Budget deal being crafted behind closed doors

Photo by Litandmore

Welcome to The Independent Forum. Every week we ask a different question and solicit responses from a diverse group of New Mexico thinkers, pundits and other observers of the state’s political landscape. We’ll add more responses as they come in, so keep checking back to see how the conversation progresses.

We also invite readers to participate — so please share your thoughts on this question in the comments section. If you have suggestions for how we can improve this feature or have have an idea for a future question, send us an e-mail.

At the request of legislative leaders, Gov. Richardson on Tuesday postponed the special legislative session by five days. As he said: “Since the end of the regular session last week, lawmakers have been working on a budget compromise and have seen progress. However, the legislative leadership has requested that I give them a few more days of negotiation ahead of a Special Session and I am granting their request. I believe giving lawmakers this extra time to build consensus is the best thing for all New Mexicans.”

Lawmakers had two versions of a budget to negotiate during the last session–but they would have had to reconcile the differences between the two in a conference committee that was open to the public. Now it appears they intend to craft a budget deal before coming to Santa Fe.

So this week’s question is:

QUESTION: “Why do you think lawmakers want to make a deal before they deliberate in public?”

JIM BACA, blogger, former director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque mayor, state land commissioner and recently retired natural resources trustee:

Lets get real.  They do this all the time on bills.   Just watch a floor session sometime when these guys are running back and forth making deals. They do it after hours over a drink. They do it in private meetings in their offices with other legislators and other lobbyists. They do it on the phone. They find it easier to do out of the public eye. That is not always bad in reality, but many times it is. This is how legislative processes work. A bill that will be openly debated in conference committee will be a rare thing, for sure.

The general public doesn’t really seem to care as long as they get their work done. I don’t see anyone but the media worried about this. It is inside stuff and in a perfect world it would grab the imaginations of the public, but it doesn’t. I think what the public does care about is ethics and corruption. That is where the media should concentrate.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

As much as they claim to be “servants of the people” and want to talk about “transparency” and good government, too many politicians would rather cut deals with lobbyists outside the eye of concerned citizens. This has long been a problem in New Mexico and we are only beginning to see a glimmer of hope. For starters, the New Mexico House only this year started posting floor votes online.

Of course, President Obama pledged unprecedented transparency as a candidate, but instead he and his colleagues in Congress will be working to craft health care legislation in an opaque reconciliation process away from the public eye. So, the best of intentions fall by the wayside as soon as the debate starts to go the other way.

New Mexicans should demand, regardless of what is agreed to in these closed-door discussions, that their political leadership give them adequate say in the process. If that doesn’t happen in the budget discussion, I hope voters remember this lack of respect and understanding that they are indeed our servants on Election Day.

BILL TURNER, hydrologist and former director of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District:

More smoke and mirrors..  We need sweeping changes in both the Legislature and the Executive.

SARAH WELSH, executive director of the NM Foundation for Open Government:

I think it’s a reflection of two things: just how difficult this budget situation is, and how clubby the halls of government are. It’s not just the Legislature. Local boards and commissions throughout the state do this sort of thing all the time – they deal with internal dissent behind closed doors so they can come out with a unified front in public. It happens when school boards hire or fire a superintendent, when city councils select a professional-services proposal, and of course when lawmakers have to make a budget.

I think many, if not most, public officials have become a bit squeamish … there’s this idea that dissent and heated debate are embarrassing and unseemly. Or public debate is seen (often accurately) as a cynical opportunity for grandstanding, political posturing and epic time-wasting. So we avoid it at all costs. Second, legislators and other public officials have to work together. People of the same party are usually friends and colleagues, and they don’t want to criticize each other publicly. I think they sometimes put the ‘dignity’ of the body, party unity and/or their personal relationships ahead of the public’s interest in watching honest debate. And if they don’t feel any public pressure to be more open, then secrecy becomes the path of least resistance. (By the way, I disagree that the public doesn’t care about this. They may not pull on the levers of influence, but I am constantly approached by people who are outraged by official secrecy and thank me for FOG’s work.)

By the way, there’s one simple thing the Legislature could do to increase transparency – hold the House Taxation and Revenue meetings in a bigger room! I walked by more than once last week when people were milling about in the hallway waiting for a seat to open up. There are some real debates happening publicly, but seating is limited.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

The irony is that if they came back for a special and hadn’t worked out some details ahead of time, there’d be a ton of backlash for wasting taxpayer dollars.

I’d prefer more of the deliberations be in the open, but Jim’s right–key parts of legislation are often hammered out by legislators in one-on-one meetings or small groups, and I don’t know that one can effectively outlaw that kind of activity.

Florida has great sunshine laws requiring open meetings any time three or more legislators meet if that meeting is planned in advance–even if informal.  Even then, it only applies if they plan to reach an agreement to take formal action.  Here’s a great summary of Florida’s sunshine laws.

It’s easy enough to just discuss the pros and cons of different items without reaching a full “agreement”.  There’s really no way, even under Florida’s strictest-in-the-country laws, to stop legislators from discussing the budget among themselves.  What’s the saying about sausage and laws?

Having said that, Paul’s also right that at a minimum we should make legislators’ positions, including committee and floor votes, available to the public within minutes of the vote.  We should also have archived webcasting of every committee and floor session, including interim committees.  That won’t stop deals from being struck, but at least the public will get to see where legislators stand on the issues, and that’s good for everyone regardless of party or philosophy.