Bus Drivers Change Lanes Driving Labor Ordinance Over a Cliff

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Note: I have had an interest in labor issues, particularly those of the City of Albuquerque. Over the past couple of months city employee organizations have experienced and been confronted by fundamental changes in the application of the Labor-Management Relations Ordinance. I write from the perspective of having been a union leader and a graduate student. I hold a master’s degree in public administration with a specialization in public personnel management.

Since retirement, I have occasionally been consulted about the labor history in Albuquerque government. I have strong opinions about large national labor unions and how they use their economic power for political purposes. Those opinions are not always good. Amongst Albuquerque’s government employee unions there are seven unions: four are now represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: Blue Collar, Clerical, Security, and Management. The Transit Department drivers now seem destined to join AFSCME. The other unions are Police and Fire.

A quick review: Albuquerque adopted a Labor-Management Relations Ordinance in the early 1970s after a wildcat strike by blue-collar workers.

Albuquerque Police Department Sergeant Robert Lavendowski and Officer Phil Edwards load .12 gauge shotguns in preparation for a confrontation with city blue collar refuse collectors who had staged a wildcat strike at the city’s Pino yards September 9, 1970. This overwhelming show of deadly force kept the workers calm.

Union Leader Henry Campos, at left, president of the city blue-collar workers union, talks with other city workers during breaks. While a strong advocate of improved wages and working conditions for his men, Campos desires to avoid, if possible, serious confrontations with the city. “A strike is no good for anybody.”

This photograph and caption appear as they did on the Feb 18, 1971, Albuquerque News front page, under the headline, “City and Union Coming to Showdown.”

The new labor ordinance allowed workers to form into unions that would collectively bargain. The City Commission, at that point, adopted a law that was very strict about how workers could and would select their exclusive representative.

The ordinance rightly starts at the beginning, with the idea that no union exists and it delineates a procedure for allowing workers to choose their representatives.

The process is modeled on federal law, the National Labor Relations Act which established the National Labor Relations Board to administer the law in the private sector. The NLRA and its NLRB do not apply to the federal, state, local governments or other political subdivision under the theory of federalism. Governments are permitted to chose to enter into collective bargaining or not.

After an exclusive representative is established, Albuquerque’s ordinance anticipates what might happen should workers choose a different organization to represent them. The ordinance requires the workers to vote for decertification of their current union first.

As long as an organization appropriately recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of city employees is in place, no other organization or union may directly attack them or try to take them over.

The ordinance presupposes that there may only be one of two conditions: there is an exclusive bargaining agent, or there is no exclusive bargaining agent.

The provision for changing the exclusive bargaining representative is through decertification. There are three methods of decertification:
The mayor shall decertify a bargaining agent should a union support or lead a strike, which is deemed a fatal illegal act.
The City may determine that an agent is not representing a majority of a bargaining unit, at which time the mayor shall decertify the bargaining agent.
Employees of a bargaining unit may call for an election to decertify.

The choices on a ballot in a decertification election shall be the incumbent exclusive bargaining representative and no representation.

Decertification is a double-edged sword, because once decertification election is held,

If a majority of the city employees in the bargaining unit vote in favor of decertification of an employee organization, the Mayor shall decertify that employee organization as the exclusive bargaining representative for the bargaining unit.

After decertification by the mayor, there is a mandatory one-year moratorium in collective bargaining for those affected employees before workers are allowed to again select a bargaining representative.

At the end of the year, the process for establishing an exclusive bargaining agent is the same as the original process for determining or electing an agent. It is as if there never was a bargaining agent.

The city, however, has refused to follow its own ordinance and has not objected to the Labor Board deciding that one union may attack another without going through the decertification process.

It seems that the barrier created by the ordinance is perceived as being inconvenient and burdensome; it is therefore ignored by the Labor Board.

All City boards and commissions including the Labor – Management Relations Board, are required to file an annual report with the City Council. Any problems the board or commission experiences with its establishing ordinances are to be brought to the attention of the Council so they may be discussed and amended, altered, changed, scraped or replaced through further legislation.

Albuquerque Code of Ordinances
Chapter 2: Government
Article 6: Public Boards, Commissions and Committees
(D) Report. At least once each year, every public board, commission or committee shall present a written report to the Mayor and Council of its activities for the past year and any recommendations as may be deemed appropriate.

To the best of my recollection the Labor Board has no history of complying with the reporting requirement. Very few boards and commissions make such reports. No reports are filed and the Mayor does not even request them. Reports would flow thorough the Mayor’s office and be directed to the Council as executive communications. The Council is also derelict in not requiring compliance with its ordinances.

Instead of addressing the recognized problems, the Labor Board refuses to seek guidance from the Council and muddles through, making rulings that are often contrary to the clear language of the ordinance.

At the Sept. 26, 2006, City Labor Board meeting, Assistant City Attorney Paula Forney-Thompson, center, between Office of Employee Relations Director Lawrence Torres, right, and his contracted assistant Paul Broome, left, complained to the Board saying that I could not photograph the meeting.

Before I could interject, three people all started to respond, all saying that the meeting was subject to the State’s Open Meetings Act and its provision to accommodate the press. Chairman Justin Pennington was the person whose voice prevailed and as Forney-Thompson muttered on, he gave me a big wink and a nod, indicating I would have nothing to say in the matter.Later during the Sept. 2006 meeting, the Board’s Management representative Ruben Mirabal, left, Pennington and Union’s selection Debbi Lattimore, held a discussion where they complained about what they perceived as limitations placed on them by the ordinance, I rose to comment.

I suggested that the Board was on the right track when they complained about the law and that they had the power to do something through the required reports to the mayor and council. I told them that they should pull the pin from the hand grenade and blow the ordinance up.

Forney-Thompson told the board’s clerk to hold a copy of the tape from the recording, because I had just threatened an act of terrorist violence against the Board. She was met with rolling eyes, shaking heads and snickers.

Forney-Thompson and I have history. She represented the city when I sued over not being promoted to sergeant in 1988. She lied to the judge saying I had failed to exhaust my administrative remedies before going to court. The city had refused to respond to my appeal and, following the rules of the grievance procedure, I had continued up each step of the process after waiting the stated time limit for the administration to respond. I had played “the exhaustion of administrative remedies game” with the city before and in that case had written two letters for each step of the appeals process and I was covered. Forney-Thompson was correct that due process had not been followed and the city had not held a hearing; she had not indicated that the failure to do so lay solely upon the administration. However, the judge refused to listen, bought her lie and the case was dismissed. The city still refused to follow the due process hearing, ignoring my request for a grievance.

Forney-Thompson is married to Bruce Thompson who is also an attorney, currently serving in the City Council’s office. They are seen here together at a Council meeting as she speaks to him before leaving work late in the evening.

They have been governmental lawyers for more than 20 years and have served in more jobs than I can keep up with. Between them they have served at the Albuquerque City Attorney’s office, the Attorney General’s office, State Risk Management, as Santa Fe City Attorney, and some places more than once.

Bruce Thompson, right, here with fellow Assistant City Attorney Charles Kolberg, represented the city before the Labor Board for several years; in the position his wife now holds.

The City’s bus drivers union was in place when the City took over the privately owned and operated Albuquerque Bus Company in 1968. The Brotherhood of Local Engineers then represented the drivers. The city negotiated with the BLE, even though there was no ordinance in place. Federal law required the city to maintain the relationship with the union that was in place with the private company. The city is still trying to ignore the fact that federal law requires them to honor provisions of mandatory interest arbitration dispute resolution that came with the change 30 years ago.

Later, the BLE internally split their national union to more accurately reflect the workers they represented. The United Transportation Union was created to distinguish themselves from railroad engineers. Albuquerque bus drivers were then affiliated as Local 1745 of the national UTU.

In 1986, a bus driver, Robert Gutierrez, above right became Chairman of UTU, Local 1745. He would hold that elected position for 17 years. Gutierrez, right, prepares for an interview with then KOAT TV City Hall Reporter Karen McDaniels, left, in 1999. He was the longest serving head of a city union since adoption of the labor ordinance.

In 2003, the local drivers split from the parent organization, UTU, forming them self as the New Mexico Transportation Union.

Because there was no change in the leadership or make up of the local, and because UTU did not make a fight before the City’s L-MRB, there simply was a name change.

Over the years of Gutierrez’ leadership a minority faction of union members grew discontent with his representation.

A group of dissatisfied bus and van drivers aligned themselves with the national Teamsters union in 2006 and attempted to unseat NMTU as the exclusive bargaining agent. The Teamsters petitioned the City for an election and in spite of opposition from NMTU, the Labor Board ordered an election, not to decertify, but to change which organization would be the exclusive bargaining representative. As a result of the election, the drivers sided with the NMTU.

The City’s Transit Department’s Director Greg Payne, left, in 2006 promoted Gutierrez to serve in mid-management. Gutierrez, from his new position, was able to affect changes that, as union chairman, he had not previously been able to convince management to make.

Gutierrez still had a strong influence over the union, in part, because he was perceived as still being a driver who just happened to have changed jobs.

So, what’s wrong with this picture?

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 624, currently represents and is the exclusive bargaining unit for the City’s Blue Collar workers. AFSCME Local 624 challenged the NMTU to be the exclusive bargaining for bus and van drivers by filing with the Labor Board signatures to have an election to change the formally recognized union.

The Labor Board had previously investigated and determined the appropriateness of the bus and van drivers in a particular bargaining unit and recognized NMTU as exclusive agent, just as they had established blue-collar workers and their exclusive representation to be AFSCME Local 624.

In response to AFSCME’s Petition, NMTU petitioned the labor board, demonstrating that the union represented 72 percent of the members of the bargaining unit by a showing of city payroll dues deduction.

NMTU is the exclusively certified union representing the group in negotiating contracts and in adjusting grievances, at least through the expiration of an existing contract with the city, which ends on June 30.

The Labor Board had to reject parts of the ordinance outright, specifically the existing majority status of NMTU, the fact that decertification is the means of removing a union as the exclusive bargaining agent.

Several legal issues about the propriety and nature of a vote were raised by NMTU before the Labor Board that were not fully addressed, including: the right of a legally recognized union to be protected from being taken over by another union that represents a completely different group of workers, under the city’s ordinance.

The Board ignored the meaning of the ordinance, did not hold a proper hearing and accepted the challenge of Local 624. The Board arranged for the League of Women Voters to conduct an election, which was held Friday April 25. The vote was 141-101 for AFSCME.

Assistant City Attorney Doris Duhigg, left, announced the League of Women Voters report.

Contrary to the belief of some union officials from both camps and the opinion of city labor officials, AFSCME may not immediately take over the union. The labor board accepted and ratified the April 25 election. The Labor Board sent its findings to the mayor for his signature. The Mayor signed, formally recognizing AFSCME as the bargaining unit on May 14.

However, the leadership of AFSCME and the city’s Office of Employee Relations Director Torres and Broome believe that the vote was the turning point. They were not dealing with the NMTU and may have started talking to ASFCME, prior to the Mayor’s signature as if they were the exclusive bargaining agent.

It won’t be quite that simple.

NMTU has signed a contract that is to take effect July 1. It includes an “assignability clause,” which locked down the contract by stating:

This agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assignees of the parties hereto, and no provisions, terms, or obligations herein contained shall be affected, modified, altered or changed in any respect whatsoever by any change of ownership or management by either party; or by any change, geographical or otherwise in the location or business of either party.

It means that AFSCME and the City are bound to the new contract even though the union party’s name will not accurately reflect the new exclusive bargaining agent.


At the labor board meeting May 5, when NMTU attorney Paul Livingston read the “assignability clause,” he suggested that AFSCME might be bound to the ratified and signed three-year contract NMTU has with the city that goes into effect July 1. Broome and AFSCME’s attorney Shane Youtz, below right, made comments that it was not yet determined how the new union would proceed. Assistant City Attorney Paula Forney Thompson adamantly shook her head in agreement with Livingston’s sense of the meaning of the clause.

AFSCME filed an ethics complaint against Mayor Martin Chávez and ABQ Ride Director Greg Payne charging that the city had given huge raises to fire, police the transportation unions and were only going to offer 2.6 percent raises to the AFSCME union locals. Insiders, well known to this blogger, who are in a position to know, but spoke on the condition that their identity not be revealed, say the claim is true. Further, should the new AFSCME representatives at the Transit Department succeed in reopening the contract that NMTU negotiated, ratified and the parties have signed, scheduled to go into effect July 1, the sources said that the offer would be 2.6 percent, in part because Payne “hates AFSCME.”

There seems to be agreement between AFSCME and the Office of Employee Relations that the NMTU ratified and signed contract is null and void.

“We are looking at taking legal action,” NMTU Chairman Fred Garcia said in an interview after the election. The union is pursuing several cases that have been pending before the labor board for as long as ten years. Garcia said that the new agreement had some of the newer drivers making more than a 25 percent increase over the life of the contract. But they voted for AFSCME Garcia said.

The 25 percent increase may only apply to newer drivers at the end of the contract and several other monetary item were surrendered away.

The failure of the Labor Board to schedule and hear prohibited practice cases may have contributed to a sense of discontent by the rank and file that led to the AFSCME effort to take over the bus drivers. NMTU attorney Paul Livingston said he was unsure how the outstanding cases that NMTU has pending before the board will be handled. However, at a Labor Board meeting on Monday, May 19, the Labor Board announced that because the Mayor had signed the letter certifying AFSCME, Local 624, as the choice of the Transit drivers’ bargaining unit, the NMTU had no “standing.” This precluded the scheduled hearing in a case that had been pending for more than two years.

In addition to the bus and van drivers, AFSCME also represents city workers in the Blue Collar, White Collar, Management, and Security Officers’ unions. The last three, the clerical, management, and officers unions have only minority membership. The city has an obligation to not recognize them for their failure to maintain a majority status. However, neither the Mayor, the Labor Relations Department, nor the Labor Board will take the required action to decertify the minority unions. Instead, they are engaging in illegal bargaining with unions that don’t represent a majority of their bargaining units.

My Take

Labor Relations Director Torres was an Open Space Ranger when the Airport Police and Park Rangers left AFSCME’s Albuquerque Officers Union, Local 1888, in about 1998 to join the Albuquerque Police Officers Association. AFSCME was a cooperative party in the separation believing that the airport and park law enforcers were better suited in the APOA, with other state-certified, gun-carrying, arrest-empowered cops.

Torres was the Open Space representative on the APOA’s contract negotiations team. He is seen here, right, listening to Mayor Jim Baca, left, with Chief Administrative Officer Lawrence Rael, second from the left, and the remaining members of the APOA’s negotiations team. Baca and Rael were trying to gain support for a quarter cent gross receipts transportation tax. The administration was fearful that the APOA might oppose the tax as they had opposed the quarter cent gross receipts “public safety” tax a couple of years earlier. What Baca and Rael failed to recall was the APOA had opposed the earlier tax because it was called a “public safety tax” and the union’s position was that public safety should not have a special tax, because they were “first, last and always” to be funded from the overall taxing formula.

Torres has lately been claiming and telling people that I was his mentor and that everything he knows about labor management he learned from me. I have to defend myself as an instructor, what he says is partly true. Torres may have learned some things from me, especially negotiation tactics, but based on how he reads the labor ordinance and how he administers the city’s dealings with employee organizations, “Professor Bralley” has to fail student Torres for not learning the most important aspects of labor relations.

Labor Board Chairman Justin Pennington, left, asked Torres what, if any, problems there were during the voting process at the AFSCME-NMTU April 25 election.

Torres did not answer directly or honestly, instead he stated. “We got through it.” He refused to change his answer when asked again and when he was asked a third time he only would say that they had experienced minor problems and issues that were not unexpected. Pennington gave up.

During the same April 30 Labor Board meeting, the Management Board member, Ruben Mirabal, left, moved acceptance of the New Mexico League of Women Voters election report. Groups composed like the labor board is, with a member selected by the unions, and one appointed by the mayor’s administration who jointly select a neutral chair, traditionally follow certain protocols. In this case, where the issue is one brought forward by an employee group, protocol dictates that the unions’ Board representative should make the motion, lest it appear that management has had some hand in the process. Apparently neither Mirabal, the city’s representative, nor Lattimore, right, the unions’ representative, knew about the protocol. Appearances are important, especially where there are accusations by the competing unions of collusion with the administration.

Bus and drivers react to the Board's ruling, of accepting the election results and forwarding them to the Mayor for his action.

As an outsider, it appeared to me, that NMTU had several problems:
With the removal of Gutierrez as chairman, the dynamism of the leadership was weakened and a less politically savvy group was left to face a growing hostile membership.

The minority of disgruntled bus drivers, instead of using its internal political power to successfully run their own slate of candidates in union elections, resorted to seeking out AFSCME, just as they had previously sought the Teamsters to represent them.

AFSCME, by its very nature is a predatory organization that is always willing to attack weakened groups of workers. AFSCME did not grow to have over 1.4 million members by being timid.

NMTU, when they broke from UTU also severed ties with the even larger group of unions, the AFL-CIO, which would have prohibited AFSCME from raiding a sister member union if the drivers were still associated with UTU.

There were several problems that the NMTU did not, and in some cases, could not address, which made them vulnerable, especially not being able to address prohibited practices.

The public fight over who should be the bargaining agent was a predictably nasty affair with charges and counter-charges.

President of AFSCME Council 18 Andrew Padilla, left, filed a private criminal complaint, according to Bernalillo County Metropolitan court online records, charging NMTU Chairman Garcia with two misdemeanors, assault and battery, for allegedly attacking him during a confrontation at the city’s Yale Blvd. bus facility. Garcia denied the charges in an interview for this posting. Court records show a jury trial is pending.

A former probationary employee claimed she was fired for trying to organize NMTU drivers into AFSCME. As a probationary employee, she was subject to termination without reason, though ABQ Ride officials, on and off the record indicated she was released for poor job performance. She was hired then by AFSCME to continue to organize.

There was a presentation by AFSCME operatives before the City Council where ministers from Albuquerque Interfaith Ministry spoke against NMTU claiming it was a city run union. They called the NMTU a “company” union.

Posters comparing NMTU with Osama Bin Laden and President George Bush as terrorists who got their positions by lying and cheating surfaced and made news when they were posted at bus yards. NMTU accused AFSCME operatives of the postings and AFSCME officials denied they were involved.

AFSCME filed a prohibited practice complaint with the Labor Board asserting that the city was illegally interfering by providing NMTU with assistance and support in denying AFSCME organizers access to Transit Department property.

The charge is very problematic. AFSCME admits that they were trying to get on city property to organize. The AFSCME officials are neither city employees nor bus drivers. Just because the NMTU officials are city employed bus drivers does not authorize them access or the right to engage in activity to counter the AFSCME effort.

According to the complaint, City Security guards were present and did not act immediately. They might have prohibited the physical confrontation from occurring.

In the spirit of the First Amendment, such confrontations are bound to happen and I have no direct knowledge of whether the stand off was on city property or on a public sidewalk. The crack in the concrete would make a difference.

NMTU held union activities on city property, specifically a cook out. AFSCME also secured permission to have its own “barbeques” and held at least two such events. Permitting such events on the job site should not be allowed by the city administration.

In an interview Labor Board Member Debbi Lattimore, left, the labor-selected Board member, after the acceptance of the vote, acknowledged that the vote should have been one for decertification. However, she said, because she had voted in the earlier case involving the Teamsters’ attempt to take over the NMTU to allow the question to be about who should be the representative, she felt bound by her earlier position.

This year’s round of negotiations are not negotiations at all. They are fraught with serious misconduct by the management players. The City has not followed the Labor ordinance in many respects. They have not entered into “good faith bargaining” where the union makes proposals with the city countering and the parties sitting down to work out an agreement.

Instead, this year the negotiations were conducted by the city bringing large amounts of money, announcing the huge sums in what appears to be a successful public relations campaign to get rank and file to ignore the critical language in favor of the money.

Albuquerque Code of Ordinances
Chapter 3: City Employees
Article 2: Labor – Management Relations
§ 3-2-13 Negotiating Procedures
(C) Procedure for Negotiations.

1. Negotiations will be conducted as provided below and will take place at the facilities and at a time mutually agreed to by the negotiating teams.
2. All negotiations will be held in closed sessions.
3. Negotiations will start with the negotiating team of the party requesting negotiations delivering their proposed changes, one section or subsection at a time. Each section will be read out loud with the changes and the reasons therefore indicated in some detail. This procedure will lessen the chances of misunderstandings and increase the chances for acceptance. This procedure will continue to be followed until the entire employee organization proposal has been presented.
4. Upon complete presentation of the proposal, the other negotiating team will present their counter proposal in the same manner.
5. Thereafter, each side will take turns presenting counter proposals with supporting data until agreement is reached a section at a time. It may be necessary to leave one section and go on to another in order to get a new look at the one passed up.
6. Negotiating sessions will proceed with deliberate speed, but recesses and study sessions may be called for by either side. Prior to recess, the reconvening time will be agreed upon.

This is not what happened.

NMTU requested an opening of negotiations, but nothing happened for several weeks.

AFSCME petitioned the Labor Board instead of addressing it to the mayor for an election to be the exclusive representative of the transportation workers. Broome claimed to be acting for the mayor in accepting the petition.

Forney-Thompson argued to the Labor Board that because there was a challenge to NMTU that the City would not enter into negotiations until an election was resolved. There are several problems with Forney-Thompson’s contentions: NMTU was the exclusive bargaining agent at that time and until the election process and the mayor's officially recognizing a different representative; not dealing with NMTU was illegal.

NMTU filed a petition with the Labor Board contesting AFSCME’s 35 percent interest cards by providing a showing of 73 percent membership through city payroll due deductions.

Within two hours of the filing of the petition, on a Friday, Employee Relations Director Torres called NMTU Chairman Garcia and wanted to meet on the following Monday at 10:00 am to negotiate. Torres said they could wrap up the negotiations on that Monday.

The City opened with NMTU by demanding that all unresolved prohibited practice complaints be abandoned as a pre-condition of negotiations.

Broome insisted that all non-economic issues be settled before there was any disclosure of how much money the city was offering. The city had offered nothing in writing, so the parties broke so the city could formalize their offer.

On Wednesday the parties met and Broome made a take it or leave it offer. The City negotiators gave an ultimatum; agree to the contract immediately or face the possibility that ASFCME would win the election.

The ordinance is specific. It is illegal for an elected or appointed official, including the Mayor, to attempt to influence negotiations.

§ 3-2-9 Prohibited Practices
(C) It shall be a prohibited practice for any elected or appointed official of the city government or for any employee organization, group of city employees or individual city employee to attempt to influence negotiations or to interfere with the normal progress of negotiations between the duly authorized negotiating teams of the city government and of the employee organization.

Paul Broome, above, contends before the Labor Board that there was “good faith bargaining” by pointing to the boilerplate language that states:

The parties have negotiated in good faith and have reached a full agreement on all issues.

It has always been my belief that the City’s Labor-Management Relations Ordinance was retaliatory and preemptive for the 1970 wildcat strike and the physical injury to Deputy Chief of Police Albert Swallows. The city hired an outside industrial relations firm to train supervisors on how to deal with unions.

The ordinance is one-sided, leaning towards management.

The language could be clearer, but seems to be intentionally convoluted and confusing so it may be subject to various interpretations.

Though the ordinance has strict time limits, when it comes to following them cases rarely get scheduled in a timely manner and even more rarely get heard. Even when cases are heard, and still more rarely, when they are decided, the Labor Board hardly ever issues a written decision. The ordinance, however, requires hearings to be held “as soon as possible” and strictly requires a written decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Labor Board frequently delays hearings, hoping either to have the city and unions work out a solution on their own, discourage the union from proceeding, or simply ignore issues forever.

Yet, if an allegation of a strike is made against a union, or if strike-like activity or an employee work-action occurs, watch how fast the City administration will bring the Labor Board into session. Of course, the city administers the Labor Board, so the Board almost always does what the city administration asks. In the case of the AFSCME-NMTU election, for example, it was a city “motion” that asked the Labor Board to schedule the election, without ever giving the NMTU a chance to show that the only election that was allowed by the Ordinance was a “decertification” election, not the representation election the city requested in its motion.

A prohibited practice complaint brought by a union is the reverse equivalent of a workers strike; it alleges the failure of the city’s administration to uphold their end of the working contract.

Since Mayor Chávez has formally recognized AFSCME as the exclusive bargaining agent other questions arise:
What happens to the existing contract that the City has with NMTU and is scheduled to expire June 30?

NMTU has already timely negotiated a contract by ordinance that begins July 1. What affect does the AFSCME take over have on that document?

At a May 19 Labor Board meeting Broome characterized the April 25 election, as a decertification election. If, in fact it was a decertification election, then the ordinance requires a one-year moratorium in the collective bargaining process and there would be no contract in existence.

I don’t often agree with Broome, but on this point, I do. The ordinance allows only for a decertification election.

After one year, AFSCME, NMTU, or any other employee group may petition the mayor for recognition to be the collective bargaining agent.

Broome has been overruled; AFSCME is the new collective bargaining agent for transit drivers.

Employee relations, negotiations and even deciding the proper workers’ representatives are rough and tumble activities, not for the faint of heart.

However, where an ordinance exists, even when it is as messed up as it is here, strict compliance must still be applied.

It seems that instead of fixing the ordinance, through the legislative process, the city and some unions, especially AFSCME, which has a long history with the city of making up new rules when the ordinance is an impediment, rather not do things legally.

For Pete’s Sake!

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Peter St. Cyr is the latest political blogger. His site is, Word for Word Community Conversation.

St. Cyr is the morning news reporter at 770 KKOB AM radio. He writes for Albuquerque the Magazine and also works in the public relations industry in the afternoon. His primary client is the Town of Taos.

So what’s wrong with this picture?

I first met St. Cyr when he was getting in my way at Sheriff Darren White’s Congressional candidacy announcement.

It wasn’t a big deal; I’ve also been known to get into the way of other photographers.

St. Cyr and I each also provide material to New Mexico Politics With Joe Monahan.

A while back, Monahan called for a dinner. The three of us had a fine meal and the topic was, of course, politics. I tried to convince St. Cyr to join the blogisphere and carve out his own niche.

This past weekend, St. Cyr jumped in into the blog world. He has a unique take by posting his entire interviews. At KKOB radio he only gets to use sound bite snippets. However, his site will enhance understanding of the newsmakers for the true political junkie.

St. Cyr is a tireless reporter, and will do endless research to better understand the issues for his stories. Here he is with his tools of the trade laid out, while waiting for Mayor Martin Chávez’ news conference where he unveiled a new ordinance, “The Ethical Public Service Act.”

If he asks you a question, don’t try to evade it or avoid it, for he probably already knows pretty much what the answer should sound like.

He has a telephone directory of more than 3,000 contacts programmed into his Blackberry.

St. Cyr’s entry into the blog world adds to an association of politically uncommitted journalists who can’t seem to organize into a single entity. A year ago, I made inquiries of several fellow bloggers to see if a group could be formed into an online news service. Several things happened:

The business model for the internet is fraught with problems. 

Advertisement will not sustain a site until it has a relatively high daily hit count.

Individual bloggers seem to want to do their own thing at their own pace, and...

No one seems to want to take on the role of publisher, editor or designer.

Locally, there is Duke City Fix, which is not so much journalistic in its approach, but does a good job of covering lifestyle, food and entertainment, especially in the Nob Hill area of town. DCF has some fine writers, but they tend not to use a journalistic style in their reporting. That’s fine because they are pretty open in letting their readers know that is not what they are trying to do. Now the New Mexico Independent has come on the scene trying to fill that news niche. Yet, there still is room for more thought and diversity.

It is my belief that Monahan has, by using my photographs and St. Cyr’s audio, formed the ad hoc association. You just have to click on a couple of links to get a wider view from the three perspectives.

Welcome aboard Pete; we look forward to hearing more from you.

Seeing Red on Campaign Ethics?

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

I am going to pick on Rep. Heather Wilson, only because she has been the first to do it this political season.

She put up her first senate campaign TV ad March 28, attacking Rep. Steve Pearce. She alleged he did not support increasing the number of border patrol agents and failed to vote on a Democratic measure to fund the war in Iraq, which tied support to a withdrawal schedule.

Pearce had attacked Wilson earlier for missing 22 House votes a couple of weeks ago while she campaigned in New Mexico. Pearce was particularly upset by Wilson’s failure to vote on an amendment that would have stripped federal funds for so-called, “sanctuary cities,” including Albuquerque and Santa Fe. The amendment, which Pearce supported, died on a 210-210 tie in the House vote. Wilson, along with 14 other members, did not vote. Wilson told Albuquerque Journal Politics Writer Jeff Jones that she would have voted along with Pearce supporting the amendment,had she voted.

“Sanctuary cities” are those places where services are provided without regard to a person’s legal immigration status. It makes perfect sense that the federal agents enforce federal laws, including immigration, and that local governments provide services to all. The problem of locals being required to enforce any unfunded federal mandate is that it creates a sub class of residents. If people are afraid of being subjected to a different standard of government service out of fear, it creates a vacuum that can turn criminal; both as offender and victim. The concept is un-American and attacks directly at the core function of policing: protection of life, the maintenance of peace and good order.

We’ve seen the creation of criminal pockets before. Culturally based distrust of police in newly arrived immigrant societies often cause a spike in criminal activities as those who prey on those in fear act with impunity, knowing that they will not be reported. Two particular times come to mind during my professional career: the Vietnam refugees at the end of the war in the mid 1970s, and the influx of migrant Cubans who escaped Castro’s regime in what was known as the Mariel boat refugees in 1980. Included in those seeking political asylum were Cuban criminals that Castro sent when he emptied several prisons on the condition that they leave the country. It wreaked havoc in our communities until the population came to understand that calling the police did not result in punishment for being different. It took awhile, but the ex-cons were identified if they continued their criminal ways and were incarcerated.

We’ve discussed the issue of sanctuary cities -- here and here -- and believe that it is improper for the federal government to use its funding to force compliance with their ideas of federalism. Had the amendment passed, hopefully the Senate would have stripped it out.

Immigration policy in this country has always been based on racism, and now is no different. The laws are poorly written and do not actually help curb the burning desire of people who want to come to this country, not to destroy it through terrorism, but to enjoy the economic opportunities and political freedoms.

So, what’s wrong with this picture?

It passes on the TV screen in a blur almost as fast as the truck, at the top. However, we see Wilson with uniformed firefighters in front of a governmentally owned fire engine. It demonstrates corrupt ethical campaign practices at three levels:

Government employees, while wearing their badge of office and in uniform, must remain neutral and give no hint of their personal political preferences. As individuals or in groups, they may and do make endorsements. However, walking with the representative with the costuming and in front of the prop implies that the government supports the particular politician.

Local government is failing to enforce its own internal rules against allowing its employees to send a message that may be perceived as politically supportive.

All politicians should know better than to cross that line. Some don’t. Candidates will attempt to argue that it simply reflects their support and maybe their votes funding government.

The tax-paid government owned property, badges and uniforms may not be used to endorse a candidate.

Firefighters hold a special place in citizens’ hearts. They don’t give you tickets or put you in jail; instead they will come to put out your kitchen fire or respond to a medical emergency or get your cat out of your tree. No, they don’t get cats out of trees anymore, do they? But they’re heroes just the same.

There is at least one exception; it belongs to politically elected law enforcement officers, specifically sheriffs. In a re-election campaign, a sheriff might be allowed to wear his badge of office and uniform without it providing an appearance of impropriety because he or she is endorsing them self.

He may not surround himself with his uniformed deputies, squad cars, or facilities.

We shouldn’t see Sheriff Darren White’s image appear in upcoming political media, showing him with his uniformed squad of deputies in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. White appeared on KNME’s New Mexico In Focus with his Republican Congressional District 1 opponent, Joe Cararro, interviewed by New Mexico Independent’s Managing Editor. White, in answering a question about where he differed with President George Bush pointed out that after Katrina, he took 15 deputies to New Orleans and “saved” over 200 people. White said he was open about how the Bush administration mangled the rescue effort.

At White’s Nov. 10, 2007, announcement for CD-1, Torrance County Sheriff Clarence Gibson appeared in uniform. Gibson appears to support White, but does Torrance County or their Sheriff's Department also support White? Go figure that one out.

I invite you to keep an eye on all candidates this season. Let’s see how many other politicians step across this line. Maybe we can start a “Government Endorsements Watch List.”

Send in your examples by e-mail to mgbwwwtp@gmail.com, when you find them and we’ll keep track of them here.

Thanks Marjorie

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Political blogger Marjorie Childress wrote a piece on her m-pyer site about Carter Bundy. Bundy wrote as a guest columnist for Heath Haussamen’s site about the Democratic Party’s system that is making selecting their presidential nominee difficult. Unlike the Republican’s winner-take-all primary system that has weeded out all but the presumptive candidate, Sen. John McCain, the Democrats’ top two candidates are mired in a knockdown drag-out fight process that may take them to the Denver convention without a clear winner.

So, what’s wrong with this picture?

This is Bundy in the green American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees sweat-shirt behind former President Bill Clinton, at a rally campaigning for his wife, at UNM’s Johnson gym on Jan. 30.

Bundy fails to disclose his preference or support. What is a casual reader to make of Bundy’s comments if they don’t know where his leanings are?

Heath Haussamen has a spotty history of disclosure; sometimes he identifies his associations, like he did this week about being a friend of Democratic primary Congressional District 2 candidate Bill McCamley. However, he failed to disclose that Whitney Cheshire had been one of his weekly guest columnists, when he accepted a statement from her, in her new role as spokesperson for Heather Wilson’s campaign. Cheshire denied allegations of vote buying at the Bernalillo County Republican Party Pre-primary caucus. Haussamen, believing Cheshire, simply got the story wrong.

Childress raised an issue last week, which caused me to contact her. She was chastising my colleague, Joe Monahan, over his ethics essay winner. She wrote:

“…And to bring it full circle, here's a blog post by M.G. Bralley about one of those people who gave the bribes.”

In an e-mail to Childress, I engaged her in a discussion, in part, on the ethics question and I wrote the following:

…A violation of law is a violation of ethics, but a violation of ethics is not necessarily a violation of law.

There are a lot of things that people think should be violation of ethics that they will not codify.

If the law does not suffice, what makes you think that "ethics reform" will?

Don't get me wrong, there are some real problems here. However, just because the law is not used effectively does not mean there are no problems.

It seems that a great number of people think that money is the root of all ethical problems.

The Supreme Court determined that money is speech and protected….

…The reporting is completely backwards. Individuals should not be the ones named in legislation as being the ones limited. It should be the legislators and other elected officials who identify the source of every penny they accept.

Then, there needs to be a mechanism to track the money back. Armed with that information, voters will be informed better than they are now.

Every citizen a watchdog! Each person has a civic responsibility; not having time is not an acceptable excuse….

She wrote back in a personal and casual e-mail:

thanks for your note, and for correcting me. I had not had any coffee when I wrote that and you're right, you didn't say he bribed, just laid out the allegation. i fixed it on the blog, noting that you corrected me. in your post below you cover several different things:

political ethics: would love to discuss this with you further, but at the moment am on the run. would love to discuss it in the comments section of my blog, as well, even if you wanted to do so anonymously.

my ethics: thanks for checking me on that. i do try, and don't mind being corrected when i overstep. i am far from perfect!

as to monahan, i agree with you: he's a big boy who has no problem taking care of himself. i thought my post was pretty reasonable, and my questions are valid considering his own posts on the topic.

She added to her original post:

**I have been taken to task by M.G. Bralley for misrepresenting what he said above. He has a good point--no bribery has been proven against that individual, and no charges brought, despite Montoya's statement. Thanks for checking me MGB. (By the way, m-pyre readers, the photo essays on Bralley's blogs are always interesting--you should all check them out).

Like many bloggers I have encountered, Childress’ coffee depravation, (along with a lack of sleep) are the common excuses we use when we don’t quite get it right.

She corrected her posting and gave me a plug to boot. She redeemed herself with me.

So, I invited her to coffee, at her convenience, to talk government, politics, social issues, ethics, blogging, state of journalism, or whatever.....

No response from her yet; hence this post, to tell her that I appreciate her clear voice and thoughtful writing in the din of the blogesphere. I will take her up on the conversation, just not anonymously.

I do not engage in what I call the backside of blogging, or the comment section and I have only once made an anonymous comment. It was a smart-alecky poke at Sheriff Greg Solano’s objection to Moriarity Math Teacher Will Klundt who posed an arithmetic word problem. According to Solano’s source:

"Smoky J. sells meth. Smoky's source says he has to sell a G's worth of meth by the end of the month. If Smoky sold $240 the first week and $532 the second week, how much money must Smoky make if he wants to avoid the beat down from his connection?"

The teacher’s approach in mentioning drugs seemed to have upset some folks.

The “Just Say No!” types can’t stand any reference to drugs; I don’t hold such shallow thinking and believe that talking about drugs, even sarcastically, like other issues of the day, is a good thing. So I ventured in with an anonymous comment:
“Yeah! OK, but what's the answer?”

I think, even if no one else does, that it is important for the students to figure out the cost of doing drug related business, “the beat down.” It was possibly a missed opportunity to have a meaningful discussion on the negative economics of crime.

I’ve gotten a bit far a field. Back to the caffeine….

Childress’ name has also appeared as a “Fellow” on The New Mexico Independent website that kicked off a couple of weeks ago.

The Independent is a new online news outlet sponsored by the nonprofit Center for Independent Media.

The Independent’s Managing Editor David Alire Garcia is a: former executive director of the State Democratic Party, a staff writer at the Santa Fe Reporter, on the editorial staffs at the Albuquerque Journal and Tribune, and co-host of PBS affiliate KNME TV’s weekly public affairs program, New Mexico In Focus. Alire Garcia, is seen above right, interviewing Robert Martinez after the State GOP’s pre-primary convention.

Former Journal political writer Trip Jennings, above center taking notes at the 2007 State Legislature, is the Independent’s News Editor.

Despite the name, Independent, it does not resemble the old El Independente newspapers of the 1970s that were owned, published and edited by Mary Beth and Mark Acuff. Mark Acuff was a die-hard Democrat who had a notable career in New Mexico as a newspaper editor. He first gained notoriety as the UNM Daily Lobo’s editor in the early 1960s. I knew Acuff, above, when he was also the editor of the Albuquerque News in 1970 and 71. Acuff’s El Independente newspapers were not independent, but leaned, ever so slightly to the Democratic side, in spite of his fair reporting.

Usually, newspapers adopt names consistent with their political philosophy, such as: the Arizona Republic or the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The Independent website is also not so independent. The Center for Independent Media staffers tend to identify themselves politically as Progressives; so does Childress. Hence, the Independent might more aptly be named the New Mexico Progressive.

Now, I have some thoughts in common with the progressives. I consider one of the leading Progressive’s of the last century as someone I admire, the once police commissioner of New York City and later President, Theodore Roosevelt, who aptly is tucked away on Mount Rushmore amongst the truly great presidents.

The Independent’s site intrigues me. The idea is something I hoped to be associated with; an online news source. They need some good photography. However, I am unlikely to join them, because upon reflection, their political leanings are in conflict with their masthead name.

OK, I admit that, “What’s Wrong With This Picture?” holds its own skewed editorial/political point of view. However, I don’t pretend to have the infrastructure of an established news outlet, but am a self-sustaining, single-minded source of news, commentary, analysis and opinion. If I joined such a group, I would adopt the currently accepted news standards of reporting and let a separate editorial section reveal the commentary, analysis and opinion. I attempt to follow the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics in the reporting part of my postings. When it comes to the analytical portion, I tend to revert to the Public Administration school standards. Finally, “My Take,” is just that, pure opinion, hopefully informed, but mine just the same.

As an adjunct professor, I have only a few rules about discussion in the public square; Fact before opinion, respect the conversation, one at a time, and everybody plays. On my site I moderate comments, I seldom post anonymous comments, except those that truly add to the civil discussion. I believe in free speech, just not uncivilized rants. Everyone has a right to say what they want, but hecklers are invited to open their own sites and spew away. I had enough of street brawling and I get to choose how I wish to communicate. Comments are still welcomed.

In my photography, I adopt the conventional standards outlined in the National Press Photographers Association’s code of ethics.

I’m not sure I’m willing to give up my Marxist ways. No, not Karl Marx; but Groucho, who said, “I would not join any group that would have me as a member.”

STOP!

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Preface:

I don’t want to write about it! I Don’t Want To Write About It!! I DON'T WANT TO WRITE ABOUT IT!!!

I was the Albuquerque Police Officers Association president some 22 years ago and was last a union contract negotiator nine years ago. I have been gone long enough that I had hoped I would not have to write about what is going on in the union. I wouldn’t, except it affects the public, not just the police department or city employees.
I haven’t seen, read, or discussed with anyone the details of the recently ratified APOA contract. The language is of little consequence to why I write today.

Nobody is ever completely satisfied with a collective bargaining contract and there are age-old disputes about how to negotiate. This contract is no different. It’s what happened outside of the police and other city employee contracts that has caught my attention.

Lawrence Torres was appointed Director of Employee Relations by Mayor Martin Chávez in August 2006.

Torres, left, was an open space ranger and had been the chief negotiator for the APOA. His appointment violated ethical standards by allowing him to administer a contract that he had negotiated in his former job. It is not a violation of any city rule or ordinance, because the city has refused to address such issues. In the wider circles of professional public administration, such an ethical lapse would be well defined.

During this year’s round of negotiations, the city has entered into what can only be described as “take it, or leave it” deals with each of its labor unions, without entering into any good faith collective bargaining sessions. Normally, city employee union negotiations take several months to complete. This year, the meetings have not run past a couple of sessions.

The tactic is known as Boulwarism, named after a General Electric management negotiator and company Vice President Lemuel Boulware. He devised a plan for the company to identify and address all the concerns of the workers. His comprehensive research was presented at the opening of the next bargaining session as a “take it, or leave it” proposition as the "first, last and best offer." The International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (IUE) filed several unfair labor practices and the National Labor Relations Board ruled the tactic improper.
General Electric Co. v. NLRB, 412 F.2d 512 (2d Cir., June 9, 1969)

Boulwarism is illegal. Ironically, Boulware’s financial offers were considered more than fair and outstripped anything offered by the rest of the industry. However, the electrical workers union wanted, but were denied, its opportunity to bargain at the table, not unlike what is currently happening to Albuquerque’s city employee unions.

The city's contract labor negotiator and mayor's education consultant Paul Broome, above, is trying to play the role of Boulware. However, he did none of the research nor had any of the benefits Boulware brought to the electrical union. Broome has only followed Boulwarism to the extent that the city has made a “take it, or leave it” contract offer.

Broome has used strong-arm tactics by telling city unions that it is all about money. He used tactics that were completely contrary to the city's labor ordinance; the requirement that labor put its proposal on the table first. Broome, instead put the "best, last and final" offer on the table. He then used pressure tactics including, that the mayor and department director are impatiently awaiting for the union to wrap it up.

I was going to write a piece about captains being removed from the union by contract last year, but I restrained myself; now seems like a good time to comment on it as an example of how the City is attacking unionism.

The problem stems from the Labor-Management Relations Ordinance and the original philosophies at play. Normally, and specifically in the private sector, supervisors are not allowed to be union members.

As a result of the City’s refuse collectors’ wildcat strike in 1970, blunted by a strong showing of police power, the city hastily wrote a labor law. This event was, for city union workers, the equivalent of the Boston Tea Party. It marked a change. However, even though the city agreed to negotiate with its employees, the ordinance the city drafted was far from a “good faith” attempt to deal fairly with the employees.

The City Commission defined supervisors:

Supervisors. …In the Police and Fire Departments, chiefs, deputy chiefs, and assistant chiefs are the only employees classified as supervisors.
('74 Code, § 2-2-3) (Ord. 153-1971; Am. Ord. 4-1977)

The operative word was “only.” Neither a union nor the city, separately or collectively, may ignore or rewrite a City Ordinance. In past contracts, union membership was defined as all “permanent, full-time, non-probationary, sworn police officers through the rank of Captain, from APD, Aviation, and Open Space.” This simply is another violation of the ordinance. The city and union redefined captains by calling them commanders. The change did not make the captains/commanders part of the excluded group: chiefs, deputy chiefs, or assistant chiefs.

Now there are reports that Sergeant Paul Heh, who was openly dissatisfied with the terms of the contract, is being investigated for "conduct unbecoming of an officer," by the APD Internal Affairs unit that is looking into complaints of intimidation over voting for the contract.

The APOA negotiating team made a presentation to its members on Thursday, March 13, using a PowerPoint slide program with all the purported language changes.

The Eye on Albuquerque has blogged extensively on this issue and the backside comment pages have had a lively discussion. Charges and counter charges ranged from why younger officers should get the lion’s share of the money to how longevity pay was going to be removed.

One of the common threads during the discussion is that there was not a complete contract available for review.

Some, including Heh, have charged that not having a complete copy of a tentatively agreed upon contract had never been done this way before. That’s one of those things, the statement “it never happened before,” that really bothers me. It has happened before and a lot of other things happened also. Almost every APOA negotiating team has presented proposed contracts in as many different ways as imaginable. I watched them all, while I was there; sometimes they had copies of full language, sometimes they didn’t.

Currently a ratification vote commenced immediately following the presentation with polls closing 36 hours later. The results were for acceptance by a vote of 366-307.

However, there were several items of concern raised:
Probationary officers were allowed to vote on this contract.

If true, this is a violation of the labor ordinance about the makeup of the bargaining unit as mirrored in the language: “non-probationary” members.

Chief Ray Schultz, center, speaking with field services officers after the Feb. 2, Hilary Clinton rally, announced in March, after the contract ratification vote, that he was changing Field Services Officers’ work schedule from four ten-hour days to five eight-hour days.

So what’s wrong with this picture?

This isn’t the first time city employees have been unhappy with contracts. Police Chief Gerald Galvin is surrounded by picket signs as he sat at the back of a 2000 City Council meeting where police officers gathered to protest the negotiations process.

Sgt. Heh spoke out at the April 8, 2008, City Council meeting. Heh is absolutely protected by the First Amendment for off duty comments about a matter of public concern. Immediately after the meeting, Heh was hand served with a target letter from Internal Affairs.

The existing contract specifically delineates how a target letter will be delivered.

“Section 23. Administrative Investigations
D. The officer shall be informed of the nature of the investigation before any interrogation commences. Prior to any administrative interview being conducted sufficient information shall be disclosed to reasonably apprise the officer of the allegations. This information will be provided to the target officer(s) in writing via certified US Mail. Through the course of the investigation, additional issues of concern may arise that may be incorporated into the investigation.”

There is a prohibition against parties and individuals becoming involved with the negotiations process in the Labor-Management Relations Ordinance.

§ 3-2-9 Prohibited Practices.
(C) It shall be a prohibited practice for any elected or appointed official of the city government or for any employee organization, group of city employees or individual city employee to attempt to influence negotiations or to interfere with the normal progress of negotiations between the duly authorized negotiating teams of the city government and of the employee organization.

One might think that both Sgt. Heh and the City Councillors violate the language of this ordinance. One would be right. However, if you will recall the first five words of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…” That now includes the City Council, which “shall make no law… abridging freedom of speech…

This is City Attorney Bob White at a 1999 City Council meeting when then APOA President Alex Marentes and Vice President Paul Pacheco, who were challenged by then Council President Vicki Perea. Perea quoted the prohibited practice, but White warned her off with the First Amendment.

Apparently there is an accusation that Heh and possibly some other senior sergeants or veteran officers intimidated younger members of the APOA to vote against the contract. It is these accusations of intimidation that sparked Internal Affairs investigations.

This is where the title of this post comes into play: STOP!

This allegation is a union matter, to be resolved within the union, by the union.

If the chief believes that the alleged intimidation is more serious than a violation of the Standard Operating Procedure, then he should handle it as a criminal matter.

There are at least two problems with that:
APD’s criminal investigators, like their counterparts at Internal Affairs, are members of the bargaining unit and there is a built in conflict of interest that can not be overcome within the department.
There has been an allegation, if only a rumor, that non-union administrators, commanders or a deputy chief may have been present at a polling place and possibly looked over the shoulder of officers while casting a ballot.

With such allegations, it would be improper for APD to conduct such an investigation.

There is an irony associated with the idea that senior members of the association might intimidate younger members. When the old City Commission accepted the city’s human resources’ department’s draft language that became the Labor-Management Relations Ordinance in the early 1970’s, it chose to include all officers except the executive levels of chief, assistant chief and deputy chiefs. The thinking, according to John Martinez, who was at one time Director of Personnel and Employee Relations Department and the person who was intimately involved in all things related to labor relations at the city, was that police captains were included in the bargaining in part so they could exert a calming effect on younger and potentially more bold officers.

It now seems the opposite is occurring, with the allegation that senior members are influencing younger ones through rash acts.

Sgt. Heh has retained attorney John D'Amato, who is suspicious of the timing of the Internal Affairs’ target letter.

The City Council does not play a direct role in labor negotiations. They can become involved in two ways. The Council has a Guidelines Committee.

§ 3-2-17 Guidelines Committee.

(A) To facilitate communication and coordination between the Mayor and the City Council concerning collective bargaining strategy, there is created a Guidelines Committee composed of three City Councillors appointed by the Council President and three members of the Mayor's staff, one of whom shall be the Chief Administrative Officer. The Guidelines Committee shall, in accordance with the New Mexico Open Meetings Act, promulgate rules to effectuate the purposes of this section.

(B) The Guidelines Committee shall meet in closed session with appropriate staff in accordance with the New Mexico Open Meetings Act as necessary to discuss bargaining strategy preliminary to collective bargaining negotiations between the city and employee organizations.

(C) At the time negotiations are opened, the Guidelines Committee shall entertain a presentation from the employee organization involved in the subject collective bargaining negotiations summarizing its positions and proposals in the upcoming negotiations so the Guidelines Committee may be fully informed. The Guidelines Committee shall not otherwise meet to hear or entertain presentations by employee organizations of collective bargaining proposals, counter proposals, grievances or any other issue related to employee/labor relations except that the Mayor may ask the Guidelines Committee to convene upon the Board entering a finding that a strike has occurred.

The second involvement of the Council is a function of the budget process. When a contract exceeds the budget or there is a multi-year contract with pay increases, the Council must specifically approve those raises.

The Council, through its own ordinances, has determined that it will not become involved in the process, especially including grievances such as Heh’s.
My Take

It doesn’t seem like almost nine years, but it is; on November 8, 1999, I spoke at the Police Oversight Commission meeting and caused quite a stir because my attorney, Paul Livingston, and I had just had a District Court Judge rule that the POC illegally conducted meetings in violation of the State’s Open Meetings Act.

An IA investigation ensued. I videotaped the session. My attorney, Livingston, right, was assaulted and thrown to the floor by IA Sgt. John Gallegos, left. I touched Gallegos on the shoulder to try to calm him down and I was pushed against the wall. Ultimately, I was fired and criminally charged with battery.

Over the next year, there were four hearings scheduled:
An unemployment hearing with the State; the City failed to appear.
A Labor-Management Relations Board hearing, which ruled that the department had violated several sections of the union contract and recommended that the department withdraw the criminal charge and reinstate me.
The criminal battery charge, that a Metropolitan Court Judge dismissed at the end of the state’s case, with a strong admonition that it was the worse interrogation/interview he had ever seen.
A personnel hearing was scheduled, but the day before it commenced, the City asked to enter into mediation.

I was fully restored and my record was cleansed. I took a large monetary settlement and chose to end my 24 and half years with APD by retiring.

Two of the four players in my event are now lurking in the shadows of Heh’s case: Chief Schultz, left, was my Captain at the time. He said nothing and eventually, when Chief Galvin and Deputy Chief Bill Weiland refused to tell me I was fired, it fell to Schultz to deliver Galvin's termination letter. Then Lt. Michael Callaway, right, who is now a Deputy Chief, was heading Internal Affairs.

Why my history is of any significance here is that the heavy footsteps towards Heh sound very familiar.

It seems like nobody, either on the city's side or among the union leadership, bothers to read, let alone follow the ordinances, existing contracts or rules on how to enter the negotiations through the established collective bargaining process.

This is the hand of former, long time, City Councilor Vince Griego at the first publicly opened Council Guidelines Committee. The committee only opened the meeting because the union leaders, at the far end of the table, demanded access and threatened to force their way in. Griego, initially objected to the meeting being photographed, but relented when he was made aware that the committee was subject, like all other council meetings, to the State's Open Meetings Act.

The current Council did not hear from unions because the opening process was subverted.

There is no doubt in my mind that the root of this problem is the dysfunctional nature of the almost 40-year old Labor-Management Relations Ordinance. I have repeatedly called on the city to overhaul the labor relations ordinance, but it has always fallen on deaf ears.

Where the Deer and the Antelope Play

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

This Pronghorn Antelope was photographed a few years ago in the area of Northeastern New Mexico where rancher Neal Trujillo shot 39 of its species, recently near Cimarron.

It is legal in New Mexico to shoot wildlife that destroys crops, livestock or other property.

Senate Pro Tem Tim Jennings, left, a rancher himself, shepherded legislation through a few years back setting up the program.

So what’s wrong with this picture?

Trujillo made a mess of it by using a shotgun and riding an all terrain vehicle to shoot the fastest land mammals in North America. He tended to maim them and leave them to agonizingly die.

State Game and Fish Department officers found some of the injured animals later and had to put them out of their misery.

No doubt animals compete with the rancher over his crop of winter wheat and he is authorized to protect his investment by killing the animals as a last resort. However, Trujillo seems to consider himself immune from the obligation to do anything else before arriving at the last resort and then he literally adds insult to the injury by not being humane in his efforts.

Though it is lawful to kill predators, a quick read of the state statute on cruelty to animals shows there are requirements in the authorization such destruction. The important language in the "lawful justification" section is “humanely destroying a sick or injured animal.”

I’m not widely regarded as a “jump up and down while foaming at the mouth,” kind of animal protection guy. I appreciate wildlife and like to observe it; I’m not a hunter, but I won’t turn down a piece of venison either.

I understand the need to knock down wild animals that get too close to humans.

I watched with interest this week as Chicago Police tracked down a fairly large cougar and quickly shot it.

There are those who have called for the use of a tranquilizer, but such folks have no idea how quick and dangerous such an animal is and how slowly a tranquilizer takes affect.

What I find reprehensible here is the lack of engaging in a humane effort. I would have no problem if the state were to charge Trujillo with cruelty or even extreme cruelty to animals; which is defined as, intentionally or maliciously torturing, mutilating, injuring or poisoning an animal.

Not because he killed them, but specifically because, when Trujillo shot the antelopes, he didn't kill them.

If you’re going to put them down, then do a full job of it.

Justice Works

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

A Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court jury found University of New Mexico student and Air Force veteran Peter Lynch, 31, guilty of a misdemeanor count of criminal destruction of private property on Wednesday.

Lynch removed and destroyed a Mexican flag that was inadvertently left to fly over the weekend at the University’s administration building. The flag was raised during a ceremony on Friday Sept. 14, 2007, recognizing Mexican Independence Day on the coming Sunday. At the end of the day, an Air Force ROTC flag detail failed to lower the flag, believing the sponsors of the independence-day event would remove it. They didn’t.

On Monday, the Mexican flag was still flying and because of a further communication error, a different military ROTC unit’s flag detail that had just started a new monthly rotation, the flags in front of Scholes Hall were not raised.

Lynch attempted to bring what he saw as a violation of the flag code to the attention of university officials. When the UNM administration did not immediately respond, he took it upon himself to remove the flag. He destroyed the flag and presented it to UNM Air Force Studies commander, Lt. Col. Curtis Johanson. I observed Lynch yelling at Johanson, trying to catch his attention and moments later, running the opposite direction across campus.

Metropolitan Court Judge Clyde DeMersseman, left, sentenced Lynch to: six-months probation, 48-hours of community service, completion of an anger management course, and was ordered to pay restitution; the cost of the destroyed flag.

Lynch was ordered to replace the flag as part of an administrative process conducted by UNM, as a condition to continue in good standing as a student.

One of the sponsors of the on-campus celebration of the Mexican Independence Day event and owners of the destroyed flag, “El Centro de la Raza” –The Center for the Race– claimed that Lynch committed a hate crime.

So what’s wrong with this picture?

Justice works.

With the finding of the six-person jury, the arguments made by Lynch, that his destroying the Mexican flag was a lawful act because he was protecting the American flag and El Centro de la Raza’s claim of a hate crime, were tempered.

The jury seems to have gotten it right. They looked at the case as a destruction of property. The politics that have attached to this incident were not allowed to cloud the verdict. Lynch took property that was not his and destroyed it. He admitted to doing so, through his lawyer’s opening statement, and was found guilty.

He wishes, even after being sentenced, to try to excuse his actions by claiming to be a patriot.

He and his supporters continue to claim that the Mexican flag flying by it self violates federal law. Not true.

The flag cod