We just found out that tanks at the BioPark have been vandalized... again. Back in April a field trip to the BioPark by students from John Adams Middle School left an indelible mark (or two) on the park's tanks (Subscription Required). The vandals were arrested and the city sued to recover $4,000 from each parent/guardian of the minors involved (Subscription Required).
According to our Eyes, the tanks have been struck again. Both the $1 MILLION shark tank and the $30,000 jellyfish tank were vandalized with graphitti and this time the vandals got away clean.
It seems that the security cameras that were installed to protect the tanks have been broken for some time. A fact that was called to the attention of DMD Security Manager Mark Shepherd some time ago.
We would think that Mr. Shepherd the Almighty's former bodyguard and retired APD officer, would have taken steps to remedy the situation after April's incident. After all, since the cameras were not operating, it was sheer luck that the John Adams Middle School vandals were caught.
Jun 8, 2007
Jun 7, 2007
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.
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.
Jun 5, 2007
Officer of the Month?!
Our Eyes just told us that there was a special "Officer of the Month" from the Northeast Area Command for the month of May. What crime fighting skill did this officer (who shall remain nameless) demonstrate with such skill? What sort of villain ended up receiving the fruits of their misdeeds?
Captain Bill Henz decided that the award for "Officer of the Month" should go to an officer whose dedication to making sure that Marty's Scam-eras remain safe (and profitable), is unsurpassed. May's "Officer of the Month" following the directives from on high, cited 40 hardened driver's for... covering their behinds with the suddenly illegal license plate covers.
It wasn't rape, murder, or even armed robbery... covering license plates with covers that foil the red light Scam-eras and protect a drivers wallet. What's more, NO ONE seems to be able to point to a specific law ANYWHERE that makes these covers illegal. Yes... that includes the city's Code of Ordinances!
Our Eyes tell us that city attorneys are furiously making deals with those dastardly drivers who have been cited for the afore mentioned infraction, in order to keep the citation from going to court. The Eyes have it that the city will drop the charges if the accused agrees to remove the plate cover from their vehicle. Looks to us like the city would rather not have an independent judge make a ruling regarding the legality of the "enforcement" action.
APD Public Information Officer has maintained that the Scam-eras can see through such plate covering devices. Mayor Marty has assured us that the Scam-eras are all about public safety. In light of the determined effort to punish dastardly drivers for covering their @%$, we don't see how either could be true.
More importantly, don't Captain Henz, Chief Schultz, and the Almighty Marty, have better things to do... more important criminals to capture? We'd argue that license plate covers rank up there with j-walking as far as law enforcement priorities are concerned. Perhaps Captain Henz should consider tasking his officers with more important duties, as opposed to protecting Marty's sacred cash cow.
Captain Bill Henz decided that the award for "Officer of the Month" should go to an officer whose dedication to making sure that Marty's Scam-eras remain safe (and profitable), is unsurpassed. May's "Officer of the Month" following the directives from on high, cited 40 hardened driver's for... covering their behinds with the suddenly illegal license plate covers.
It wasn't rape, murder, or even armed robbery... covering license plates with covers that foil the red light Scam-eras and protect a drivers wallet. What's more, NO ONE seems to be able to point to a specific law ANYWHERE that makes these covers illegal. Yes... that includes the city's Code of Ordinances!
§ 8-6-4 LICENSE PLATES.Where in that language does the city ordinance 8-6-4 give authority to law enforcement to cite and/or confiscate offending plates? As long as your plate is "maintained free of dirt, emblems, trailer hitches, or any other obstruction so that the color, state of issuance, years and license number or letters thereon are clearly visible," you are not in violation of the city ordinance, period.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to park or to operate a motor vehicle on a roadway unless there is attached to the rear thereof, a license plate for the current license year, unless the state of issuance requires two license plates, in which case such plate shall be affixed to the vehicle as provided by law of the state of issuance; such license plate or plates to be maintained free of dirt, emblems, trailer hitches, or any other obstruction so that the color, state of issuance, years and license number or letters thereon are clearly visible.
(B) No person shall display upon a vehicle any registration evidence, registration plate, or permit not issued for such vehicle or not otherwise lawfully issued.
(C) No person shall display upon a vehicle a license plate altered from its original markings.
('74 Code, § 9-5-20.4) (Ord. 65-1974; Am. Ord. 7-2003)
Our Eyes tell us that city attorneys are furiously making deals with those dastardly drivers who have been cited for the afore mentioned infraction, in order to keep the citation from going to court. The Eyes have it that the city will drop the charges if the accused agrees to remove the plate cover from their vehicle. Looks to us like the city would rather not have an independent judge make a ruling regarding the legality of the "enforcement" action.
APD Public Information Officer has maintained that the Scam-eras can see through such plate covering devices. Mayor Marty has assured us that the Scam-eras are all about public safety. In light of the determined effort to punish dastardly drivers for covering their @%$, we don't see how either could be true.
More importantly, don't Captain Henz, Chief Schultz, and the Almighty Marty, have better things to do... more important criminals to capture? We'd argue that license plate covers rank up there with j-walking as far as law enforcement priorities are concerned. Perhaps Captain Henz should consider tasking his officers with more important duties, as opposed to protecting Marty's sacred cash cow.
Eye Told You So
The Mayor lost and won. Monday night the city council overrode Marty's veto (ABQ Journal - Subscription Required). The taxpayers of Albuquerque will have to wait until July 1, 2008 to get their tax cut and Marty will be busy posturing as a man of the people for the next year.
Curiously, Mayor Chavez has now decided to impose some sort of accountability from Bernalillo County with regard to how the $9 MILLION appropriation is spent. We're the first to want accountability in government and from government, but exactly how is the mayor going to get more accountability from the county with less money and no operational control? It was after all, the mayor who decided terminate the joint operations agreement with the county (ABQ Journal - Subscription Required).
Meanwhile, the council won and lost. By overriding Mayor Marty's veto the council sent money to the county and imposed their will upon the 11th floor. That money is our money and it's bound to come back to haunt the councilors (O'Malley and Winter) in their upcoming re-election bids. In truth, it will hurt Councilor Winter the most since he presents himself as a fiscal conservative. However, it's unlikely that Pauline de' Pascal will be able to build a campaign on a single partial misstep, particularly against a two term incumbent.
Curiously, Mayor Chavez has now decided to impose some sort of accountability from Bernalillo County with regard to how the $9 MILLION appropriation is spent. We're the first to want accountability in government and from government, but exactly how is the mayor going to get more accountability from the county with less money and no operational control? It was after all, the mayor who decided terminate the joint operations agreement with the county (ABQ Journal - Subscription Required).
Meanwhile, the council won and lost. By overriding Mayor Marty's veto the council sent money to the county and imposed their will upon the 11th floor. That money is our money and it's bound to come back to haunt the councilors (O'Malley and Winter) in their upcoming re-election bids. In truth, it will hurt Councilor Winter the most since he presents himself as a fiscal conservative. However, it's unlikely that Pauline de' Pascal will be able to build a campaign on a single partial misstep, particularly against a two term incumbent.
Jun 4, 2007
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.
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.
Jun 3, 2007
Polling the People
We're not the only ones polling these days. One of our Eyes let us know that they received a phone poll on Saturday. They weren't sure who paid for the poll but it sounded an awful lot like a poll from on high because it touched on all of Mayor Marty's pet projects. Questions included the downtown arena, a new downtown hotel, the 19th Century Streetcar, etc.
From what our Eye told us, the questions were often of a "push" nature and were designed to elicit favorable responses. Like the hotel question which we were told included a long explanation of how the hotel wouldn't cost the taxpayers.
We've got a better idea for a new downtown hotel... let developers bear the cost and the benefit of a new hotel if the market will support the venture. The very fact that they're polling on the subject means that the city has some plan afoot to use tax payer money in some fashion to support the it.
From what our Eye told us, the questions were often of a "push" nature and were designed to elicit favorable responses. Like the hotel question which we were told included a long explanation of how the hotel wouldn't cost the taxpayers.
We've got a better idea for a new downtown hotel... let developers bear the cost and the benefit of a new hotel if the market will support the venture. The very fact that they're polling on the subject means that the city has some plan afoot to use tax payer money in some fashion to support the it.
Eye Poll Results: Heinrich Scores Poorly
The results of our first Eye Poll are in and the numbers won't be good news for District 6 Councilor and Congressional hopeful Martin Heinrich. Granted this poll is not by any means scientific but Eye On Albuquerque readers gave the Councilor poor marks with only a 30% approval rating and a 43% disapproval rating - 10% of those polled said they didn't know and 16% indicated they didn't care.
If this poll is any indication, Councilor Heinrich faces an uphill battle if he wishes to unseat incumbent Heather Wilson in next year's 1st Congressional District race. Not only has Congresswoman Wilson shown herself to be a formidable campaigner, but she managed to hold on to a seat in the last election cycle despite what turned out to be a Democratic "wave" that unseated numerous Republicans and gave control of the House to the Democrats. Disapproval and apathy... not a way to start a campaign.
This week we're talking budget and more specifically the $9 MILLION gift to Bernalillo County.
If this poll is any indication, Councilor Heinrich faces an uphill battle if he wishes to unseat incumbent Heather Wilson in next year's 1st Congressional District race. Not only has Congresswoman Wilson shown herself to be a formidable campaigner, but she managed to hold on to a seat in the last election cycle despite what turned out to be a Democratic "wave" that unseated numerous Republicans and gave control of the House to the Democrats. Disapproval and apathy... not a way to start a campaign.
This week we're talking budget and more specifically the $9 MILLION gift to Bernalillo County.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)