Dumbsticks

One of the more bizarre stories to hit the air this week was KOB TVs Monday story about Councilor Don Harris' pilfering of drummer David Garibaldi's drumsticks (see it here). According to the story, Harris left with his pilfered prize after inviting himself back to the band's dressing room prior to the Hispano Chamber's La Noche Encantada.

Garibaldi gave his tepid approval for the councilor to make off with the sticks but later was troubled enough by the encounter to write a scathing letter to every member of the Albuquerque City Council. KOB's story included a few excerpts from Garibaldi's letter, but we managed to get our Eyes on a complete copy of the missive.

Don,

David Garibaldi here. I'm the drummer with the Tower of Power,and we met Saturday evening at The Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce gathering. Ever since our meeting I was troubled by what transpired, so I thought I'd drop you a line and express my thoughts to you.
Just to recount the events surrounding our meeting...

Prior to our show, you and your son came into our dressing room without asking and introduced yourselves to me, our guitarist Jerry Cortez, and trumpet player Mic Gillette. You wanted your son to meet us, which we were more than happy to do. We spoke for a few minutes and you mentioned that you were a lawyer and a politician and that you played saxophone at one time, had studied music and when you began to play after graduating, you said music wasn't a very good life.

You expressed this to some folks who have been very successful musicians all their lives. I'm 63 years old and have been playing the drums since the age of 10, and a working musician since the age of 17. As a boy, my dream was to travel the world playing the drums...I'm living my dream. My work is well documented and my reputation speaks for itself.

After the show I again saw you and your son backstage, and you showed me a pair of drum sticks that you had taken off of my drum set. I was pretty surprised and said that your taking them wasn't a good idea. i didn't want to make a scene and allowed your son to keep them...you said something about not knowing what the "protocol" was. Then, in the dressing room in front of most of the band members, you asked me why that wasn't ok...I replied "because you didn't ask".

Again, I didn't want to make a scene and embarrass you in front of your son and said he could keep them, but in retrospect, I should have asked for the sticks back and said what I'm saying now. Our dressing room is our sanctuary before shows where we can relax and focus on our performance, so I wasn't expecting to have to deal with you in that way.

That "protocol" you mentioned isn't really protocol...it's my property, and you had no right whatsoever to to my property. You're a lawyer and should know this. Obviously, the rules don't apply to you. The dressing room was our private area, and you had no right to be there without permission. Again, I guess you thought because you're a city council member, you can go where you want, and take what you want. Sorry. You took my property without my permission, and thought it was ok. Your now son thinks it's ok too. Where did you get this idea that you could take what's mine without asking?

You came into our dressing room without an invitation, ate our food without asking, and also took my drumsticks without my permission as a prize for your son. Yes, it only a pair of drumsticks, but sir, they're my drumsticks and they mean something to me...they represent my life and all I've worked for.

I hope we don't meet again...you're what wrong with politicians today. You represent yourself and your own interests and definitely showed how little respect you have for what I do. You're not welcome at our shows. We've been doing this for 42 years, and are serious about our craft. We're also serious about the impression we leave behind.

Your bio says you studied the saxophone with the late Jackie McLean...one of the greats. I'm a fan of his and often listen to his recordings. You studied with someone who understood the tradition of the instrument and respected it. Based on your behavior, I wouldn't include him on your bio...if he knew what you were up to, he probably wouldn't approve of it.

It was an embarrassing moment, totally unacceptable and I have no recourse but to write you, and to Cc your colleagues on the city council, so they'll know what kind of person they're working with, if they don't already. If I knew any media people there in Albuquerque, I'd be including them here as well.

Aside from this, it was a tremendous event, staffed and attended by some very nice people...my compliments to a very professional Joe Bufalino and his crew for making us feel welcome.

Respectfully,

David Garibaldi
Drummer - Tower of Power

You really have to read the full letter to understand how strange Saturday's councilor meets drummer encounter really was. We don't know what the councilor was thinking but his spokesman - Councilor Ken Sanchez - told KOB that Harris would be sending the drumsticks back while Councilor Harris refused requests to go on camera.

Our bet is that for his service above and beyond the call of being president of the city council, Ken Sanchez will be owed a very important favor.

Red Ink in Scam-era Land

Wednesday, KOB-TV reported that Marty's Scam-eras are losing money (kobtv.com). Councilor Don Harris told channel 4 that because of the state mandated caps on fines and the associated transfer of funds from the city to the state.

The city was getting rich until state lawmakers stepped in and voted to take a big chunk of what the city makes.

City leaders say the state is taking so much that it now has to use its own money to keep the program going.

The state capped fines at $75 and is taking a huge cut, so big that Albuquerque is now losing money.

-kobtv.com

Look, this system has been bankrupt from the start. It was installed for revenue, runs on a principle of guilty until proven innocent, and makes the accused rely on the veracity of the state's evidence.

More importantly, we were fed a constant diet of, well... aromatic platitudes the smelliest of which was that the system was for public safety. We never bought it and now Councilor Harris is simply admitting what we knew all along.

Harris says the problem is that the city no longer gets enough money to even pay for the program.

Officials say in 2009, the city will pay about $1.5[MILLION] out of its own pocket.

-kobtv.com

Ask yourself, when's the last time APD turned a profit? Even if APD could turn a profit would you want them to? Adding a profit motive to law enforcement leads inevitably to corruption.

"It's like a tax on the city from the state or confiscation from money from the program. I think it goes one step too far," says City Councilor Don Harris.

-kobtv.com

Funny how Councilor Harris compared the state's raid on scam-era money to a tax on the city. The scam-eras are a tax on the drivers of Albuquerque - levied for the sole purpose of filling city coffers. Now that the program is costing the city money we no longer hear about safety, just revenue - which is what it was all about in the first place. Let the scam-eras drown in their red ink.

Scam-era Scammers

As you all know by now Monday night saw the defeat of relief from governmental intrusion and tyranny. The Albuquerque City Council overwhelming voted to uphold the Almighty Alcalde's veto of Council President Brad Winter's bill to suspend scam-era operations at least until the mayoral task farce presents its report.

Everyone knows what the task farce will return, but it'd be nice for a change if our city government would err on the side of freedom and justice rather than on the side of "excess money."

"During the holiday season, I ask that we reflect on what matters most, the safety of our loved ones," Chávez said in a one-page message to the council. "Virtually no one argues that this technology is not effective in catching violators. Do we really want red light runners and school zone speeders to be given a free pass this holiday season and into the school year?"
- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

Really... since when is there a school zone on I-25 and isn't school out for the non-religious, non-threatening, barely Winter break anyway? Besides, when we reflect on our loved ones we're concerned about their safety, but we're even more concerned about their liberty; something that a majority of the council and the Almighty Marty "Hugo" Chavez seem to care little about.

To that end, we thought we'd post who is most responsible for the continuation of the scam. We have decided that these Scam-era Scammers, those people most responsible for the continuation of the red light con will be posted permanently on this website - starting with this post.

Martin J. Chavez
The Scammer in Chief, defender of the con, whose absolute faith in the infallibility of the Redflex system has cost us a bunch of cash and him a shot at the U.S. Senate.

The mayor has even tried to tell us that the system isn't turning a profit, characterizing the red light largess as "excess money." Now he's using the oldest scare tactic in the world to keep us pumping cash into city coffers citing school zone speeders as scam-era justification.

Ray Schultz - APD Chief of Police
The Chief brought the scam from his previous job in Scottsdale, Arizona. Schultz continues to support the Redflex program as if he were a stock holder often confusing his job as chief with that of a scam-era lobbyist.



Ken Sanchez - Councilor District 1
Councilor Sanchez was famously not present during the 1st scam-era moratorium vote. We don't think it would be any different than this vote as the councilor can only be characterized as being in Marty's pocket. After all Sanchez served as the mayor's treasurer until being convinced to run for council.


Debbie O'Malley - Councilor District 2
At least O'Malley is consistent in her support of the scam, but that's about all I can say for a councilor who feels that fleecing the public through scam-eras is a good idea.



Isaac Benton - Councilor District 3
Councilor Benton is consistently neo-socialist preferring government run transportation and government dictated development. It comes as no surprise that the councilor would support enriching the government while limiting the rights of everyday citizens.


Rey Garduño - Councilor District 6
We were pleasantly surprised by Garduño's initial support of the scam-era moratorium. Of course, the councilor we dubbed "Sticky Fingers" during the last election flipped his vote and flopped when it came to keeping the city's hands out of our pockets.

Sally Mayer - Councilor District 7
What more do we have to say... despite her seeming support of Councilor Winter when the Marty was caught balancing the budget with scam money, The Mayer failed the sniff test herself when it came time to protect our due process rights.



Trudy Jones - Councilor District 8
Councilor Jones got a mulligan from us when she missed this vote (and her first council meeting) in favor of participating in the Capo's tantrum. This time she showed up and failed the test.



Don Harris - Councilor District 9
We really can't figure Harris out. He complains about being sold out to the "liberals" and then sides with all of them to keep the scam-era cash coming.




All of the officials listed above need to be remembered. They have by their own actions supported expanding the administrative authority of the city while doing little to protect our freedoms.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanac

Dumb and Dumber

Two of the Foolish Four were back at it today claiming that Councilor Winter made some sort of back room under-handed deal with the devil to gain his seat as President of the City Council. According to Harris, Winter sold the three water authority appointments to the "liberals" in order to obtain their support for his presidency (ABQ Journal - Subscription).

Meanwhile Dumb's sidekick Councilor Mayer was busy insisting that there was some nefarious scheme afoot since Councilor Winter's wife Nan Winter works for the Water Authority and has for some time. Mayer is quoted as saying "I don't think it passes the sniff test... It just doesn't seem right" (ABQ Journal - Subscription).

(Sidebar)
The councilor ought to know something about stinky situations as her admitted ex-boyfriend and real estate partner continues to receive $50,000 a year contracts from the False Alarm Reduction Unit to do... well, something anyway. If you'll remember, the false alarm ordinance was sponsored by none other than The Mayer herself.
(End Sidebar)

Granted, the appointments to the Water Authority are important but their claims make the two Capo's Councilors look foolish and petty... again. Councilor Winter made them look even dumber-er when he named his first appointment - newly elected councilor and founding (and hopefully ex) member of the Foolish Foursome Trudy Jones.

(Sidebar)
As we've noted before, we don't think there should be a Water Authority. This quasi-governmental agency has an awful lot of authority to bond debt, set rates, punish water evildoers, and stymie economic growth. Councilor Cadigan said just last week that the board should stop extending service to new areas even when water wasn't an issue (read our take here).

Not to be out-done, last month former Councilor and Congressional Candidate Heinrich wanted to use aerial photography and drive by inspections to tell consumers the amount of water that they should be using (ABQ Journal - Subscription). Heinrich insists that the $20,000 pilot program would simply be giving advice on how much a particular household could save (ABQ Journal - Subscription), but it's a short step from should to must and we don't want any government agency peeking over our wall telling us the amount of water we are allowed to use.
(End Sidebar)

Let's face it folks, there's a reason that Mayer and Harris faced recall uprisings in their respective districts - they don't seem to be able to learn from their mistakes. You'll notice that Councilors Sanchez and Jones aren't out making themselves look like idiots (again) by giving legs to a story that had essentially gone away. You can also bet that neither of these two brain donors will be serving on the water board anytime soon.

Problems with the Bar

We've been telling you for some time that all of these ethics complaints against Councilor Harris might end up causing him problems with the State Bar. Well, it looks like there has been an unrelated complaint filed with the State Bar Association accusing Attorney Harris of conflict of interest and taking a client's retainer and subsequently failing to provide the agreed upon legal services.

By now we've all heard of Mr. Harris' use of his attorney's trust fund as a campaign slush fund, but taking a retainer and not providing services seems to us like fraud. We would expect the Bar Association to conduct an investigation but disclosure of the allegations won't do anything to help the councilor in his bid to hold off the recall; a fact that Mr. Harris apparently realized when he allegedly asked the complainant Angelo Winfield not to file the complaint until after Tuesday's election.

Without Delay

We just got information from the Harris recall camp telling us that a conference call was held today to determine whether or not Councilor Harris' ethics hearing would be held next Monday as scheduled. According to the email, the hearing will proceed as planned with only a few limitations placed on the complainant; their attorney will not be able to put the full city audit into evidence. He will however, be able to refer to the audit for questioning purposes.

So the big Ethics Event is on... The outcome of which could very well determine the outcome of the recall effort. The only way that we believe Councilor Harris could pull this thing out is to have a majority of the charges dismissed; which we don't believe will happen. One thing is sure, GOV TV is bound to have the highest ratings in its history.

For those of you who don't know about GOV TV, it's on Comcast channel 16 and the hearing begins at 5:30 pm, Monday September 24th. We're trying to find out whether or not it will be on the Internet as well. One way or the other, you know we'll have our Eyes on it.

Playing for Time - Harris Requests Delay

We've seen it before, when politicians are approaching judgment day they will almost always try to put it off as long as possible. Yesterday, Councilor Harris' attorney Douglas J. Antoon, filed a request for a "rescheduling" of the Harris' ethics hearing based primarily on the premise that the councilor has not been given enough time to respond to the allegations; in particular the additional violations revealed by the recent city audit (read it here - pdf).

(Sidebar)
We're told that Councilor Harris had a less than favorable reaction to the recent mailer sent out by New Mexican's for Democracy, the group spearheading his removal. It was presented as an exhibit in the councilor's request for rescheduling and included in the above attachment. According to our Eyes the councilor was "incoherent and full of rage." It probably dawned on him (finally) that having the Ethics Hearing one week before the election wasn't such a good idea. Sort of like making sure your name was on the second page of the ballot all by itself instead of on the first page buried in the middle of a number of bond issues.
(End Sidebar)

Further, Mr. Antoon claims that Assistant City Attorney Mark Shoesmith has inappropriately assumed the role of prosecutor on behalf of the complainant as opposed to legal advisor to the ethics board. Of course this assertion is based on information obtained by Councilor Harris or by Mr. Antoon from "one well-placed official," and "those close to the process but afraid to go on the record."

The mainstream media and bloggers regularly use unnamed sources... we do it all the time. However, information allegedly obtained from "well-placed" officials and fearful sources "close to the process," are hardly valid in a legal or quasi-legal proceeding. Without direct attribution subject to testimony and/or a deposition, they can't be considered anything but hearsay and innuendo (if that).

Antoon also claims that there are substantial errors in the audit report and alleges that the City Attorney not the City Auditor actually wrote the report. The funny part of that assertion is that the respondent (Harris) hasn't had enough time to analyze the audit report, but somehow knows that it contains errors. Shouldn't those errors be discussed at length during the Hearing? Isn't that what the hearing is for?

Harris is clearly following in the footsteps of previous politicians who've managed to get caught with their hand in the cookie jar or cigar... uh, never mind. Deny and delay, delay and deny until you wear down your opponent or the voters get bored with the story.

Harris has already attempted to legally derail the process by trying to get a court to decide that the City Charter required a higher number of petition signatures than specifically indicated. His current gambit is designed to keep voters from seeing him "on trial" as it were, for violating the city's ethics regulations and campaign contribution limits. It's just another play for time designed to put the issues in question beyond his October 2nd judgment day and deny his constituents the ability to evaluate the allegations for themselves.

Violation Matrix

Thursday night KRQE Channel 13 ran a story on Councilor Harris' ethics audit. The package featured a pan of a piece of paper with a bunch of check marks on it. Reporter Michael Herzenberg indicated that each check mark would be considered a violation.

We were curious about that violation matrix and managed to get our Eyes on a copy of the checklist(read it here). We counted 175 individual violations. Frankly, we couldn't believe that someone who has presumably passed the state bar could have screwed up his campaign reporting so badly.

The most troubling part for us was Harris' repeated acceptance of donations that exceeded the maximum allowed by law. Mr. Harris like all candidates, had to have been aware of the donation cap; it's hard to view his actions as anything other than a willful disregard of the law. In our opinion, these acts alone disqualify him from holding elected office.

Councilor Harris has already lost the trust of a good portion of his constituents, it remains to be seen whether or not the Ethics Board will recommend to the council that he be removed from office; which after seeing the type and number of violations revealed by the audit seems likely.

As a member of the State Bar, Mr. Harris should be held to a higher standard; a standard that doesn't allow for willful violation of the law. The consequences of his misdeeds could and probably will extend beyond the council chambers. Perhaps it's time for Councilor Harris to resign in order to concentrate on more immediate problems like keeping what's left of his legal reputation.

Parties to the City Election

This October's Municipal Election has got it all. We've got educators and a toy salesman, a retired housing advocate and a builder's advocate, an accused embezzler and an admitted larcenist, Democrats (D), Republicans (R), and Martycrats (M). If that weren't enough... District 9 is in a state of open rebellion and is on track to give their councilor the boot even though his replacement will be a card carrying Martycrat. It's enough to make you long for a good old fashioned partisan race.

(Sidebar)
Our Eyes tell us that Admiral Lowe and crew are pretty confident that the ethics hearing for Councilor Harris will reveal misdeeds that could amount to thousands of dollars in fines. To make matters worse for the embattled councilor, he'll be featured on the second page of the district 9 ballot, making the recall almost impossible to miss for the voters in his soon to be former district.
(End Sidebar)

If all of that isn't enough to make you a little bit crazy, 5 of the participants (Sticky Fingers Garduño, Honey Bee de'Pascal, Ad Guru Griffin, Toy Man Wilson, and Commissar O'Malley) are all fueling their campaigns with your tax dollars. If they are so willing to use money that has been forcibly taken from the taxpayer to run their campaigns, what do you think they'll do when they have the power to do it for themselves? Talk about larceny!

Fortunately we can't vote in every district (well without voter ID... maybe we'll give it a shot), but if we could it'd be very hard for one of the above candidates to talk us into spending our vote when they've already stolen our money. On that note, let's talk about who's not already taking your money.

Katherine Martinez(M) - District 2 (Challenger)
Frankly, we don't believe that Ms. Martinez has a chance to beat Commissar O'Malley whose long, deep family ties in the North Valley and her incumbent status make her almost invulnerable. The irony here is that we have a former (current really) housing advocate being challenged by a representative of people who know how to build homes.

Even though Ms. Martinez has been directly endorsed by the Almighty One and would surely be expected to vote the Marty line, we don't believe she'd take the position that the City of Albuquerque should become landlords to people who can't afford homes. There are many ways to help people buy homes, but they all need to include earning and ownership.

Brad Winter (R) - District 4 (Incumbent)
Councilor Winter is completing his second term as councilor. He has been effective for his district and more importantly hasn't spent his time as councilor or as a candidate sticking his hand in our wallets. Another point in his favor is that he's the only councilor that's done anything to try and fix some of the problems caused by the Red Light Scam-era system.

His opponent on the other hand, is accused of embezzling over $60,000, and is already being run by the Napoleon of the 11th floor. Despite the Honey Bee's attempts at claiming victim status, the only victims in this race are the taxpayers.

Blair Kaufman (D) - District 6 (Open Seat)
You know, we'd really like to be able to say something nice about this particular candidate. He hasn't taken any of our money for his campaign which could mean he respects the taxpayers and their hard earned money. But after reading the Journal's Online Chat (Subscription) we suspect that the only reason he isn't rolling in "clean" money is that he didn't qualify.

It's really disheartening for those of us who believe the government should spend less time in our lives and in our wallet to see each candidate trying to out spend the other. Not one of them talked about freedom, not one talked about personal responsibility (except Sticky Fingers Garduño after he'd been nailed for fibbing on his Journal questionnaire).

(Sidebar)
It's amazing how frequently candidates and politicians have a Michael Vick Moment after being nailed. They suddenly find Jesus, Allah, or head out to rehabracadabara. What responsibility does a candidate for elected office have to be truthful, even when faced with a "gotcha" question from the Journal?
(End Sidebar)

We really feel for the residents of District 6. There's not a bit of difference between the candidates. The Republican isn't, the two Democrats are all the same except for the larceny thing, and the Martycrat spouts the exact same big government crap that the other three are busy spewing. Personally, we believe Sticky Fingers will end up representing District 6, but it probably won't make any difference except to Marty.

Eye Poll: Recall Councilor Harris

In our second poll involving Councilor Harris, the results turned out to be almost the same. 69% of Eye readers felt that the councilor should be recalled, 21% felt that he should continue, 4% didn't know, 6% didn't care. (View the full results here.)

Remember, this is an unscientific poll and the only real poll that counts is the one in October and it only includes the registered voters in his district. However, it never bodes well to see even an unscientific poll that's this lop-sided. It also mirrors our earlier approval poll which indicated a 60% disapproval rating.

This week we're taking a look at the council race in district 4 where incumbent Brad Winter is being challenged by Paulette de'Pascal. Don't forget to vote.

Sun Setting on Don Harris?

The race to remove Councilor Harris in District 9 seems to be moving towards an endgame, one that the two year councilor probably can't survive. New Mexicans for Democracy, the group behind the recall effort has brought yet another round of accusations against the embattled councilor.

According to the Journal (Subscription), Harris is accused of spending $5,600 in campaign money for personal use. In an autodialer the group claims Councilor Harris spent "$1,100 on his car, $500 for a new bicycle and some $4,000 in personal credit card finance charges" (ABQ Journal - Subscription). This time the accusations are not being made in front of the ethics committee but directly to the councilor's constituents by phone; and while the expenditures may not be a violation of ethics regulations, they are sure to look bad to voters.

What's more indicative of the councilor's demise is the very professional and meticulous way that Harris' adversaries have executed their campaign plan. Since June the group has kept Harris in the news with a continuous stream of ethics complaints, one of which was dismissed a couple of weeks ago (ABQ Journal - Subscription). Unfortunately for Harris, voters won't remember the dismissal but rather the accusations that seem to just keep coming.

Our Eyes tell us that in an effort to clear up all of his reporting "mistakes" the councilor retained CPA and fellow councilor Ken Sanchez. Our most recent information has Councilor Sanchez jumping out of the Harris debacle effectively washing his hands of the whole thing.

Frankly, we were surprised that Sanchez would stick his nose into this mess in the first place. We know he's a professional who's probably looked into some dark and dubious spaces from an accounting stand point, but taking sides in a recall for a fellow councilor has no upside for him. In fact, there's a little thing called guilt by association which could come back to haunt him if he decides to run for reelection.

Our assessment of the political situation is fairly bleak for Harris. In yet another example of planning and execution, New Mexicans for Democracy have managed to have Harris' ethics hearing scheduled for September 24th, the week just before the recall election. An August 29th press release about the September hearing from New Mexicans for Democracy reads in part:

"The full inquiry will probe all aspects of his alleged expenditures as to their compliance with the Election Code; as to their validity as determined by receipts and invoices; and also as to the required issuance of IRS “1099” forms to campaign consultants and contractors."

-New Mexicans for Democracy

The item that should concern the councilor is the issuance of 1099 forms. If his campaign reporting has been fraught with error, we'd bet that the more stringent IRS requirements were bungled too. At this point we'd be surprised if Harris survived the ethics hearing much less the recall election October 2nd.

3rd Strike?

It's been a bad week for councilor Harris. First his foes in district 9 qualified to place a recall on the ballot in October. Second, his legal challenge fell flat as we predicted. Now, Eye On Albuquerque readers have panned him in this past week's Eye Poll. That's three strikes in just a week and while the councilor may not yet be out he certainly looks like he's headed that way.

Folks, this was never even close with 60% of Eye readers disapproving of his job performance, 19% approved, 17% didn't know and 3% didn't care. Remember, this was an unscientific poll but the results certainly don't bode well for a councilor facing a recall where there are few compelling reasons for those not involved in the recall effort to vote.

Our Eyes theorize that Councilor Harris will try and convince his fellow councilors to hold a special election instead of placing his recall on the same ballot as the currently scheduled municipal election. Unfortunately for Harris, 2 of his fellow councilors could be hurt in their own re-election bids if they voted to spend taxpayer money on a special election just for Harris; which might make it hard for his foes to garner enough votes to recall the councilor.

Our guess is that the council will generally be unsympathetic towards the beleaguered Harris and will place it on the ballot along with the Councilor Protection Act and Increased Pay charter amendments.

Eye Told You: Harris Recall Goes Forward

We hate to tell you we told you so... (Ok, so we really don't) but here goes. The district 9 recall folks over at recallharris.org announced "We Win!" about an hour ago. The Albuquerque Journal (Subscription) is confirming the ruling by Judge William Lang earlier this afternoon that the recall will go forward in October. Councilor Harris will be the first city councilor to face recall in nearly 20 years and if this week's Eye Poll is any indication, he's in trouble.

Eye Poll: Readers Approve Taxpayer Financing

As you know we have serious problems with taxpayer financing. However, a majority of Eye On Albuquerque readers support taxpayer financing by a margin of 9%, with 53% supporting taxpayer financing, 44% do not support taxpayer financing, 1% don't know, 1% don't care. (Read the results of our unscientific poll here.)

We've had some good discussion regarding taxpayer financed elections. The original intent was to take money out of elections in an effort to make them "clean." We wish to thank Matt Brix from Common Cause for his thoughtful posts on the subject, even though we couldn't disagree more.

We've just begun our first foray into public financing and have already found some scary opportunities for abuse. In light of the Court House scandal, the $15,000 party financed by taxpayers through the Las Vegas School District, and the recent Housing Authority scandals, it's hard to believe we'll have to wait too long before this system of funding political ambition is exposed for what it really is.

Taxpayer financing is based upon the premise that people who run for office are good and noble; and some regardless of financing actually are. The trouble is we've already got enough elected officials feathering their nests without giving them the ability to pay off supporters who no longer can be linked to them through their financial support. The Albuquerque Open and Ethical Elections ordinance hasn't removed money from politics, it's simply hidden it.

There's nothing dirtier than forcing taxpayers to fund the political ambitions of candidates, while at the same time hiding the influences behind their campaign. We've already spotted the hand of the Almighty Marty pulling the strings of the de'Pascal campaign... who's really behind the other taxpayer financed campaigns? You can be sure that we'll be watching their expenditures very closely because there's really no other way to spot the man (or woman) behind the curtain.

This week the Eye Poll takes a look at embattled Councilor Don Harris. According to our Eyes the recall campaign has turned in over the 922 signatures required to force a recall in this year's municipal election. So unless a judge decides that the city clerk's (and our) interpretation of the city charter are in error, the people of district 9 will have the opportunity to be the first remove a city elected official. You have the opportunity to weigh in with your opinion in this week's Eye Poll.

Don't Like the Rules...

According to the Albuquerque Tribune embattled city councilor Don Harris has decided he doesn't like the city clerk's interpretation of the City Charter. You see the clerk ruled that 922 signatures would be required to force a recall election of Councilor Harris; a number determined by the charter in the following manner:

The number of qualified voters required to sign the petition shall be a number more than 25% of the total number of votes cast at the election of the officer whose recall is proposed;

- Albuquerque City Charter

Since the councilor was elected in a runoff election ("the election of the officer whose recall is proposed"), the total number of votes cast was just 3,689. Harris would like a judge to rule that the charter really meant the regular election. In our opinion, the clerk's interpretation was the correct one. Mr. Harris did not become Councilor Harris until he defeated former Councilor Cummins in the run-off election. Had he lost that run-off, Councilor Harris would have remained Don Harris - former candidate.

Despite Councilor Harris' wishful thinking, the election in question is the run-off and the signatures required remain 922. We don't see how a judge could rule in Harris' favor, but it wouldn't be the first time that a judge created law out of thin air. Frankly, it comes as no surprise the the ghost writer of the Councilor Protection Act would sue to try and change the rules simply because he doesn't like them, or in this case because they don't work in his favor. After all the ruling Councilor Harris is seeking is identical to the charter change that our Eyes told us he suckered Councilor Loy into sponsoring; a ballot question that will appear on October's ballot.

Our Eyes tell us that the councilor's intentions were known to folks involved in the recall. You can bet Admiral Lowe is ready with a response. We bet that Councilor Harris' decision to sue will do more to help the recall effort than it does to help his cause. It's a little like trying to put out a fire with gasoline... or maybe jet fuel. You generally just create a highly combustible situation.

Other Recall News
While Mayor Marty is off on his panda hunt in China, S Pyke's recall effort goes on. According to a recent email Pyke has just under 30 days to finish getting the almost 22,000 signatures required. Albuquerque has never seen a successful recall of a city elected official so it's unlikely that this one will be successful even if a recall election takes place in October. But, you never know... who would have thought we'd be reading about not one, not two, but three recall efforts underway for two mayors and a hapless councilor?

Ethical Lapse or Missed Button?

The Albuquerque Journal reported today (Subscription) that besieged Councilor Don Harris has had an ethics complaint filed against him regarding a fundraiser held in June of 2006. (We mentioned the fundraiser here.) According to the Journal Harris failed to report over $30,000 in campaign contributions raised at the event held at Scalo Northern Italian Grill. Harris claims that he forgot to "finalize" his report after entering the data last year.

Our Eyes tell us that campaign reporting requires the candidate, councilor, or measure finance committee to finalize the report before the report is accepted as being properly filed. The system allows the reporting party to enter contributions and expenditures in the system as they occur which keeps them from having to enter all of the data right before the deadline. It's really a practical solution to a very real reporting problem. Without it, candidates and committees would allow reporting data to pile up and would bog down the system in the hours right before the deadline resulting in even more late reports.

Could Councilor Harris have forgotten to press the finalize button... sure. It's also possible that the councilor would have preferred not to have the fundraiser closely scrutinized by his constituents. After all, the councilor ran against former Councilor Tina Cummins at least partially on the claim that Councilor Cummins was too closely aligned with Mayor Chavez. A fundraiser orchestrated by the Almighty Mayor's fundraiser Teri Baird shortly after taking office would have looked suspicious to say the least.

Plausible deniability... a term used by ethically challenged politicians to describe the ability of their supporters to believe even the most irrefutable evidence. It's plausible that the councilor screwed up (one of many) and didn't finalize the report. It's just as plausible that he preferred keeping the fundraiser somewhat below the radar with his constituents and entered the information with the intent of claiming a "mistake" should the uh... "error" be discovered.

The interesting part of this whole recall is the fact that it is rumored that the mayor is really behind it in the first place. We haven't been able to find any direct evidence of 11th floor involvement, but we're quite sure that the mayor would jump at the chance to name Harris' replacement. In fact, we wouldn't be surprised if former councilor and current transportation director Greg Payne had a behind the scenes roll. Payne is a clever and ruthless campaigner and is probably still smarting from his failure to railroad taxpayers with Marty's Folly Trolley.

No matter how this ends up, no matter who's behind it, the folks in district 9 are in a conundrum. Throw the current guy out who's been inconsistent at best, and get a councilor whose allegiance is to his honor the mayor, or keep the current guy who's not likely to forget the recall effort. Either way, it's not a pretty situation and the wheels are already in motion.

While We Weren't Watching: Councilor Protection Act

While everyone was looking the other way Monday night - watching tax cuts and jail funding, the council acted to reduce its exposure to recall. Last year The Mayer (AKA Sally Mayer) faced a recall. This year disgruntled District 9 residents have put together a recall for their councilor, Don Harris.

The resolution (R-07-243) would make recall possible only in the case of "malfeasance or misfeasance" as determined by the city clerk, would up the up the required qualifying signatures to 33.33% of the total number of voters in the last regular election, and make a recall impossible in the last 6 months of a councilor's term. Currently, a recall election can be triggered by the signatures of 25% of the number of votes cast in the last election, can be triggered at anytime, and councilors can be recalled for any reason.

If you take a look at this legislation, it is specifically designed to prevent the type of recall that Councilor Harris is subject to. The current language makes him somewhat more vulnerable than the average councilor due to his runoff with Tina Cummins. In Councilor Harris' case a recall election requires only 922 qualified signatures because there were only 3,689 total votes cast in the runoff election, which was the election in which Harris won his seat.

If the signature requirement is changed from 25% of the total votes in the last "election of the officer whose recall is proposed" to "thirty-three and one third percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular municipal election [emphasis added] for the position the official was elected," the signature requirement jumps to 2,806 signatures.

R-07-243 was the last item acted upon by the council last Monday night. A review of its legislative history reveals that the bill was introduced on Monday, quickly amended twice and passed by a vote of 8 to 1 with Councilors O'Malley, Mayer, Sanchez, Benton, Cadigan, Heinrich, Loy and Harris voting for, and (not surprisingly) Councilor Winter voting against.

The Eyes have it that these changes are actually the brainchild of none other than one Don Harris, who upon learning of his imminent recall effort wrote this charter amendment after learning that a simple ordinance change would not be enough to protect him. He has been shopping this amendment for some time and finally found a stooge... uh, sponsor with nothing to lose (Councilor Craig Loy - Who is not running for re-election).

It's important to note that there has NEVER been a successful recall of a city councilor, which means the current system provides adequate protection for councilors who will face opposition from one group or the other during their tenure. Councilors need to have enough protection to allow them to make judgments that are bound to be controversial. They should not be guaranteed a seat without fear of consequences.

In our opinion even voting for legislation like this is reason enough to recall a city councilor. In fact, two of the bill's supporters (The Mayer and Cadigan) have faced recall. Councilor Harris' involvement in writing this amendment has given his opposition yet another reason to throw him out.

Councilors serve at the pleasure of their respective constituents. They work for them, not the other way around. It's ironic that they are asking for a raise at the very time they are asking us to make sure that we cannot have them removed for displeasing us. Shame on the council for ramming this through in literally, the dead of night; and shame on us if we let them get away with it.

In the Crosshairs - Councilor Harris Faces Recall?

We've been hearing the rumblings from District 9 for months now. A councilor with a seemingly unerring ability to alienate just about everyone has left some in District 9 longing for Tina Cummins and her bolero (ABQ Journal - Subscription Required). Now at least a few of his constituents have decided they would like to see the back of him (ABQ Journal - Subscription Required).

Councilor Harris was elected in a run-off election against incumbent councilor Tina Cummins. One of the primary complaints about the former councilor was that she was too aligned with the main man on the 11th floor, Mayor Martin Chavez. Harris, after wracking up debts in two successive elections almost immediately jumped on Marty's money train allowing the mayor to host a $500 a plate fundraiser in early 2006 to help pay off the afore mentioned campaign debts.

It looked to our Eyes that Mayor Marty had just bought himself a councilor and no doubt his highness thought so too. His honor was disabused of that notion when Councilor Harris voted against Marty's trolley. Of course the Mayor still had the necessary 6 votes to pass the Transportation Infrastructure Tax extension and true or not, many suspected that Harris was allowed to vote against the trolley in order to placate his more conservative constituents.

Meanwhile Councilor Harris has been busy making a name for himself with legislation aimed at everything from public comment to cell phone towers. In addition, he's irritated almost every neighborhood association in the city with his plan to re-write the city's neighborhood association recognition ordinance. They all believe that he's out there with his ad hoc committee and is determined to stick his nose into their associations.

Most recently, the councilor that couldn't step straight was featured in an ad that condemned him for voting against Marty's January 1 tax cut in favor of a July 1st, 2008 tax cut.

In short, Councilor Harris has been so inconsistent in his voting and his legislation that no one seems to trust him. That's a real problem for an elected official who is supposed to represent any group of people. Harris has become the George Costanza of Albuquerque politics.

Complicating matters for George... uh, Don, is the relatively small number of signatures needed to force a run-off. Just 922 valid signatures is all it would take according to the Journal and if the recall effort is well funded and organized it wouldn't be all that hard to get the required signatures in 60 days. Remember, that's just a couple of hundred more than were required for Harris to qualify for the ballot in the first place and our Eyes tell us that some of the people involved in the recent radio ad campaign are from Harris's District 9, so funding is probably not an issue.

To our knowledge, there has never been a city councilor recalled. Councilor Cadigan faced a recall shortly after his first election and last year Councilor Mayer survived a challenge. Will Councilor Harris survive? Who knows... but this could be the most winnable recall that we've seen.

If recall proponents are successful in their efforts to oust Harris, they had better remember that they will definitely get a councilor who is a card carrying member of the Party of Marty as his honor will be selecting their next councilor. One way or the other, the next couple of years will be interesting for District 9.