Four candidates for city council in Albuquerque qualified for public financing, according to the city’s website. The deadline for qualifying for public financing was May 31.

Incumbent city councilor Debbie O’Malley qualified in District 2, Bill Tallman and city councilor Brad Winter qualified in District 4, and Rey Garduno qualified in District 6.

Nicholas Niforos didn’t qualify for the financing in District 6, and Greg Payne withdrew from public financing in District 8. Both will still remain declared candidates but will not receive any public funds in Albuquerque.

In addition to this, Hank Cadena in District 2 and Trudy Jones in District 8 have obtained petitions from the Office of the City Clerk to appear on the Oct. 4 city election. The candidates must receive signatures from 500 registered voters in their districts by June 28 to appear on the ballot.

The candidates who received public financing will receive $1 per registered voter in their district. Garduno will receive a little less than $30,000, while Tallman and Winter will each get more than $35,000.

This is the third election where public financing will be used in Albuquerque municipal elections.

Earlier this year a report by the Center for Governmental Studies lauded Albuquerque’s publicly financed elections. The Independent attributed the public financing to the victory of Albuquerque mayor Richard Berry, who defeated incumbent mayor Martin Chavez and candidate Richard Romero. All three mayoral candidates took advantage of public financing.

Meanwhile, opting out of public financing hurt Michael Cadigan, the District 5 City Councilor who lost his election bid in 2009.

To receive the public financing the candidates must collect donations of $5 from 1 percent of registered voters in the district in which they’re running. Candidates are allowed to spend “seed money” during the time before public financing funds are distributed. The candidates can collect $100 from individual candidates and $500 of self-funding up to 10 percent of the campaign spending limit.

The seed money is subtracted from the financing distributed to the candidate.

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.

Berry, who is a Republican, tapped a Democrat for the job—local attorney David Campbell, who has a long history with Albuquerque city politics. Divisions among councilors may mean the confirmation of Campbell rests with progressive Democrats.

Campbell was an assistant to Mayor Harry Kinney from 1981 to 1983, and city attorney from 1989 to 1993. He also holds a masters degree in public administration, and was a member of two separate groups convened to review and make recommendations to improve the city’s charter—one just last year.

But he’s a private attorney who has worked on a number of land use cases against the city over the past decade, and many say he has close ties to the building and real estate industries. That has some councilors expressing concern, and a few saying outright they won’t vote for him.

Councilor Brad Winter and Councilor-elect Dan Lewis, both Republicans, told the Independent that they won’t support the nomination.

“Campbell has been coming before the council for years representing clients against the city and he’s a registered lobbyist for NAIOP [a commerical real estate association] and the homebuilders,” Winter said. “It’s a conflict of interest, I just don’t think it’s a good now for him to try to be on the other side and will not be supporting his nomination.”

Lewis—who will be new to the Council when Campbell comes up for confirmation—said his opposition was “nothing against David Campbell, it’s just an opportunity for the city to have a clean slate” given Campbell’s long history litigating cases for and against the city. Lewis said Campbell is an “ethical, good man,” but that he’s asked the mayor-elect to make a different choice.

On the other hand, Councilors Trudy Jones, a Republican, and Ken Sanchez, a Democrat, both expressed strong support for Campbell. Both Jones and Sanchez, it should be pointed out, are Realtors.

Jones and Sanchez both said the new mayor should be able to choose his own team, and they said the opposition to Campbell didn’t send a good message.

“I was absolutely floored,” said Jones. “He’s a perfect nomination, a good man, very honest, who knows the city inside and out. This opposition makes you wonder about that claim for years that the problem between the mayor and the council is due to the mayor. This is an interesting statement that is being made.”

Sanchez said Campbell’s private legal work on behalf of clients against the city shouldn’t be a problem.

“Everyone has the right to representation when they come before the council, and I think he can set that aside,” he said.

Sanchez also agreed with Jones that it would be a “terrible way” to start a relationship with the new mayor.

In order to be confirmed, Campbell needs to garner five out of nine votes. With four councilors evenly divided on either side, that means he needs to get three more from a pool of two Republicans and three Democrats.

Councilor Don Harris, a Republican, seems to lean his way, although he said the confirmation process shouldn’t be a rubber stamp.

“My default position is to allow the mayor the freedom to put his team together, but the confirmation process is in the charter for a reason, it’s not a rubber stamp,” he said. “I have an open mind at this point.”

Councilor-elect Michael Cook, a Republican, couldn’t be reached for comment.

If both Cook and Harris joined with Jones and Sanchez in confirming Campbell, and Lewis and Winter remained steadfast in their opposition, that leaves the appointment in the hands of one of the three acknowledged progressive Democrats on the Council–Rey Garduno, Isaac Benton, and Debbie O’Malley.

Expressing concern, but saying they’re keeping an open mind were Councilors Garduño and Benton.

Garduno said he’s met with Campbell and had a “very cordial yet frank discussion” on city issues.  He’s also met with Berry, he said, and is committed to working with the mayor-elect to make sure Albuquerque is “a city that neglects no one.”

Garduno’s primary concern about the nomination relates to land use practices.

“My intention is to satisfy concerns I have about Land Use as a policy issue and how this City should plan its growth,” Garduno said. “The strategy that is in place was a very deliberative process that spoke to the sustainability of this region; it is incumbent upon us as elected officials that that progress not be dismantled by a mere change of Administrative leadership.”

Benton voiced similar concerns while saying he’s received a lot of phone calls in support of Campbell’s nomination.

“I’ve been bombarded with phone calls in support of Campbell, mostly from surprising quarters,” Benton said. “I’m open-minded about it.”

“A concern is his strong ties to the sprawl development industry. Key to my support would be overcoming that–a commitment to step away from that,” Benton concluded.

Councilor  O’Malley couldn’t be reached.

Campbell will come before the Council for confirmation in early December, so there is a lot of time yet for Councilors to make their final decision.

The councilors were joined by County Commissioner Michael Brasher, school board member David Robbins and one prominent local Democrat, attorney David Campbell.

The endorsers released the following statements:

“Richard Berry is a common-sense leader with a proven record working across the aisle in the legislature. He’ll be a mayor for all of Albuquerque,” said Campbell.

“Richard Berry is a practical leader who will be able to work with the council to get things done for Albuquerque,” said Winter.

“Berry’s business background will be a huge asset as we work to craft an economic development agenda to create new jobs in Albuquerque,” said Jones

“Richard Berry will be a mayor who will actually work with the council to move our city forward, ” said  Mayer.

“Berry will hold the line on taxes and keep government growth in check,” said Brasher.

Berry also secured the endorsement of school board member David Robbins, the statement from the Berry campaign said.

Follow NMI on Twitter and become a fan of NMI on Facebook. Got a news tip? Want to pitch a story idea? Send us an e-mail.

“This isn’t the first fight over different perceptions we’ve had about what the charter says,” Councilor Brad Winter told NMI before the meeting, “but I believe it’s the first time we’ve felt it necessary to hire an attorney to look at what the charter means.”

The conflict is over which program should go to voters in October as bond measures — the original version that Chavez sent to the council in January or the one the City Council adopted on April 6 after making a number of changes.

The bond measures approve funding for things like parks, roads and city facilities.

The dispute started when City Attorney Bob White — who is appointed by the mayor — sent the council a letter on April 14 saying it passed its revised CIP too late. The city charter says councilors must “act” within 60 days of receiving the plan from the mayor, and, he opined, since the council missed that deadline the mayor’s original plan is automatically in effect by law.

But councilors say the charter gives them clear authority to pass the plan, and that the 60-day provision requires taking some form of action on the CIP, like working on it in committee, not actually passing it within that time limit.

The city charter process requires the mayor to either sign or veto the CIP sent to him by the council. If he doesn’t do that within ten days, then the bill automatically takes effect. Which means, from the perspective of the councilors, the CIP they passed in April is currently in effect by law since the mayor didn’t veto it.

City Clerk Randy Autio hasn’t made a move to enact either CIP, taking a wait-and-see approach.

The plan passed by the council eliminated some of the mayor’s priorities, like a swimming lagoon for Tingley Beach and an $8 million appropriation for an unidentified soccer complex that Chavez later said would be built on land donated by SunCal Corporation on the far West Side of the city.

The council’s CIP also increased the amount of money allocated for a different soccer complex long planned for Ventana Ranch but reduced the overall amount of the budget from $160 million to $155 million.

According to councilors, Chavez isn’t currently pushing for inclusion of his proposed soccer complex or the Tingley Beach project. Instead, he’s proposed a few other projects be added to the CIP the council passed, to bring the total back up to $160 million.

At the meeting last night, councilors said they were willing to consider Chavez’s amendments.

“All the administration has to do is send down amendments, and we will consider them,” Cadigan said.

“I agree,” Benton said, “and all the councilors I’ve spoken to are amenable to considering amendments.”

But, the councilors said, they’ll only consider the changes in the context of the city charter-defined process, which means they’ll consider the amendments to the CIP passed in April.

The current disagreement, Councilor Debbie O’Malley told the Independent, is partly due to the city attorney not adequately representing the council’s interests.

The city attorney is supposed to represent both the mayor and the council, O’Malley said, and for that reason she and other councilors question why he didn’t speak up much earlier in the CIP process.

“When we said early on that we were going to defer the CIP until April, if he thought there was a problem, he should have spoken up then, rather than wait until after the fact. He’s supposed to be keeping an eye out for problems throughout the process,” O’Malley said.

At the meeting last night, Cadigan asked White if it was “incumbent” upon him to advise the council against going past 60 days, especially considering that Councilor Sally Mayer had asked one of White’s assistant attorneys if it would be an issue.

“It probably would have been in everybody’s best interest,” White replied.

“Earlier that day I received a call asking if it was going to be an issue, and I said no,” he explained in response to Cadigan’s continued questions. “I said I didn’t know if the administration would make it an issue.”

White further explained that it “would have been preferable” to have told councilors they were about to miss an important deadline.

O’Malley told NMI before the meeting that the “interesting little mess” created by the challenge to the council’s CIP has also put another mayoral appointment square in the middle — City Clerk Randy Autio.

“We say our bill is in place. The mayor says, no its not, mine is,” she explained. “The clerk is in the middle because he’s the one who has to enact the CIP and send it back to us as ballot provisions. Regardless, the council can amend the ballot items, but he’s still caught in the middle.”

White confirmed for the councilors that it’s within their authority to amend whatever ballot measures the clerk sends them, and that the only recourse the mayor would have would be to veto that outcome. So in some ways, this dispute is a moot point, since councilors have final authority over what goes on the ballot.

But to most of the councilors last night, the dispute over the CIP is the final straw in a string of disputes with the mayor over how to interpret the charter.

When Ed Adams, the city’s chief administrative officer and another Chavez appointment, said the mayor would be happy to sit down with councilors and work out a compromise, Winter bluntly said he didn’t believe it.

“With all due respect, it’s the mayor’s way or the highway, so I don’t believe what your saying is true,” Winter said. “Basically we’ve had the same issue for eight years. It’s time to draw a line in the sand. This is the best CIP I’ve seen since I’ve been on the council, but because the mayor doesn’t like it … he pulls these shenanigans.”

One of the dissenting councilors, Don Harris, urged the council to not take the matter to court because the public doesn’t like it, and the council has “its own power” as a way to deal with it.

“We have our own power, and should exercise it quietly,” Harris said. “We should offer amendments to the city charter looking at the independence of the city clerk and attorney.”

But most of the councilors were dead set on the measure.

“The important thing is that we as a governing body need to stand up for ourselves,” O’Malley said. “If we don’t, it’s just continually one thing after another. And we’re undermined. … I want our mayor to take our authority and our job seriously.”

The council ultimately voted 6 to 2 to hire an attorney to prepare a court challenge of White’s ruling. The dissenters were Councilors Don Harris and Ken Sanchez, with Sally Mayer absent.

]]> http://newmexicoindependent.com/26600/abq-city-council-may-take-mayor-to-court-over-capital-plan/feed 4