It’s general election time and when you step into the voting booth you’re going to have your hands full. There are a lot of candidates on the ballot. We’ll see a complete change in our representation in Washington.
But more importantly, how should we change the New Mexico Constitution and how far are you willing to open your wallet for seniors, libraries, health facilities and higher education?
Please open your SUN to page B6. Don’t be intimidated, we’re here to help. We encourage you to read all four-and-a-half pages but it’s not necessary. Actually, half of it is in Spanish and it would be redundant to read both.
The first page is a list of the funding requests under one of the four general obligation bonds. The A section is only senior citizen projects. If you live in Rio Arriba County you’re concerned with listings 83 through 91. However, please scan through the others to see where your tax dollars are going.
We love senior citizens. We’ll be one soon. We think there should be facilities for senior citizens. We like Rep. Nick Salazar. He’s a nice guy.
That said, it is absurd that we spend so much money buying vehicles and patching the many senior centers scattered around this state. Facilities should be more centralized and every cross road should not have a senior center. When funding is cut off from all the counties, municipalities and pueblos installing new ovens, buying more vans and changing the jacuzzi water, they’ll find a more efficient way to serve seniors.
Vote no on Bond A.
The B section of the bonds is for library acquisitions. These are brief and are listed in a group of state funds beginning in the middle of the second column of the second page (B7). If passed, these funds would be distributed to city and county libraries all over the state and the state library.
While it’s bothersome that we won’t know which library will get how much, it’s always good for any library to get funding. Vote yes on Bond B.
Just below the fold is the C section for capital improvements to health facilities. Rio Arriba County’s health commons request for $2 million is listed at the bottom of the second column.
We’ll reserve judgment on whether the health commons is a good idea or not. In theory, it sounds good. On paper, it looks good. Whether anyone can get all those agencies to actually communicate with each other, even if they’re 20 feet away, remains to be seen. That will be the key to the Commons’ success.
Regardless, we’re well underway with phase one almost complete and parts of phases 2 and 3 done too. We need the state funding to continue.
Vote yes on Bond C
The last bond section is for higher education. It begins at the top of the third column on page B7. Northern New Mexico College has two issues in that list. They fall under item 8. The first is for $5 million for an addition. The second is for $1 million for a solar energy research park.
We need to fund higher education. In this state it’s especially important because our best students go out of state to better schools. There is an argument that out of state schools are better because they’re better funded.
However, when you look at the two expenditures for which Northern is seeking funding, we already know they don’t pass the smell test. The $5 million for an addition may or may not be properly spent and it’s not clear whether it would be a useful addition or not.
The $1 million requested for the solar park is highly questionable. The college received $2 million last year for a solar park and immediately shuffled it around to help the business department and create some offices. That was a clear indication the college isn’t interested in becoming a moving force in the solar industry in New Mexico. It would rather continue to work legislators for money to do with what they please.
The college’s recent problem with listing nonexistent four year degrees goes further to expose some problems in the administration structure. Someone there is making poor decisions and some accountability needs to take place. Whose college is it anyway?
Send Northern administrators a message. Vote no on Bond D.
Next week we’ll wade through the constitutional amendments. Be strong.
For those with the constitution to return for more ballot education, hang in there. We’ll make it through and you’ll be a better voter for it. Our U.S. Constitution was designed for an informed electorate. We no longer have that in this country.
But we’re here to look at five amendments to New Mexico’s constitution. Pull out page B9 of this week’s SUN. Constitutional amendments are put before voters after the legislature has argued themselves into the ground and can’t make a decision or they want something changed and don’t have the power to do it. That’s our checks and balances at work.
The first amendment would increase the size of school boards from seven to nine if it served a population of more than 250,000. If passed it would only affect Albuquerque but New Mexico will have some other metro areas surpassing that population, possibly in the next decade. It also allows for mail-in ballots in such a school district.
Look at the bottom of the second column on page B9. It lists all the arguments for and against the issue. The predominant argument for the amendment is that it only affects large district(s) and large district(s) may need more representation. Mail-in voting will encourage participation and give more people voices.
The biggest argument against is that the two issues are grouped together in one amendment. Some would like mail-in voting but not enlarging the board. Additionally, if someone is too lazy to go to the polls on any of the early voting days or election day, what makes anyone think such a person will fill out a ballot and mail it.
The larger district, more representatives flies in the face of Think New Mexico’s push this year to make schools smaller. It’s also just a bad constitutional amendment because voters are being forced to vote on two completely different issues with one vote.
Vote no on Amendment 1.
The second amendment would allow elected county officials to give themselves raises at midterm. Currently an outgoing or incumbent commissioner can vote for a raise but it takes effect with the beginning of a new term. In many cases someone who has been beaten in a race or is forced out by term limits, can vote for an increase for the next person to take the seat. This would change that.
The argument for (bottom of page B9, third column) is that it would allow counties to “retain valuable people…” That’s pretty funny viewing Rio Arriba’s revolving door of politicos but it may apply elsewhere.
The other arguments for the amendment fall in line with keeping good people, current commissioners are in touch with projects and it’s fair to give raises.
The arguments against are that no one should be allowed to give themselves a raise and they know what they’re going to get paid before they run for office. Honestly, no one is doing this for the money. It’s the emoluments that come with the position. That’s where the real money is.
County commissioners make plenty of money. They’re not the ones hurting; it’s the taxpayers carrying the politicians who need the raise.
Vote no on Amendment 2.
Amendment 3 to the state’s constitution would require confirmation of cabinet secretaries at the beginning of each term of a governor. Current law requires the state senate to confirm governor’s secretaries. Once confirmed, they serve at the pleasure of the governor. This change would mean the senate would have another crack at the secretaries if a governor is re-elected.
Arguments for the amendment (bottom of page B9, fifth column) cite more checks and balances and give the senate a chance to correct a bad political appointment by the governor. More scrutiny of a secretaries is better.
Arguments against the amendment state it’s just one more cumbersome thing and waste of taxpayer money.
If we felt the senate or house would ever stand up to the governor without making a counter-demand, it might be a good amendment. But what would happen is the senate would use the reconfirmations as a bargaining chip. In that sense it would not only be a waste of taxpayer money, it would also serve to allow the senate to make a bigger mess out of something it wants.
Vote no on Amendment 3.
The fourth amendment proposed, if passed, would allow school boards to hold elections at the same time as non-partisan elections. Currently, school board elections must be held separately.
Arguments for the change (bottom of page B9, sixth column) sound good for the taxpayer. Consolidating elections obviously saves money. It can also create higher voter turnout. “Voter fatigue” is also cited. Here we have city elections and school elections almost back to back. In 2009 we could get hit with a bond election right behind that.
Arguments against the amendment are voter confusion, restricted election dates and no significant cost savings. Voters will be confused by the many posts up for grabs on a ballot. By keeping a school board election to non-partisan elections, school board elections can’t be held with the general election. That’s where a big savings would come into play.
We believe the confusion argument has merit. Rio Arriba County has never suffered from voter fatigue. If any governmental body wants higher voter turnout a party needs to field a qualified candidate who clicks with voters. What we hear continually, regardless of election or body, is “they’re all crooks, none of them care about us.” That’s what keeps voters away from polls at most elections.
Voters are feeling very disenfranchised. Changing election dates, early voting, absentee voting or even mail-in ballots, won’t get more people to participate. A dynamic candidate with solid ideas and a visible ability to execute on them is what energizes voters.
Vote no on Amendment 4.
The last amendment would give the governor the authority to appoint a lieutenant governor in the case of a vacancy of the office. The constitution does not provide for this authority. Currently if the position were vacated for any reason, the secretary of state would move into it. We’ve all been schooled during Bill Richardson’s reign that the lieutenant governor is governor while Bill is on the campaign trail.
Arguments for the change (bottom of page B9, seventh column) are orderly succession, fairness and allowance for input by both legislative branches.
Arguments against the amendment are amusing. First, we haven’t needed it for 96 years, why worry about it now? Second the lieutenant governor is more of a ceremonial position. (Please don’t call and complain Lt. Gov. Denish. I’m paraphrasing from the state legal.)
We can cut to the chase quickly on this one with two words: Mary Herrera. May the deity of your choice help us should secretary of state Mary Herrera be allowed anywhere near the governor’s desk. She has so many problems of her own making in her own office, it boggles the mind how she could make former secretary of state Rebecca Vigil-Giron’s legacy any worse, but Herrera has managed it.
Vote yes on Amendment 5.