More Commentary

• Commentary: Bill aims to help American Indians in urban areas
• Commentary: Albuquerque Public Schools just can't admit they let down the children of Navajo Elementary
• Commentary: Volunteer vets provide animal care to New Mexico's pueblos and reservations

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

Now that the city's Board of Ethics and Campaign Practices has had its hearing pertaining to my campaign bookkeeping, we can let the results of that process help to respond to Jim Lowe's recent and unfounded attack in The Albuquerque Tribune.

The ethics board's decision as to the bookkeeping from my 2005 election account resulted in five technical violations of the election code. The board was fair in reaching that conclusion.

What is also important is what the board's review did not find: Experienced election accountants testified that this was the most detailed audit of any Albuquerque official's campaign accounts ever, and without reservation they swore under oath there was absolutely no misconduct, no corruption and no fraudulent activity involved. Just disorganized bookkeeping.

Additionally, CPA Demesia Padilla and accounting agent/City Councilor Ken Sanchez, both of whom professionally reviewed my campaign account in detail, testified that all election expenditures, including the legitimate loans I made to my campaign, are all documented and accounted for.

Thankfully, because of a fair ethics hearing, the results were not only not devastating to me, as Lowe and his group seeking my recall Tuesday promised, but the process also allowed the board to hear about some challenges officials face when using the campaign reporting system on the city's Web site. We also covered the contradictory advice received from the assistant city attorney on how to handle election-code compliance questions.

By its decision, the ethics board admonished me and anyone else seeking public office to keep close track of their campaign bookkeeping and to seek guidance from city officials when it is needed. Respectfully, such a feat is easier said then done.

As was testified at my hearing by the accountant hired by the ethics board, Albuquerque's campaign reporting rules have not always been the most user-friendly. It was also shown that the guidance candidates receive from city staff does not always help avoid problems down the road.

As one example, in the audit report prepared by the assistant city attorney, it was claimed that I received $7,000 in excess contributions because I exceeded the $480 per contribution limit during the 2005 election cycle. This assistant city attorney then listed 37 violations against me for accepting contributions higher than the $480 per election limit.

What the assistant city attorney did not disclose - but which was brought out at Monday's hearing - was that prior to my fund-raising I asked of and received from this same assistant city attorney a determination that the limit ($480) was doubled to $960 per contributor because I was involved in two elections within one month - the general election and the run-off election. . . .

The board judiciously reduced violations to five issues and assessed a fine as defined by the election code for each. Not surprising, the total fine of $2,500 was a bit less than the over $80,000 in fines an assistant city attorney suggested.

Another error in the assistant city attorney's audit, and one which even City Attorney Bob White confirmed, alleged 21 infractions of a rule that did not even exist at the time of the "violations." That's like being ticketed for not stopping at an intersection six months before they put up the stop sign.

There is a need to protect fair due process for anyone who is subject to an ethics hearing, particularly in my case, where an overeager mayor is salivating over the chance to appoint my replacement if I am recalled Tuesday. It was that kind of pressure that unnecessarily accelerated a hearing process in order to achieve a political goal - to enable the mayor to control the City Council.

I am thankful for a board of ethics comprised of fair people who would not let the process be manipulated by the political string-pulling behind the scenes. The board heard the evidence and found me accountable for the bookkeeping problems for which I was responsible.

I am very sorry for not keeping better track of my records. My campaign account is now organized. And I recognize it was my own accounting mistakes that gave some a convenient avenue of attack.

But at its core, this one reeked of political mischief, and I believe the voters know it.