Nothing New - Nothing Much

Yesterday's candidate forum held during the monthly NAIOP luncheon featured all but one of the candidates (Sticky Fingers Garduño), the beleaguered Don Harris, and all the buzz words you could stomach. In fact, we now believe that the word "stakeholders" should be removed from political discourse. Blogger Mario Burgos has a pretty good description of a forum that at times seemed interminable (read it here).

Only one candidate distinguished herself in the hour long forum, the soon to be councilor from district 8 Trudy Jones; who was certainly playing on her home field and doesn't face an opponent in the seat being vacated by Craig Loy. Ms. Jones cut through the rhetoric and pointed out that many problems like affordable housing are actually caused through "hidden taxes" and attempts at "social engineering" (ABQ Journal - Subscription).

Surprisingly, Councilor Harris from district 9 was given a seat at the forum and addressed all of the questions that the other candidates were asked to answer. In his closing remarks, he spent a great deal of time bashing the Almighty Mayor and complaining that should he be recalled, the mayor would appoint his replacement. A strategy that left us scratching our head, as this group hasn't had the warmest of relations with Councilor Harris but has generally worked well with the Almighty One.

The Honey Bee (de'Pascal) made a smart strategic move during her closing statement addressing her divorce and her BS BS and MBA. Her argument is that she has been the victim of terrible attacks and that she can take the heat. The problem is she didn't do a thing to address the civil charge of embezzling $60,000 and her more recent attempt to pass off fraudulent degrees from the diploma mill Almeda University on an unwary electorate. If you haven't figured it out by now Ms. de'Pascal has problems with the truth, more specifically being truthful. Her performance at this particular event was credible, but it was just that - a performance.

Not surprisingly, most of the candidates made sacrifices on the altars of density, public transportation, affordable housing, impact fees, and "green" development. The sitting councilors generally defended the current council claiming that they were getting things done, while the challengers deplored the council's acrimony toward the Almighty Mayor and each other.

In the end, there was nothing new here (with the exception of soon-to-be Councilor Jones). The candidates generally parroted different formulations of the same answers, particularly the candidates from district 6. We wonder if this is an unintended consequence of public financing - vanilla candidates with vanilla ideas. They never had to face challenges to their ideas from potential donors so their answers to questions tended to sound uninformed or cliché. If this is what we have to look forward to in future elections, we've got nothing much to look forward to.

Eye Poll: Surprising Results

This week's Eye Poll double header featured the four way race in district 6 and the district 4 re-poll. In district 4 the results (which we believed were suspect the first time) showed a narrowing of the gap between incumbent Councilor Winter and challenger de'Pascal. However with 111 fewer participants due to more stringent voting rules, de'Pascal still ended up with an 8 point advantage with 54% to Winter's 46% (view the results here).

We always stress that this is an unscientific poll and we believe the increased voting security is at least partially responsible for the change in the poll results. One way or the other the Eye Poll shows a determination by the de'Pascal camp to get out their voters at least for the Eye Poll. It remains to be seen whether or not they will be able to muster enough votes on election day and during early voting which is now in progress.

Our featured Eye Poll took a look at the vacant seat of Councilor Martin Heinrich, district 6. This is a four way race between Rey Garduno (D), Joan Griffin (M), Blair Kauffman (D), and Kevin Wilson (R). Martycrat Joan Griffin took this one with 41% of the vote, Kevin Wilson was surprisingly strong with pulling 37%, Rey Garduno thought to be the odds on favorite only got 19% of the vote, and Blair Kauffman rounded out the group with 3% (view the results here).

Our unscientific poll showed surprising strength from Republican Kevin Wilson. He seems to have run a fairly high profile campaign, at least from the outside. It will be interesting to see whether the 2 Democrats and the Martycrat (registered as a D) end up splitting the vote enough to allow Mr. Wilson to slide into the seat.

This week we take a look at the last two candidates who are running for the district 2 council seat. Incumbent Council President is the odds on favorite, but it will be interesting to see what effect the Almighty Mayor's endorsement will have on the Martinez campaign; especially in light of the mayor's recent media problems. Don't forget to vote!

More than Skeletons

The Albuquerque Journal ran a story (Subscription) today that we told you about last night (read it here), district 4's Honey Bee (or more accurately Honey BS) decided it would be a good idea to claim that she had both a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree from Almeda University. Ms. de'Pascal's claims sure made her educational experience more of a match for her opponent Councilor Brad Winter, who holds both a Master's Degree and a Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico.

As you already know, Almeda University is a diploma mill, so the Honey Bee's B.S. is just that and might as well have been made a Kinko's. In today's Journal she responded saying, "you show me someone who doesn't have skeletons in their closet. That person is a saint... (ABQ Journal - Subscription)"

Well, no one is accusing her of being a saint and we've found precious few candidates or elected officials who are. The problem is Ms. de'Pascal's skeletons just keep falling out of her closet and have a direct bearing on whether or not she can be trusted by those she seeks to represent.

Another skeleton just happened drop out right in front of our Eyes. According to our Eyes, Ms. de'Pascal's questionnaire was filled out by none other than Captain Payne himself, with the help of Karen Fisher. We've heard for years how city officials have often crossed the line when it comes to elections; sometimes innocently other times not. Our understanding is that these questions were answered downtown on a city computer. Can we prove it... no, but if The Captain and any crew on the city payroll are campaigning on city time using city equipment, we've got a real problem.

According to the Journal, degrees from Almeda University cost anywhere from $500 to $1,500. We wonder, when did she get these bogus degrees and who paid for them? Is this yet another example of candidates using "clean" money?

Ms. de'Pascal's educational qualifications were never an issue until she decided to try and pass off bogus degrees from an unaccredited university as genuine. This is not an example of a "skeleton" in a closet but rather the conscious effort to deceive, right here, right now.

Cruising with More BS than MBA

We both love and hate the Albuquerque Journal Candidate Questionnaires. They usually consist of eight or so questions about district issues followed by the obligatory "gotcha" questions that the Pope himself wouldn't want to answer without fibbing a little. The most amusing question is always held for last - the mea culpa question for candidates and incumbents.

Have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of drunken driving, any misdemeanor or any felony in New Mexico or any other state?

- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

The question is soooo broad that if you've got a pulse and are above the age of 18, you've got to answer "yes" or you've been living in a convent all of your life. Remember, traffic tickets are misdemeanors and even if you are found not guilty of a traffic violation, you have still been "charged with" a misdemeanor. Apparently, Honey Bee de'Pascal has been living in the afore mentioned convent because she answered "no," but we digress.

The questionnaire also contains some other information like party affiliation, place of residence, age, occupation, family, political/government experience, and education. When asked about her education The Honey Bee buzzed out the following:

St. Joseph HS, N.Y., TVI Certified Nursing Assistant Program; TVI LPN Program, American Academy of Dramatic Arts, CA., NM Real Estate Institute, BS, MBA, Almeda University, ID, Continuing Education for Real Estate every three years.

- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

It's the B.S. and M.B.A. stuff that caught our attention. Our Eyes told us that Ms. de'Pascal didn't have a collegiate level degree, so the B.S. and M.B.A. from Almeda University really grabbed our attention.

After a little digging (about 2 seconds really) we found out that Almeda University is what is commonly known as a diploma mill.

Almeda University is an unaccredited American diploma mill that offers an MBA program through online courses, a "Life Experience Degree" and an online certificate program. Almeda University was founded in 1997.^[1]

Almeda is not accredited by any recognized accreditation body. As such its degrees are not acceptable to any employers or other institutions and the use of its degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.

- Wikipedia

We didn't just take Wikipedia's word for it; we found another site by the U.S. Department of Education that allows users to check college accreditation. You guessed it... no Almeda University.

Did Ms. de'Pascal lie on her Journal Questionnaire? Probably not; she more than likely holds these two degrees that according to Wired.com and Wikipedia are really more BS than anything else. The problem is that her degrees are not even legal in some jurisdictions and claiming them in her campaign is just one more attempt to embezzle the votes of district 4 voters.

In our opinion this is a far more egregious act than Sticky Fingers Garduño's larceny. Claiming degrees from an unaccredited university is an intentional act designed to fool the voters into believing she has recognized credentials that she has not earned; for the sole purpose of winning an election. The Honey Bee's supporters might want to start asking themselves if they really know anything about the person they support.

The good news is that in the next few days you will have to start referring to us as Dr. Eye (Courtesy of Almeda University). The bad news for the de'Pascal Pleasure Cruise, Captain Payne, the Almighty Marty, and the Honey Bee herself is that her degrees aren't worth the paper that they're printed on... or for that matter the one that they're printed in.

Eye Poll: Love for the Honey Bee

Last week's Eye Poll caught us by surprise early in the week as challenger Paulette de'Pascal opened up a 20 point lead over incumbent Brad Winter in an Eye Poll that saw even more votes (468) than the mayoral job approval poll (465) that we ran back in June. Since the numbers seemed strange, we started to look at our site statistics and found not only unusually high traffic, but large numbers of visitors coming from City of Albuquerque IP addresses.

We started to suspect that Captain Payne had set his course on pushing the Eye Poll. It wasn't until later in the week that we received confirmation from a couple of our Eyes that indeed there was a quite effort to push last week's Eye Poll. The push didn't surprise us as it's happened before when the Almighty Mayor himself blasted out an email to his campaign supporters urging them to vote for his approval. His gambit failed by 10 points (view the results here).

What to do? We admit that our Eye Poll is unscientific at best. However, we do want it to represent the opinions of Eye Readers as accurately as possible. So... in order to achieve that goal, we decided to do two things.

First, we changed the security parameters of the poll in order to make it harder for one person to pump up the votes for a specific candidate. Second, we decided to run the district 4 poll again; which seemed only fair in light of last week's push.

So... this week we feature two Eye Polls - a district 6 poll, and a repeat of the district 4 poll. Don't forget to vote!

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.

Petulant Paulette

District 4 council candidate Paulette de'Pascal is out with a mail piece that screams "Bad Brad!" Apparently, she's got her dander up about the revelations coming from the blogs (including this one) and other media outlets. We haven't seen the piece but the Pascal Pleasure Cruise on our dime, made sure that the Tribune got a copy which resulted in a front page story.

You see Ms. de'Pascal (Martycrat) is going through a messy divorce, which frankly isn't news in and of itself. However, when your soon to be (or at least sometime in the future to be) ex-husband is accusing you of embezzling $60,000 you can bet it's going to become an issue in your council race. Right now there has been no finding regarding the accusations against her which makes the divorce in question not only relevant, but an important consideration when choosing a councilor.

(Sidebar)
Martycrat- An ambitious politician that swears allegiance not to their party or their constituents but rather the Almighty Marty, King of the 11th floor, maker of media, and prince of the pedantic. Can be identified by a tendency to switch parties right before elections and will act like Republicans whenever addressing certain development groups. Right now there are three running for office and one likely to be appointed.
(End Sidebar)

After all, we have seen far too many public officials on the take here in New Mexico. Do we really need to elect someone who may be responsible for putting company funds in their own pocket? Honey Bee Paulette is solely responsible for choosing to run in this election, at a time when her actions are still in dispute. For her to try to grab the mantle of victim through a childish mail piece only reminds voters of how foolish she looked after the release of the Sandra Richardson email.

Speaking of Captain Payne, this "Bad Brad" mail piece has his finger prints all over it. It's precisely the type of piece he would come up with to try to put the Honey Bee back in the race. Unfortunately, this one only serves to make his candidate look somewhat childish, while bringing up the issue of her divorce the underlying claims. Folks the divorce ain't the issue, otherwise we'd be talking about her other ones. The issue is her integrity and ability to lead.

Funny Business

We've been watching with some amusement the de'Pascal taxpayer funded pleasure cruise in (sometimes called a campaign) trying to change the subject. Ever since the Honey Bee was stung by The First Mate Sandra Richardson's email, Ms. de'Pascal has been desperately trying to get out of the spotlight. Frankly, we don't blame her. The Richardson email raised some interesting questions about Ms. de'Pascal's ability to lead and her choice of campaign staff.

Her response... call into question Councilor Winter's aspirations at APS. Ms. de'Pascal claims that Winter's expressed interest (ABQ Journal - Subscription) in the top job over at APS proves that he doesn't want the job as councilor. We're curious about the Honey Bee's logic here.

De'Pascal has been running on an education platform since day one. It's one of the things that amused us from the beginning since the Albuquerque City Council has no authority over Albuquerque Public Schools (even though they both have Albuquerque in their names). There are co-operative agreements and programs that the city helps to fund, but APS is a state funded institution that answers to the state legislature not the city council. Perhaps The Captain should explain that she's not running for school board or for the legislature.

Today, Joe Monahan picked up the flag for the Captain and his Honey Bee.

Now comes a de'Pascal supporter returning fire, questioning Winter's recently stated public interest in becoming the new superintendent of the Albuquerque Public Schools. "Does Winter plan on resigning his council seat if he gets the APS job, and which job does he really want--Super or Councilor?" emails a de'Pascal backer.

-JoeMonahan.com

(Sidebar)
Any doubt that Transit Director Payne is involved in de'Pascal's run against Councilor Winter just buzzed away, as Captain Payne is often used by Monahan for political analysis and is known to be one of Monahan's "Alligators." The question raised by Councilor Winter - a question dutifully ignored by local newsrooms - was whether or not Payne was Captaining the de'Pascal Pleasure Cruise on city time.
(End Sidebar)

Ms. de'Pascal's assertion and that of her "backer" is really quite funny. Why would Councilor Winter resign? Mr. Winter already holds the position of Facilities Manager for APS, a position that pays well north of $100,000. (Which incidentally, is more than the mayor makes.) He has already shown the ability to represent district 4 AND hold a high profile position at APS. Even if he were already APS's Superintendent, there would be no conflict of interest. In fact, it might be an advantage to his district and the city for the Superintendent of APS to sit on the city council. Who knows, we might even be able to increase cooperation between the two?

The only one who would be sure to HATE having the APS Superintendent on the city council is none other than one Mayor Martin Chavez. Besides having to deal with the council he would have to compete with the executive officer of another powerful government entity that just so happens to be the one that the Almighty Marty has his heart set on taking over. Now THAT would be REALLY funny business!

Payne-ful (of it) Response

Not too terribly long ago we saw how the Marty boys and girls respond when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. In light of the way the rest of the Chavez administration reacts when confronted with the truth, it's no surprise how The Captain responded to being confronted with his role in the $35,000 de'Pascal pleasure cruise.

Blogger Mario Burgos got a response from Captain Payne on his involvement in the de'Pascal campaign. Like "Linda" (CFO Gail Reese's "alter-ego") Payne reiterated his Journal denial (Subscription) of involvement (sort of), but managed to poke yet another hole in de'Pascal's campaign boat and his own credibility.

You see, The Captain claimed that he asked Sandra Richardson to "please forward this to Mike Collins. He'll be consulting Paulette on the campaign." Payne's response actually does two things... First it confirms the authenticity of the email posted on this site. Second, it's abundantly clear from Ms. Richardson's email, that The Captain is none other than Payne himself.

Perhaps Mike Collins is The Captain's Little Buddy? What we do know for sure is...

a. Greg is the only Captain of this ship. He creates the strategy. He decides.
b. I am his First Mate. I report to the Captain. YOU report to ME. Period.
c. You are the candidate. You report to me....NOT "if you get time" between all the "flowers." You MAKE time. I'm not your mother...I'm your coach. This is the PLAN. You want to win? You follow Greg's Plan. Period.

- Sandra Richardson Email

The Captain's Little Buddy (Mike Collins) is not mentioned anywhere in Richardson's email tirade. Payne desperately wants to create the impression that he has nothing to do with this taxpayer funded fiasco. His involvement not only raises ethical questions (Easily gotten around since Sandra Richardson's husband Cliff sits on the ethics board) but exposes the role that Marty is playing in the upcoming election.

Cam-Payne de'Pascal

Any doubt that the Almighty Mayor himself is behind the de'Pascal candidacy has all but vanished. It looks like team Marty is trying to knock off a political rival and hide his involvement by sending in Transportation Director Greg Payne to "captain" Paulette de'Pascal's District 4 pleasure cruise for councilor.

In addition, the Eyes have it that Director Payne is doing his dirty work on our dime. (Of course that's not really any different than Ms. de'Pascal running her campaign on our $35,000... but we digress.) The following email was forwarded to us and it appears to be laying down the law to "honey bee" candidate Paulette de'Pascal.

From: "Sandra P. Richardson"
Date: July 14, 2007 7:39:55 AM MDT
To: greg@gregpayne.com
Cc: "Sandra P. Richardson" Subject: Paulette, THE PLAN and the structure

While you ask for structure, you resist it like a honey bee, flitting from person to person, seeking their advice and opinion...wearing yourself and us out. Not a winning strategy in any political campaign...especially this one. Hard to be the candidate and not the consultant, isn't it?

Yesterday, I was talking with Greg. We worked out what HE needs YOU to do and I fully support because I trust Greg and know that if you follow this Plan, you WILL win. If you continue to avoid, you can cost yourself the election.

Here's the structure we're committed to:
1. Greg is THE Captain of the team. He's the ONLY person to whom you seek political advice. He's THE strategist...period. (He's "gold" for this campaign.)
a. Do NOT undermine his efforts by being a "honey bee." Frustrating for him, frustrating for me, frustrating for you.
b. Everyone else is just signature helpers...NOT strategists. If you indulge in the "honey bee," you sacrifice winning...period.
c. "Loose lips sink ships." In this case, being a "honey bee" compromises your campaign. You cannot discuss the elements with anyone else. Period. This is not a tea party, this is WAR. Period.

2. I agree with Greg. I have made a commitment to him and to you. My role is to work with Greg, find out what his game plan is for that period of time and then work with you to make sure you follow. Period.
a. If you have a concern, you tell me so that I can tell Greg. Period. No honey bee.
b. You have to follow this structure to protect Greg and me and yourself. Period.
c. Greg is held ethically to very strict guidelines...he cannot indulge your need to hear from him every day...that's why we've worked out this plan.
d. I'm your coach ,as I committed mid May!! Period. As such, you MAKE time for me, first.

3. THE PLAN-structure:
a. Greg is the only Captain of this ship. He creates the strategy. He decides.
b. I am his First Mate. I report to the Captain. YOU report to ME. Period.
c. You are the candidate. You report to me....NOT "if you get time" between all the "flowers." You MAKE time. I'm not your mother...I'm your coach. This is the PLAN. You want to win? You follow Greg's Plan. Period.
d. Caleb is the manager of compliance and your schedule. He does NOT take a trip or day off to play without checking The Book first, assuring that nothing is due. He let's me know if and when he leaves...and assures ME that nothing is due. Period. He earns the money funded by the pubic. period.
e. EVERYONE else is a helper ONLY for door-to-door.

4. . Everyone else, EVERYONE else is NOT for you to discuss any strategy...you cannot indulge or you will sink your candidacy and us along with it!
a. They help with going door to door. Period.
b. They are NOT the ones you turn to for "What should I do."
1) Tony, et al, help you by walking door to door...period. He is NOT your strategist...he works for Greg in this campaign. He is not the "go-to” guy.
2) Eddie is NOT. You do NOT discuss stuff with him. He keeps you company on the door-to-door, Talk about other stuff. "Loose lips..."
3) Not your old buddies, relatives, especially girlfriends.
4) Not other candidates. This is not 8th grade.
5). NO one, nada, nil.

5. THE PLAN-Per Greg, this is what you focus on...and only this:
a. Keep walking getting signatures...lots and lots of signatures. that’s ALL.
b. You do not need to do anything else unless it falls under "compliance."
6. Caleb, as the publically paid person, has the responsibility to organize the paperwork from the City Clerk's Office and be responsible for your compliance with the rules.
a. As promised, I will coordinate with him...not you.
b. He will inform you when and what you need to do and you will comply with whatever the paperwork says.

c. He can always check with Kelli on your behalf...you. do NOT.
d. as the paid manager, he does not take off unless he let's me know that all is okay, nothing is due. He tells me.

5. Caleb will maintain your calendar...you do NOT schedule without clearing with him...remember, "I have to check with my manager."
a. Real easy to do.
b. You cannot "try,"
c. You have to make that commitment to the campaign.
d. You make that commitment to those of us who are working (Greg, Caleb, me) for your success.
You wanted structure...I've been trying for several months to bring you structure with a little success but there's still too much frustration for all.
You owe your campaign the commitment to follow what Greg and I have the experience to know. YOU WOULD DEMAND THIS OF YOUR OWN CLIENTS!
The only way this campaign will fail is if you do not follow The Plan.. You absolutely must. Or, you're wasting your time and ours.
You have a tendency to bring this to everyone you know, get their input and cherry-pick what you think will work for you. BUT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN THE CANDIDATE. You are not objective and the people you ask are not experts nor do they know the District 4 political scene nor will they have to "pick up the pieces" if this campaign "goes South."
No more 8th grade stuff. This is serious...for Greg, for me and for you. We all have a great deal at stake. You absolutely need to put your candidacy in Greg's hands. You have to trust him...
He's won every campaign. He's savvy and experienced and believes strongly in you...as do I. BUT, Paulette, you can be your own worse enemy. When you're unsure, you indulge in the "honey bee" syndrome, trying to get a secure feeling inside.
Campaigning takes personal discipline. Do what you do best: get signatures.. Can you imagine if you had 5,000 signatures what the impact would be on your campaign???
So, focus on just one thing: getting signatures...get to know as many constituents as you possibly can. You do this so well. Capitalize on your strength. Only you can do this part well.
Make time, first, for me to coach you on the background for issues that you will need at debate and forum time.
I expect your compliance to Greg's plan. Greg expects your compliance to his Plan.
Starting now...

As you can see, the $35,000 de'Pascal pleasure cruise has already sprung a serious leak and the "First Mate" is clearly irked with passenger de'Pascal for her lack of discipline. More telling is that "Captain" Payne is clearly setting the course; a course that meets with the approval of the 11th floor.

The "Captain" denied his involvement in the de'Pascal candidacy just today (ABQ Journal - Subscription) saying that he had been approached but he didn't have the "time or energy to get involved." Ms. de'Pascal claims that Payne "is not affiliated with my campaign in any way." Rrrrriiight.

Mayoral involvement in a campaign is nothing new, particularly when knocking-off a rival and replacing them with a handpicked successor; one that will help you advance your own agenda (pandas, trolleys, arenas, red light scam-eras, the take-over of APS, etc.).

Transit Director Payne is known for running effective and particularly brutal campaigns, traditionally for Republicans. Our Eyes tell us that he's managed to alienate a large number of the party faithful over the years, so registering with the Party of Marty comes as no surprise.

However, the involvement of a top Chavez administration official that makes over $100,000 a year of taxpayer money looks pretty bad. Payne has every right to work on any campaign he chooses on his own time, but his denials of involvement in the de'Pascal effort ring hollow in light of the above "honey bee" email. Further, Mr. Payne either needs to be up front about his (and the mayor's) involvement and do it above board, or he needs to disassociate himself from the campaign and prove that he's done so.

The Missing Piece of the Puzzle

How do you really get to know a candidate? One way is to go to a website (Rey Garduño, Paulette de'Pascall, Brad Winter, Debbie O'Malley). Now that you're back... how much do you really know about the candidates or the incumbents?

You could also go to candidate forums, read campaign literature, surf the net and read blogs like this one, follow them through the mainstream media, or perhaps you'll be lucky enough to meet one of the candidates on your very own doorstep. If you manage to check each of the above sources of information off your list... now how much do you really know?

Each of the above items is a piece of the puzzle. When combined, they can form a picture of a candidate or an elected official. However, there's still one important piece missing; one that cannot be spun, suited to individuals or situations, and although it's often tried, this piece can't be denied (even if you forget to hit the "finalize" button). The all important piece, the one that not only completes the puzzle but brings it into absolute focus is the one that shows who a candidate associates with.

In today's Tribune there's a story about a group called the Committee for Responsible Budgets who ran ads attacking Councilors Winter and Harris over the most recent council / mayoral spat that had to do with the budget and $9 MILLION for the Westside Metropolitan Detention Center. Turns out three of the group's backers can be tied directly to the Almighty Mayor himself.

That story and its implications can not be written about any of the 5 candidates taking taxpayer money to further their political ambitions; not because they're not backed by special interest, but because those interests can remain unknown. A giant piece of their ideological picture can remain missing. What do they really stand for? Are they really telling you the truth in their campaign literature or when they're standing on your doorstep?

Our Eyes tell us that Transit Director Greg Payne has been spending time with Paulette de'Pascal. Some say that the mayor himself recruited her to run against his council rival Brad Winter. If we had a contributor list to look at we could make comparisons. If her contributors are the same people that donated to the mayor, then we'd know a lot about how she'd vote if elected.

Rey Garduño, running for the District 6 seat vacated by Martin Heinrich... Besides using a taxpayer funded email and being an advocate for "clean" elections, what else does he stand for? And what special interest group (if any) has encouraged him to run?

The Albuquerque Open and UN-Ethical Elections ordinance has created a veil of secrecy that surrounds these candidates. Who do they associate with? What do they really believe? Frankly, a candidate that's freed from their associations can tell voters whatever the voters want to hear because there's no record of a contradiction based on association to compare their statements with.

Matt Brix from Common Cause is a frequent poster here on Eye On Albuquerque, particularly when we talk about taxpayer financing of elections. He's eloquent and makes good arguments for taxpayer financing. Further, we're going give him credit for genuinely wanting to make elections more accessible. However (you knew this was coming), his advocated system of "clean" elections doesn't take money out of politics, it takes money out of our pockets while allowing candidates to hide their true colors; both are fundamentally wrong.

Every piece of a candidate's picture is important. Who a candidate's supporters are is probably MORE important to judging a candidate and their character, than any other piece of the puzzle. We don't have a problem with contribution limits and we believe that contributions should be made public, but forcing a group of people to fund another's political ambition is wrong. Obfuscating their supporters and their true objectives is undeniably dangerous.

Eye Told You: Sour Apples

It seemed like the electrons hadn't dried on our last taxpayer financing of municipal elections post before the poster child for why we shouldn't use taxpayer money to fund elections went out and bought herself a $3,000 apple (hat tip: Joe Monahan). According to Paulette de'Pascal's most recent campaign expenditure report, the District 4 council candidate purchased a $2,990.26 computer from the Apple Store at ABQ Uptown.

According to Monahan, Ms. de'Pascal cleared the purchase with the city attorney's office. The fact is, like it or not the purchase of a computer even a $3,000 computer is allowed by the Albuquerque Open and UN-Ethical Elections ordinance.

8. Communication Systems Purchase or lease of computers, telephone systems and other related communication devices used in campaign activities.

- Albuquerque Open and Ethical Elections Ordinance

To our knowledge, the ordinance does not address the disposition of purchased items after their use in a campaign. Besides, who would want some of the crap produced by campaigns for unsuccessful candidates (or for successful ones for that matter)?

Meanwhile over at one of the other "clean" campaigns, Rey Garduño's defending his decision to use his UNM email for campaign purposes. First of all, it's clearly unethical and according to the Journal article (Subscription) campaigning using university supplies or equipment is not allowed by UNM. Get ready for Garduño's defense... he's not a university employee because he's retired.

That's got to be the dumbest excuse we've heard in a long time. Along with the other retirement benefits that he may be receiving he's receiving a free email account from the university. Since the University of New Mexico is a state institution, it receives large amounts of tax dollars. In fact, UNM depends on tax money to stay open. That email account is no different than a pencil, or paper, postage, our tax dollars purchased the computer that hosts it, pays for the salaries of the people who maintain it, and the connection to the Internet that allows Mr. Garduño to access it.

That's the simple reason that regular employees of cities, states, and state universities are not allowed to campaign using their computers or email accounts. Retired or not, it's clearly unethical even if it's not specifically disallowed. Not to mention, there are more than enough email providers like yahoo or gmail that would provide a FREE account. Plus, since the Albuquerque Open and UN-Ethical Elections ordinance has generously provided $25,902.50 for his campaign he could easily afford a paid email account.

There's more to this little taxpayer funded fiasco. According to Paulette de'Pascal's July 13th campaign expenditure report, in addition to the dubious and legal Apple purchase she gave $400 to the Democratic Party of New Mexico. We'd love to know exactly what type of "expense" she incurred, because it looks an awful lot like a donation to her party.

We would like to believe that the original framers of this "clean" elections bill didn't intend for it to be used to fund political parties. There's something fundamentally wrong and inherently dirty when taxpayer money is given directly to political parties, and we don't care if it's Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or the Nudists for New Mexico party. (Ok... We made that last one up.)

Whether it's an email account, an apple computer, or a donation to the party, it's all taxpayer money being spent for political purposes. The only difference between Rey Garduño's email account and Paulette de'Pascal's Apple computer is that the university recognized that state employees should not be using taxpayer money for their own political ambitions. It's a lesson that we should re-learn here in Albuquerque.

Your Tax Dollars at Play

Wednesday, the Journal ran a story about the Albuquerque Open and Ethical Elections code (ABQ Journal - Subscription). As we told you in June, council candidate Paulette de'Pascal who is running against incumbent councilor Brad Winter, is in the midst of both a bankruptcy and a bitter divorce. (You'd think that now's not the best time to be running for public office.) The thing about the Journal story is that it glossed over the very real problem of public election financing abuse.

In the case of de'Pascal, City Attorney Bob White said her campaign money won't be tied up by the bankruptcy. He said the money was distributed to a campaign account, and her personal bankruptcy should be irrelevant.

ABQ Journal - Subscription

The fact is it doesn't matter whether the money starts out being co-mingled with Ms. de'Pascal's personal finances when she controls the distribution of funds. Take a look at the list of allowable campaign expenditures created by AOEE:

1. Salary or other payment to those providing bona fide services, including
but not limited to consulting, polling, communication and advertising services to
the campaign, provided that such person is compensated at a fair market value.
2. Admissions to sporting events, concerts, theater or other forms of
entertainment for the purpose of conducting campaign activity.
3. Dues, fees, parking or gratuities at a country club, health club or other
recreational facilities where such costs are a part of a specific fundraising event.
4. Purchases of food, beverages and/or supplies used exclusively for a
campaign fund raising event, but not including alcoholic beverage.
5. Minor Cost Items Purchase of clothing or other items of de minimus
value used in the campaign. Clothing shall be a valid campaign expense only
when it has a campaign message as part of the clothing or is used as a uniform
for campaign staff and/or volunteers.
6. Campaign Materials. [See definition in Part A].
7. Compensation to Campaign Staff.
8. Communication Systems Purchase or lease of computers,
telephone systems and other related communication devices used in campaign
activities. [Section 8 (D) (1) – (6)].
9. Campaign headquarters and offices and expenditures related to such
headquarters and offices such as, security deposits, utilities, television reception,
and janitorial services.

-Albuquerque Open and Ethical Elections Code

Pay particular attention to items 1, 7, 8, and 9; salaries, staff, purchase of computers and communications equipment, and even headquarters - all are allowed. We don't know about you, but we can think of at least a half dozen ways to spend the money (generously provided by taxpayers) that are allowable but could have nothing to do with getting elected.

You may remember the stories about how some "victims" of hurricane Katrina decided to use their government issued $2,000 debit cards. Tattoos, Strippers and Louis Vuitton handbags were among the items purchased using our money (WorldNetDaily). There were criminal investigations into the abuses (ABQ Journal - Subscription) that totaled as much as $1.4 BILLION or 16% of the total amount of aid distributed to victims.

The accusations against Ms. de'Pascal include embezzlement; specifically using company money to purchase personal items and jewelry. We don't know for whether she has committed the acts that she is accused of or not. After all, divorces can be a terribly messy business where accusations of improper conduct abound.

The truth is when you give someone money, they don't always spend it in way that you would or even in a ways that you would approve of. It is impossible to govern the funds in order to make sure that they are not used in a way that was not intended. On the other hand, privately funded campaigns are self-governing.

If a candidate uses money for things like say... $400 haircuts, there's a price to pay politically AND a candidate's fundraising will certainly suffer. Certainly there's pressure to make donors happy, but that pressure is balanced by the voters who may object to the association.

Publicly financed candidates can and will find a way to "legally" spend money in ways never intended. Taxpayers will simply continue to pour money into these campaigns as long as their opponents able to raise money in more conventional ways.

The Journal made Ms. de'Pascal look like a victim by noting that "she was granted a domestic protection order" against her estranged husband. Our Eyes tell us that the judge also entered a protection order against her. It's the judicial equivalent of "just stay the heck away from each other."

We don't know who's at fault in the Ziemann - de'Pascal divorce. Frankly we don't care. The situation simply illustrates the dangers associated with this risky public financing scheme. You can be sure that eventually a candidate will abuse the public trust, will squander our money, and it will all take place before we even have a chance to vote for them.

Clean Campaign or Campaign Con?

Back in 2005, voters passed what was supposed to clean up municipal elections here in Albuquerque. This is the first year that the Albuquerque Open and Ethical Elections Code will be in effect for qualifying candidates.

Aspiring councilors will have the opportunity to apply for public financing of their campaigns. That means we will be footing the bill for their campaign staff, mail pieces, signs, and even event tickets. (Read the complete set of regulations here.) Qualifying candidates will receive $1 for every registered voter in the district in which they are running.

One "ethical" candidate would get almost $37,000 of our money to spend pretty much as they choose; and that's just to start. Should a non-participating candidate raise more than the participating candidate we taxpayers will helpfully match their hard work with our money. Matching funds also extend to Measure Finance Committees who campaign against a qualifying candidate by name. Every dollar a committee raises will be matched by us.

You may be sitting there thinking well that sounds fair... after all, how would an "ethical" candidate compete if they could be out spent by candidates and committees with deep pockets and effective fundraisers. Without going into the lunacy of that concept, the whole Open and Ethical Elections Code pre-supposes that candidates receiving taxpayer money are ethical to start with.

Paulette de'Pascal is running against incumbent Councilor Brad Winter for the district 4 council seat. She announced on her blog that she has qualified for public financing of her race against Councilor Winter. We're all paying for her campaign even though most of the people in the city can't vote for her or against her. We're trusting her with our money... even before she's been elected.

That's really where the rub is. You see according to public records, Ms. de'Pascal is right in the middle of a bankruptcy proceeding that cannot be discharged due to civil embezzlement claims. She is also in the middle of a divorce that if court records are any indication, appears to be somewhat messy. In all such cases, information that one might wish to remain private has a way of finding the public; especially when one of the parties involved is running for office.

According to the documents, embezzlement allegations are being pursued by Dr. Ronald Ziemann a local dentist and estranged husband of Ms. de'Pascal. According to court records, Ms. de'Pascal served as Dr. Ziemann's "dental office manager." She was in charge of all receivables, payables, bank accounts, hiring and firing of employees, purchasing, etc. In short, she had control of the money both personally and professionally.

Dr. Ziemann alleges in court documents that Ms. de'Pascal failed to file and pay CRS-1 taxes due to the State of New Mexico resulting in a claim from the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department of $46,000. In addition, Ziemann alleges the Ms. de'Pascal "wrote business checks for the purchase of personal items for herself" amounting to over $60,000.

The court documents are, shall we say extensive. Later allegations include a claim that Ms. de'Pascal "stole another approximately $41,969.32 in cash from the business."

We have to take into account that the case has not yet been fully adjudicated. For all we know the allegations could be false. In fact, we're quite sure that Ms. de'Pascal will deny them.

(Sidebar)
We can't understand why someone would submit themselves to this kind of scrutiny after a messy divorce that included allegations of embezzlement... much less running for public office at a time when court proceedings are still pending. A candidate's dirty laundry will always be hung out for public inspection and there's none dirtier than divorce linen.
(End Sidebar)

With New Mexico's recent history of public corruption, Montoya, Vigil, Aragon - indicted and awaiting trial (Subscription), is it really a good idea to give taxpayer money to people who are not even public officials? There's really nothing stopping an "unethical" candidate from pocketing the money... your money. As with all legislation of this type, it often has the opposite effect from the one intended (See McCain-Feingold). The result, instead of a clean campaign we end up with a campaign con.