements on whether he will release his tax returns. He currently says he will release his 2010 return and a 2011 estimate on Tuesday.

The Chicago Tribune has published a list of Romney’s past statements about whether he would release his returns. It started with “We’ll take a look at the question” on October 25, moved to “I don’t intend to release the tax returns” on December 21 (with a “but never say never” the next day), to “And if I become our nominee, and what’s happened in history is people have released them in about April of the coming year, and that’s probably what I would do” last week.

Then on Sunday, the day after he lost the South Carolina primary, Romney changed course again in agreeing to release the 2010 and 2011 information, but said he has no plans to release past returns. He played down the fact that he once said he didn’t plan to release his returns at all.

“We just made a mistake in holding off as long as we did,” Romney said on Fox News. “It just was a distraction.”

But his past statements are on the record, and the progression has been stunning: He went from – my words, not his – “I don’t plan to do it,” to “I’ll do it, but not until I have the GOP nomination in the bag.” Then, only after a victory by another GOP primary candidate became conceivable, did he agree to be transparent.

This from a guy who made sure the public could never see his office’s records when he left his job as governor of Massachusetts. What does he not want the public to know?

Romney’s father set precedent of openness

This comment Romney made during Thursday’s debate about releasing returns in April – which came before he lost South Carolina – is most concerning (you’ll see another bit of a flop in it, because he has whittled “multiple years” down to one plus an estimate for another):

“I’ll release multiple years, I don’t know how many years. But I’ll be happy to do that. I know there are some who are anxious to see if they can make it difficult for a campaign to be successful. I know the Democrats want to go after my being successful. I’m not going to apologize for being successful.”

This isn’t about whether Romney is successful. He shouldn’t apologize for that. It’s about the public understanding how he makes his money and what he does with it so people can know about his potential conflicts of interest.

It’s about the public being able to scrutinize Romney’s financial ties before deciding whether to make him the most powerful public official in the world at a time when money has so much influence over Washington.

It’s about demonstrating to the American people that he intends to be open and honest with them and worthy of their trust, as every president has done since Nixon (and FDR did almost a century ago).

It’s something that many nominees and other presidential candidates have done, including Romney’s father when he ran for president. In fact, according to this article, George Romney’s release of 12 years of returns in 1967 was “a move believed to be without precedent in American politics.” He set a new bar for openness that continues today.

You can find all of President Barack Obama’s tax returns since 2000 here. You’ll also find Vice President Joe Biden’s since 1998, and tax returns for McCain, Palin, Bush the younger, Cheney, Clinton, Bush the elder, Reagan, Carter, Nixon and FDR by clicking on that link.

Those presidents and candidates all sent the message that they would be open, honest, and worthy of Americans’ trust. Certainly, some of them didn’t live up to that pledge (with Nixon probably being the worst). But at least they started off by setting the right tone. That’s a positive step.

Romney hasn’t sent that message, and his reluctant release on Tuesday of fewer than the “multiple” years he promised days ago isn’t going to change that. He needs to match Obama’s release of tax returns going back to 2000. And he needs to publicly apologize for the hiding of records from his tenure as governor (of course, to be convincing, he would need to be sincerely sorry he did that, and I’ve seen no evidence of remorse).

Not an endorsement of any of the others

My criticism of Romney shouldn’t be interpreted as a statement of support for any of the other guys. Obama has his own issues, among them that he hasn’t run as transparent an administration as he promised (see here, here and here). There are plenty of reasons to criticize the other GOP hopefuls as well.

But regular readers of this site know about my passion for transparency – an issue I view as nonpartisan, and one that’s at the core of government serving the people. Someone who wants to be president, and has a serious shot at getting the job, needs to demonstrate to the American people that he understands the importance of openness.

If there’s nothing the American people might find concerning – conflicts of interest, questions about how a presidential candidate earned his money, lenders to which he is financially beholden (the last isn’t likely an issue for Romney), then releasing returns will make that clear. If there are things the public might find concerning, being open about them and taking the time to explain them is the best way to earn the public’s trust.

Romney shouldn’t have to apologize for being one of the wealthiest people in America. But if he wants to be the most powerful elected official in the world, he should have to fully disclose the extent of his wealth, how he made it, and where he invests it.

If he doesn’t do that, there’s no reason to trust him.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

Congress is considering legislation that could be used to place hurdles in front of people’s First Amendment rights. While protecting intellectual property rights is a worthy goal, this legislation is not the way to do it.

I’m a big fan of protecting intellectual property rights. Unlike some sites, I work hard to respect others’ copyrights and only use images with permission. When I’m quoting others’ articles, I link back to them and don’t post too much of their text on my site.

A desire to respect others’ intellectual property rights is one reason I moderate comments on this site. On a weekly basis I reject comments in which people have posted entire articles from other news organizations without permission.

I understand how widespread copyright infringement is on the Internet. More than once I’ve billed a candidate or political committee for using my images of politicians in TV ads and mailers without my permission.

All that said, I oppose the current attempt in Congress to deal with the widespread disregard for intellectual property rights on the Internet. In the House it’s called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, and you can read the bill here. In the Senate it’s the Protect IP Act.

Today I’m joining many sites, including Wikipedia, Google and Reddit, in protesting the legislation and asking you to help defeat it. Wikipedia has gone black. You can’t use it right now. For other sites, like Google and NMPolitics.net, going black isn’t practical (especially during the legislative session, I can’t take this site offline), but we’re still protesting.

Though the bill might be intended to protect property rights, it could be used to place hurdles in front of people who use the Internet to organize or for other valid reasons. It’s the newest step Washington is considering taking in a slow but steady pushback against people’s rights. It’s time to make a stand.

The concerns

CNN sums up the concerns about the legislation like this:

“Both sides say they agree that protecting content is a worthy goal. But opponents say that the way SOPA is written effectively promotes censorship and is rife with the potential for unintended consequences.

“… (The legislation) potentially puts site operators – even those based in the U.S. – on the hook for content that their users upload. The proposed bill’s text says that a site could be deemed a SOPA scofflaw if it ‘facilitates’ copyright infringement.”

And, as Mashable.com explained, that could lead to the government shutting a site down.

21st Century town squares

This isn’t about NMPolitics.net. As I said earlier, I work hard to respect people’s property rights and I’m not really worried that such a law would impact this site. But websites like YouTube and Facebook would be dead if this legislation became law. People post things all the time on those sites that they don’t own.

Some people say such sites should police what people post and sort out the copyright violators from the rest, or be shut down. While I agree that they should make serious efforts to support intellectual property rights, they shouldn’t be shut down when they fail. It isn’t as though we go after the towns in which people or groups post fliers on public walls or billboards that include images they don’t have permission to use. If we go after anyone, it’s the people or groups that illegally use the images.

Sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are our 21st Century town squares. As I wrote recently, they’re the tools that bring a new level of democracy to the world. People use such sites to organize, motivate action, shine light on important problems, discuss issues, and bypass the machine that is the mainstream media.

Even if they’re trying to ensure that people don’t post video, music and other intellectual property they don’t own, such sites will fail from time to time.

But this legislation doesn’t account for that. Its wording is imprecise enough that it can be interpreted broadly, which inevitably means someday someone with the authority to enforce it would do just that.

A hurdle in front of peoples’ rights

If this legislation becomes law, it could be placed as a hurdle in front of peoples’ First Amendment rights. Maybe someone in authority, who wants to shut down a site like Facebook because people are using it to organize for a cause he opposes, would find an unrelated copyright infringement on Facebook and then use the law to attempt to shut the site down.

I recently expressed concern about another law the president has since signed that could be interpreted to allow the indefinite detention of Americans deemed terror suspects. In that column, I questioned the reasons people end up on the terrorist watch list:

“Will I someday end up on the list for writing something critical about a government official? Will this commentary land me on that list?”

Then more recently, we learned that the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring journalists’ use of social media.

Now Congress is considering legislation that would allow the shutting down of websites that people across the world are using to organize and challenge the powers-that-be. The pattern is frightening.

We can’t allow this. Democracy is too important to sacrifice in exchange for the music and film industries having an easier time protecting their copyrights. I’m fine with members of Congress seeking ways to better protect intellectual property rights, but they need to go back to the drawing board.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

House Majority Whip Sheryl Williams Stapleton’s recent racial slur directed at Gov. Susana Martinez is disappointing, but so is the political and journalistic gotcha game that has resulted.

I’ve been watching the situation for weeks without saying anything. Because the controversy immediately spun out of control, I decided to let it cool down before I wrote about it.

Now that the flames have died down a bit, here’s my take:

Referring to Martinez as “the Mexican” – Stapleton, a Democrat from Albuquerque, accused another state representative of “carrying the Mexican’s water on the fourth floor” – was absolutely derogatory. Anyone who says otherwise, including Stapleton, is being dishonest.

As the Albuquerque Journal recently pointed out:

“Referring to someone as a ‘Mexican’ in New Mexico – where many residents pride themselves on their Spanish ancestry – has long been widely considered to be an ethnic slur.”

Of course, that’s an Albuquerque-centric view of New Mexico. In some parts of the state, people self-identify as Mexican.

In this instance, the revealing factor is the context in which Stapleton made her comment. She was under stress because of another controversy about her pay, she was angry, she snapped, and in a moment of weakness, what came out of her mouth wasn’t a respectful term such as “the governor” – it was “the Mexican.”

Regardless of whether identifying people by their nationality is common and not a slur where Stapleton is from, it is in New Mexico, at least in this context. Stapleton has been in the N.M. Legislature 16 years and should know better.

Promoting division and misunderstanding

Stapleton’s statements since the outburst – including a sort-of apology – have been inconsistent and unconvincing. That’s a problem. I’m not persuaded that she’s sorry or sees anything wrong with her use of a racial slur.

As News New Mexico has pointed out, Stapleton has a history of criticizing Republicans for making statements that could be interpreted as racist. She helped set the bar by which she’s now being judged. Fair enough.

But the fact that it’s fair doesn’t mean it’s right. The gotcha game that has resulted reveals why it’s so difficult to apologize in politics even if you are sincere. The reality is that there’s no way to know whether Stapleton has learned her lesson and is truly sorry.

Conservatives have jumped on Stapleton’s mean-spirited comment with a level of malice that equals the venom Stapleton spewed at Martinez. The governor has accepted Stapleton’s apology, but she has still engaged in the gotcha game by failing to direct her state Republican Party to also be gracious.

And some journalists have been more than happy to blow up another scandal.

At the end of it all, what could have been a humble moment for Stapleton and a lesson for all of us has instead been a messy scandal that has promoted division and misunderstanding.

Perhaps it isn’t too late

I’m not going to pretend I’ve never done anything as a journalist to fan the flames of scandal. I have, sometimes appropriately, sometimes perhaps not. Some scandals demand lots of attention. An elected official being indicted on corruption charges is a good example.

But this didn’t need to be the massive scandal it has become. Instead of gotcha politics and journalism winning the day, imagine if the media had invested its time in thoughtful analysis of the situation and the historical context, educating the public – and Stapleton – about why her comment was offensive. Imagine if Stapleton had humbled herself and issued a genuine apology from the start, instead of pretending she wasn’t talking about Martinez and didn’t mean anything by it. And imagine if conservatives had responded to a genuine apology with, “Fair enough. We’ve made mistakes too. We appreciate your humility.”

It would have been a teachable moment for Stapleton and for New Mexicans. At the end of the day, the situation would have resulted in greater understanding and respect among our politicians and all of us.

It’s unfortunate that we don’t live in that world. Am I the only one who’s tired of the gotcha game?

Perhaps it isn’t too late. Stapleton can stop playing the gotcha game that she has played in the past with Republicans’ statements and actions. Conservatives can stop playing the gotcha game with her comment. And the media can move on to more important issues.

A prior version of this posting incorrectly identified Stapleton as the minority whip.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

Former Las Cruces Mayor Bill Mattiace’s donation of campaign funds to help pay for a funeral demonstrates the need for campaign finance and other ethics reform in city government. It’s time for action.

Former Las Cruces Mayor Bill Mattiace says donating $10,000 from his campaign account to help pay for the funeral of his sister-in-law’s husband was “the right thing to do.”

While I certainly understand his desire to help a family member, particularly in a difficult time, Mattiace was wrong to use campaign funds to help his sister-in-law.

Such donations should be illegal, even though they’re not currently, because of the slippery slope they represent.

If you can use campaign funds to pay for funerals, why not also for living expenses? Or your child’s college tuition? Or a new car? Or a trip to Vegas?

Allowing campaign funds to be spent for those purposes is practically inviting bribery. When a public official gets into financial trouble, there will be a temptation to trade an official act in exchange for a personal bailout. Sure I’ll vote for your proposal. Just contribute $2,500 to my campaign…

That’s why what Mattiace did is wrong. That’s why it should be illegal.

Money raised for a campaign should only be spent for campaign purposes, and perhaps, as long as it’s strictly regulated, on expenses directly related to city officials’ job duties.

Reform is long overdue

The fact remains that such spending of campaign funds is not illegal in Las Cruces. Thus, the blame lies with city officials (including, I suppose, Mattiace in his former capacity as mayor) for allowing such spending.

I’ve been trying to start a discussion in Las Cruces about ethics reform since 2009, when I first wrote an article about the need for revisions to the city’s elections code and other ordinances that relate to ethics. At the time, Mayor Ken Miyagishima told me he supported reform and shared with me his own ideas for improvement. Several councilors also told me reform was an important topic to discuss.

But by last year’s election season, city officials had taken no steps toward such reform.

In August, I authored a commentary complaining about the lack of action. Here’s what I wrote:

“Las Cruces should focus on reform. The city doesn’t even require that election ads include a disclosure of who is paying for them. That’s a basic campaign transparency issue required at the state and federal levels, and it’s something this website requires from candidates regardless of whether the jurisdictions in which they’re running require it.

“Ethics reform is long overdue in Las Cruces. Let’s hope the mayor, councilors, and candidates running in the November election make it a priority.”

In their own words

After I wrote that commentary, I asked the candidates about ethics reform. Here’s what those who won last year’s races said (click on the links to read their full statements):

• Mayor Miyagishima: “While I fully support election reform, it would have been very difficult for a new mayor and council to immediately set out to change election rules in the City Charter, because the charge would have been that we were making those changes to benefit ourselves. Municipal election reform is so important that it can’t be seen as a partisan issue, and any changes need to have widespread support.”
• District 1 Councilor Miguel Silva: “The City does not have strong ethics policies and enforcement in place now, and I would like to see them strengthened.”
• District 2 Councilor Gregory Z. Smith (who is new to the council): “I emphatically believe we need ethics reform, but we need to make sure that any reforms we put in place actually have the intended result. We do not want to provide loopholes for those who will seek ways around the system, nor do we want to have unintended consequences that encourage corruption or penalize honesty.”
• District 4 Councilor Nathan Small: “…I support formation of a Citizen Campaign Commission. This Commission should contain balanced political and geographical representation from across the City, and be charged with producing reform recommendations for City elections. From addressing the potential influence of special interests and opaque sources of money to the current absentee ballot request process (out of step with state processes) there is significant work for such a committee. Forming the committee after the upcoming election would give it time to gather public input and pursue reforms free from the pressures of an impending local election, and also allow significant time for formal consideration and passage of campaign reforms.”

Time for action

Miyagishima is in his second term. Whatever concern he had during his first about appearances should no longer apply. As Mattiace’s funeral donation demonstrates, the time for grand statements in support of reform without action has passed.

I believe the council and mayor can tackle reform on their own, but Small’s idea to form a commission would also be a productive step. It’s time for action.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

We have so many problems in New Mexico, but we also have so much potential. Here’s to hoping that, during our 200th year of statehood, we look back at the time when New Mexico was near the bottom of every positive list as a thing of the past.

I traveled much of New Mexico in the last two weeks to visit family, making the trek up to Bloomfield and Farmington before heading into Colorado. In the last two days, I’ve traveled all the way through New Mexico from Raton in the north to Las Cruces in the south.

The trip reminded me of our state’s diversity and beauty. On the day that we celebrate 100 years of statehood, I thought it was important to pause and reflect.

I spend a lot of time criticizing government in New Mexico. There’s lots to criticize; we remain near the bottom of most positive lists, not because we don’t have the ability to do better, but because we don’t choose to do better.

And yet, there’s a reason I remain in the state in which I grew up: I love New Mexico.

We have stunning beauty. We have true racial diversity. We are blessed with so many resources. We are blessed with so much potential.

Let’s not forget that Microsoft was born here. Big dreams are common in New Mexico.

But it’s important to remember that Microsoft left for Washington State before it became the software giant that changed the world. There’s something buried deep in New Mexico’s psyche that let Microsoft go. It’s the same something that leaves us at the bottom of so many positive lists. We know how to dream big, but we often don’t follow through.

We have the potential for so much more.

From a bomb test site to a launch pad for spaceflights

As I traveled through New Mexico recently, I thought about its potential. I passed the roads that lead to Spaceport America. I drove through massive, windy plains in the northeast that are a potential source of energy. I passed the oil and gas infrastructure in San Juan County that’s part of an industry that powers state government.

I was in awe of the undisturbed beauty between San Ysidro and Cuba, between Las Vegas and Pecos, and elsewhere. I thought about our racial and religious diversity. I thought about our connection to the land.

I got glimpses of our future as I drove alongside the Rail Runner’s tracks south of Santa Fe, as I passed through our state’s urban center, and as I glanced off toward the spaceport behind our southern reservoirs.

Of course, the latter also reminded me of our scarcity of water and the problems that lie ahead. And, as I passed the spaceport, I thought about the lack of vision that let another state snag Microsoft and all the jobs and economic impact it has created.

We have so many problems in New Mexico. But we also have so much potential. Here’s how the Las Cruces Sun-News summed it up:

“In its earlier days, New Mexico was desolate enough to be deemed a good place to test an atomic bomb. Today, New Mexico is a site of a spaceport nearly ready to send civilian passengers on sub-orbital flights.”

I don’t know whether Spaceport America will be successful, but I know that, sometime in the near future, some region is going to do what it takes to become the center of the commercial space industry – an important one in the 21st Century for its economic potential but also because of how it could move humanity forward.

New Mexico has a serious shot at being the center of that industry.

During our 200th year of statehood…

Perhaps the difference this time is that, 100 years into statehood, New Mexico is taking that shot. We’ve followed through on the vision of becoming the center of the commercial space industry. We just might succeed at doing it.

We need to apply that same vision, drive, and follow-through to so many other areas, including additional economic development possibilities, education reform, combatting poverty and protecting our children.

We have the resources to do it all, if we put our minds to it. Here’s to hoping that, during our 200th year of statehood, we look back at the time when New Mexico was near the bottom of every positive list as a thing of the past, as something we study in history books.

It’s certainly possible.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Without further ado, here’s my list of the top 10 New Mexico political stories of 2011. Feedback? Submit a comment at the end of the article.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, right, with Sen. Tom Udall, who will replace him as the state's senior senator (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

1. Bingaman’s retirement

When he announced in February that he is retiring at the end of 2012, U.S Sen. Jeff Bingaman gave this explanation:

“At some point in any one of these jobs, you come to a point where you think you’ve made your best effort, and it’s time to move on and allow someone else to serve. That’s the point I’ve arrived at.”

For a senator who generally kept a lower national profile than his colleagues and spent more time on policy than politics, that quote revealed something profound: Bingaman spent nearly three decades in the circus that is Washington and somehow retained his humility.

Others will talk about New Mexico’s loss of seniority in the U.S. Senate with the retirements of Pete Domenici in 2008 and Bingaman next year. That’s a fair point. In fact, it’s what makes Bingaman’s retirement the top New Mexico political story of 2011. During the 110th Congress, the two were the longest-serving duo in the U.S. Senate. They were the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee and had a dramatic impact on national energy policy. They protected New Mexico’s military installations and national laboratories.

Bingaman worked successfully on other issues including conservation, immigration, and health care. He was one of the “gang of six” who worked toward compromise on health-care reform in 2009.

With Bingaman’s retirement, New Mexico will shift to having one of the shortest-serving duos in the Senate – Tom Udall and whoever wins next year’s race to replace Bingaman. But Udall spent a decade in the U.S. House before moving over to the Senate, so he’s not exactly a young’un.

The battle to replace Bingaman in the Senate will be one of the top New Mexico political stories of 2012. U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich is giving up his House seat to run for Senate, and state Auditor Hector Balderas is running against him. Former U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson is the frontrunner for the GOP Senate nomination, but Lt. Gov. John Sanchez and Las Cruces businessman Greg Sowards are also in the mix. There are three-way primaries on both sides in the race to replace Heinrich in the House. Bingaman’s retirement creates opportunity and uncertainty in state politics.

But that’s one of next year’s top stories. For now, I’ll leave you with Bingaman’s quote about the delegation he’s leaving:

“I think we have a very capable congressional delegation, and I’m confident they can carry on.”

Simple. Kind. Unassuming. It’s exactly what you’d expect from Bingaman at the end of his career in the Senate. Whether he will admit it or not, his has been a career that made a real difference. Well done, senator. Thanks for your service.

2. Uncertain dynamics in the Roundhouse

Gov. Susana Martinez

Republicans had more influence in the Roundhouse in 2011 than they’ve had in more than eight decades. In addition to Gov. Susana Martinez taking office, the state had its first GOP secretary of state and a greater percentage of Republicans in the House than it has had in more than 80 years.

The result was largely gridlock. At the top of the list of issues on which policymakers are at a stalemate is Martinez’s push to repeal a law that allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses and Secretary of State Dianna Duran’s proposal to implement a voter ID law. The Legislature also quit a special session having given up hope of finding compromise on redistricting and leaving the task to the courts.

But it wasn’t just the GOP gains that led to the gridlock. Rep. Joseph Cervantes’ attempt to unseat House Speaker Ben Luján at the end of 2010 was unsuccessful, but it still weakened Luján’s power. Then came Andy Nuñez’s switch from Democrat to independent after his party refused to support Cervantes. Add to that a surprising independent streak in Democratic Rep. Sandra Jeff, and the House is nearly evenly split and entirely unpredictable.

To make things even more difficult in Santa Fe, Martinez seems to have picked up where former Gov. Bill Richardson left off as far as the executive’s relationship with the Senate – which is to say that the relationship is almost non-existent. The Senate is determined to protect its power and is oversensitive to any attempt by the executive to encroach on its authority. Martinez has little patience for those who don’t get on board with her agenda.

Meanwhile, the governor has won a few legislative victories, including implementing the assigning of letter grades to schools. But she certainly hasn’t gotten things done as quickly as she’d hoped.

As 2011 comes to an end and lawmakers prepare to gather in Santa Fe in mid-January, everyone is still trying to figure out how things are going to work. Time will tell, but 2012 promises to be interesting in Santa Fe.

District Judge Mike Murphy

3. Judicial scandal

In spite of early statements in the bribery case against District Judge Mike Murphy, prosecutors have produced no proof of widespread bribery in the judiciary. In fact, Murphy isn’t even charged with paying a bribe. His May indictment on four felony charges is based on allegations that he solicited a bribe from potential judicial applicant Beverly Singleman, told Judge Lisa Schultz to tell Singleman she needed to pay the bribe, and threatened to destroy Singleman’s reputation for telling others that he solicited a bribe from her.

Separate from that indictment, Murphy faces another felony charge for allegedly offering “several promises” to Schultz in December 2010 if she would agree to be the tie-breaking vote to make Douglas R. Driggers the chief district judge in Las Cruces.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the case may be all the other judges who knew about Murphy’s big mouth – his alleged statements that are the basis for the charges against him – and did little or nothing about it.

As I wrote in a May commentary, judges and lawyers are required to report potential violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct to the state’s Judicial Standards Commission. From that commentary:

“And yet, according to witness statements, Murphy told several other judges and lawyers that he made some sort of payment – possibly a campaign contribution – in exchange for his appointment to the bench, and that other judicial applicants had to do the same to get appointed.”

But who was there to stop him? Judge Lisa Schultz claims she sought advice from several other judges, including a Supreme Court justice, about what to do, but she received little help until she took the allegations against Murphy to law enforcement.

The judiciary has learned to take certain problems seriously in the years since then-District Judge John Brennan was arrested in Albuquerque in 2004 for drunken driving and cocaine possession. That incident led to a reshaping of the state’s judiciary, and Appeals Court Judge Roderick T. Kennedy wrote a column this year about help that’s available for judges who are in trouble.

In 2011, a DWI ended Appeals Court Judge Robert E. Robles’ career, and District Judge Albert S. “Pat” Murdoch quit after being charged with raping a prostitute (the case against him has been dropped for now but could be refilled).

But the tolerance for Murphy’s big mouth reveals another serious issue. When asked about it during an interview for the judgeship in 2006, Murphy promised to keep his mouth in check and was given a pass. He broke that promise repeatedly with his claims about how he got his job (and his offensive comments about gay people). The ensuing scandal – one of the worst in the history of the state’s judiciary – illustrates why his colleagues needed to report him.

Former Gov. Bill Richardson (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

4. Another Richardson investigation

Former Gov. Bill Richardson left office at the end of 2010 but didn’t stay out of the news. A federal grand jury is currently investigating an accusation that Richardson had supporters pay a woman $250,000 to keep quiet about their alleged extramarital affair while he was running for president. The details have trickled out. Read about them here, here and here.

Will Richardson or anyone close to him be indicted? Personally, I’ll believe it when I see it. This is at least the fourth time a grand jury has investigated Richardson since 2008. Two probes ended without indictments. A third into state investments is pending, as is this newest investigation.

The longer Richardson stays in the news because of criminal investigations, the more likely it becomes that history will remember him as corrupt, regardless of whether he is ever charged with or convicted of any crime.

Richardson’s only comment on the probe thus far? “Merry Christmas.”

5. Jerome Block Jr. convicted, resigns

Former Public Regulation Commissioner Jerome Block Jr.

Those who were paying attention should have known even before he was elected in 2008 that Jerome Block Jr. had no business becoming a member of the Public Regulation Commission.

Regardless, it was simply sad when Block’s career as a public official began to unravel in August and his addiction to a prescription drug was revealed. As the House began moving forward with impeachment, Block entered into a plea bargain with the attorney general on a number of charges stemming from several cases, and he resigned.

Gov. Susana Martinez, a Republican, replaced the Democrat Block with independent Doug Howe.

The AG’s deal let Block avoid prison if he completed a drug-treatment program, but Block has violated the terms of that agreement more than once and ends the year with an upcoming sentencing date and the AG seeking the maximum of 4.5 years in prison.

The question of how Block obtained drugs remains unanswered. There appears to be a law enforcement probe into some questionable e-mails Block sent that might have referenced drugs.

6. Columbus firearms smuggling case

This case didn’t receive as much media attention as those involving Block or Richardson, but it’s arguably much more serious. Here’s how I summed it up in an August column:

“New Mexico has seen lots of government corruption exposed in recent years that involves stealing money from taxpayers. But the recent weapons-smuggling case involving Columbus village officials takes government corruption to a more egregious level.

“The (now former) mayor, police chief and a city councilor were involved in a ring that helped smuggle firearms to the La Linea cartel in Mexico and also provided it with ammunition and tactical gear.

“In other words, public officials in a tiny border town in New Mexico used their jobs to help arm a cartel in Mexico, where the drug war and other lawlessness have claimed tens of thousands of lives in recent years.

“Is it a stretch to say that former Columbus Mayor Eddie Espinoza, Trustee Blas Gutierrez and Police Chief Angelo Vega enabled the killing of people in Mexico? I think not.”

An Occupy Las Cruces protester (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

7. Occupy movement

In the fall, the Occupy movement stormed Las Cruces, the rest of New Mexico, and the nation. Occupy has already had a tangible impact by forcing Bank of America and other financial institutions to back off new fees. People are protesting, boycotting, camping in public places, and in some instances clashing with police (or having police clash with them).

The movement has added another dimension to the conversation about America’s future. Budget cuts are no longer the only solution being seriously discussed.

But will Occupy have a lasting impact? The 2012 election will be telling. In the meantime, I have been asking people involved in the movement to share what they believe it’s about. You can read some of their thoughts here, here and here. And you can read this news article from a reporter who visited the original Occupy movement in New York City to try to make sense of it.

8. Duran’s voter fraud probe

Dianna Duran, the first Republican secretary of state in more than 80 years, grabbed headlines in 2011 for claiming that she had uncovered evidence of foreign nationals illegally voting in elections. But in the end, all we had was what I called a “snarky report we can’t trust.” Here’s how I summed it up:

“Duran had the opportunity, coming off her impressive and bipartisan election, to unite elections officials from both parties behind a compromise to improve election integrity and make it difficult for the naysayers in the Legislature to win the day.

“Instead, Duran has hidden evidence from county clerks and the public, attempted to deflect criticism onto the Democratic AG, taken shots at a Democratic county clerk, and, in her report, taken a tone that seems to be more about winning an argument than finding solutions.

“That’s the most unfortunate part. Though technology has helped clerks and the secretary of state make dramatic improvements to New Mexico’s voter rolls in the last 10-15 years, it’s clear there are still problems with the system. We need solutions.

“We needed Duran to lead a transparent investigation that included the county clerks – from both parties – throughout the entire process, so we could know there was evidence to back up the conclusions and that partisanship wasn’t an issue. We needed Duran to unite our state’s elections officials behind solutions so lawmakers would be pressured into acting.

“We didn’t need a snarky report we can’t trust.

“What a wasted opportunity.”

Attorney General Gary King (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

9. Criticism of Gary King

Attorney General Gary King had one of the worst years of any elected official in New Mexico in 2011. The criticism was widespread (and included me), and it covered a range of issues including allegations that his office was “ineffective” in dealing with cop discipline cases, that it trailed those responsible for Medicaid fraud recovery in almost all other states, that he thumbed his nose at campaign contribution limits, that he gave Jerome Block Jr. an overly lenient plea deal, that he was playing fast and loose with Southern New Mexico’s water, that he declined to investigate bribery allegations against a state official the feds later indicted, that his office violated the Inspection of Public Records Act, and that he had a serious conflict with a corruption case his office was prosecuting.

King has long faced criticism for his handling of corruption cases, but the condemnation of the job he’s doing was deafening in 2011. The Santa Fe New Mexican said King should consider resigning. I slammed King after he attempted to damage my credibility and intimidate me into silence by suggesting that I colluded with Republicans to deflect criticism away from the governor and onto him.

If King doesn’t change some things, the criticism will continue.

10. Redistricting

Here’s what I wrote earlier this year about the Legislature’s futile attempts to settle the issue of redistricting:

“Elected officials generally seek to preserve their own seats, even when it no longer makes sense. Groups with power seek to protect it. To top it all off, we’re living in one of the more partisan times in American history. This fight was destined to end in a stalemate.”

Fortunately, we have courts to decide things for us when our elected officials in the legislative and executive branches don’t get the job done. But does anyone think that’s an ideal situation? It costs millions of dollars and doesn’t seem all that democratic.

When she was a candidate for governor, Susana Martinez told NMPolitics.net she supports the creation of an independent redistricting commission to take the politics out of the process. What a fine idea. Let’s hope she starts actively pushing for the formation of such a body.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed