Un-be-lievable!

The Albuquerque Journal reported Tuesday that (as we've been telling you) The Almighty Alcalde is back on track to build his choo choo. Like a child whose mind is set on a shiny new toy, Chavez is desperately trying to find an argument that will convince the public and the council that he should have the object of his desire.

The streetcar would run along Central Avenue, then by Isotopes Park on its way to the airport.

Adams said the project would help tourists get around the Rio Grande Valley without stepping into a car. They could fly in, take the streetcar to Downtown Albuquerque, then ride the Rail Runner to Santa Fe. Or someone from Santa Fe could come down for a ballgame without having to drive.

- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

Previously, Marty was arguing that the trolley would service the throngs of mythical riders along Central Avenue and provide another way to get across the river. Now, he's arguing that tourists need a $130 MILLION way to get to the ballpark!

If you're a parent these shifting arguments probably sound familiar. Next little Marty will probably argue that "everyone else is doing it." Uh, wait... never mind, he's doing that too.

Chávez said cities across the country are launching rail projects. He predicted Albuquerque will join them, even if it doesn't happen while he's in office.

- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

Fortunately, there seem to be some adults on the council who have rightfully determined that the public isn't all that hot on the idea of spending over $130 MILLION to ferry tourists to ballgames.

"Unless somebody drops $300 million on us, it's going to go to the voters some day," City Council President Isaac Benton said in an interview. But "I don't see any immediate movement on it."

- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

Councilor Sally Mayer said her Northeast Heights constituents are "angry that we're even considering it." She said that even if the federal government gave Albuquerque $50 million, that wouldn't pay for two miles of track.

"This is extraordinarily expensive, and I don't see a need for it," Mayer said.

Councilor Brad Winter said the city should focus on other transportation needs, such as the reconstruction of the Paseo del Norte and Interstate 25 interchange.

"I don't think we need another study," Winter said of the streetcar. "It ought to be dead."

- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

Councilor Winter brings up a good point - one that we have maintained for some time. Even if $300 MILLION should fall from Obama on high, it should be spent on transportation issues like the Paseo del Norte I-25 interchange that services hundreds of thousands of Albuquerque taxpayers on a daily basis not some tourist trolley for people who don't pay to keep the city afloat.

O'Malley said the route of the system shouldn't be "subject to somebody's whimsy. We're talking about millions of dollars."

- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

Actually, we're talking about HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS not only to build it but to run it in perpetuity.

Even if Councilor O'Malley favors building a $400 MILLION money pit, errr... arena, she's got the right idea here. The Valley councilor is planning on introducing legislation to force the tracks of any trolley to go directly through the council chambers.

Any unnecessary expenditure that will obligate taxpayers to hundreds of millions of dollars of debt and operation costs should at the very least be approved by the people upon whom that obligation will be laid.

The Almighty Alcalde up on his perch on the 11th floor simply doesn't get it. It's unbelievable that an elected official would so blatantly ignore the wishes of his constituents. Of course, that can be fixed this October.

1/4 Cent for Your Thoughts

November 6th, 2006... the day before the election where Democrats took over both the House and Senate, the Albuquerque City Council passed an extension to the Transportation Infrastructure Tax. The Council and the Almighty Alcalde used the cover of the election to rail road the public and shove a tax hike through for the primary purpose of building Marty's little train.

The move outraged the public and a huge political brouhaha ensued. Months later bowing to public pressure, the council pulled the extension and created a marketing, uh... "task force" to sell, uh... "study" the trolley. All of that took place almost exactly two years ago.

Now like some particularly annoying and chronic condition, the Transportation Infrastructure Tax extension is back on the radar. The original voter approved tax is set to sunset at the end of this year, which means gross receipts taxes in the City of Albuquerque would go down by 1/4 cent at the end of this year.

The Chavez Administration and some on the council would have you believe that the revenue generated by the Transportation Infrastructure Tax is critical to maintain basic transportation services. First of all the public has spoken on this tax not once, but twice - once at the ballot box and once through the public outrage that resulted in the last extension's demise.

Second, it's not as if the end of this particular source of revenue was unforeseen. Ten years ago it was included in the original legislation. Two years ago, it was extensively discussed during the Trolley fiasco. We have little sympathy for the administration's or the council's cry of poverty - particularly in light of the current economic situation.

You see the administration and the council plan to put the Transportation Infrastructure Tax on the October ballot. However, since the tax ends at the end of this year they're claiming that they'd lose approximately $18 MILLION for the first half of next year due to the way the city receives money from the State Taxation and Revenue Department. Here they assume that the extension will pass and cry us a river - they knew this was coming and should have planned for it.

More annoyingly, it appears that the city has been collecting the tax and not using it. In fact, Councilor Cadigan seems to have found some $26 MILLION in "excess" revenue.

WHEREAS, since the inception of the Transportation Infrastructure Tax, large excess balances have accumulated which could be used to provide transportation improvements City-wide as well as provide an economic stimulus to the local economy;

- R-09-220 cabq.gov

Large excess balances?! Apparently, they've been collecting money and not using it for the projects they were directed to use the money for. In fact, the Eyes have it that Councilor Mayer has voiced concerns that the money hasn't been used properly.

So here it is... The voters voted for a tax that ends this year. They reaffirmed their position two years ago by raising hell with the council and forcing them to repeal the previous extension. The city probably isn't using the money it actually spends appropriately and they have "large excess balances" of more than $26 MILLION.

What's stunning to us is that there's actually any question how even the most whacked out big government liberal should vote. If the administration wants an extension they should put it on the ballot and make their case to the public. If it passes, they may lose $18 MILLION but thanks to their mismanagement they can cover the shortfall by using the $26 MILLION they've already collected. If it doesn't pass - which we suspect (and hope) will be the case - they spend the $26 MILLION on the projects they were supposed to spend it on in the first place and call it a day.

Two years ago, Councilor Mayer held a meeting to discuss this very issue. Just like the tax itself, history is repeating itself. The councilor is holding a meeting tonight (Thursday) at the newly remodeled Sheraton Uptown - 7 pm. She's asking for your thoughts on the 1/4 cent. She promises to have the Council Budget Director and Transit Director, Greg Payne. If nothing else, it should be a lively meeting since our Eyes tell us that at least a few disgruntled taxpayers plan to attend.

Decriminalized and Dismissed

We've all complained about an abundance of handicapped spaces standing empty when faced with a packed parking lot. We're also pretty sure that anyone who relies on handicapped parking would gladly trade places with those in the far reaches of the parking lot if they could just have their mobility back.

Last September the council created a new ordinance that among other things, increased fines for those who decided to take the short walk away from those who really need it. The ordinance (O-07-65) requested by the mayor and sponsored by The Mayer, took the nuisance abatement route. If that sounds familiar it should - it's the same flawed premise that Marty's scam-eras are based upon.

In fact, the procedural mechanism seems to match the scam-era process almost exactly. The only substantive difference between the two is that the handicapped program didn't come with expensive cameras and a billing infrastructure - which as it turns out is the problem.

According to our Eyes down at Metro Court Chief Judge Judy Nakamura sent out a memo instructing Metro Court judges to dismiss tickets issued to handicapped parking violators. The Eyes have it that Judge Nakamura's memo claims that since the new ordinance passed Metro Court doesn't have jurisdiction over the citations which are directed to be heard by one of the city's tax collectors... uh, hearing officers.

It seems that while the ordinance specifies a procedure it didn't create the infrastructure necessary to issue the civil citations. What's more interesting is that apparently the civil process has supplanted the criminal one.

Decriminalizing handicapped parking violations was an attempt to increase the fines violators paid with the added benefit that the city and by extension the mayor and council got to keep the money. The result of Marty and Councilor Mayer's tinkering in misdemeanor criminal law is that no one is paying anything - decriminalized and dismissed.

The Furr's Still Flying

We told you recently about the Chavez administration's continuing problems with fuzzy math (read it here and here). They seem to have problems with numbers in just about every department and frankly if the 11th floor claimed that there were 24 hours in a day, we'd ask to see a clock. Now they seem to be tailoring reports to specific councilor's sensibilities (or lack thereof).

Monday, the Albuquerque Journal reported that a four page report - meant to justify the mayor's shakeup over at Animal Control and convince the council to release some $4 MILLION in funding that had been frozen in response to the shakeup - had been tailored in an effort to please one councilor.

The administration's initial four-page report was cut in half at the request of Councilor Sally Mayer. The final document failed to include criticism of the old animal-care leadership team— information the administration had included to bolster its case for hiring a new director.

In an interview last week, Mayer, who supported the previous leadership, said the parts she objected to were misleading.

"I said, 'This is insulting,' '' Mayer said. "It was a big spin campaign."

-ABQ Journal Subscription

The Mayer didn't like the idea that the administration's report included information that was less than flattering to the previous manager and her staff. First of all, we don't know what the heck Ed Adams was doing having a councilor approve a report to council. Second, the thing was four whole pages?! If your average mid-schooler showed up with a book report of four pages they'd probably be spending more time in mid-school than they'd like (except at APS but that's another story).

Remember, this report was supposed to justify the major shakeup over at animal control and almost half of the original report was characterized by The Mayer as "spin." So... the council takes definitive action freezing $4 MILLION and demands an accounting of the administration's actions and Mayor Chavez's team comes up with four pages. That's $1 MILLION per page - $2 MILLION per page for the submitted report. Apparently, even the councilors noted the lack of report in the report.

City councilors seemed surprised recently when the administration presented a two-page report on plans to improve animal care.

"This is the report?" two councilors asked during a November meeting, sounding surprised and disappointed.

- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

We've been baffled by this whole shakeup thing and suspicious of the apparent rift between The Mayer and the mayor from the very beginning. It almost seemed to be a fight over who was going to take credit for making Albuquerque a live exit city.

From the numbers we saw the shelter was making substantial gains before the shakeup. After the shakeup the new director claims credit and follows up by inflating numbers at an adopt-a-thon that was by all accounts successful without the fuzzy fib.

There really doesn't seem to be any justification for what the mayor did when he sacked the previous management and even less justification for what The Mayer did afterwards. Why lead the charge to freeze money for Animal Control only to accept a substandard report as justification as long as it didn't speak ill of the people that it was supposed to justify replacing?

Yeah, we know... bizarre doesn't even begin to describe recent events.

Fuzzy Math

We've seen it in the past - the Chavez administration inflating the success of the scam-era program (read it here) and flat out lying about the number of sworn police officers over at APD (read it here). We saw it just today - the Chavez administration caught once again "overstating" the numbers when it comes to claims of progress in reducing Albuquerque's carbon emissions (ABQ Journal - Subscription).

(Sidebar)
Lest you believe that we are buying into the whole man made global warming political scare movement - we're not. While temperatures may be on the rise, we're not ready to turn over the keys to our economic engine to a bunch of scientists and zealots whose consensus is that man is responsible for rises in global temperatures. Twenty-five years ago a similar group believed that we were headed into another ice age. There's a huuuuge difference between scientific consensus and scientific fact.
(End Sidebar)

While the Journal managed to expose the Almighty Alcaldes's greenhouse gas, they've been gobbling up stories about Albuquerque's Animal Control fed to them by former Journal reporter and current $70,000 a year Marty Man, Jim Ludwig.

(Sidebar)
This is a case where The Almighty Marty took a page from Big Bill's playbook. Hiring a former reporter allows him to shape public opinion by getting favorable stories into the mainstream media and mitigate damaging stories when they occur. It's sheer genius on the part of the politician but MSM consumers have to remember that it creates a cozy if not obvious relationship between the media outlets and the politicians that the former reporters now represent.
(End Sidebar)

Let's take a look at the first of three stories recently run by Jim Ludwig's former co-workers. In the December 13th story "Good News for Critters" by Dan McKay (Subscription), the administration makes incredible claims that live exits from shelters are up 14% and euthanasia is down 19%. The Eyes have it that while the shelter has made gains, the numbers are no where near 14% and 19%. In fact, the numbers we've seen are live exit increase of 9% ('07 LE 44%/'08 LE 53%) and a euthanasia decrease of 9% ('07 EUTH 56%/'08 EUTH 47%) over the same September - October - November time period.

What's more interesting is that Chavez and crew are claiming that these gains are due to Marty's creation of a director's level position over at Animal Control. Back in September, The Almighty One fired (or more precisely, reassigned) former Animal Control supervisor Denise Wilcox replacing her with Jeanine Patterson; whose background is nursing not animal husbandry. McKay's article claims that these gains are since September, but in reality the numbers for July and August are almost identical to those from September through November meaning Marty's change had nothing to do with the improvements.

The second story by D'Val Westphal (a bit of a Marty-phite herself) entitled "City's Toasting Animal Welfare Revamp This Year," makes another set of claims that don't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

Four months ago, Mayor Martin Chávez ordered a shakeup of what was then Animal Services. He says when he learned almost 1,500 healthy animals got sick in the shelters this year and ended up being euthanized and disposed of like so much garbage, he had to do something major.

- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

Here's the problem... The claim that 1,500 animals that "became sick while in the shelter" is disputed by our Eyes. They claim that only 382 healthy dogs became sick while in the shelter. Now... we know that we didn't mention cats but even if a plague of biblical proportions hit the shelter we have a hard time buying that 1,118 cats or other animals made up the difference.

Moving on to the final PR piece dutifully placed by Jim Ludwig and printed by the Journal "Animal Shelters are Empty".

For the first time in their history, the city of Albuquerque's east- and west-side shelters have no animals available for adoption— all found homes at a weekend event.

More than 500 dogs and cats were adopted at Home 4 the Holidays, held Friday, Saturday and Sunday in a parking lot at Cottonwood Mall, said Mike Davis, communications director of Watermelon Mountain Ranch, a no-kill shelter in Rio Rancho that was one of several sponsors.

-ABQ Journal (Subscription)

This according to our Eyes was the most egregious exaggeration of all. Our Eyes tell us that the adopt-a-thon was held December 21st through the 23rd and that a few days after the event 67 dogs and 55 cats were still available before December 24th. Further, the Eyes have it that while the press was treated to visuals of an empty kennel in building A, the animals were moved into the other two kennel buildings in order to create the illusion of an empty kennel for a media eager to see our beloved dogs and cats placed in happy homes.

Frankly, we'd love to see every healthy animal that doesn't pose a danger to society placed in happy homes too. However, it's more important to us that the city and the Chavez administration tell us the truth - regardless of how it affects their political future.

One thing that we are able to confirm is that Animal Control (yes... we know the benevolent Marty calls it Animal Welfare, a marketing move if we've ever seen one) seems to be in chaos. Despite the recent mending of the rift between The Mayer (Councilor Mayer) and the mayor, nothing seems to have substantively improved since The Almighty One took complete control (and credit) of the now Animal Welfare Department. In fact, there are currently a number of law suits filed against the city that seem to indicate that at the very least, things aren't as rosy in the kennels as The Almighty Alcalde would have us believe.

More importantly, it's hard to believe that the administration is telling us anything resembling the truth when it comes to any kind of statistical data. Claims of red light scam-eras reducing accidents - not true. The claim of almost 1,100 APD officers - not true. Claims of the City of Albuquerque reducing its greenhouse gas emissions - not true. Now it seems that our furry friends are being used to make us believe we are not only a greener Albuquerque but a kinder, gentler one as well.

The folks on the 11th floor and the one who leads them are giving us the best argument that we can think of for term limits. The more entrenched mayors are, the more likely they are to bend, break, and/or ignore the rules. Even when they're not taking liberties with legal and ethical standards, they're busy using their own version of fuzzy math; hoping that no one will notice that their claims cannot be supported by hard statistical data. When challenged, they simply claim that was an unintentional error and act like it never happened.

A few things to remember... This is the mayor that brought us the ABQ PAC scandal - yet, we re-elected him. This is the mayor that brought us the evidence room scandal - yet, we re-elected him. This is the mayor that wants to strike down term limits for himself. The question is if he is successful, are we foolish enough to put the reigns of power back in his scandal-covered hands and are we willing to continue to accept his fuzzy math?

Just When You Thought It Couldn't Get Any Weirder...

All you have to do is take a gander at today's Albuquerque Tribune to know how weird Albuquerque politics is becoming. Right there on the front page above the fold in front of God and everyone is the War of the Roses (or Chavez's) and the K-Mart Councilor.

Just yesterday we were busy beating-up Councilor Mayer for her actions and claims regarding the City Council Presidency. Today, we find out that she's taken a second job at K-Mart helping customers and straightening the deodorant (almost makes her a sniff test expert).

Since the week before Thanksgiving, the 57-year-old Mayer has been working five days a week at $7 an hour — 25 cents more than the city-mandated minimum wage she twice voted against.

- ABQ Tribune

We really don't know whether to laugh or cry. Apparently, the councilor needs some holiday cash in order to make ends meet. No one should be ashamed of making an honest wage at a retail store part-time or otherwise even if you are a sitting city councilor. Frankly, we're glad to see that despite her modest K-Mart income she's standing by her principles even if we disagree with a number of them.

Still, if she could go back in time she wouldn't change her previous votes against raising the wage locally.

Then and now she protests the use of the term living wage, a phrase she feels is disingenuous, believing that raising the wage a few dollars does little to make low pay livable.

"I object more to it now. It is a minimum wage," she said. "There are lots of people here who have two jobs."

- ABQ Tribune

If the K-Mart Councilor weren't enough, Mayor Marty and ex-wife Margaret look like they may be heading for a fight- this time at the ballot box. Margaret Aragon de Chavez announced yesterday that she plans to form an exploratory committee next spring to evaluate the idea of whether or not to run for her ex-husband's job (ABQ Tribune).

Of course Marty, would have to get past the under-card bout in court to overturn the city's mayoral term limits, but most people seem to see the effort as a mere formality as the council's term limits have already been overturned.

We can hear announcer now... "In the red light corner - the three term mayor fresh off his term-limit victory - Martin The Almighty Alcalde Chavez!! In the blue corner - the challenger and one time Albuquerque First Lady - the woman with the goods and a serious chip on her shoulder - Margaret Aragon de Chavez!! This is a fifteen month fight where hitting below the belt is mandatory sooooo... LET'S GET RRRREADY TO RRRRUMBLE!!!!!!!"

And we thought that next year's election brouhaha was going to be entertaining. Could it get any weirder than this?

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.

A Step in the Right Direction?

If you've read any of our red light scam-era posts you know that one of our chief concerns with Marty's scam-eras is the lack of due process that is inherent in the program. Last Monday, Councilor Brad Winter introduced a bill to create an Independent Office of Hearings (O-07-81); which in true City Council fashion, was substituted and postponed until August 20th.

A review of the proposed ordinance (before the substitute) reveals that Councilor Winter understands the due process problem that we've been talking about, at least as far as the separation of interests and the appearance of conflict of interest. The basic idea is to create an appointed position of Chief Hearing Officer, who would be selected by the mayor and approved by the council. He would be responsible for hiring all of the hearing officers in the department. The Chief Hearing Officer could only be removed for "malfeasance" or "misfeasance."

(Sidebar)
Perhaps Councilor Harris would like to apply for the job after October. Although there seems to be mounting evidence that Mr. Harris might qualify for removal on those terms as well.
(End Sidebar)

Councilor Winter's approach seems to fix the problem of the Almighty Mayor having influence over hearing officers however; it doesn't address all of the problems associated with receiving a fair hearing. The most obvious problem is that the accused is denied the ability to present a viable defense, particularly in the case of speeding violations.

In the State of New Mexico it is required that misdemeanor charges such as speeding are witnessed by a sworn law enforcement official. The creation of a parallel civil justice system by the City of Albuquerque circumvents this requirement.

You are probably thinking... so what? We've all seen someone hauling @%$ down the street and thought where's a police officer when you need one?! There's certainly a crime and a witness; but for the pesky state law that requires an officer to witness the crime that jerk would be doin' time. Ok... maybe not a trip to the big house, but at least their wallet would be a little lighter.

Remember, running red lights and even speeding are considered petty misdemeanors. The requirement that a law enforcement official witness this type of crime protects everyone from being the victim of harassment on a regular basis. Without it, anyone with an axe to grind could make an accusation against anyone they dislike without regard to the allegations validity. Further, these accusations wouldn't be known by the accused until well after the alleged crime.

We don't know about you, but we drive the Eye Mobile down a lot of roads with a lot of different speed limits and go through a lot of different intersections. We can't specifically remember ANY of them from today, much less a few days ago. If some miscreant decided that they wanted to see us punished for something, anything we'd be an easy target because, while we make every attempt to obey all traffic laws, we can't tell you the exact speed limit on every street, or tell you for sure that we haven't accidentally run a red light in the last few days.

Mayor Marty and his minions over at RedFlex count on this, in fact they even go so far as to limit the defenses that you have to just three.

1. The vehicle was stolen or otherwise being driven without your knowledge or permission at the time of the violation. You must have a police report or other reliable evidence to avail yourself of this defense.
2. The ownership of the vehicle had lawfully been transferred and conveyed from you to another person before the time of the violation. To assert this defense, you must identify the transferee and provide proof of conveyance.
3. The evidence does not show that a violation was committed involving the subject vehicle.

- City of Albuquerque Notice of Violation

In other words, if your vehicle has not been stolen or sold to someone else, you have to rely upon the evidence provided by the prosecution (the city and RedFlex) to prove your innocence because you have been denied the opportunity to gather independent evidence by the fact that most drivers don't know about the "violation" until at least 10 days after it occurs.

Don't get us wrong, we're not criticizing the councilor's attempt to do something to fix the program it's more than anyone else has done thus far. In fact The Mayer (Councilor Mayer) withdrew her proposal O-07-87, that would have lowered fines before it was heard Monday. Of course that would be like putting lipstick on pig, but she didn't even have the courage to follow through on that miniscule attempt to make the scam-eras more palatable.

A step in the right direction... maybe. But we're still of the opinion that the scam-eras and their accompanying quasi judicial system have got to go. Until drivers have the opportunity to know they've committed a crime at the time of the crime's commission they will continue to have to rely upon the state and their contractors for their defense; both of whom have a direct financial interest in providing evidence that the "violator" is guilty. The scam-eras aren't justice, they don't even improve safety... it's time that the Almighty One and the council admit that they screwed up instead of continuing to screw the public.

Not a Crime After All

By now everyone knows that most counties and the state itself face jail overcrowding problems. With the state's population growth of about 117 people a day, which according to UNM's Bureau of Business and Economic Research places New Mexico's population over 2,000,000 (ABQ Journal - Subscription), it's no surprise that our jails are full almost before they open. Bernalillo County's Metropolitan Detention Center is the perfect example.

In 2004, the average inmate population at the west side jail was around 2,000 on any given day (ABQ Journal - Subscription). According to jail officials the jail is now running at 122% of capacity or around 2,440 inmates. To us that means that the police are doing their jobs. By putting criminals in jail they protect the rest of us... end of story.

Unfortunately judges have traditionally taken a dim view of jails that are overcrowded. That's understandable to a certain point, but jails and prisons shouldn't be country clubs either. In our opinion, they should be a place that guests should want to do just about anything to stay out of. But we digress...

The result is that county officials are caught between population growth, the state who won't take charge of prisoners unless they serve over 364 days, judges who often gerrymander sentences to keep offenders out of the state "big house," and rising health care costs that the county is responsible to provide its inmates.

In typical bureaucratic fashion, the solution being proposed is not to build more jails to keep the rest of us safe, but to change what is actually a crime in to a "civil" offense (ABQ Tribune). We agree with former Chief Metro Court Judge William Lang when he says, "It never made sense to me that someone who didn't get their dog neutered ended up in jail." (With the possible exception of The Mayer's (a.k.a. Sally Mayer) HEART ordinance, which should have landed her in jail.)

Unfortunately when a law is decriminalized like say uh... running red lights, due process rights go out the window along with an impartial judge. The accused stands in front of an administrative lackey who presumes you are guilty. (Reminds us of the old joke... "We'll give you a first class trial, followed by a right proper hangin.'") Cities and Counties LOVE the idea because along with (allegedly) solving their overcrowding issues they get to keep all of the money.

The Mayer proposed just this type of decriminalization last year. Thankfully the idea was euthanized this past May. However, today's Tribune story threatens to revive the idea under the banner of relieving overcrowding. Bernalillo County's Public Safety Director John Dantis is in favor of the idea.

Dantis is pushing the traffic tickets measure as a way for at least 3,600 people a year to avoid jail for minor traffic offenses, including improper lane changes, failing to yield, some speeding violations and not paying tickets or not showing up in court for such offenses.

- ABQ Tribune

Like guilt, sentencing on minor offenses should be determined by a judge. Legislatures should determine sentencing guidelines that fit the nature of the crime and take in to consideration the danger posed by the offender to the general public. In other words, jail time should continue to be an option for judges, which means that the offenses must continue to be criminal in nature. Further, it is imperative that the accused be tried before an impartial third party... a judge that is not employed by the same party as the prosecution.

If the Legislature wishes to act to reduce sentences for those proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to reduce jail overcrowding, let them risk the ire of their collective constituents. It simply makes no sense to find out that all of those criminal acts that people have been prosecuted for in the past aren't crimes after all, just so we can reduce inmate population and make a little additional money on the side.

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.