Illustrated Daily; 6010; Jim Baca Interview

Last night, Ken Schultz. Tonight with exactly three weeks to go before the election, off the campaign trail with Jim Baca, the other of the two runoff candidates for Marin Albuquerque. Fred is coming up next on the Illustrated Daily. The Illustrated Daily. Managing Editor Hal Roads. Good evening. Since Charter Revision in 1974, although only two men have occupied the office of Marin Albuquerque, city voters have participated in nothing less than seven mayoral elections, including three runoff elections. Or at least that will be the case, come November 12th.

On that date, the current round of mayoral campaigns will finally come to an end. Last night, Ken Schultz. Tonight, off the campaign trail with Jim Baca, state land commissioner, and one of two finalists in the recent October 8th municipal election. That conversation momentarily, first however, Dale Krusek has this background report. With the mayoral runoff election only a few weeks away, volunteers at Jim Baca's campaign headquarters are gearing up their efforts to defeat challenger Ken Schultz. Baca is running a well-organized campaign, appealing to city voters with such slogans as the first native mayor. I don't need to enhance my name ID. The polls that we've done over the summer showed me with over 70% name ID anyway, which is about as high as anybody could ask for. So I'm a serious candidate. I've grown up in this city. I love this city just as all of us candidates do. And I think I can better lead it than the other candidates, and that's why I'm running.

Baca has received support from both the Albuquerque Journal and the Albuquerque Tribune, the greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, and the Sierra Club. His political appointments include press secretary to Governor Bruce King in his first term, director of New Mexico's alcoholic beverage control department, and public information officer for the city of Albuquerque, his present position as state land commissioner of New Mexico. And what promises to be a close race? Albuquerque's voters will be returning to the polls from November 12th to elect their new mayor. And does that campaign to elect the next mayor of Albuquerque enters its final three weeks? Commissioner Jim Bachman, welcome to the Australian Daily. I'm glad to be here. Thank you. Actually, Jim, I'd like to pick up where we left off last night in an interview I conducted with your opponent, Ken Schulte. I mean, the question actually concerned the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates. The strengths he might bring to the office, which you would not, the strengths which you

would bring, which he might not. He was of the opinion he said you would not bring any of which he did not. But he further felt that your weakness was that you were a political opportunist. Now you've heard that charge, and of course this campaign, I'm breaking no news to you. How do you answer that kind of criticism? Well, I think that the charges of being a political opportunist are unfair. I grew up in the city, I am a native of this city. I've watched it grow and react to the incredible pressures that have been placed upon it. And I think that just because I want to run for mayor doesn't mean I'm a political opportunist. I feel that I can be a good mayor, a progressive mayor. And obviously, after just eight weeks on the campaign, an awful lot of people thought that way, too, because I'm in the runoff. I think people trust my background, I've proven that I can do things, I've proven that I get things done that I set out to do, and perhaps they perceive a need for the kind of leadership that I've exhibited. All right, pursue that issue, though, a little further.

Some of your critics contend what they call the flip flop on your part as state land commissioner and as member of the state investment council with reference to South African divestiture at the point in your decision making to enter a race for mayor is evidence of opportunism on your part. Now, you must have had to deal with this. Yes, I've had to deal with that. I originally seconded the motion to go for divestiture of state permanent fund equities in the investment council. After reading a lot of material and stuff on it, this was last April or so, I decided that maybe we ought to give them a little bit more time in South Africa to solve their problems. I made up my mind to go ahead and change my vote on that. On the next vote, after watching a television newscast in which six and seven-year-old children were being arrested, thrown into armed personnel carriers, and taken to prison in South Africa. And I think sooner or later you have to make a statement.

And I think that if those kind of statements had been made, perhaps in 1939, that we wouldn't have seen Jewish children carted off to prison camps and killed. And I think it was a valid kind of statement to make. And I don't think it's going to harm our permanent fund. All right. Long the same lines. There are those who argue that the city of Albuquerque, indeed municipalities and units of local government throughout the nation, ought to cease doing business with any firms, which in turn do business in South Africa, that has become, as you know, something of an issue in this race for mayor. What are your views on this matter? Well, I've never heard of it as an issue in the mayor's race, but I think that that wouldn't be workable, because you wouldn't even be able to buy a light bulb in this country. Because all those companies sell light bulbs to South Africa. I think the proper thing to do is try to send a message through our corporate leadership to Washington that maybe it's time to do something. That doesn't mean we don't sell toothpaste to South Africa.

It doesn't mean that we don't sell them the goods that they need to survive. There's no point in killing them all in order to save them, if you know what I mean. And I think for us to deny South Africa access to goods that they need to live with would be improper and really pressing the point a little bit too much. All right. Back to campaign strategy. You've made the point a number of times. And as part of your general, I think, advertisement, that you are a native of Albuquerque and you were running as a native of Albuquerque. In a city where increasingly very few people are able to make that claim, politically, how effective is that, is that as well? Well, I haven't used that at all. That's the funny part, how I think I mentioned it to your reporter the other day that driving down to the headquarters. All of a sudden figured out that I would be the first person born in Albuquerque this running from air and has a chance of getting elected or might be elected. I don't think it's important at all in a scope of things.

The thing I think important that is so important in any political race is that people must know who their candidates are, okay? They must know their backgrounds, where they came from, what their past has been, what their accomplishments and failures have been, and what their records have been. And I've tried very hard to lay mine out for everybody. I don't mind letting my military record go out to the public. My opponent will not do it. I don't mind bearing my income tax returns to the public and showing my source of income. My opponent has refused to do it. These are the kinds of things that people need to know. In addition to what our plans are for the future, they are issues. They are important to the people who are going to vote for us. And I think those kinds of things are important for the voter to use to make his decisions on. Ken and I, I think, have a lot of the same kinds of plans that we would like to see in this city as far as long-range planning, and as far as the way city government can be more receptive.

But I think that I probably have had more opportunity to show people that I can actually get these things done. All right, something about which I think there may be a difference of opinion between you and your opponent. It has to do with air quality and albuquerque, or at least how to deal with problems of air quality and albuquerque, notably those related to auto emissions. Our kidney late in the first campaign devised, he said, an arrangement with the EPA, which they probably would accept, which entails a sort of decentralized versions of a version of auto emissions inspections. One, do you buy that general formula? Is that a solution to the problem? Well, I think it's the start of a solution to the problem. It's not an entire solution itself. Obviously, the entire solution is to build cars that don't pollute at all. But I think it's a must that we start some sort of emissions program. And I think that a lot of people have really been led down the Primrose path, that it's some sort of invasion of privacy and it's some sort of horrible, bureaucratic thing that's

going to make their life miserable. You know, all an emissions program is asking people who drive cars to get them tuned up once a year and take it in for a test. Now, it makes a lot of sense to tune your car up anyway because it saves you money and gas. This decentralized system that we're talking about at this point, since our original one failed, I think must be started. And I think it can work. I think it's a step in the right direction. A lot of people don't understand that if we don't do it, the federal government will come in and run it for us. And I'm not sure we want the federal government running our lives. I think we ought to control our own destinies. Well, indeed, but it's not very politically popular in this community. By every indication as nearly as I think those of us who've covered the story can tell. As I understand your opponent, he is of the mind that it might not be a bad idea to remand the whole issue back to the voters for their decision. How do you feel like that?

How do you feel about something like that? Well, I think that political leaders should lead, hell. I don't think they should take every hot issue and try and divest themselves of their responsibilities when they run for an office and agreed to accept those responsibilities. No, it's not a popular political issue. It's not the only issue in the mayor's race either, but it's something that I feel strongly enough about because it's not just a popularity thing. It's a matter of public health. You know, 10 years from now, we may not need this program. But right now, there are people whose health are at risk because of the carbon monoxide levels in this city on certain days. And I think that it's only fair to require our citizens and ask them to tune their car up once a year to try and get rid of some of those carbon monoxide levels. That's not going to do away with our brown cloud problem in Albuquerque. We know that. There's a lot of things that contributed that, but this is one small part of getting rid of that problem. And I have to tell you something, people come to Albuquerque for distinct reasons. They love the sunshine and they love the clean air.

And if we're going to progress as a city in the manner that we should, we must protect those things. I don't think that a firm that wants to bring high-paying jobs to Albuquerque wants to come to an Albuquerque that's choking to death. All right. If it's one step, what are other steps that must be taken? For example, there has been some suggestions from time to time that those who build new homes in the future might at some point have to say, I'm sorry, you can have no fireplace constructed or the city might have to lay down those kinds of regulations. That indeed, fireplace burning might have to be closed down altogether at certain times of the year when our air is most foul. What's the sequence of a vent to clean up the air that you are prepared to recommend if you should become mayor? Well, I think there's lots of things that add to the brown cloud. The first thing we must do is get some sort of control on the carbon monoxide through emissions programs. A lot of the particulate matter in the air comes from fireplaces. And we don't have to burn our fireplaces on nights when there's dangerous air inversions. And I noticed in our neighborhood, and on the voluntary kind of air inversion alerts,

that the people didn't burn their fireplaces. It's not that we have to forbid fireplaces in houses. I think most people, if they know there's an ordinance that you don't burn it when there's an alert on, I think they won't burn it. We need to pave a lot of roads in the county. A lot of this stuff is thrown up off roads, is thrown up off construction sites and gravel pits and things like that. And I think if we can get that kind of particulate out of the air, we'll go a long way towards solving our problems. How does the city of Albuquerque reach that particular problem? On the roads? Yes, paving the roads in the county. I think we, it's a matter of money. It's a matter of money. If we want to keep our air clean like everything else, it's not going to be cheap. And I think we can work with the county and trying to suppress some of that use of those dusty roads and do a long range program of paving them. And I think we probably need some help from the legislature because it is a regional program. And I think the legislature should help us with it.

All right. An idea, which came to fruition during your term, the state land commissioner, is the development south of Albuquerque, which has come to be called Mesa Del Sol. I know you've taken particular pride in that matter, but it's also had some who have criticized it. I heard some during the forums leading up to the most recent election, which puts you in the runoff. One set of criticisms on which I had notes was that it would put government in competition with private enterprise. The other was that it would drain infrastructure resources from the city as a whole, which would be better used elsewhere in the city. How do you respond to those two criticisms? Well, first off, on the first criticism that it puts government in competition, it doesn't, because the land will be sold to private developers. They will develop it. On the question of draining infrastructure away from Albuquerque, that's a pretty poor excuse for not master planning what we have left to do in this city. You know, this particular parcel of property is 12,000 acres. It would almost fit over the Northeast Heights if you were to overlay it on the Northeast

Heights of Albuquerque. We know that it's going to develop. We know that there will be people living there. And what a great opportunity for the first time in the history of this city to take a major landmass and figure out where the drainage is, where the roads are, where the transportation system belongs, where the residential areas are, where the shopping centers are, where the bike paths are, and the utilities. Anybody that would criticize the master planning of a piece of property that big is purely playing politics and not caring about the future of the city. We indeed should have those same kinds of plans going on today. All the way out past double eagle airport to the Rio Puerco. Because we know they're going to develop. We should not get ourselves. How do we know that? How do we know that? Because we're going to grow. It's happening right now, hell. And we can either just let this stuff happen in the haphazard manner that it has. Look what's happened in this city in the last 10 years because we didn't look that far ahead into the future.

We can go up to Wantoboble of Arden, see one of the ugliest streets in the world, okay? It's the same thing that happened on Manol. It's the same thing that's happening on Cours, and here is an ability right now to look out towards the year 2000 and figure out what kind of city our children can wake up in. We don't have to wake up in a Phoenix, Arizona, or Los Angeles. We can plan way out into the future, and what's wrong with that? There's absolutely nothing wrong with preparing ourselves for that. Because if Albuquerque grows, as it's been growing, we will reach out into those outer areas. We have the water to support it, so we may as well get ready for it because you can't set up machine guns on I-40 and I-25 entrances to the city and say no more people, it just doesn't work. There are those, of course, who argue that that wouldn't be a bad idea. What are the limits of our ability to control growth? I think the limits of our ability to control growth probably lie in the amount of money we're going to have available for infrastructure.

Obviously, we can't lay water and sewer pipes all the way out to these areas immediately, and maybe not even in the next 15 years, or maybe not even in the next 20 years. Sooner or later, we'll lay them out there. And all we're saying is that let's be prepared that when we do have the money to do it, that when the pipelines get there and the water and sewer, that we know where the roads and everything else go. All right. Let's talk about experiencing municipal government. As I understand it, your opponent argues that he's had four years on the city council, which has put him on speaking terms with all of the really important issues that the next mayor of the city of Albuquerque is going to have to address, have to come to grips with. Whereas you, on the other hand, have been removed at best from municipal government for quite some time, and therefore he has an effect and advantage over you in terms of experience. I'm sure that he knows more on detail stuff in the city. He might be able to recite budget figures a little bit better to me than I could recite to him. But I think that I've been tuned in with the city of Albuquerque, even as land commissioner

in Santa Fe because of this Mesa del Sol project. Also I worked for the city for three years. I worked with the administration in Harry Kinney's first administration. I see what the pitfalls are. I know what local government is about. And I'm willing to go ahead to head with him on any sort of issue that we need to. Also I might point out that one thing that people have not brought up about my opponent is his record. What has he accomplished? Stop and think real quick. What's he accomplished in the city council in his four years? I'm not giving you the news. I'm conducting them. Okay. But stop and think. Yes, he destroyed the clean air program. What else did he do? What did he do in a positive nature? What did he do that passed the council and is working for the benefit of the city today? It's hard to figure those things. And I think we need to look at what he has accomplished as a city councilor. Or his city councilor is going to support him in this race. All right. On the subject of municipal government, hardly had the recent municipal election been over.

But both former Mayor David Rask and incumbent Mayor Harry Kinney offered the opinion that the way the municipal elections currently are structured works to the disadvantage of an incumbent. And that it further encourages what frequently are called frivolous candidates, candidates who have little chance of being elected. The solution some have suggested, including these two gentlemen, may be to return to partisan elections here in Albuquerque. What are your thoughts on this matter? I don't think returning to partisan elections is a smart thing to do. I think possibly we could up the petition requirements once again to keep the frivolous candidates out. But I tell you what, this time I don't think there were any frivolous candidates. I think all in all, most of the candidates were pretty good people, and they all had something to offer. But going back to partisan shifts. Well, there were candidates who came out with certainly less than 1% of vote, some with less than 1.5% of the vote.

It's hard for people to get a focus and figure out who would take seriously and who not to. Well, that may be true, but I think they all had something to offer. Our love and bill Mueller and even Millie had a lot to offer. And I don't think that I think it did shorten debate and stuff. But getting back to the election part of it, the incumbent mayors that we've had always have seemed to fall into a trap of not running a good campaign their second time around. I've learned a lot on how to campaign, believe me. And I think that if Harry had campaigned, that he might have been in this runoff. And I think if David had campaigned, he might have been in this runoff. And what I mean by campaigning is grassroots stuff. Being in the neighborhoods like we did for eight short weeks, it had a dramatic effect. And I think a mayor just can't rest on his laurels or his records or on the importance of his office. He must get out and listen to people, get his volunteers into the neighborhoods to bring back the message.

There are a lot of people arguing right now that Harry Kennedy might be in the runoff and either Ken Shelter-Jim Baca might not have had in fact he mounted a campaign. Do you hold to that view? Well I think that could be possibly true. I don't think that Harry ran a good campaign. I don't think Ken ran a good campaign. After campaigning for a year and a half, I managed the time. It really shows that if you've got that energy and you've got your volunteers out there working the streets that you'll do well and that's exactly what we did. Much was made in the final days of the recent campaign over alleged efforts on the part of either yourself or one of your campaign workers to get one of your contenders in that race, Millie Saunty, on us, to withdraw the headlines. She was very angry at me. She was very mad. Did that need scars? Has that left scars? No. I don't think so. It was a regrettable thing and I think if I thought it over I wouldn't do it again knowing Millie's reaction.

But I don't think the public much-minded. What I was trying to do was run a campaign. I think that if you look at a candidate that maybe doesn't have much of a chance of winning and you go ask for their support, there's nothing wrong with it. It just makes good sense. Millie just took it very hard and I'm sorry that we even approached her at this point. I'm a bad. She's over as you know working for my opponents. She's hurt so bad. Yes. What are your feelings about these various televised affairs called debates, forums, what have you? Your opponent has publicly gone on record as expressing concerns that they tend to stress entertainment value rather than the issues. Your perceptions, you were at all of them and you will be, I presume, at all the rest. Yes I will. I think it's extremely important. We have a tool like TV and it's only part of a campaign effort. But I think in today's campaigns and in the bigness of this city, it's hard to see everybody and hard for everybody to get a look at you and televisions a good way.

Even in an hour long debate, even in a two hour long debate, we're not going to have much time to really sit down and talk about issues. We can sit down and talk about air emissions for a whole hour and a half just by itself and probably not cover everything that needs to be covered. But it gives an opportunity, hell, for people to take a look at the candidates, to see how they react, to see how they feel questions, to see how they communicate. And most people can sense how a candidate is going to behave as an elected official by watching him how he acts under stress and believe me, I'm scared of those debates too. I get scared going on one-on-one with somebody, but I think people have to see how we react and they have to see how we respond to the really hard questions. I think Ken's inability to cope with the idea that reporters would be asking him questions on live TV is indicative of maybe he would like pre-screen questions in his news conferences if he's liked mayor.

And I think that's improper. We need to see how the candidates react under pressure to the tough questions of the day. All right. If you were elected mayor, or if Ken Shulls should be elected mayor, either of you very likely will have to deal with the prospects of some revisions in the municipal charter of Albuquerque. There are a lot of people. Now what? It's over a decade old, our experience, and people think they see difficulties. I'm saying, well, what we need is to keep the mayor council formal government, but we need to go to partisan elections. Others like Mayor Kenyus from Time to Time suggested it might be nice to the mayor's sat with the city council, so the council would know what the mayor is thinking, but keep the mayor elected independently. Are there, as you look down the road, any major changes in the municipal charter, which you would like to see made during your term as mayor, should you be elected on November 12th? I don't believe that we need to change the basic form of our government. I don't think the member needs to be an official member of the council, the mayor, because

I think if the mayor is doing his job of communicating with his board of directors, which is what they are, then he doesn't need to be a member of the council. My opponent keeps talking about putting together a kitchen cabinet, a group of people that advise him. Personally, I see the council as having that role. You need technical advice, and you have your close advisors, but I don't see any reason for going out and forming a whole new group to supplant what the council should be doing. I believe that the mayor should rely heavily on the council. I've even said I would like to move them on to the same floor as City Hall as the mayor's office, so there's more open lines of communication. I mean, that's really what you're getting down to is just communicating with these people. Are there charter revisions I would have to look at or really don't have anything to do? I would love to know what a former mayor's or incumbent mayor had to say about living right next to the city council. Perhaps if you get elected, I'll ask you whether that was a good idea later on. I think it would be.

I think it's real symbolic of what needs, you know, everybody's on a team, how, and they should act like it. You're always going to have adversarial things between the executive and legislative branches of government, but just the same, everybody has to act as a team. They're all there for one reason. That's the good of the city. All right. The last question, the same last question I asked your opponent last night on this program. What strengths would Ken Schultz bring to the office of mayor, which you could not? What strengths do you think you'd bring to the office of mayor, which he would not? I think the strengths that I naturally bring that he may not is an ability to communicate. I seem to be good at that, and I have a good sense for appointing employees that know their jobs and do them well. The strengths that he has probably that I don't have is probably the propensity to hide my past. All right, sir, thank you very much, I'm afraid our time is going to have a leave at them. State Land Commissioner Jim Baca, run off candidate for mayor and albuquerque, our time

will have to be up. That's it for tonight. Tomorrow on location in Golden for a delightful visit to one of New Mexico's most extraordinary gardens. It's a garden of glass. Meanwhile, thanks for joining us. Time now, Roads, good night. All right. You