Bernalillo County Sheriff and Albuquerque mayoral candidate Manuel Gonzales
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The 2021 Albuquerque mayoral race is taking a day trip through the city’s administrative hearing process due to a battle over public financing.
Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales’ mayoral campaign has appealed City Clerk Ethan Watson’s decision to deny Gonzales taxpayer funding for his campaign.
A hearing on the appeal is scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday via Zoom video conference. A link is available at cabq.gov/clerk/news.
……………………………………………………….
What’s at stake with this appeal?
About $600,000.
Publicly financed mayoral candidates can collect a limited amount of private money to launch their campaigns but commit to an overall spending limit of $661,309 — most of which comes from a taxpayer-supported city fund. Gonzales would have received $603,739 if certified.
Watson already has certified Mayor Tim Keller — the incumbent seeking reelection — for the financing and disbursed the money.
Should Watson’s decision not to certify Gonzales hold up, the sheriff could continue running by changing to private funding.
Political analyst Brian Sanderoff, president of Research & Polling Inc., said there’s a limited amount of money flowing into local elections like a mayor’s race. Right now, it can go into political action committees supporting the candidates. There is currently a PAC fundraising in support of Gonzales and one doing the same for Keller’s candidacy.
If Watson’s decision is upheld, and Gonzales must turn to private funding, his campaign would likely draw money away from what the PAC might have raised, Sanderoff said, never making up for what was lost in public financing.
“That’s money that can’t be replaced,” he said.
How did we get here?
Watson last week notified Gonzales he was denying the sheriff’s public financing application, citing concerns about possible fraud during the qualification process. At issue are the $5 “qualifying contributions” mayoral candidates must collect from individual voters to prove they have sufficient community support. The clerk’s office had verified more than 4,100 such contributions for Keller and for Gonzales. Each only needed 3,779 to qualify. However, Keller’s campaign has filed two ethics complaints against Gonzales alleging fraud. In the first, a voter provided a signed statement saying that Gonzales personally told the voter he did not need to give $5 and that Gonzales’ campaign would cover the contribution. The second alleges that Gonzales’ campaign forged voter signatures on nearly 150 of the $5 contribution receipts submitted to the Clerk’s Office. Keller’s team has provided signed statements from about 40 voters asserting the signatures on the Gonzales documentation are illegitimate.
How did Watson justify his decision?
The City Clerk is responsible for “certifying” public financing applicants, which includes determining if they have met requirements of the city’s Open and Ethical Elections Code and complied with related rules the Clerk established.
The Clerk’s 2021 rules say he “shall not certify” candidates for certain reasons. That includes if the Clerk determined the candidate has”been found to have submitted any fraudulent Qualifying Contributions or any failed acknowledgment forms for Qualifying Contributions … where the Applicant Candidate knew or should have known of the fraudulence or falsification” or if he determines the candidate “has been found to have made a materially false statement in a report or other document submitted to the City Clerk.”
Watson said he could not certify Gonzales had complied with those rules and parts of the code, citing documents presented with the ethics complaints.
What is the basis of the appeal?
Gonzales’ campaign is making several arguments, including that Watson is not a neutral decision-maker due to his appointed city position and that “it has not been proven to any standard of proof” that the questioned Gonzales contributions are fraudulent. The appeal also contends that Gonzales submitted more than enough contributions to qualify for public financing even if those being challenged were removed.
Is Watson a Keller appointee?
Yes. However, the City Clerk is among the few appointed jobs in city government that also require the City Council’s consent. The City Council in March 2020 confirmed Watson’s appointment on a 9-0 vote.
Other appointed jobs that require City Council consent are chief administrative officer, deputy administrative officer, police chief, fire chief and city attorney.
Who is conducting the hearing on Gonzales’ appeal?
Thursday’s hearing is with hearing officer Ripley Harwood, a local attorney with over 30 years of legal practice. Harwood is under contract to serve the city’s Office of Administrative Hearings, which handles a range of administrative hearings, from personnel matters to appeals related to the city’s body art ordinance.
What happens during and after the hearing?
Gonzales has “the burden of providing evidence to demonstrate that the Clerk’s decision was improper,” according to the City Charter. The hearing officer must rule within three days of the hearing. The parties — Gonzales and the City Clerk — have the right to appeal the hearing officer’s decision to State District Court.
What does all this mean for the election ballot?
Nothing. Qualifying for public financing and qualifying for the ballot are separate processes overseen by different entities. Bernalillo County Clerk Linda Stover last month certified that both Gonzales and Keller qualified to be on the Nov. 2 ballot, having each surpassed the requirement of obtaining 3,000 petition signatures.
What is happening with the pending ethics complaints against Gonzales?
The city’s Board of Ethics & Campaign Practices is still set to hold hearings on both ethics complaints against Gonzales’ campaign — the first on Friday and the second on July 22. If the board decides Gonzales violated city code or regulations, it can impose a fine, issue a written finding of censure and refer applicable matters to state authorities.
