In response to questions supplied by three Albuquerque city councilors, mayor-elect Richard Berry’s choice for Chief Administrative Officer, David Campbell, has submitted a nine-page missive to all city councilors. The questions by Councilor Brad Winter and two councilor-elects, Dan Lewis and Michael Cook, were laid out a few weeks ago in an Albuquerque Journal opinion piece in which they claimed that Campbell was ignoring their request for information.

In his reply, Campbell said he wasn’t ignoring them, he was just consumed by the death of his mother, which happened two days after receiving the information request.

Campbell replied quite strongly to the notion, put forward by the councilors, that he had represented clients “against the city,” saying his previous legal practice had involved him in four real estate related cases, in total, over the past ten years that required appeals of zoning and land use decisions of the city to State District Court.

In his letter, Campbell said engaging in the process as an attorney representing clients before the city in it’s “quasi-judicial” role couldn’t  be characterized as working “against the city.”

The majority of my work for clients has not involved work that is adverse to the City, or, to use your term, “against the City of Albuquerque.” In fact, as a lawyer practicing municipal and administrative law, the city or its various agencies, boards and commissions have been the quasi-judicial decision-making body or enforcement entity before whom my clients are required to appear for the grant of some public right or benefit.

In effect, the Albuquerque city government…has served as “judge and jury” of matters my clients present to the City, all in accordance with the city’s requirements.

Because the City is the decision-maker in these matters, my legal clients cannot be considered to be “against the City of Albuquerque” as they are simply making application for rights and permissions that are issued at the City’s discretion and in accordance with city laws.

This reply highlights the quasi-judicial nature of city council proceedings that happen quite often. The city council develops policy which the administration of the city then implements, but it also makes decisions about what people can and can’t do with their private property. The final decisions of the city council can be appealed to the state district court.

You can see descriptions of the four cases Campbell notes  in the letter. In none of those cases did his clients seek damages or compensation from the city, he said.

On other topics, Campbell says he’s never been a paid lobbyist, but did register as a lobbyist to cover all his bases in the event that his work before the city ever fell under the lobbyist ordinance.  If the city required lobbyist disclosure forms to be filed—which it doesn’t—his would have shown no expenditures because he never acted outside his capacity as attorney.

He has also not represented entities interested in downtown development, nor does he have any conflicts of interest, he said:

I have thoroughly reviewed the City’s Conflict of Interest prohibitions and can plainly and categorically state that I have no such conflicts.

Campbell also laid out his history of involvement with city government beginning almost thirty years ago. He ended the letter by stating that he has invited all three councilors to meet with him. Councilor-elect Cook met with him on October 19, he hasn’t heard back from Winter, and, he said, councilor-elect Lewis declined the invitation.