New Mexico in Focus; 640; Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham

PARTIAL FUNDING FOR THE PRODUCTION OF NEW MEXICO InFOCUS PROVIDED BY THE McCUNE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION. >> THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO InFOCUS ... >> IF WE DON'T GET AN EXCHANGE UP AND WE DON'T MEET THESE DEADLINES, I THINK IT'S BAD FOR NEW MEXICANS. >> CONGRESSWOMAN MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM ON HER FIRST THREE MONTHS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. PLUS, "THE LINE" ON STEVE ALFORD. IN IOWA AND HE SAID, OH, YOU KNOW, WE STOLE YOUR COACH, STEVE ALFORD, AND THE CROWD GROANED AND THEY SAID, YOU CAN HAVE HIM. >> NEW MEXICO InFOCUS STARTS NOW! >> DESPITE STEVE ALFORD'S LOSING RECORD IN POST SEASON TOURNAMENTS AND AN EMBARRASSING LOSS TO HARVARD THIS YEAR, THE COACH WAS CONSIDERED THE FUTURE OF NEW MEXICO'S BASKETBALL PROGRAM, UNTIL HE LEFT FOR THE UCLA. "THE LINE" WILL WEIGH IN ON WHAT'S AHEAD FOR LOBO BASKETBALL AND WHAT IT MEANS TO THE STATE. WE'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPINION PANEL TAKE A LOOK AT SOME NOTABLE SIGNINGS AND VETOES BY GOVERNOR SUSANA MARTINEZ, AND REPRESENTATIVE MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM MAKES HER FIRST STOP BY THE STUDIO

SINCE TAKING OFFICE IN NEW MEXICO'S 1st CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. BUT WE BEGIN WITH "THE LINE" AND A NEW REPORT ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN STATE LEGISLATURES THAT USE NEW MEXICO AS AN EXAMPLE. >> CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AMONGST STATE LEGISLATORS ARE NOT RARE, SAYS THE SENATE FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY, REPORT ON THE ISSUE HELD UP NEW MEXICO AS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN GO WRONG IN A CITIZEN LEGISLATURE. THE REPORT HIGHLIGHTED THREE REPUBLICANS AND ONE DEMOCRAT IN THE ROUNDHOUSE WHO ROUTINELY VOTE ON ISSUES THAT EFFECT THEIR INDUSTRIES, AND SOMETIMES THEIR LIVELIHOOD. HERE TO EXPLORE THE ISSUE FROM THE WAITE COMPANY PUBLIC RELATIONS, WHITNEY WAITE. REPORTER FOR THE NEW MEXICO WATCHDOG, OUR GOOD FRIEND ROB NIKOLEWSKI. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE NEW MEXICO LAW REVIEW, OUR REGULAR, SOPHIE MARTIN. AND WE'RE GLAD TO WELCOME BACK CO-FOUNDER OF THE NEW MEXICO COMPASS, MARGARET WRIGHT. NOW, IN ALMOST EVERY CASE, SAY FOR THAT OF SENATOR JOHN RYAN WHO WOULDN'T SPEAK TO THE REPORTER, LAWMAKERS SAID OF COURSE THEY VOTE ON ISSUES RELATED TO THEIR PROFESSION. WHO BETTER TO KNOW THE

IMPACT OF POTENTIAL LAWS, AND AFTER ALL, THIS IS A CITIZEN LEGISLATURE. SO ROB, THE QUESTION WE'LL START WITH IS THIS: JUST SIMPLY, ARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM, JUST PLAIN UNAVOIDABLE IN A CITIZEN LEGISLATURE? SHOULD WE JUST GET USED TO >> I THINK THEY ARE, AND I THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY UNAVOIDABLE EVEN IF YOU PAID THE LEGISLATORS. >> SERIOUSLY? >> WHICH IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT SUBJECT, AS WELL, BECAUSE -- LOOK AT IT THIS WAY. IF WE WANT TO HAVE EVERYONE TO BE ABSOLUTELY PRISTINE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT RETIRED PEOPLE WHO SERVE IN THE LEGISLATURE CAN'T VOTE ON SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUES AND PENSION ISSUES? DOES THAT MEAN THAT SOMEONE WHO IS RETIRED, OR SOMEONE LIKE DON BRATTON, THE MINORITY LEADER IN THE HOUSE, WHO IS A RETIRED OIL EXECUTIVE, HE CAN'T WEIGH IN ON OIL AND NATURAL GAS ISSUES? >> HOW ABOUT THIS. AS LONG AS NEITHER ONE OF THOSE GENTLEMEN HAVE A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST, WHAT WOULD BE THE ISSUE? SO IF THERE WAS A DIRECT

FINANCIAL INTEREST, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT THERE? >> WELL, THEN, HERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO THAT. MIMI STEWART, RETIRED TEACHER, SHE GETS A PENSION FROM THE ERB. LARRY LARRANAGA, REPUBLICAN, IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS, HE GETS A PENSION FROM, I BELIEVE FROM THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION. MEANS THAT THEY CAN'T VOTE ON THINGS? I THINK THAT WE END UP PARSING THIS THING TO SUCH A DEGREE, AND I MENTIONED THIS TO THE REPORTER WHO WROTE THAT STORY. I'M ALL FOR, LET'S HAVE ETHICAL BEHAVIOR, BUT I THINK THAT REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP HAVING CONFLICTS. >> OKAY. WHITNEY, IT'S INTERESTING, AND I WANT TO POSE THE SAME QUESTION THAT I DID TO ROB A SECOND AGO ABOUT FINANCIAL GAIN. MOST FOLKS CAN UNDERSTAND THAT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT THERE'S OTHER WAYS THIS CAN SEEM VERY SLIPPERY. IF THEY'RE REPRESENTING AN ASSOCIATION, PERHAPS, OR THE REPRESENTATIVE IS ACTUALLY TANGENTIALLY CONNECTED TO SOMETHING, IT'S VERY HARD TO TRACK WHO BENEFITS WHERE FROM A VOTE. SO YOUR POINT, IS THAT THE BOTTOM LINE FOR YOU, AS LONG AS THERE'S NO FINANCIAL INTEREST, CAN YOU LIVE WITH

>> YEAH, BECAUSE I THINK THAT YOU CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SIT BACK AND SAY, THIS PERSON IS GOING TO, YOU KNOW, ATTAIN SOME KIND OF A FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM A VOTE, OR WHETHER THEY'RE NOT. IT'S INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO DO THAT. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE AT THE LEGISLATURE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, AND MY OPINION OF IT IS, SUNLIGHT, SUNLIGHT, SUNLIGHT. YOU HAVE A LOT OF LEGISLATORS THAT RECUSE THEMSELVES WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THERE'S A CONFLICT. WITHIN THEIR OWN CAUCUS, THEY'RE AWARE IF THERE'S A CONFLICT. BECAUSE IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO DEFINE WITHIN A CITIZEN LEGISLATURE, I THINK TO A LARGE EXTENT OUR LEGISLATORS HAVE DONE THOSE THINGS. AND THE TRUTH IS, IF YOU HAVE A LEGISLATOR THAT DOES NOT RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM AN ISSUE THAT THEY SHOULD REALLY NOT BE VOTING ON, THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR THE VOTERS TO LOOK AT TWO YEARS OR FOUR YEARS INTO THE ELECTION, AND THEN THEY CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S THE BEHAVIOR THAT THEY WANT. SO I THINK ABOUT, TOO, CITING JUST THE RETIRED PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, IT'S THE ONES WHO ARE ACTUALLY ACTIVELY, LIKE WE HAVE MANY APS -- EXACTLY. SO WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?

IT'S INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. >> WHITNEY JUST BROUGHT UP A WORD, RECUSE. WERE TO RECUSE ONESELF. AND AS IT STANDS NOW, WE HAVE TO RELY ON LEGISLATORS TO SELF-REPORT. THEMSELVES. AND I WANTED TO SAY, GENE, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT I PROVIDED SOME VOLUNTEER LEGAL RESEARCH FOR THE REPORT THAT CAME OUT A YEAR AGO FROM THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY, ON WHICH A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION IS BASED. >> SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COMMENT. >> BUT I DIDN'T MAKE ANY MONEY ON IT. I THINK IT'S USEFUL -- YOU KNOW, WE SAY IT'S SO DIFFICULT, IT'S SO HARD, BUT ACTUALLY, WE HAVE LAWS THAT GOVERNS OUR NONPROFITS, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY A REASONABLE COMPARISON, BECAUSE OUR NONPROFITS ARE STEWARDS OF THE PUBLIC GOOD, THAT'S WHY THEY GET TAX EXEMPTIONS, ETC. AND HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH NONPROFITS. IF YOU'RE ON A BOARD OF A NONPROFIT AND YOU STAND TO BENEFIT FINANCIALLY, A FAMILY MEMBER WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY, SOMEONE WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY WHO IS YOUR SUPERVISOR, OR WHO PAYS YOU, OR WHO YOU HAVE A CONTRACT WITH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THE MONEY IS GOING TO FLOW DOWNSTREAM TO YOU, YOU'RE OUT. YOU CAN'T VOTE ON IT, AND YOU ALSO CAN'T BE A PART OF

THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS, MEANING YOU CAN'T BE PUSHING THE DECISION-MAKING. NOW, THE BOARD, THE GROUP, CAN ASK YOU QUESTIONS. SO THEY CAN SAY, HEY, MIMI STEWART, YOU ARE A FORMER EDUCATOR, TELL US WHAT YOU THINK YOUR OPINION IS ON THIS. BUT SHE NEEDS TO RECUSE HERSELF, AND THESE OTHER FOLKS NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM THE DECISION-MAKING. >> AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO GET RID OF THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE, LIKE THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANYBODY -- >> WELL, IT'S A REAL CHALLENGE IN TERMS OF HOW TO SET UP THE COMMITTEES. BUT IF WE WANT CLEAN GOVERNMENT, AND WE CERTAINLY WANT IT OTHER AREAS, AND I TEND TO THINK WE WANT IT HERE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO AT LEAST LOOK AT. ONE OF THE TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT NEW MEXICO IS, IT'S ENTIRELY SELF-POLICING, AND THERE IS NOBODY THAT WOULD TURN AND SAY, HEY, JACK RYAN, YOU ARE A LOBBYIST, ADMITTEDLY IN D.C., BUT STILL YOU'RE A LOBBYIST MAKING MONEY ON SOME OF THE SAME PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR HERE IN NEW MEXICO, THAT'S GOT TO STOP. NOW, WE SEE THE SUNLIGHT

COMING FROM REPORTING, BUT, YOU KNOW, ARE THE VOTERS GOING TO REMEMBER THAT? I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A POLICING MECHANISM WITHIN >> THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT THERE, BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TRIED TO DO THAT. YOU MENTIONED MIMI STEWART A SECOND AGO. SHE FOUGHT AT THAT FOR A LONG TIME. BUT MARGARET WRIGHT, WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME, WHAT I GOT OUT OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE QUOTES FROM OUR LOCAL FOLKS IS A VERY INTERESTING SENSE OF, I BUILT THIS, MEANING THIS REALLY INTERESTING ATTITUDE LIKE, I'M THE ONLY ONE IN THIS STATE, IN THIS BUILDING, WHO KNOWS THIS ISSUE. SO, THEREFORE, WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE ME VOTING ON THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE THAT STRIKES ME KIND OF ODD. I WASN'T QUITE CRAZY ABOUT THAT. >> WELL, TO ME THAT ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP THE BENEFIT OF HAVING PAID FULL-TIME LEGISLATORS, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A FULL-TIME LEGISLATOR WITH A DEDICATED STAFF OF PEOPLE, THEN YOU ARE NOT COMPLETELY RELIANT ON YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. YOU CAN TAKE THE TIME AND HAVE PEOPLE BACKING YOU WHO ARE PAID TO HELP YOU OUT AND WHO CAN BECOME EXPERTS ON THIS LEGISLATIVE ISSUE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. GO AHEAD, FINISH YOUR THOUGHT. >> NO, I WAS DONE. >> OKAY. TO PICK UP ON SOPHIE'S POINT, IS IT AN OUTSIDE AGENCY? IS THAT THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE THAT COULD GIVE SOME COMFORT TO VOTERS, HAVE THOSE DECISIONS MADE THAT WHITNEY JUST -- YOU KNOW, SOME REASON FOR THE VOTERS TO SAY, HEY, LOOK, I'M NOT SO CRAZY ABOUT THE WAY THIS IS DONE. >> I THINK THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION IS A REALLY BIG DEAL, AND THE FACT THAT THERE ISN'T AS MUCH TRANSPARENCY AS THERE COULD BE AS FAR AS THE ASSET DISCLOSURE, AND THAT THE DOCUMENTS AREN'T ALWAYS AS ACCESSIBLE AND READABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS THEY SHOULD BE. ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE POINTS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO BE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION. >> SURE. I WANT TO STAY WITH WHITNEY AND OUR POINT OVER ON THIS SIDE OF THIS TABLE, ROB, AND THAT IS THE IDEA THAT IN ANY DEMOCRACY, THE VOTER HAS TO HAVE A SAY IN THIS, AND IF THEY DISAPPROVE, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A MECHANISM. BUT IF WE HAVE NO MECHANISM, WE HAVE A PROBLEM, IT SEEMS TO ME, IF IT'S JUST SELF-REPORTING. WHAT'S YOUR IDEA ON WHAT THE NEXT POTENTIAL STEP IS THAT YOU COULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH IN WATCH-DOGGING THESE

KINDS OF THINGS? >> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS I MEAN, I THINK YOU HAVE TO RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE VOTERS AND YOU HAVE TO RELY ON THE INTEGRITY, TO VARYING DEGREES, OF THE LEGISLATORS, BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE'RE GOING TO START PAYING PEOPLE, THAT BRINGS UP THE QUESTION, HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO PAY? THEY MEET FOR 60 DAYS EVERY OTHER YEAR, 30 DAYS EVERY OTHER YEAR, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO GO TO INTERIM COMMITTEES, SO WHAT'S THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF MONEY? $20,000? $50,000? $75,000? AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION GOES TO THE FACT THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT SOME STATES, LIKE NEW YORK STATE, WHERE THEY HAVE A YEAR-ROUND LEGISLATURE THAT GETS PAID VERY WELL, IT'S A FULL-TIME JOB, THEY HAD A LOBBYIST SCANDAL LAST YEAR. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A SILVER BULLET TO THIS. MEXICO, THERE ARE PRETTY MUCH NO REPERCUSSIONS FOR A LEGISLATOR WHO BREAKS OR BENDS THE RULES.

I MEAN, WE HAVE A LAW THAT EXPLICITLY SAYS YOU CAN'T TAKE BRIBES. WE DON'T HAVE REALLY ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THERE'S NO LAW AGAINST DEALING, THERE'S NO LAW AGAINST NOT REPORTING, THERE'S NO REAL CRIMINAL CIVIL REPERCUSSION EXCEPT, OH, I DON'T GET TO GO BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE. AND SO IF I DON'T REPORT, IF I DON'T REPORT, THE WORST THAT HAPPENS IS THAT I DON'T GET ELECTED AGAIN. BOO-HOO. THE BEST THAT HAPPENS IS, I GET TO KEEP GOING, MAKING A PROFIT OFF MY VOTE FOR QUITE SOME PERIOD OF TIME. THERE'S NO LAW THAT COVERS ME. >> THERE WAS LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS. I REMEMBER THAT BILL PAYNE HAD ONE, AND KEN MARTINEZ HAD ONE. >> THEY'RE NOT DOING IT. >> THE OTHER THING I'LL SAY, TOO, GENE, IS THAT I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT PAYING OUR LEGISLATORS AND MAKING THEM FULL-TIME. I MEAN, IT'S NOT A REPUBLICAN POSITION AT ALL, BUT I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH

THAT, NOT BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD NECESSARILY END ANY KIND OF CORRUPTION, BUT BECAUSE IT WILL, HOPEFULLY, OR WOULD LEVEL OUT THE PLAYING FIELD IN TERMS OF THE TYPE OF PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND REPRESENTING US, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE RICH PEOPLE, WE HAVE LAWYERS THAT CAN TAKE THE TIME OFF, WE HAVE RETIREES. AND, YOU KNOW, GOD LOVE THEM FOR SERVING AND DOING THIS, BUT IF IT PAID ENOUGH THAT SOMEBODY COULD ACTUALLY LIVE AND FEED A FAMILY OFF OF, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE NURSES THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY RUN, AND ACCOUNTANTS THAT WOULD RUN. >> THAT'S THE THEORY. >> RIGHT, THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THIS LOOK AT LOBBYISTS, HEAVY LOOK AT LOBBYISTS OR OIL AND GAS EXECUTIVES AND THAT KIND OF THING. SO THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD START. >> THAT'S A GOOD THING TO THINK ABOUT FOR ALL OF US OVER THE WEEKEND, BECAUSE THAT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. NOW, AFTER THE BREAK, MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM. >> THE PERSON WHO'S GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY TAKE A LONG HARD LOOK AT HIS DECISION IS GOING TO BE STEVE ALFORD, BECAUSE IT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHEN, YOU KNOW, YOU COME TO KIND OF A SMALLER TOWN, A SMALLER PROGRAM, PEOPLE AREN'T PULLING IT APART, THEY'RE NOT PULLING YOU APART. IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL OF COMPETITIVENESS.

NOW, WELCOME UCLA? FORGET IT, HE'S NOT GOING TO HAVE A MOMENT'S PEACE OUT THERE. >> AFTER DECADES OF BEING A REPUBLICAN SEAT, NEW MEXICO'S 1st CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IS BEGINNING TO LOOK LIKE A SAFE SEAT FOR DEMOCRATS. REPRESENTATIVE MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM IS THE SECOND DEMOCRAT TO HOLD THE OFFICE. NOW, SHE'S BEEN IN WASHINGTON FOR JUST THREE MONTHS, BUT HAS ALREADY SEEN FIRSTHAND THE DIVISION IN THE NATION'S CAPITOL. SHE SAT DOWN THIS WEEK WITH PRODUCER MATT GRUBS. >> CONGRESSWOMAN, THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. WHAT'S THE LEARNING CURVE LIKE IN WASHINGTON? >> PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. NOW, AS A FRESHMAN, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRESHMAN CLASS, AND THE BIG INTERNAL JOKE IS, I'M JUST HAPPY AFTER, YOU KNOW, SIX WEEKS TO TWELVE WEEKS THAT I CAN FIND THE ROOMS AND THE BATHROOMS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SO EASY TO NAVIGATE. BUT YOU ARE THRUST INTO AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF SUBJECT MATTER THAT YOU NEED TO LEARN FROM THE BUDGET TO NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. YOU PREPARE FOR THAT AS A YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE LEGISLATION, TRYING TO

FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT'S GOING TO MEAN AND BEING A MEANINGFUL MEMBER OF A COMMITTEE, IT'S A PRETTY STEEP LEARNING CURVE. >> I CAN IMAGINE. YOU WENT IN THERE KNOWING A LOT ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, AND I WANT TO START THERE. OR THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS ROLLING OUT. JANUARY 2014 IS WHEN THE RUBBER REALLY HITS THE ROAD FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. WE JUST PASSED IN THIS STATE A PLAN FOR A STATE RUN HEALTH CARE EXCHANGE. WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT IT? DO YOU THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO? >> I ABSOLUTELY DO. I MEAN, I WAS GETTING VERY NERVOUS THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO GET AN EXCHANGE BILL THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE, AND ONE THAT THE GOVERNOR BASED ON HER PRIORITIES AND CONCERNS WOULD SIGN. SO I'M REALLY EXCITED THAT WE GOT A BIPARTISAN EFFORT HERE AND A BILL THAT'S NOW SIGNED INTO LAW, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE AUTHORITY. SO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO PROVIDE, AND HAS ALREADY, SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT TO CREATE A PURCHASING MARKETPLACE SO THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOW MANDATED TO HAVE INSURANCE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING AND THEY KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO MEET THEIR

PARTICULAR HEALTH CARE NEEDS. WE NOW HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO GET SUPPORT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING INVESTMENTS TO PUT IT TOGETHER. HERE ARE THE BASICS. YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S OPERATING IN A FAIR AND CONSUMER PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT. >> AND THAT WAS A POINT OF SOME DEBATE. >> HUGE DEBATE. CAN CARRIERS BE ON OR OFF? AND THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IN THE FEDERAL LAW TO ASSURE THAT STATES DON'T HAVE JUST CARRIERS ON AND NO CONSUMERS. YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE PATIENTS. >> EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT, JUST CARRIERS. >> WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU DON'T WANT THE INSURANCE PLAN TO BE RUN IN THE EXCHANGE BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A BIAS TOWARDS THOSE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY PROVIDE ON THE EXCHANGE. >> OKAY. >> BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE CARRIERS ON, YOU MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF PROVIDING AN INSURANCE PLAN, AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THE PARTICULAR BENEFITS OR THE COSTS, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THE LOSSES AND YOU'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHOLE VEHICLE IN THE

EXCHANGE. IT'S PRETTY COMPLICATED STUFF. SO IN NEW MEXICO, I THINK THAT THEY'VE STRUCK AN EFFECTIVE BALANCE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO OF THE 13 MEMBERS BE CARRIERS, SOME OF THE 13 MEMBERS HAVE TO BE PROVIDERS, SO THEY'VE GOT TO COME AT IT FROM A DELIVERY SYSTEM ASPECT, MANY OF THOSE MEMBERS HAVE TO BE CONSUMERS, SO THEY'RE PATIENTS, THEY GET IT, THEY CAN IDENTIFY WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT NEW MEXICANS HAVE, LIKE WITH PRIMARY CARE AND SPECIALTY CARE ACCESS IN RURAL AREAS, AND IT'S BALANCED BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES AND LEGISLATIVE APPOINTEES, AND IT'S ALSO GOING TO BE BALANCED POLITICALLY, SO THAT NO ONE GROUP OR PARTY IS GOING TO CONTROL THIS NEW EFFORT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO CREATE A BRAND NEW ENTITY. SO YOU GET TO START FRESH, AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY TO GO, AND I'M REALLY GLAD THAT THAT'S NOW DONE AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. >> THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN THAT IT DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH IN PROTECTING CONSUMERS, THAT THIS WAS SORT OF SET UP TO ESSENTIALLY CREATE ANOTHER PROFIT ROAD FOR THE PEOPLE

WHO ARE HAVING HEALTH CARE PLANS, OR RUNNING THE HEALTH CARE PLANS. >> IT IS A LEGITIMATE ISSUE FOR PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY AND I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO SAY IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH CONSUMER PROTECTIONS. >> OKAY. >> NOW, I WILL ALERT VIEWERS AND TELL YOU THAT BEFORE RUNNING FOR CONGRESS, I ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN WORKING FOR THE NEW MEXICO MEDICAL INSURANCE POOL, AND THAT WE WERE SUPPORTING LEGISLATION AND INVOLVED IN DRAFTING LEGISLATION TO GET AN EXCHANGE DONE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, SO THAT YOU'D HAVE THE RIGHT TIMEFRAME TO REALLY PUT IT TOGETHER. AND THE LANGUAGE THAT WE WERE USING AT THE TIME TO DESCRIBE AN EXCHANGE THAT HAS THOSE CONSUMER PROTECTIONS WAS A ROBUST EXCHANGE, AND THAT THE BEST CONSUMER PROTECTIONS ARE REALLY TO PUT CARRIERS ON AS AN ADVISORY TO THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP, AND TO HAVE MORE CONSUMERS AND PROVIDORS AND OTHER HEALTH CARE EXPERTS ON THE ACTUAL EXCHANGE. HERE, IT'S REVERSED A LITTLE. WE HAVE MORE OF THOSE CONSUMER FOLKS ON THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND WE PUT MORE CARRIERS ON THE

EXCHANGE, AND I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO SAY THAT THAT'S TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE. IT IS THE PATH THAT MOST FOLKS BELIEVE WAS THE BEST FOR NEW MEXICO. AND NOW WE NEED AN INSURANCE SUPERINTENDENT WHO WILL BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE RIGHT SIZING THOSE RATES, THAT PEOPLE ARE IN FACT PROTECTED, THAT THEY'RE GETTING THE BENEFITS AS DESCRIBED ON THE EXCHANGE, AND THAT WE'RE REALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO FOLKS SO THEY'RE NOT BEING UNDERINSURED BY THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE OFFERED ON THE EXCHANGE, AND THAT'S THE ROLE OF THE NEW MEXICO INSURANCE SUPERINTENDENT. >> THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A MAY CHECKPOINT. SO NEXT MONTH THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE MAKING ENOUGH PROGRESS. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE, AND HOW CLOSE TO THAT WE ARE? >> I DON'T KNOW HOW CLOSE WE ARE. I'M GOING TO GUESS THAT WITHOUT HAVING THE AUTHORITY, WE'RE GOING TO BE FURTHER BEHIND THAN MOST STATES. NOW, BEING A FORMER BUREAUCRAT AND SOMEBODY THAT WAS VERY PROUD OF THE WORK THAT I COULD DO, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT FOLKS AND THE VEHICLES TO GET IT DOWN. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE PRETTY AGGRESSIVE TO MEET THOSE TIMELINES. THEY'VE GOT A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE

GETTING THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A PRETTY EFFECTIVE SYSTEM TO START MOVING PEOPLE IN TO MEDICAID FOR THE MEDICAID EXPANSION, YOU'VE GOT TO START LOOKING AT WHAT THE PLANS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND PUT THEM ON THE EXCHANGE, YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ALL GOING TO WORK, YOU GOT TO SET UP A BRAND NEW ENTITY, BECAUSE IT'S GOT TO BE READY ACTUALLY TO ROLL OUT IN OCTOBER FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SIGNING UP BY JANUARY FOR THE EXCHANGE. SO, HARD TO KNOW WHETHER THEY'LL GET IT ALL DONE IN MAY, BUT SOMETHING THAT I'M GUESSING IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THEY SHOULD, WANT TO SEE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION. YOU'VE GOT A FEDERAL MANDATE, AND YOU WANT THE STATES TO BE SUCCESSFUL. I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY'LL PROVIDE PRETTY EFFECTIVE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NOW THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT NEW MEXICO IS GOING TO OPERATE AN EXCHANGE, TO BE ON THE GROUND AND HELP US TO MEET THOSE DEADLINES. >> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FEARS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL COME IN ON MAY 15 AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU GUYS ARE JUST A MESS, WE'RE RIDING HERD ON THIS WHOLE THING? >> I WILL TELL YOU THIS. CERTAINLY THERE ARE FOLKS WHO HAVE COME TO MY OFFICE AND RAISED THAT AS A CONCERN, AND I HEARD THOSE CONCERNS CERTAINLY AT THE DEBATE AT THE LEGISLATURE.

WE'VE TAKEN A LONG TIME JUST TO GET THE BASELINE AUTHORITY. IT IS A REAL POSSIBILITY. THIS IS SOMETHING TO TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY. IF WE DON'T GET AN EXCHANGE UP AND WE DON'T MEET THESE DEADLINES, I THINK IT'S BAD FOR NEW MEXICANS, I THINK IT'S BAD FOR THE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS, I THINK IT DOESN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BRINGING IN HUGE HEALTH CARE DOLLARS -- 30% OF THE GROWTH RATE IN THE ECONOMY ACROSS THE COUNTRY IS IN HEALTH CARE, AND WE HAVE NEGATIVE JOB GROWTH, AND WE HAVE THE HIGHEST UNINSURED POPULATION IN THE COUNTRY. THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE WE REALLY NEED THESE INVESTMENTS, AND WE'VE GOT TO MAKE IT WORK. I'VE GOT MY FINGERS CROSSED, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE FOR VIEWERS, IT'S VERY COMPLICATED, IT'S A LOT OF WORK, AND THEY NEED TO MAKE THIS THEIR HIGHEST PRIORITY IN THIS ADMINISTRATION, TO MEET THESE DEADLINES. I'M EXPECTING THAT THEY'RE PUTTING THOSE RESOURCES TOGETHER TO DO JUST THAT. I CERTAINLY WOULD. >> SO AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MOVES ALONG IN LOOKING AT THIS SORT OF THING, YOU'RE ALSO DOING SO A LITTLE BIT HAMSTRUNG BECAUSE OF THE SEQUESTER. THERE IS A SENSE OUT THERE, AT LEAST IF YOU READ SOME OF

THE HEAVY POLITICAL SITES, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING, IF YOU SPLIT IT INTO TWO SIDES, THE REPUBLICAN VIEW OF THE SEQUESTER AND THE DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE SEQUESTER, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE THE HIGH GROUND RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HURT SO MUCH. THE STOCK MARKET SEEMS TO BE DOING OKAY. >> WE'RE HAVING SOME ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE COUNTRY. >> WE DON'T ALL HAVE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE BEEN FURLOUGHED, THAT SORT OF THING. IT MAY BE COMING. WHAT'S YOUR FEELING ON THE SEQUESTER? IS IT GOING TO REALLY START HURTING, OR IS THERE MOVEMENT THAT YOU'VE SEEN THAT'S GOING TO PREVENT >> TWO EXAMPLES. I THINK IT IS REALLY HURTING. I MEAN, IF ONE PERSON HAS A 14-DAY FURLOUGH IN A STATE THAT DOESN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT JOBS TO MEET ITS CITIZENS NEEDS, THAT'S SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO ME. MAYBE OTHERS WOULD DESCRIBE THAT AS, THOUGH, THAT'S NOT MEANINGFUL. I THINK IT IS. WE'S GOT 2,000, WITH ANOTHER 1,000 IN THIS DISTRICT POTENTIALLY COMING, AND 7,000 FURLOUGHS STATEWIDE. 7,000 PEOPLE WITH SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 14 AND 20 DAYS FURLOUGHED, AND A LOT OF

THESE ARE GOING TO BE SINGLE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS, WHICH MEANS THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR CHILD CARE, WHICH MEANS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE THAT YOU'RE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO LEAVE THEM AT HOME ALONE, WHO ARE GOING TO BE HOME ALONE. THESE ARE UNTENABLE SITUATIONS. IT'S A MORTGAGE PAYMENT. WE HAVE THE HIGHEST FORECLOSURE RATES IN OUR REGION IN THE COUNTRY. THESE ARE NOT GOOD IDEAS. AND WE HAVE ABOUT A 27% RELIANCE ON FEDERAL FUNDS IN NEW MEXICO. SO I SAY IT HAS A PRETTY DIRE IMPACT. BUT DOES EVERYBODY -- LIKE YOU SAID, DO I SEE IT WHEN I TAKE MY CAR INTO THE GARAGE AND I'M DRIVING TO WORK, DO I NOTICE THE EFFECTS. ARE THE ROADS CRUMBING? IS THE BRIDGE FALLING APART? DO WE CLOSE ALL OF THE AIRPORTS? I THINK IT'S A SLOW AND STEADY OUTCOME. AND WHAT I KNOW THAT'S THE MOST DEVASTATING IS IT'S NOT GOING TO CREATE THE KIND OF JOB GROWTH POTENTIAL JUST WHEN THE ECONOMY NEEDS IT THE MOST, THAT IT COULD. FOR ME, I THINK THAT IS SO SHORT-SIGHTED AND SO DISAPPOINTING, THAT WE HAVE A VEHICLE IN CONGRESS TO DO

SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND WE DIDN'T. AND TO YOUR POINT ON THE HEALTH CARE EXCHANGE, THEY'RE HAMSTRUNG IN LARGE PART BECAUSE IT DIDN'T ALL GET FUNDED, AND NOW THEY'RE EFFECTED BY THE SEQUESTER AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES OR THE TOOLS TO HELP STATES IMPLEMENT THESE EXCHANGES IN THE WAY THAT WE ARE INTENDING THEM TO, AND THAT HAS GREAT RISKS FOR THE POPULATIONS THAT ARE NOW MANDATED TO BE IN THE EXCHANGES. >> THIS IS ALL ON YOU. I MEAN, ALL ON CONGRESS, ANYWAY -- >> ABSOLUTELY. >> -- AND THE PRESIDENT. THIS IS A CONGRESS THAT HAS NOT MET MORE THAN THEY'VE OFFICE, OR AT LEAST AS OF THE LAST TIME WE CHECKED THOSE NUMBERS. THERE IS A REAL FRUSTRATION ON THE PART OF PEOPLE OUT HERE LOOKING AT WASHINGTON AND GOING, GET IT TOGETHER ALREADY. DO YOU SEE ANYTHING TO GIVE YOU HOPE? >> I DO. I HAVE GREAT HOPE NOW. I JUST ACTUALLY GAVE A TALK TODAY TO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE ALBUQUERQUE CHAMBER, AND SAID, I'M STILL VERY OPTIMISTIC AND THINK THAT BY 2014 WE'RE GOING TO GET TOGETHER A BUDGET AND START A REAL APPROPRIATIONS

PROCESS. AND I SEE THAT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE THAT YOU HAVE FOLKS ON BOTH SIDES, THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY SIDES, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE ON A PATH FORWARD IN THIS COUNTRY. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE DEFICIT. IT'S REAL. SO IF YOU'VE GOT DEMOCRATS THAT TRY TO DOWNPLAY THAT WE REALLY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT DEFICIT PROBLEM, WE DO. BUT IF YOU'VE GOT REPUBLICANS WHO ARE SAYING THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THAT IS TO CONTINUE TO HAVE AN AUSTERITY MEASURE, OR THAT THAT'S OUR PLATFORM, WELL, WE KNOW THAT EVERY NONPARTISAN ECONOMIST THAT CAME TO EVERY KIND OF A PANEL OR HEARING, OR WAS AVAILABLE TO US AS EXPERTS OR CAME TO THE CBO, THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, OR THE CONGRESSIONAL RESOURCE CENTER, ALL NONPARTISAN, SAY THIS IS NOT A SOUND ECONOMIC PLAN, THAT IT ACTUALLY COULD CREATE A TWO MILLION LOSS IN JOBS JUST AT THE TIME WHEN MANY STATES ARE BEGINNING TO SEE SOME RECOVERY. SO HERE'S THE ISSUE. WE HAVE TO LEARN TO REALLY TALK ABOUT OUR IDEAS THAT CAN WORK TOGETHER.

SO DEMOCRATS NEED TO TALK ABOUT DEFICIT REDUCTION, AND WE'VE DONE THAT. WE'VE GOT $23.4 TRILLION, IF YOU ADD UP ALL THE CUTS TODAY AND THE FISCAL CLIFF AND THE SEQUESTER, AND EVERYTHING ELSE. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE MIGHT BE WILLING TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MORE COST EFFECTIVE AND STREAMLINED IN GOVERNMENT AND LOOKING AT PROGRAMS BASED ON THEIR EFFICACY. THEY'VE GOT TO HAVE GOOD OUTCOMES. THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO START TALKING ABOUT INVESTMENTS AND JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND TO DO THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE WILLING TO GIVE UP ON TAX LOOPHOLES. AND I THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT SAID IT BEST IN A PRESENTATION TO CONGRESS WHEN HE SAID, IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR KIDS AND YOUR GRANDKIDS, YOU CAN'T FIND ONE MORE LOOPHOLE? NOT ONE MORE? IF YOU REALLY THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO CRUSH IT FOR THOSE POPULATIONS, THAT WE COULD ALL COME TOGETHER AND FIGURE THAT OUT. AND THE SAME THING FOR THE YOU CAN'T FIND ONE PROGRAM THAT YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO REDESIGN SO THAT IT'S MORE COST-EFFECTIVE, SO THAT WE CAN SUSTAIN IT OVER THE LONG HAUL? SO HOW ABOUT THIS. LET'S NOT HAVE A 10-YEAR BUDGET PLAN. THAT'S LIKE TELLING YOU TO PAY YOUR HOUSE OFF TOMORROW. OR INSTEAD OF 30 YEARS, 10

YEARS. OR TELL SMALL BUSINESSES THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE THEIR CAPITAL DEBT AND REDUCE IT IN 10 YEARS. THEY CAN'T. YOU'LL CRUSH THEM. HAVE A 30-YEAR PLAN. HAVE A 25-YEAR PLAN. AND SHOW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH DEFICIT SPENDING -- OR YOU'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH DEFICIT REDUCTION, AND YOU'RE GOING TO BRING REVENUE IN, AND THEN TWEAK IT WHEN IT WORKS SO THAT YOU KEEP DOING THAT, AND TAKE AWAY THE THINGS THAT DON'T WORK YEAR AFTER YEAR. AND IF WE CAN PASS THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN'S ACT, AND YOU'VE GOT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS WORKING ON IMMIGRATION REFORM AND GUN VIOLENCE, I'M TELLING YOU WE CAN COME TOGETHER FINALLY ON THE BUDGET. >> YOU SEE HOPE. >> I DO. >> HERE AT UNM, PRESIDENT FRANK SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UNM PARTNER WITH A PRIVATE GROUP AND TAKE A SHOT AT RUNNING SANDIA. DO YOU LIKE THAT IDEA? >> I'M INTERESTED IN ALL IDEAS THAT FORGE MORE PRODUCTIVE PARTNERSHIPS. YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY WHETHER THEY WOULD BE BETTER THAN AN OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR THAT COMES IN. BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I WANT, NO MATTER WHO THE CONTRACTOR IS, THAT SANDIA LABS AND THE OTHER RESEARCH

NEAR THE AIR FORCE LABORATORIES -- I THINK REMINDED YESTERDAY, WHICH I APPRECIATE, THAT THERE ARE OTHER RESEARCH LABS THAT ARE DOING GREAT THINGS RIGHT HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING IT MATERIALIZE IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND JOB GROWTH ON THE GROUND IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LABS, ALL THE UNIVERSITIES, BUT PARTICULARLY THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO BECAUSE OF THIS COMMUNITY, AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. WE STRATEGIZE AND WE TALK AND WE MEET, BUT THERE REALLY HASN'T BEEN A VERY ACTION-ORIENTED PLAN. SO WHOEVER IS GOING TO MANAGE -- IF THE UNIVERSITY CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN, BY GOLLY, SOUNDS GREAT TO ME. IF THAT'S BETTER COMING FROM AN INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE GROUP WITH A MORE SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE ON LAND MANAGEMENT, THEN SO BE IT. BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT TRIANGLE AND HAVE REAL IMPLEMENTATION STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GROWING BUSINESSES, HI-TECH BUSINESSES IN THIS COMMUNITY. >> SHOULD D.O.E. BE MORE AGGRESSIVE ABOUT WRITING SOMETHING LIKE THAT INTO THE CONTRACT?

>> YES, THEY SHOULD. THEY SHOULD ASK THAT IT BE IN THE PERFORMANCE MEASURES. THEY HAVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES ALREADY, SANDIA DOES, ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MONEY HAS TO GO OUT, BUT IT DOESN'T TRANSLATE TO JOBS AND BUSINESS GROWTH ON THE GROUND, AND THEY COULD JUST CHANGE THAT. NOW, SOME FOLKS HAVE CERTAINLY ALERTED ME THAT THAT MIGHT TAKE A CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, AND I'M ASKING FOR D.O.E. TO TELL ME WHETHER THAT'S THE CASE OR NOT, AND IF IT IS, THAT'S A BILL THAT I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO INTRODUCE AND WORK DILIGENTLY TO GET PASSED. >> CONGRESSWOMAN, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. WE'LL CATCH UP WITH YOU AGAIN. >> THANK YOU. IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE. >> THERE REMAIN, I THINK, TREMENDOUS PHILOSOPHICAL, IDEOLOGICAL EVEN, DIFFERENCES. EVERYBODY AGREES EDUCATION NEEDS TO BE BETTER. I THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY, UNFORTUNATELY, AMONGST EVEN PARENTS AS TO HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK. AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY TO THROW AT THIS PROBLEM.

>> STEVE ALFORD. NOW, LET'S DIG INTO THE LATEST, WHICH IS THAT UNM BELIEVES IT IS OWED $1 MILLION BY THE UCLA BRUINS. THAT'S WHERE HE IS NOW. ALFORD'S STUNNING DEPARTURE LAST WEEK CAME A DAY BEFORE HIS JUST INKED CONTRACT WAS TO GO INTO EFFECT HERE AT UNM. NOW, NEITHER ALFORD NOR ATHLETIC DIRECTOR PAUL KREBS WOULD OPINE ON WHAT WAS OWED, UNTIL THE UNIVERSITY SENT A LETTER TO MR. ALFORD DEMANDING PAYMENT. SOUR HOOPS, SO TO SPEAK, MARGARET, OR A LEGITIMATE DEMAND? BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SOME ISSUES HERE ABOUT DATES, WHO SAID WHAT AND WHO SIGNED WHAT WHEN, WHO AGREED TO WHAT WHEN, AND WHAT IS APPLICABLE, AN AGREEMENT VERSUS A CONTRACT. PRETTY INTERESTING. CONSULTATION WITH OUR RESIDENT LEGAL EXPERT -- >> WELL DONE. >> -- I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THERE IS DEFINITELY A GRAY AREA HERE, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME SORT OF TERM SHEET, OR I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT TERM, AND THAT

DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME KIND OF LEGAL PIECE AS A FIRM CONTRACT. SO THERE COULD BE SOME CONTENTIOUSNESS PLAYING OUT. BUT FOR UNM, IT COULD BE A CASE OF SOUR HOOPS, AS YOU SAID, AND THAT THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO GO AFTER -- >> A FACE SAVING POSSIBLE MOVE, SOPHIE MARTIN? >> I'VE GOT TO SAY, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, I'M NOT GOING TO PRETEND TO PLAY ONE ON TV, BUT SOMEDAY I WILL BE. PROFESSORS WILL BE PLEASED TO HEAR ME SAY THAT A CONTRACT REQUIRES AN OFFER, AN ACCEPTANCE, CONSIDERATIONS, SORT OF A MEETING OF THE MINDS. AND WHAT WE HAVE IN THE TERM SHEET, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS A SET OF CONDITIONS, A DOLLAR AMOUNT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO A CONTRACT, TO ME. I MEAN, THIS WOULD MAKE A FABULOUS LAW SCHOOL FINAL EXAM. WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME, THOUGH, IS THE STATEMENT, "TERMS OR CONDITIONS CONTINGENT UPON OUR REACHING AN AGREEMENT ON A FINAL WRITTEN EMPLOYMENT

AGREEMENT." SO IT CONTEMPLATES A LATER CONTRACT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS ITEM, ITSELF, ISN'T BINDING. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE MORE IN A LATER CONTRACT. WHAT I THINK IS INTERESTING, THOUGH, IS THAT I DO THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A BATTLE HERE. UNM HAS NO DOWN SIDE IN SAYING IT'S A MILLION DOLLARS, BUT IT'S $100 MILLION BECAUSE YOU HURT OUR FEELINGS, TOO. IT'S A MILLION DOLLARS. OF COURSE ALFORD IS GOING TO SAY, AND UCLA WILL LIKELY BACK HIM UP, THAT IT'S $150,000, AND I SUSPECT EITHER A LAWSUIT OR A SETTLEMENT SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD. BUT TO LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, IS IT A CONTRACT OR IS IT NOT A CONTRACT, THE REAL QUESTION IS GOING TO BE, I THINK, PROBABLY WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO AGREE TO LATER ON. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LATER AGREEMENT ABOUT THAT. THAT'S MY GUESS. >> I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. ROB, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION HERE. IT WAS SUCH A JOLT, IT REALLY WAS. YOU THINK BACK, WE HAD JUST MISSED GOING DEEP INTO TOURNAMENT PLAY.

I MEAN, EVERYTHING WAS AT A SKY HIGH PLACE, AND THIS JUST CAME AND WALLOPED PEOPLE. WHAT IS THE REACTION HERE STATEWIDE, DO YOU THINK? ARE WE GOING TO SEE THE ALLEGIANCE RUN DOWN I-25 TO LAS CRUCES, SUDDENLY GOING TO NEW MEXICO STATE? DOES IT DING THE UNIVERSITY SOMEHOW? UNIVERSITY IF THE LOBOS DON'T PLAY VERY WELL. IF THEY PLAY VERY WELL NEXT YEAR, THEN THE NEW COACH, CRAIG NEAL, WILL BE HAILED AS A CONQUERING HERO, AND ALL WILL BE FORGIVEN. IN COLLEGE SPORTS, AND IN MAJOR SPORTS, IF YOU WIN, SO MUCH IS FORGIVEN. >> DID YOU CATCH THE L.A. TIMES SPORTS COLUMN? >> YES, T.J. SIMERS RIPPED MR. ALFORD ONE. BUT T.J. HAS GOT A REPUTATION FOR RIPPING LOTS OF PEOPLE. BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS IN ALFORD'S PAST THAT HAVE KIND OF COME TO LIGHT IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. IN FACT, IN HIS TIME AT IOWA, THERE WAS -- THE GENERAL CONSENSUS WAS UNM STOLE HIM. YOU KNOW, THEY GOT A GREAT COACH FROM IOWA. BUT DURING THE COURSE OF THE

RESEARCH FOR THIS PROGRAM, I LOOKED UP A NUMBER OF STORIES, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT ALFORD HAD AT IOWA, BUT THERE WAS ONE, THE MOST INTERESTING THING THAT I SAW WAS THAT WHEN BILL RICHARDSON WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008, HE WAS IN IOWA FOR THE IOWA CAUCUS, AND ACCORDING TO SOMETHING THAT I READ, HE WAS AT A RALLY OR AT A MEETING WITH ABOUT 25-30 PEOPLE IN IOWA, AND HE SAID, OH, YOU KNOW, WE STOLE YOUR COACH, STEVE ALFORD, AND THE CROWD GROANED AND THEY SAID, YOU CAN HAVE HIM. >> INTERESTING. OH, DEAR. NOW, WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT HERE WAS NEWS TO ME. I DO NOT FOLLOW STEVE ALFORD'S CAREER, WHITNEY. I JUST HAD NO IDEA THAT HE HAD SOME SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS THAT A PLAYER OF HIS AT THE TIME HAD A SEXUAL MISCONDUCT SUIT, THAT HE, MR. ALFORD, IS ALLEGED TO HAVE HELPED TO STEER ASIDE THE ACCUSER AND JUST REALLY DEPRESS THE SITUATION. THE STUDENT WENT ON TO BE CHARGED LATER FOR THE SAME THING, SO IT DID NOT LOOK GOOD FOR MR. ALFORD. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IT

SEEMS TO ME WE HAD A GOOD COACH, WE HAD SOME THINGS HAPPEN, SOME STUFF ON THE COURT, BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT ATMOSPHERE NOW WITH STEUBENVILLE, WITH A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE OUT THERE IN SOCIETY. SHOULD WE LOOK AT HIS TIME HERE DIFFERENTLY KNOWING THIS INFORMATION THAT HAPPENED AT IOWA? SHOULD WE CONSIDER HIM IN A DIFFERENT WAY? UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, I DON'T THINK SO. I MEAN, TO ME THE LOBOS ARE GOING TO PLAY HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PLAY NEXT YEAR UNDER A NEW COACH. I DON'T THINK THIS IS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM A BLACK EYE ON THE UNIVERSITY. I THINK THAT WE NEGOTIATED WITH HIM IN GOOD FAITH. WE WANTED TO HAVE THE BEST COACH THAT WE COULD FOR OUR TEAM. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY BLACK MARK AT ALL ON THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO. THE PERSON WHO IS GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY TAKE A LONG HARD LOOK AT HIS DECISION IS GOING TO BE STEVE ALFORD, BECAUSE A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHEN, YOU KNOW, YOU COME TO KIND OF A SMALLER TOWN, A SMALLER PROGRAM, PEOPLE AREN'T PULLING IT APART, THEY'RE NOT PULLING YOU APART, IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL OF COMPETITIVENESS. NOW, WELCOME UCLA? FORGET IT. HE'S NOT GOING TO HAVE A MOMENT'S PEACE OUT THERE. WHAT'S AMAZING TO ME IS THAT

HE KNEW THAT THOSE THINGS WERE OUT THERE. THEY'D NEVER BEEN REPORTED WHEN HE WAS HERE. HE BREAKS THE CONTRACT IN THE MANNER THAT HE DID. THE TEAM LOSES IN THE FIRST ROUND, OFF HE GOES TO UCLA. DID HE NOT THINK THAT THIS STUFF WAS GOING TO COME OUT? SO I MEAN, WATCHING THIS HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE PROCESS. IT'S BEEN A LET DOWN JUST FROM THE STANDPOINT -- FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, THIS KNOWLEDGE THAT CONTRACTS REALLY AREN'T INTENDED TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO HOLD YOUR FEET TO WHAT WAS A VERBAL AGREEMENT. IT'S YOUR WORD. YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO CONTRACT IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT YOU DON'T BREAK YOUR WORD. SO AT THE BASIS OF THIS, HE BROKE HIS WORD, AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN LOOK AT AN EIGHT OR NINE YEAR OLD KID IN THE FACE AND KNOW, THEY GET IT. THE EIGHT YEAR OLDS GET IT. SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL STUFF, BUT THEY KNOW THAT HE BROKE HIS WORD. >> GOOD FOR YOU. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, FOR THE FOLKS WATCHING AT HOME, BECAUSE I THINK THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED IT WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR, A PLAYER UNDER ALFORD PERFORMED WHAT IS DESCRIBED AS UNWANTED SEX ACTS ON A FEMALE STUDENT. HELD HER DOWN, HELD HIS HAND OVER HER MOUTH WHILE SHE TRIED TO SCREAM. AND ALFORD COVERED IT UP.

HE COVERED IT UP. >> TALK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE COVER-UP, BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF IT, AS WELL. HE BROUGHT IN A GROUP. >> HE BROUGHT IN A CHRISTIAN GROUP. THEY INVITED THE GIRL IN FOR A PRAYER SESSION, AND THEN THAT GROUP PRESSURED HER TO DROP THE CHARGES, NOT TO REPORT IT, FOR THE GOOD OF THE TEAM. IT WAS DESPICABLE. IT WAS DISGUSTING. I WAS HORRIFIED. I'M HORRIFIED NOW AS I THINK ABOUT IT AND AS I TALK ABOUT IT, AND I AM GLAD THAT IT HAS FINALLY COME OUT. >> BUT HERE'S MY QUESTION TO YOU, MADAM. ALL THAT WAS KNOWN WHEN HE WAS HIRED HERE. >> YES, IT WAS. YES, IT WAS, AND I AM DISMAYED. I AM DISMAYED. >> THAT TO ME BRINGS UP SORT OF THIS LARGER POINT ABOUT SORT OF A MEDIA CRITIQUE OF THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE IN THIS TOWN AND AROUND THE UNIVERSITY. WHY WASN'T HE -- WHY WASN'T THAT PART OF HIS VETTING PROCESS? WHY WASN'T THAT DISCUSSION RAISED? IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS A DISTANT MEMORY IN HIS TENURE AT IOWA. IT WAS CLOSE ON THE HEELS OF

WHEN HE WAS -- >> WELL REPORTED AND A LOT OF DETAILS. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> A REPORT FROM THE UNIVERSITY. >> MEMORIES ARE SHORT. THE TRUTH IS, MEMORIES ARE SHORT. BUT IT IS INTERESTING THAT IT IS COMING BACK OUT NOW. I CREDIT THE JOURNALISTS WHO HAVE UNCOVERED IT AS HE MOVES TO UCLA. I THINK WITH SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE'VE HAD WITH OUR FOOTBALL PROGRAM HERE AT UNM, I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN IN A HIRING SITUATION AT UNM AGAIN. >> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, BECAUSE HERE IS A PART OF THE OVERALL PICTURE OF UNM AND SPORTS AND ALL THAT. WE JOKED A LITTLE BIT AGO, POOR PAUL KREBS. HE CAN'T KEEP A HIRE, IT SEEMS LIKE, IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. ROB, DOES THIS EFFECT HOW THE PUBLIC VIEWS HIGH LEVEL COACHES AND BIG MONEY? BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF MONEY ON THE TABLE FOR STEVE ALFORD, A TON OF DOUGH, AND I REMEMBER GETTING A LOT OF GRIEF ON THIS PROGRAM FROM THIS SEAT WHEN HE WAS HIRED CALLING HIM AN -- DO WE REALLY NEED ANOTHER ITINERANT COLLEGE COACH JUST BLOWING THROUGH? BUT PEOPLE WERE SO BOUGHT INTO THE STEVE ALFORD THING.

EVERYBODY YOU'D STOP IN THE STREETS WOULD SAY, YEAH, YEAH. >> ALL COACHES IN MAJOR PROGRAMS ARE ITINERANT. AND HE DIDN'T BREAK ANY LAWS. HE DIDN'T BREAK THE CONTRACT BY LEAVING TO GO TO UCLA. THERE WAS AN OUT IN HIS CONTRACT SO HE COULD GO, PROVIDED THAT -- WHETHER IT'S A MILLION DOLLARS OR $150,000. WHAT I FIND -- ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS I FIND ABOUT THIS IS, A WEEK AGO WHEN HE WAS STILL THE UNM COACH, THERE WERE A LOT OF UNM PEOPLE WHO WERE GRUMBLING ABOUT, HE'S A CRUMMY COACH, WE LOST TO HARVARD, AND THEN HE ENDS UP LEAVING AND THEN PEOPLE ARE SHOCKED AND DISMAYED THAT HE'S LEAVING. WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S -- >> BUT HE DIDN'T LEAVE BECAUSE HE WAS GETTING CRITICISM FOR HIS TEAM. I MEAN, HE LEFT BECAUSE OF HIS OWN CAREER MOVE AND BECAUSE OF HIS FINANCES. >> AND YOU CAN'T BLAME SOMEONE FOR LEAVING TO TAKE A BETTER JOB. IF YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY AND SOMEONE OFFERS YOU A JOB IN LOS ANGELES, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, NO, I'M GOING TO STAY IN ALBUQUERQUE? >> BUT YOU CAN'T BE UPSET IF PEOPLE CRITICIZE YOU FOR THE DECISION, EITHER. I MEAN, IT'S LIKE, HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG, HE DIDN'T

BREAK THE CONTRACT, BUT I THINK THE COMMUNITY IS REACTING IN A HEALTHY WAY TOWARDS THE WAY THAT IT HAPPENED. I MEAN, THEY WERE STARTING TO REALLY LOVE THIS PROGRAM. THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WERE LOOKING AT DOING SEASON TICKETS THAT HADN'T DONE IT IN THE PAST. AT OUR BUSINESS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT. >> BUT THE CORE OF THIS TEAM IS COMING BACK. THEY'VE GOT AN ASSISTANT COACH WHO KNOWS THE PROGRAM INSIDE AND OUT. PAUL KREBS COULD END UP SMELLING REALLY GOOD AT THE END OF THIS THING IF UNM WINS ANOTHER CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP AND BEATS A NON-IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL TEAM IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE NCAA TOURNAMENT. >> AND PAYS LESS TO DO IT. >> IT'S ALL RESULTS ORIENTED. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. BIG TIME SPORTS DOES WORK THAT WAY. YOU CAN THINK OF A LOT OF THINGS, A LOT OF INDISCRETIONS -- NOT SAYING THAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, WHITNEY, BUT THAT DOES HAPPEN. SO I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN, LAST QUESTION ON THIS, ARE WE DIFFERENT AS A COMMUNITY, A BASKETBALL COMMUNITY, BECAUSE OF THIS? OR IS THIS JUST PART OF WHAT HAPPENS IN BIG-TIME COLLEGE SPORTS? >> FOR SOME REASON, I JUST THINK THERE WAS A LOT MORE ATTENTION ON BASKETBALL THIS YEAR, BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE. THERE WAS A LOT MORE INTEREST AROUND IT IN OUR OFFICE IN TERMS OF WATCHING

THE TOURNAMENT AND EVERYTHING. I THINK IT'S GREAT FOR THE SPORT, IN GENERAL, SO I THINK AS MORE PEOPLE START TO WATCH IT AND IT BECOMES A BIGGER DEAL, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE THINGS. >> IT WAS JUST SO PERFECT. WE HAD A NEW BUILDING, WE HAD A NEW COACH, WE HAD A HOT TEAM, AND THEN IT ALL JUST WENT -- AMAZING. >> IT'S GOING TO BE FINE, GENE. >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I NEED TO HEAR THOSE THINGS. I NEED TO HEAR THAT. WE'LL BE BACK WITH WHITNEY AND HER GOOD COMFORTING WORDS HERE IN JUST A SECOND. >> IT MAKES ME MARVEL AT WHAT PEOPLE DO GET ACTIVATED ABOUT, AND I JUST WONDER HOW CAN WE CREATE A VERSION OF ROUNDABOUTS ON OTHER ISSUES, LIKE GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION. >> SO 400 PEOPLE TURN OUT FOR A TOWN HALL MEETING AND YELL AT EACH OTHER? >> EXACTLY. HOW CAN WE BUILD A ROUNDABOUT AROUND CITY CORRUPTION ISSUES. >> LATE LAST FRIDAY, GOVERNOR MARTINEZ'S PRESS STAFF RELEASED A SLEW OF BILL SIGNINGS AND VETOES. MEASURES THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION COMMISSION MORE CONTROL OVER CHARTER SCHOOLS, AS WELL AS

BILLS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT SOME PUBLIC SPENDING ON FOR-PROFIT EDUCATION. LET'S START THERE, MS. WHITNEY. THE SENSE WAS, THESE BILLS -- ALSO IN THERE WERE A REFORM OF THE A-F GRADING SYSTEM, THE TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVALUATIONS. -- THEY WERE JUST DOA. IN FACT, SOMEONE COULD ARGUE THE ONLY MAJOR EDUCATION REFORM THE GOVERNOR WOULD HAVE SIGNED WAS A SOCIAL PROMOTION BILL, BUT WHAT HAPPENED THERE, AS WELL. LET'S START WITH THE VETOES ON THOSE BILLS. WAS SHE OKAY FOR YOU ON THOSE? DOES THAT SET UP SOMETHING BETTER DOWN THE ROAD? >> YES. THE LEGISLATURE, THEIR GAME PLAN IN THE PAST ON EDUCATION REFORM WAS TO KILL IT ALL IN COMMITTEE AND NOT SEND ANYTHING UP. WHAT THEY OPTED FOR THIS TIME WAS TO BASICALLY SEND UP BILLS THAT HAD NO REAL TEETH IN THEM. SO IT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING, BASICALLY REDEFINING THEM AND SENDING THEM UP FOR HER SIGNATURE. SO HER OPINION, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS, IS THAT THEY JUST DIDN'T DO WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE, SO SHE DIDN'T SIGN THEM. >> ROB, WAS THAT YOUR SENSE OF IT, AS WELL? BECAUSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT DID DIE IN COMMITTEE

QUIETLY, SOME OF THE SOCIAL PROMOTION STUFF. >> THE STUFF THAT SHE WANTED. >> THAT SHE REALLY WANTED, EXACTLY. BUT THEN A-F, I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT DIDN'T. SHE HAD HAD ON THIS SEEMED TO GO AWAY THIS LAST GO-ROUND. >> YEAH, RIGHT NOW IT'S A PITCHED BATTLE. THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO KNOCK DOWN EVERYTHING THAT SHE'S TRIED TO PUT FORTH, AND THE GOVERNOR -- THIS WAS NO SURPRISE AT ALL THAT THE GOVERNOR WAS GOING TO VETO THESE THINGS. AND ALSO ON THE SCHOOL CHOICE CHARTER SCHOOL THING WITH PEC, SAME SORT OF DEAL THERE, AS WELL. I MEAN, THE GOVERNOR BELIEVES THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE SCHOOL CHOICE, AND THE DEMOCRATS, MANY OF THEM WHO ARE BEHOLDEN TO THE TEACHER'S UNION, ARE DEAD SET AGAINST THEM. >> EXACTLY RIGHT. MARGARET, YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT EDUCATION, THE PREVIOUS GOVERNOR RICHARDSON AND NOW THIS GOVERNOR, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS IF YOU'RE GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO. YOU HAVE TO PROMISE BETTER, RIGHT? THIS IS JUST WHAT YOU DO. >> RIGHT. >> BUT IT SEEMS TO ME HER SCORECARD IS NOT LOOKING

GREAT NOW. EDUCATION IS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT SHE CAME IN WITH TO REALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT. SHE'S GETTING MUCH TRACTION AT THIS POINT. >> WELL, AND I WOULD SAY THAT THESE EDUCATION ISSUES ARE AMONG THE UGLIEST AND MOST CONTENTIOUS OF THIS LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND AS YOU SAID, I THINK THAT THE TIMBER OF THE DEBATE HAS REACHED THIS KIND OF, EVERYBODY'S DIGGING IN ON THEIR POSITION, AND I THINK THERE ARE SOME REALLY VALID QUESTIONS ABOUT FOR-PROFIT CHARTER SCHOOL MANAGEMENT THAT WERE RAISED THIS SESSION. I THINK BECAUSE THE CONFIRMATION OF THE SECRETARY DESIGNATE WAS HELD UP IN COMMITTEE AND THERE WASN'T A LOT OF QUESTIONING ABOUT SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED, THERE WAS NO FOLLOW-THROUGH WITH HER, THERE REMAIN A LOT OF ANSWERS THAT STILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED ABOUT THOSE ISSUES. >> EXACTLY. YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT ONE, SOPHIE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU WANT TO TOUCH THE SKANDERA. THING, THAT'S INTERESTING, BUT THE A-F I'M JUST KIND OF HUNG UP ON. I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING. >> THERE REMAIN, I THINK, TREMENDOUS PHILOSOPHICAL,

IDEOLOGICAL EVEN, EVERYBODY AGREES THAT EDUCATION NEEDS TO BE BETTER. I THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY, UNFORTUNATELY, AMONGST EVEN PARENTS AS TO HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK. AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY TO THROW AT THIS PROBLEM, AND EDUCATION, NOT JUST HERE BUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY, HAS BECOME A REAL POLITICAL FOOTBALL. SO TO EXPECT TO SEE THAT MOVE IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION FROM EITHER SIDE I THINK WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARILY NAIVE IN THIS CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE. I'M SURPRISED THAT ANYTHING REALLY MADE IT TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK AT ALL. >> THAT HAD ANYTHING BEHIND >> ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. >> -- TO WHITNEY'S POINT EARLIER. NOW, ROB, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. THE GOVERNOR ALSO SIGNED A POTENTIAL FIX FOR THE STATE'S PENSION PLAN FOR EDUCATORS, AS YOU KNOW. YOU COVERED THIS EXTENSIVELY. NOW, AS WE RECORD THIS, NOTHING YET ON THE FIX FOR THE STATE WORKERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL GUESSES AS TO WHAT THE HOLD-UP IS ON THAT? BECAUSE, AGAIN, AS WE WATCH THIS FRIDAY NIGHT, THIS

WOULD HAVE BEEN FINISHED EARLIER TODAY. THE HOLD-UP ON THE PERA, APPROVING THAT BILL, FROM THE GOVERNOR'S PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THE TAXPAYERS, THE EMPLOYER PORTION, IS VERY HEAVILY WEIGHTED, AS OPPOSED TO THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS. SO THERE'S SOME CONCERN THERE, AND THAT'S -- IT'S RATHER INSIDE BASEBALL. THERE'S LOTS OF INSIDE BASEBALL AT THE LEGISLATURE. AND ONE OF THE INSIDE BASEBALL BONES OF CONTENTION IS THAT THE ERB PEOPLE ALWAYS FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GETTING A RAWER DEAL THAN THE PEOPLE IN PERA. >> I SEE. WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE RAWNESS? WHAT DO THEY FEEL? >> BECAUSE THE ERB EMPLOYEES KICK MORE INTO THEIR PENSION THAN THE PERA PEOPLE. >> THE ERB IS THE EDUCATION. >> YES, THE EDUCATION RETIREMENT BOARD. THAT'S PART OF IT. MY GUESS, AND I SAID THIS LAST WEEK AND I'LL STICK MY NECK OUT A LITTLE BIT, I THINK SHE'S GOING TO SIGN IT. IT MIGHT BE A CLOSE CALL,

BUT I THINK SHE'S GOING TO SIGN IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF SHE CAN GET A BETTER IDEA. >> WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, MARGARET? THAT'S AN INTERESTING TAKE. >> YEAH. AND GOING BACK TO THE ERB THING, THERE WAS AN INTERESTING POINT, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THE RAWNESS, AND I THINK IT WAS MIMI STEWART THAT SAID THAT EDUCATORS WERE BEING SINGLED OUT AND THAT THE ERB WAS BEING HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN OTHER STATE EMPLOYEES. BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING THAT EVEN THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY WHIP, NATE GENTRY, ACTUALLY HAD SOME -- HE WAS OPPOSED TO SB-115 BECAUSE HE SAID THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY EFFECT RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OF TEACHERS IN THE STATE. >> AGAIN, THAT'S THAT FOOTBALL NATURE. >> ONE OF THE CHALLENGES HERE TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE GOVERNOR PERHAPS NOT LIKING THE BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT THE TAXPAYERS KICK IN AND WHAT THE EMPLOYER KICKS IN, OR SORRY, WHAT THE EMPLOYEE KICKS IN, IS THAT STILL THE EMPLOYEE WILL BE KICKING MORE IN, MORE UNDER THIS PLAN, THAN THE EMPLOYEE KICKED IN BEFORE. THE GOVERNOR IS JUST NOT

GETTING AS MUCH AS SHE WANTED. >> FAIR ENOUGH, FAIR ENOUGH. >> AS MUCH AS SHE WANTED. SO THAT BALANCE IS REALLY -- I THINK IT'S BEEN REALLY CONTENTIOUS AND REALLY DIFFICULT. AND I THINK THAT SHE -- I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, I THINK SHE PROBABLY WILL END UP SO MUCH PUSHBACK ON THAT. IT WILL BE DIFFICULT. >> YOU KNOW WHAT, GENE -- >> I'M GOING TO COVER A LOT OF GROUND HERE, SO I'M GOING TO HOLD YOU ON THAT SUBJECT AND ASK YOU ABOUT A NEW ONE, ACTUALLY, AND THAT IS, MINIMUM WAGE. WE COVERED THAT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, AND INTERESTINGLY I STILL HAVE TO ASK THIS QUESTION. WAS THERE A CHANCE FOR THE GOVERNOR TO COME OUT OF THIS IN A DIFFERENT WAY, OR DEMOCRATS IN A DIFFERENT WAY, BY HAVING A MINIMUM WAGE BILL OF SOME SORT PUSH ALL THE WAY THROUGH? DO YOU SEE ANY DOWNSIDE FOR THE GOVERNOR HERE? >> ON VETOING THE MINIMUM WAGE HIKE? NO, I DON'T THINK SO. IT GOES ALONG WITH A LOT OF HER PRO-BUSINESS STANCES IN THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AND YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EDUCATION BILLS AND THE PERA AND THE PENSION PLAN SHORING UP, THERE ACTUALLY WAS A LOT -- WATCHING THE LEGISLATURE FOR

THE LAST 15 YEARS, LIKE I'VE BEEN DOING, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF COMPROMISE LEGISLATION THAT CAME OUT OF THE SESSION WHICH WERE BIG, IMPORTANT, SYSTEMIC STUFF THAT GOT DONE. WHETHER IT WAS THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND, WHETHER IT WAS THE REDUCTION IN CORPORATE TAXES ON BUSINESSES, WHETHER IT WAS SHORING UP THE PENSION FUNDS, THE NEW MEXICO HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE WAS PASSED. SO EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE THINGS LIKE -- WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT BEING RAW AND THERE WAS CONTENTION ON CERTAIN ISSUES UP AT THE LEGISLATURE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE OF WHAT CAME OUT OF THERE, THERE WAS A LOT OF PRO-BUSINESS LEGISLATION THAT'S COME OUT FROM UNDER HER PEN, AND I'M GLAD THAT SHE VETOED IT. >> LISTENING TO THE CHAMBER, THEY ALMOST ACTED LIKE IT WAS CHRISTMAS MORNING. >> YEAH. >> INTERESTING. WE REALLY DIDN'T EXPECT THIS, IT'S LIKE A PRESENT. YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW? "ON THE CLOCK." TIME TO PUT THESE GUYS ON THE CLOCK. FIRST UP FOR A HOT MINUTE OF DEBATE, IS THE ALBUQUERQUE CITY COUNCIL GOING IN CIRCLES ON THE PROSPECT OF A ROUNDABOUT ON RIO GRANDE AND CANDELARIA? YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS ONE, FOR SURE, WE'VE COVERED IT HERE. THE COUNCIL WILL NOW SPEND MORE MONEY TO UPDATE THE TRAFFIC STUDY THEY ALREADY HAVE. WHITNEY, I'LL STAY WITH YOU

ON THIS. MANY YEARS OF EFFORT, A LOT OF MONEY SPENT ON STUDIES, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE NEED ANOTHER STUDY, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? >> PLEASE, NOBODY EVER AGAIN PROPOSE A ROUNDABOUT IN THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE. PLEASE. I MEAN, THIS IS RIDICULOUS. IT'S JUST ONE INTERSECTION OF ABOUT 2,000. THERE ARE SO MANY PROBLEMATIC INTERSECTIONS, IF WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS EVERY SINGLE TIME, I CAN'T IMAGINE. >> SOPHIE? >> YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M GOING TO SAY, AND I'LL PROBABLY GET HATE MAIL ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE, BUT I'M GENERALLY SPEAKING PRO ROUNDABOUT. I DO NOT LIVE IN THAT AREA, BUT MY EXPERIENCE WITH ROUNDABOUTS IS GENERALLY POSITIVE, AND I FIND THEM AN EXCELLENT TRAFFIC CALMER. BUT ALSO, COME ON. >> ROB, YOUR THOUGHTS? I KNOW YOU'RE SANTA FE. >> I LIVE IN SANTA FE, SO I DON'T CARE. >> THERE YOU GO. MARGARET, YOU DON'T LIVE IN SANTA FE, DO YOU? >> WELL, I HAVE TO SAY THAT IT MAKES ME MARVEL AT WHAT PEOPLE DO GET ACTIVATED ABOUT, AND I JUST WONDER HOW CAN WE CREATE A VERSION OF ROUNDABOUTS ON OTHER ISSUES, LIKE GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION. >> SO 400 PEOPLE CAN TURN OUT FOR A TOWN HALL MEETING AND YELL AT EACH OTHER? >> YEAH. HOW CAN WE BUILD A

ROUNDABOUT AROUND CITY CORRUPTION ISSUES. >> I LIKE THAT. RIGHT ON THE NOSE, GOOD JOB. CITY COUNCILOR MICHAEL COOK, NOT FUNNY AT ALL, HAS RESIGNED HIS ALBUQUERQUE POST AFTER AN ARREST FOR A SUSPICION OF DRUNKEN DRIVING. MARGARET, LET ME STAY WITH YOU. THE RIGHT MOVE, OR COULD MR. COOK HAVE TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ARREST AND STILL KEPT HIS JOB? >> I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TRICKY BECAUSE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, HE WAS WAVERING A LITTLE BIT ON WHETHER OR NOT TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION, AND HE HAD JUST ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS GOING TO, LIKE WITHIN DAYS. SO IT'S A PRETTY TENUOUS TIME. >> AND ROB, SOMETIMES IN THESE SITUATIONS PEOPLE GET IN YOUR EAR TO TELL YOU EITHER WAY. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? >> RIGHT, YOU CAN TELL WHICH WAY THE WIND PLAYS IF YOU'RE INFLUENTIAL, IF YOU'VE SOME CREDIBILITY. BUT BY ALL INDICATIONS, MR. COOK WAS KIND OF A BACK-BENCHER. >> OKAY. YOUR THOUGHTS, WHITNEY? >> IF HE HAD TRIED TO RUN, HE WOULD HAVE LOST ANYWAYS. I MEAN, DWI IN THIS STATE IS VERY, VERY SERIOUS. I THINK HE MADE THE RIGHT DECISION FOR A LOT OF REASONS. >> ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT DECISION. >> INTERESTING. PROMISING NOT TO "CHICKEN OUT," NINE DEFENDANTS BEING SUED BY THE EL DORADO

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION -- ROB'S LAUGHING -- FOR KEEPING POULTRY IN THEIR YARDS HAVE COUNTERSUED THE ECIA. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER HENS, NOT ROOSTERS, CAN BE DECLARED RECOGNIZED HOUSEHOLD PETS AND USED FOR HARVESTING EGGS. NOW, MR. ROB NIKOLEWSKI, OUR RESIDENT OF EL DORADO -- >> I DO LIVE IN EL DORADO. >> -- WHY IS THIS IN COURT? WHAT HAPPENED HERE? >> THIS IS IN COURT BECAUSE THE PRO CHICKEN PEOPLE TRIED TO SNEAK THIS THING THROUGH, WEREN'T ABLE TO SNEAK IT THROUGH THE BOARD, SO THEY HAD A VOTE, THEY LOST THE VOTE, AND SO NOW THIS THING IS IN COURT. THE PROBLEM I'VE GOT IS, THE LIBERTARIAN IN ME SAYS IF PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE CHICKENS IN THEIR BACKYARD, THAT'S FINE. HOWEVER -- >> THE HOME OWNER IN YOU. >> RIGHT, THE COVENANTS CLEARLY STATE, THEY SAY NO POULTRY. NOW, THE PEOPLE THAT WANT THE CHICKENS SAY, WELL, THE CHICKEN IS MY PET. WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I CAN PUT A COYOTE IN MY BACKYARD AND CALL IT A PET, OR A BRAHMA BULL IN THE BACKYARD AND CALL IT A PET. SO I THINK THAT IF YOU'RE A LAWYER, YOU WOULD HAVE TROUBLE FIGHTING THIS IN

COURT. >> DO THE PRO CHICKEN PEOPLE HAVE A UNIFORM? I LIKE THE WAY YOU SAY IT, PRO CHICKEN. >> WELL, THE ANTI-CHICKEN PEOPLE -- IT'S RED WHITE AND BLUE, JUST LIKE IN THE UNITED STATES. >> THERE YOU GO. I'LL LET OUR RESIDENT HANDLE THAT WHOLE THING ON HIS OWN. IS THAT OKAY YOU WITH GUYS? VERY INTERESTING. >> WELL PUT. >> THAT'S RIGHT, AND ON THE DING. IT WAS ONCE THE WORLD'S FASTEST COMPUTER, BUT NOW THE ROADRUNNER HAS BEEN DECOMMISSIONED. FIVE YEARS AGO THE $121 MILLION COMPUTER BROKE RECORDS. SOPHIE, WE HAD SOME MOMENTUM THERE WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. PEOPLE WERE FIRMLY BEHIND THIS. SCIENCE DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A GUARANTEE OF SUCCESS. SO IN NEW MEXICO, IT'S DIFFERENT TO TALK ABOUT SUCCESS AND FAILURE. WAS THIS A SUCCESS, OR WAS IT A FAILURE? >> YOU KNOW, I DON'T CONSIDER THE ROADRUNNER TO HAVE BEEN A FAILURE. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, COMPUTERS AND TECHNOLOGY MOVE SO QUICKLY. YOU KNOW, THE MIRACLE THAT WE CREATE TODAY IS GOING TO BE REDUNDANT WHETHER IT'S FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD OR SIX YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. IT'S EXPECTED.

AND SO I'M NOT PARTICULARLY WEEPING, IT'S OKAY. IT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY WOULD MOVE IT INTO MY OFFICE. I WOULD BE OKAY. >> MAYBE THEY CAN GIVE IT TO GOVERNOR RICHARDSON. HE CAN HAVE IT. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS ONE, WHITNEY? >> IT MADE ME SAD READING ABOUT IT. IT WAS LIKE THE OLD, LARGE COMPUTER. YOU KNOW, A VISION OF FRED FLINTSTONE. >> SOMETHING LIKE WHACKED OUT MAINFRAME REELS GOING AROUND. >> I KNOW, RIGHT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE REMEMBER SO WELL WHEN THEY FIRST GOT IT UP AND RUNNING, AND IT'S LIKE, OH, NOW IT'S OLD. >> MARGARET, IT'S AN INTERESTING POINT WHITNEY JUST MADE, IT WAS A BIG DEAL AROUND SOME CIRCLES AROUND HERE. >> FOR ME, IT RAISES OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW DO YOU DESIGN A TECH INDUSTRY FOR THE FUTURE THAT DOESN'T HAVE OBSOLESCENCE BUILT INTO IT. >> THAT'S A TOUGH ONE. >> LOOK AT INTEL. INTEL IS A HUGE CONTRIBUTOR TO OUR ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE, AND THAT TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO BE HARD PRESSED TO KEEP UP. >> WELL DONE. NEXT ONE, UNM PRESIDENT ROBERT FRANK WANTS THE UNIVERSITY TO PARTNER WITH A

YET TO BE NAMED BUSINESS TO BID ON THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT FOR SANDIA LABS. GOODNESS GRACIOUS, WHITNEY, THE RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS ARE REALLY ENORMOUS TO ME, BECAUSE AS WE'VE SEEN WITH LOS ALAMOS, BUT ALSO, A CONTRACT COULD BE TOUGH TO MANAGE, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES. IF THE MISSION CHANGES, SUDDENLY YOU'VE GOT THIS WHOLE THING GOING ON. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT UNM WANTS TO GET INTO? IS THIS A SMART MOVE? >> I THINK THEY SHOULD. I THINK THEY'RE UNIQUELY POSITIONED WITH THEIR PROXIMITY TO THE LABS. I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY. OBVIOUSLY MANY DETAILS TO WORK OUT. >> SOPHIE, YOUR THOUGHTS? >> I CERTAINLY THINK THAT IT COULD BE VERY GOOD FOR UNM FROM AN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT UNM IS UP FOR THE MANAGEMENT SIDE. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHO THEY LOOK TO PARTNER WITH. >> ROB, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. IT'S AGGRESSIVE, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT. >> YEAH, $2.4 BILLION. >> THANK YOU. WHAT DO YOU THINK? ARE WE UP TO THE TASK? WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> WELL, THE FISCAL CONSERVATIVE IN ME IS A LITTLE BIT SKEPTICAL, BUT THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

HAS SOMETHING WITH THE OAKRIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY AND IT'S WORKED OUT VERY WELL FOR THEM, SO I'D BE WILLING TO LISTEN TO IT. >> THERE YOU GO. I HAVE TO HOLD YOU THERE, MARGARET, WE'RE OUT OF TIME ON THAT ONE. BUT I AGREE WITH SOPHIE, I THINK THE RESEARCH STUFF THAT COULD COME OUT OF IT IS HUGE, UNBELIEVABLE. AND OTHER THINGS, BUT WE'RE OUT OF TIME. NOW, JEFF BINGAMAN IS NO LONGER A SENATOR, WHICH OFTEN SEEMS TO MEAN IT'S TIME TO CASH IN ON THAT PUBLIC SERVICE WITH A MILLION DOLLAR LOBBYING GIG. THAT IS HOW IT WORKS. BUT FOR MR. BINGAMAN, WHO IS ON HIS WAY TO STANFORD IN A YEAR-LONG FELLOWSHIP IN ENERGY POLICY. ROB, IT SOUNDS SO ALTRUISTIC. HE COULD DO ANYTHING, AND HE'LL JUST CHILL OUT IN A CLASSROOM FOR A WHILE. WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT? >> I'M GOING TO BE THE SKUNK AT THE GARDEN PARTY HERE, BECAUSE EVERYONE LIKES SENATOR BINGAMAN AND HE'S ALMOST A SAINTLY FIGURE, BUT I WILL BE THE SKUNK AND POINT OUT THAT HE AND HIS WIFE ARE INCREDIBLY WEALTHY, AND BINGAMAN MADE $2.5 MILLION FOR SIX MONTHS OF WORK WITH GLOBAL CROSSING, WHICH WAS KIND OF LIKE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENRON. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY LIVE

ON THE WEST SIDE OF ALBUQUERQUE COUNTING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS AND COUNTING THEIR PENNIES TO MAKE SURE ENDS MEET. SO IT'S NICE THAT HE'S GOING TO STANFORD, IT'S NICE THAT HE'S DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS INSTEAD OF GOING TO K-STREET, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE -- >> MARGARET, A FELLOWSHIP AT UNM WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE. >> I WAS ACTUALLY THINKING THE SAME THING. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE ARE ANY RETIRED SENATORS WHO ARE PENNY PINCHING OR HURTING BADLY. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S A RETURN TO STANFORD. I'M PRETTY SURE HE GRADUATED FROM STANFORD. >> RIGHT. THAT'S AN ANTI-STANFORD THING I JUST SAID, JUST A PRO UNM. >> I WANT TO MENTION, AS WELL, THAT SENATOR AND MRS. BINGAMAN WILL BE HONORED THIS WEEKEND BY THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN LAW STUDENT ASSOCIATION WITH THEIR FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE AWARD. SO CONGRATULATIONS TO THEM. AND STANFORD, I THINK THAT'S VERY COOL. >> INTERESTING. YOUR THOUGHTS? >> I LIKE THIS CHOICE. IT'S A TEMPORARY DEAL, IT'S ONE YEAR, IT DOES KIND OF CLEAN UP THE IMAGE OF, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO END UP LOBBYING AND MAKING MONEY ON K-STREET. I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY BINGAMAN-ISH OF HIM. >> THAT'S STILL AVAILABLE DOWN THE ROAD.

>> EXACTLY. >> IF HE CHANGES HIS MIND, HE'S ALL SET. >> RIGHT, THIS IS JUST A ONE-YEAR DEAL. >> THANK YOU, GUYS. GREAT TOPICS TONIGHT. REALLY TERRIFIC. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR EFFORTS. >> NEXT WEEK, WE'LL KNOW ABOUT THE BUDGET, CAPITOL OUTLAY, AND THE GOVERNOR'S FINAL VETOES. EXPECT A FULL RUNDOWN. SO UNTIL THEN, I'M GENE GRANT. WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK - InFOCUS.