New Mexico in Focus; 230; State of the State and Reactions

The first session of the 49th legislature is underway and already there's plenty of discussion and debate about how to handle this year's tight budget. I had this week reaction and analysis of the governor's plans, plus meet some of the newest lawmakers now roaming the roundhouse. Not to mention a reaction to the president's inauguration and why Albuquerque really is the center of the world right now. All that on the show that's informed in depth and involved in Mexico and focus. We have a jam pack show this week. Jean of course there was an historic inauguration DC will have reaction to that. And of course this week also marked the beginning of the 60 day legislature in Santa Fe we'll be talking about that too. Absolutely and the line panel is going to weigh on governor Richardson's plans for this budget. It should be interesting. Plus also we're going to have an interview and a look at one of the Albuquerque original originals. It's the trick lock theater company's 9th annual revolutions festival. It's a wonderful event.

Sounds like a lot of fun. But first we'll take a look back at Tuesday's state of the state address plus reaction from lawmakers and roundhouse insiders who were there for the speech on Tuesday. Will the sergeant at arms please escort the honorable governor to the chambers to deliver a message to the first session of the 49th legislature of the state of New Mexico. Today the state faces a new challenge. The biggest global financial crisis of our lifetime. A cold financial winter has come and our state faces a serious budget shortfall. This economic crisis is not of our making. Nevertheless it is ours to solve. This is our task and this is our test. Thought it was a good speech. It focused on the right things. This is a tough economic year. We obviously are very concerned that public employees be treated fairly but we know that it's a tough year and we're looking to work with the legislature and governor to make sure that nobody slides backwards. I thought overall it was a pretty good assessment of where we are.

I think he was pretty clear about the need to be more careful this budget season. I think that the governor's speech you know I'm pretty well indicated that he's aware that there's a problem certainly and is planning to do what he can to fix that at the same time I think that from our perspective I think the problem is worse than they're letting on that the problem is. I really believe that we need to look for some long term solutions to our budget situation. Our task this session is not just the cut spending past two budgets and go home. Our task must be to build and keep building a vibrant optimistic new Mexico that looks over the horizon with hope and anticipation. He seems to be ambitious and has an agenda for this session and that's good. Beg given the money crunch that you all face this year isn't going to be really difficult to kind of implement that agenda when it comes to reforming education in this state or even expanding access to healthcare to things that the governor did mention today.

I think the governor was very careful about introducing and proposing things that we're not going to cost money. If you look at the agenda I think he was trying to find things that can move the state forward that are not going to cost more money and I think that that's an appropriate way to be starting this session. Working together my administration this legislature and local governments across our state have identified hundreds of stalled or stopped projects some that have not moved for three or more years. I'm putting legislative projects and executive projects on the table. I propose that if a project creates jobs, keep it. If it protects the public safety, save it. If it does not reinvest those funds into this year's budget to keep our schools open our cops on the street and keep our financial condition sound. How do you think through this budget crunch that we're facing? I think it's actually an opportunity to really prioritize.

We have to focus on the things that are most important to the state. Things like education, healthcare, providing services like corrections officers, you have to have a good law enforcement system at a time like this and it's important that the social services that are really a counter cyclical measure, you'll see more Medicaid, Medicare and of course things like food stamps and TANF, those will all go up and they have to be funded. They talk about that we kept these reserves our rainy day fund in place and the fact of the matter is that only a small portion of that reserve is actually the general fund reserve. Most of it's things like the tobacco settlement permanent fund that adds a lot of dollars to that number but require legislative action to utilize those funds that's not what they were intended for. I think we need to look at having a true reserve in the state of about 6%. I mean it's truly in the operating reserve that we can use and operate with. It's been a lot of talk that the incoming legislature is a lot more progressive than the former legislature, a lot more Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats. What's that going to mean you think for this 60 day session?

Well I do think that there's a lot of new faces here, there's a lot of, there's a huge freshman class in the Senate and the House. I do think there's a progressive group that's up and coming but today we saw Tim Jennings actually retain the Senate pro-10 position and I think that was counter to what we had seen in terms of a caucus at the end of last month and so we see that that has been basically a return back to the leadership from before and maybe a resurgence of some of the more conservative values but I think New Mexico's rural also and it's important to keep in mind that we do have a very diverse state and it sounded like from the speeches after Senator Jennings was elected that he was wanting to work together and reaffirm that he was a Democrat and wanted to make sure that we move forward. I think the floor votes will be more balanced towards progressives but really it's the committee structure and the assignments that make a big difference in the leadership. So we'll see how that shapes out. I think we saw today that it's going to be a little bit more balanced with Senator Jennings getting the president seat in the Senate. It'll really depend on the issue I think but it'll be slightly more progressive.

You think on issues like capital punishment, the possible repeal of capital punishment, domestic partnership legislation, those issues often considered pretty liberal causes, at least by some might have a better opportunity this year to get passed than in previous years. I think they'll have a better chance on the floor but again it all depends on the committee assignments and how those go down. If it's a five four committee and you have one conservative Democrat who's not in favor of those issues it'll die in committee so it'll be very interesting to see how the committees are shaped. How weakened are Republicans here in the roundhouse to be blunt this year compared with last year. Minority last year as well of course but this year it seems like the margins that the Democrats have to work with are even bigger. We know to be blunt, we're three votes shorter than we were last year, that's three votes we don't have. That makes a big difference. But you know there's people that work together on that floor and you know in the situation we're in right now in New Mexico we don't want any of this stuff driven by parties. I don't care if we were in charge and had 27 votes like they do, it doesn't matter.

We've got to work together for the best part of New Mexico not for a party. Isn't it the case that Republicans are essentially powerless given their ultra minority status here in this chamber? Well I wouldn't call the Republicans role in the House to be powerless they still have an important voice and I think that the leadership in the majority side, the Democrats side is going to follow the example we're seeing nationally I certainly hope so and reach out to the Republicans and try and involve them, try and hear their voice, try and make sure they're an important participant in the process rather than just rolling over them in the process. I think it's important to recognize at any time you have a situation like this where you have financial situations that are on the downside that legislatures tend to come together more in those situations to figure out solutions. It's important to have a conservative voice that tempers the other side of the spectrum in this thing. So I think that there's an eagerness on both our parts to figure out how to come out on the other side of this thing and still provide service to New Mexico with two different

points of view. And I think it becomes more viable in times like this than it does when there's Buku's money out there. Thanks for taking us inside the roundhouse for those immediate reactions David. So right now we want to tackle some of those issues the governor is pointing out in the state of the state address with our line panelists. Let's start with the regulars Jim Scarentino, columnist with the Albuquerque Journal, Whitney Weight Chushire, political consultant and recovering blogger. Also with us this week we're welcoming Pauline Eisenstadt who up till the session was the only woman ever to serve as a state rep and a state senator here in the land of enchantment. And you'll know that recognize our other guests this week, Lorraine Mills, host of report from Santa Fe. Good to see you both back here by the way. And Lorraine can be seen every Sunday morning on Cana-Meet. All right, let's start with the, let's go with the White Elephant in the Room Whitney, which was the governor's problems and scandals and such. Just to get this out of the way, where do you think that settled in his speech to the legislature? Well, I think he had to address it somehow.

I mean, it would have been nothing but, you know, a huge speculation afterwards. He didn't even talk about it. Unfortunately, I don't know that humor was the best way to try. I mean, the situation in the circumstance by which he found himself back addressing the legislature, which everybody knows was never his intention, was a rough one. And I don't know that his little attempt at humor helped do anything. And unfortunately for him, I would not have wanted to have been his speechwriter or try to deliver that speech on this particular day. I'm sure it was tough. Yeah. Well, let's listen to what he had to say, and then we'll come back to it. Now I know there's some legislators here who were looking forward to my departure. And not having, you're not supposed to laugh. I'm not having to deal with me this session. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint, and I'll try to make it up to you somehow. Senator, thank you for being here.

What did you make of that? You know them in, personally. Yes, and he's been my congressman and humor is a large part of his style, but obviously he's very emotional about this situation. I mean, you saw when he said he wasn't going to be going to Washington, and he'd be staying. I think it's unfortunate, all of the innuendo, and I'm hopeful that he will be cleared, but we'll have to wait and see, till there is some further information. But I also want to say that the state is lucky that he'll continue to be here, because we're entering some rough waters. In the legislature, they're going to have to deal with, you know, 500 million revenue deficit. I think it's going to be very difficult. He's a very strong leader, and he outlined a lot of good ideas, and I think we're fortunate he'll still be with us. Sure. Are you good to see you? Nice to be here. And you're here? You know, it came to me last week that perhaps we should at some level applaud the legislature who has been actually quite elegant and quiet about the situation with the governor up to this point.

No one's really come out and really try to land on the man's neck, and they're really focusing on doing the state's business, it seems, to me, despite everything else that's going on. Well, you know, it was such a bombshell on January 4th, and for Lieutenant Governor Dennis, who received the call while shopping in Washington, D.C., and for the battles for the leadership of the Senate. I mean, there was so much effect for lobbyists for the citizens, it really pulled the rug out from under a lot of people. So humor is his style, and he's charming in that way, but I think that one of the reasons there's not a lot of blowback is that people, it's taken a lot of people time to get their feet back on the ground. But Tim Jennings, who has recently elected Senator Jennings, President of the Senate, said, I'm really glad that we're going to have the same governor from the beginning of the session all the way through, because there are so many big issues you can't have, you know, the acts have shift halfway through. It's got to be one hand so that everyone will know who they're dealing with and what the expectations are.

Now, with that out of the way, let's know what the governor had to say about his so-called year of fiscal restraint. Everyone understands why this must be the year of fiscal restraint. Some are offering a pessimistic view of our future, but pessimism never built the road, never taught a student, never immunized a child, it never protected our streets, never created a job, and pessimism will not solve this crisis. Jim Scarantino, I have to imagine that perhaps the governor's had some conversations with President Barack Obama, because, you know, that seems to be what is in the culture right now. We need optimism to get through problems. Did you like the tone he set for this? It came early in the speech, and pessimism is always the wolf at the heels in this state. The problem with his statement is that why wasn't last year the year of fiscal restraint? And the year before that, I mean, last year was the year of fiscal excess, and before

that it was the year of fiscal excess. And for him now to say this will be the year of fiscal restraint, I think is more than a bit disingenuous. Considering also the fact where he was a scant five months ago when senators Jennings and Senator John Arthur Smith were saying, in special session governing, you don't give away hundreds of millions of dollars. We don't have it. And he was just piling on them when he was at the peak of his power at the time. And he was hammering Tim Jennings, if you remember. And I think he's been severely weakened. He didn't win his first battle. He did not want Tim Jennings back there. He wanted somebody who would cooperate with him. He wanted senators to see Sneros from Cuesta, and we had this new raft of progressives that were supposedly going to have this revolution in the Senate and give Governor Richardson the person he wanted. Thank goodness it didn't happen because we would not have that year of fiscal restraint. The one good thing here is the balance we have in the Senate right now with Senator Jennings

keeping his position. Sure. I'll talk to you that a little bit. That's an interesting point about what the return of Senator Jennings made. Yes, because the Democrat caucus, when Richardson was still going to be leaving to go to Washington to become a secretary, had voted as a caucus for Cisneros to take over. But then after January suddenly they realized a lot of senators realized that they needed someone who could stand up to the Governor and Jennings and the Governor get along in very respectful mono-amano sort of way. But you can count on Tim Jennings to be honest and to speak his truth. And I think once he explained what happened during the election with the Senator Rossin situation when he as President pro-Tem of the Senate spoke against a senator who he felt was being disrespected. They were accusing of being dishonest and he felt that Rossin wasn't honest man and so he spoke. That got spined in the old tit for tat politics is like, oh, he's siding with the enemy. And that's what the most important thing coming back to your pessimism quote, Barack Obama

and his inauguration speech said, he said, to the cynics of this plan, the ground beneath you has shifted. Things are different now. And one thing that you can count on with Senator Jennings, you see he didn't do tit for tat. He didn't throw everyone who voted against him out of their committees. No. This is a man and most of the senators are who are aligned to a higher purpose. The state has real problems now, let's get to work and fix them. The Governor also mentioned and probably one of the most talked about parts of his speech was dipping into the reserve fund, let's hear that. The engine of this economic plan is a strong, responsible and balanced budget. The target's cuts where we can manage it, maintain services where we need it and make strategic investments to create more jobs. My budget does not demand and across the board cut for every agency. And it does not raise taxes, nor cut our most essential services.

For the last six years, I've staunchly defended a 10 percent reserve or a rainy day fund. But if our national economy is the weather, then it's raining hard. So I propose that we draw down our rainy day fund from 10 to 8 percent, enough to preserve our high bond rating and help balance our budget. Senator Eisenstadt, this is a big issue for a lot of legislators. A lot of them just do not want to touch this any way, shape or form. Have we gone there a little too early with this idea of a 2 percent dip? Should we be trying other things first before we start talking about it? No, I think we have to talk about this also. And as you know, I've served on the Senate Finance Committee and the House Appropriations Committee, and we have always dealt with all of the issues that are going to be headlined this session.

To govern is to choose, you have to choose who gets and who loses. And unfortunately, this session is going to be not so much people getting more money, but losing more money. I can recall there were times during my time in the legislatures, over a dozen years, that the fund was less than 10 percent. The Rainy Day fund was put there for just this kind of a time. I mean, this economy nationally is being referred to as the same kind of a time as when FDR came into office. So everything that's available, we are lucky to have a Rainy Day fund. And I think it needs to be included and it needs to be discussed. And I think it's a good idea to look there. And to help pull that out and also find other ways to put money back in. There were a lot of things in the governor's speech which would require new money. That's going to be harder to come by.

We've discussed that a little bit earlier, but I think the first job is to look at how we're going to choose, how this is going to work. One of resources is another way of saying it, when I said on Senate Finance, it was whirlwind. Every agency is coming in with their budget. And how much are you going to put in here and everybody wanted more money. I mean, everything from the state police to the judges to all the necessary things and then all the other things. And it's a tough job. I don't envy the legislators this go around. Whitney, why not in across the board cut for every agency? I can say that's welcome news for the Republicans, but when we're talking about the fun, I mean I'm no financial expert here, but it's my understanding that the fund that the governor saw you mount, this 10%, is actually a combination of about five funds, which includes the tobacco settlement. It includes the education lock box. These were never intended as rainy day funds. The actual rainy day fund is the reserve that's in the general fund.

And when Governor Johnson was in office, he left about 6% in the general fund. This governor has already drawn down to about 3%, and that is the real rainy day funds. So the problem is, even though we had these really good years, we were still going after our reserves, which means that now we're talking about dropping it down an additional 2% for funds that we are not supposed to be hitting on down years. The other thing is that the governor's proposed spending is actually about 105 million in cuts and 75 million in new spending. So he's not, even though he's talking about 105 million in cuts, there's still huge amounts in new spending. And his entire speech was all about all kinds of new initiatives, so he talks about fiscal or strength. You have the same feeling I've heard this from others as well that they heard two different things going on here. I didn't hear this great speech that would be befitting of the year of fiscal restraint. I didn't hear him say, I've gone to the executive branch where we've seen this, and I've said it repeatedly on this show.

We have seen tremendous wage inflation in political appointees. They are making so much more than the average family of four, and it continued to go up and up and up while the oil prices went up and up. Boy, you want to talk about a recession-proof sector of the economy. That's the fourth floor. I really wanted to hear him say, my friends, my appointees, we're all making a sacrifice because he's asking teachers to make a sacrifice. He's calling on teachers to work harder to meet higher standards. He's talking about bigger classroom sizes. He's talking about cutting a day of school from children. On the one hand, he shined it on, but on the other hand, he did, he enrolled his grand vision. Almost like he just let his imagine- I read the speech, he let it run wild, and he was just, what part of human affairs did he not touch in his speech where he has some new initiative? It has to change. It has to change. It has to change. I thought Obama had the ability and the right to talk about an optimistic future because he wasn't straddled with what happened in the economy for the past eight years.

Governor Richardson has to take responsibility for the difficulties that we're going to be going through now. He has been leading us for six years. We're in the boat that we are in a lot of ways on a state level because of his commitment to increasing programs and spending. So yeah, I mean, we're going to talk about being pessimistic, you know? We're not going to talk about being pessimistic, you know? We want to get some other stuff in there, sorry, Senator, because one of the other things he mentioned that Jim just brought up was schools in funding. Let's listen to what he had to say about that. It's also time to change the school funding formula. A 2007 study found our current formula no longer focusing on the needs of schools and students. It also estimated our schools are underfunded by $350 million. Each year, many schools, especially small and rural ones, must ask for emergency supplemental funding just to keep their doors open.

If we expect our schools to achieve, we must give them adequate tools to do so and then demand accountability for their results. This funding formula change will demand more resources, and I support it. But an investment of this size deserves the direct approval of the voters of New Mexico. And we will continue to invest in pre-kindergarten because we've already seen the achievement gap begin to close, as young graduates from every background, disadvantage, or English language learners in her school ready to learn. And in order to improve student achievement and mathematics, I'm proposing that we increase the math requirement for new elementary and middle school teachers. There's a lot to chew on there, but one of the big takeaways, of course, is his point that it's going to have to go to the voters to have a tax increase on this, but then the news came out a couple of days after that, that we're going to have to have a constitutional

change in order for that to happen as well. This is a very big push. Yes, but the educators have been trying for a couple of years now with Mimi Stewart and Cynthia Naughton to try to get this because we, as a state, are vulnerable to lawsuits because of our inequities in our funding formula. So they tried two years ago, they tried last year, and people kind of shown it on. And now it's almost as if that ship has sailed. They wanted to do a one-cent raising gross receipts tax at a time when everyone is really hurting. It's just political suicide to do that. So throwing it back in the voters will end up like California, where the voters pass all these things that the state doesn't have the money to fulfill. I mean, California has a $40 billion deficit because of all those propositions that all the voters happily voted on. So I think that is, I think there has to be another solution than going to the voters and making another constitutional amendment. Sure. What do you think, Pauline? Do you think it makes a good point there? It's a double-edged sword here. It stinks either way.

I think it's going to be very difficult, but I understand going to the voters on this kind of thing. I think he's sincere in wanting to improve and reform the education funding formula, and this is a way to look at it. And don't forget, everything we do in the legislature, you do it one year, and you might not get it through the public begins to understand the need for it, and then you come back the next year. It's not always full-blown success, so that we have to understand that. But I want to go back to something both of our colleagues over here we're talking about. You know, Richardson has been the governor during great times in so many ways. He's been the leader. We're the 20th in terms of job growth in the country. He's provided an innovative state in terms of supercomputers and new tech businesses. I've watched a lot of this, and TV in the film industry. So a lot of things that he's been doing, people have been very happy about. I think he's been a very strong governor, and I've served with four.

I think he's really contributed a lot. So the times now aren't so good, so things are going to have to change a little bit, for sure. Let me go back to the school funding formula, Whitney, that Senator makes a good point. These things always happen, you know, right in that particular session. It doesn't do much for rural schools who are really hurting and really having it like he mentions, ask for interim funding they just get through the year. What are they supposed to do here? Well, I think that there's more things that they can do in terms of funding without changing the entire funding formula in order to, you know, help affected schools. I think that everybody recognizes that we do need to do something with the funding formula. I think where the discussion's going to come in is how much funding are we going to add in terms of what's going to be going to the schools. I mean, $350 million, I don't know where the heck we're going to get that. This year, I mean, we may want to start looking at some of the school districts that have got like an administrative to student ratio of one to four or one to five. I mean, the national average is one administrator to 14 students and you look at APS and they've probably got one to four, one to five.

So, you know, there's ways where costs can be cut that don't take dollars away from the classroom. And the whole idea, the pre-K thing, when we added that, you know, the pilot project and then started pushing that forward, we were adding in an entire another year, an entire another year of classes for students and we, at the time knew, we couldn't even fully fund what it was that we had K through 12. So, his continuing commitment to that program is going to continue to strain the budget. Can you do this sound like an idea that should have come up last year? It just sounds out of sync with what he wants to do. It did come up last year, I mean, they couldn't get it through. But we didn't hear from Governor Richardson any real new creative thinking on education. He echoed a problem that we've been facing. He did not work on that issue the past year. I mean, if this is so critical, he did not lift one finger to resolve that issue in the past year because he was busy, you know, pursuing a job promotion to Washington DC to be blunt about it. We need new thinking on this. There are several proposals out there, think New Mexico has a proposal about smaller schools, which I would have loved to have heard Governor Richardson talk about, the ways to be more

efficient with the money we spend to improve the horrendous, dismal dropout rates in our schools. And it's a radical idea, but I think we should start looking at using our permanent funds. We are sitting on top of billions of dollars, billions less than we had months ago, but we've created a whole investment industry in this state to manage the billions of funds that have been accumulating. Other states don't have this, and they have better school systems. Why not use those billions, some of the 350 million is less than we've lost, I think, in some of the bad investments that our managers have been making for us. You know, this Vanderbilt thing was 90 million, just like that. 350 million out of the billions we got, it's sitting there without raising taxes, which I don't think we can do not only for politics, it would be economically disastrous. If you want a stifled expenditure, you want to hurt the people that are hurting the most right now, that's the lower income people. They get slammed the hardest with gross receipts tax raises. I think we need to look at the permanent funds and some new creative thinking on education.

Instead of the same tired sound bites from this governor. Another sound bite, another one we have for you, is actually an idea about creating a task force for fair and equal pay, very interesting. This week I will sign a new executive order creating a task force on fair and equal pay. This task force will look for ethnic, racial, and gender gaps, as well as job segregation in every state agency and offer solutions for closing those gaps. And if we are going to be fair and how we treat our workers, then we must also be fair in how we treat our families and fully extend this session domestic partnership rights. Sound like there were some good feedback there, however, there were two different things there.

Two very different things there, and it finished with, of course, domestic partnership, but started with this task force, which I will give you either one you want to take on. Well, the domestic partnership, because one of the things that was so important about this Senate, the battle for the leadership in the Senate was that with more conservative people in charge, the progressive branch felt that their chance to get the domestic partnership bill passed was going to be less likely. So that is always just one of the hot button issues. We've watched so many of these issues get resolved. How many years did we go to the cockfighting area? How many years did we go to medical marijuana? And how many years has it been for domestic partnership? So I'm really interested. If that is one of the few ones that he is really going to push, I'm really interested in watching its progress. How did it strike you, Senator, from a legislative point of view? Yeah, there were two different issues here. And I think that it's time to do the domestic partnership rights. Everybody understands, you know, if your partner is in the hospital, you have to be able to go and visit all of the obvious things.

I don't know that how much fight they'll be in the Republicans in the Senate. There's only 15 of them. But I think that isn't going to be as big an issue. I think the idea of appointing a fair and equal pay task force is a good one. I know Martha Burke, she's very good, thoughtful, she'll put something together and maybe they'll come up with something that's useful. I think the major issue really is the budget. So these things will continue to happen. I think the ethics legislation you're going to get to next, I expect. I think those issues will be, you know, at the top of the agenda. And it's the money. The money is key this year. How are they going to spread out the budget? How are they going to have enough to cover the state agencies? How will they do some of the other things that are necessary? I know I represent a real rancher for so many years. That school district was growing so fast, they never had enough money. So one of the things that they can do is put more money in the capital outlay fund for

fast growing districts. There are things that can be done if the changing of the whole funding formula doesn't happen this year. And let me take that moment. You mentioned ethics and with your guys permission, I do want to swing to that because we're a little bit short on time. Whitney, clearly folks were waiting to hear from this governor what his stand was going to be on ethics reform. What was your feeling about it? Well, again, because, you know, Governor Richardson has the ability of the state of dress and you also have the Democrats in the legislature. They're defining what it means to reform ethics. And one of the things that a lot of the Republican legislators have been talking about this year is how do we get our message out of what it is that we think needs to happen. And I think that you're going to start hearing that. But I was laughing when you said the number 15 because this weekend I watched the movie 300 for the first time about Sparta. And you know, with their shields and everything, you know, I just had this visual of our poor 15 senators trying to hold off the domestic partnership bill. But, you know, I think that that's probably going to get passed. But I think that that is going to be the result of the six-loss legislative seats. We were barely able to stop that legislation before.

We always have some Republicans who crossover and vote for that. I would anticipate that getting passed. Sure. Ethics. What do you think? Well, this is Governor Richardson's speech on ethics. And as for ethics reform, I was, I was, I was, I was, I was, I was, I was, I was, I was, I don't know. No. Look, a report came out just days before he gave this speech about a nonprofit he had that raised $1.7 million, and we don't know who the donors are. We don't know where the money went. If this Governor wants to lead on ethics, it starts with him. Why doesn't he start with, he wants disclosure, well, practice disclosure. Reveal those names, Governor, tell the people, whoever your treasure was, whoever handled the books to disclose those names. He wants campaign caps because, you know, contribution caps, you know, it's kind of contributing this and that. He didn't need to take $150,000 from one individual when he had no effective competition. I don't know that this Governor is going to lead on this. And what we're already seeing on D.D. Feldman's Watered Down Ethics proposal is the Ethics Commission will have no teeth.

It'll just get together and talk. They won't have any subpoena power to investigate. It's got four appointments by the Governor, too, doesn't it? It's so outrageous that we, 44 other states all have ethics commissions that we don't even have an ethics commission, but compare his paragraph on ethics in the Governor's statement state to what Obama did on his first day. Sure. He immediately stepped up and he said, you know, about one of the Governor's things is, if you've worked in my, if you're a lawmaker, you've got a way to year, Barack Obama said, if you've been in my administration, you can never get a job lobbying as long as I am president. He also said, we're going to go for openness. This, this government has been too secret. We are going to err on the side of transparency and too much information. Oh, my goodness, if we could see that in New Mexico. Well, but- Thirty seconds. Yes, yes. The first ethics legislation in the 80s, four years in a row. Every year, I was in the house at the time. I got every signature of everybody in the, in the house of representative, and I had Republican co-sponsors always.

I got four committee referrals. We finally did get something passed, but it was watered down. We were able to do blackouts, so you couldn't get contributions while you were putting bills on or having agendas in the legislature. We did get a legislative ethics committee, which I don't think has ever been very functional. We need ethics reform, and I think Senator D.D. Feldman and Attorney General Gary King are going to work very hard on this, and I think the legislators understand the need. And I think the public needs to be very responsive to this and call their legislators. We can get something done here. It's a timely issue. Absolutely. Now, we should mention you can watch the entirety of the state of the state address by heading to our website at nemexicoandfocus.org, just click under the web exclusives tab, or look at our blog. Now, it's time for David to sit down with a few of the legislators' newest members to find out their early experiences and their upcoming expectations for the session. Thanks, Jane.

Right now, I am joined in studio by two new Democratic Senators, Eric Riego and Tim Keller, both here from the Metro Albuquerque Area. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us today. Thank you, sir. Maybe first question, Senator Griego, to you, your new senator. This is the first week of the legislature. What did you make of week one? Well, it was mostly getting organized. It was already learning some lessons. We got our committee assignments and kind of learning a little bit about the rules. You know, no major fireworks other than the leadership, little surprise in the leadership. But it's been quite an adventure already, so. We'll talk about the leadership fireworks in a second. But we were up in Santa Fe, a academy on Tuesday, and we saw the governor's speech. He laid out a lot in that agenda mentioned. I think one of the bills that you'll be working on, what did you make of the governor's speech? You know, I thought it was optimistic. I agreed with a lot of it. I think I have some concerns about his approach to balancing this budget in terms of who should bear the brunt of the, of really balancing the, but the state budget.

But I think, by and large, I agreed with a lot of what he said. Certainly, the ethics reform proposals that he says he supports the green jobs, initiatives that he supports. So I'm hoping we can get some of that done. Senator Tim Keller, no unlike Senator Griego here who's been in the city council. This is your first stint as an elected official, I believe. What was week one like for you up in Santa Fe? You know, I mean, it was a bit of a whirlwind for sure on the first day, just the mix of ceremony and some meaningful votes that we had to make. But then the last few days have been very enjoyable in terms of getting to know the system, how the rules work, and starting to get the committee process, getting some bills rolling and things like that. So for me, I've learned a lot already and hopefully I'm doing a couple of things that'll help out in the long term. Rick mentioned fireworks to the start of the session, of course, there was a leadership battle, Tim Jennings versus Carlos Cisnetos for the President Pro Tem position, the top

position in the state senate. You were on the committee on committees that the Senate President Pro Tem appoints. What did you make of that battle and where did you come down? Sure. Well, I think, you know, what I learned is there's lots of history there, and especially, you know, being a newcomer. I mean, this people have been there 20, 30 years. And there's all sorts of things that come into play that are institutional backgrounds between the houses and between the different branches of government, you know, as well as the individuals that play. And, you know, I think at the end of the day, it was wonderful to see that folks, there was no retribution, basically the same committee structure state intact as was there before. And I think the leadership did a great job actually of, you know, essentially keeping folks together and setting this on a road towards really functionality going forward. Where did you come down on the leadership battle, Jennings versus Cisnetos? I voted for a Carlos Cisnetos, he was the caucus choice. Eric, you voted the same way?

I was part of the Cisnetos 19 in the end, so there were eight Democrats who voted with the Republicans. And for those out there who are unaware of these particular positions, President Pro Tem, Majority Leader, why is that meaningful? What does the Pro Tem do in terms of the state Senate? Well, the Pro Tem's most important function is really kind of kicking the structure of a particular session off, essentially signing the committee and committees and really having most say on who gets assigned where, which is very, very important to our process. Because under the New Mexico legislative process, committees have enormous power. A committee chair can kill a bill, can sit on a bill, and that's the end of it. You could have a whole House who votes, which often happens, the House of Representatives will pass a vote on the floor of the House, go over to the Senate and one committee chair can kill it, and vice versa. So the Pro Tem decides who sits on what committee. The Pro Tem also is sort of the ceremonial head of the legislature. I'm sure he does some other things, but the real power lies in the Majority Floor Leader,

which in this case is Senator Michael Sanchez from Valencia County, who really determines when bills are heard, what committees they go to, and of course when they're heard on the floor, which is very, very important. Again, under our process, it's really easy to kill bills. It's hard to keep them moving. Tim, this year, of course, the Democrats, both of you are Democrats, expanded their majorities in both the State Senate and the House, actually pretty big expansion, already big majorities, now they're even bigger. What do you think that means for this session? Some people say it's a more progressive legislature, maybe the prospects of some of the hot button bills, like domestic partnerships, the repeal of capital punishment, may actually fare better this year than others. What's your take on how the new Democratic majorities are going to affect this session? Sure. Well, I think there's maybe two parts to that. I mean, one is I certainly hope a lot of these issues that we've been looking at for quite some time will get through, and that has to do with the ethics reform and some

health care initiatives, and I'm even carrying a couple of bills that have been done in the past solely on the hopes that now that we have a couple of extra votes, they're going to get through. Now, that being said, especially in the Senate, individuals have a certain amount of power, in particular, it comes down to the right to filibuster, where gaining or losing a couple of seats doesn't alleviate the need to work across the aisle. So I think you're still going to see that play out, especially in the Senate. The same question Eric, even though the Democrats have a bigger majority, it was the Republicans who helped elect Tim Jennings, also a Democrat, the pro-tem, re-elect him as pro-tem. What's your take on this more Democratic legislature? Well, I'm a little more circumspect. I think some of us were hoping that with great new senators like Senator Keller here, that we were going to be able to get perhaps some of these issues off the dime, based on what the committee structure looks like, it looks like this deal that was essentially negotiated between the eight Democrats and the 15 Republicans, has largely left politically in terms of where

the power centers are, largely where they were before, meaning we may have three more Democratic votes, there are now 27 Democrats in the Senate, out of 42, out of 42, 15 Republicans, but effectively in terms of control of committees, as I see it, and Senator Keller may have a different view, the votes are about where they were last session, unfortunately, and I think some of our folks are really concerned about that. Our time is running short, but one issue I definitely wanted to ask about Eric, Ethics Reform, Tim mentioned it. It's certainly in the headlines these days with the federal investigation ongoing in terms of the governor and CDR financial. What are the prospects for Ethics Reform contribution limits in terms of campaigns and Ethics Commission, public financing? I think that's one of your bills. I have sponsored the public financing bill. I'm optimistic that it will get a fair hearing, but again, I have to say that based on what I'm hearing from the committee process and so on, there doesn't seem to be the level of receptivity that I was expecting, certainly, after some of these scandals.

I think some of bills will get through. I think at the end of the day, unfortunately, we're going to look at a very small set of bills. We're finding, say I'm carrying a one-year ban between being a legislator and a lobbyist. The Ethics Commission, the first initial test, was on our first day when that bill was introduced in the House, and it was assigned to three committees in the Senate, which is not a good sign. Not a good sign. My public financing bill was assigned to three committees in the Senate. I hate to be downer, but it doesn't look like much has changed in terms of what's happened in outside of that round building and the decisions that are being made about taking ethics seriously. Tim, as I understand it, a couple of your priorities, one, a solar tax credit here in New Mexico and another that ties into the ethics reform issue, this pay-to-play bill in which contractors, there would be some limits. Can you talk about those bills? It's, the pay-to-play one's very basic. It just says that if you have the intention of being a contractor or our contractor, you wouldn't be able to contribute to statewide elections.

This is similar to what the city has in Connecticut and Illinois. I think this really cuts to the heart of the issue of pay-to-play, and all these ethics reforms are important, but I think this will be a good barometer to see really how far we're willing to go in terms of trying to control pay-to-play issues and politics. Maybe one last question with the time remaining, Eric, first, was there anything that happened this week that maybe for folks who aren't insiders haven't been up to Santa Fe? Maybe would like to know about how their citizen legislature works? Anything that happened, well, you know, one of the things that was very gratifying is despite the fact that there were folks in different sides of the leadership fight, I felt like folks are really trying to come together. It was my birthday, and there was a really, people make a big deal of really acknowledging their colleagues and welcoming their families and welcoming the new members. They've been great, no matter what we view, I think they've been really great at welcoming the eight new freshmen, and so that was kind of refreshing that it was such a kind of

a warm, collegial environment on the first few days, so let's hope it stays that way, so. Maybe about 10 seconds, anything you'd add to that? Sure. It's a wonderfully public process, and I mean, as soon as we adjourn, citizens can even come onto the floor and meet us, and I've just found, I've been wonderfully impressed actually at how accessible everyone is to the public and to each other. I mean, there's very few walls or barriers or gates put up in terms of working with your elected officials. Well, Matt, no, we're going to have to end this conversation, but thanks so much, gentlemen, Eric Riego, Tim Keller for sharing your perspective week one. Hopefully, we'll have you back. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Now, it's, well, actually, I should say that's just the beginning of our conversation with local lawmakers. We got a chance to speak with a few others. If you want to check out those interviews, just go to our website at New Mexico, in focus.org or at NewMexicoNependent.com. Now it's time to throw it back to Gene and the line panels for their take on this week's news. Thanks, David. Running out of time on this week's show, but I just wanted to give you guys a chance

to weigh in on what happened Tuesday with the inauguration of our first African American president, Barack Obama-Larine, why don't you start first? What did you get at? I was so moved. First of all, the age of responsibility and the restraint. We know that this man can soar rhetorically, but he chose to focus on some things, what he said to the nations of the world. I think that's the part that I like the most, that we will take your hand and help you if you can unclench your fists. That was such a powerful image. And then, like they said, the real star of the address was the wide shot because there across the Washington Mall, 1.4 million people cheering, and it was just a very powerfully incredibly moving. Many of them, unfortunately, couldn't make it to the stands because they had the rest of security. That was very unfortunate. Senator, you've seen your share of both local and national swearing-ins. How did they continue your heart? Oh, that's where it hit all of us in our heart. I'm from Florida, so I was a child when a lot of the segregation was still obvious.

And I'm just so happy that I've lived, that my lifetime, this kind of thing has been able to happen. And I've talked to a lot of friends and colleagues and everybody is so emotional about this. The parties and the jubilation and the happiness, I think it's almost too much for his shoulders to bear. So we're just all hoping it all. He can handle as much as we need him to handle immediately in terms of the economy. And I read his speech the next day. It reads beautifully. It's hard when he speaks it. He was looking for the ask not what you can do, kind of a phrase. I didn't hear those kind of phrases, but when you read it, it's magnificent. I haven't done the young one. Read it. And he spoke not just to the mall, the two million people there. I had some relatives there. He was speaking also to the world. My younger son was in Panama and business and he said everything stopped. And they went to the TV.

And this is not unique. It happened all over the world. Yeah. On that point, it's interesting I was on the BBC website. Yes. On one of my favorite websites, of course, that they were talking about that. They were hopeful that they could help to see black folks rise in Great Britain to assume some of the major party's status at some point in the actual quote that caught me was in the next 20 to 30 years. Yes. And you realize, holy cow, there's a lot of folks that are still struggling with this. So we think sometimes we're behind a lot of these things, but we're leading Jim in something that's resonating around the world. And this is where the American dream was pointed. And we are so far ahead of other nations. You will not see an Algerian rise to lead France in our lifetime. We won't see a Turkish immigrant leading Germany. You're not going to see an Asian leading Russia. This is the American dream in practice for a country that was so drenched in the evil of slavery and Jim Crow and segregation. And then you see, Reverend, I'm going to get choked up.

And Reverend Lowry, who stood behind Martin Luther King, you know, behind the first African American president. You know, I thought I was over this Tuesday. I know. I couldn't have happened if he didn't have this particular person. No, he's a remarkable person. He's a amazing person. I've got to, not to ask you to further fly in the ointment here, certainly, but a lot of folks I've talked to did have a bit of an issue with what they felt was a couple of shots from our new president towards the outgoing president. And I forgot the actual lines, but they were a little uncomfortable that why not just let it go and move on? Well, you know, there's been some quiet little things said, but I think what most impressed me about this day was that everybody, for the most part, I mean, 99 out of 100 people were so incredibly respectful about the inauguration, about the fact that this really was an historic day for all of us. And I think that everybody recognized that. And, you know, even though there were little things said they're always are, I remembered, you know, when President Bush was elected, there was so much hatred.

There was so much animosity. There was so much. We'll never work with him. There was in the air that marked, you know, from day one of his presidency that Barack Obama is not going to have that. I mean, you have Republicans. You have everybody standing back and saying, OK, you know, we're going to work with you. We're going to stand with you on the things that we believe. We're going to oppose you on the things that we don't, but it's been respectful. And it was a good day. I mean, the number of people that, you know, talked about how the kids in class were crying and everything. OK, you know, it wasn't a historic day. And I think it was one to embrace. Give me the last word, Lorina. I appreciate the fact that he got busy right off the bat. Absolutely. Well, what I love is, is that he says the world has changed and we have changed. But also change has changed because it was a clarion call to lead the troops up to the battle. And now it's a responsibility. And we all have to embrace that change, make it happen in our own lives and happen and take government and happen on the national level. Well said. Very well said. All right. For a few weeks each January, Albuquerque becomes the center of the world, at least in terms

of live theater. This is the ninth year that trick-lock theater company has held their revolutions festival here in the Duke City, featuring some of the top acts and names from around the globe. It's a very special event that happens at various venues across the city through the end of the month. I recently spoke with the founding artistic director of the festival along with members of the Ofer Amram company from Tel Aviv and for a look behind the scenes at this Albuquerque original. Puppets have a poetic quality to them. Usually they say there are two kinds of the puppet manipulation.

There is the grotesque, which is mostly used for comedy or for children's show where the puppets are kind of, you know, moving and doing things and there are what you call lyrical, my puppet manipulation, which is resembles humans or kind of, there's something said about puppets. The more the puppet looks human, the actually less human it is. The extreme of it like if you see a mannequin in a shop, they never look human, they look like human, they have hair and eyes, but they feel not human and the more you keep it a bit abstract like our puppets, which are basically white and you can keep this kind of magic and this emotional thing. Well, thank you for letting us watch you rehearse a little bit as I was watching. It really struck me that the use of full-size or smaller than full-size puppets and mannequins, you're telling a very interesting story here. Why that choice and what's the story you're trying to tell? So I wanted to go on that note and create like a sad fairy tale I called it about this lonely man who creates the puppets.

The first idea I had was a man holding a puppet of a woman and a puppet of a child on his shoulder and his operating both of their heads parallel like a family and then I started asking myself questions about this image, why did he create a family of puppets and then I thought maybe he's lonely and then he wants to create this perfect world for himself and then I thought what if he is someone else's story, what if he is a puppet of someone else and then I added that part of the story and so the slowly slowly I started to build it. When I come to the world that offers create I want to play by the rules so I see which kind of image I would like to have for a woman and I'm trying to fill it so I think I create

maybe a bit a stereotype of a woman like she's very soft and very gentle but at the same time I'm trying to give her a specific character, the relationship between two adult people that wants one of them wants a relationship and the other just avoid it or have difficulties choosing it. Just like people. Absolutely. Joe Paracchio, founding artistic director for the Trick Lock Theatre Company, housed here at UNM, we're here at Rode and behind us a tale of a lonely man is being rehearsed as part of the 9th annual Revolutions Theater Festival. 9th annual, 9 years. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you. It's the biggest year we've ever had. What's happening this year? Tell us. Well, I'll tell you some real good statistics, 35 shows in three weeks, 10 venues between here in Santa Fe, mostly in Albuquerque, shows from Israel, which is a tale of a lonely

man from Tel Aviv, also shows from Belgrade, Serbia, Poland, also New York City. Los Angeles and artists from all over, also from Illinois, from lots of other places in the States coming into. I feel like Revolutions is a haven right now for people who need it. You guys hit the road, you go around the world, you perform, but you also collaborate with groups and you bring them back here to Albuquerque. Tell me what the philosophy about Trick Lock, why you wanted to do it that way. Well, you know, the truth of the matter is that we, it's kind of our deal with the community. We have always loved the idea of creating original theater that was in styles that are unique, not just naturalism, for instance. Although we do some naturalistic plays at times, but we've always been turned on by the theater of the whole world, all kinds of different stuff. And so our deal with the community is, look, everyone, support us as artists in our efforts to make this wild and interesting stuff, and in our efforts to tour the world and see

more of it and show Albuquerque and our work to the world. And we promise you that after your support, we'll find the most interesting stuff we can find and bring it back. Another part of the philosophy here is that if a young person were studying here at the university and they only learned what they learned in an academic setting, they wouldn't know the full scope of what theater can be or is. All the styles from silent theater to puppet theater to, I mean, you name it. If they see styles that connect with them while they're in school, they might run away with the circus. And that's the point is that we would love these students to know there's a full career out there for them, there's ways to tour, make a living, and be artists, and not have to give up because you haven't been exposed to what's really out there. The truth of the matter is people are coming because it's an institution, but also I think that people are coming, to be honest with you, because of the recession. People are coming because of the wars, the hardship of, say, the last eight years of the

things that have happened since 9-11 in our country. And I think that, frankly, people need it. People need, we have an instinctual need to get together in dark rooms, hang out with other people, and exchange ideas, or go see comedy and laugh because we need to release stressful times, have always been good to the theater. We're in a world of a little bit of conflict right now, and some places, and a lot of conflict in some other places. Yeah. Where do you see the artist and art in bringing people together and solving conflict and things of that nature? I think the more you spread out the message of humanity and respect, and even if there's no respect, you see the consequences of it, it's in a way educating, and I think that the more people are not sitting in front of their television and coming to the theater to watch, to share an experience with a lot of people, and a positive one. It could be even a protest, again, something you believe in, or just a signal theater, or

it could help to bring people together in a way. Be sure to give us your opinions about any of the topics we've discussed on this week's show by heading to our blog at NewMexicoInfocus.org. You can also send us a topic idea for a future episode at infocusatcannemy.org. Until next week, thanks for watching.