With less than four days until polls open at 7 a.m. Tuesday in the Las Cruces Municipal Election, there are a few odds and ends that need to be wrapped up, all relating to disclosure.
Any of these topics could have warranted its own article but, this close to the election, I hesitate to go there. It’s time to try to wrap up investigate reporting on election-related issues. So here’s what I know that’s outstanding:
People for Prosperity
Last weekend, a group calling itself People for Prosperity made public its attempt to affect the outcome of the election with a quarter-page advertisement in the Las Cruces Sun-News. It has since unveiled a Web site and a series of pricey newspaper ads.
I’ve been pushing all week for the group to publicly disclose who is behind the effort, arguing that it should operate with transparency. Today, the group put out a news release identifying members of its board of directors as Hotch Manning, a retired businessman and past president of the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce; Kari Mitchell, CEO and owner of Las Cruces Machine, Manufacturing & Engineering; and
The non-profit states in the release that it’s “a long-term educational group committed to dispel negative misconceptions about socio-economic conditions in and around
Though it doesn’t endorse any candidates, the group certainly shares the views of Mayor Bill Mattiace and council incumbents seeking re-election.
“In recent months and during this active local political season, many citizens and local business owners who have worked so hard to improve Las Cruces are increasingly dissatisfied with the proliferation of inaccurate and negative misinformation concerning growth and the local economy,” the group’s news release states. “
Conservation Voters of
Conservation Voters of New Mexico is playing a large role in the city’s election. I’ve already reported that the group gave $500 to mayoral candidate Ken Miyagishima and $1,000 to council District 4 candidate Nathan Small. What has not been reported is the get-out-the-vote effort of its companion non-profit organization, Conservation Voters of New Mexico Educational Fund.
The group has sent mailers to targeted voters that promote voting for candidates who support things like “responsible development,” clean air, public parks, water conservation and “efficient use of tax dollars,” but the mailers don’t endorse specific candidates. Check out one of the mailers by clicking here.
Conservation Voters Political Director Leanne Leith confirmed that the group used data to send the mailers to voters who are most likely to share its concerns. There’s nothing improper about what’s being done here, since there are two separate non-profits involved, but the overall effort by Conservation Voters, in practicality, includes financially backing some candidates and trying to get voters who support those candidates’ views to the polls.
The effort will also include phone calls on Election Day. In addition, a look at Small’s finance report reveals financial contributions from one Conservation Voters staffer and one board member of the Conservation Voters educational non-profit.
Another Frietze/Philippou land deal
I’ve written extensively about prior land deals between a non-profit run by District 1 Councilor José Frietze, who has three challengers in this election, and controversial
You can read about the previous land deals here, the latest on the resulting ethics complaint here, and my chastisement of Frietze for failing to disclose the land deals here.
As for the recently discovered land deal, Philippou’s Katerina, Inc. gave the Frietze-run Resources for Children and Youth, Inc. half ownership of 1,543 acres of land in
That appears to indicate and FYI and Katerina were co-owners of the parcel of land before Jan. 6, 2006. I don’t know why they co-owned the land or for how long. In fact, I can’t tell you anything else. Reached by telephone this morning, Frietze told me he would call me back, but he has not. Philippou has not returned a call seeking comment.
So you’ll have to decide what this means before you vote on Tuesday.
Secretive attackers go after Philippou and his allies
Some group has started a Web site attacking public officials its members dub “politicians helping Philippou” – Mattiace, three councilors and the state land commissioner. The group informed me of the site through an anonymous e-mail, and they haven’t responded to a request to identify themselves.
In addition, I know the name of the person to whom the site’s domain, http://lascrucesphp.com, is registered. I called and e-mailed him, but he hasn’t responded. I won’t name him here, because I’m not certain of his involvement in the site, but you can find his name with an Internet search if you want.
I’m disappointed that the group has chosen to remain secret. Its members are accusing these politicians of secretive activity while they’re hiding behind their own cloak. That violates the spirit of openness and transparency with which they want the council to operate.
Many citizens who have been galvanized by a belief that growth is out of control are active in the Progressive Voter Alliance and Quality Growth Alliance, though neither group officially backs candidates who are running on a platform of slower or smarter growth. The PVA, in the spirit of openness, reveals a great deal about its members and participants on its Web site, but the QGA does not, which is unfortunate.
I can’t really tell you whether the new Web site is tied to members of either of these groups.
That’s it
I won’t say I’m not planning to write any more about controversial issues, accusations or disclosure, but there comes a point when we’re too close to the election for candidates to have adequate time to respond, and we’re just about there. I don’t plan any more articles on these or similar topics until after the polls close, and hope nothing comes up at the last minute that requires an article.
It’s time to vote. Early voting continues this afternoon and Saturday. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Tuesday. Good luck to all the candidates.
A prior version of this posting incorrectly stated that People for Prosperity’s ads were full-page ads. It also incorrectly said the land deal was for 1.5 acres, not 1,543.