::::::::
Santa Fe, NM
I attended the public meeting of the Governor’s Task Force on
Ethics Reform and found myself concluding that despite the overall needs
of ethics reform in the State administration, the efforts were the same
ole, same ole, and the same can be expected--unless of
course the measures undertaken are comprehensive and mark the roots of
the problems. The Governor’s Task Force is a misnomer of sorts as it
lacks the authority to act or enact. It is advisory at best. While it
links the several departments and branches of the state
government, it as much shows a resistance to meaningful change with
piecemeal provisions, political palatability and avoidance of public sentiment. The issues being discussed by the Task Force include changing the “campaign contributions limits’ , making the State Treasurer and State Auditor appointive positions by the Governor rather
than elected by a statewide vote, providing Legislative
compensation, and effecting a public finance system for legislative
campaigns.
The task force is chaired by former Governor Garrey Curruthers
and Dean Suellyn Scarnecchia of UNM Law school--so it holds an
authorities credibility and public media attention. It’s working panels
divide each of the questions of proposed reform with potential
solutions-- reporting then to the whole task force. In turn the task force
“votes” upon options of the working groups and then provides
recommendation to the Governor. In turn, the Governor will promote an
agenda for the Legislature to enact at some future session. There are
several fundamental problems with this approach-- a practice which is
common in New Mexico. It may be likened to a car misfiring,
diagnosing that the manufacturer must have built a lemon, then
finding the solution in a sparkly new paint job.
For example is the proposal of the State Treasurer and State Auditor
being appointed rather than elected. This proposal has taken new
heights in the wake of the Vigil Treasurer’s office scandal-- and its
demand are founded upon a call for “professionalism”. Proof for the
necessity is the arising of the public scandal itself-- a condition of
practices in the Treasurer’s office until exposed by indictments by the US
Attorney’s office. No where in sight was any New Mexico official --
including the elected Attorney General, Secretary of State ,Legislature or
Governor or Lt. Governor until after the fact .
The proposal discounts the fact that New Mexico has a “plural
executive”. That means while the Governor heads the executive branch,
his powers are not absolute. The administration of the state is a
shared power-- including certain immunities and obligations to be met
by each of the State officials. Under such a system, state officials can
call into question any practice which is abhorrent to the public faith.
And ultimately, if there a public corruption, the people have a say-- they
can toss the rascals out at election time. Under the proposal, the very
dynamics change. An appointed ‘professional’ presented to the legislature for confirmation can be removed for malfeasance by those appointed him. ( Governors often hold an “undated resignation letter’ of their appointees). And as such, the plural executive system becomes a hierarchal executive system-- further removed from the people the government is to represent.
In the matter of “publicly financed elections” little discussion was to given toward bringing it to a public referendum. The focus of a system for Legislative candidates to be publicly financed campaigns did not really distinguish whether or not it was a voluntary system or compulsory. Discussion compared the potential of equality of elections financing with that of Arizona-- leaving out that Arizona’s public finance system was brought about by a public referendum after numerous failures in the Arizona legislative halls. It called for a voluntary system-- where candidates can “run clean” ( on public finance and consequential reporting and limitations) or “dirty”-- in the traditional manner of soliciting funds from
influential groups and supporters. At the close of the agenda, was a period of “public comment”. When the time came, Governor Carruthers left the session, leaving the session chaired by Dean Scarnecchia. Symbolic is that the panel really doesn’t want to hear members of the public as they pursue their piecemeal agenda. ( As I noted the Governor was leaving though, I did leave the room and catch up with him to hand him a typed copy of my thoughts and remarks to substantial reform-- that the core lay in preferred interests in the election code and historically the publics ability to have “contested” elections for it Legislative races. ) When it came time to speak, I brought out several of the exclusionary rules and statutes of New Mexico’s election code. I tried to explain that the rules as applied to US Senate candidates -- including a
“Governor’s proclamation” -- violated the Constitution; though under
Federalism that violation did not apply to Legislative and state
officials . Despite twenty minutes left for public comment, the Dean
wanted to cut me off. I guess they just want to do the way they want to
do-- give an image of reform without the substance and bona fide
leadership. And maybe that is why the public continues to lose faith in
New Mexico
