This post has been modified to include an addendum at the end.

As you may have seen in the rotating ad on SFReeper, this week SFR introduces the third version of our Muckrakers Guide, which we’ll be using all throughout the campaign season to help you track the candidates (and the governments to which they aspire to lead).
Since Gov. Bill Richardson vetoed the dreaded food tax today, I thought I’d use that as an example of how to use public information and websites to expand one’s understanding of a situation.

According to a press release from the governor’s office, as well as various news outlets, the governor will deal with the budgetary shortfalls of not re-taxing food, in part, by eliminating certain earmarks in the law he signed to up the tax on cigarettes.

First off, earmarks means some of the money raised from the cigarette tax was intended for a specific purpose. What the governor has done, generally, is eliminated the special purpose so that the money generated can go into the general fund.

So how do we find out what these vetoed earmarks are since the media simply reported them as earmarks and didn’t get more specific?

Here’s what we do:

1. Go to the Legislature’s website.

2. On the menu, choose “legislation” and then “bill finder.”

3. We know the cigarette tax bill is HB 3 because it was numbered in the governor’s press release.

4. Look for the final version, it’s only available as a PDF—which I’ll include here.

5. Voila. The deleted earmarks were for early childhood programs through a variety of agencies.

Strange that wasn’t made more specific in the press conference.

Addendum: The governor’s deputy chief of staff helpfully sent me a link to the governor’s explanation of his veto. The message does detail the governor’s reasoning behind vetoing these earmarks, which I’ll excerpt from here:

In addition, I have vetoed distributions from the net receipts attributable to the cigarette tax to the county and municipality recreational fund, the county and municipal cigarette tax fund, the Public Education Department in fiscal year 2011 for early childhood programs, and the Children, Youth and Families Department in fiscal year 2011 for early childhood initiatives. These vetoes were difficult to make. Each of these distributions would be worthy of funding in good times, and I have championed early childhood programs throughout my administration. In these times, however, our desire to do good must be balanced against our responsibility to be fiscally responsible.

crossposted at muckrakersguide.com

As promised, here’s the good stuff:

The preceding page began:

“The Commissioners must lead by example————”

The PRC let reporters in to view super-thick binders with copies of a couple hundred survey ethics survey, like this one. Most were not redacted. Indeed, most responders didn’t bother to offer suggestions at all. Nearly half of the employees who got surveys didn’t fill them out, for whatever reason.

According to the PRC’s new spokesman Gerald Garner Jr:

Of the 265 surveys distributed, 127 were completed…Approximately 30 of the completed questionnaires contain redacted items. The redactions were made because they contained anonymous personal criticisms of individuals at the NMPRC.

Judging by the tone and content of many handwritten responses, some of the harshest criticisms were likely directed at high-level managers and the PRC’s elected commissioners. That’s not much of a surprise, but specific allegations of unethical conduct are what’s of public interest here—and those are precisely what the PRC has chosen not to disclose.

Some series, if vague charges did make it past the PRC’s black pen.

Assault, embezzlement, sexual harassment, campaign law violations—is that all you got?

I’ll post more after the cut. Keep refreshing!

Continue reading »

In a pre-coffee, pre-email check Twitter post this AM, I gave props to the Santa Fe New Mexican’s “bombshell” on the results of the Public Regulation Commission’s internal ethics survey. Turns out the PRC sent the survey results to reporters around the state last night. Anyway, the New Mex should still be commended for putting up a fight over the agency’s ridiculous excuse for not releasing the full survey responses.

NMFOG executive director Sarah Welsh got it exactly right:

“Sure, some of the responses may be embarrassing and they may include wild accusations that are unfounded or deliberately false. But there is no exception in (the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act) that allows agencies to withhold information on those grounds,” she said. “The remedy for spurious information is true information, not censorship. Let the accusations come out so the public can engage in an informed dialogue about solutions.”

Oh, it’s sure to be embarrassing. Turns out what PRC employees are most worried about is cronyism.

Perhaps some names were named in the full responses.

With its email announcement, the PRC sent along a spreadsheet with the basic findings of its questionnaire. We’ve posted an image of that file after the cut, or right-click this link to download. Enjoy.

Continue reading »

There’s a new development in the case of Frank Foy, the former investment officer with the state Educational Retirement Board who sued the state for allegedly making a bad investment with a campaign donor to Gov. Bill Richardson.

Foy’s attorney, Victor Marshall, filed a complaint against the ERB yesterday, saying the board improperly denied a public records request and is attempting to draw “a veil of secrecy” around its operations.

Bruce Malott

“The ERB is refusing to allow inspection of its public records in order to coverup wrongdoing at the agency, including wrongdoing by [ERB chairman] Bruce Malott and [state investment officer] Gary Bland. The ERB has denied the request to prevent the public from learning about malfeasance, nonfeasance and incompetence at ERB,” Marshall writes in the complaint.

Here’s a PDF copy of the complaint.