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.

This week, as the dust settles from the 2010 primary election, let’s take a look at who came out on top and who took a whuppin’.

Question: Who are the winners and losers in this election?

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

Winners: Law and order Republicans and Hispanic Republicans;

Losers: House Speaker Ben Lujan who will see his power eroded further
after this close-call; libertarian Republicans (Doug Turner and Adam
Kokesh), policy wonks (Janice Arnold-Jones).

BILL TURNER, hydrologist and former director of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (and father of GOP gubernatorial candidate Doug Turner).

The losers are New Mexicans who we now expect will be ruled by the Thug Club if Martinez wins.  Losers are reasonable conservative Republicans rather than being ruled by patronistic redneck Repubs and Dems.  Loser is the two party system.  Losers are Republicans who thought they were voting in an open election rather than a system rigged by the Republican GROUP.  There were no winners.  Most qualified by all measures of youth and a new beginning, energy, intelligence, depth of understanding of New Mexico issues, a positive campaign, and leadership ability were First. Doug Turner, Second Janice Arnold Jones.  There were no third, fourth, or fifth.  You gotta watch the KOB debates at www.kob.com or link to it from the Doug Turner website turnerforgovernor.com The candidate with the most passionate supporters were First Doug Turner Second Janice Arnold Jones, Third Allen Weh.  To look into this visit their facebook sites.  Also you gotta read the expose on the inside workings of the Republican Party and their puppetmasters known as the GROUP.  I can’t name names.  You just have to read it.  They are New Mexico’s Tamany Hall and they are real.  Most Republicans it would appear were DUPED BY THE GROUP.  There is a link to this on most of the candidates websites as well as the Joe Monihan blog.

MARTHA BURK, Gov. Richardson’s senior policy advisor on women’s issues:

When it comes to the top of the ticket, all women are the winners in a certain way.  Having two women square off for the Roundhouse is a sign that female candidacies are now “normal,” and not some sideshow exception to the unspoken “no girls allowed” rules of the last century.  We have indeed come a long way since 1987 when Pat Schroeder was asked if she was going to run for president as a woman, and she replied “Do I have an option?”

Having said that, women will only be true victors if the winning candidate supports their priorities, and the single-minded focus on immigration in the last week is not encouraging.. When pollsters ask both women and men the open-ended question “What do you think is the most important issue facing the country today?” consistently fewer than 10 percent cite illegal immigration. On the other hand, in poll after poll, women put pay equity near the top of the list, along with jobs and the economy.  Pollsters say women are more worried about the future than are men, because their jobs are less secure and pay less. Women also want medical privacy and control over their own choices.  So the take-away for candidates is that just being female, or just being a tough-talker on one subject,  is not enough to garner support from the majority of voters (females). Candidates need to tell us what  they’ve done during their years as public servants to address real issues women care about.  If they do that, the choice  will be clear.

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

New Mexico is a changin’! And while overall,  New Mexicans seem to be fed up with festering problems that aren’t getting solved, and as a result they seem to be deciding on a case-by-case basis who stays and who goes. That’s my takeaway from the election results. I don’t see any clear cut theme of partisanship or  incumbent  fatigue. Rather voters seem to be thoughtful- race by race- which led to voting based upon the situation of each candidate and or incumbent. There was a lot of individual thought that went into these votes this time around. I like that better than a tsunami that hits one way or the other. It will create another kind of New Mexico that will be harder for candidates to spin and that’s good. The successful ones, I think,  will be the ones that can best demonstrate the willingness and ability to solve problems verses the ability to simply keep all “the tops” spinning at once. Whether this new attitude has staying power or not, only time will tell.

RICHARD ANKLAM, president and executive director of the New Mexico Tax Research Institute, former director of tax policy for the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department:

Elections are about more than just which candidates won or lost. Elections are about issues and what the people expect their government to do about those issues. While the candidates matter, voters never just respond to candidates, they respond to what the candidates stand for. Elections help us define the important issues and test the candidates for how we think they will approach the issues and handle the problems of government.

In that sense, the winners of any election are the people of the state of New Mexico. Not just by voting, but by participating in debate and discussion on the issues we want candidates to address, the citizens of the state can shape their government to make it better. Overly partisan politics and the mass media sometimes obscure the real issues and solutions, the things that really matter. Narrow special interests often consume too much of the debate. Attack ads and playing on people’s lesser nature are also all too common. But the process is way too critical to give up on. It can be punishing to run for public office. And if you win, your reward is often a host of problems that you didn’t create. You wonder why anyone would do it. (And you think, maybe the real winners are actually the losers.) So when you see candidates like those who have emerged in this recent election, people who are for the most part obviously committed to the state and who genuinely want to see it prosper, you have to be grateful. For the contested races there’s still a lot campaigning to do, and I honestly don’t look forward to it. (Things can get so negative I find sometimes find myself in November just wanting to vote “no” at times).

Still, when you have honest and qualified candidates that care about the duties of office they’re running for, the worst that can happen is not that bad, and the best answer may just be a matter of opinion and perspective.  Here’s to hoping that good governance in New Mexico and the benefits of that which flow to the citizens of this state, as well as the economy in general, are all on an upward trajectory of continued improvement.

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.

So this week’s question is: President Obama told Senate Republicans today that he will send up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and request an additional $500 million in supplemental funding for border security.

If you had $500 million to spend on improving the situation at the border, what would you spend it on?

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

The Rail Runner to make up the difference between the ticket price of $10 and the actual price of $48 (one way to Santa Fe.)  The price of fuel per day exceeds ticket sales.

ARTHUR ALPERT, veteran newsman, columnist and blogger:

Illegal immigrants come for the jobs. The only way to minimize their numbers is to crack down on the businesses that hire them – the bigger businesses, in particular. That requires  political will, not a lot of dollars. I would, therefore, return most of that princely sum you cite to the Treasury so that it can maintain current levels of corporate welfare.

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

It is unlikely that even half a billion dollars will ‘improve the situation’ on the border with Mexico.  How much has been spent already?  Billions and Billions.  And it has had some  effect since fewer are crossing the border.  However, the longterm problems on the border can only be improved by Mexico’s own government embarking on economic reform, better education, and cleaning up corruption in its own house so it can ruthlessly deal with the drug cartels.  This country can only improve the situation by helping them to do this.  Fences won’t work.  Troops to seal the border won’t work. Scapegoating Mexicans by two bit politicians won’t work.  Having reform minded smart leaders on both sides of the border is probably the most important thing. Now, if I had half a billion to put into border security it would be to reform drug laws in this country in a way that takes cash out of the Cartel’s pockets.  Yes, that means legalization.  But first, lets honor the Mexican President’s pleas to stop the sale of assault weapons in US border states to the Cartels, even if it does upset the NRA.  If we can’t do that then everything else might not mean much.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

The question does not make it clear where the $500 million is coming from. If the answer is taxpayers, then I think we should return the money to taxpayers or pay down the debt because no amount of money is going to solve the border issues.

Now, if the money were my own, I’d spend it to set up several free market think tanks in Mexico to work with their government, elected officials, and citizens. After all, the best long-term way to solve the immigration issue is to convince Mexico to pursue free market reforms that would make Mexico a wealthier, more prosperous place.

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

Breathe. First, everyone involved in this debate ought to take a breath or this difficult issue will never get solved. And it needs to get solved in a very big way. Second, everyone ought to stop using emotion laden words which do not accurately reflect what has been or is being recommended…like the word amnesty. Third, the very best minds should look at both sides of this issue…securing the border and the 9 to 12 million in the US who are here without legal status… and begin to craft a solution which is based on solving both of those problems. The money should then be directed toward supporting those solutions. Let’s get the politics sidelined a bit here and put our good judgment and smarts toward solutions that are sensible and will work to secure our boarders and constructively deal with 9 to 12 million people in the US.

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.

On Sunday, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin endorsed Susana Martinez’ in her effort to win the Republican nomination for Governor.

Palin is either passionately adored—or passionately hated. But everybody agrees she has the ability to attract attention.

So this week’s question is: What effect, if any, will Palin’s endorsement have on the governor’s race?

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

Apparently, Susana Martinez refused to take questions at her news conference with Sarah Palin on Sunday.  Why would that happen?  What is there to hide?  Would issue oriented questions be asked? (Like ‘Why you are taking so much money from the oil and gas industry?’) Would she embrace the factually wrong ranting of Palin and the Tea Party?  We may never know.  But she can’t get away with this for long.

One thing we can take from this is that Martinez is not sure what the Palin endorsement will ultimately do to her campaign, otherwise she might have been forthcoming in front of the press yesterday.  I actually think it strengthens her in the primary election against Allen Weh, who is after all the consummate insider.  He served as GOP chair and made millions in war profits from the Bush Adminstration.  That probably has not gone completely unnoticed.  But, I believe the endorsement will weaken Martinez somewhat in the general election against Lt. Governor Diane Denish. Diane is an insider with a soul at least, unlike Palin.

We all really don’t know if Palin’s endorsement will help here, but I have a feeling that a lack of thought in accepting this endorsement will haunt Susana’s move to the dark side.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

An endorsement from a prominent national figure is bound to have some small, positive impact in the primary election. Given the time between now and November, however, I doubt that Palin’s endorsement has much impact at all in the general election. Now, if Palin were to campaign actively on Martinez’s behalf leading up to the general, that may be a bigger story, but the bounce is focused on pushing her over the top in the primary and it may just do that.

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

It’s hard to tell, but my instincts say Palin’s endorsement of Martinez will help Martinez in the primary. The race has very tightly closed in on two candidates and the nudge from Palin to Martinez might well take her over the top. But, if Martinez wins the primary, I’m not so sure that the endorsement will be the same help in the general. That, as they say, will be a whole other ballgame.

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.

On Tuesday, The Independent, KNME and KUNM teamed up for a live event with New Mexico mayors, and we talked about what they’re doing to shore up local economies and how they’re trying to create and retain jobs.

This week’s question is: What innovative steps can local governments take to bring good jobs to New Mexico—and keep them here?

MARTHA BURK, Gov. Richardson’s senior policy advisor on women’s issues:

Well, I’m a liberal of course so I guess that makes me part of the “big government” crowd. So I think we need something like local WPAs, meaning hire more government workers to do infrastructure and administrative work for state and local functions instead of contracting everything out.  It would provide good jobs with benefits, cut out the middlemen in private contracting, and just incidentally cut out some of the kickback and siphoning schemes that seem to keep popping up when public services are privatized.

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

I know of something governments can do that might not directly create jobs, but would certainly create a suitable environment for sustainable economic growth: transparency reforms. On the international scene, there has been a lot of research suggesting that government transparency and economic growth are closely correlated, particularly for governments that are heavily dependent on revenue from extractive industries. What’s more, transparency is cheap to implement and popular with citizens across the political spectrum. Here’s a quote I found from an abstract of a 2005 paper by Daniel Kaufmann and Ana Bellver:

“Mindful of the challenges in inferring causality, we also find that transparency is associated with better socio-economic and human development indicators, as well as with higher competitiveness and lower corruption. Much progress can be attained without requiring inordinate amount of resources, since transparency reforms can be substantial net ‘savers’ of public resources, and often can serve as a more efficient and less financially costly substitute to creating additional regulations and/or regulatory or governance bodies.”

That ‘higher competitiveness’ is key when we consider that New Mexico is competing with other states for high-paying jobs. Bottom line, rooting out corruption and putting top-to-bottom transparency reforms in place would be good for business.

RICHARD ANKLAM, president and executive director of the New Mexico Tax Research Institute, former director of tax policy for the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department:

Sadly, local governments have little capacity to create jobs.  Politicians will quickly tell you about the things they are doing in that regard, but they don’t have that many arrows in the quiver in real life.  They don’t control much of the tax equation, and certainly don’t control the cost, supply and quality of labor or quality of schools.  For “big deals,” they do have some ability to negotiate land use, capital infrastructure spending, and the ability to issue industrial development revenue bonds (IRB’s)  – a powerful tool allowing a local government  to provide state and local tax breaks for a small number of targeted recipients.

Here in Albuquerque, economic developers worked hard and used those tools to attract companies, like Schott Solar and Fidelity Investments, that we’re lucky to have and were right to have pursued.  However, the cost benefit question is never fully answered and politicians don’t always have the best track record when picking winners and losers for local subsidy.  Combine that with the fact that most job creation falls outside of the really large employers we can target with those tools, the most important thing local governments can do is to provide the best and most cost effective services that their voters require.   Making the proverbial trains run on time isn’t always the most sexy platform, but it’s the reason we have state and local governments to begin with.  The focus should be on doing those jobs well – providing basic needed services and protecting the interests of the residents – but not in any unnecessary or ill-reasoned way that gets in the way of job creation by the average business and improved standard of living for the residents.

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

Success at bringing good jobs to New Mexico will be defined by how well we execute at the local and regional levels.  The role of state and federal government, I think, is to create an environment for development to flourish, but the execution has to be done locally and regionally.  We should focus on impactful policy areas and create strategies that accelerate growth and create jobs. Areas like entrepreneurship and innovation, exports and international trade, infrastructure investments, workforce development and training and taxes and regulation would be good places to start.  Our local and regional economies in New Mexico should create partnerships comprised of both private and public sector leaders. These partnerships throughout New Mexico should look at the above mentioned areas and get specific in each of those areas. For example, in the area of entrepreneurship and innovation,  we should focus on new business and technology-based developments and productivity along with retention strategies that emphasize financial incentives and investments.  Streamlining governmental regulation, optimizing taxes, and getting the education issue fixed in New Mexico to insure a more highly skilled work force should be other specifics that fall out of that analysis and there is more.  We need to resist the mindset that growing government, i.e. economic stimulus plans one after another and regulating private business even tighter now is the answer to creating good jobs. When we think along those lines, we do more damage to creating good jobs.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

Local governments in New Mexico, while constrained by the policies enacted in Santa Fe, do indeed have many arrows in their quivers for spurring economic growth and thus bringing jobs to New Mexico.

First and foremost, having straightforward and fair regulations in terms of zoning, construction, permitting, and other functions of government is paramount. In Hernando de Soto’s groundbreaking book, “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else,” de Soto explored the difficulties in various nations that entrepreneurs face in turning ideas and hard work into wealth. Most of these difficulties stemmed from government rules and regulations ostensibly designed to benefit workers and the poor, but that end up making everyone poorer. The easier it is to set up and operate a legitimate business in Albuquerque (or any other New Mexico city), but wealthier the citizens of that city will be.

The second major thing that cities can do is to not fall for economic development schemes. Some involve governments picking winners and losers in business. Sure, Eclipse Aviation and the long line of solar companies that have set up shop here (all with heavy subsidies), may have seemed like sure things, but politicians are not in a position to have the most information on the prospects of these businesses. Worse, because it is taxpayer money, not their own money, they don’t have the incentive to get all the necessary information. Low, flat, and fair taxes are much better at boosting economic growth than massive “corporate welfare” to particular industries.

The same thing goes with massive government spending projects like the streetcar from a few years back and the convention center expansion/events center that continues to come up year after year. Government should stick to the basics rather than spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on baubles.

Lastly, while tax cuts may not be in the cards in an economic downturn, city governments can and should make their workforces as efficient as possible. Simple things like stopping the rich payouts of unused sick and vacation time are a start, but demanding that government workers either do the work as efficiently as private sector workers or allow the private sector to take over is an important step as well. Solid waste collection, golf course maintenance, and janitorial services in government buildings are just a few public services that can often be done more cheaply and efficiently by the private sector. Government workers should at least face market discipline in the form of competition for this work. The former Mayor of Indianapolis, Stephen Goldsmith, used the “phone book test.” If a government service was being provided by two or more companies in the phone book, government should probably be buying the service from those companies rather than doing it in-house.

These kinds of efficiency can help close budget deficits when times are good, result in surpluses when times are good, can improve the quality of services, and ultimately result in lower taxes or the ability to shift scarce government resources to more pressing needs.

This is a good start and if Albuquerque or any other city in the state follows these three basic principles, that city will see an improved business climate, job growth, and ultimately, wealth creation for its citizens.

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.

Wow. That oil spill just keeps getting worse. And now everyone’s blaming everyone else for the mess. This week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger  withdrew his support for a plan he championed to allow new offshore oil drilling off Santa Barbara County, citing the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

So this week’s question is: What lessons should we take away from this spill?

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

Oil is dirty.  It causes destruction and pollution from the exploratory stage to the production stage to the transport stage to the refining stage to the internal combustion stage.  Can we get off it completely any time soon?  The answer is no.  Can we get off it at some time in the future?  Of course but it will take a sea change in how we power our economies.

The lesson we learn from the current spill in the Gulf is that no matter how good we think we are at containing the harm from oil, we are actually not that good. ( This makes things look bad for nuclear energy too.)  Even stricter regulation and safety requirements are necessary.

One lesson we can learn is that we must keep the oil and gas industry isolated from influence on politics.  We must pass legislation on a national level limiting any extractive industry from providing campaign funds to politicians, committees and parties.  Or, a constitutional amendment I suppose.  We need tougher people in the Federal Government policing these folks.  The industry’s political influence makes that difficult and so it seems we always have to wait for a disaster like the current one for action to occur.  Kind of like the giant financial meltdown caused by greedy and not so smart bankers and traders on Wall Street.

Now lets look at the oil and gas industry’s influence in New Mexico.  The GOP is run by Yates Petroleum.  The oil boys seem to own some of the current candidates for Governor.  Just yesterday republican Susana Martinez came out with a TV commercial railing against environmental regulations on the oil industry, which had just given her $110,000 in donations.  Even Democrat Lt. Governor Diane Denish continually praises the oil boys and their importance to the state’s economy, although she will not be owned by them.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

We haven’t even found out what caused the spill at this point, but there are certainly a few issues and takeaways, even at this early stage.

For starters, we must come to grips with the fact that our entire society is reliant — not addicted — to oil and fossil fuels in general. There are certainly things that can be done to reduce demand over time, but oil goes into too many products to eliminate offshore drilling. We all benefit from these products in terms of higher living standards, mobility, readily available electricity, and heated/cooled homes. So, we must understand that all forms of mining or oil drilling have certain risks associated with them. These risks must be mitigated to the best extent possible.

One thing that should not happen is to retroactively change a law that caps BP’s liability for economic damages at $75 million by raising that cap to $10 billion (this cap does not apply if BP is found to have acted negligently or violated the law). This law — which was adopted by Congress after the Exxon Valdez — also set up up a system under which BP and other oil companies put money away in the unfortunate event of an oil spill.

The best lesson we can take from this tragedy is that we don’t want them to happen again. While humans are imperfect, we must aim to come as close to perfection with regard to unmitigated environmental and human disasters like this spill.

ARTHUR ALPERT, veteran newsman, columnist and blogger:

Ho-hum. Another reminder that our oil addiction kills humans, flora and fauna and damages livelihoods. Even as it misdirects the national economy long-term. And subverts foreign policy.

This addiction rewards oil producers, oil field support companies and businesses dependent on oil and gas. Given that there hardly exists a concept of the national interest different from business interests, look for corporate America to emerge with its rewards unscathed – after a  lot of  sound and fury, of course, signifying nothing.

That’s the lesson.

RICHARD ANKLAM, president and executive director of the New Mexico Tax Research Institute, former director of tax policy for the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department

We hear a lot about the spill, with differing thoughts and opinions on its size, scope, solutions, speed of administrative response (i.e. “Obama’s Katrina”), ranging even more inanely into what state the spill resembles, in size or shape.  Not being an expert at all, what I find woefully inadequate is the amount of information and dialogue around the specific cause, what’s in place to keep this from happening, and what the driller’s and government’s plan is if it happens anyway.  Was there more prevention that could or should have been done by the driller?   Were the rules and regulations followed?  Is the status quo in that regard reasonable, or does more need to be done to ensure this  doesn’t happen again.  We certainly need our oil but we don’t need oily beaches and environmental catastrophes.  Off-shore drilling comes with much more cost, complication, and environmental risk than on-shore, so the answers are really important and if the discussion focused less on the sensational and political and more on the facts that matter, the answers would be much more evident already.  The same thing happens when they talk about taxes…

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

We’ll know about “lessons learned” when we discover what went wrong with the safety valves that were supposed to work…but didn’t.  I hope we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water when we find that out but stay smart about how to create a safe but more plentiful and independent oil supply for the US in the future.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

One of the shocking things from this oil spill is how suddenly all the anti-government folks are expecting government to clean up (literally, figuratively, and financially) a private company’s disaster.  Even more shocking is the libertarian Rio Grande Foundation’s insistence that BP not pay for the damage it causes (in fairness, they’re OK with BP paying $75 million, which is less about one days’ worth of profits–not revenue, profits).  Normally, even libertarians believe that if you cause harm to others, you should be held accountable.

The RGF’s protection of BP from liability is stunning, but maybe it has to do with RGF’s funding.  Much has been made over the funding of liberal groups over the past few years, and to their credit, the most highly-criticized progressive group, Center for Civic Policy, did disclose donors’ names.  I’d love to see how many mega-corporations and foundations with mega-corporation money are behind RGF and NM Watchdog.  By way of full disclosure, my union’s revenues come 100 percent from member dues and voluntary political contributions from nurses, corrections officers, police officers, fire fighters, groundskeepers, people who investigate child abuse, and dozens of other noble professions.  Some retirees from those positions also contribute.

My main takeaway is that oil companies and others with the potential to do tens of billions of dollars in harm should be accountable for every penny, including to all the private businesses like fishers and hotel owners along the Gulf Coast.  If BP has to sell every single asset to make this happen and go into bankruptcy, so be it.  But future BPs (read: every oil company in the country) should have to take out major insurance to pay the victims of these types of tragedies.  Why aren’t the libertarian/watchdog thinktanks concerned about small private business?  Follow the money.

So much for conservative/libertarian “principles” of accountability and paying for your deeds.  This oil spill has highlighted not only the dangers inherent in deep-sea drilling, but the fundamental hypocrisy of conservative and libertarian leaders in America and New Mexico.

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.

Over the weekend, the state Attorney General’s Office and Insurance Division struck a deal with Blue Cross Blue Shield that will allow the company to raise its rates by an average of 21 percent. BCBS is the state’s largest private insurer in rural areas.

But 50 people gathered at a Public Regulation Commission meeting Monday had expected a public hearing on the company’s request to hike its rates. Commissioner Jason Marks took objection to the deal, saying it should have been negotiated in public. And State Senator Dede Feldman said the State Legislature may look at how the State Insurance Office sets rates.

So this week’s question is: Should the process of setting insurance rates be more transparent to the public? Should it be more difficult for companies to raise rates?

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

Yes, the process should be more transparent. Chavez’s promise to post proposed rate hikes online is a start.

This story is a good example of the political and public-relations consequences of cutting the public out of the discussion – regardless of what the government’s intentions are. Maybe this is a good settlement. Maybe everyone was acting in the best interest of consumers, as they say. But if that’s true, then why not argue the case in public? Why scramble to ink a deal over the weekend, pre-empting the public hearing? Why upset a roomful of your most impassioned constituents? For those of us who are a bit cynical, that behavior raises a lot of questions and makes it harder to swallow any assurances to ‘just trust us, it’s for your own good.’ And we shouldn’t have to offer our blind trust – that’s the point of open government in a democracy.

(Full disclosure: I have a BCBS individual policy, and so far I have not been affected by the rate increase.)

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

The process must be transparent.  It wasn’t regardless of whether the PRC had to grant the increase.   That was wrong.  More back room deals outside of public scrutiny.  Companies and their accountants and actuaries raise rates after careful study.  My beef is that the cost of medical care includes egregious waste.  Look around your doctor’s office.  Most of the personnel there simply push paper for a few doctors.  Paper pushers outnumber the doctors.  Also, why must I visit a new doctor twice, once to say hi and the other for the service.  My son is a doctor and the reason they do it is so they can get paid to pontificate over your medical history.  Why not a central history register accessible with a password from the insured?  I travel 30 miles to Belen to see a doctor who only inconvenienced me once and he was terrific.

Second, in surgeries, in my experience, much of the “kit” they use gets thrown away yet it is charged for.  Waste.  I am sure your readership can name other examples of waste like going to the doctor without using any common sense.  Everyone gets colds.  Who needs a doctor for that.  We have become a society of pill pushers.  During residency my son was told by a doctor to pick a few favorite pills and prescribe them for everything.  They will do in 90 percent of cases.  Fortunately, that is not his style.  Plenty of bed rest, aspirin, cool baths, applesauce, toast, and chicken soup. Everyone gets normal respiratory and gastrointestinal problems.  It is unpleasant but it is good for the maintenance of the immune system.  I get to catch up on my sleep.   A hot gallon bottle over a boil will pop it cleaner than a doctor every could. And, its free.  Never blow your nose.  That can cause bad sinus trouble.  Use a neti pot. I learned many little remedies from my father who was a doctor. No doubt curanderas have many ancient remedies.  Actupuncture and ancient Chinese medicine may be less expensive than the emergency ward where they treat you with any darn thing they want without your approval and you say, my insurance will cover it.

My employees are covered by Blue Cross and I am seriously considering either terminating the coverage or asking them to pick up the difference.  There seems to be too little oversight of physician and hospital practices, so we pay for the egregious waste.  We desperately need tort reform. I am just getting started but I’ll leave it there.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

As a current Blue Cross customer, owning a Health Savings Account in the individual market (the one that is facing increases), I have a keen interest in this topic. That said, I think the problem here is not one of transparency, it is one of rising health care costs and Blue Cross (a mutual insurance company, owned by its customers; profits must be reinvested in the business or given to customers) facing the need to cover costs in this individual marketplace.

While not having access to their books, it is impossible for me to confirm the “need” (or lack thereof) for Blue Cross’s rate hike. Ultimately, however, these public hearings are not an efficient way to determine this. Instead, we need to reduce regulations and implement policies to make New Mexico a competitive health insurance market with multiple insurers doing business here. A competitive market will obviate the need for a “transparent” hearing process because consumers will purchase the best, most-cost effective option.

Ultimately, this debate at its core is about how to reduce health care costs. President Obama and Congress have just given the insurance companies exactly what they have been clamoring for — a legal mandate to purchase their product, financed by taxpayers. Unfortunately, this does nothing to attack the cost issue which is that a vast majority of Americans do not directly pay the costs of much of their health care. Until we abolish the third-party-payer system and encourage people to shop around and use only the care that they need and are willing to pay for, we’ll be stuck with health care costs spiraling out of control. With regard to passing along the costs of health care, Blue Cross is just the middleman (and messenger). We can’t shoot the messenger when the problems come from Washington and Santa Fe.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

There should be more transparency in all parts of New Mexico policy-making, and this is no exception. As to raising rates, this is going to remain a problem as long as there is a for-profit middleman and we don’t take other serious measures to curb rising health care costs in the public and private sectors alike. One of the things left out in this round of reform is more predictability for provider liability. Yes, I’m advocating for some kind of tort reform, but not caps. If big damages are needed for bad actors, they should stay as part of the mix. But we do need real predictability if we’re going to reduce the amount of defensive medicine being practiced, which is unquestionably a big driver of costs.

We also need to fundamentally re-evaluate our pay-for-volume system that gives financial incentives to providers to buy all the most expensive machines and then use them too frequently. Some of the overuse is due to defensive medicine, but no matter how well-intentioned providers are, there’s no getting around the fact that there are massive financial carrots and sticks that both push providers to overuse the system (quick aside: there’s NO evidence that patients are the ones pushing overuse. Most patients are in such a poor position from an information standpoint that they couldn’t possibly be the primary force behind overuse, which is exactly why the normally sound idea of adding to consumer costs for use simply doesn’t apply in this area–consumers will do whatever their provider tells them is the best course due to the information asymmetry and the importance of health).

Two other issues on insurance costs with current reform: One of the real flaws in health care reform is that the insurance companies are going to charge what the market will bear, as does any good for-profit organization (and even the “non-profits” in this field effectively act as “for-profits”–they try to maximize revenue while minimizing costs, even if it means not treating people who are sick). The flaw is that by having subsidies (a necessary part of any individual mandate, which is itself a necessity if we’re going to say that companies have to cover sick people), the system will now allow insurers to keep raising their rates knowing that the cost will be picked up by someone who is legally mandated to pick up those costs and has deep pockets–the government.

I know I’m admitting to a flaw in the system, and anti-reformers will crow that even the AFSCME guy sees a problem with it. But it’s a valid criticism of the plan, and something that has to be addressed going forward no matter which party controls Congress or the White House. And fixing this flaw won’t be easy.

The other big flaw relating to the individual mandate and insurance prices is that the “penalties” for not having coverage are peanuts. Smart people, especially if they’re young and healthy, may decide that they’d rather pay the small penalties and then sign up for coverage as soon as they get sick. That will in turn make insurance company risk pools worse, meaning insurance companies will have to charge higher premiums (even leaving aside their desire for bigger profits, it’s simply costlier to insure sicker people. This is going to be a legitimate reason for raising rates). Fortunately, the substantive answer to this flaw is far easier–raise the penalty so that people are incented to participate instead of being incented to step out of the system if they’re healthy. But a sound, simple substantive solution is sometimes a politically tough one, and that’s certainly the case here.

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

Of course, there should be transparency on setting of insurance rates in New Mexico.  There should be public hearings on these rate setting processes.  However, I wouldn’t hold your breath for tremendous turnouts of the public at such hearings.  They just normally are not motivated enough to attend these monotonous and jargon-filled testimonies.  Those who will show up at these meetings are nonprofit watchdog agencies and insurance industry attorneys,  lobbyists and representatives.  (It is strange the Attorney General’s Office participated in sinking the hearing process recently.) That is just the way it works.  But, having the opportunity to attend such hearings is a good thing and should be afforded the public.

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.

In 2003, Gov. Richardson signed a law allowing undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses. Richardson said he hoped the move would allow more drivers to buy car insurance. In 2004, Gov. Jeb Bush supported a similar measure in Florida, saying “[O]nce [undocumented immigrants are] here, what do you do? Do you basically say that they’re lepers to society? That they don’t exist? . . . A policy that ignores them is a policy of denial.”

Now it’s becoming an issue in the GOP primary. What do you think?

“Should New Mexico continue to allow undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses?”

ARTHUR ALPERT, veteran newsman, columnist and blogger:

It’s time to kill this idea that undocumented immigrants should be treated humanely. Giving them driver’s licenses enables them to get to work and feed their families; -this will only encourage them to compete with native-born Americans for the few jobs industries haven’t exported over the past 25 years. I say, treat them like the criminals they are.

Besides, without scapegoats, we might have to examine our own personal and societal responsiblities.
I would, however, overlook the sins of those illegals employed by agribusiness, meatpacking and other big businesses reliant on cheap labor. Hey, what’s government for if not corporate welfare?

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

Undocumented immigrants should be allowed to obtain driver’s licenses.  They are here.  They are working in many jobs that Americans wont take on.  Our society would fail without their contributions to the economy and their families back home would fail if they didn’t send money to them.

If the Republicans use this as a wedge issue I can only say it is not much better than the Jew-baiting carried out in 1930s Germany.  I am not saying the GOP wants to commit genocide, but that they are willing to scapegoat a certain segment of our population as being the source of all of our problems.

Governor Richardson was justified in signing the law in 2003.  Jeb Bush was right to follow that lead in 2004.  Will the now extreme GOP abandon all sense of decency?  Let’s hope not.  I would like to see a strong and moderate republican party emerge at some point to keep the fringe ever further from running our democracy.

BILL JORDAN, policy director, New Mexico Voices for Children:

Those who want to repeal the law seem to have a solution in search of a problem.  There is no evidence that allowing unauthorized immigrants to get a driver’s license would have any value to our society or to public safety. There is no evidence that it would curb the flow of unauthorized immigrants into our state.  Driver’s licenses do not make someone less deportable or more likely to find work.

I’ve yet to hear of a problem caused by an unauthorized immigrant having a driver’s license.  But when I heard the debate at the Roundhouse a few years ago, I heard a litany of problems from law enforcement who argued in favor of licensing.  Law enforcement and other advocates testified about the importance of having positive identification when someone is stopped for questioning.  They also know that if unauthorized persons have a driver’s license they know our traffic laws and they can get insurance, and that’s important for the safety of all of us.

Lawmakers and Governor Richardson did the right thing when they took the advice of law enforcement and passed this law.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

This issue is merely a symptom of the larger problem: immigration policies that create an underground world. We need to have realistic immigration policies and then, for the first time in American history, enforce them. If we really have a major need for new employees, let’s give them a legal means to come in and work. Creating an underground society and economy makes immigrants vulnerable to all kinds of abuses, from their employers, from domestic violence, and from the inability to participate in many parts of normal society.

I’ve written about this issue before. The solution has to involve serious enforcement, not against immigrants (who are simply trying to provide for their families), but against the employers who gain an unfair advantage over law-abiding employers. And I don’t mean a fine–those just get written off as a cost of doing business, as we’ve seen from the horrible mine owner in West Virginia. I mean put people in jail who hire workers without proper documentation. For a long time.

If there are no jobs available without legal status, and we give those already here a path to citizenship (after all, we invited immigrants here and very intentionally refused to enforce our laws for decades), then we’ll effectively cut off the incentive for undocumented immigration, without disrupting the lives of innocent immigrants who we’ve invited here.

If our economy needs more employees, employers will have to make that case to Congress and we’ll have to change our legal immigration policies. We also need to be supportive of keeping families united–the new policy shouldn’t break up families. But we also have to be a nation of the rule of law. The current system of an underground economy and society makes immigrants’ lives far worse than they would otherwise be. It empowers criminals of all kinds. It deprives innocent immigrants of basic human protections and rights. It destroys the labor market for legal immigrants and citizens. It forces otherwise law-abiding companies to themselves become criminals because they have to compete with unscrupulous employers.

Driver’s licenses? I don’t see how our country can invite people here–and make no mistake, that’s exactly what happened–and then compound their already difficult lives, and the lives of citizens, by forcing them to drive without insurance, without passing a driver’s test, without passing an eye exam, and giving every incentive to flee accidents. Most law enforcement I’ve heard speak on this issue think it’s a good idea to issue licenses. But that’s addressing one small symptom of a far larger issue. We need to return to being a country of the rule of law, and can do so by establishing orderly, compassionate, reasonable immigration laws and enforcing them.

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.

As we all know, New Mexico is struggling to improve public education and the state was not chosen for the first round of Race to the Top education funding. As Trip Jennings noted, “The two states won on the strength of their innovative plans to reform public education in their respective states. The monetary rewards are substantial: Delaware could take home as much as $107 million and Tennessee’s haul could top $500 million. …New Mexico didn’t make the cut, failing to win finalist status earlier this month. More than $3 billion remains in the Race to the Top fund, meaning other states could win money in future rounds.”

With an eye on innovative programs that might help New Mexico qualify for federal Race to the Top money, this week’s question is:

“What should New Mexico do do improve public education?”

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

The good news is that losing out on Race to the Top money is not going to do dramatic long term harm (or abort any progress) in New Mexico’s K-12 educational system. That’s because no solutions from Washington — including No Child Left Behind — are going to provide what New Mexico needs in order to stop failing half of the state’s children.

Instead of relying on Washington for ideas and funding, New Mexico policymakers need to look at what is working in other states. Florida is one example of success. Due to a combination of choice measures including tax credits and vouchers, solid statewide standards that haven’t been watered down, alternative teacher certification, and a ban on social promotion, Florida’s educational results have improved dramatically.

The bad news for New Mexico children is that from the Governor’s office on down, K-12 education reforms that actually work have not been a priority. Teachers’ unions are one reason for this, but until average New Mexicans decide that failiing to graduate 50% of the children is simply not acceptable, we’ll continue to see failure — regardless of the latest “flavor of the month” from Washington.

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

Drastically reduce administrative staff.  Implement vocational education for students not destined for college.  Implement pay for performance.  Introduce competition among schools.

FRED NATHAN, executive director of Think New Mexico:

One essential reform is to make New Mexico’s public schools smaller. Decades of independent research have shown that smaller schools have significantly higher graduation rates and improve the academic performance of students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. This should come as no surprise, since smaller schools provide more personalized educational environments, where students are known by teachers and by one another, and where it is much more difficult for students to fall through the cracks. (Smaller schools are also much safer, with far fewer violent incidents per capita.) Yet despite the research showing that high schools should be no larger than about 900 students, two-thirds of New Mexico’s ninth graders currently enter high schools with more than 1,000 students.

Along with their academic benefits, the research shows that smaller schools are no more expensive to build or operate on a per-student basis. If we look at the construction cost of schools built in New Mexico over the past several years, we find that there is no correlation with school size – in other words, it cost no more per student to build the smallest schools than it did to build the largest schools. Operationally, smaller schools save money because they have lower administrative, transportation, and security costs. In this time when both the educational system and the economy are in crisis, smaller schools are a reform that can improve student outcomes without increasing costs.

New Mexico’s school districts have already begun to take small steps toward increasing access to smaller schools, such as through the development of the new Early College High School in Las Cruces and the Nex+gen Academy in Albuquerque, both capped at fewer than 500 students. However, in order to make high quality, smaller school environments accessible to students across New Mexico, we need a strong statewide effort to incentivize the construction of new small schools and the renovation of existing large schools into smaller schools within schools.

In 2008, Senators Cynthia Nava and Sue Wilson Beffort sponsored a bill to do just that, which passed the Senate 28-11 before running out of time in the House. For more information about this legislation, and ongoing efforts to enact these reforms, visit Think New Mexico’s website at www.thinknewmexico.org.

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.

As NMI reported, the federal government has launched a major transparency initiative and will be putting heaps of information online for citizens and journalists to rake through.

And in New Mexico, the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government has given out a series of transparency awards. Earlier this year, the governor signed into law a bill that creates a Sunshine Portal for state information. And so…

QUESTION: “What more can New Mexico state and local governments, businesses and others do to be more transparent?”

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

Posting all of that data is interesting but could be a waste of time when it comes to transparency.  The lack of transparency is caused by politicians and bureaucrats with hidden agendas who deliberately hide information and claim it doesn’t exist.  For example, some time ago, I requested specific information under an IPRA request to John D’Antonio, our state engineer.  Now, I knew it existed because John’s Secretary had shown it to me directly from the files in his office.  Further, I had put it there in a letter to him.  Under the IPRA request, I found it didn’t exist.  Even after a law suit, I never got it.  Recently, the State Engineer refused to accept a declaration of water rights by a Doña Ana County farmer because, they said in writing, it was not their policy to accept declarations where a permit exists.  I sent an IPRA request to the State Engineer for the permit and got nothing but a wild goose chase.  Two weeks ago, I filed another IPRA suit for the permit.  They know and I know the permit does not exist. Hence no transparency.  Our state legislators don’t even want webcasts of legislative sessions and committee sessions.  How about a webcast from the Bull Ring?

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

1. Eliminate the “or as otherwise provided by law” exception to the Inspection of Public Records Act. This is being abused. For instance, state agencies cite federal FOIA law exemptions to create exemptions to the New Mexico obligation to produce records. They are two distinct governments. The exemptions and coverage of FOIA are separate from IPRA. The same reasoning would allow a state agency to cite tribal law, or the municipal law of Tupelo, Mississippi, or the internal code of Zimbabwe as they search for some law, somewhere–anywhere–that might give them an out.

2. Require NM state and local government entities, including school districts, to provide information electronically whenever requested, in response to information requests. It is the 21st century after all. Government entities hurt the environment and increase costs when they insist on providing information on paper.

3. Reduce the amount that entities are allowed to charge for information provided on paper. It does not cost $1 to make a copy.

4. Require government officials and bureaucrats to strive toward giving information as freely and easily as they possibly can.

5. Require government entities to give preference to the citizen and the taxpayer over government and bureaucrats.

6. Legally set uniform, across-the-board criteria for state and local government entities for providing information, in favor of the citizen, including fees.

7. Require the state and local school districts to post online the percentage and total amount of money appropriated that goes to administrators and bureaucrats vs. teachers and the classroom.

8. Bureaucrats who deal with the public should be required to wear name tags. There should be signs posted at each of their windows/counters notifying the public of the right to file a complaint if they feel the bureaucrat has violated their rights, or abused power. Provide forms periodically for the public customers to rate them. Private companies do this willingly. Government should be required to, to post the results publicly. There should be a way for these complaints to be resolved by an entity that is not solely government members.

9. Require local governments to launch transparency cites like the one Mayor Berry is about to launch for Albuquerque.

10. Require calls and emails to be returned to customers within two business days.

11. This is a big one — Require judicial records to be posted online. There should be a layman’s summary of each case and the result. What are the DUI conviction rates? What kinds of sentences do they hand down for what crimes?

STEVEN ROBERT ALLEN, executive director of Common Cause:

The Sunshine Portal is a huge step forward. As the Lieutenant Governor has mentioned, though, it’s just one step. The concept needs to be expanded to make other areas of state government more accessible to New Mexicans. The expansion of webcasting in the state House of Representatives during this last legislative session is also an impressive development. Let’s hope similar efforts in the state Senate are more successful during the 2011 session. We also desperately need a stable, functional online campaign reporting system in the state. For whatever reason, this last project has been years in the making. A new system is in the works at the Secretary of State’s office, and it looks promising. This needs to get done in the near term.

I’d like to point out that there’s a much greater justification for transparency in government than there is for transparency in the private sector. This is because we (that is, taxpayers) fund everything that goes on in government, so we have a fundamental right to monitor how government operates, to ensure that we’re being represented fairly and effectively. I’m proud of our state in this regard. We still need to do better, but we’ve come a long way in just the last couple years.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

One of the biggest obstacles to transparency and accountability is privatization.  There’s a big misconception about privatization–this isn’t about whether the private sector is good or bad.  It’s about whether we use taxpayer dollars to enrich private companies while preventing the public from knowing what’s going on, and about whether we hold private companies getting rich off of taxpayers to the same standards that we hold government agencies.

It should be a requirement of any private contract paid for with taxpayer dollars that the private company comply with the same transparency and FOIA requirements that a public agency is subject to.  For example, New Mexico is one of many states which uses a private company to supply voting machines and the computer programs to count the votes.  It is an outrage that we roll over and say that no one has a right to see the code to make sure that votes are counted correctly.  If it were a public system, it would be open to the public.

So first, we should avoid outsourcing as much as possible.  Second, where absolutely necessary to use a private vendor to do the taxpayers’ work, we should have transparency.  While there are understandable proprietary systems concerns by the companies, it is insane that our state government doesn’t have the courage to stand up for the rights of citizens and our democratic process by requiring that, at the very least, state officials and representatives from each party be allowed to examine the computer codes.  Even if they had to sign a confidentiality agreement (which happens all the time in dealings between two private businesses), at least we’d know that someone had scrutinized the systems.

Instead, the very people who say “government should be run like a business” turn around and say “government shouldn’t question its contractors”–even if that’s exactly what any other business would do.  If you want a contract paid for by taxpayers, you should be willing to comply with transparency and accountability rules to make sure that taxpayers are getting their money’s worth.  If you can’t or won’t comply, then go back to the private free market and make your money there.

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

The most important, critical work New Mexico must do with respect to transparency and ethics is to get legislation – with teeth- passed and then signed by the governor. It is very difficult to pass legislation in Santa Fe that is sensible when dealing with transparency and ethics. Legislation gets drafted but often in ways that really doesn’t make a big difference. If we could get two strong bills passed, one that creates a strong and accountable ethics commission and the other that prohibits campaign contributions, a cultural shift in New Mexico would take place. We could then take off and become a leader in the nation in open government, ethics and transparency. Until that cultural shift occurs, it’s painful-slow-going.

BILL JORDAN, policy director, New Mexico Voices for Children:

Every year, lawmakers pass a general fund budget by looking at every item in every agency of state government and making a decision about how much to spend for the next year. This spending is limited by how much money the state expects to collect in tax and other revenue.

On the other hand, if a tax credit, deduction or exemption is passed into law, the amount of tax paid out (or not collected) is never tallied and not limited.  It certainly isn’t budgeted every year like direct spending is.  A dollar spent as a ‘tax expenditure’ costs taxpayers the same as a dollar of general fund spending, but spending on the tax side of the equation has no transparency and little accountability.

In New Mexico, we spend almost as much every year on tax credits, deductions and exemptions as we spend on education, health care, public safety, and everything else in our general fund budget.  During a revenue crisis like the one the state is experiencing, every general fund dollar is scrutinized.  Spending on the tax side of the equation can’t be seriously considered because the state lacks a tax expenditure budget (TEB).  If we had a TEB, lawmakers could choose to roll back some antiquated tax incentives that are no longer worth their value instead of raising some other tax. Without a TEB, they don’t even know what taxes they’re not collecting.

All but a handful of states prepare a tax expenditure budget along with their general fund budget.  Lawmakers unanimously passed a law requiring a tax expenditure budget a couple of years ago and Gov. Richardson vetoed it. The House passed it unanimously again this year, but the Senate Corporations Committee soundly defeated it.  Accountability and transparency in the budget process aren’t possible without a tax expenditure budget.

Don Francisco Trujillo

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.

Last week, embattled Secretary of State Mary Herrera named Deputy Secretary of State Don Francisco Trujillo to be the state elections director. But former elections director A.J. Salazar has contended that Trujillo is one of the “elements of corruption” in the SOS office. Trujillo does have experience serving as the interim director of the Bureau of Elections in 2008 and in 2009.

So this week’s question is:

QUESTION: “Should Don Francisco Trujillo serve as state elections director?”

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

Don Francisco Trujillo: Isn’t he the guy who’s caused all the problems? And now he’s running the show?

STEVEN ROBERT ALLEN, executive director of Common Cause:

Common Cause New Mexico has worked on voter protection issues for many years. Personally, Don Francisco Trujillo has always been friendly and helpful with me, and he does have some election administration expertise acquired through several years of service in the Secretary of State’s office. Also, the County Clerks essentially run elections in this state, so in many ways the Bureau of Elections Director only plays a supporting role.

That said, County Clerks have often mentioned to me that this support –or lack thereof — can be very important. Although I have no idea what the internal working conditions are like at the Secretary of State’s office, it’s problematic to have this much turnover at the top of the Bureau of Elections. The director, at least in theory, is supposed to lead elections in the state of New Mexico, but for months and months
leading up to the 2008 general election, there really was no director in the Bureau of Elections. Not a good thing.

To have this kind of highly public conflict in an election year, just a couple months before the primary, is troubling to say the least. A similar public spat occurred last year regarding a gentleman at the Secretary of State’s office charged with fixing our state’s
dysfunctional online campaign reporting system — a big public blow-up was followed by a lot of finger pointing. We still don’t have a fully functional online campaign reporting system (although a representative from the Secretary of State’s office recently showed me an impressive trial system that hasn’t yet been implemented).

We need stability and we need leadership, and up to this point these things have been in short supply at the Secretary of State’s office.

RICHARD ANKLAM, president and executive director of the New Mexico Tax Research Institute, former director of tax policy for the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department:

The position serves at the pleasure of the Secretary of State.  The reason for such appointed positions is so the executive can “pick her team” of people she feels can serve her and her office best. Appointed positions in New Mexico and other states have certainly been abused in the past and some have been filled with unqualified people. However, many or most of those appointed positions exist for a reason.  Mr. Salazar has served in this particular position before and is apparently qualified.  His boss wants him in the job.  Allegations have been made, but that’s all they are at the moment-allegations. So, Secretary of State Herrera has every right to appoint him if that’s who she feels is best for the job.  The way it’s supposed to work is the voters should hold accountable any elected official who can’t adequately perform the duties of their office, which includes the judgment exercised in their appointments.  Denying any elected official the flexibility to appoint those otherwise qualified and of good character simply ties their hands and provides them excuses for jobs not well done.