Golden Parchutes - Welcome Back Lawrence!

Many of our readers have been buzzing about a transfer of former APOA President Lawrence Torres from the HR department back to APD. We've had our Eyes do a little digging and all of the rumors have been confirmed. On November 4th Lawrence Torres became a member of the Albuquerque Police Department... again.

Torres took a job in the Human Resources department about 3 1/2 years ago after serving as APOA President. According to our Eyes, his new (now old) job as Employee Relations Director was viewed as a reward for working with The Almighty Alcalde on union issues while serving as the APOA President.

The Eyes have it that Mayor-Elect Berry has been told expect a greater than $30 MILLION budget shortfall next year - despite Chavez administration claims of $12 MILLION. Torres' HR position was unclassified and with a looming deficit and a salary of over $82,000 a year... his job was certainly on the chopping block.

The problem for the Berry team is that Torres managed to take his $82,000 a year salary with him even though he's classified as a Patrolman 1st Class. P1Cs typically make between $48,000 and $51,000 a year.

There's yet another problem for the newly acquired patrolman, he may have let his state certification lapse. Our Eyes tell us that there has been some scrambling by The 5th Floor to make sure that Torres is still certified. They question whether or not Torres kept up his certification after his departure and note that his file down at the training academy suddenly grew after a hasty visit from Deputy Chief McCabe.

Torres isn't the first of Marty's Minions to be transferred from an unclassified position to a classified one and the Berry team is busy compiling a list of folks like Torres who have gotten special deals from the departing Alcalde. Some of these golden parachutes are going to be extremely hard to find and even harder to do anything about.

The Torres Transfer doesn't appear to be one of them even though Chief Schultz signed off on the transfer. Compensation for P1Cs is covered under the collective bargaining agreement and our Eyes tell us that sending Torres $82,000 salary with him is illegal.

Torres started his career as a member of the APOA. He left the union for the greener pastures of the Chavez administration - a move many members viewed with contempt. Now he's back in the union complete with an $82,000 a year parachute. Welcome back Lawrence!

Congressman Teague Has A Split Personality On Energy

Marita K. Noon

If there is one thing T. Boone Pickens knows how to do, it is make money. When T. Boone gets behind something, financial gain is the incentive. There is nothing wrong with making money, but his motives cannot be viewed as purely altruistic. When the price of natural gas was high, he advertised converting the world to wind power as wind power needs back-up base-load power and the only source that can ramp up and down quickly is natural gas. Now that natural gas prices are lower, he no longer promotes wind power. He is, however, pushing a new scheme to increase natural gas usage. Natural gas is a clean-burning fossil fuel, so using more natural gas is good.

However, when T. Boone partners with Congressman Harry Teague, one has to look askance. At best, Teague appears to be a bit schizophrenic.

While we do not currently know what version of cap and trade will pass through Congress-or even if any form will pass, we know that Teague voted for the Waxman/Markey Bill (AKA cap and trade). The purported goal of cap and trade is to get America off of fossil fuels by making their emissions taxable in some form-and therefore more expensive for the consumer. One variant of cap and trade basically eliminates coal from America's energy portfolio, which means our coal-fired power plants that provide about half of our base-load energy needs will all have to be converted to natural gas--additionally upping the price. So Teague has essentially voted to make natural gas--a fossil fuel his company helps produce--more expensive and then supports a bill (H.R. 1835) that would use taxpayer money to underwrite the conversion of vehicles from gasoline or diesel to natural gas. We the taxpayers will get hit on both sides of his efforts.

In addition to his apparent split personality, the opinion editorial produced jointly by the Teague/Pickens team has several other flaws.

In their proposal, they recommend tax incentives for converting fleets to be fueled by natural gas. On the surface this sounds good-we trade an imported fuel for a domestic one. The use of natural gas has already been tried in agricultural and oil field vehicles since the 60's and was not reliable.Yet, this is being tried in several government agencies as a way to be more environmentally friendly--even though the infrastructure is not there. To solve this, Teague/Pickens then encourage opening more NGV fueling stations. This will take years and years to make happen due to right-of-way issues, environmental regulations and excessive costs--which their approach would have underwritten by the taxpayer (as are, or course, the aforementioned tax incentives). By the time a NGV infrastructure could be functional, something totally different could be in place.

Another flaw is their idea that NGV will reduce our dependence of foreign oil. We currently use foreign natural gas and their plan would increase natural gas use--therefore using more from foreign sources. I am all for natural gas use and I support getting off of foreign fuels of all kinds. But switching our vehicles to NGV will not do that. What we need is to open up drilling options-for both natural gas and oil! Their op-ed cites a study indicating that the continental United States has enough natural gas reserves to last 118 years. That may be true, but how much are we currently allowed to access? Much of America's natural resources are off-limits due to environmental NIMBYism! With all of the nonconventional fuels coming online, I believe we could be almost energy independent now--or at least have energy security (meaning we get our fuels from friendly countries such as Mexico and Canada). But we must be able to access them.

Additionally the Teague/Pickens piece claims that natural gas burns cleaner and produces "virtually no particulate emissions." I agree that natural gas burns cleanly, but so do most other fuels today. America and Canada derive the largest single percent of energy from coal, yet they both have some of the cleanest air of the industrialized world. Wasn't Waxman/Markey about CO2, not particulate emissions? Come on Harry, make up your mind.

Teague's action in voting for Waxman/Markey was a vote to shut down fossil fuels when the next generation of fuel--whatever it may be--is not yet available. After all, as they state, "Wind and solar are not helping you drive to work in the morning."


Marita Noon is the Executive Director at CARE (Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy), the nonprofit organization working to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom and the American way of life. Find out more at www.responsiblenergy.org. Note: The above is in response to a previously published op-ed

Eye Told You: Back in the Saddle

There's a lot going on during the final days of the Chavez Administration as all of Marty's Minions are working to save their as, uh... career posteriors. Outgoing CAO, Ed Adams is furiously squirreling away favored unclassified employees in classified positions.

Back in October we told you that The 5th Floor planned to move Commander Joe Hudson and Lieutenant Rob Smith back to the SID playpen (read it here). When the little scheme was revealed, The 5th Floor brain trust decided that it was a good idea to wait (read it here).

Well... the wait is over and Hudson and Smith are back in the saddle over at SID. Meanwhile, the entire reserve program is still on hiatus.

Look, the reserve program was never the problem. Reserve officers work under the direct supervision of paid, sworn, and certified APD officers. State law clearly indicates that they cannot be paid. If a reserve officer is paid, they're no longer a reserve officer and by law they must be state certified. When David Young started posing as a "John" and started playing with the equipment of suspects, he was acting as a police officer not as a civilian technician.

Hudson and Smith should have known that just as they should know exactly how far any officer can go in furtherance of their duties. One way or the other, Hudson and Smith screwed up. The 5th Floor is busy doing what it always does... acting like it never happened.

Eye Poll: Time to Go

We rarely see this kind of landslide in an Eye Poll. Last week, Eye readers sent a loud and clear message that it's time for Chief Schultz to go.

In our unscientific, poll a whopping 78% of readers said "yes, absolutely" when asked if APD needs a new chief. Only 17% of readers wanted to keep the chief, while 4% didn't know (view it here).

There are a lot of reasons why readers are ready for a change over at APD, but a lot of it comes down to the chief's inability to keep politics out of the police department.

Police officers are hired to do a job - a difficult, tedious, dangerous, and all too often thankless endeavor. When the primary function of the chief becomes anything other than protecting the public, he loses the trust of the public and just as importantly the faith of the men and women he leads.

Unclassified

The state calls them "exempt." The city calls them "unclassified." No matter what they're called they're employees who are beholden to the elected executive official that hired them. These employees can be hired and fired by the governor or mayor for just about any reason.

According to the Albuquerque Journal, Governor Richardson has 760 "exempt" employees - over 500 in the executive branch alone. Richardson's exempts became one of the popular targets of legislators in the recent emergency session.

There are 760 exempt employees in New Mexico government — about 500 in executive branch agencies — and the number has risen sharply during Richardson's two terms in office.

“The growth in exempt positions has been significant,” Cote said.

A similar proposal has also been introduced by Sen. John Ryan, R-Albuquerque.

Some legislators have criticized the growth in government spending under the Richardson administration — about 40 percent in the past six years — and the growth in exempt employee numbers in particular.

(ABQ Journal - Subscription)

One of the fun things about a transition of power is the transition shakes things up and tends to expose a few things that have been heretofore almost impossible find out. Once such thing is a complete list of all of the city's unclassified employees and how much they make - a list that fell smack dab into the lap of one of our Eyes.

The city of Albuquerque has 1427 "exempt" - or as the city calls them - "unclassified" employees. Understand that a large number of these unclassified positions are part-time or seasonal and pay between $7.50 and $19 per hour. But there are 124 full-time positions in Marty's unclassified world that earn more than $50,000 a year that's over $15,000 more than the state's median income for a single wage earner (view it here).

Combined those top 124 unclassified positions cost us $5,098.21 an hour, $203,928.40 a week, and $10,604, 276 a year. If you thought the mayor was the top dog, you'd be wrong. The top three unclassified wage earners are CAO Ed Adams, Fire Chief Robert Ortega, and Chief of Police Ray Schultz at $147,742, $140,733 and $140, 733 respectively.

The mayor's pay - previously set by the council and soon by some "independent" committee - makes a paltry $109,325 and only ranks 14th on the unclassified pay scale. Councilors by contrast, are at the bottom of the 1400 plus list earning a meager $5.26 an hour (based on a 40 hour week).

There are currently 6 director's positions that are either vacant (like Jay Evans who skedaddled back to Open Space and reportedly took his director's pay with him) or have "acting" directors whose pay won't show up on the unclassified list. Included in the list is soon to be former Transit Director Greg Payne whose salary and job will continue until November 30th.

You may be wondering why all of this matters. It's not really surprising that Marty's Minions were making shall we say... healthy salaries. They certainly were and in some cases the job justifies their pay. In other cases such as a position like say... director of senior affairs (a job Marty's paying $107,910 for) is really hard to justify. Do you really want your senior affairs person making more than your economic development person, your HR manager, or the director of finances?

The more one analyzes the list of unclassified employees, the more you begin to see Marty's pattern of rewards for loyalty. Pay and responsibility often have nothing to do with one another.

Let's face it - there are some positions that will simply go unfilled if the pay isn't adequate. Take the city attorney's office for example. A good attorney can make upwards of $150 an hour. You can't just pay $35k a year and expect to fill the position - at least not with a competent attorney.

The point here is that Mayor-Elect Berry has an opportunity to save the city money by removing unnecessary positions and adjusting pay of necessary positions to more accurately reflect the position's responsibility.

A new mayor should have the opportunity to surround himself with people they trust and people that they feel are best qualified for needed city positions. After all, the mayor should and will be judged not only by his performance but the performance of those he surrounds himself with .

Mayor Berry has the opportunity to make some real structural changes to his unclassified list that will make government more transparent, more efficient, and save all of us money at a time when money is hard to come by.

Climate Change is Obama’s Iraq

by Marita Noon

This year, amidst reports of cooling temperature, the climate change debate had apparently cooled as well. Then the Waxman/Markey Bill, pushing cap and trade as the solution for global warming, was introduced. Now, with President Obama addressing the UN and calling for extreme measures to prevent catastrophic consequences, suddenly it’s front page news again.

On the same day that Obama was presenting his dramatic message to the UN, the New York Times published an article acknowledging “global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may drop in the next few years.” Clearly the debate is not as one-sided as our leadership wants us to believe.

While Obama and his “alarmist” science czar, John Holdren, are moving forward, the polls repeatedly show lack of public and scientific support. Aggressive climate change measures rank last on almost any list of current crises; people do not think the issue is one on which our government should be focused.

I predict climate change will be Obama’s Iraq.

Bush, it is widely accepted, went into Iraq based on his advisors’ belief that weapons of mass destruction awaited them. There seemed to be consensus. Even Democrats voted in favor of war. Once there, no WMDs were found. But Bush did not pull out. Instead we spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of lives with minimal results—all based on bad advice. The public did not like the war. They did not want it. He had great plans for overthrowing Saddam, but the Iraqi military was no where near ready to take over—leaving us foundering between being occupiers and advisors. The failure in Iraq defined the Bush presidency, turning even his own party against him.

Obama’s advisors are telling him that climate change legislation is imperative. They believe there is consensus. But the temperatures have stabilized and dropped—despite increased CO2 emissions. Even the NYT admits that the declining temperatures will make legislation a hard sell to the public. But Obama is not backing down. He is willing to kill off the American economy based on bad advice. The people do not want it now and they will hate it later. We’ll spend billions of borrowed dollars for minimal results. He is focused on overthrowing hydrocarbons, but renewable energy is many years away from being ready to take over—leaving us floundering between the light and freezing in the dark. The folly of climate change legislation will define his presidency and turn citizens against him.

Both Presidents succumbed to a type of herd mentality. When people pursue the same avenue all together, they tend to shut out all other ideas and those avenues are not always the right ones. The “facts” become propaganda—forced into a pattern that is preordained, making them look firmly established.

You can see this in the Iraq war decision. But how does it apply to climate change?

Twenty years ago, in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Dr. Thomas Gold of Cornell University presented the hypothesis that science was reaching the place where new ideas were not being accepted. He stated, “A critical attitude is clearly required of every scientist. Whenever the established ideas are accepted uncritically, but conflicting new evidence is brushed aside and not reported because it does not fit, then that particular science is in deep trouble.” He postulates that, “there are long periods when uncritical acceptance of established ideas was a real hindrance to the pursuit of the new.”

Appling his ideas to today’s situation, I suggest that we are there now.

From a scientific viewpoint, when other motivations come into the act, judgment becomes cloudy, and decisions are not based on the ideal of evidence-based reasoning. This is where the problem lies. If support from peers and moral and financial consequences are at stake, then staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual who is depending on them, but not the successful policy for the pursuit of pure science. If a large portion of the scientific community in one field is guided by the herd instinct they cannot adopt another viewpoint. The justification becomes, “I believe that because everyone else does.” About the herd, Gold commented, “The sheep in the interior of the herd are well-protected from the bite in the ankle by the sheep dog.”

This has happened with climate change. The man-caused warming model has become the established fact—new evidence is “brushed aside.” Those scientists and others questioning the validity of the models are vilified as skeptics and deniers.
Hence bad science is “established.” Public policy is based on it.

Just like the herd agreed that there were WMDs—when there were not—the herd has decided that climate change is caused by man’s use of CO2 when, in fact, it is likely just the normal cycle of nature. We are attempting to battle climate change based on bad advice.

Marita Noon is the executive director of the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE), a nonprofit, membership-based organization advocating for citizens rights to energy freedom. She can be reached at marita@responsiblenergy.org or www.responsiblenergy.org. Note: Several concepts featured here are culled from the Australian Institute of Geoscientists Spring Newsletter.

Eye Poll: Corruption

Corruption comes in all sizes. Sometimes it's big (see the State Investment Council and Manny Aragon). Sometimes it's small. Eye readers overwhelmingly said that corruption was the major issue in the city's October 6th election. An overwhelming 49% of readers said corruption was the major election issue, 21% said crime, 13% the economy, 8% each said term limits or change, and 1% didn't know.

Crime was certainly an issue - one that the Berry administration would do well to remember - but the Eye readers are more worried about the criminals in government than those on the streets.

The new mayor will have his opportunity to clean house and restore trust in government. He'll have to do it despite his predecessors attempts had hiding a few nasty newly classified surprises. It's important that the new administration clean house and do so publicly.

In politics, public perception is reality. The way to change perception is to get rid of those who've created the reality.