Evans' wife to run for his county commission seat

Posted 7/31/2007 04:30:00 PM

The wife of District 4 Doña Ana County Commissioner Kent Evans will run for his seat next year, when he is forced from office by term limits.

“Kent and I see the world in much the same way,” Anna Mae Evans, who like her husband is a lifelong Republican, said in a news release. “Over the past seven years of his term, I have come to know the issues facing Doña Ana County quite well.”

Evans, who has attended almost all commission meetings during her husband’s tenure, said she is “well versed on where we’ve come from, where we are and where we need to go from here.”

She has also attended a number of meetings of other local government committees and been involved in issues through her husband’s work.

Evans has lived in the district for 32 years. She is a mother of three and grandmother of seven who has volunteered with a number of local organizations, including the Whole Enchilada Fiesta and Girl Scouts. She has a bachelor’s in psychology from the University of Miami.

“A vote for me is a vote for continued progress in District 4 and throughout Doña Ana County,” she said. “I look forward to this race and to serving the citizens of Doña Ana County in a way that represents our cultural diversity while maximizing every tax dollar through a conservative fiscal philosophy of government.”

Lawmakers to seek AG opinion on NMSU Foundation

Posted 7/31/2007 03:24:00 PM

A number of Doña Ana County lawmakers will ask the attorney general for a legal opinion on whether the New Mexico State University Foundation can keep information about its donors secret, and at least two are considering legislation to address the issue.

State Sen. Mary Kay Papen and Reps. Andy Nuñez and Mary Helen Garcia will ask Attorney General Gary King for the opinion, and Reps. Joseph Cervantes and Nate Cote said legislation is a possibility. Though Cervantes doesn’t plan to sign the letter to the attorney general, Cote said he will probably do it.

In addition, one regent says the university will likely publicly address concerns about the foundation in the near future.

The legislators who will sign the letter agreed to do so after I made the request of them last week. You can read my letter to them by clicking here.

“I’ll sign on to it,” Papen said today. “I think it’s real important.”

Nuñez said the group is asking other legislators from Doña Ana County to sign the letter.

I requested the letter because NMSU recently stepped into a legal gray area by using secret donations to boost the compensation for the president and former men’s basketball coach. President Michael Martin received a deferred compensation payment – which he only collects if he stays through 2012 – of $100,000, with 70 percent paid by the private sector, and a $6,000-per-month housing allowance, paid for with a contribution from the private sector, that he and his wife are using to buy a new home. Former coach Reggie Theus received a $100,000-per-year pay increase from the private sector.

Using gifts from secret donors to boost university employee compensation has been controversial nationwide because of concern about the potential for impropriety. Courts in a number of states have found in recent years that university foundations are state agencies for the purpose of public records laws and ordered them to release donor records. Despite that, the NMSU Foundation denied my request to release the records. You can read more about the legal questions by clicking here.

Cote said the foundation should be required to release information about its donors.

“We don’t need anything that is going to be perceived as inappropriate or something that may come back to hurt our fine university system in New Mexico,” he said.

In addition to “strongly leaning toward” signing the letter, Cote said, if necessary, he’ll consider legislation that will make these records public.”

Cervantes may seek to open most or all records

Cervantes said, after having a conversation with NMSU Regent Bob Gallagher today, that he isn’t going to sign the letter to the attorney general but is considering proposing legislation to deal with the issue.

“Based on that conversation (with Gallagher), I am confident that the university and foundation are acting in the best interest of the university without any concern for pay-to-play,” Cervantes said.

He said his decision to not seek an attorney general opinion is “based on the assurance that Bob Gallagher will answer the questions raised by you and others,” adding that, “after a long and candid discussion with Bob Gallagher, I am confident that the foundation will be fully answering any questions that may relate to the compensation for President Martin and former coach Theus.”

Gallagher said he hopes to do that soon.

“I believe there are some reports in the media that people may misunderstand,” he said. “I believe that complete details and information about these activities will be forthcoming in the coming days from the university.”

Cervantes said he does believe that, “given the relationship between the foundation and the university, the list (of donors to the foundation) should be public.” But he also said some donors might justifiably insist on confidentiality, and he would “like an opportunity to speak more with the university and university regents to learn more about it before I propose legislation.”

Essentially, Cervantes said, such legislation would likely make clear that donor records of state university foundations are public, but the proposal might also allow some exceptions with stringent restrictions attached.

“The foundation has an important mission and should be willing to assure the public of that mission with full public confidence,” Cervantes said. “Full public confidence usually means full public disclosure.”

McCamley attacks Pearce's vote against farm bill

Posted 7/31/2007 01:46:00 PM

Democratic congressional candidate Bill McCamley is criticizing U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., for voting last week against a farm bill that included a provision designed to combat the production of methamphetamine.

Combating meth use is one of Pearce’s often-stated goals.

House Resolution 2419 was approved last week on a vote of 231-191. It included a number of provisions to help fund and sustain America’s farms.

It also included $15 million to encourage farmers to use fertilizers that don’t contain ammonia. A component of meth, ammonia is often stored in large tanks on farms and stolen by meth producers.

“Steve Pearce’s priorities are not in order,” McCamley said in a news release. “He says he supports anti-meth efforts, but on this big vote he voted against fighting meth.”

I’m awaiting a comment from Pearce’s office and will add it to this posting later as an update if he provides one.

American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman has said the bill “strikes a reasonable balance in allocating benefits among our nations farming and ranching families who grow a safe and secure supply of food and fiber for America and the world. … Overall, this bill directly benefits America’s taxpayers because it is fiscally responsible, spending $20 billion less than the prior farm bill. That is real reform.”

The bill must still be approved by the Senate and signed by the president.

McCamley said he was surprised by Pearce’s decision to vote against the bill, given the benefits some of the bill’s measures would have for New Mexico.

“We need a change of leadership in this congressional district,” McCamley said. “This bill was good for local farmers and ranchers and it stepped up the fight against meth. It is good for New Mexicans and I would have voted for it.”

McCamley is one of three Democrats fighting for the right to take on Pearce next year.

Update, 2:55 p.m.

Pearce’s office pointed me to a news release from last week stating that he voted against the bill because it “enacts enormous tax increases and will cost New Mexicans thousands of jobs.” He said the good provisions in the bill are “combined with fiscally irresponsible tax hikes that would damage the New Mexico economy, put people out of work and reduce our ability to become energy independent.”

Pearce also said the bill will hurt Spaceport America because it raises taxes on foreign companies. You can read the full release by clicking here.

Iglesias to talk to ethics committee about Wilson

Posted 7/31/2007 11:45:00 AM

The U.S. House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct may finally be getting around to considering a complaint filed against Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., over her role in the U.S. attorney controversy.

David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, will be interviewed today by the staff of the committee, the Albuquerque Tribune is reporting. It’s the first sign that the committee might consider the request made in March by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for a probe of the situation.

House rules generally require a complaint from a House member before such an investigation can take place.

Today’s interview is apparently a preliminary discussion. Wilson’s spokesman told the Tribune that the representative has not been notified of a probe or hired an attorney, which indicates the committee has not appointed members to investigate.

Iglesias told the newspaper he’s being interviewed by the committee’s chairwoman and ranking Republican.

Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., called Iglesias in October 2006 to inquire about a public corruption investigation that was rumored at the time to involve high-ranking Democrats and, earlier this year, led to the indictment of former Senate President Manny Aragon.

At the time of the phone calls, Wilson was in a tough re-election battle, and Iglesias alleges that the two pressured him to speed indictments to affect the outcome of the election.

Iglesias claims Wilson inquired about whether there were any “sealed indictments” in the case. He says he refused the pressure and, two months later, was fired without being given reason.

Wilson admits making the call and inquiring about the investigation, saying she was responding to the concerns of a constituent, but says she never asked about indictments or did anything inappropriate. Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans had been complaining to the Bush Administration about Iglesias for years.

Many analysts say Congressional rules forbid direct contact with prosecutors about pending cases, even if no pressure is applied. The group that filed the ethics complaint against Wilson contends that the House forbids even a request for “background information” or a “status report” on a pending investigation because such requests “may in effect be an indirect or subtle effort to influence the substantive outcome of the proceedings.” In fact, Iglesias was required by Department of Justice rules to report the phone calls to supervisors but he did not, saying that, at the time, he considered Wilson and friend and Domenici a mentor.

Today’s interview won’t be public. It was first reported by the blog truthout.org.

LFC: $370 million available for capital outlay in 2008

Posted 7/31/2007 08:03:00 AM

Lawmakers will have a much smaller pot of capital outlay money to draw from next year than they did this year or in 2006.

According to a projection from the Legislative Finance Committee, about $370 million will be available in 2008 for state building projects, the Albuquerque Journal is reporting today. This year, there was about $1 billion available, and last year it was about $750 million.

Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming and chair of the LFC, said lawmakers should focus this year on fully funding projects that currently only have partial funding, thereby reducing the $1.3-billion backlog in unspent funds.

That will be a tough sell to lawmakers who are up for re-election in 2008, he acknowledged to the newspaper.

It would be good if lawmakers could quickly resolve capital outlay funding and get it off the table, because it’s likely that, in the 30-day session that begins Jan. 15, they’re going to be asked to tackle ethics and health-care reform, and I’m betting there’s a good chance that failure to resolve either one to the satisfaction of the governor and lieutenant governor will result in a special session.

Nava named interim chief of Gadsden schools

Posted 7/31/2007 07:41:00 AM

State Sen. Cynthia Nava of Las Cruces has been named interim superintendent of the Gadsden Independent School District in southern Doña Ana County, the Las Cruces Sun-News is reporting.

Nava, who has worked for the district for 26 years and is deputy superintendent, was already filling in when outgoing Superintendent Ron Haugen was out of the district. She will remain in the interim job until the board hires a new superintendent, the newspaper reported.

Haugen’s last day is today. The popular leader is taking a job as superintendent of the school district in Anthony, Texas.

Nava, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, told the newspaper her goals will be to continue several initiatives in reading and math and a new plan to increase the involvement of parents, and to “maintain the momentum and keep a careful watch on student progress and keep moving the district forward.”

Gadsden is one of the larger school districts in the state, with 14,000 students and 26 schools.

New foundation agreement raises more questions

Posted 7/30/2007 05:16:00 PM

The new agreement between the New Mexico State University Foundation and the university raises some new, interesting questions.

Perhaps most interesting – at least to me – in the new agreement is the statement that the agreement supersedes and replaces the Feb. 11, 1991 agreement between the NMSU Foundation and university and additional agreements dated June 1, 1993 and Aug. 25, 2005.

That’s interesting because, in May, when I formally requested a copy of the agreement between the foundation and university, foundation Director and university Vice President Rebecca Dukes told me the most recent agreement, which she called “old,” was from 1991. She provided me with a copy of it.

Why didn’t she provide me with the 1993 and 2005 documents? Was that a violation of the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act?

I’ve submitted an addendum to my Thursday request to the attorney general asking that question – was the university’s failure to provide me with those records a violation?

In addition, I’ll be filing a request with the university tomorrow for those two records that I was not provided in May.

Procedure is important

I realize I’m raising a lot of procedural questions here, but the point is not only that I get my hands on these records, but that the university follows government transparency laws so that the public has access to them.

I was given a copy of the new agreement between NMSU and the foundation today only after I hand-delivered a copy of my records request to the office of university Attorney Bruce Kite. The university still does not consider the e-mail request I filed last week to be valid.

The university did, however, cave on its prior claim that the agreement wasn’t public because it wasn’t yet signed by all parties. The university made that claim last week even though the agreement had already been approved by the regents on July 23. The copy I was given is signed by the foundation president and secretary and the regents president, but not the regents secretary.

What the agreement states

The agreement specifically states, in many places, that the foundation is separate from the university and that the foundation’s records, including donor lists, are confidential. As it has done in the past, the university will pay employees of the foundation, but the foundation and university may enter into an agreement whereby the foundation reimburses NMSU for some of those costs. The foundation has not reimbursed the university for employee compensation in recent years.

In addition, as was true in the 1991 agreement, under the new agreement the university pays for foundation office space, furnishing, utilities, Internet and phone access, building and grounds maintenance and repairs and property insurance.

That’s important because some state university foundations across the nation have been ordered to open their records after court determinations that they were operating as de facto state agencies in part because they didn’t pay fair-market value for rent and other expenses. You can read more about the gray area of whether foundation records are public by clicking here.

The new agreement also states that the foundation can’t accept any federal or state grants without approval of the university president. That’s important because courts in other states have considered the handling of public money a factor in favor of opening foundation records.

The new agreement raises two additional questions in my mind. It specifies that university employees who do foundation work are responsible for “receiving, receipting, recording and reporting gifts.” In addition, it states that the university will conduct reviews of gift funds transferred from the foundation to the university each year to “ensure compliance with donor restrictions.” The foundation is required to provide “access to its records regarding specific gifts and donor imposed criteria” so the university can produce an annual, written report to provide to the regents.

These are my questions:

• If public employees are handling the gifts, can they legally be kept secret?

• If the university is reviewing what the foundation considers secret records to produce a written report to present to the regents, wouldn’t that report be public? Would the donor records be public, since they’re factors in the report?

The bottom line

So, the release of one document produces more questions than answers. What is contained in the 1993 and 2005 agreements, and why wasn’t I told about or provided with them when I formally requested records? What impact does the new agreement have on whether donor information can be kept secret?

We’ll see what happens. Check out the new agreement by clicking here, and the 1991 agreement by clicking here, and let me know if you think of any other questions I should raise. You can e-mail me at heath@haussamen.com.

AG will investigate; NMSU releases agreement

Posted 7/30/2007 02:15:00 PM

The Attorney General’s Office will review my request and issue a determination on whether the New Mexico State University Board of Regents violated government transparency laws.

The questions relate to the use of secret donors to boost the financial compensation of the president and former men’s basketball coach and issues surrounding recent approval of a new agreement between the university and the NMSU Foundation.

I sent a letter to the attorney general Friday, which you can read by clicking here, requesting an investigation into three issues:

• Whether the regents violated the New Mexico Open Meetings Act by meeting on July 17 even though the meeting was not properly noticed. The university postponed formal action until a July 23 meeting but still discussed the formation of public policy that day.

• Whether the university violated the Inspection of Public Records Act by considering e-mail requests for records to be invalid and by refusing to release a new agreement between the foundation and university. Essentially, I requested by e-mail a copy of the new agreement and was told e-mail is not a valid form of requesting such documents and, even if it were, the agreement wasn’t going to be released, even though it had regents’ approval, because it was not yet signed.

• Whether NMSU violated the Inspection of Public Records Act in denying my request for information about the identities of donors who contributed to the compensation for the president and former men’s basketball coach.

You can learn more about the situation by clicking here. Be aware that it could take some time for the attorney general to weigh in on this issue.

In addition, there’s more good news: NMSU is releasing the new agreement with the foundation to me today. I don’t know if this is the signed copy or one that doesn’t yet have all the signatures, but it is the version approved by the regents last week, so it’s valid either way. I hope to have more on it later today.

I also asked state legislators from Doña Ana County to seek an attorney general opinion on whether it’s legal for the foundation to keep information about donors secret. I have yet to receive such a commitment from any legislator.

Federal examples of e-mail as a legal form of writing

Posted 7/30/2007 11:54:00 AM

Since state Rep. Joseph Cervantes told me last week he believes federal law does state that e-mails are legal forms of writing, I’ve come across a few examples that seem to back him up.

Cervantes’ comments came in the context of me writing about New Mexico State University’s assertion that e-mail is generally not a valid way to request documents under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act, which states that requests, to trigger the requirements in the act, must be written.

My frustration with that assertion by NMSU is part of a larger complaint I have with the university’s skirting of government transparency laws, which you can read about by clicking here.

Cervantes, an attorney who has worked closely with government transparency laws in his legislative role, disagreed with NMSU last week, telling me “there’s lots of federal law that says it is a writing.”

I’ve come across some examples. The federal Rules of Evidence state that “‘writings’ and ‘recordings’ consist of letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photography, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.”

Surely, that includes e-mails.

A recent federal court ruling, citing a dictionary definition and the federal Rules of Evidence, found that the definition of “writing” includes “any expressive format, set down by hand or typewriting, mechanical or electronic transmissions,” and pointed out that, in today’s society, it’s common for parties to “bind themselves through mechanical or electronic media.”

In addition, a 2003 article published in American Law Reports, and written by John E. Theuman, examined a number of court cases related to the Statute of Frauds and found that the issue of whether e-mail is a legal form of writing is often handled on a case-by-case basis but, in general, e-mails that don’t include the typed signature of the writer aren’t valid, but those that do include a typed signature are valid.

As I’ve pointed out before, the Attorney General’s Office says that, though there is some ambiguity in the law, governments should treat e-mail requests for records as valid. Cervantes says he’ll introduce legislation to make that clear, if necessary.

Pearce doesn't vote to oppose long-term base in Iraq

Posted 7/30/2007 10:58:00 AM

The U.S. House of Representatives easily approved last week a resolution that would make clear that the United States will not establish a military base in Iraq for the “permanent” stationing of troops there or attempt to control Iraq’s oil.

Those are hot-button topics among liberals since the White House has recently indicated that President Bush may intend to keep a military presence in Iraq similar to its presence in South Korea, where American troops have been stationed for more than 50 years. Still, House Resolution 2929 was uncontroversial enough that it was approved on a vote of 399-24.

The resolution states that the United States’ policy is “not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and not to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.” It also states that no funds made available by Congress shall be used to establish a permanent base in Iraq or control that nation’s oil.

U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., joined with 23 other representatives to vote against the resolution. In doing so, he was disagreeing with 399 colleagues, including New Mexico Reps. Heather Wilson, a Republican, and Tom Udall, a Democrat.

In a statement released by his spokesman, Pearce said “there’s no such thing as a permanent base. Around the world, all of our bases are only there at the invitation of the host country. If they ask us to leave, we leave.”

“Even domestically, we have a base relocation and closure process that routinely moves and closes bases every four or five years,” Pearce said. “Further, it is the responsibility of the armed forces to decide where they need to set up bases and move troops around the world. Congress has the obligation to fund them or not to fund them.”

“Regarding the oil issue, I do not know of an attempt ever to use Iraq’s oil for our benefit,” Pearce said.

Pearce’s last statement will especially rile liberals who believe the president’s unchanging strategy in Iraq has to do, at least in part, with the benefit the United States can gain from that nation’s oil.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has its eyes on Pearce but has not yet jumped into the 2008 campaign against him, attacked Pearce’s vote.

“This vote just shows how out of touch he is with the people of New Mexico,” DCCC spokesman Fernando Cuevas said. “While the American public continues to express their dissatisfaction with the course this administration is taking in Iraq, Pearce continues down the same failed path as this administration.”

Pearce’s vote is further evidence that, as the war continues to lose the support of the American public, Pearce will continue to back the president’s policy. Pearce, at least as indicated by his public statements, is ideologically aligned with the president on this issue and doesn’t intend to jump ship even as other Republicans are doing just that.

It will be interesting to see how that affects his 2008 re-election bid.

Officers frustrated with children's court judges

Posted 7/30/2007 08:57:00 AM

The two newest district judges in Doña Ana County are facing criticism from law-enforcement officials who believe they’re being too lax with juveniles, the Las Cruces Sun-News is reporting this morning.

Children’s Court Judges Fernando Macias and Lisa Schultz defended their decisions as appropriate.

The number of juveniles housed at the county detention center has recently fallen to half of its historical average of about 20. District Attorney Susana Martinez told the newspaper she was “shocked” to learn that, “particularly with the level of repeat offenders and violent crimes the county has been experiencing lately.”

Macias told the newspaper that, where juveniles are concerned, “detention is for those that haven’t necessarily been convicted of a crime, it’s for those that are awaiting their adjudicatory process.” He said the lower population in the detention center is partly because “the number of cases that are coming into the delinquency court are a little bit low.”

He also said the court’s aim is to try to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, and some are placed “in other kinds of settings” such as treatment facilities.

Schultz said she doesn’t have a “cookie-cutter approach” to deciding whether juveniles should be kept in the detention center or sent to other programs. She said the juvenile probation office, district attorney and police are doing a good job.

“I’m surprised to hear that there are concerns and questions of having a certain kind of agenda,” Schultz told the Sun-News. “The agenda is basically healing the community and the children.”

Martinez said she agrees that some juveniles should be given alternatives to detention, but said that should not include violent and repeat offenders.

Sheriff Todd Garrison told the Sun-News law enforcement needs to work with the judges so they understand that “we need the judges to support the officers and law enforcement, not just turn (the juveniles) loose and let them do it again.”

An unnamed juvenile probation officer told the newspaper there is frustration among the officers.

“Most of the officers are at the point of complete frustration,” the officer said. “… If a kid is dirty for cocaine, there’s no consequence. Give him services. The kid is already in services. He’s not adjusting to therapy, he’s not taking in the therapy.”

“Before, if you were dirty, you got detained and using detention as a tool and therapy combined was working a lot better. Now, we only have one tool and it’s therapy. And, it works sometimes and sometimes it doesn’t,” the officer told the Sun-News.

This appears to be part of the age-old dispute over how to treat juvenile offenders. It was no secret when Gov. Bill Richardson appointed both judges to the bench last year that they were fairly liberal in their philosophies about these issues, so it’s no surprise that there is frustration among the generally conservative law-enforcement profession.

Iowa columnist analyzes Richardson's gains

Posted 7/30/2007 08:07:00 AM

The Des Moines Register ran an interesting column on Sunday about Gov. Bill Richardson’s slow but steady rise in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. Check it out by clicking here.

Non-scientific poll: Special interest groups have too much influence over state government in N.M.

Posted 7/30/2007 07:53:00 AM

The vast majority of those who voted in last week’s non-scientific poll on this site said special interest groups have too much influence over state government in New Mexico.

Of 138 voters, 116, or 84 percent, said special interest groups do have too much influence, while 22, or 16 percent, said they do not.

Don’t forget to vote in this week’s poll, located at the top of the right column on this page.

Richardson within striking distance of Obama in Iowa

Posted 7/27/2007 03:22:00 PM

A new poll released Thursday has Gov. Bill Richardson at 11 percent and within striking distance of the third-place Barack Obama in Iowa, the state that hold’s the nation’s first presidential nominating contest on Jan. 14.

Eleven percent is the highest Richardson has climbed in any independent poll of likely Iowa Democratic primary voters, though a poll conducted for his campaign a month ago had his support at 13 percent.

The news that Richardson is within striking distance of the third-place candidate in Iowa comes as Richardson has recently passed John Edwards to become the third-place candidate in the newest poll in New Hampshire.

The two states are the most critical to race and are the focus of Richardson’s campaign.

The newest poll, conducted by Research 2000 for KCCI Channel 8 in Des Moines, has Edwards at 27 percent, up 1 percent from the group’s last poll in May; Hillary Clinton at 22 percent, down 6 percent from May; Obama at 16 percent, down 6 percent from May; and Richardson gaining 4 percentage points from his 7-percent support in May. Some 16 percent were undecided.

The poll was conducted July 23-25, surveyed 600 likely Iowa Democratic primary voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

“This poll is consistent with the momentum we’re seeing on the ground in Iowa,” Richardson Campaign Manager Dave Contarino said in a news release. “The more Iowa voters get to know Governor Richardson, the more they like him.”

Guv in third place in Arizona

Another poll released Thursday has Richardson’s support at 9 percent in Arizona.

The American Research Group poll has Clinton at 39 percent, Obama at 25 percent, Richardson in third place and Edwards in fourth at 8 percent. Some 16 percent were undecided.

Clinton’s support grew 6 percent from February, the last time the company surveyed Arizona. Obama’s grew 1 percent, Richardson’s grew 5 percent, and Edwards’ dropped 5 percent. I’m not aware of Richardson being in third place or better in polls in any states other than New Hampshire, Arizona and New Mexico, so the move ahead of Edwards in Arizona – the first in any independent poll – is significant.

The poll, conducted July 23-26, surveyed 600 likely Democratic primary voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

While we’re on the subject of Richardson, the Albuquerque Journal has an interesting article today on his flip-flop on a gun-control issue, and the New York Times has him taking his first official stand on the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant on the Navajo Nation in Northern New Mexico. In short: He believes the power plant “would be a step in the wrong direction.”

Is NMSU violating government transparency laws?

Posted 7/27/2007 12:48:00 PM

That’s the question I’ve asked the attorney general to consider.

The New Mexico State University Board of Regents stepped into a gray area in May by using money from private donors to boost the financial compensation for President Michael Martin and then-men’s basketball coach Reggie Theus. Since then, a number of actions raise questions about the integrity of university leaders and the decisions they are making.

Theus received a $100,000-per-year pay increase from the private sector. The new contract, university officials announced at the time, included a buyout clause of almost $1 million if Theus didn’t stay for another two years.

Martin received a deferred compensation payment – which he only collects if he stays through 2012 – of $100,000, with 70 percent paid by the private sector, and a $6,000-per-month housing allowance, paid for by the private sector, that he could use if he and his wife decided to move out of the university president’s residence.

The NMSU Foundation, a non-profit organization that exists to raise cash for the university, denied my request in May for information about the donors, saying it can legally keep those lists secret. I wrote at the time about the fact that courts in a number of states have disagreed and found that state university foundations are state agencies for the purpose of public records laws and have to release such records.

My concerns about the potential for impropriety, or at least its appearance, were validated when Theus showed up at a Las Cruces City Council meeting three weeks after he received the pay increase to ask the council to approve a controversial development being proposed by a builder who has long been cozy with NMSU.

That developer, Philip Philippou of Las Cruces, flew Land Commissioner Pat Lyons and others, at his own expense, to the Aggies’ NCAA tournament game in Washington in March. Theus’ endorsement of Philippou’s project raised further questions because Lyons was embroiled in his own scandal for bypassing his own bidding process and leasing the land to Philippou after the developer gave $20,500 to a political action committee that passed most of it on to Lyons.

Philippou later told me he wasn’t contributing to the compensation for Theus and Martin.

Since then:

• We learned last week that Martin would take advantage of the privately funded housing allowance. He’s building a new home on Union Avenue, complete with a pool, courtesy of a secret donor. What happens if that donor threatens to pull his funding when Martin makes a decision he doesn’t like?

• Theus left NMSU in June to coach the Sacramento Kings, and we learned that he wouldn’t have to pay the university any money for leaving before the end of the two-year contract that was announced in May.

That’s because, according to the Albuquerque Journal, the new deal was “never signed and activated.” The previous contract, which was apparently still in effect when Theus left, was intended to require that Theus pay the school $550,000 if he left early, but the misplacement of parenthesis, which the NMSU athletics director called an “error in drafting the contract,” meant that Theus didn’t have to pay a penny.

Was that a simple mistake, a sign that the university is playing fast and loose or an indication of a deeper problem? Read on.

Skirting open meetings, public records laws

At the regents’ July 17 meeting, board President Laura Conniff announced that the meeting would be “informational only” because, though the agenda had been posted with enough notice at the library and online, it wasn’t posted in the time required at the communications office, the Las Cruces Sun-News reported.

The regents discussed everything on the agenda at the July 17 meeting, but did not take any action. They scheduled a special meeting for Monday, properly provided notice of it, and quickly approved all agenda items at that meeting because they had already discussed them at the July 17 meeting, the Sun-News reported in a separate article.

At the time I wondered whether, if the July 17 meeting was not properly noticed, the regents had violated the state Open Meetings Act by discussing the formation of public policy, even if they did not formally vote. Though the regents don’t allow any public input at their meetings, the meeting that was not properly noticed would have been the venue for the public to learn about the formation of public policy.

It gets worse.

On the agenda for both meetings, and approved Monday, was a new agreement between NMSU and the NMSU Foundation. I’ve been awaiting the approval of this agreement because it would provide further information about the foundation’s relationship with the university. Despite approval of the agreement, according to the Sun-News, “NMSU Foundation Executive Dir