CABQ Seal ImageALBUQUERQUE — The Albuquerque City Council unanimously voted Monday night to override Mayor Martin Chavez’s veto of a bill that placed ten city charter amendments on the fall municipal ballot. The bill had originally passed the Council on a six to three vote.

Councilors heard from Jan Bray of the League of Women Voters, who said the veto short circuited democracy, and from one of the participants of the year-round citizen charter review task force, David Campbell, who said voters should have a say.

“This veto short circuits the process of citizen review of the charter, it discourages citizens doing hands-on work for civic improvement and problem solving, it will be much harder to recruit members for civic commissions and task forces if they see their work just going into a black hole,” Bray said.

Campbell, an attorney, added that he and other task force members were surprised by the mayor’s veto and that the amendments should be put on the ballot.

“This isn’t an issue of whether you agree with every single one of the matters that are to be put before the voters, it’s a matter of whether they are to be put before the voters. So many times we skip over that step… make sure the people get a chance to vote on the work.”

One of the charter amendments would make it easier for councilors and the mayor to achieve pay raises. Chavez had emphasized that amendment as the reason for his veto because, he said, it’s an “end run around the voters.”

City Councilor Rey Garduño said he found the suggestion that  councilors approved the bill because they wanted a pay raise offensive.

“I’d like to send a message that that was not the reason, that was not an issue, and I’m going to override the veto because it’s the thing to do to send it to the public,” he said. “They’ll decide, not us, and not the mayor.”

Councilor Don Harris, meanwhile, said he tried to amend the bill to take the salary issue out due to how it was “spun” in a way that wouldn’t be supported by the public, but that wasn’t practical.

Harris explained that in light of what he described as the negative spin about the would-be salary commission, he wants to make sure the public know that no one on the council currently would benefit from the vote. The only benefit would come if current councilors won re-election after a commission that was actually approved by the voters made the decision to raise salaries.

“I see the Journal reporter up there,” he said, “and I hope that’s made clear to the public.”

Councilor Sally Mayer also voted against the original legislation, but changed her mind. She said she didn’t like it that it was characterized that councilors were being “sneaky” on the salary issue, and agreed with Harris, saying she hoped “the headlines” reflected that the current councilors wouldn’t benefit.

Both Mayer and Harris are up for re-election in October. Council President Ike Benton, also up for re-election, didn’t share the same reservations. Each proposed amendment would go before the voters individually, he said.

“If you don’t like the salary provision, than vote against it,” he said. “If you don’t like some of the other ideas that you might perceive as weakening the mayor, then work against those, but I have belief in democracy.”

Additionally, Councilor Debbie O’Malley reversed her previous vote against putting the amendments on the Oct. 6 ballot. But regarding the veto override, she said she thought a vote by the Council should stand.

And lastly, Councilor Trudy Jones also reversed her original position, noting that voters could pick and choose which amendments they supported since they will vote on each one individually.

In other matters taken up on the Monday Council meeting, the governing body deferred bills that would have placed a moratorium on impact fees paid by developers when they get building permits until a more substantive fiscal impact analysis could be presented.

Councilors also passed a noise ordinance that brought out a large contingent of motorcycle aficionados to speak against it.