On Assignment; 2021; USA vs. Demetria Martinez; Axing the Budget at City Hall?

Bredcast of on assignment is locally funded by KNME viewer contributions and by a grant from American home furnishings at American Square and Albuquerque and at American Plaza in Farmington locally owned and operated since 1936 and the Mountain Bell Foundation. Tonight on assignment, Journalist Demetria Martinez says she was covering a sanctuary movement religious story protected by the First Amendment. But a federal grand jury indicted her for conspiring to transport illegal aliens into this country. The intent here is to attempt to defame the movement and attempt to reduce it by claiming that the sole reason involved in this was surrounding children or babies selling. And Albuquerque City Hall struggles with financial hard times and perhaps another tax increase as it grapples with a new budget for the coming fiscal year.

The key thing I think in terms of looking at the cost for city government are the services provided. Are we getting the services we want and that we need and if we are, are we willing to pay for those services? These stories next on assignment with Hal Rhodes. Good evening. About two and a half months ago, a federal grand jury in Albuquerque handed down indictments against three people for conspiring to transport two illegal aliens, pregnant women from the strife torn central American nation of El Salvador. It could turn out to be one of the most celebrated prosecutions touching upon the sanctuary movement in this country.

About a year and a half ago, eight people were found guilty of similar charges in Arizona. The New Mexico case involves two Albuquerqueans, one a clergyman, the other a journalist. Reverend Glenn Remer-Thamert, an ordained Lutheran minister who until his indictment was a case worker for the Child's Protective Services Division of the State Department of Human Services. And Dmitria Martinez, a freelance journalist who reports regularly for the Albuquerque Journal's religion section and is a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. For the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Mexico, it is clearly a major prosecution. U.S. Attorney William Blutz himself is handling the case. And what the case is about is what's contained in the indictment. Those are the issues that we assert should be the issues that trial is whether or not the defendant's committed violations alleged in the indictment. What that indictment adds up to is four counts against Martinez, including transporting and inducing illegal aliens to enter this country.

Remer-Thamert was indicted on those charges as well plus two additional counts for harboring illegal aliens and two for mail fraud. It is a complicated case. According to the U.S. Attorney, the purpose of bringing the two illegal aliens into this country was to market their babies. This charge was made in a motion by the U.S. Attorney earlier this month. It was never the intention of anyone to give sanctuary to the women in question. The sole purpose of this whole scheme was to sell these women's babies to Americans desiring to adopt babies. Transporting the women was in furtherance of the scheme. Reverend Remer-Thamert is precluded by his attorney from discussing this case with Onesign. He did, however, have this to say. Most of us don't think about money. We wouldn't go into this kind of profession.

I have a master's in social work and the same applies there. Social workers aren't big, but people. Whatever I have done in my life, I have not approached with how much money can I make. It's a matter of responding to human need and how can I, given who I am and what resources I have, what can I do for people? Ironically, although baby selling has become an issue in this case, the Reverend Remer-Thamert was not indicted for those alleged activities. The federal government has not, as such, passed a statute that specifically is titled, you know, sale of children. In certain circumstances, it violates federal law. Several years ago, the case originated in New Mexico, but it was actually prosecuted in Utah. Massachusetts, there was a significant operation that was selling babies and children to couples arising out of Mexico.

And was prosecuted as a male fraud in the district of Massachusetts and the district of Utah. Albuquerque attorney, Eric Isbel Sarotka, has done legal work on other sanctuary cases. And although not involved in this litigation, thanks to the male fraud and baby selling issues are designed to muddy the water. As I understand it, there were no babies sold in that type of situation alleged here. There are no charges concerning baby selling or such. There is nothing that's been referred as we know it to the district attorney concerning state prosecutions for selling babies for profit. And there is no evidence in this case that the situation involving these women were a situation to sell the children for profit. What has been alleged from what I have seen is that the issue was getting some children out of a situation where they would have been orphaned and would have suffered incredible strife due to the attacks on orphanages and the bombings and a lot of the things that have gone on in El Salvador.

So that begins to get at what is the intent here in prosecuting the sanctuary movement in this situation. The intent here is to attempt to defame the movement and attempt to reduce it by claiming that the sole reason involved in this was surrounding children or baby selling. So what we have to look at more fully is the motives behind the prosecution from the U.S. Attorney's Office and that they want to limit motive and just put their motive in to claim that this journalist is involved in some kind of baby selling scheme becomes even more outrageous. If we have a full airing of the facts as a courtroom should allow, perhaps we can get to the truth of this issue and I think we'll find out in this case where the fraud really is.

The other Albuquerquean indicted along with Reverend Riemer-Thamert is journalist Demetria Martinez. And she is charged, remember, with conspiring to transport and induce illegal aliens to enter this country. A charge her attorney has asked the court to dismiss. On the ground she was not a party to any conspiracy, merely covering a story under the protection of the First Amendment guarantee of a free press. The motion to dismiss on the basis of freedom of the press is a motion to which we have responded to on the basis that active participation in a criminal activity is not protected by the First Amendment. Beyond that we would not comment. I think we basically stand on our written response to that motion, which has not been ruled on by the court. That response filed in court this past February 17th contends it is the government's position that the activities of defendant Martinez were not committed in the course of her duties.

Defendants cite no authority that indicates any assignment to a story on August of 1986. Neither is there any reference made to any news story relating to the incident. Well, I'm afraid that the US Attorney misunderstands the nature of freelance writing. For over two years now I have earned my living as a freelance writer. And the reason I have been able to earn my living doing that is because I generate my own material both for the journal and for the National Catholic Reporter. I go out looking for my own stories and at any time I'm researching two to five potential stories, not everything that I research leads to publication. But that's how I operated how I've operated now for more than two years. I have worked in a situation where I've been strictly on assignment. And that is when I was with Time Magazine in 1981 I worked for them for a summer while I was an undergraduate at Princeton. And then in 1980 I wrote for the Albuquerque News both times as an intern I was assigned since then that has not been the case. I generate my own ideas and my own material so that it wouldn't have been normal for the journal to assign me to go out and do anything in particular. I'm responsible for that.

I should mention that US Attorney William Loots was unable to be with us today but did grant us a field interview portions of which you have already seen in this program. Also the Reverend Remer Thamert's attorney urged him not to appear on this program in order not to get himself into some kind of legal problem which raises the question to meet you. Do you have any qualms about talking about this case? Absolutely not. I have nothing to hide and it's fairly clear cut. Let me ask you this. There are those in the news business who argue rightly wrongly that this prosecution of you in particular is designed to have a chilling effect upon the gathering reporting of news about stories of this sort. And that if it is not designed to that end it is after I have that consequence. Maybe a difficult question for you to ask right now but I'm curious do you feel chilled do you think others feel chilled.

I have talked to a number of reporters now from around the country in particular individuals who cover immigration issues on a regular basis who spend time at the border who have. I've done a lot of work in that particular area and they have expressed tremendous concern about this case and tremendous worry. And what I'm concerned about is that my fellow journalists will think twice before going out and interviewing refugees. They would think twice about doing what they would not have thought twice about before. Demetria Martinez is not the only journalist to hold this view. VB Price freelance columnist for the Albuquerque Tribune. Demetria is an extremely professional highly competent non hysteric journalist who looks for the facts who does her job in a reasonable thorough manner.

And those kinds of reporters are dangerous to people who don't want them to do their job because they might reveal something. Do you really think it's had a chilling effect on in this matter? The U.S. attorney has cited that Arizona case of last year which resulted in the conviction as I recall of a person's. And in that case the judge the court rule let me make this make certain that I get all these. Religion could not be used as a defense. International law could not be used as a defense nor could the Reagan administration's application of the 1980 Refugee Act be used as a defense. Do you worry that that Arizona case might prove in the New Mexico federal court to be president and to inhibit your defense?

Well those particular arguments that you cited that particular range of testimony obviously would be irrelevant to my case. However in the case of my co-defendant those clearly are highly relevant. It should be very interesting to watch because in fact Judge Conway has decided to hear testimony pertaining to those areas during the pretrial hearings. He obviously thinks that he is a judge in order to fully make his decision needs to have access to that testimony. I think it speaks for his concern that this case be properly heard. What happens if the judge rules in favor of the prosecution's argument that you were not engaged in a practice that was associated with the gathering and reporting of the news? That in fact you should stand trial on charges outlined in that indictment.

Then you too have an interest to you not in these other issues? No I wouldn't have an interest in those other issues because I didn't go down there because of religious convictions, international law, what have you? Glendid I went down there specifically to gather information for a potential story and so frankly how I haven't thought that far ahead I know why I went down and what I did. Let's talk about that. You went down there to cover this story you say which ended up in these indictments involving the transportation and harboring of the elite. What story did you think you were covering when you went down there? Well the whole thing began mid-summer 86 when Glendid called me at home and said have I got a Christmas story for you? Naturally I remember that quite well because it struck me as rather odd that Glendid would be calling mid-summer.

In fact it was July proposing a Christmas story. On the other hand Glendid has been a long time source of religion story suggestions for me and he's often called it odd times with story suggestions many of which have led to publication. So when he rung up and said would you like to go with me to the Mexican border I said well explain what the idea is. And he said that he would be going to the border to meet two pregnant Salvadoran women and as far as he knew they were due in December. He suggested itself evident he suggested that there were parallels to be drawn between the women's plight and that of Mary and Joseph who according to Christian tradition fled political oppression and had to find a place in a strange town in order to give birth to their son. So that we were looking obviously quite a bit in advance but then the Christmas story at least for the Albuquerque journal is a major story and it would receive front page coverage. So it wasn't unusual for me to consider a potential Christmas story far in advance.

Why didn't that story materialize? In other words why didn't that end up the Christmas story? Well for a number of reasons I certainly went down with the intention of gathering some information about the sanctuary in general. I mean I appreciated Glenn's suggestion but I realized that there were probably other stories that could come out of it or none. I just I simply wanted to go down and see what was there. I think that a couple of things from you know many of them mundane a number of assignments got in the way after that. The journal asked me to take advantage of an opportunity to interview Archbishop Robert Sanchez for that year's Christmas story which I did. Other assignments continued to get in the way and I knew that I would have to do some extensive follow-up interviews with the women who had been quite ill on the trip. Morning sickness.

And I felt that I just I would have had to have done a great deal more research on that particular story. But I was pleased with the information I gathered and that led to my writing the poem Nativity. I wanted the story somehow to get out to the public and I knew that I could do that as a poet. You have taken recourse to the first amendment to seek dismissal of the charges. Now the Reverend Glenn Remerthamert cannot do that. How do you feel as you sit here because you respect the man I gather? Obviously I do respect the man and I know him to be a man of tremendous religious convictions. And certainly when he gave me a call and told me what he intended to do I wasn't surprised. That's that's typical of Glenn. He is in the in the finest sense a knee jerk Christian. Someone says help and out he goes. Which for a religion and knee jerk Christian means you take the gospel very seriously. And I think that anyone who knows Glenn would testify to the fact that he has helped people for a number of years in very unglamorous ways. And from the perspective of a religion writer that's that's the kind of material that you go for.

That you go for. I mean and his as I said he's been a long time source of suggestions for me. Bill Lutz US attorney William Lutz does not want religion to be used as a defense. So if what you tell me about the Reverend Remerthamert that he believes the gospel and that he thinks what he's doing is consistent with his understanding of the gospel. That leaves him without a defense doesn't it? I mean that's important in his defense isn't it? It's important but certainly international laws important. I mean one could wipe out religious convictions tomorrow. And the US attorney and the public at large would still have to face the facts of international law Geneva conventions. The 1980 Refugee Act and certainly there are those who would argue it was argued in Tucson though not in open session. There are those who would argue that the United States has disregarded its obligation under those various aspects of the law by refusing to recognize certain groups of people as being legitimate refugees and therefore failing to allow them to enter the country legally.

Again Bill Lutz US attorney through mail fraud charges has alleged that Reverend Remerthamert was engaged in the business of selling babies going back to what story you thought you were covering. Stick in that role forget the role of defendant play the part of the journalist if you can for me here notably in the allegation that he was involved in the business of selling babies in the process of that he defrauded an adoption agency. At any point did you perceive events which would lead you as a journalist to come to that conclusion. No heavens no absolutely not I don't I don't know where those charges come from but what's interesting to me about the buzz word of baby selling is that. The many many many months and I should add taxpayers dollars spent on investigating this case have failed to turn up any real evidence indicating that my co defendant wasn't involved in selling babies and that is simply not in the indictment that's not what we're charged with it's one thing to use a buzz word it's another thing to actually charge individuals with the crime of baby selling or smuggling for gain.

Well of course the US attorney says that we will have access to that evidence when the case goes to court is a conceivable to you that there is evidence about which you have no knowledge no. I'm not God I'm only the religion writer but as of now no. The US attorney says the sanctuary is involved here the women be sent back the babies would be sold for adoption is this a sanctuary issue as you see it absolutely absolutely and certainly other people around the country including the co founder of sanctuary john five view this as a sanctuary case. The fact that the US attorney doesn't view it as such I would say is his problem I think the great majority of citizens do view this as a sanctuary case which makes it complicated more complicated is that it involves women who in addition were seeking sanctuary on behalf of their unborn when I talked to the women it was very clear that they were not to but they were for they were very aware that they were there were little lives.

Needed more than what they would have had in El Salvador which is almost certain early death. One of the issues involved in this case and the defense argument as a matter of fact is that others may have been involved in transactions associated with the entry into this country of these two women and their unborn children. But that those other persons were not indicted perhaps I think it's been said only the best known were indicted that indeed they were targeted for indictment we've read all this in the editorials and that sort of thing but how is that a defense. Well there's the theory of selective prosecution that that certain people are singled out for political and other reasons I think that what I've read about in the case of my co defendant is that he and this is obvious to any journalist he has been in the news a number of times because of his opposition to US policy in Central America he's been a vocal proponent of sanctuary and a vocal opponent.

Of administration funded wars in Central America and certainly one can't ignore that I think that this would be an excellent way five were US attorney this would be an excellent way not only to attempt to discredit the sanctuary movement but to attempt to silence someone like Glenn who has been so outspoken about it. And then as part of the package throw in a reporter who has consistently covered issues pertaining to immigration and the response of main line denominations to policy in US policy in Central America. A great deal of my background is in the area of immigration when I was at Princeton I worked on a task force dealing with that particular topic I took courses in religious social ethics at the seminary with and in the course of that we were asking questions about the nature of immigration in relationship to justice issues this has been a long time interest of mine and it certainly is is reflected in my writing.

And aside from it being my interest no journalist can ignore the fact that your main line denominations these are not fringe groups your main line denominations are one by one coming out with. Something akin to pastoral letters that in which they are expressing their opposition to the administration's policy in Central America many main line denominations are involved in the sanctuary movement these are the very people who are now supporting my co-defendant. It's a hot new story and for the US attorney to attempt to say that what Glenn did has nothing to do with being a religion writer or writing about religion is ridiculous.

Well whatever happens to the issues in this case to meet your Martinez version of this story will soon be told in a volume of her poetry at Arizona State University. Nativity for two Salvadoran women your eyes large as Canada welcome this stranger. We meet in a war as train station where you sat hours your offspring blooming in you like cactus fruit dresses stained where breasts leak panties and purses tagged at show in Edel Salvador. There are belts like equators mark north from south borders I cannot cross for I am a North American reporter pen and notebook the tools of my tribe distance us.

Though in any other era I might press a stethoscope to your wounds here the symphony of the unborn finger fourth infants to light wipe after birth cut cords. You tell me it is impossible to raise a child in that country. Sisters I am no saint just a woman who happens to be a reporter a reporter who happens to be a woman squat in a forest peeing on pine needles watching you vomit morning sickness. A sickness infinite is the war in El Salvador a sickness my pen and notebook will not ease tell me for Kestana key how did you cross over in my country we sing of a baby in a manger finance death squads how to write of this shame of the children you chose to save. You tell me it is impossible to raise a child in that country.

A North American reporter I smile you tell me you are due in December we nod knowing what women know I shut my notebook watch your car rock through the hila. Can you hangs over the windshield like the beak of an eagle babies turn in your wounds summoned to Berlin to be born. It is an off toll tale the demands for governmental services exceed the revenues necessary to support those services. It is a situation which prevails wherever we look be it the federal government state governments or our localities.

Down at Albuquerque City Hall the working estimate is that simply to maintain existing services an additional 9.6 million dollars will be required in the coming fiscal year. Mike Werner director of finance and management for the city of Albuquerque. The problem has come about basically as a result of several years of very slow growth in our recurring revenues basically our gross receipts tax that accounts for approximately two thirds of the city general fund budget. The gross receipts tax has dropped from a growth rate several years ago in double digits ten twelve percent or higher to a growth rate today of under five percent. That obviously has impacted us considerably because along with with the decline in revenues we have had normal increases in expenditures inflation on supplies salaries etc. So the gap has come about essentially because of the fall off in the gross receipts tax.

Already the city's financial problems have caused municipal officials to contemplate a 10.4 percent rate increase for such pay as you go enterprises as water and sewage services. If approved it would be Albuquerque's first water and sewage rate increase in six years. City Public Works director George Selvia. That's true. There are two costs that the city is faced with now in the public works department. One of the cost is the cost for simply replacing our infrastructure. We have the same problem that other cities in the United States have. We have an aging infrastructure in the central portions of our city and elsewhere and it has to be replaced. It's collapsing. The other cost that we have is not a cost that every city is blessed with and that's the growth that we are encountering. We're growing it to roughly some 9,000 people per year. A very substantive growth. In order to accommodate both the replacement of infrastructure and to keep up with growth there have to be some increases. Municipal services like water and sewage have long been self-supporting operations in Albuquerque.

But the city's larger array of services cannot be made to sustain themselves. They depend upon revenues generated from such sources as the sales tax, property tax and user fees. And when the revenues which flow from those sources fall below ongoing obligations and services, hard decisions are required. Either raise more money or cut services. There are those on the Albuquerque City Council however who would spare some municipal services, notably those involved in public safety, from any cuts whatsoever. City Council Finance Committee Chairman Pete Denelli. Whenever you're dealing with the police department, the fire department and health safety departments, of primary concern is protection of the public health safety and welfare. These are the essential services that the city is responsible for. I think that these are the various departments that should be the very last departments that we do any cuts in.

I think it would be irresponsible to look at cuts in those particular departments first. I think we need to look at other departments before we try to cut into those particular departments. And if we do cut into those departments, I'm saying the fire department, the police department, I think it should be only administrative positions, not positions that actual police officers. While recognizing the key role of public safety programs in Albuquerque, like fire and police protection, other members of the City Council hold to the view that, like love and war, all is fair in a budget crisis. Albuquerque City Councilor Richard Chapman has supported a measure which would contemplate the consequences of an 8% budget cut. The 8% budget cuts are basically designed to allow each department director to look at their own department, identify those areas that would be most expendable. It doesn't mean it's their recommendation that that service not be continued.

But the Council in a tough deficit year, along with the administration, has to share the obligation to look very thoroughly at the budget. In order to look at the budget and see the cutting edge between the difference between our wants and our needs, I think we need to see the 8% range. Somewhere in there, we'll find the difference between a service that has been successful and needs to be continued and services, maybe with all good intentions that in tight budget times, we should not continue. Mike Werner, let's look at the mix that you can play with here, at least the view from the administration. You potentially have an either-or situation on your hands here, either generate new revenues that is raised taxes, or cut somehow ongoing services. Are those the choices that you see, are we in an either-or situation? Well, it's either-or, but it's also a choice of anywhere along that spectrum. I mean, you have the flexibility of closing part of the gap with increased revenues, coupled with decreases in appropriations, or doing all of it one way or the other.

You could cut appropriations, as Council Chapman's bill, mainly to cutting appropriations by as much as 8%, that is a possibility. That may be rather draconian, on the other hand, you could also close the gap by raising a sufficient amount of tax revenues, a $9 or $10 million to close that gap. So you're left with some variation on the theme of tax increases and or budget cuts. Where can that most easily be accomplished if you look at the cut side? Well, I'm not sure it can be easily accomplished anywhere, however, quite frankly. I mean, we've had two years of relatively low budget growth. As a matter of fact, most departments' budgets for the current year were cut 2% below where they were last year, and that's what not even taking inflation into account. So in a real sense, the cut was 2% plus what they lost for inflation that they had to essentially absorb.

So the real cuts were on the order of 6% plus. So I think that whatever fat there was, if you assume there was any there to begin with, I think has largely been excised. And so I'm not sure you're in a position where you can easily go into any place and city government at this time easily cut anything out with that impact and service delivery. What you're basically saying, if you can't go in there and do that with some ease and confidence in what you're doing, you can have raised taxes. If you make your initial premise that you did not want impact services, that's true. But I think as Councillor Chapman has intimated that a possibility may be that in tight budgetary times, you may decide that certain programs can no longer viably be delivered to the public. I understand that's the assumption with which we're working, but I heard you saying it isn't going to be easy. No ease is something you will not, it will not be easy to do that every service that you want. Would it be wise or prudent in your point of view? Would it be counterproductive to cut any of the services that potentially would have to be sacrificed?

Well that's really a question how that may be better addressed to our two Councillors who are going to have to vote on that. Because essentially it's a question of what level of service delivery do the citizens of Albuquerque wish to receive and which level of service delivery do they wish to pay for? If you assume that up until the time we reach this budgetary crisis that the citizens were receiving the level of service that they desired and recent polls done by the news media indicate that the citizens have been relatively happy with the level of service provided. If you assume that then it is going to be very difficult to cut back on that because at that point in time city government will not be providing citizens with the type of governmental services which they have become used and which they desire. So then your choice is what do you cut? Do you cut senior citizens programs? Do you cut the police department? I mean these are all as you indicated perhaps sacred cows. Do you cut the so-called internal service departments? The finance department, the personnel department and what not? That's always a very popular approach. Well let's cut internal service.

But then you get to the situation where the computers that the internal service department runs are necessary for the police department to run or for the fire department to run. So there is no real easy answer here. I don't envy the council in making or the matter for that matter making the tough decisions. Almost anything they do is going to be wrong here isn't it politically, potentially politically unpopular? If you are faced with raising taxes on the one hand which is never a particularly popular solution or in the other hand eliminating programs again most programs have a constituency. And so I don't believe there is any easy solution here. Pete Dennelly, let's share with if you will your sense of the mix with which we are working here. You heard Mike. What's happening as you see it? I think it's an allergy can be made. It's very similar to the guns versus voter type of issues. It gets back to the individual and what priorities they want to establish as far as the special interest groups or what have you. I think that it's not unreasonable for city government to maintain the level of services. However the citizens of this city are going to have to realize that this is a dynamic city.

We are growing by leaps and bounds. By the year 2000 we are going to have approximately 180,000 more residents. We are at the 500,000 level now. Additionally we have grown by over one third geographically. We have to maintain the level of services but we are also able to realize to do that there may be a possibility of having to raise taxes. I believe that the finance department has given us for the past two years. We were aware that we were going to have financial problems this year. This is not a new revelation time in a way. I think we have. Over the last two years we have seen the administration make a good faith effort to cut areas. I think that more cuts are still in order. I think you could probably start with a mayor's office and start with the elimination of two CAOs. Another issue that's coming to play is a landfill for example. In two years we will not have a landfill. The least that we have with the Mesa del Sol that is the state will be expiring. Consequently we are playing catch-up ball.

We are going to have to find another location and relocate and that's the reason for the sewer and water increase. Plus the fact that we have a fleet of garbage trucks that are slowly depreciating those are going to have to be replaced. Keep in mind they are going to have to serve us a much bigger area as far as in also population. It's the dynamics of the whole process. I don't think you can look at any individual year. You have to look at a group of years. You have to look at four or five years down the road and start to realize that our police protection I think there's a definite need and a demand for an increase in police protection. I think in the fire department that's another area that will probably be needing some additional expenditures over the next few of three or four years. But most in particular you're looking at a city that because of its growth rate and whatever I think that our revenues are just not keeping up with our growth. What would happen if you all just went in and said okay we're going to maintain the status quo this year.

Would you still be revenue short? Yes. How much? I believe the figure is anywhere between nine to 12 million dollars. It's better to find a status quo. I mean if you did say more than what you're doing this year if you just did a mini graph of what you did this year. In a sense that implies a deterioration level of service because that is considered nearly indicated we have growing population which implies growing need. No you would not. If you just did a Xerox copy of this year's budget you would have a balanced budget next year. But that does imply if you did that there would in fact demand service because there would be more people constituencies and people you couldn't say. And not only that you have CIP capital improvements projects such as new libraries and new senior setters coming online then we would not be able to stay up. Another issue that is gurgling though that is is is going to be coming to a head here I think very soon is the issue of salaries. You've got to keep in mind that the city government employees approximately 5,200 employees.

The various unions have been accepting only 2.2% increases in salary. As a result I think that is contributing to a severe morale problem including the police department and the blue collar workers. I don't feel that we can continue accepting or continuing with the policy that we're just not going to offer any sort of salary increases we're going to try to maintain it. A real quick question because I want to talk to Richard Chapman about this. Of course since sales tax for quality of life projects recently approved 10 point I recall 4% for post increase rate and sewage for rate and sewage purposes. Add on to this an additional sales tax increase of some sort property tax or user fees. Whatever combination you're talking about. That's political dynamite out there. It's political dynamite back in July when we first addressed it. I believe that the quarter since sales tax increase that we enacted back in July that money is going to be applied towards the purchasing of very critical open space and areas including the rounds of state, the deserves man archaeological site and the petroglyphs.

Additionally approximately a million and a half will be going towards the new cadet class. Another $3 million will be going towards transportation and sewer drainage. So you're telling me you think the politics would bear an additional tax increase in Albuquerque? You know what I'm asking you to do. I know exactly what you're asking and I'll respond to it. I think that we should have gone ahead with a full half cent tax a year ago. What was your view at that time? That was my view and it still is my view. My view has not changed. I think that there was a justification for a full half cent increase. Whenever you talk about taxes with the gross receipt sales tax we can only do it in increments of a quarter. The last time we had a sales tax increase strictly for essential services was in 1982. So if you really look at it and if you look at it objectively I think you're seeing a city that has grown dynamically since 1982 yet we have had no real increase in gross receipt sales tax.

The other thing I want to point out is whenever you're dealing with the gross receipt sales tax right now it's 5.25%. However the city of Albuquerque only gets 2.1% of that. And in other words 2 cents out of every 5 cents that is leveled. The rest of that goes to the state. And we have not had an increase and as a result you're seeing a situation where essential services are going to I feel will be effective. Richard you heard Mike Warner describe your proposed 8% budget reductions as draconian. I always like that word draconian. It was an interesting word. You buy it. I think if we made full 8% cuts it would be draconian. The concept of opening up an 8% window was to allow something that I haven't seen in recent years and that's serious prioritization in the budget review process. What the administration has proposed in the last couple years to balance a budget are across the board cuts one and a half 2%. I think to do that once is probably a wise move you cut down on some of the supplies that maybe you're overstocking on maybe you review certain materials long term purchases that you can delay a little while when you do the second year you start to create a more serious problem.

You start to push a bubble deferred cost forward and if we were to do that this year. I think we would leave an even greater problem for the year that follows for you know just so for that 8% idea that it was was an analytical tool not a policy recommendation not a policy recommendation what it is is it takes us to the extreme within each department's budget. Because in order to prioritize we may have some departments particularly safety oriented departments where we may have to increase their budgets. We can't increase their budgets unless we can take away from another department we can't do that of everything is cut across the board. This allows us to look at the services we're offering to the citizens of albacurkey and say are we using their tax dollar in the wisest manner possible and it does not imply that we will necessarily make cuts.

It implies that we're going to have a very very thorough and very open process to review where our money is going and then decide do we raise taxes or do we make those cuts or do we in all likelihood some combination of those. You also have the opinion there should be no sacred cows in this budget making process I'm I'm told that's correct I I concur with Councillor Dinelli on the criticality of our safety employees particularly our uniformed officers and our our firemen and several the critical positions and environmental health as a matter of fact. But I think it's not a good process when you heavily review most departments but not all we need to go back and look where are we spending the money how are we prioritizing those uniformed officers. Are they on the street are they behind a desk a lot of them are behind a desk the necessity is on the council this year to be as totally responsible as we can to the citizens needs we can't do that by looking at part of the picture.

You heard your colleague on the council Pete Dinelli say that their the mayor's mayor shouts has made a good faith faith effort over the past two and a half years to eliminate whatever was inefficient. In the bureaucracy but he thought there was still some fat a popular word on the campaign trail in the mayor's office itself. C.A.O.'s and other mayor's staffers do you buy that analysis. I will study that analysis I don't buy it right off when when I look at the budgets that we have I think the typical concept of fat in city government is not only can relate so much to positions but maybe the productivity within those positions the incentives to do good work. The difference between a public enterprise like the city and private is no matter how hard the employees work they can't produce profit really.

They can work very hard budget times or tough they won't get the raise that they deserve. I think what we need to do is look at how we handle the services look at our public works projects are we being efficient or are we spending the money well that's where I think fat or the lies. It's obviously going to be pretty painful and there's another municipal election coming up just in the year and a half now. The city voters' memories are long. I don't know quite how it's his question since you're not the mayor but it does seem to me Pete has raised the question and Richard has said he's keeping an open mind. He's the diplomat Pete's the warrior apparently. I think the mayor's obviously going to look every place quite frankly and they have I think that to counter accounts of annulles argument somewhat merely because in the past there was only one CAO does not necessarily mean that was the correct way to do it.

We have 20 odd department directors and that is an extremely large span of control in any organization, 20 people reporting to one and that was a lot of the rationale of having two deputy CAO's for the chief administrative officer was to increase administrative efficiency. Legislature gave the city authority and we assume the mayor will sign off on the authority to raise the sales tax by one eighth. One eighth increments. One eighth increments that would be one eighth of one cent rather than one quarter of one cent which year to four had been the case. Would an increase of that sort get you out of the woods and position you where you should be position not just for this coming fiscal year but down the road. Yes and no. Well it depends again on the decisions made on the appropriation side for one thing. A quarter percent brings an eighth of a percent brings an approximate eight million dollars. I would say that would be that would be borderline and eighth of a percent quite frankly.

Particularly when you consider the technical factor that state allows us to impose the quarter percent or eighth of a percent only twice a year July one and January one. It would be virtually impossible for us to meet the July one deadline right now which means we would only get four months of collections on any tax during the next year which is considerably less than we would need. So Peter are we talking a quarter percent? Well I don't think we're I'm not prepared to say that yet. I don't know if there's going to be for trying you understand. I understand that but you know I firmly believe that this information at least since the two two years and three or four months that have been on the council we have known the financial straights the city was going to be in. This is not new information. But what amazes me is that I felt that there was a justification for a full half cent a year and a half ago a year ago. I don't I feel that need has not been removed.

I believe that a one eighth cent is not going to cut it if we're going to go with a tax increase that should be a full quarter cent. You buy that Richard? I buy that because if you're going to I mean he and the services we have the eighth cent alone wouldn't do it you still have to make some cuts. And you know that the question was really raised in the public forums and to the administration last year do we need additional quarter cent? And the answer was no we see the budget this year and the answer is yes. So we have some conflicting information coming in but I feel that allow the problems have been forecasted for a while. They haven't been addressed properly in the past. What we've been doing is we've been sending deferred costs forward so the chickens are coming home to rest. That's correct. You know we have had a succession of deferred costs that have been pushed forward and eventually you pay for those services. We've deferred by and refuse vehicles we're going to buy almost 50% replacement of our refuse vehicles in the next two years.

Our vehicles are supposed to last five six and seven years so it tells you that we've deferred replacing the vehicles and now we must pay the price. We have similar situations in other budgets where we've put off by an equipment put off by and police vehicles and so on. But your maintenance cost add up and eventually your replacement cost are higher now than they would have been earlier. We're facing situations like that this year. Are we feeling the impact not only of those deferred cost but of those decisions made over the past seven years Mike? Absolutely. It's only been within the last several years that we have lost federal revenue sharing. That was our second largest revenue source at the time we lost it or eight or nine million dollars a year. That is a funding source we've had to replace in light of declining grocery seats tax. And it's been very difficult in one fell swoop over the course of essentially one and a half fiscal years. We had eight million dollars pulled out from under us by the federal government and we still have to fund those programs.

Essentially revenue sharing for the city of Albuquerque went to the fire department. We couldn't shut down the fire department because the federal government eliminated revenue sharing. See people don't always understand that when they made those decisions five six seven years ago that they also were making decisions about today and tomorrow as concerns tax increases in their localities. That's your job you guys job is politician to remind them of that. Do you think they want to be reminded? Well, it's clear that the monkeys on our back we have a situation where our revenues are down. No one wants to raise taxes but what happens when the streets start falling apart the sewers cave in the waters mains break the trashes and picked up. When that starts happening people are going to say how irresponsible of government and we avoided raising taxes. That's what people want. They don't want taxes raised. But the fact remains to pay for essential services the primary source is taxation through the quarter cent.

And the fact that we have lost so much funding in the federal government especially in the area of transportation. I think you could also throw in some law enforcement in there also. Where have to make up the difference? Folks you've been a big help this has turned out really to be a story about the chickens coming home to ruse and you've helped us I think understand that. Thank you a lot. The clock is fast running out on us this evening but coming up next week as the hook blog grows in anticipation of the movie premiere. I'm not saying it's good. I'm not saying it's bad. The author of Melagro bean field war New Mexico's John Nichols goes fishing. The nation's first general interest Hispanic magazine rolls off the press next month. Has a former New Mexico governor turns big time publisher.

Besides making sure you have adequate financing to carry you through the first hard months. You have to be prepared to consider it as a constant challenge. So you just not out of the woods in this business for a long time and you have to accept it. So until next week then I'm Hal Rhodes on assignment. Thank you for joining us. Good night. Good night.

Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night.

Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night.

Good night. Journalist Demetria Martinez says she was covering a sanctuary movement religious story protected by the first amendment. But a federal grand jury indicted her for conspiring to transport illegal aliens into this country. The intent here is to attempt to defame the movement and attempt to reduce it by claiming that the sole reason involved in this was surrounding children or babies selling. And Albuquerque City Hall struggles with financial hard times and perhaps another tax increase as it grapples with a new budget for the coming fiscal year.

The key thing I think in terms of looking at the cost for city government are the services provided. Are we getting the services we want and that we need and if we are, are we willing to pay for those services?