​​​​​​Sherry Robinson 2019

© 2020 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES      12/30/19
Former Gov. Edmund G. Ross and his historic impeachment vote
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            In all the impeachment coverage, it was a matter of time before Edmund G. Ross’s name came up.
            Defying his own party in 1868, Ross voted to acquit President Andrew Johnson in his impeachment trial. For that, President John F. Kennedy included Ross in his book “Profiles of Courage.”
            Recently David O. Stewart, author of “Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson,” wrote on the History News Network that Ross’s vote was “a profile in corruption, not courage.”
            We can’t allow this slur against our former governor to pass without argument.
          In his 2014 biography, “Edmund G. Ross: Soldier, Senator, Abolitionist,” author Richard A. Ruddy wrote that Ross was a committed abolitionist who moved his wife and their three young children from their comfortable life in Milwaukee to Bleeding Kansas, arriving during the state’s most violent period.
            Ross joined the fighting in person and in print as a newspaperman. His income barely supported his growing family, and even then his conscience compelled him to mothball his newspaper and serve for three years in the Civil War. For his courage in battle the governor appointed him in 1866 to the U. S. Senate. He stood for election a year later and won.
            Ross, who never wanted to be a politician, was overwhelmed by Washington, D. C., but found fellowship with a few old friends, Ruddy wrote. He went to Washington a Radical Republican but moderated his views under the influence of his friends.
            Congress then debated how to help newly freed slaves and how to return southern states to the union. Johnson, a southerner and a Democrat, opposed helping former slaves and pushed for lenience with the South. Radical Republicans wanted to punish the South and proposed breaking up plantations and parceling the land out to former slaves.
            Where President Lincoln would have sought compromise, Johnson was uncompromising. Johnson’s standoff with Congress flared into impeachment.
          Ross disagreed with Johnson but took seriously his oath to make an impartial judgment and believed the House hadn’t proven its case against Johnson. His vote for acquittal tipped the outcome in Johnson’s favor.
            Stewart writes that Ross “flirted with both sides of the contest, then began to offer his vote for the best deal he could get.” His impeachment vote was the result of a bribe, Stewart says.
          According to Ruddy, the vote plunged Ross into financial turmoil. To make matters worse, in 1872, accusations broke that the election of Kansas senators in 1867 was the result of $42,000 in bribes by shady businessman Perry Fuller. “The exact truth of what happened in 1867 is uncertain,” Ruddy wrote. On the other hand, Ross knew Fuller and had even recommended him for an appointment in 1868.
            Stewart writes that Ross “secured his Senate seat because his sponsor – a crook named Perry Fuller – paid Kansas state legislators $42,000 in bribes.”
            Ross, who returned to newspapering, dutifully published the results of a legislative investigation. He wrote: “A condition of rottenness will be proven to the world to exist and to have existed for years in this state.” That sounds like a mea culpa, but there was no conclusive evidence, Ruddy wrote.
            The controversy led eventually to his move to New Mexico in 1883 and appointment as territorial governor in 1885. Said Ross, “[A]fter seventeen years of poverty and obscurity this vindication is worth a thousand times more to me than would be all the offices of the territory rolled into one and offered to me.”
            David Stewart may have his reasons to believe Ross was corrupt, but why then was he so poor?
          “What can be said of Ross categorically is that beyond his salary he never personally benefitted financially from his job as a senator nor from his job as territorial governor later in life,” Ruddy wrote. “To the end of his life Ross always struggled to make ends meet and at times lived in virtual poverty.”

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES    12/23/19
Let the market decide whether carbon capture can save power plant
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            Who in the state’s energy debate will get lumps of coal in their stockings this year?
            One of the hot topics this year has been the closing of the San Juan Generating Station in Farmington and the state’s new Energy Transition Act (ETA). The legislation was a Democratic initiative opposed by Republicans, especially San Juan County legislators who want to use carbon-capture technology to keep the plant operating.
            I followed the ETA closely in the 2019 legislative session. After listening to arguments on all sides, I was uncomfortable with the bill but couldn’t put my finger on the reason. The fog has cleared.
            The ETA was intended to steer the state toward renewable energy and help San Juan County. It requires New Mexico’s investor-owned utilities to use 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. The state would provide up to $30 million for plant decommissioning and mine reclamation and $20 million for severance pay and job training. Public Service Company of New Mexico plans to close the plant by 2022.
            San Juan County legislators wanted more time to allow a proposed buyer for the plant to pursue carbon-capture technology.
            Over all my years of writing this column, I’ve supported giving communities a large say in determining their economic base. The ETA drags Farmington by the heels toward a goal mandated from the outside and doesn’t allow the city to try to solve its own problems or consider any other options.
          The bill’s proponents argued that carbon-capture technology was still experimental, and the whole scheme of retrofitting the San Juan was unlikely to work. Another argument was that if carbon capture was such a good idea, PNM would have done it. But that ignores the fact that even if regulators approved, converting to a new technology would have saddled PNM’s customers with an unacceptable amount of risk.
            Now a Los Alamos National Laboratory study informs us that carbon capture is technically feasible. The study, underwritten by the U. S. Department of Energy, concluded that the technology is proven and can capture up to 90 percent of carbon emissions.
            Not only can the technology be adapted to the San Juan, LANL scientists said, but operators can re-use equipment from two units that were previously shuttered. They also said there is a market in the Permian Basin for the harvested CO2, along with a relatively close pipeline for transport.
            Carbon-capture opponents complain that this still doesn’t address project economics, which they find questionable. This gets to the rest of my discomfort with the ETA.
            Farmington found a buyer for the plant in Enchant Energy Corp., and it has memoranda of understanding with two companies for project development. Enchant has to raise $1.3 billion from investor to put the whole plan in action.
            Critics say the economics don’t work, and maybe they’re right, but the whole scheme is now moving down an appropriate path toward a market decision. This is one of those times when the market could decide whether the developers, the project, the technology, and the potential outcome merit private investment.
          All the promoters are asking is more time. It’s not an unreasonable request. The bill’s sponsors and Dem leadership need to calm down, take a deep breath, and figure out what’s a reasonable amount of time for Enchant to raise money, to get a thumbs up or down from the market.
          The upside here is huge. If Enchant and Farmington succeed, they not only sustain their economy but put New Mexico on the map as a carbon-capture pioneer. Keep in mind, we still have a lot of coal in the ground.
          And the downside? The plant closes. Same as before.
          Maybe it’s a long shot, but it’s a shot. Let them take it.

 © 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES   12/16/19
Starving unemployed people into finding jobs won’t work
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            Getting people off public assistance and into the workforce requires four things: jobs, reliable transportation, child care, and training. One leg of this stool won’t stand without the other three.
            That’s why the new federal rule that next year will refuse food assistance to 27,255 “able-bodied” New Mexicans without children will fail, and we’ll just have more hungry people than we do now.
            Existing law already limits Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility to three months of every three years for these people unless they’re working 20 hours a week. New Mexico has a waiver, but in April the rule will end the waivers for areas with high unemployment.
          Congress rejected such limits in the Farm Bill, so the Trump admnistration resorted to the rule.
          There’s a persistent myth on rant radio that the system is packed with freeloaders who are subsisted at taxpayer expense.
          The reality: Most of the presumed freeloaders have jobs that pay so badly that they’re eligible for SNAP, or they live in places with no jobs and high unemployment.
            One economist noted recently that 44 percent of working people make $18,000 a year or less. In the last 10 years or so, jobs pay less, provide fewer benefits, are less secure, and have unpredictable hours, according to Cornell University’s Job Quality Index.
            The only good news for the bottom feeders of the employment pool is that on Jan. 1, the state’s minimum wage rises from $7.50 an hour to $9. This gets minimum-wage workers just above $18,000 a year.
            Can anybody live on that? According to the Living Wage Calculator, developed by an academic at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an adult with no children must earn $23,165 a year in Bernalillo County to cover food, healthcare, housing and transportation. Not entertainment, not clothing, not cell phone, not haircuts, not cosmetics – just the four basics.
            In the rural areas pay and cost of living are lower, but you get the idea.
            So people are bridging the gap between paycheck and bare necessities. This probably explains why New Mexico leads the nation in credit card debt relative to income. CreditCards.com said recently that it will take a New Mexican longer to pay off credit card debt than residents anywhere else. In the event of a downturn, they are at greater risk of getting behind on payments.
            Look at county unemployment statistics, and you see that a few counties are doing very well, most counties are doing just OK, and at least nine are struggling. The “full employment” that the Trump administration thinks everyone enjoys doesn’t exist in many places.
          Paul Gessing, of the conservative Rio Grande Foundation, supports the rule. He has proposed that if your county doesn’t have jobs, you should go to where the jobs are.
          What a concept! If there are any unemployed nuclear physicists out there, they can head to Los Alamos, which has low unemployment year in, year out. If job seekers have cars, they can drive to Eddy County and find some kind of work but no place to live. Or there’s Santa Fe County, but unless you land a great job, you can’t afford to live there.
          What if you hitchhike to Albuquerque and look for a job? That was the plan of many folks who became statistics in the city’s massive homeless population.
          Gessing conveniently totes up job postings without looking at the actual jobs. If he did, he’d see a mismatch between required skills and existing levels of preparation. Hence, the training leg of the stool.
          If it worked to starve people into finding jobs, we’d see evidence, but there is none. There is evidence, however, that SNAP reductions drive up the costs of public healthcare.
          As even our paralyzed Congress could see, cutting SNAP is a lose-lose proposition.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES      12/9/19
Think tank would lift the tax on Social Security benefits
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
          A lot of people entering the gates to Social Security Land are surprised to learn that the federal government taxes their benefits and so does the state. Most people these days don’t have the luxury of a pension and will rely on their modest Social Security check.
          The respected and nonpartisan Think New Mexico proposes to repeal the state’s tax on Social Security. Republicans like the proposal; Democrats like it but want to know more about its costs. Two reputable experts say the proposal is “misinformed and flawed.”
           Think New Mexico notes that New Mexico ranks third in seniors living in poverty at 12.2 percent, and that rate is likely to grow. Two-thirds of private-sector workers have no retirement savings. In fact, 80 percent have less than $10,000 saved.
          Only 13 states tax Social Security benefits, and in the last ten years, eight have reduced the tax burden, so New Mexico now has the nation’s second heaviest tax on Social Security. The average state tax on Social Security benefits is $700 a year.
          Also, you’ve already paid taxes on it. New Mexicans pay income tax on the portion of their paychecks taken for Social Security.
           Think New Mexico has two other reforms in the same package.
          The second is the New Mexico Saves Act. It would create a system of Individual Retirement Accounts funded by automatic payroll deductions in workplaces that don’t already have a retirement savings plan. Small businesses would have a simple, inexpensive programs for employees to begin saving for retirement.
           According to studies, workers are 15 times more likely to save for retirement if they can contribute to a retirement plan through automatic payroll deductions, but two-thirds of private-sector employees, or 336,000 New Mexicans, don’t have such a plan at work.
          Think New Mexico’s third proposal targets the state public pension funds. The organization would use some of the budget surplus for a one-time, $700 million cash infusion or bridge loan to the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). It would consolidate the investment management of PERA and Education Retirement Board (ERB) pension funds to achieve higher returns and lower fees and raise the qualifications of board members. PERA board members, who oversee $15.7 billion, aren’t required to have any expertise in financial or investment management.
          Jim O’Neill, former tax policy director of the state Taxation and Revenue Department, and former UNM economist Brian McDonald take issue with Think New Mexico’s numbers. They say New Mexico is 17th, not third, in the percentage of seniors living in poverty. The percentage is 10 percent, they say, on par with the national average, 9.7 percent.
           They argue that the state would lose $73 million in revenues – money that could be spent on education, healthcare and child care programs – and make the state even more dependent on oil and gas revenues. And it could open the door to exempting other retirement income.
          O’Neill and McDonald note that most poor seniors don’t pay state income tax now on Social Security, so there would be no benefit to them from the proposed changes.
          “This proposal is principally an upper-middle/high-income tax cut masquerading as an anti-poverty measure,” they wrote.
           One appeal of a repeal is to draw more affluent retirees to the state. Earlier this year, financial news publisher Kiplinger profiled the 13 states that tax Social Security benefits.
           “The Land of Enchantment is not a magical place for well-off retirees,” Kiplinger advised. “Social Security benefits, retirement accounts and pensions are all taxable.” New Mexico has a retirement-income exemption of up to $8,000 and a generous property tax credit for low-income seniors, Kiplinger wrote, but the gross receipts tax hits most goods and services.
          If the governor adds the proposals to her to-do list for legislators, there’s a lot for them to chew on.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES    12/2/19
Legislators should proceed carefully to change laws for kids who kill
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            Over lunch, a woman I haven’t seen in years lowers her voice and tells me why she moved back to New Mexico. “I’m afraid of my son,” she says. “He’s a psychopath.”
            When he was a kid, she once caught him torturing frogs. Treatment hasn’t helped.
          Last month I wrote a column asking what we do with kids who kill. It was a response to an article by the independent news organization, Searchlight New Mexico, that raised the possibility that people serving long prison sentences for murders they committed as juveniles might be treated and released to live lives as productive citizens.
          The reasoning is that experts know more today about young brains than they did at sentencing. Young people may act on impulse because their brains aren’t fully developed and not weigh the consequences.
​            Reportedly, an Albuquerque legislator is working on a bill to give these people another chance, although the parole board would make the final decision in each case.
            Searchlight focused on one young man who had killed a friend in an act of drug-fueled rage but has acknowledged the harm he had done and turned his life around in jail.
            In the column, I asked about Nehemiah Griego, who was sentenced that week to 30 years in prison for killing his parents, sisters and brother in a premeditated act.
            Mike Daly, of Gallup, wrote to recommend a book by child psychologist Jonathan Kellerman, “Savage Spawn,” about kids who kill without remorse. “(P)sychopathic tendencies begin very early in life, as young as three, and they endure,” Kellerman wrote. 
            This calls to mind the Albuquerque kid who killed his parents, buried them in the back yard, and spent days partying and driving their car until the cops arrested him. Or the 21-year-old on the Navajo Reservation who beat a nun to death with a flashlight while he was burglarizing her home, and then spent a day driving her car and drinking with his friends, whose nickname for him was “Psycho.” He was sentenced to 40 years.
          Kellerman warned that we can’t just blame violent movies and video games or a bad crowd; we must look at the person. These flawed individuals are the cartel hit-men and Hitlers of the future. They have an overriding need for power, control, and stimulation but lack any conscience or empathy for other people. For public safety, he argued, they should stay locked up.
            That was 1999, and the science hasn’t progressed much.
            These days experts are reluctant to attach the psychopath label to a child and instead refer to certain violent kids as “callous” or lacking in empathy, remorse or guilt, according to a story in The Atlantic. They readily hurt others to get what they want, and if they appear caring, it’s to manipulate. Studies say these callous kids are far more likely to become psychopaths as adults; the relatively small number of actual adult psychopaths account for half of all violent crimes.
            The causes may be a harsh childhood, but the condition is often hereditary, “hardwired in the brain” and difficult to treat.
            Ken Kiehl, a UNM psychologist and author of “The Psychopath Whisperer,” is one of the national experts. The major indicator is early violence, he has said. Interviewing psychopaths in prison, he’d ask, “‘What’s the worst thing you did in school?’ And they’d say, ‘I beat the teacher unconscious.’”
          Kiehl has scanned the brains of hundreds of maximum-security inmates and found neural differences between garden variety violent convicts and psychopaths. One juvenile facility has had some success reprogramming youthful pre-psychopaths, but nobody yet is willing to pronounce them cured.
          So, yes, let’s save the troubled youth when we can, but legislators should be very, very careful how they do this.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES   11/25/19
Mari-Luci Jaramillo blazed an extraordinary trail
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            New Mexico lost one of its great women last week. Mari-Luci Jaramillo passed on at 91, a month after an event for her latest book. She will always be known as the first Hispanic woman to serve as an ambassador, but that post was one stop in a long career in diplomacy and education.
            Jaramillo did so much in her life that stories about her tend to sound like a resume. A 1987 interview with the Association of Diplomatic Studies and Training reveals the woman behind the resume.
          We also learn that none of this might have happened without the help of a teacher.
          Jaramillo grew up poor in Las Vegas, the daughter of a shoemaker and musician. Because she excelling at school, teachers encouraged her, but her high school English teacher, Nell Dougherty, went above and beyond.
          “She thought that I was just going to set the world on fire. She just knew I was going to do something great; and she encouraged me right and left,” Jaramillo said in 1987.
          The night of her high school graduation – Jaramillo was valedictorian – her father, who had never attended other school events, was on hand and told her afterward, “You’ve got to go to college.” He promised to provide $100.  
          In the 1950s, before scholarships and financial aid, Jaramillo worked her way through New Mexico Highlands University.
          “I would work at a parachute factory in Las Vegas, and then they’d be in-between contracts, and I’d go to school a semester,” she said. “I’d work at night. I’d write other people’s term papers. I’d clean houses. I’d waitress. I did everything, and I went to school.”
          Jaramillo had one semester left before graduation. By then she was married with three children. She decided to drop out for a semester and work at the parachute factory. Miss Dougherty heard that her star student wasn’t in school and paid a visit. Why are you not in school? she asked.
          Jaramillo said she didn’t have the money. Miss Dougherty wouldn’t hear it. She reminded Jaramillo that she would do great things with her education, that even though she was married, she might need the degree some day. The teacher offered Jaramillo a $200 loan to be repaid when she could. “And if you can’t, some day through your education, you’ll help somebody else that needs help.”
          Jaramillo finished the semester, earned her degree, got a teaching job, and from her first paycheck repaid Miss Dougherty. She would later say that she, and not her husband, paid for her education. That included advanced degrees.
          In 1977, Jaramillo was on the faculty at NMHU when she got a call from the State Department. After shoeing students out of her office, she took the call and was stunned to hear Deputy Secretary Warren Christopher say that President Carter had reviewed her credentials, was very impressed, and wanted her to be his ambassador in Honduras. Hearing her shock and confusion, Christopher told her to think about it over the weekend.
          She called her husband, who was also a faculty member, and was so excited she could hardly speak. They sat in their car and talked. Finally, he reached the big question.
          “And what did you say?”
          “I said,‘No.’”
          “You said what?!”
          “I said ‘no’.”
          “I don’t understand you.”
          She was afraid he’d feel bad if she were the breadwinner. He said: “I know who I am. I’m a very secure person. I think it’s common courtesy for you to tell your president that you’d be delighted to be considered.”
          Ultimately, this and another marriage didn’t survive, and that’s a price some accomplished women must pay.
            Jaramillo served as U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1977 to 1980. She was the first Hispanic-American female ambassador and the first woman to head an embassy in the Western Hemisphere.  ​

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES   11/18/19
Fight between legislators and PRC spreads to broadband
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            For years now, I’ve thought of CenturyLink (and Qwest before it) as Gulliver, tied down by the tiny Lilliputians who think he’s evil and dangerous. Even when he proves himself in war, his little enemies still plot to kill him. They also think Gulliver eats too much and try to starve him.
            CenturyLink is the state’s largest telecommunications provider. A chunk of the state relies on CenturyLink for broadband and phone services. We also count on the company to keep extending fiberoptic cable.
            But tied down by outdated regulatory thinking, CenturyLink is shrinking and with it, the company’s investment in new broadband.
           This wasn’t supposed to happen. Legislators in 2017 passed a deregulation bill that the Lilliputians, also known as the Public Regulation Commission, refuse to honor.
          SB 53, by Sen. Michael Padilla, D-Albuquerque, wasn’t controversial. It passed with almost no opposition. Padilla reasoned that if the state reduced the regulatory burden on CenturyLink that it and other companies would invest more here.
            The bill called broadly for more relaxed regulation. It ordered the PRC to simplify and streamline rate changes and speed up its decision making. The law took effect on June 16, 2017, but not until this year did the PRC produce new rules.
          CenturyLink’s representatives told legislators in September that they anticipated rules that would look more like those for smaller carriers. Instead the PRC delivered a set of new rules governing quality of service without talking to the company. Leo Baca, CenturyLink’s director of government and regulatory affairs, told legislators this month, “They’re a giant step backward.”
          Maybe the company is deserving of this hard-line approach, you might wonder. According to the PRC’s own report to the Legislature, complaints about the company to the PRC plunged from 295 in 2015 to 68 in 2018. At the same time, quality of service exceeded the industry standard in every category but one, and even that wasn’t egregious.
          The PRC hasn’t acted at all in another area that would also ease regulation. SB 53 provided a new definition of effective competition. When the agency finds effective competition, regulation eases. CenturyLink says it has effective competition in all its wire centers, but the PRC has yet to implement the new definition so the old definition applies. The company can’t compete because it’s regulated differently from wireless carriers.
          Gulliver grows skinnier.
           CenturyLink’s residential landlines have plummeted from 611,000 in 2000 to 112,000 in 2018 because of cell-phone competition. Its employment in the state has shrunk from 492 in 2015 to 395 in 2018.
          Is it any surprise then that CenturyLink’s investment in broadband infrastructure dropped from $36.5 million in 2017 to $28 million in 2018?
          When I spoke to Padilla last week, he was furious.
          “The PRC continues to be an activist body instead of a regulatory body,” he said. Instead of promulgating the new law, the PRC has either done nothing or gone “in the complete opposite direction by implementing rules that further exacerbate the intent of the legislation.”
          SB 53 is law, he said. “They can’t change the law.”
          Padilla echoes the complaints of fellow lawmakers who are fighting with the PRC over the Energy Transition Act passed this year. ETA sponsors and legislative leaders have knocked the PRC for trying to re-legislate. ETA opponents argue that the PRC is doing its job.
          These are two very different issues. The energy bill is complicated, controversial and partisan. It was a Democratic initiative, and not all Democrats signed on. SB 53, on the other hand, had broad bipartisan support. All but eight senators and all representatives agreed that we need telecom deregulation, we need broadband, and the two are related.
          After open debate, lawmakers decided in the open to loosen the restraints on Gulliver. Without open debate, the PRC is keeping him tied up.

When hemp’s growing pains ease, NM will see a new ag industry
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            Hemp has sure generated a lot of excitement among New Mexico farmers. Here’s a sampling from a string posted on the Hemp Industry Daily.
            “I have 5 acres of land in Socorro. Is it prudent to consider cultivating hemp in this area?”
            “I have 20 acres outside of Deming. I’m seriously thinking of getting into the Hemp growing, for CBD.”
           “I was just offered $5,000 per acre from a hemp grower to lease my land; it has water rights. Seems too good to be true to me. Anyone been offered that price? I guess if the nut pays me up front, I should take it??”
          “I have 7.5 acres in San Juan County New Mexico and would like information on growing hemp.”
           “I am wanting to grow hemp in my back yard in Santa Fe. Do I still have to pay $800 or would I pay less because of being a smaller operation.”
          “I have 100 acres north of Cuba with electric and water. Would like to get started in the hemp business.”
          “I have 5 acres outside Chaparral. No close neighbors. I would like to grow hemp.”
             The posts reveal interest around the state from large and small land owners because the plant will grow here, and there’s money to be made, we hope. State Agriculture Secretary Jeff Witte told the New Mexican recently that it’s the first time in years he’s seen people wanting to enter farming. Rep. Derrick Lente, D-Sandia Pueblo, thinks hemp could save the family farm.
          This green rush is the result of a bill passed this year authorizing state agencies to regulate the hemp industry. Just before this year’s legislative session, Congress decriminalized hemp, a cousin of marijuana, in the 2018 Farm Bill.
          Hemp has applications in industry and clothing, but the focus is mostly on CBD, a cannabinoid that’s become popular for treatment of anxiety, insomnia, pain, and inflammation. CBD isn’t proven, however, because even research has been illegal.
           In March, Enrique Romero, attorney for the New Mexico Acequia Association cautioned members that growing hemp isn’t like growing alfalfa. First, farmers must get a license from the state Ag Department. And there are substantial costs for licenses, inspection, and testing. Levels of THC (the ingredient that produces a high) must be lower than 0.3 percent; if not, the crop is destroyed. Meeting the THC limit is a matter of harvesting at the right time. Romero advised farmers to do their homework.
          Regardless of hurdles, the state this year licensed more than 400 growers on more than 7,000 acres plus greenhouse space.
          Now that the new growers are harvesting their first crops, they’re finding that it’s not especially easy to sell because supply and demand are still out of sync. Raw hemp is piling up because the state lacks processors, but that’s quickly changing. Companies that process and test are coming, drawn by supply and because state law protects them if the products they receive exceed the federal THC limit.
          New Mexico is late in joining the party because of opposition from former Gov. Susana Martinez. In 2015 she vetoed a bill to regulate hemp research and development that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and the backing of the state Farm and Livestock Bureau. The 2014 federal Farm Bill encouraged such programs.
          In 2017 she vetoed two more hemp bills, and the House Republican leader introduced a third bill. After Martinez pocket vetoed it and nine other bills, legislators challenged the vetoes, and the state Supreme Court found the vetoes invalid. That decision and a new governor finally gave hemp a green light.
          The ubiquitous Duke Rodriguez, CEO of Ultra Health, the state’s largest medical marijuana company, predicts the hemp industry will ultimately be far larger than the marijuana industry. If he’s right, it will be a new day for agriculture.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES     11/4/19
What do we do with kids who kill? State needs better options
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            When a kid kills somebody, is there a chance of redemption?
            We hear in the news that juvenile offenders are increasingly violent. Sometimes the crimes are appalling. But recently, there’s a movement to rethink kids, crimes, and treatment.
          In September, the independent news organization, Searchlight New Mexico, profiled a young offender serving time in the Lea County Correctional Facility in Hobbs. In 2008, when John Gamble was 16, he brutally killed a friend and was sentenced to 60 years.
          “What I did was horrible,” Gamble told the reporter. “There’s no making up for it.”
          Gamble, now 27, could be in prison for another 40 years.
          The state has 39 people like Gamble serving decades-long sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles, according to Searchlight. Nationwide, the number is more than 12,000.
​            Sen. Bill O’Neill, D-Albuquerque, is working on a bill to give people like Gamble another chance. This isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card; the decision would still be up to the parole board. And O’Neill wants to work with the victims’ families.
          According to studies, young brains are not fully developed, so young people act on impulse, sometimes sparked by an instigator, and don’t consider consequences. If you think back to every stupid thing you ever did as a teenager, this explains a lot.
          As a volunteer juvenile probation officer, years ago (we got the lighter cases – usually vandalism and fighting), I’d ask them why they spray-painted that garage door or took that golf cart.
          “I don’t know!” they wailed helplessly. And they really didn’t. Their offenses were spur of the moment; there was no thinking involved.
          Most of us get why kids should be judged by a standard different from adults, and the U.S. Supreme Court and many state courts agree.
          Then we have a case like Nehemiah Griego’s, which dominated the news last week. Seven years ago, Griego killed his parents, his two little sisters, and his little brother. It was a premeditated act with stark elements of heartlessness. So when his three surviving sisters want him to stay behind bars, it’s not hard to understand. And yet, he has aunts and uncles who believe he can be rehabilitated.
​            How treatable is Griego? Kent Kiehl, a professor of psychology, neuroscience, and law at UNM, has studied prisoners. He told Searchlight that so little research has been done on juvenile murderers that “it’s hard to say how at-risk they are, or how treatable they are.”
            Judge Alisa Hart sentenced Griego, 22, to roughly 30 years. She would have preferred giving him probation in a locked treatment facility, but New Mexico doesn’t have one, so he will go to prison. Only the United States sends juveniles to adult prisons.
          As for Gamble, now 27, he graduated from a seminary training program. He mentors fellow inmates and plays guitar in a Christian band. Reformers say these young inmates have a great capacity for change.
            Now for a view from the other end of incarceration: “Our nation’s prisons hold tens of thousands of men and women who have served for far too long. Whatever lesson they could have learned was learned years ago. These are old men and women who do not resemble their young selves in any way. Holding them until they die is cruel, expensive, and pointless.”
            The writer is Kenneth E. Hartman, who spent 38 years in prison for killing a man “in a drunken, drugged-up fistfight in 1980, when I was 19 years old.” He owns what he did but in prison became an advocate for prison reform.
            After years of get-tough laws that haven’t dented the crime rate, New Mexico is rethinking its approach. Square one should be juveniles.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES     10/2819
When tourists or their dogs step into traps, you can kiss new outdoor recreation industry goodbye
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            New Mexico wants the traveling public to think of the state as a destination for outdoor recreation. For those of us who hike, bike, fish, hunt, and golf, that seems pretty obvious. The tourism industry and economic developers are on board.
          However, some really old thinking threatens these new livelihoods.
            This month the state Economic Development Department announced grants to business incubators with the best programs to help budding outdoor businesses. EDD wants to develop at least one incubator that specializes in recreation startups.
            The department made its announcement at an Outdoor Recreation Economic Conference in Silver City, where attendees gathered to talk about how to promote outdoor recreation, “eco and wildlife tourism,” and public-private partnerships. One of the conference speakers was Axie Navas, recently hired to lead the newly created Office of Outdoor Recreation.
            And last week New Mexico joined 12 other states in signing the Outdoor Recreation Industry Confluence Accords, which upholds “the four pillars of conservation and stewardship, education and workforce training, economic development, and public health and wellness.”
          One of the tenets is “conservation and stewardship of land, air, water, and wildlife and for enhanced public access to them.”
            This is not just an aesthetic exercise. In all of these developments there is a firm emphasis on jobs and economic development. In other words, it’s OK to make money on outdoor recreation.
            The industry (yes, it is an industry) brings in about $10 billion a year, which is about 10 percent of the state’s gross domestic product, and supports 100,000 jobs, according to my former newspaper co-worker Karl Moffatt, who blogs at outdoorsnm.com.
            The same day the state was announcing its recreation incubator initiative, a runner found a trap about 15 feet from Old Santa Fe Trail on the outskirts of Santa Fe with a dead fox in it. Although trappers are required to check their devices daily, the fox had been dead at least a week, and it was trapped illegally out of season.
            Next we hear that a judge let off the trapper whose neck snare strangled a dog this year at a state recreation area north of Española. Although the evidence was overwhelming and included selfies of the trapper and his kills, the state Game and Fish Department muffed its investigation, and the trapper’s lawyer took full advantage.
          This doesn’t happen in Colorado or Arizona, where bans have been in place since the 1990s.
            Every dog owner in the state knows Roxy. The name of the dog killed in a neck snare was attached to a bill called Roxy’s Law that would have outlawed traps, snares and poisons on public land. Despite two hearings in which dozens of people described injuries to their dogs or themselves, the bill died.
            Then there’s the state Game Commission. We might have expected a change of attitude by appointees of the new administration, but no. The commission is proposing minimal changes: Closing just one half of one percent of the state’s public lands to most traps, increasing setbacks from trailheads but not from trails or roads, allowing year-round trapping of raccoons and nutria, and increasing check times for underwater traps.
            According to surveys, nearly 70 percent of New Mexicans oppose any kind of trapping. Are any of our public servants listening? Apparently commissioners don’t care that you, your child or your dog can step into a trap, but the first time this happens to a tourist, and that tourist posts to social media, you can kiss our outdoor recreation industry goodbye.
          Trappers argue that they would lose their livelihood and “way of life.” What if legislators and commissioners showed some faith in this new industry? Its success could mean these people could use their knowledge of the outdoors for a kinder, better livelihood.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES     10/21/19
Cannabis businesses need bank accounts, financial services
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            A friend of my son’s had a great job in southern Colorado building marijuana greenhouses the size of airplane hangars. The crews were large, and they were all making good money.
            The only hitch: They were paid in cash because their employer, as a participant in an industry outlawed by the federal government, can’t have a bank account.
          And because outdated laws tie hemp to its cousin marijuana, the hemp industry is similarly hamstrung.
            Currently, 33 states, including New Mexico, have legalized medical or recreational cannabis, but these businesses don’t have financial services. The problem eased somewhat after the Obama administration instituted guidelines that allowed banks to offer services, but the Trump administration rescinded those guidelines.
          With no access to banks, the businesses operate in cash and pay vendors and even taxes in cash. You can imagine the security and logistics headaches.
            So it was good news – and somewhat miraculous in these hyper-partisan times – when the U. S. House of Representatives on Sept. 25 passed the SAFE (Secure and Fair Enforcement) Banking Act overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote.
            The bill would allow marijuana-related businesses operating under state laws to access loans, lines of credit and other banking services and protect financial institutions from prosecution. One of the bill’s selling points is that it’s a public safety measure.
          "Forcing legal businesses to operate in all-cash is dangerous for our communities," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-OR, in a statement. "It’s absurd that cannabis business owners have to shuttle around gym bags full of cash to take care of their taxes or pay their employees. Operating in cash is an invitation to robbery, money laundering and organized crime. This is a public safety issue."
            The bill also protects other businesses that provide products or services to cannabis companies, describes how businesses on tribal land can qualify, and requires guidelines for banks.
            The banking industry supports the bill, and so do law enforcement and a variety of business groups.
            The bill’s passage in the House was cause for optimism, but then last week New York-based BNY Mellon’s Pershing subsidiary, a major bank that handles a third of all U. S. trades, stopped clearing most cannabis-related trades. (That means it finalizes financial transactions.) The action depressed cannabis company stock prices.
            So now, all eyes are on the Senate, and BNY Mellon’s decision adds to the pressure.
            This is all according to Marijuana Business Daily. In the Senate, the online Marijuana Moment takes up the line of questioning. (Journalism graduates, if you’re concerned about your future in our changing industry, cannabis coverage seems to be expanding.)
            The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican, is scrutinizing the bill. He told the Marijuana Moment, that he’s concerned with interstate banking applications, money laundering issues, and health and safety. That, he said, gets into what the states allow and “the health and safety issues about what is going to be banked.”
            The chairman’s language is opaque. Marijuana Moment takes this to imply restrictions on cannabis businesses that want to use banks “or even requirements that states enact certain policies in order for operators within their jurisdictions to qualify.” Health and safety covers a lot of ground, and yet the chairman thinks the bill will have bipartisan support in the Senate.
            Potential opponents in the Senate include presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who want comprehensive marijuana reform and social equity rather than legislation focused closely on industry.
            New Mexico’s governor and her task force last week rolled out proposals for legalized recreational marijuana. If Washington can’t agree on marijuana banking, the state may need to come up with its own remedy.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES    10/14/19
Governor’s tuition proposal may not be the best way to help students
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            New Mexico could become the second state in the nation to cover undergraduate tuition and fees at all the state’s higher education institutions. The governor made national headlines when she announced the proposal last month.
            The New Mexico Opportunity Scholarship kicks in for tuition and fees after students have exhausted federal and state aid, including the lottery scholarship. The unpaid tuition gap is about 25 to 40 percent, according to the governor’s news release.
          The scholarship would be offered to recent high school graduates, GED earners, adult returning students, and undocumented students. Students must be enrolled full-time, although returning students could attend part-time. They must maintain a 2.5 GPA.
            This is what’s called a “last-dollar” program because it follows other forms of aid.
            Experts argue that last-dollar approaches don’t help low-income students. Many already have federal Pell Grants, which cover tuition and fees, so they wouldn’t get help from the state. Also, tuition is just 20 percent of costs for community college students.
          If the state took a first-dollar approach instead, students with financial aid could use state money up front for tuition and fees and apply their other aid for housing, food and transportation.
            Another argument against last-dollar programs is that it would give state money to students from high-income families. So even though they don’t qualify for Pell Grants, they could receive more than Pell recipients.
             How might this work in reality?
              A student I know works full-time in an eatery, attends school full time, and shares a small house near the institution with two other students who also balance classes and work. When she gets home from work, she’s too tired to study but has done the best she can in her nursing program. Recently she was four points shy of passing a necessary exam and must take it over. The exam is expensive, and the testing facility is clear across town. She has no car.
          The hovel she shares has a new owner in California who wants to raise the rent, even though the refrigerator’s freezer doesn’t work and the place has other issues. The three students pleaded with the local representative, so he raised it “only” $100 a month. He can do this because there isn’t enough cheap housing.
          The New Mexico Opportunity Scholarship would relieve her of one expense, although tuition isn’t her biggest cost. Housing and transportation are huge.
          She probably hasn’t taken advantage of all existing financial aid because she has no time for appointments with student services, and they have no time for her. In the cutbacks of pre-oil-boom years, the state’s higher education budgets were slashed, creating a Catch 22: Schools readily admit they don’t offer enough services to keep students in school, and this has helped drive down graduation rates. So more money in the higher ed budget and beefed up student services would help students and institutions.
          Colleges will support the Opportunity Scholarship because it might improve enrollment, but they shouldn’t get their hopes up. A new study of New York’s two-year-old Excelsior Scholarship, the nation’s first statewide “free college” program, shows this last-dollar program made no significant change in enrollment, according to Journalist's Resource, a project of the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center. One deal breaker is the requirement that scholarship recipients stay and work in New York, where the cost of living is high, for a period of time.
          A second study indicates that programs aimed at low-income students help more students of color (duh!) A third says that helping students with expenses other than tuition increases student success.
          This is a preview of coming legislative debates. I think I know how this student and her house-mates would vote.

Parents behaving badly cost sports teams needed refs and officials
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
          At a state wrestling tournament last year, two moms from Belen and Albuquerque got in a fight in the stands while their sons were wrestling 30 feet away. Dozens of fans joined the fray and several were booted from the arena.
          A week later, Santa Fe police had to escort out basketball teams from Las Vegas Robertson and St. Michael high schools after a scuffle among players and fans. And all football fans in Española and basketball fans in Estancia were banned from a game because of the behavior of a few.
            Now it’s soccer. The New Mexico Activities Association’s executive director, Sally Marquez, wrote recently to coaches and athletic directors, “We are at a crisis.” Games are being cancelled for lack of officials, and the number of referees is plummeting because of mouthy parents.
          “The fans are brutal! The cussing and screaming, coupled with the threatening comments has to stop,” Marquez wrote.
          An unnamed official, who recently resigned, wrote: “Soccer parents: you are absolutely 100% the reason that we have a critical refereeing shortage and games are being canceled left and right. And you are at least a part of the reason I’m done here. The most entitled among you are the ones that scream the loudest.”
          The NMAA should be able to focus on kids’ sports. Now, like its peers across the nation, it must divert attention and resources to parents who need a time out.
          The association last year approved a bylaw making member schools responsible for “the conduct of its team, coaches, students and fans at any interscholastic event.” It can penalize schools that repeatedly violate the policy and ban individuals from games for up to a year.
          “I think the whole state understands that we have a sportsmanship issue,” Marquez said.
          So the NMAA is holding schools accountable, but what are schools doing?
          The Santa Fe school board chairman last spring proposed removing athletes from a game if their parents’ behavior was over the top. It was a controversial idea, and he backed off but said parents and fans should be held accountable for their actions. The board decided it had policies in place to remove misbehaving fans.
          In May, after fans threw beer and trash at the opposing team, the professional New Mexico United took a different approach by making its soccer fans responsible for each other. Team owner Peter Trevisani said in a statement that New Mexico United “unequivocally does not and will not tolerate this behavior at our matches.”
          “Any fans caught throwing items on the field or using hateful, racist or homophobic language will be subject to arrest, immediately ejected and banned permanently from our games,” said the statement.“I am asking all New Mexicans to hold each other accountable for our actions. If you see this behavior, we ask that you report it immediately,” he said. “Let’s show the world what New Mexicans can do.”
          If you have a kid in school sports, take a deep breath and ask yourself why you want your kid to participate. As a former sports mom, I think most of us would say, because it’s a great experience. It’s fun. They learn teamwork, sportsmanship, and discipline as they increase their strength and agility. They make good friends. They carry away lessons they’ll keep the rest of their lives.
          Winning isn’t at the top of my list. I still subscribe to the old motto that it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game. These days they say, “Victory with honor.”
          And did I mention fun? This is not World War III. It’s a game. A game! If you’ve forgotten that, do your kid a favor and stay home.

 © 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES   9/30/19
Skilled nursing facility gets away with flagrant neglect
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
           Politicians like to tell us we’ve got the best healthcare in the world. That’s not always true.
          A family member I’ll call Rita took her mother in for a knee replacement. The surgery went well, and she received good care from the hospital. Her rehab was another story.
          In a for-profit, skilled nursing facility, the staffing was thin and the care indifferent. Although Rita’s mother was supposed to get physical therapy daily, she lay in bed for days with no therapy. She sat for hours in a wet diaper, despite Rita’s repeated calls for help. The food was so bad that Rita brought her mother’s meals from home.
           Worst of all was the casual attitude toward medications. Rita’s mother was in a lot of pain. Her caregivers were routinely late with her meds even though Rita notified them from the room a half hour before the meds were due.
          Once, after repeatedly pressing the call button to no response, Rita walked down the hall and found staff members sitting in the lobby playing games on their phones. The light board behind them was lit up, and the phones were ringing. Rita could hear people calling for help.
          “It was a nightmare,” she said. “What happens to people who have no one to speak for them?”
          When Rita checked her mother out of the place – early – the woman across the hall cried because Rita had helped her too.
          From Google reviews, we learned we weren’t alone:
          “This place is awful… No working bathroom, food is GROSS and no care for patient. Leave our loved ones in filth all day. Why do we have to put up with this?”
          “Never go to this place for rehabilitation. The food there has no taste and no one eats the food… Even the cleaning of the rooms was bad. The bathrooms never got cleaned.”
          “My mother was a resident for around a month. Because of the neglect from this facility, she passed away. Please do not place your loved ones in this facility.”
          “This is not a good facility… Only one doctor for the whole facility. She never sees all her patients… Those CNA (certified nurse assistant) people haven't given my friend a shower yet. It's been 5 days now.”
          “Therapy slacks off a lot and don't work with you to get better! They all look so careless. The food here has no flavor, so nasty the food! When you’re in terrible pain they take lots of time to bring them to you! You can be dying here and they won't care.”
          “This facility has been a nightmare. The staff rarely answer the phones or return calls.
          They also repeatedly pick up and hang up the phones instead of answering. They will also try to avoid doing their job and try to tell you everything is your responsibility.”
          The website had one stuffy response from management: “We are disappointed to hear that you are not satisfied with your visit. Please contact our Compliance Department… so we can further investigate.”
          Here’s the thing: If there’s one place like this, there are more. It’s up to the state Health Department to keep an eye on them, and obviously that’s not happening.
          As a business writer, I’d expect such places to fail, but they muddle along because of demand. In Rita’s case, a better facility had no more beds, which means that Wedontgiveahoot Corp. has learned that they can still make money running a third-rate facility.
          Years ago, the head of the state Agency on Aging went undercover to experience nursing-home care firsthand. That bureaucrat was Michelle Lujan Grisham, and her report of “thoughtless care” shook things up. We need another shakeup.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES       9/23/19
Trump says he loves Hispanics, but they don’t feel loved
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
          “We love our Hispanics,” the president said last week.
          If you weren’t at the Rio Rancho rally you might find the remark patronizing. If you were at the rally, you might have liked it.
          One of the lessons we keep learning about the Hispanic vote is that there is no organized, predictable bloc. Post-rally interviews revealed that the “Latinos for Trump” T-shirt wearers support him for the same reasons as his non-Hispanic supporters.
          Still, the rally did spotlight the subject of Hispanic voting.
            News stories all honed in on the moment Trump hailed Steve Cortes, a member of Trump’s Hispanic Advisory Council, in the audience. Trump said Cortes looks “more like a WASP (white Anglo Saxon Protestant) than I do.”
            We in New Mexico know that people with Hispanic surnames don’t come in standard-issue shades of skin, but Trump was obviously surprised that Cortes doesn’t fit his Hispanic stereotype.
          He asked Cortes whether he loved the United States or Hispanics more. Cortes responded that he loved the country more, which led to a rambling comment from Trump that ended: “We got a lot of Hispanics. We love our Hispanics. Get out and vote.”
            Cortes himself tweeted the next day that, while the president’s phrasing was awkward, “he was merely trying to point out that I love this country AND Hispanics a whole lot…”
          Many commentators wondered why Trump would question Cortes on his loyalty. Republican consultant and Trump critic Mike Madrid said Trump drew “a distinction between Hispanics and true Americans.”
            Late-night TV was also pointed.
          On “The Late, Late Show,” James Corden joked: “Trump asked Steve Cortes, ‘Who do you like more, the country or the Hispanics?’ Coincidentally, that’s also the first and only question asked in a White House job interview.”
          Trevor Noah observed on “The Daily Show,” “Those two things aren’t even in the same category: ‘What do you like better: Pepsi or Mongolia?’”
             What I heard last week was frustration among Hispanic people that despite their long service in the military, public office, law enforcement, the judiciary, education – any field you can think of – their contributions for the greater good of the United States go unnoticed. It’s like they’re invisible.
          So even though millions of Hispanics have served in the nation’s wars, for example, their patriotism is still in doubt.
          That was the message to his white supporters, said political scientist Melissa Michelson, former president of the Latino caucus of the American Political Science Association.
          “Latinos are perpetual foreigners and therefore, perpetual potential enemies. It's an anti-immigrant, anti-Latino message, implying that folks who are Latino are not as loyal or not as proud to be Americans as white people," she said on ABC-TV.
          And why would they have to choose? Would he ask a Norwegian descendent in Minnesota whether he liked Norwegian Americans or the country better?
          "A vast majority of Latinos in the United States have strong identities both as Americans and as Latinos or as Hispanics," Michelson said. Trump’s message was aimed both at his white base and the Hispanic supporters who set themselves apart from immigrants.
          Trump told his Rio Rancho audience that Hispanics will “love” a border wall as a barrier to the drug flow “because you understand it better than other people… You understand it when other people don’t understand it.”
          Oh? Something in their DNA gives them greater insight into drug distribution?
          Trump often claims Hispanics love him, but just 25 percent of Hispanics approve of the job he’s doing as president, according to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll.
          If Trump and Republicans want to budge those numbers, they need to look hard at discussions like these and not dismiss them as political correctness. As people said after the El Paso shootings, words matter.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES    9/16/19
New Mexico chile growers have far bigger problems than a few Colorado chiles
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
          We’re having a little war of words with Colorado over chile, and as a native Coloradoan I can say with some authority that they just don’t get it.
          Up there, chile is a crop. Occasionally, it’s a food.
          Down here, it’s an industry. It’s a foundational block of our culture, history, and regional cuisine. It’s the subject of festivals, books, and food posts on Facebook. We have an entire university institute devoted to it. Fall isn’t fall without the smell of green chile roasting.
          It started after Colorado’s governor touted Whole Foods’ decision to carry his state’s chile in its Colorado, Kansas, Idaho and Utah stores. Never mind that. Last year, the Denver Broncos announced they would sell food with Hatch green chile at Broncos Stadium.
          We know there’s no contest, but I credit the Coloradoans with a good marketing stunt. If you want kids on the playground to think you’re tough, you pick a fight with the biggest guy.
          Our Tourism Department seized the opportunity to create a tasteful 30-second video that’s now playing here and in Colorado. We even have a billboard in the heart of Denver, on top of a Colorado brewpub.              Take that!
           But really, New Mexico’s growers face bigger problems.
          In the 1990s, NAFTA deluged the United States with unmarked chile from Mexico, China, and other nations in quantities that dwarf the few hundred acres of chile in Colorado. By 2010, our chile crop was the smallest in 37 years, and acreage plunged by nearly 30 percent in just one year. New Mexico farmers were seriously threatened.
          Legislators passed a law in 2011 making it illegal to advertise a product as New Mexico chile unless it’s grown here. It applies only in New Mexico. And the Hatch Chile Association and Bueno Foods went to court to challenge a major food processor that refused to say where its chile came from. Appeals judges sided with the association and Bueno in 2016.
          When Hatch growers pushed their brand, it annoyed farmers in Luna and Doña Ana counties. Of course, the growers in northern New Mexico will tell you that their chile has its own unique flavor.
          In 2014 the state approached chile growing from the point of view that we’re all in this together and created a trademark and certification program to protect New Mexico chile in the same way Idaho has stepped up to enshrine its potatoes.
          That helped, but the imports still flow, and chile farmers can’t hire enough workers to harvest the crop. The impact is staggering. New Mexico chile acreage has plunged from 34,500 in 1992 to 17,500 in 2005 to 8,100 last year.
          This year it’s inched up to 8,400 acres, and we grow more chile than any other state, according to the USDA, but the Mexican state of Chihuahua alone has upwards of 90,000 acres planted in chiles.
          The difference is labor. They have access, and we don’t.
            Last week KVIA-TV in El Paso reported Alonso Grajeda, a Hatch chile farmer, saying: “It’s really, really hard to get workers out there right now. It hurts us big time.”
          The shortage is so bad, farmers are having to compete for workers. “They’ll basically go with whoever treats them better, pays them better and where the crop is better,” Grajeda said.
          This story circulated all over the country last week, while U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue was here. He said a federal guest worker program could help both farmers and impoverished Central Americans. An existing program for agricultural workers is so encumbered in red tape, it doesn’t work.
          So farm labor and farmers themselves have been sucked into the debate over the border and immigration. The supply of workers and the demonstrated demand for them are staring us in the face. What’s missing is political will.

What exactly are we losing to build a few miles of border wall?
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            Everybody has a duct tape story. My favorite, until recently, was how a friend who liked to hike alone always had a roll of duct tape in his backpack because, well, you just never know when you’ll need it. He broke his leg in a fall and used tree branches and duct tape to make a splint that allowed him to hobble back to his truck.
            My new favorite duct tape story is its use at Holloman Air Force Base’s training facility for the MQ-9 Reaper.
            The Reaper is a drone that’s bigger and badder than the Predator. Picture a remotely piloted aircraft with a 66-foot wingspan and a range of 1,150 miles. The Air Force says it “attacks time-sensitive targets with precision and persistence.”
            Holloman has the distinction of housing the sole training facility for the Reaper’s crew of two – pilot and sensor operator. Its students include active-duty personnel, reservists, contractors, and civil service employees from all over the world. It has more than 100 instructors.
          The Air Force has described RPAs (remotely piloted aircraft) as one of the military’s fastest growing missions. Demand has grown so quickly that the Air Force currently doesn’t have enough pilots and sensor operators.
          Last spring the Alamogordo Daily News reported that the 69-room training facility sits over the largest sinkhole on the base. It also has plumbing and electrical problems.
          “You’ll see a variety of duct tape… not because we can’t replace (equipment) but because this building has always been on the chopping block,” Lt. Col. Alfred Rosales told Sen. Martin Heinrich during a tour.
          “This mission is one of the most urgent security needs for the Air Force,” Heinrich said at the time, “but to have people working in an environment that has very real health and safety issues, to me, is not acceptable.”
          Heinrich secured $85 million for a new building, only to see it disappear when the Defense Department last week diverted $3.6 billion in military construction projects to pay for 175 miles of the president’s border fence. He and the rest of the congressional delegation were incensed.
            U. S. Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, protested the decision. She called Holloman a crucial military asset and said the funding diversion “dismantles (the committee’s) bipartisan work and disrespects the next generation of MQ-9 pilots trained right here in New Mexico.”
          New Mexico also lost a $40 million project at White Sands Missile Range. The existing information systems facility, built in 1962 as the telephone building, is small and outdated. In 2015 it caught fire. The new building would allow White Sands to consolidate existing systems from 10 buildings into a single modern facility.  
          "It gives WSMR a future," Facility Manager April Banks said last year. "It is going to give us the ability to do more testing. It advances our capabilities to process and transport vast amounts of electronic test data more reliably, efficiently, faster and securely."
            Notice her choice of wording when Banks talks about the future. One thing we’ve learned through several base-closing exercises is that if our facilities don’t continue upgrading and making themselves irreplaceable, they will sooner or later face the chopping block. That’s why there’s a note of alarm in the indignation of our congressional delegation.
            Most media totaled New Mexico’s losses at $125 million. They didn’t count the $20 million at Fort Bliss in El Paso. That too affects New Mexico.
            There’s been much said about the border. We know that most drugs come in through official ports of entry, that asylum seekers give themselves up, and the flow of Mexican citizens is a fraction of what it was. Anybody willing to risk the viability of two bases for a few miles of fence?

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES     9/2/19
Settling Duran consent decree is a step forward for state corrections
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Certain lawsuits span the careers of lawyers, politicians and journalists and tower over everything else that happens for decades. The Duran consent decree is one. It lasted so long that its namesake died before the case reached an end. People in my line of work could hardly write about corrections without referring to Duran.
            Last week, when the governor announced a preliminary agreement, it was a major turning point for state corrections. A federal magistrate judge signed off on the state’s promise to protect inmates’ constitutional rights, treat them humanely, and improve living conditions. The state Corrections Department will have some flexibility in developing new policies.
            The Duran consent decree had its genesis in 1977 when Jerry Apodaca was governor. An inmate named Dwight Duran submitted to the court his 99-page, hand-written brief after his friend died of brutal, cruel treatment in the Penitentiary of New Mexico.
            The friend asked for help with heroin withdrawal at the prison hospital and was instead thrown into “the hole,” a windowless cell with only a drain-hole in the middle, and beaten. Released from segregation a month later, he got weaker. Duran and others pleaded for help, only to be threatened with the hole themselves. The sick man died of cancer, and Duran wrote his landmark lawsuit from the hole and managed to have it smuggled out.
            Duran’s class-action lawsuit on behalf of prisoners, Duran v. Apodaca, accused the state of operating a prison under cruel and unusual conditions. The ACLU joined the suit in 1978. The consent decree, a stipulated agreement, emerged in 1979, but not much happened until after the penitentiary riot in 1980. It’s been called, without exaggeration, the bloodiest prison riot in American history.
            We know all this because journalist Roger Morris interviewed inmates and former inmates and then wrote a chilling exposé and a book, “The Devil's Butcher Shop: The New Mexico Prison Uprising.”
            Grand jury reports for 10 years had raised issues with overcrowding, mismanagement, untrained prison guards, and under-staffing, but legislators ignored them until the prison riot exploded into national attention. Two days of savagery put the horror into the word “horrific,” as 33 inmates died, and Old Main was left a shambles.
            My own small role in the event was to interview the frightened families of inmates and listen to ex-cons describe hellish conditions inside the pen.
          “I’m not asking for pity,” one man said, “but I spent six and a-half years in the penitentiary, and now I’m back on the streets with you. Ninety-eight percent of all convicts get out of prison and go back into society with some strong feelings about their prison experience.”
            It’s a comment I never forgot. If you’ve read it in a previous column or two, that’s OK. It bears repeating.
            Post-riot, the Duran consent decree launched what Morris called the "the most sweeping reform ever proposed for any single prison in American history." The decree mandated improvement in 14 areas that covered everything from food and visitation to living conditions and medical care.
          For years, a special master has monitored compliance.
          The new settlement requires the Corrections Department to transfer at least 284 inmates from dormitories and double-bunked cells to facilities with adequate space. Every inmate housed in a dormitory or multiple occupancy room must have at least 50 square feet of combined living and sleeping space. The state must increase staffing and re-evaluate physical fitness needs for various staff positions. After six months of compliance, the state can ask to be relieved of court oversight.
          This preliminary agreement is a step forward. The treatment approach lawmakers embraced this year is another step forward. But we still have solitary confinement. One step back.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES       8/26/19
Vaping claims its first victims in NM and the nation
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Vaping is the new smoking.
          If you’re the parent of a teen, you have something new to add to your worry list. Besides having The Talk about sex and drugs and DWI, you need to talk to your kids about e-cigarettes.
          Last week, the state Department of Health said it’s investigating a lung disease believed to stem from vaping and warned against using vaping cartridges with THC, an active ingredient of marijuana.
          This was after a 29-year-old male from Bernalillo County contracted a lung disease, and three others were hospitalized with severe breathing problems, coughing, shortness of breath and fatigue. The common denominator was cartridges containing THC.
          Days later, the state of Illinois reported the first death. The U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday reported 193 cases of severe pulmonary illnesses among e-cigarette users.
          Remember when we welcomed e-cigarettes as a safe way for adults to stop smoking? Now the federal government considers their use by young people a public health epidemic.
          Sens. Tom Udall, D-NM, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, introduced a bill in June to help school districts address the surge of vaping. Their bill would ban e-cigarette use in educational and childcare facilities.
          Udall chided the makers of e-cigarettes for using “enticing flavors and deceptive marketing tactics to hook an entirely new generation of children on tobacco products.”
          He added, “The enormous progress we made in reducing youth tobacco use is now in serious jeopardy in New Mexico and across the country.” He said nearly one in four New Mexico high school students have used e-cigarettes – nearly twice the national rate.
          Last year the federal U. S. Food and Drug Administration warned 22 New Mexico businesses (including Wal-Mart, Walgreen’s and 7-Eleven) and fined one for selling e-cigarettes to people younger than 18.
          New Mexico legislators took a big step last winter in passing a bill to make e-cigarettes part of the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act. They’re now prohibited in most workplaces and any other area where smoking is banned.
          However, a bill to require purchasers of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products to be 21 died, as did bills banning flavored tobacco products.
          Legislators had animated discussions about what I thought were “jewels.” They were actually talking about JUULs. The hype on the website tellingly called vapor4life describes the JUUL vape pen as small and easy to use, with “strong nicotine salt flavors that come prefilled in each JUUL pod.” Top selling flavors? Mango and Cool Mint.
          For other mature readers, some explanation is in order: Electronic cigarettes heat liquid until it’s a vapor the user can inhale. That liquid usually contains nicotine, chemicals and flavorings.
          Representatives of JUUL Labs said their corporate mission was to help adults stop smoking. The company’s founders began developing the product as grad students who were smokers.
          “The fact that it has taken off with youth is as appalling to us as it is to you,” wrote Ashley Gould, JUUL’s chief administrative officer, in an op ed. “Many of us at JUUL Labs are parents and know that strong action is required.”
          The company supported raising the purchasing age for all tobacco products to 21 and said that “it will take the industry and lawmakers working together to restrict youth access.”
          Gould said the company took steps last year to limit access and use of JUUL products by youth. It stopped distributing mango, fruit, creme and cucumber flavors to retail stores, but they’re still available online.
            Until both Congress and the Legislature take stronger steps to keep vaping products out of the hands of kids, it looks like we’re back to “Just say no.”

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES      8/19/19
New Mexico could be a ‘wind powerhouse’ with leadership
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            An Oklahoma maker of windmills told a national news outlet in 1977: “We in the wind-energy business are going to be a small but viable source, but we must maintain our basic energy sources or we are going to head toward economic disaster. The technology for wind energy is here, but it’s incredibly expensive, four or five times the cost of coal or gas sources. It’s a cruel delusion for anyone to think they’re going to save money by using the wind, except in rare instances.”
            Only the most ardent wind energy enthusiast might have foreseen that this resource would become a “basic energy source.”
            Last week, we learned that New Mexico is third in adding wind capacity, with 2,774 megawatts under construction or development, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Texas is first, with 9,015 MW, and Wyoming is second with 4,831 MW.
          For the numbers geeks, in 2018 New Mexico had 1,732 MW of installed capacity, which made up 18.7 percent of electricity. The 17 wind farms employed up to 3,000 people and paid $8.5 million in state and local tax revenue.
          The association calls us “an emerging wind powerhouse.”
          Compared to West Texas, where you can drive for miles and never lose sight of windmills, New Mexico’s progress has been uneven, at best.
          We started with a small project at Texico on the state line in 1999. Since then, we’ve had bursts of wind farm construction followed by lulls. The latest flurry started in 2017 and continues.
          New Mexico has gone from sixth in wind energy in 2005 and 2007 to 14th in 2010, 17th in 2014, and 16th currently.
          For years, the experts have said the state had the potential to be a wind energy giant. For as many years, we’ve heard, as we did again this year, that to reach its full potential, “the state will need to expand transmission line infrastructure and continue to implement successful renewable energy policies.”
          Wind farms can produce electricity, but then they need to move it. We’ve known for years that we have a transmission bottleneck on the eastern plains.
          The Legislature in 2007 created the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority (RETA), an independent, quasi-government agency with bonding authority. Its mission was to plan, finance, develop and acquire high-voltage transmission lines. By 2015 RETA was working with private industry on several transmission projects when former Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed $200,000 for the agency.
          U. S. Sen. Martin Heinrich said, “It was a penny-wise and pound-foolish thing to do.”
          RETA was then involved with a company to develop a 165-mile line through central New Mexico. It changed hands twice and became the Western Spirit transmission project. This year home-grown utility giant PNM Resources said it would buy the line when it’s completed in 2021.
          Then there’s the SunZia Transmission Project, an ambitious 500-mile project that started in 2008 and is still fighting its way through the regulatory thicket. To make a very long, complicated story short, the project got a green light from Arizona regulators in 2016 and a red light from our own Public Regulation Commission in 2018. In the same decision the PRC approved another wind farm.
          Of course. The fine print in their oath of office reads, “Just say no.”
          These are the same commissioners urging utilities along the renewable path. Their predecessors in 2007 passed a renewable portfolio standard requiring utilities to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020. This year, the Legislature raised the standard to 50 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045.
            Rep. Pat Woods, a Republican from wind-friendly Roosevelt County, predicted economic rewards of renewable energy “if our New Mexico leadership fully supports this opportunity.”
            Woods is a diplomat. We’ve never had everyone pulling the rope in the same direction.

         © 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES    8/12/19
Looming deadline for Gila River diversion may signal future water decisions
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            The much-debated Gila River diversion project may be running out of time. The proposal has set water experts against each other and burned time and money for 15 years.
            Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham campaigned on pulling the plug. Recently, she appointed new members to the Interstate Stream Commission. In her water plan last year, she wrote, “Dysfunction, political infighting, a staffing exodus and budget cuts have all undermined the mission of the ISC and the State Engineer.”
          The governor also reappointed John D’Antonio as State Engineer, a position he held from 2003 to 2011. The office was decimated by 25 percent vacancies, and his predecessor was something of a loose cannon. During the confirmation process, a senator asked jokingly if D’Antonio could be confirmed for 30 years.
          D’Antonio has said diplomatically that the Gila is “a very complicated issue,” and that it was important to keep an open mind.
          New ISC appointees all have long backgrounds in New Mexico water management. It’s unclear if they’ll toe the governor’s line on the Gila project or display some independence.
           In a nutshell, a 2004 settlement gave the state’s four southwestern counties of Luna, Grant, Hidalgo and Catron the opportunity to divert 14,000 acre-feet of water a year, provided they deliver that amount of water downstream. The federal settlement act provided $66 million for water projects and 10 years to decide how to spend it.
            In 2014, the ISC voted to take the first step toward diversion, but stakeholders weren’t agreed on any of a dozen options.
            Opponents, including former ISC Director Norm Gaume, have argued that because of climate change the state would gain so little water that it doesn’t justify the high cost, and it would destroy the state’s last wild river.
          American Rivers, a conservation group, this year called the Gila the nation’s most endangered river. (With gravel berms directing water to several ditches, the Gila isn’t entirely wild.) Trout Unlimited has called for protection as a wild and scenic river.
          Supporters, like the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District in Catron County, maintain that this is the only new water the state is likely to get, and its value will only increase. Failure to act means letting the water go to Arizona.
          Last month, the New Mexico-Central Arizona Project Entity (CAP) shrank the proposed project to fit within the federal funding available, about $50 million. The project would still include Gila River diversion and some storage ponds, but it would deliver less water. Costs to users would drop dramatically.
          This is one of many such reductions. The CAP three years ago decided against a $1 billion diversion and in recent years has modified plans several more times because of cost and technical challenges. Even though the proposal is a shadow of its former self, supporters say it would help farmers and water users in the region.
          Now the proposal faces a deadline that it’s unlikely to meet. The U. S. Interior Secretary must make a decision by the end of the year, but the environmental impact statement must be finished, and that’s not going to happen. Without an agreement to extend the deadline, it would be the end of the line.
            This year the governor line-item vetoed nearly $1.7 million for the diversion.
          Meanwhile, the ISC and the State Engineer have been trying to meet contract obligations as they move toward the governor’s water priorities. The governor’s spokesman said recently that shift would accelerate with new appointees on the ISC.
          D’Antonio was State Engineer when the former senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman did the legwork to give New Mexico a shot at this water. He’s previously talked about a solution that will work for everybody. We can hope that’s possibile.

 © 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES    8/5/19
Mass shootings, fueled by internet ignorance, get closer and closer
By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote
            He was wearing ear protectors, just like people do at a shooting range. And he complained beforehand that his AK-47 assault-style rifle wasn’t powerful enough.
          “It’s not designed to shoot rounds quickly,” said the presumed El Paso shooter in an online post. “So it overheats massively after about 100 shots fired in quick succession.”
          Even though he killed 20 and wounded 26 Wal-Mart shoppers, he was frustrated that he couldn’t kill even more people.
          We’ve been debating gun laws in the state and nationally for years, with little progress or resolution.
          Probably the single most contentious bill among several hotly debated bills in the last legislative session was a bill requiring background checks of private gun sales and closing loopholes for online or gun show sales. Another bill tries to keep guns out of the hands of people with domestic violence convictions or protective orders against them for domestic abuse.
            The governor signed both into law, and opponents have mounted petition drives and court challenges.
            Don’t worry, I’m not about to re-debate these two laws.
            But we need to consider the changing nature of these crimes.
            As more than one news outlet has observed, we’re seeing a wave of young white men who spend so much time on the internet that they lose touch with reality. Websites that glorify the unthinkable give them not only an outlet for all their dark urges but an audience of like-minded individuals.
            The El Paso shooter drove nine hours from Dallas to El Paso.
          “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas,” he wrote before the shootings. “They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.”
            Somebody from Dallas probably knows El Paso only as a border crossing, but the city is a regional commercial center that has far more retail outlets than it needs for its own population. That’s because Mexican citizens cross the border in large numbers to shop; then they return home. El Paso also draws shoppers from a large area of Texas and New Mexico.
            The gunman also doesn’t know his own history. The “Hispanic invasion” started in Texas and New Mexico centuries ago, and they didn’t displace white people, they displaced Native Americans. White people were the newcomers, and in Texas they displaced both Hispanics and Native Americans.
            With every mass shooting, we have the same arguments. Democrats want to see better gun control, and the presidential candidates advance various proposals.
            Gun-rights advocates inevitably bring up the Second Amendment. Let’s see, during the Revolutionary War, the weapon of choice was the muzzle-loading flintlock musket, which was slow and inaccurate. The founding fathers were visionaries, but it’s unlikely that they saw the assault rifle or the internet coming.
          Republicans like to blame mental illness, but they never finish the discussion. Yes, mental illness is a factor, but we do a lousy job of treating mental illness in this country, which is why hardly a week passes without another deadly encounter between a disturbed person and cops.
          This is not an indictment of cops. Because the safety net fails the mentally ill and their families, cops, who are not trained mental health providers, are the last resort.
            Just days ago, in my middle class neighborhood, where everybody knows each other, one man shot another inside a home. That’s too close for comfort, I told my husband.
            This mass shooting in El Paso is also too close for comfort. El Paso is family.
          As the incidents get closer, as the killings increase, as the impact radiates through families and communities until we all know a victim or become a victim, the defenders of gun rights will feel more pressure to come up with real solutions.

 ​© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES  7/29/19
Gov. to appointees: Keep up or go home to mama
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            There are several ways to look at the governor’s firing of Education Secretary Karen Trujillo, and some smart people are choosing to see it in the worst possible light. Namely, if the governor can fire such an esteemed professional, it must herald an unstable future of public canings for appointees.
            That’s a stretch.
            To support this argument, the online news site New Mexico In Depth (NMID) reaches back to January 2007 to recall then Health Secretary Michelle Lujan Grisham firing Gary Simpson, a respected public health doctor. She was then accused of micro-managing the department and called a bad leader.
          But a former staffer said, "She is constantly challenging people to do their best. Perhaps it's a management style people who have been there a long time aren't used to."
          Another former staffer said "When Michelle came to the department, there were changes that needed to be made. That's never going to make you popular. But it didn't make her difficult to work for."
          Lujan Grisham herself said: "There's no question I have very high expectations. I have zero tolerance for folks who are not willing to come to work and work hard and make a difference."
          That was 12 years ago, so it doesn’t exactly establish a pattern.
          NMID referred to the problematic K-5 Plus rollout, a poll rating the popularity of governors, and changes to child care assistance by the Children Youth and Families Department to question whether Gov. Lujan Grisham is so sensitive to criticism that cabinet secretaries could be thrown under the bus.
          That’s an even bigger stretch.
          Yes, Trujillo’s dismissal was a shocker. She was appointed later than most cabinet members because the governor and Lt. Gov. Howie Morales wanted the right person to lead the PED. It appeared they’d found that person in Trujillo, a home-grown educator with both class and administrative experience. Her confirmation hearing was almost euphoric after years of an unpopular education secretary.
          All three branches of government – governor, Legislature, and courts – piled duties and expectations on this new secretary, and I wondered how an ordinary mortal would hold up.
           What we see here is the governor’s management style, and it’s direct and impatient.
          Lujan Grisham is a human spark plug – one of the most energetic people I’ve ever seen. She moves as if there’s not a minute to waste.
          I have a mental image of her appointees akin to the police recruits who run down my street every now and then, led by an officer whose order must be, “Keep up, you wimps, or go home to mama!”
          She sets a blistering pace and expects her appointees to perform.
          In this context, Trujillo’s firing starts to make sense. Trujillo felt blindsided and didn’t suspect her job was on the line. The governor complained about communication and meeting expectations.
          Lujan Grisham might have tried to make Trujillo the right fit, but decided, Trujillo’s not the person for the job so let’s move on.
          Lujan Grisham has good reason to be in a hurry. New Mexico, we know, was last in the nation on this year’s Kids Count measure. We just learned that on standardized tests, just one-third of our kids were proficient in English and a dismal one-fifth were proficient in math.
          Contrast Lujan Grisham with former governors: Gary Johnson, who gave his executives a lot of latitude but didn’t listen to them; Bill Richardson, who didn’t hesitate to overrule cabinet secretaries if their decisions proved unpopular; and Susana Martinez, who tolerated her bad actors too long.
          We can take a cue from Santa Fe Public Schools Superintendent and former education secretary Veronica Garcia. While the firing was unsettling, she said, the overall mission was clear. “We’ll just keep going.”

 © 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES    7/22/19
Congress debates minimum wage but NM has compromise in hand
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Freshman Congresswoman Xochitl Torres Small separated from House Democrats and the rest of the New Mexico delegation last week. In voting against a $15 minimum wage, she may have been out of step with Dems but she was in step with the state.
            Reps. Ben Ray Lujan and Deb Haaland forgot, at least temporarily, where they come from.
            “I’m for raising the minimum wage, but $15 is just too high,” Torres Small said. Her concern was the impact on small businesses and especially on rural areas.
            The bill would raise the minimum to $15 by 2025 and eventually eliminate the minimum for wait staff and others who live on tips. The federal minimum, $7.25 an hour, hasn’t been raised in a decade.
            In New Mexico, we’ve plowed that ground.
          This year, legislators arm-wrestled over the wage and, after some heated words, arrived at a monumental compromise. On Jan. 1, the state minimum, which also hasn’t changed in a decade, will rise from $7.50 to $9, with annual increases until it reaches $12 in 2023. The wage for tipped employees will be $3 an hour beginning Jan. 1, 2023. And students with after-school or summer jobs will be paid $8.50 an hour.
            During deliberations, restaurant servers argued vehemently for their tips and their tipped wage, and rural communities were adamant that a big increase would destroy the few small businesses still operating.
            Initially, the arguments were between Democrats and Republicans, but then it was among Democrats. Rep. Miguel Garcia, D-Albuquerque, was determined to get the wage up for the sake of workers. Sen. Clemente Sanchez, D-Grants, was trying to raise the minimum without hurting small businesses. Both had supporters.
            The warring bills pitted the Senate against the House and provoked a heated exchange between two Dem senators on Day 58 of the 60-day session. Just as it was starting to look like lawmakers would adjourn once again without a minimum wage increase, the governor brokered a compromise – late at night and with 12 hours left in the session.
          Gov. Michele Lujan Grisham campaigned on an increase in the minimum wage, saying, “No New Mexican who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty.”
          Two years ago the Legislature passed another minimum wage bill, which former Gov. Susana Martinez pocket vetoed (failed to sign by her deadline).
            I’ve been writing about minimum wage proposals for a few decades, and they’re always difficult. Everyone sympathizes with the need to help the lowest paid workers, but not everyone understands the economics of raising the minimum.
            When Lujan says, “It’s time to raise the wage to boost local economies and help our communities make ends meet,” he obviously doesn’t understand that what goes out must first come in.
            One restaurant owner argued that Garcia’s proposal would have raised the minimum by 35 percent, but restaurant profit margins are thin – typically about 2 percent.
            Another eatery proprietor said his $5 burger and fries would be $6.50 under the proposal, and he wasn’t sure that would fly in his small town.
            Where’s the money for these increases going to come from? It’s a question that dogs the minimum wage debate every year it comes up, and for several years now New Mexico’s anemic economy couldn’t support a raise. Democrats typically assume these increases will magically lift the economy, and Republicans typically assume workers can somehow live on these wages.
            You can’t lift a bucket when you’re standing in it.
            The state’s lawmakers and the governor all get a round of applause for listening to one another and pounding out a compromise at the eleventh hour. We’re not likely to see that from Congress.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES     7/15/19
Forest Service wants to modernize environmental laws
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Politicians and government watchers talk a lot about reducing red tape. Now the U. S. Forest Service has proposed to do just that.
          The agency wants to update the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations for the first time in more than a decade. In a recent op-ed, Deputy Regional Forester Elaine Kohrman allowed as how the agency’s processes should be more efficient.
            “Over the past 10 years, challenges such as wildfire, extended drought, insect infestation and disease have made it more difficult to protect communities and resources from threats like catastrophic wildfires,” Kohrman wrote.
            Proposed changes would save time and money and enable personnel to implement projects like tree thinning more quickly. She adds that permits on the forest take too much time and paperwork.
          “We found that in many cases, we do more analysis than necessary, slowing down important work to protect communities, livelihoods and resources,” Kohrman wrote.
            What does this mean?
          The Forest Service has a list of activities that don’t cause significant environmental impact, according to its analysis and experience. They’re called categorical exclusions. It would like to expand this list.
            An environmental assessment takes nearly two years, but a categorical exclusion takes about six months. Neither one is a casual process, but the categorical exclusion is clearly the shorter route.
          It might include removing insect-infested trees through commercial timber harvest combined with stream restoration. It could include reducing overgrown areas around a community and using mechanical thinning and prescribed burning to improve wildlife habitat.
          It could mean decommissioning poorly located and difficult-to-maintain roads, trails or campsites. It could allow the agency to build a water pipeline and storage tank or authorize guided hikes.
            Even as I write this, I expect the environmental community to howl like endangered wolves. That’s because the nearly 50-year-old NEPA is the Bible of environmental laws, and its regulations are familiar – especially to lawyers.
            But before they fire off their volley of objections, I hope environmentalists will stop and consider that it’s not 1970 anymore. The standards and rules in place all these years have done a lot of good, and the knowledge and experience they’ve generated will continue to serve the public interest.
            Agency funding isn’t what it was either, to state the obvious. So why should Forest Service employees take two years to do an environmental assessment when they know out of long experience what the outcome will be?
            On the flip side, I can see tree-hugger opponents salivating over the prospect of commercial harvest. I’ve heard the argument all too often that logging is the solution for all manner of ills. It’s not. But it can be used effectively in certain situations.
          U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said: “I support the Forest Service’s efforts to streamline their environmental analysis and decision-making process. The agency has long struggled to clear its permit backlog for recreation and critical infrastructure, and is facing an urgent need to repair trails, campgrounds, and complete forest restoration projects that protect against wildfire. I have long argued that the Forest Service must improve its approach, and these revisions are an important step forward for their mission to care for our nation’s forests and grasslands for the enjoyment of present and future generations.”
          Murkowski chairs the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
            The Forest Service is simply asking for the flexibility and modernization to become more agile in responding to drought, bugs, changes in use, and other problems that crop up. Private industry talks a lot about “right-sizing,” and now your friendly forest ranger would like the same option to match the analysis to the situation. This is not an erosion of environmental law but a sharpening of the tools upholding environmental law.
            The public comment period ends on August 12.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES     7/8/19
Small steps and giant leaps, 50 years later
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            On July 20 we’ll celebrate the 50th anniversary of the moon landing. While it’s rightfully framed as a national achievement, the flawless execution of a near impossible goal was really an engineering feat.
            And its hero, Neil Armstrong, was, in his heart, an engineer.
            “I am, and ever will be, a white socks, pocket protector, nerdy engineer,” he said in 2000. “And I take a substantial amount of pride in the accomplishments of my profession.”
            Armstrong remained modest and avoided publicity for the rest of his life. That was because, as an engineer, he understood that he stood on a lot of shoulders.
          That’s one of my takeaways from this remarkable event. The second is what a massively complex undertaking it was. The space race involved many thousands of people – NASA alone employed 30,000 – scattered across the country.
            In New Mexico, at White Sands Missile Range, NASA had a propulsion system development facility that tested the engines for the Lunar Excursion Module under lunar atmospheric conditions. The LEM, as it was called, would take the two astronauts from orbit to the surface of the moon and back again. At a second site, the launch escape system was tested.
          My third takeaway is that commemoration should involve more than moon rocks and space suits.
            The Apollo 11 commander left the first footprint on the moon as many of us watched on television.
            For more than 20 years, there’s been a movement, started in New Mexico, to preserve that footprint. Armstrong himself might appreciate the discipline of an anthropologist thinking about how to protect Tranquility Base and its collection of space artifacts like tools and equipment and a plaque that declares, “We came in peace for all mankind.”
            In 1998, Beth O’Leary, an associate professor of anthropology at New Mexico State University, raised the issue of historic preservation. She was teaching a graduate class on laws protecting archeological and historical resources when a student asked if federal preservation laws applied to the moon.
            O’Leary and a colleague in California drafted federal legislation to make Tranquility Base a national historic landmark.
          By international treaty, the United States and other nations agreed not to claim any part of the moon. They may still own any objects, but there is nothing in the law that would protect the Apollo astronauts' footprints.
            In 2010 New Mexico listed the artifacts left behind on the moon in its Register of Cultural Properties. California did the same. O’Leary was then vice chair of the Cultural Properties Review Committee. She and her students prepared the nomination.
          The Apollo 11 astronauts left behind 106 objects to lighten the load in the ascent vehicle. This included a spacecraft lander, a lunar laser ranging retroflector, space boots, hammers, and cameras.
          “We feel that New Mexico has a very strong and current relationship to space exploration,” O’Leary said, “especially Robert Goddard's early launches in Roswell, the development of the V-2 rocket at White Sands Missile Range and the Spaceport in southern New Mexico.”
            In 2011, NASA created guidelines that “space fairing entities” might follow to protect the moon’s historic sites, such as not allowing robotic rovers to cruise into the sites and not touching objects without NASA’s permission. O’Leary responded that the guidelines aren’t binding.
            Preservationists are worried that with new space exploration, especially conducted by private industry, that the untouched Tranquility Base, could be harmed.
          This year a space law expert at the University of Mississippi asked the United Nations to consider Tranquility Base and the Soviet Luna 2 spacecraft, still on the moon after 60 years, as World Heritage Sites.
          They are as significant as the Great Wall of China or the Egyptian pyramids. As O’Leary once said, “I rank landing on the moon right up there with the discovery of fire.”

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES     7/1/19
Education activists need to give PED, reforms a chance to work
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Plaintiffs in the education lawsuit, Yazzie-Martinez v. New Mexico, say the governor’s education moonshot fizzled. The state, they claim, needs to spend lots more money.
          Whoa! Not so fast. We’re three months out of a legislative session that pumped an extra $449 million into school budgets and moved a slew of education bills.
          Public Education Secretary Karen Trujillo was appointed and confirmed midway through the session.
          All we know at this point is that education reform in New Mexico has some glitches. This isn’t NASA.
            Elected officials this year moved heaven and earth, legislatively, to live up to the challenges of the Yazzie case’s conclusion that the state violated students’ constitutional rights to a sufficient education. They increased salaries, reworked the state funding formula, directed more money toward at-risk students, English learners, and rural schools, and started K-5 Plus programs.
          Also, the hated A-F grading system for schools went away, to be replaced by an online dashboard.
            Even as they debated reforms, lawmakers wondered if schools had the teachers – or if teachers were sufficiently trained – to implement them. They wondered if the depleted state Public Education Department had the staff to make sure districts spent the money appropriately.
            As they debated and before Secretary Trujillo had a chance to hang a picture on her office wall, the Yazzie plaintiffs’ attorneys were saying it wasn’t enough. What do they say is enough? $1 billion. Some legislators, however, have said new money should be phased in and not delivered in one lump because schools aren’t ready to shoulder a host of new programs and mandates.
            Last week, the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty said in a new filing in the Yazzie case that students still lack the basics.
          “Unfortunately, our Legislature did not do nearly enough for our students this session,” said attorney Lauren Winkler in a statement. “As a result, school districts have been unable to provide additional programming and supports for at-risk students like bilingual education and social services. In fact, many districts have been forced to cut basic programs like reading intervention and drop-out/truancy prevention, and they cannot meet the demand for pre-K programs.”
          Funding and reforms haven’t quite gone hand in hand. School districts are climbing out of a deep hole just as the state is. They wanted and needed to increase teacher pay to keep their teachers and recruit new ones.
          But they didn’t have enough left for new instructional materials and technology, cultural and linguistic initiatives, extended learning (pre-K, summer school, after school programs), literacy specialists, counseling, and health care.
          Districts also found that program requirements were inflexible.
          None of this is fatal. Lawmakers can and will revisit the numbers and make adjustments. I trust the judgment of budget veterans who are reluctant to simply pour piles of cash into the schools all at once.
          We also need to give PED a chance to hit its stride. The state has zoomed from Hanna Skandera, a dictatorial education bureaucrat, to Trujillo, an educator’s educator endorsed by both parties. Lt. Gov. Howie Morales, himself an educator, handpicked a number of the new education hires in a display of cooperation between the executive and her lieutenant that we haven’t seen for eight years.
          But PED itself is understaffed to oversee reforms. The department, like the schools, is challenged to hire the kind of expertise it needs on what the state can pay.
          The plaintiffs and the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty deserve our thanks for moving education funding to the launch site, and I’m glad they’re monitoring the state’s progress. But some patience is in order here.
          This year’s budget and legislation are the ignition in our moonshot. We will have lift-off.

 © 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES    6/24/19
New saga of HSD behavioral health travesty gives voice to victims
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            There are many moments in “The Shake-Up” that will make you wince and a few that might cause you to clutch your heart.
            It has heroes, victims and villains, and they’re all real people.
            The documentary, by Ben Altenberg, takes us into the lives of people thrown under the bus by a state Human Services Department decision. On June 21, 2013, HSD halted funding to 15 providers of mental health services over allegations of fraud. They were replaced with Arizona providers.
          In one stroke, HSD destroyed the already fragile service network and left much of rural New Mexico with no services at all.
            We’ve learned since that HSD began meeting with Arizona providers before the audit began. HSD tampered with a consultant’s report and also refused to release the audit. The promised smooth transition was anything but. Disability Rights New Mexico cited long waits for appointments, too few providers, and a lapse in care for mentally delicate patients.
          By the end of 2016, four of the five Arizona providers had left New Mexico, and Attorney General Hector Balderas had cleared the New Mexico providers. There was no pattern of fraud but rather simple billing errors. For that they were forced out of business with hundreds of jobs lost. Ten of the providers sued.
            The documentary tells us that OptumHealth, the for-profit, managed-care provider controlling the entire system, came up with software to detect fraud. In hindsight, it sounds like Boeing’s MAX simulator software.
            Altenberg takes us into HSD’s meeting room for a previously unheard audio recording of the fateful meeting. HSD Secretary Sidonie Squier gathered the 15 providers around a big conference table and told them they failed the audit and that the failures were so serious that they would be turned over to law enforcement. Then she dropped the bombshell: HSD would immediately suspend their Medicaid payments.
            “We were so stunned there was just silence,” recalled Nancy Jo Archer, president of the now-defunct Hogares House in Albuquerque.
            HSD attorney Larry Heyeck dropped the next bombshell: They were expected to keep providing services. How do we pay our employees? Squier and Heyeck made it clear that wasn’t their problem. They told the blindsided providers there was a clause in their contract. They later learned there was no such clause.
            The five Arizona providers rejiggered service areas and services.
            “The plan was to cut the heads off the organizations and replace them with the Arizona providers,” one provider said. The Arizona organizations were supposed to hire all the same staff so that everything would be the same, but they didn’t. And they centralized services, which meant small communities got fewer services or no services.
            We meet Melissa, the legal guardian of her grandson. “We went from a high level of care to nothing and were told we might get services in three or four months.”
          We meet Mary in Clayton whose eight adopted children all need treatment and medication.
          “They left her high and dry,” said Ralph Moya, a retired clinical social worker.
          “Until Ralph came, I went from doctor to doctor saying, ‘Please see my kids,’” Mary said. The state asked if she could take them to Raton, 86 miles away, but as a small business owner, she can’t simply close.
          Moya is one of heroes of this story.
            After the dismantling, Moya decided to help and now works without pay 60 to 70 hours a week, driving his beater to offices in Tucumcari, Clayton, Santa Rosa and Vaughn.
            Gov. Susana Martinez accepted Squier’s resignation in 2014 but never uttered a word of apology. In September 2013, I predicted that “taxpayers will be on the hook for damages to the wrongly accused.”
            But there is no day in court for the people who suffered, who died without receiving services.

© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES      6/17/19
Next year should be the year of higher education
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Rob Schwartz said he spent 40 years whining about how the University of New Mexico was run. As a new regent, the retired law professor has an opportunity to do something about it.
            The most important problem right now, he said, is a disheartened faculty beaten up by repeated rounds of budget cuts.
          “They cut to the bone and they cut some more,” Schwartz told members of New Mexico Press Women recently. He referred to lawmakers and their desperate work to match spending to dwindling revenues in recent years.
          Faculty members couldn’t go to conferences or buy books or do many of the things that are a normal part of teaching.
          “For a long time they thought they could tough it out, but now people don’t believe anything will get better,” he said. “This year after a 3 percent increase to faculty salaries, the university cut every single department by 1.5 percent.
          “They can’t run their programs. The university is really standing on a precipice,” he said. He hopes oil and gas revenues will provide some relief.
            Whatever Schwartz says about UNM you can multiply across higher education in New Mexico.
          Attempts to unionize faculty at UNM is one measure of low morale and frustration.
          Schwartz said: “My personal view is that it’s hard to imagine it making a big difference.” When there’s only so much money to go around, unionization tends to help adjunct and contract faculty a little bit at the expense of tenure-track faculty.
            He probably speaks for many in higher education when he says he understands that this year needed to be the year of K-12.
          “I hope next year will be the year of higher education and the year of the healthcare provider,” he said.
          If we see higher education in the spotlight, we will also hear the perennial debates about whether New Mexico is trying to support too many campuses. Schwartz sees our many branches and small schools as a natural part of the state’s canvas.
          “We don’t expect everybody to show up in Albuquerque to be educated,” he said. “People who live in other places expect to be educated at home.”
          One big campus might be more efficient in terms of budget, resources and staffing, but for a person working on a farm or ranch, it’s more efficient to take classes close to home.
          “It’s a compromise New Mexico has made,” he said.
            He tips his hat to branch campuses, which do a different job in the university network.
          “They’re not research institutions, they’re teaching institutions,” They have amazing success stories, and one of them belongs to fellow regent Sandra Begay, who attended UNM’s Gallup branch.
          “I’ve met many people who got a good education at the branch campuses who wouldn’t have gotten an education at all,” he said.
            As they shoulder the university’s big issues, new appointees must do some image building to do to convince students, faculty and the public that they’re not political operatives. The two previous administrations politicized the regents to the point that it was hard to tell where the governor’s reach ended and the regents’ duties began.
            “We don’t work for the governor. We don’t work for Santa Fe. We work for the university and the people of New Mexico,” Schwartz said. “There has been a substantial change in attitude.”
            He also made it clear the regents weren’t going to meddle in day-to-day operations. Their job, he said, is to set policy and evaluate how President Garnet Stokes is living up to that policy. “If we see a problem, we’ll tell her about that problem. At the end of the year, we will evaluate the president based on the metrics we’ve given her.”
            Schwartz said he thinks Stokes’ new administration is a “very good administration.”

 ​© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES    6/10/19
Medical cannabis program expands qualifying conditions with more changes to come
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            When it comes to pain, there are two schools of thought: Suck it up or seek relief.
            The second school, seeking relief, is one driver in opioid addiction. Medical cannabis offers an avenue to both pain and opioid addiction.
            Last week, when the state Department of Health added opioid use disorder to the list of qualifying conditions to receive medical cannabis, it was less a sudden stroke of enlightenment and more a response to public outcry and building pressure that found its voice in a legislative task force.
            Expect more big changes.
            In 2018, the Legislature created a task force to look into issues of supply and demand in the medical cannabis program and make recommendations. The task force found that the state’s artificial limits on all aspects of the program denied relief to some patients, increased costs, and depressed supply.
            In October the task force recommended reducing the cost burden on patients by making medical cannabis tax exempt like prescription drugs, creating a discount program for low-income patients, eliminating required annual renewals of licenses, adding opioid use disorder to the list of qualifying conditions, providing civil protections to patients, ensuring access in rural areas, allowing patients to grow and consume their own medical cannabis and give it to other patients, and allowing personal cultivation at alternative locations (important to members of tribes and pueblos who can’t grow marijuana legally on the reservation).
          The task force also wanted to give medical providers the authority to refer patients to the program for serious medical conditions other than those on the list.
           “There have been 700 medical conditions that have been studied and found to be effectively treated with cannabis,” testified Dr. Celeste Madrid Taylor, of Las Cruces. “There are currently only 22 qualifying conditions allowed in New Mexico… I should be able to use my clinical knowledge and expertise to certify patients for medical cannabis use for any serious condition that I deem appropriate.”
            The task force report showed that the Department of Health, under former Gov. Susana Martinez, was governed by political mindset rather than medical opinion. Former Secretary Lynn Gallagher repeatedly rejected recommendations from the state Medical Cannabis Board, created in 2007 by the enabling legislation.
          Over the previous eight years, the board recommended the very expansions that DOH just approved. The board twice recommended adding opioid use disorder; Gallagher denied the recommendations. In 2017 lawmakers tried to accomplish it by legislation, which passed with bipartisan support and was vetoed. Medical cannabis is used to relieve autism symptoms in 11 states, dementia in 10 states. The board tried three times with dementia.
            With the election of a governor who pledged on the campaign trail to expand the list of qualifying conditions, it’s a new day, as supporters often promised.
            Last week, DOH finally accepted the board’s recommendation and added opioid use disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, autism spectrum disorder and three degenerative neurological disorders (Friedreich’s ataxia, Lewy body disease, and spinal muscular atrophy).
          Gallagher’s DOH was also depressing supply by limiting the number of production licenses and the number of plants producers were allowed to grow. The department opened the application process for producers just once in the last eight years, even though patient enrollment had increased monthly from the outset. Currently, there are 35 producers, mostly in Albuquerque. Many rural communities lack access.
          The expanded list of qualifying conditions signals that DOH Secretary Kathyleen Kunkel intends to modernize the department’s rules.
          The massive medical cannabis reform bill passed this year takes effect in July. Among other things, it will be easier for patients to qualify for the program, they can recertify every three years instead of yearly, and the list of qualifying conditions will be longer.
            That breeze you feel is a sigh of relief from people with chronic conditions.

 © 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES      6/3/19
New Mexico could take the biggest hit with threatened tariffs
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
          New Mexico could be the biggest loser in the president’s tariff trade war with the state’s two biggest trade partners, China and Mexico, according to Forbes magazine.
          That’s because even though our numbers aren’t large compared with states like Texas, our percentages are. New Mexico not only exports a higher percentage of goods to Mexico and China than any other state, it’s the only state that sends more than 30 percent of its exports to the two nations, says Forbes, based on U.S. Census Bureau data through March.
            If the tweeter in chief follows through on a threat to place a 5 percent tariff on all U. S. imports from Mexico, which ratchets up to 25 percent unless Mexico halts the flow of Central American asylum seekers, “it could spell a world of hurt” in New Mexico, said Forbes.
            Jerry Pacheco, CEO of the Border Industrial Association, told the Albuquerque Journal it was like threatening Mexico while pointing the gun at your own foot. Santa Teresa, on the southern border, generates nearly half the state’s exports. It’s also the state’s busiest border crossing. And during the recession and its long hangover in the state, Santa Teresa was the ONLY source of positive economic news.
            So when the governor said the “tariffs have the potential to be economically catastrophic,” she was not exaggerating. “Our state sends almost $1.5 billion in exports to Mexico each year; a trade war would devastate businesses all across New Mexico, in rural and urban communities alike.”
            On tables of imports and exports, all the big numbers are at the top with our largest and second largest customers, Mexico and China. After that the numbers fall dramatically, so that if the president picks a trade fight with, say, France or Belgium, we would only feel a twinge.
            As an exporter, New Mexico is 26th nationally, but 38.84 percent went to Mexico and 30.23 percent went to China. Our imports look similar – 30.6 percent from Mexico, 25.7 percent from China, and 12.2 percent from Canada. (Exports to Mexico from Arizona were 39.5 percent and for Texas, 35 percent.)
            What are we exporting? Much of it is high tech components and systems from many companies, not just Intel, along with medical instruments, fertilizers, civilian aircraft parts, pecans, copper, cheese, and whey, among other items.
            Businesses along the border are interdependent. One supplies parts and materials for the production lines of the other. What affects one affects the other. For example, ACME Mills in Santa Teresa distributes textiles used in upholstery for cars made in Mexico.
            Jon Barela, CEO of the El Paso-based Borderplex Alliance and the state’s former Economic Development Secretary, said in a statement that "Trump's misguided plan to impose tariffs on goods from Mexico is a consumer tax on Americans that will lead to job losses in the Borderplex region and throughout America." The proposed tariffs “will not solve the migrant crisis, and in fact, Mexico, before this action… was already taking firm steps to secure its own southern border in a meaningful and productive manner.”
            This is the latest upset among many for Pacheco, whose job is to help Santa Teresa and the border region develop and who, as a former developer, has skin in the game.
            First came the fall of the peso after the elections of 2016 because of uncertainty about trade policies. Then the president didn’t like the North American Free Trade Agreement and pushed for a replacement, but Santa Teresa’s success was built on NAFTA and the cross-border cooperation it engendered. Now he threatens to scuttle the painstakingly negotiated new agreement with tariff talk.
            Pacheco sees us as “cannon fodder” for the president’s trade wars. Nobody will win.

Medical bills shouldn’t be a surprise
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Congress has been hearing about surprise medical bills, and members of both parties appear ready and willing to act. What a surprise!
            Surprise medical bills happen when you receive medical treatment, often in an emergency room from a doctor who’s not in your insurance network, or you’re taken to a hospital that’s not in your plan. Too often these bills leave people reeling a second time from an outlandish bill for a small amount of care.
            At least three bipartisan measures are before Congress, and the state has also addressed the problem.
            In Congress, members have taken different approaches, but the common thread is protecting the patient. One measure includes elective procedures, providers other than doctors, and lab and x-ray services. A second measure would require healthcare facilities to provide 24-hour notice to patients seeking elective treatment if they are about to see an out-of-network provider. A third would limit patients’ financial responsibilities to their own plan’s rates.
            That’s the easy part.
          The hard part is sorting out who gets paid what, which sets up a battle among insurers, doctors, hospitals, and their lobbyists. Two of the bills rely on the local market to determine payments, and one would use arbitration.
            Surprise medical bills are just one more symptom of a sick healthcare system. Sky-high, unjustifiable pricing in care and pharmaceuticals should make any good capitalist blush. They inflict these prices on patients not out of any underlying calculation of expenses but simply because they can. And the unpredictability and lack of transparency add insult to injury.
            States are also beginning to take action. Here in New Mexico, the Legislature passed and the governor signed the Surprise Billing Protection Act, a priority of Health Action New Mexico.
          “Our office heard horror stories about patients getting hit with five-figure bills, even though they did everything they could to follow the rules,” said the nonprofit.
          A 2016 survey found that 20 percent of privately insured New Mexicans, 36 percent of surgery patients, and 55 percent of people who visited the emergency room received surprise bills. The Managed Care Division of the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance estimates that it handles some 200 complaints a year about surprise bills.
            SB 337, by Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Albuquerque, and Rep. Nathan Small, D-Las Cruces, takes patients out of the dispute by outlawing surprise billing and creating rules for insurance companies and providers to settle up. It passed both chambers unanimously.
            A similar bill was HB 81, by Rep. Eliseo Alcon, D-Milan, which prohibits an insurer from hitting a patient with a co-payment on physical therapy that’s higher than the rate for primary care.
          It too was passed and signed into law. It limits charges from insurance carriers for coinsurance or copayments on physical therapy. The Superintendent of Insurance Office said the bill could help control healthcare costs “because timely access to routine physical therapy services can prevent the need for more expensive care, such as surgery or pain management, including opiates and resulting addictions.”
          Legislators also waded into drug pricing. State spending on prescription medication totaled $737.8 million in 2017, up 8 percent from 2016, according to the Legislative Finance Committee. State agencies have been buying medicines separately, which reduces their purchasing power and raises costs.
          Thanks to SB 131, by Sen. Jeff Steinborn and Rep. Joanne Ferrary, Las Cruces Democrats, a new state pharmaceutical purchasing council will negotiate and buy medicines in bulk. Initially, this will save taxpayers money, and it could be a step toward reducing costs in the private sector. The bill passed with broad support in previous years but was vetoed by former Gov. Susana Martinez without explanation.
          Stopping surprise bills is a good step. Lawmakers here and in Washington should keep up the fight for transparency and reason in healthcare.

Churches, volunteers prove that compassion survives in the face of intolerance
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Celia Yapita, volunteer coordinator for Catholic Charities of Central New Mexico, explained to a packed room of new volunteers last week that Albuquerque is currently getting up to three busloads of asylum seekers a week, and each bus of 50 people will have about 19 to 23 families, largely single parents with children.
            “We don’t know who we’ll get,” she said. Or when.
            While the number of border crossers from Mexico is shrinking, hundreds of people from Central America arrive daily and immediately turn themselves in. They’ve overwhelmed the Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They’ve maxed out El Paso’s Annunciation House, which has helped border people for decades. In February the Diocese of El Paso and Annunciation House reached out to churches in Albuquerque.
            Instantly, a remarkable, all-volunteer network formed to receive the buses and help these weary travelers. This is in addition to the regular charitable and helping programs.
            We’re now seeing multiple dynamics at work in the waves of asylum seekers and the response. The would-be immigrants are responding in the only way they can to violence, corruption, and poverty, by leaving. Our government has responded with dysfunction and cruelty. And so the religious community has opened its arms, proving that in the current atmosphere of meanness and intolerance, compassion survives.
            The busloads of people arriving in Albuquerque have already been through a quick interview to determine credible fear as the basis for asylum, along with a background check. Next they’re handed over to ICE for more paperwork. Those who are lucky enough to have relatives or sponsors here have temporary asylum status; they’re funneled into the Annunciation House pipeline (it’s been compared to the Underground Railroad of the slavery era) to get them to their relatives or sponsors where they can wait for their hearings.
            “All the work we do is to help them get to their families or sponsors,” Yapita said. “If there is no sponsor or family, they can’t come in. They’ll probably be held in detention. None are staying here. They’re court ordered to get to their destination quickly.”
            The network formed literally overnight, when Annunciation House informed Catholic Charities that a bus would arrive the next day. Their quick response evolved into the “Companions on the Journey” project, and four other organizations joined.
            “This is really the community stepping up,” Yapita said.
          The people arrive sunburned, hungry, dehydrated, and sometimes sick. They may not have eaten a meal in days, and the bus drivers of prison-style buses don’t give them water because they don’t want to make bathroom stops.
            Each group has teams that receive the buses, provide food and a place to stay with showers (all important), see to medical needs, record basic information, give them a change of clothes, and ferry them to the bus station or airport.
            Teams receive and sort donations, procure toiletries and other necessities, and pack food for the journey. Volunteers sort donated clothing into tidy stacks by size to be distributed to participating groups.
            It’s all a marvel of coordination, communication, and efficiency.
            So far, the response is entirely private. The city of Albuquerque has now voted to spend $250,000 – reasoning that because ICE just dumps these people on the street it would be a city problem – and Bernalillo County has promised funding.
            The wave of volunteers is another dynamic. People from Las Vegas and Santa Fe asked Yapita, “What can we do?” She recommended assembling “dignity bags” of toiletries and delivering them to Albuquerque.
            This may be the most important byproduct of Companions on the Journey. Ordinary Americans, appalled by what’s going on at the border, are determined to meet the humanitarian crisis with humanity.

            ​© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES    5/13/19
Dysfunctional PERA pension board: ‘It’s a clown show over there.’
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
          Wayne Propst, executive director of the Public Employees Retirement Association, must limp because his feet are held to the fire so often. He reports to a board of 12 trustees, 40,000 member retirees, 50,000 employee members, legislators, and the governor.
          Last week, disagreements over Propst broke out again.
          State Treasurer Tim Eichenberg, a PERA board member, accused Propst in an op-ed of giving himself and other employees hefty raises without full board approval.
          State Auditor Brian Colón has investigated and found that Propst acted “reasonably and within his authority, but he smacked the board, saying members’ behavior was unacceptable and a threat to future generations of retirees. The board, he said, failed to act on the budget by deadline, which was “reckless or negligent, or both, and coupled with the board’s lack of focus on its fiduciary responsibilities puts our retirees and future generations of retirees at risk.”
          Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, chaired the pension reform effort in 2013 and has served as vice chair of the interim legislative Investments and Pensions Oversight Committee for about 10 years.
          “The board is completely dysfunctional,” he said during committee debate in this year’s legislative session. “It’s a clown show over there. They’re yelling at each other down the halls. We have to fix it.”
          He said the committee was “getting pushed and pulled in all directions.”
          “Wayne tells me the truth,” Muñoz said. “He’s always been straight with me. The board just wants to attack their employee. When you attack the person leading the ship, the ship will hit an iceberg… When we have a dysfunctional board that can’t make a decision, maybe we need to send them a message. Get rid of ‘em. They’re not looking out for retirees when they’re fighting.”
          Propst isn’t the big issue for PERA – it’s solvency. The pension fund is again falling behind its liabilities to state and local government workers while board members bicker over Propst and fight amongst themselves.
          Last year, the PERA board reprimanded and censured trustee Loretta Naranjo-Lopez for trying to be reimbursed for her husband’s mileage expenses, filing a police complaint against the board chairman over board seating arrangements, harassing PERA staff, and accusing other members of conflicts of interest without providing evidence. This was the second board censure for Naranjo-Lopez.
          During last week’s meeting, PERA staff and board members sparred over proposed raises for 11 top staffers. Naranjo-Lopez complained about greed. 
          And yet, two online investment publications, Institutional Investor and Chief Investment Officer, pointed out that PERA investment employees earn a lot less than their peers. Propst, for example, makes $166,290; his peers, five years ago, earned between $174,740 and $260,795. If Propst receives the 4 percent increase slated for other state employees, he would still be behind.
          PERA’s chief investment officer, Dominic Garcia, earns $239,700, which is “vastly less than typical CIOs at foreign public pension funds, nonprofits, and private-sector firms,” said Institutional Investor. “The 35 highest-paid endowment CIOs all made more than $1 million per year.”
          Think about it. This is the guy managing a $15.4 billion fund. Institutional Investor lionized Garcia as a young up-and-comer, “the CIO bringing alpha back to New Mexico.” For ten years Garcia was the protégé of David Villa, CIO of the top tier State of Wisconsin Investment Board. Propst brought Garcia back to New Mexico.
           “Despite turnover problems blamed on relatively low compensation, the board stopped the 4 percent pay increases, even though the raises had been approved by the governor and the legislature,” reported Chief Investment Officer. “The New Mexico pension plan’s churning of financial pros is indeed remarkable.” Garcia is the fourth CIO in eight years.
          The governor has appointed a task force to study the pension plan and propose remedies. The board and salaries should be on the agenda.

                 © 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES     5/6/19
Come to New Mexico, enjoy our scenery, hike our trails, step over our traps
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Debate on a bill to create a state Outdoor Recreation Division set off a friendly competition among lawmakers.
          “What fish is the most sought after in New Mexico?” asked Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup during floor debate. “It’s the tiger muskie. We have some of the largest tiger muskie in Bluewater Lake.”
          Sen. Pat Woods, R-Broadview, asked, “What famous attraction do we have at Arch?” Arch Lake, he said, has a refuge for sandhill cranes. “And there’s great hunting on the caprock and duck hunting at Ute Lake.”
          Sen. Ron Griggs asked, “What’s the largest lake in Otero County? It’s Lake Lucero – when it has water in it. Lake Lucero is responsible for White Sands.”
          Every county in the state has outdoor features to brag about. That was one reason for the friendly reception of the Outdoor Recreation Division bill, which the governor recently signed into law. The division’s mission is to promote outdoor opportunities, but its larger mission is to create jobs by increasing recreational tourism. That’s why the division is part of the Economic Development Department.
          We need to keep this in mind as we troll for tourists, especially outdoor tourists, because we have some unresolved disagreements among New Mexicans.
          Part of the same debate was a question from Sen. Cliff Pirtle, R-Roswell: “Are coyote shooting contests outdoor recreation?” His answer was yes. The Legislature’s answer was no. They’re now outlawed.
          To city dwellers and animal humane advocates, this was an easy decision, but it was a bitter loss in rural areas, taken as an infringement of personal rights, local culture, and predator control. The coyote contest law allows every kind of control in use previously – just not a contest with prizes.
          It was a bipartisan bill. For Sen. Mark Moores, an Albuquerque Republican, his sponsorship began when “yahoos” drove a trailer load of dead coyotes around his city after a killing contest.
          A bigger conflict is the one posed by trapping, and this has been around since at least 2004, maybe longer. Every dog lover in the state mourned with Dave Clark, whose dog, Roxy, was strangled by an illegal snare as he desperately tried to free her. Roxy’s Law would have outlawed traps, snares and poisons on public land.
          “All individuals are using these public lands, and they need to be safe for those individuals,” said Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos.
          During two lengthy, emotional hearings, we heard dozens of people describe how their dogs were injured during hikes on public trails. In one instance, a woman stepped into a trap. Trappers argued that they would lose their livelihood, and ranchers said they rely on trapping for predator control.
          Colorado has prohibited trapping, snares and poisons on public or private land since 1997. Arizona banned foothold traps and snares on public land in 1994. Both states have ranchers. Some argued that trapping is an old tradition. So was public flogging. Some traditions deserve to die.
          The bill passed two committees and then disappeared so that sponsors and supporters could build more support.
          The newly minted Outdoor Recreation Department should add a caveat to all promotions: Enjoy our trails, but if you, your children, or your dogs leave the trail to explore, you or they risk stepping into a leg-hold trap. Or you might encounter the bloody carcasses of trapped wildlife. Welcome to New Mexico!
          Tourists come here for a taste of the Wild West, unblemished vistas, and the opportunities for world class hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, golfing and ballooning. We have to decide what face we want to show them, how wild we want our Wild West to be. The success of the new division and creation of new jobs depend on it.

​​​© 2019 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES      4/22/19
Borrowers might have a fighting chance with predatory lenders
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Legislators did more to clean up the laws governing storefront lenders, also known as payday lenders. Are we there yet? Depends on how you define “there.”
            In 2015, I wrote that lawmakers were more concerned about predatory lenders, the bottom feeders of banking, than they were about desperate borrowers. Despite two bills and much debate, when the session ended, storefront lenders could still charge their low-income borrowers up to 1,500 percent interest – yes, you read that right – because adjusting it downward might put the lenders out of business.
          Four years later, lenders are down to 175 percent and more regulatory oversight, but consumer advocates say that’s still too high.
           Predatory lenders are worth our attention because they keep poor people poor and weaken local economies.
           If you take your bank account for granted, consider that some people never have enough money left after expenses to make a deposit, and they don’t have credit cards. The term for them is “the unbanked.” Storefront lenders make small loans at triple-digit interest rates to the unbanked. When they can’t repay, lenders roll over the loan, and the fees and interest spiral. Frantic borrowers find that even though they pay on the loan, they can never pay it off.
          “Many of our elders and young people borrow money for basic needs,” said Laurie Weahkee, executive director of the Native American Voters Alliance. “Our grandmas take out $300 loans, pay them off, and still get stuck.”
            Storefront lenders, unlike banks and credit unions, make loans to anybody, whether or not they’re credit worthy. In fact, they expect to get burned on a large number of their loans, so they charge high fees and interest rates. They make their money from the people who do attempt to repay their loans.
          And there’s a lot of money to be made, judging by the proliferation of these places. There are 622 of them.
          In 2015 there was a bill to cap interest rates at 36 percent, a rate adopted by 20 states and the U.S. Department of Defense. A dozen New Mexico municipalities supported it. In a Senate committee hearing I watched industry lobbyists, who included a former House speaker and a former attorney general, argue that 36 percent would be ruinous. The committee killed the bill.
          In 2015, a House committee sat on two rate-cap bills while it waited for the industry’s proposal, a weak measure with a few rules about income-tax refund loans and no mention of the big issues of rates and rollovers. The industry bill passed but later died. All that survived was a memorial calling for a task force to determine reasonable interest rates and proper consumer protection.
            Judge Alan Malott wrote that legislators “should all be ashamed.”
          In 2017, the Legislature capped the interest rate at 175 percent APR, but high fees and loan rollovers continued. Inconsistent language weakened the laws, reporting requirements were thin, and borrower rights on loan renewals remained unclear.
          This year, the governor signed House Bill 150, which gives borrowers 24 hours to rescind a high-interest loan; it makes fees, disclosures, and penalties consistent for all borrowers; and it separates new loans from potential loopholes in loan rollovers and renewals. It also increases reporting requirements so state regulators can see that lenders comply with the law and evaluate the law’s impact on New Mexicans.
          Another bill to cap interest rates at 36 percent died.
            This doesn’t entirely solve the problem. We need better alternatives for the unbanked, but this helps. And it puts the industry on notice that consumer activists and lawmakers are watching.

© 2019 New Mexico News Services  4-15-19
One town grapples with its history and its public memorials
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            New Mexico has had its share of statue controversies. During a recent history conference I heard how a Texas town handled a volatile public debate over a Confederate soldier.
            In 1918 the United Daughters of the Confederacy erected the statue, which stands atop an arch in front of the Denton County courthouse in Texas.
            Except for the attention of pigeons, “it remained inconspicuous for 90 years,” said historian Lewis Toland, speaking Friday during a conference of the West Texas Historical Association.
            The statue was offensive to Willie Hudspeth, an African American resident who complained to county commissioners. They ignored him for years.
            After the Charleston church killings in 2015, other residents joined Hudspeth, and someone vandalized the arch by painting in red letters, “This is racist.” The discussion gained more momentum after the deadly Charlottesville white supremacist rally.
            Denton’s soldier joined the list of the national Make It Right Projects, which targeted ten such monuments that should be removed. Make It Right leaders told the Denton Record-Chronicle they had no intention of being outside agitators and simply wanted to support Hudspeth, connect him to others with similar goals, and help the public understand the statues’ part in systemic white supremacy.
            Descendents of Confederate soldiers defended their right to honor the sacrifice and military service of an ancestor, and historians weighed in that the statue was a remnant of the town’s past.
            Peaceful Denton saw several protests – one with law enforcement sharpshooters on top of buildings around the square keeping an eye on unarmed protesters. One counter protester brandished a loaded AR-15 assault rifle as he argued with Hudspeth.
            In 2017, the same year city workmen unceremoniously removed Robert E. Lee from a park in Dallas, 40 miles away, the Denton County Commission appointed the Confederate Memorial Advisory Committee to determine the statue’s fate. The committee held 14 meetings plus public input sessions during 2017 and 2018.
            The crux of the discussions, Toland said, was whether the statue honored the confederacy or the soldiers. If it honored the confederacy, it honored an ideology that included an economy based on slavery. They decided that this statue of a youth holding a gun honored confederate soldiers, many of whom didn’t subscribe to an ideology but fought because they were drafted.
          The meetings were open to the public, and local people came to watch the committee’s polite and civil discussions. Members participated in good faith, each adding their own experience. They would say later that chairman John Baines led the committee with respect and dignity.
          One Hispanic member, who supported keeping the statue, said they should condemn slavery but not soldiers. Another Hispanic member said, “No amount of lipstick will hide what the Confederate soldiers fought for.”
          A third member noted that most millennials opposed the statue and said he considered it divisive. An African American member said the statue was an opportunity to educate people about their history.
          Baines himself wanted to remove the statue but then came up with the idea to modify the statue by adding historical context in the form of kiosks with videos about the history of slavery, information on the Confederacy, and a large plaque denouncing slavery. He also proposed posting the names of all veterans from Denton County.
          During the final meeting, members initially voted 10 to 5 to keep the monument, but with more discussion of Baines’ modifications, the vote was 12 to 3 to keep the monument.
          County commissioners unanimously approved the plan. So, while confederate symbols come down across the nation, Denton will keep its soldier. For now. This may be a continuing discussion.
          Toland concluded: “We don’t run from our history because we think it’s ugly and unpleasant.”

© 2019 New Mexico News Services 4-8-19
Governor, legislators reach out with bills friendly to rural areas
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            We hear a lot about the rural-urban divide, but there’s no bridge quite like money.
          In bills the governor signed last week, lawmakers sent some love to the state’s rural communities.
            Three big concerns in outlying areas are education, roads and healthcare. Thanks to the oil industry, there is more money for all three. And with the departure of a vindictive former governor and the arrival of a new governor, communities can expect to see that money.
            Education reformers took special pains to remedy budget slights of past years. In the overhaul of the state’s funding formula is a new rural population factor that will direct more funding to school districts and charter schools in what the U. S. Census Bureau defines as geographically rural areas.
            They did this by returning the small-school size adjustment to its original purpose of helping rural schools. Charter schools across the state had cashed in on the adjustment, leading to friction over its use.
          If you consider that in many communities, schools are the biggest employer, the 6 percent raise for teachers and school employees will make a big difference. A principal I know says: “This is an absolute win. Teachers will spend that money on cars and appliances. They’ll fix up their houses.”
            Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a bill to provide money for rural school districts and regional education cooperatives to train teachers in skills they need to teach in bilingual and multicultural classrooms. Educators testified that the RECs were the best avenue of deployment and had long served the rural areas.
          One of the bills on the Rocket Docket signed early in the session requires the state Public Education Department to provide regular professional development for career-technical teachers. This had a lot of support from rural legislators. The former governor vetoed the same bill.
          This was a good year for roads. The state Department of Transportation has the biggest budget in 15 years, with a base of more than $915 million. The budget includes $250 million in one-time funds for major projects across the state, $89 million for smaller projects divided evenly among DOT’s six highway districts, and $50 million for local projects.
          In the healthcare arena, the Medicaid budget will increase by 5.2 percent, or $52.3 million. This will support provider network growth, with emphasis is on rural providers. 
          A major development this year was the dental therapist program. Similar to a physician’s assistant, the dental therapist will be licensed to perform certain procedures, working under a dentist’s supervision in under-served areas.
          “I represent rural New Mexico,” said Rep. Gail Armstrong, R-Magdalena. “This is highly needed, especially in areas like mine. We don’t have dentists.” She said in her area, Socorro’s three dentists are closest, and one of them is there only once a week.
          The new governor’s treatment of rural capital outlay requests was kinder and gentler. “For the past eight years, projects that are necessary for small, rural, and under-resourced communities in New Mexico have gone unfunded,” she wrote.
          Rural communities seeking public project funding have two handicaps: They may not have staff experienced in the state’s audit standards, and they may need a small amount of money. Former Gov. Susana Martinez automatically axed requests of $10,000 or less. Lujan Grisham decided to give them a break – this year – while advising the executive and legislative branches to look for better solutions.
          Finally, to relieve our farmers and ranchers, who as a group are rather elderly, the governor signed a bill directing the Department of Agriculture to provide agricultural business internships and administer a new agricultural workforce development program. This bill had the support of New Mexico First and the National Young Farmers Coalition.
          Big issues may dominate public attention, but rural areas weren’t left behind.

© 2019 New Mexico News Services 4-1-19
Lawmakers turn out decent but not spectacular economic development legislation
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Because the public memory is so short, I’m glad the last plunge of the rocket sled we call our oil and gas industry was just a couple of years ago. It rivets lawmakers’ attention on the economy.
            For a long time, I’ve poked holes in what elected officials call economic development and defended programs that got little attention. Let’s look at what they did in this legislative session.
            The new administration is hanging its hat on the film industry. Democratic majorities more than doubled the cap on incentives and agreed to pay down a chunk of the backlog. Republicans, who normally love tax breaks, see film incentives as a special handout to one industry.
            The truth is somewhere in the middle.
            Until now, I’ve defended the state’s generous rebates to film makers because they’ve created a vibrant new industry that excites young people who might otherwise leave the state. But I’m throttling back my enthusiasm because this is an expensive program. We can’t keep spending on it uncritically.
            Film makers have mostly blessed the biggest cities, so I’m glad to see a provision in the new law to award higher rebates for work in rural areas.
            My sense, from the beginning of the program during Gov. Bill Richardson’s administration, is that film owes its popularity to the fact that most of our decision makers have no idea what economic development is, but everybody grasps the basics of movie making.
            Beyond film, lawmakers made a pretty good effort for genuine economic development.
            The budget bill fattened the LEDA (Local Economic Development Act) closing fund from $14 million to $60 million. LEDA pays for infrastructure related to company relocations and expansions. And the Job Training Incentive Program (JTIP), which pays a portion of wage and training costs, is at a robust $10 million. These are the state’s bedrock economic development programs. There’s also more money for roads.
            The governor has signed at least four jobs bills. Agricultural enterprises are now part of the Statewide Economic Development Finance Act, so they’re eligible for funding.
          School boards can expand vocational training and education centers. The goal is to snag students who don’t like traditional schooling and to jump start career training and apprenticeship programs in the Public Education Department.
          We will have Centers of Excellence in cyber security at New Mexico Tech, sustainable agriculture at New Mexico State University, renewable energy at San Juan College in Farmington, and biosciences at the UNM Health Sciences Center.
          And the Small Business Investment Corp. will get another $50 million for loans to small-business owners.
            Awaiting the governor’s signature are bills that would:

  • Extend an existing gross receipts tax deduction for directed-energy (lasers, microwaves, magnets) research and satellite research and development. This was on the wish list of the New Mexico Technology Council and the Association of Commerce and Industry.
  • Reduce the high-wage jobs tax credit from 10 percent to 8.5 percent but increase the annual per-job maximum by $750 and relax several restrictions.
  • Create the Outdoor Recreation Division in the Economic Development Department to promote outdoor activities and expand related businesses and employment.
  •  Spend $100,000 on Cibola County’s Soloworks Program, which trains and helps people find jobs they can perform remotely. The program has generated a lot of interest in rural communities.

          What legislators didn’t do in this year of big bucks was to spend a dime on broadband. That’s hard to believe.           
          Bills that tanked included several to enable public-private partnerships to develop broadband infrastructure and one to offer gross receipts and compensating tax deductions for broadband network facilities components.
            Another oversight: Dems congratulated themselves for their tax bill, but they didn’t touch gross receipts tax reform.
            The successful measures, taken together, matter, but legislators didn’t hit one out of the park.

© 2019 New Mexico News Services  3-25-19
Foot dragging in the House, business as usual in the Senate, same results
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
          Now that we know the results of the legislative session, and everybody’s opinion of that session, allow me to give you a broader view.
          Before I begin, let me say, your lawmakers work very hard. It takes grit to withstand the long hearings and long days. The food is sometimes great but mostly not. The night House members debated the budget, everybody had a fast-food burger in a bag.
          This year’s session was like a dam burst with a flood of pent-up legislation and a whiplash-inducing shift in political priorities. Add to that a batch of eager, newly elected legislators. Usually the new folks sit on the sidelines and watch for a while, but this bunch jumped right in.
          November’s blue wave gave the Democrats a 46-24 majority in the House and a 26-16 majority in the Senate. How the two chambers dealt with their numbers was very different.
          In the House, Dems had a big agenda and a mandate. (I use the word “mandate” cautiously, knowing that in the past politicians have claimed mandates with even small majorities.)
          House Speaker Brian Egolf did a good job of herding his cats. The House, always more businesslike than the Senate, was more so this year. Instead of dithering during the first few weeks, they got off to a fast start. Night and weekend hearings began early in the session instead of the final weeks.
           House Republicans carried their election shock, anger, and denial into the session. With Minority Floor Leader Nate Gentry’s decision not to run for office, they had a leadership vacuum. They chose James Townsend of Artesia as minority floor leader. He and the minority whip, Rod Montoya, have served only since 2015, the year Republicans had a narrow majority for the first time in six decades. Townsend has never even chaired a committee.
           Townsend’s strategy was to slow down every debate, even for bills they liked. And how did that work out? Egolf kept them all in session late into the night and set the clock for three-hour debates, which the rules allow. We watched as Republicans, struck by amnesia, asked the same questions and repeated the same points. Over and over.
          Initially the Rs did all the talking while Dems sat in sullen silence. Then Dems joined the word duels, depriving the Rs of some soapbox time. When the clock ran out, they voted, with predictable results.
          This went on for weeks.
          In a contest of stamina like this, the game goes to the team with the youngest players. Guess who that was?
          Committee hearings were similar. It was clear the House chairs had instructions to stay on task and not allow the discussion to wander. This caused at least one kerfuffle as somebody decided she was unfairly cut off and stormed from the room.
          Meanwhile, the Senate, which likes to call itself “the deliberative body,” carried on normally. They debated as usual, made their points, and voted.
          Senators weathered no midnight sessions until the last week. Senate Republicans could influence the debate on the strength of their arguments and didn’t lose credibility for obvious stalling. Senate Floor Leader Peter Wirth took some heat for not strong-arming his moderates, but the deliberative body has always had independent spirits.
          In the end, the result was the flurry of Democratic legislation that anyone could have predicted in November when the voters spoke. While some might blame Trump, I think the elections were a referendum on eight years under the former governor, and that, actually is worse news for the New Mexico Rs.
          Voters are fickle. They may decide that they don’t like this new direction. If so, the Republicans can offer the old direction. But don’t hold your breath for a red wave.

 © 2019 New Mexico News Services 3-18-19
Senate moderates strike a needed balance among Roundhouse extremes
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Probably the single most important thing I heard this legislative session was, “We don’t want to be Washington because they don’t get anything done. We wanted to get something done.”
            The context of the comment, by Sen. Clemente Sanchez, a Democrat from Grants, was a conference committee presentation of the tax bill, which he described as a compromise between the House and Senate.
            It was a hard-fought compromise, in fact, between liberals of the House and moderates of the Senate. Republicans were at the table, but their small number limits their clout, not to mention their vote.
          Who better to broker a compromise than a political moderate? The fact that it wasn’t worse (by “worse” I mean the big tax bite in the original bill) is due to Sanchez himself, backed up by Senate Finance Committee Chairman John Arthur Smith.
          Sanchez this year was also the guy who got a minimum wage bill passed. As a Democrat with roots in business, he could see the need for an increase in the wage, made sure he understood the business perspective, talked to the governor, and also carried the flag for rural communities that really can’t afford a big increase.
          Again, he was facing off with House liberals who were trying to do their best by low income people who hadn’t seen an increase in the minimum since 2007. And really, do we expect anybody to live on $7.50 an hour? The result is a stepped increase and a student wage that most everyone can live with.
          Sanchez and Smith, along with other Senate moderates – George Munoz of Gallup, Mary Kay Papen of Las Cruces, John Sapien of Corrales, Gabe Ramos of Silver City, and several others – have been singled out by at least one blogger as members of a nefarious conservative coalition with Republicans.
          It doesn’t exist.
          If you’ve lived in New Mexico a long time you may remember in the 1970s when there were two actual, organized coalitions of liberals called the Mama Lucy Gang and conservatives of both parties called the Cowboys. It made political coverage more entertaining.
          What we have now is less colorful – a handful of senators who vote mostly Democratic but on some high profile bills like tapping the permanent fund for early childhood education, marijuana, abortion, taxes, energy and minimum wage have tilted to the right. Unintentionally, they’ve become a swing vote.
          That’s earned them some heat from Democrats who want their party members to march and vote in step as the Republicans do. Three things: The moderates are mostly from small towns, and they’re probably listening to their constituents. (Sapien is in a swing district.) Most New Mexicans, pollsters have said, are in the middle. And in the party of the big tent, expect big differences.
          Munoz once told me: “I can’t be a progressive. In my district, I’ve got a refinery, a power plant, coal mines, and a railroad.”
          For an interesting blend of philosophies, consider a bill Munoz carried for the city of Carlsbad. The oil boom has filled the community’s hotels with people who stay indefinitely because there’s no housing. They pay the state’s lodgers tax for the first month only, but the city still has costs to provide services. So Munoz attempted to create a special tax that would kick in after the lodgers tax.
          Eddy County’s Republican legislators understand the problem but wouldn’t touch a bill  to raise taxes. Munoz understood the need and as a Democrat doesn’t break out in hives at the word “tax.”
          In the two legislative chambers where most of the members are easily identified as liberal or conservative, we need these moderates. I hope they eat their broccoli and sleep soundly.

© 2019 New Mexico News Services 3-11-19
Does clean coal technology have a place in energy transition?
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Sen. Bill Sharer had been talking for a good hour before I realized he was filibustering.
          Sharer is one of those lawmakers that, when he takes the microphone, you know you can catch up on your email, have a snack, and take a bathroom break.
            This was different. The Farmington Republican was trying to throttle the Senate into amending the sweeping Energy Transition Act, a bill several years in the making that’s generated plenty of sparks.
            SB 489 would firmly steer the state toward renewable energy by requiring New Mexico’s investor-owned utilities to use 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045 and phase out most natural gas plants.
          It sweetens the pill by creating a fund for severance pay and job training. And it allows Public Service Company of New Mexico to recover some costs through a bonding mechanism.
          Sen. Jacob Candelaria, D-Albuquerque, has been pilloried by the left and the right for his bill. The left doesn’t like the “bailout” of PNM; the right doesn’t like the mandated timetable for renewables.
          Much debate centered on the San Juan Generating Station outside Farmington. PNM has said it will close the plant and its coal mine in 2022 because renewables are cheaper than coal. We’ve already seen the bankruptcies of some of the nation’s biggest coal companies.
          The market has spoken. The market can be brutal.
          Farmington’s leaders are scrambling to save, or at least extend, the life of the plant and its 450 jobs and tax revenues. What they came up with is Acme Equities, a little known New York hedge fund, and, said Candelaria, a technology tried just twice on much smaller operations. Acme proposes to do a feasibility study by June 1, and if that pans out, it would begin construction by January 2023.
          We heard a lot of arguments in committee about Acme Equities’ experience or lack with utilities, along with the state of carbon capture and sequestration.
          Sharer wanted to amend Candelaria’s bill to allow the San Juan to remain open while a potential new owner builds a new system.
          The San Juan is embedded in my professional life. As a PNM employee in the late ‘70s, I spent time at that power plant and wrote about it. I wrote the news releases about the plant’s first CO2 scrubbers. It’s still hard to comprehend that a structure so massive, complex, and long serving is simply obsolete. I understand why Sharer would try to buy time.
          Farmington’s plan might seem like a shot in the dark, but don’t sell technology short. Back in the day, I wrote endlessly that we would still need coal because wind and solar were too expensive. Now look where we are. A web search shows a lot of activity in carbon capture, so it may not as far out as Candelaria intimated.
          There is also the argument, made during hearings, about what we do when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. PNM said it still has nuclear power from the Palo Verde Generating Station in Arizona. Clean coal might still have a role.
          So Sharer talked and talked, trying to move his fellow senators. Candelaria doubts the technology will work but also said the city of Farmington can still go ahead with the project, bill or no bill. He opposed Sharer’s amendment, and most of the Senate agreed.
          Candelaria, I think, has nothing against carbon capture, but he’s fought long and hard to win support and get his bill down the road. He didn’t want 11th hour complications. Sharer really needed his own bill, his own campaign, and his own supporters. He and Farmington have three more years. There’s time.

© 2019 New Mexico News Services 3-4-19
Controversial tax measure still being shaped, will look quite different by session’s end
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
             Rookie legislator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez introduced a bill mandating a four-year moratorium on fracking, which she called a pause. On the appointed day before the Senate Conservation Committee, the Albuquerque Democrat was ready with her panel of experts and a roomful of supporters.
            Committee Chairman Joe Cervantes said SB 459, the anti-fracking bill, would be last on the agenda. After the committee heard all the other bills, Cervantes gave Sedillo Lopez 15 minutes, saying members were due on the Senate floor. After rushed testimony, Cervantes cut them off and adjourned the meeting. The bill has yet to reappear on the agenda, which Cervantes controls.
            There you have a demonstration of the power of legislative committee chairs. More importantly, you see how the process works to extinguish bad bills and shape other bills.
            For all the dire predictions that SB 459 would kill the oil boom and gut tax revenues, it never had any traction.
            In this legislative session, I’ve thought that if the Democrats want to maintain their cozy majorities, they should tone down their anti-business rhetoric. During debate on the big tax bill, House Minority Leader James Townsend, R-Artesia, called out Dems for their anti-business bills.
            Yes, there are such bills, House Speaker Brian Egolf admitted, but “they aren’t passing this chamber or the other chamber.”
          So we can look at the tax bill, HB 6, in a different light. It’s not necessarily anti-business – in some aspects it’s pro-business – and it will change.
            What it does is double the working family tax credit and correct the whammy from the Trump tax break by providing a tax deduction for dependents. It increases the excise tax on motor vehicles from 3 percent to 4.2 percent. This tax hasn’t changed in decades and is still cheaper than surrounding states. It increases the tax on e-cigarettes and tobacco products.
          The bill taxes nonprofit and government hospitals for the first time, but the Legislature will spend more money on Medicaid, which in turn delivers a 4-to-1 match from the federal government. Republicans have called this anti-hospital, but hospitals are supporting this piece because they see it as a win-win.
          Online retail sales will be taxed. The New Mexico Retail Association has tried for years to get this tax as a matter of fairness to the state’s brick-and-mortar stores. Most other states have online taxes. Amazon has paid gross receipts taxes here for some time.
          The bill doesn’t touch corporate income taxes except to shift some large, multi-state operations to combined reporting. There is no opposition to this.
          The two most controversial pieces would take away some of the capital gains deduction in personal income taxes, and raise personal income taxes for higher earners. Families earning $300,000 or more would pay 6.5 percent, up from the current 4.9 percent.
          Altogether, the bill would raise $357 million. Republicans are saying half a billion, but that’s incorrect.
          Townsend said: “This is more a shot in the dark than a moon shot. I believe what we’re doing is wrong for New Mexico. It’s a short-term influx of new taxes that will slowly go away.”
          Egolf argued that the bill rights the ship of state by restoring tax revenues sacrificed in former Gov. Bill Richardson’s tax cut of 2003.
          “It set us on a course of scarcity and austerity,” he said. “There’s a generation of New Mexico children who didn’t get the education or healthcare they deserved.”
          Few subjects are as touchy as taxes, but House members on both sides deserve kudos for a civil and respectful debate.
          HB 6 now goes to the Senate. The bill in its final form will be much different. You can take that to the bank.

© 2019 New Mexico News Services 2-25-19
Budget debate showcases 50 ways to stimulate the economy
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Nothing quite defines vision like the state budget. In black and white, legislators assign values to all the things they’ll spend two months debating.
            There was no unjustifiable largesse in the House budget. Rep. Patty Lundstrom, the Gallup Democrat who chairs the House Appropriations and Finance Committee, is by habit deliberate and down to earth. And the substantial needs of the state quickly claimed every cent of the $1.1 billion surplus.
            Even so, there was drama and a little humor during floor debate last week.
            The Democrats rolled out a $7 billion budget that increases spending by 10.8 percent over fiscal 2019. They pumped up the education budget by $449 million (16 percent) to $3.25 billion because education has been stunted the last few years and because the court, in Yazzie-Martinez vs. New Mexico, seized the state by the collar and said it was failing its children.    
         They gave many agencies bigger budgets, built in a pay increase for state employees, and kept a nice cushion of 22.4 percent in reserves.
            Rep. Paul Bandy, R-Aztec, told Lundstrom: “You are knowledgeable, disciplined and fair, and you’re patient. There are a lot of good things in this budget.”
            But he questioned whether the large sums going into education can be spent efficiently and worried that revenue could plummet as quickly as it soared because of the cyclical fortunes of oil and gas.
            Rep. Jason Harper, R-Rio Rancho, echoed his party’s concern that lawmakers could find themselves cutting budgets again in the future. A veteran of several admirable tax reform proposals in years past, Harper was a good choice to present the Republican alternative.
            In a rare move, the Rs offered their own $6.6 billion budget as an amendment. It would increase spending by 5 percent, which Harper argued is sustainable. Schools would get a 7.7 percent increase to raise pay to teachers, principals and school employees. They would restore school fund balances swept during lean years, but the Public Education Department budget would be flat. The Rs would fatten reserves by 25 percent in fiscal 2020 and 33 percent in 2021, and they would rebate $200 a person to taxpayers. However, few state employees would see a raise, and they wouldn’t relieve the backlog of tax credits owed the film industry.
            Lundstrom, who is an economic developer in her day job, pointed out that their proposed reserves would reach $800 million. “It’s almost hoarding dollars… Having $800 million with no raises doesn’t help us grow the economy. We need to invest in our people. We need to invest in our systems.”
          And even though she’s not a fan of the tax break for film makers, she said, “We have a responsibility on this film tax credit to pay for what we agreed to do, whether we like it or not.”
          My favorite moment in this three-hour debate was when Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-Albuquerque, explained the methodical, painstaking process of budget building and then questioned Harper about how he arrived at his 5 percent increase.
          Harper said that as a research engineer, he’s “very data driven,” and the number reflected data and “political reality.” He told Stansbury she would understand how budgets came together after she’d been there longer.
          “I was a federal budget analyst,” Stansbury responded. “I know very well how budgets come together.”
          Notice that the debate was (mostly) gracious. Lundstrom shared credit all around. Everybody praised the Legislative Finance Committee staffers, who are the wizards behind the curtain.
          The Rs did what they needed to do, which was to stake out a conservative budget for I-told-you-so purposes if the state’s economy lives down to their expectations.
          As a member of the female party, I watched Lundstrom and Stansbury with pride. You go, girls!

© 2019 New Mexico News Services 2-18-19
Transportation needs still outstrip this year’s expansive budget
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            It’s the biggest transportation budget anybody can remember: $950,281,200.
            Department of Transportation secretary, legislative analysts, House Appropriations and Finance Committee chair – nobody could remember a budget like this.
            It includes $279 million of one-time money from this year’s oil and gas windfall.
            Rep. Phelps Anderson drew laughs from the HAFC committee when he described it as the “moon shot of roads,” borrowing the governor’s term for her education package.
            What can they do with this budget, just shy of $1 billion? Not as much as you might think. That’s because the department’s project list is long, smaller budgets in years past delayed work as roads continued deteriorating, and extraordinary developments, like the oil boom in southeastern New Mexico, stressed an already inadequate road network.
            So, when Anderson, R-Roswell, asks when U. S. 285 south of Carlsbad will be addressed, or when Rep. Anthony Allison, D-Fruitland, wants to know about the 22 miles of Highway 64 west of Shiprock, the department can say they’re in the works. Somewhere.
          It’s not a fast process. There’s design, engineering, surveying, and environmental work. Newly appointed Secretary Michael Sandoval said DOT has so many vacancies (512, down from 528 when he started) that he worries about whether the agency can even manage the contracting process.
            So it’s cold comfort when Allison learns work will start on Highway 64 in 2022, and reconstruction will proceed in five-mile segments.
          “That road has taken so much abuse,” he said. “The residents of the surrounding area flood into Farmington on weekends. We can’t wait another 6 years.”
            Of course, everybody on the committee can say the same for their roads.
          On U.S. 285 south of Carlsbad, the pavement is failing from the volume of heavy equipment, and 71 sinkholes line the corridor, according to an engineering study.
             This is not just a money problem. For years, DOT has divided its funding equally among its six districts. This might seem equitable on a superficial level and probably saved cabinet secretaries some political grief in meetings like this one, but the needs are quite different.
          “We try to be as equitable as possible,” said Sandoval, a 20-year DOT employee. “We’re now moving toward a data-driven process. We want a statewide plan to move money around to specific projects based on data.”
          “Data-driven” is a term we’re hearing a lot this year. In this case, the agency would know exactly what’s going on with each road so that instead of just splitting a little money six ways, it could focus on the greatest needs.
          Right now, that would be the Permian Basin, where heavy equipment unseen outside the oil patch lumbers down narrow, crumbling roads, along with pickups and school buses, and U. S. 285 is a disaster waiting to happen.
          The world’s largest oil play, now buoying state revenues, has some of the region’s worst roads. 
          “We’ve met with Permian Basin folks,” Sandoval said. “They have money they want to invest. It would be helpful to have private funding.”
          This year, that’s within reach. The HAFC chair, Rep. Patty Lundstrom, D-Gallup, has introduced HB 286, which would allow local governments to enter long-term public-private partnerships, called P3s, to finance, build, and operate roads. A board attached to the New Mexico Finance Authority would screen and approve agreements.
          “We have needs that are immediate and no way to pay for them,” Lundstrom said.
          Some legislators, tired of waiting, have introduced bills to skirt DOT processes and tap the general fund for specific road projects or “urgent need” projects defined by highway fatalities.
           Their impatience is understandable, but we’re better served by letting the state Transportation Department make these decisions. The agency should get on with its statewide plan and data-driven process sooner rather than later.

​© 2019 New Mexico News Services   2-11-19
With no apparent strategy, House Republicans throw themselves at every fight
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            New Mexico’s House Republicans in this legislative session complain that the majority Democrats aren’t listening to them. The Democrats say they’re listening, but they have a mandate.
            In 2014, when Republicans gained a majority in the House, it was the Dems’ turn to complain that they were pushed aside.
            So how does the majority party become more gracious and how does the minority party muster its limited numbers to make a difference?
            There are no answers today or in 2014. Whoever’s in power makes their plays and forgets that voters in this state tend to swing back and forth, looking for a happy medium but finding only extremes.
            Former Gov. Susana Martinez and the Republicans took flak for pushing wedge issues, like not passing third graders who couldn’t read and taking drivers licenses from undocumented immigrants.
          Now the Dems are busy pushing their own wedge issues – abortion rights, gun control, legalized marijuana – only nobody’s calling them wedge issues. The difference is that they have the votes to pass them and, presumably, a new governor willing to sign them. But, hey, that’s politics and the democratic process.
          What’s the minority party to do? Some might embrace the sage advice to choose your battles, work on bipartisan bills that help everybody, continue to espouse your positions, and bide your time.
          Instead, under the grumpy leadership of Rep. James Townsend, R-Artesia, the Rs have decided to oppose everything, to throw themselves into every fight and go down in a hail of words.
          Last week this played out in the procedural battle over a bill requiring background checks in gun sales. During hours of drama, as reported in the Albuquerque Journal, Republicans used a “call of the house,” in which lawmakers must return to the floor and the door is locked, but Rep. David Gallegos, R-Eunice, went missing. The House found a way to go on without Gallegos, but Rs threatened to leave in a group, which produced another call and locked doors.
          For all that, the bill passed 41 to 25. It might be great political theater, but it accomplished nothing and took time from other bills that deserved attention. I also think these episodes damage lawmakers’ ability to work together.
          More revealing was the vote on a bill to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day. Columbus Day has been a thumb in the eye of tribal members for years. The substitution is a simple solution that a number of cities and states have already adopted.
          You might think House Republicans would tiptoe around anything that smacks of racism, given the accusations that cling like duct tape to the president.
          But no, they voiced their objections at length, led by Rep. Rod Montoya, R-Farmington, who noted that he’s Hispanic and his wife is half Navajo. He worried that the change would offend all the people who immigrated to this country in search of a better life. He also thought it was divisive.
           Rep. Larry Scott, R-Hobbs, saw the bill as a rejection of history, which is often violent. Rep. Candy Ezzell, R-Roswell, said, “I get perturbed when we segregate one group. When we change history we take away our children’s right to know” the events that shaped us.
          Normally I would agree with their concern about history. I thought it was a mistake for Albuquerque to remove a cannon and flag from Old Town that symbolized the Confederate presence here during the Civil War.
          This bill isn’t trying to change history. It recognizes that Christopher Columbus isn’t everybody’s hero. And if we don’t want to single out any one group, we should give up St. Patrick’s Day, Chinese New Year, and Cinco de Mayo.
          The Rs missed an opportunity to display the kind of forbearance they want from Dems. And they proved it’s still wise to choose your battles.

 ​​​​​© 2019 New Mexico News Services 2-4-19
If you hold it they will come: Teachers speak out at Saturday legislative hearing
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Teachers and the public got a rare opportunity last Saturday to weigh in on education issues before the Legislature.
          They had plenty to say after eight years of controversial policies from the state Public Education Department, budget cuts, the landmark Yazzie-Martinez vs. New Mexico lawsuit ruling that the state had failed its children, and the new governor’s proposed education “moon shot.”
          For five hours, at two minutes each, a stream of mostly teachers filed before the House and Senate education committees to offer their thoughts on a range of education matters.
          So who gives up a Saturday to drive to Santa Fe and have their two-minute say? The best.
           Many described themselves as exemplary teachers under the existing measures. A few had been named a teacher of the year. Most had been teaching for years and had advanced degrees. Some had been administrators.
          They spoke well, they’d done their homework, and they knew their students.
          The current teacher evaluation system came in for much comment. One teacher worried about fellow teachers who were “persecuted” by the evaluation system. Another called the system “punitive” and added, “I was evaluated by a principal who didn’t show up.” A third described evaluations as “inconsistent.”
           SB 247 would establish an evaluation system by law. It would allow evaluations every three years for experienced teachers. Several teachers said all teachers should be evaluated every year and that PED should make the change by rule.
          “An effective evaluation provides feedback and an opportunity to grow,” said a teacher. “It’s important that teachers be held accountable.”
           Regarding pay, they talked about teachers who don’t make a living wage, who have 300,000 miles on their cars, who qualify for Medicaid. A teacher who received merit pay said she didn’t support merit pay. “All teachers deserve a living wage,” she said.
           Many teachers spoke out for their fellow school employees.
           “We need counselors, social workers, nurses, and librarians to do our jobs,” said one. “We need our custodians and cafeteria workers to earn a decent wage.”
          A school nurse said, “Nurses make a difference. Counselors make a difference, but every year we get left out of pay increases.”
           The governor and lawmakers have both proposed pay increases for school employees.
           There was a lot of support for HB 77, which steers more funding to the classroom instead of the administration. This is a priority bill for Think New Mexico, a nonpartisan think tank, which studied education spending and found that between 2006-2007 and 2016-2017, administrative spending grew faster than classroom spending in more than two-thirds of the state’s school districts.
          “I was troubled to learn that administrative spending has grown 37 percent and salary increases were 14 percent,” compared with far smaller increases for classrooms and teacher pay, said a teacher. “There’s no reason administrative costs should grow faster than classroom costs.”
          Teachers and parents at charter schools advocated for parent choice and opposed the cap on charter schools in HB 5 and SB 1. They also support SB 245, which would improve charter school facilities.
          Similarly, a number of educators opposed capping public education at 22 and said that provision in two bills would close down adult programs in jails and other facilities.
          Most of the speakers were from the state’s largest cities. Teachers from rural areas spoke loud and clear for career-technical education.
          A teacher from a small school said: “We have to do more for our kids. We don’t even have a nurse. We don’t have librarians.”
          Legislators and committee members deserve a pat on the back for holding a Saturday hearing for people who can’t attend hearings on work days. Judging by the response, teachers appreciated the gesture.


​© 2019 New Mexico News Services   1-28-19
Lawmakers move a bill to block teachers from withholding bathroom privileges
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            Sometimes, a law gets passed to fill in for the absence of good sense.
            Take Senate Bill 26, for example. It would require the state Public Education Department to prevent teachers from punishing kids by withholding bathroom privileges.
            Joan Day Baker testified last week that her third grade son was coming home with wet pants because the teacher told him he couldn’t use the bathroom.
          “He has bladder spasms,” she said. “He needs to go.”
          Baker, an early childhood education expert and member of the governor’s transition team, began checking. She found others with the same complaint, including a mom in the Albuquerque area whose daughter was having repeated bladder infections because she wasn’t allowed to use the bathroom. She also learned that the ACLU asked that the California Bill of Rights guarantee students’ bathroom privileges.
          “This is a national problem,” she told the Senate Education Committee.
          Baker took the matter to Sen. Michael Padilla, D-Albuquerque, who made international headlines two years ago with his “lunch shaming” bill, forbidding schools from denying lunch to a kid whose parents owed money at the cafeteria.
          SB 26 would require PED to set a policy for bathroom use in the schools that would take into account a student’s age, special needs, and physical impairments. The department would need the input of pediatricians, child psychologists and early childhood educators. Teachers couldn’t disallow bathroom privileges or deny other privileges if they suspected inappropriate bathroom use. However, PED would allow “incremental and respectful intervention” in the event somebody was gaming the system.
            At this point in the hearing, I was thinking, what kind of teacher tells a child he can’t go to the bathroom? And do we really need a law for this?
            I asked an old friend who taught high school math for decades and finished her long career as a teaching coach.
            “I’ve seen this before, many times,” she said. “It’s a power trip by a teacher who wants control, but how hard is it to control an 8-year-old? It’s not even that hard to control high school kids.”
          She described the chain of events even though she wasn’t familiar with Baker. “So she begins to make phone calls. Then she gets her friends to make phone calls. Then she talks to her legislator.”
            Problems like this can be solved by “treating kids like people,” she said, and by remembering that “this is somebody’s child.”
          Back in the hearing room, another mom testified that her 6-year-old was coming home with wet pants even though he used the toilet at home without accidents.
          Adrian Carver, of Equality New Mexico, said, “I love this bill.”
          Sen. Craig Brandt, R-Rio Rancho, didn’t love the bill. He said he could support a bill saying that bathroom privileges shouldn’t be used as punishment, but the bill goes too far. His wife, who’s a teacher, said it’s a slap in the face to teachers.
          “What about the student who abuses privileges?” Brandt asked. “What if a kid’s already gone three times, and there’s nothing wrong with them?”
          Two years ago, it was Brandt who defied the previous governor and some in his own party with a bill allowing teachers to take all ten days of their sick leave without being penalized on their evaluations. When the bill was vetoed, Brandt led an effort to override that succeeded in the Senate but not the House. The same bill is on a fast track this year.
          Some committee members thought school districts, rather than PED, should set policy. Others questioned whether it really required expert input.
          Good point. Do we need people with advanced degrees to advise us that when a kid’s gotta go, he’s gotta go?
          Five of nine committee members thought so. The bill passed.

 © 2019 New Mexico News Services 1-21-19
Spending smarter, not just spending more, occupies lawmakers
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            With Democrats in control of both houses of the Legislature and a new Democratic governor, the fear is that they’ll go on a “spending spree.” This is the favorite phrase of Republicans, who regard themselves as a check on Democratic excesses.
            So let me assure you: There will be no spending spree because Democrats have the same fear.
          Last week I heard even the most liberal of Dems express a reluctance to spend the entire $1.1 billion surplus. So even with a high tide of spending bills, a great many will die in the budget process.
          And despite dire warnings from the Rs, we won’t see any showboat projects like the Rail Runner or the Spaceport. We will see attention to roads and bridges, school buildings, salaries, and rainy day funds.
            The real checks on spending will be the two budget committees and their strong-minded chairs. The Legislative Finance Committee has already done a lot of groundwork to help them all focus.
            Top of mind this year is the court decision in Yazzie-Martinez vs. New Mexico, in which a district court judge ruled that the state is failing its children by under-funding public education. The state must report back in April, which means the governor and Legislature must act in this session.
            In their proposed budgets, both branches substantially upped their education spending. While they differ in other areas, their education proposals are pretty similar.
          This is personal for the chair of the House Appropriations and Finance Committee, Rep. Patty Lundstrom. The Yazzie lawsuit originated in her district when Wilhelmina Yazzie, mother of three, grew frustrated with the scarcity of everything from textbooks to after-school programs in Gallup schools.
            The landmark lawsuit opened the curtain on years of education on the cheap, and the judge found the state in violation of its Constitution.
            One revelation during an HAFC hearing last week was the money wasted during the last eight-plus years. LFC staffers kept using the jargon “evidence-based” to emphasize the need to fund programs with a track record of working.
          It seems the Public Education Department was pumping money into programs with no evidence of their effectiveness and not even checking to see if schools were spending the money as intended. Both the Yazzie ruling and the LFC have called for more oversight by PED.
          Also, the school districts and charter schools were quite creative in manipulating the state’s funding formula to their own benefit. One bill, HB 5, ends that – until schools come up with new tricks.
          So this session isn’t entirely about spending. There’s serious emphasis on being smarter about existing education spending.
          Probably the biggest difference in the two budgets is the governor’s willingness to lift the $50 million cap on rebates to the film industry and pay off the $250 million backlog.
          Lundstrom said she needs to see the numbers. “I’m not sure we’re ready to lift the cap,” she told me. It doesn’t help that the industry hasn’t shown any love for her district in McKinley and San Juan counties, despite the area’s dramatic scenery.
          House Republican leaders Jim Townsend and Rod Montoya call the film rebate “corporate welfare.” That complaint didn’t fly eight years ago and still doesn’t. Media industries, as the sector is properly called, is a legitimate player in the state’s economy and one, I might add, that our young people stay to work for.
          However, it’s worth looking at the incentive. What are other states doing? What can we reasonably sustain?
          After eight years of cutting, of robbing Peter to pay Paul, the pent-up demand is such that even the penny-pinching Republicans would spend more on education and roads.
          Regardless of how lawmakers divvy up dollars, you can count on hearing about it in the 2020 elections.  

© 2019 New Mexico News Services  1-14-19
Former governor may be angling for a job in advocating for the wall 
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            The new governor visited the border, heard a briefing from Customs and Border Protection officials, met with the National Guard, and said, “I haven’t seen anything to indicate we have an emergent crisis here on the border.”
            The old governor said she thinks the president’s plan is “smart.”
            Who’s right? It depends on your political persuasion. Nationally, nearly three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (74%) support extending the wall, and 83 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners are opposed, according to the Pew Research Center.
            But ask yourself this: Who’s looking for a job?
            Former Gov. Susana Martinez has been trumpeting her “legacy.”
          A website, susanamartinez.com, says: “Governor Martinez took office when New Mexico was facing the largest budget deficit in state history, rampant corruption, chronically underperforming schools and an economy overly dependent on federal funding at a time when the federal government massively cut spending. She confronted these issues head-on, turning the largest budget deficit in state history into a record-breaking surplus (without raising taxes), restoring confidence in state government, enacting bold education reforms that resulted in the highest graduation rates in state history and unprecedented improvement in student test scores, and fundamentally changing and diversifying the state’s economy by growing the private sector…”
            In some parallel universe, New Mexico must have elected Superwoman.
            Here in this universe, legislative budget committees worked hard to keep our numbers in the black, and an oil boom blessed us with new revenues. She gets credit for not raising taxes, but in her pinched approach, she denied us the opportunity to increase desperately needed revenues in ways that wouldn’t have hurt New Mexicans.
          She didn’t restore confidence in state government – she eroded state government to the point that vacancies are at an all-time high and morale is at an all-time low. Her “bold education reforms” gave us eight years of controversial, top-down mandates and a teacher shortage. She can take credit for improved graduation rates, but the “unprecedented improvement” in test scores is a tiny percentage change that still doesn’t demonstrate the effectiveness of her changes.
          Martinez keeps telling us she’s diversified the economy, but it’s no more diversified than it was before, which is why New Mexico has the distinction of being the state most affected by the shutdown, according to WalletHub, which has pronounced many such dubious distinctions on the state.
          Her real legacy? Eight years of picking unnecessary fights with the other two branches of government, eight years of arbitrary and vindictive vetoes of bills that could have done some good, and eight years of slashed capital outlay and the economic stimulus that goes with them.
          It was like being tied to a chair and forced to watch “Mean Girls” endlessly.
          Leaving office with 35 percent approval ratings – even lower than the president’s – she’s not likely to run for office. And after her eight-year vendetta against the state’s courts, her prospects of practicing law here aren’t shiny.
            Now she emerges as a newly minted supporter of the president and his wall at a time when he could use a Hispanic friend, and she is, after all, the nation’s first Latina governor. That should be good for something. But not that long ago, Martinez objected to Trump’s remarks about Mexican immigrants and didn’t show up at his campaign appearances.
            After the 2014 elections, when Republicans cleaned up, I wrote that nobody should feel comfortable. Republican political consultant Frank Luntz observed profound voter dissatisfaction and frustration with Washington that had nothing to do with party.
            I wrote at the time “of a kind of snarling (public) expectation: Do something. Spare us your grandstanding and your petty little fights and solve some problems.”
            Sadly, this still applies.

​© 2019 New Mexico News Services 1-7-19
Past governors’ actions guarantee, even mandate, that Lujan Grisham will get more scrutiny
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
            If anybody thinks Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham will get an easier ride from the media than her predecessor, they should rethink.
          Within days of her inauguration, the Associated Press reported that $25,000 in campaign donations were linked to one of the current racino bidders. And everybody reported the comments for and against ending PARCC testing.
            This is NOT necessarily a harbinger of things to come or a hint that the new governor is off to a shaky start. It’s just another work week for the new executive and the media who cover her.
            If anything, Lujan Grisham will get tougher scrutiny, and it’s because of the past three governors’ actions.
            Take the inauguration, for example. Gov. Susana Martinez’s inaugural committee raised nearly $1 million. The committee chair questioned some of the spending, and nobody knew where all of those dollars flowed. Not until 2016 and an FBI investigation did the Santa Fe New Mexican report that the governor’s advisor, Jay McCleskey, raked in $130,000.
          Other monies ended up in Martinez’s 2014 re-election campaign, despite fund raisers’ assurances to contributors, and this apparently was nothing new in the state.
            Martinez’s inaugural committee promised, but didn’t deliver, transparency about its spending. Lujan Grisham’s inaugural committee has said it would post financial details on a website. We’ll see.
            The state’s journalists have learned to pay closer attention to campaign funding and the many ways donors influence issues and decision making.
            The racino decision will get a hard look, and the governor can thank Martinez for the media breathing down her neck. That’s because Martinez received generous campaign contributions from two Louisiana developers who won a nice contract to lease State Fair land for their racino.
          Martinez said one had nothing to do with the other, but the Santa Fe Reporter in 2014 wrote that “money helped buy the Louisiana men access to Martinez that wasn't afforded to some of the working-class New Mexicans who protested a state-sanctioned gambling institution in their rough Duke City neighborhood.”
          Big-dollar state contracts, especially anything involving money management, get extra attention because of pay-to-play schemes during Gov. Bill Richardson’s administration. After Richardson garnered national attention for his run for president, he remained in the national eye for having to step back from consideration as U. S. Commerce Secretary when pay-to-play became the big story. The state was still settling some of these cases in 2016.
          Jose Z. Garcia, a New Mexico State University government professor, wrote 10 years ago on NMPolitics.net that Richardson had raised such unprecedented amounts of money that he created a climate ripe for pay-to-play politics. Contributors got appointments “and in other ways appeared to receive a great deal of face time with Big Bill.”
           Lujan Grisham can expect everybody to have a lot to say about education. That goes back to Gov. Gary Johnson, whose idea of education reform was vouchers. One reason Richardson had so much wind in his sails coming into office was that, except for the narrow minority who agreed with Johnson, everybody else wanted a real reformer. And Richardson did support a bipartisan reform that passed the Legislature during his honeymoon period.
          Lujan Grisham considers testing so important, she got rid of PARCC tests even before having an education secretary in place. The tests have been so time-consuming and controversial that only two jurisdictions are still using them. Still, they had their supporters in New Mexico, and one was the group New MexicoKidsCAN whose executive director said debate about the PARCC tests has become politically driven. But so is nearly everything about education.
           So Lujan Grisham’s honeymoon, if she ever had one, is over. The new governor, like her predecessor, promises transparency. We’ll hold her to that.