Speaker of the House Ben Lujan struck back at those who say he quietly slipped a $75 million appropriation into this year’s capital outlay bill by saying “we weren’t trying to fool anyone… that’s not how we operate.”
Last week, I reported that it was Lujan who put funding into the bill for the state’s share of future water rights settlements with American Indian tribes. Before that, no one had said publicly who was responsible for the funding proposal Gov. Bill Richardson later vetoed, leaving the public in the dark about the situation. Lujan called me Tuesday to acknowledge that it was him, and to say he has “no problem taking the initiative” on important issues.
Lujan, in fact, sponsored a bill this session that would have appropriated $20 million for the state’s share of one of three outstanding water rights cases. That bill passed the House Agriculture and Water Resources Committee, which Lujan said is proof that he wasn’t sneaking around.
It was sometime in the last 2-3 days of the session, Lujan said, that he combined three water rights settlement proposals and put them all in the capital outlay bill.
A couple of sources criticized Lujan last week for, in addition to being sneaky, ruling over the House like a monarch. Lujan also disputed that Tuesday.
“That’s not the case at all,” he said. “I work with my members, and that’s why they’ve chosen me as their House speaker.”
Lujan corrected me on one point from last week’s posting: The capital outlay bill originated, and in fact always originates, in the House. I said it was first approved in the Senate.
But that led me to another interesting piece of this puzzle. When I learned that the capital outlay bill was not discussed in a conference committee prior to approval, I called Lujan back, and he said that hadn’t been done for years.
The capital outlay bill is normally approved by the capital outlay subcommittee in the House, then the Taxation and Revenue Committee. It then goes to the Senate Finance Committee so that half of the legislature can add in its share of the money, before it’s approved by the House and the Senate.
This year, it never went to the Senate Finance Committee, Legislative Council Service told me. The document, which exceeds 440 pages, was all put together before that, the $75 million proposal included.
One source told me that’s evidence that the piecing together of capital outlay wasn’t done this year through normal channels. Though conference committees are secret meetings of legislative leaders, the deal to combine the three water rights settlement proposals and put them in the capital outlay bill was kept secret even from them, the source said.
Another source was surprised Lujan told me there was no conference committee.
“That’s sort of a confession on his part,” the source said.
If all this seems confusing, that’s because it is. I started on this topic to explain that conference committees need to be open to the public as a way to encourage a culture of openness in the legislature.
The way things stand now, most legislators were in the dark when they approved a $75 million appropriation, simply because they weren’t let in on the decision to include it and didn’t have time to sort through the capital outlay bill before they voted on it. That should make most taxpayers uneasy.
“The system needs to change drastically,” one source said.
***
And while we’re on the topic of people who take issue with things I’ve been writing…
State Rep. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, called me Tuesday to discuss a statement from yesterday’s posting about the special audit of Doña Ana County.
Years ago, when he was a county commissioner, Cervantes was instrumental in creating an agreement with landowners in the Santa Teresa area. They would loan the county money to pay back bonds used to build a water and sewer system there, repayable with 3 percent interest. The problem: That is not what the bond purchasers were told about how the bonds would be repaid. They were told revenues from the system would cover the payments.
The state auditor said there were a lot of potential problems with the agreement and referred it to prosecutors, who are investigating.
I pointed out Tuesday that Cervantes told me two years ago he would have to take responsibility if problems were found. I called on him to do that.
But Cervantes has a different take on the situation. He joined the commission while the bond deal was being worked out. The repayment schedule was based on an optimistic growth plan for the Santa Teresa area that has not materialized. Cervantes said he feared that might be the case, and insisted that developers, not just taxpayers, put up some guarantee.
And the loan agreement was born.
“Frankly, I was right,” Cervantes said. “I am always cautious when government is asked to risk where the private sector is unwilling to risk.”
He said it would have been wise, in retrospect, to reword the bond language so it allowed for the landowner agreement. Cervantes pointed out that landowners have already paid some $500,000 on the bonds for the county – money he doesn’t believe the developers will ever call on the county to repay, so he says it is money the taxpayers have saved.
There you have it. You can view the special audit on the Sun-News Web site by clicking here.
***
I neglected last week to thank Mario Burgos, Whitney Cheshire, Democracy for New Mexico and New Mexico Matters for telling their readers to visit my blog. So, thanks! And thanks to LCWatch.com for putting up a link to my blog this week.
Keep the news tips coming. Feel free to criticize and debate with me, too. If Lujan and Cervantes can do it, so can you!