I’ve been asked several times why I believe Public Regulation Commissioner E. Shirley Baca lost her re-election bid in the primary.
Baca gave us her take for the first time during Thursday’s PRC meeting. She attributed her defeat to low voter turnout and negative campaigning by her challenger in the Democratic primary, Sandy Jones.
“It’s a sad thing when you lose due to nasty campaigning,” the Las Cruces Sun-News quoted Baca as saying. “Anybody that resorts to this kind of nasty and negative campaigning, this is going to be an indicator of what kind of commissioner they would be.”
Is anyone surprised that this is Baca’s explanation? She has spent years blaming others when scandals cropped up. Now she’s pointing a finger at Jones and voter turnout, which I guess means she’s blaming her would-be supporters, who, had they bothered to vote, would have allegedly given her victory.
I have a different opinion.
Baca did little campaigning, at least compared to Jones, though she has a reputation for being a workhorse when it comes to getting voters to the polls.
Jones’ negative campaigning worked, but only because he latched on to what was already there and rode it to victory. For years, Baca has appeared arrogant and self-serving in repeated newspaper and television interviews.
Let’s start with the obvious. She was arrested in 2004 at the Albuquerque airport and charged with possession of marijuana. The charges were later dropped, without much explanation, and Baca claimed she was framed.
The event captured statewide headlines for months.
After the charges were dropped, Baca’s name popped up again, this time because the National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrote an April letter to the PRC accusing Baca of misbehaving at a meeting in Orlando.
Baca allegedly demanded to receive a special badge reserved for members of the insurance commission, and was “rude and unprofessional” when she didn’t get it, the Albuquerque Journal reported.
Baca said she wasn’t rude and blamed the association. She also blamed then-PRC Insurance Superintendent Eric Serna, who she claimed took the special badge for himself.
“I really believe it was Eric that didn’t want me to have acknowledgement,” Baca told the Journal.
So the trip was about receiving “acknowledgement?” What about representing residents of her district?
In a May interview with the Las Cruces Bulletin, Baca claimed “the cops lied” about the marijuana charges. She also hinted that then-PRC Chief of Staff Patrick Baca, who she identified by title but not name, was involved in the alleged conspiracy to frame her.
Jones took advantage of all of this. In mailers he claimed Baca missed 38 percent of PRC meetings in 2005, though he counted as absences the approximately 10 percent of meetings where she was present by telephone. He said she only attended those meetings “for a few minutes.”
And he slammed her for spending more than $7,000 in taxpayer money to travel to national conferences in 2005.
Jones simply pointed out the baggage that already existed. Baca is missing meetings to travel to conferences. What’s she doing at those conferences? The skeptical voter might think she is seeking personal recognition and a good party.
To top it off, when I requested a response to Jones’ attacks, Baca had a PRC staffer, paid by taxpayers, pour over minutes of 160 meetings to create an official PRC document so Baca could respond to a campaign attack.
What a valuable use of taxpayer dollars. I thought that was the purpose of campaign fundraising.
The difference between the attendance analysis done by Jones’ campaign and that of the PRC staffer was little, other than the issue of whether to count phone attendance as actual attendance. Jones is entitled to his opinion.
It should be pointed out that Baca lost the race because she lost her home county of Doña Ana. The rest of the district was close, but here, Jones had 60 percent of the vote.
Baca is right about low voter turnout. Some 4,260 Democrats voted in Grant County (59 percent of them for Baca). In Doña Ana County, only 4,894 Democrats voted (60 percent of them for Jones).
Grant County’s population is about 31,000. In Doña Ana County, the population is approaching 200,000.
But I would argue that Baca is partly to blame for low voter turnout among Democrats. There have been many, many scandals in this county involving elected Democrats in the past three years, including Baca’s. People here know her. She’s been around politics a long time.
Many politicians survive scandal because they respond to it graciously. Baca’s responses to controversy over the past couple of years lost her the support of Doña Ana County Democrats. Many voted for Jones. Many more just stayed home.
I’m not saying there wasn’t a conspiracy to set her up on the marijuana charges. In New Mexico, nothing is impossible.
The reality is that the PRC is one of the most powerful regulation boards in the nation. As a group, New Mexico’s elected officials haven’t given us reason to believe any board can be trusted with that much.
Maybe it’s time to rethink the PRC. In sending Baca home, voters seem to be ready for a change.
***
While we’re on this subject, Patrick Baca is threatening to sue Shirley Baca over her comments to the Bulletin. Here is her official response:
June 15, 2006
Mr. J. Edward Hollington & Associates, P.A.
Law Offices
708 Marquette Avenue, N.W.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
Re: Defamation/Request for Retraction
Dear Mr. Hollington:
Yesterday I received your letter dated June 12, 2006 requesting that I “publicly retract the accusation … made against Patrick Baca” in a Las Cruces Bulletin article dated May 12, 2006. You are alleging that I made “public defamatory statements about Patrick Baca” and if I “do not publicly retract those accusations, statements, and innuendoes against Mr. Baca, legal action will be brought against [me] in [my] individual capacity.”
The Constitution of New Mexico in Article II, §17. Section I. General Consideration provides that “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects; …and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or the press.” Section II. Freedom of Speech and Press clearly provides constitutional liberty of speech and press and gives complete immunity from legal censure and punishment from all publications as judged by standards of common law in force. Curry v. Journal Publishing Co., 41 N.M. 318, 68 P2d 168 (1937).
Section III. of Article II, §17 establishes that the right of privacy is generally inferior and subordinate to the dissemination of news, and protected from libel. Even though account affects persons not willingly participating in occurrence, it is not an invasion of privacy to publish the account of an occurrence when it is of general interest even though the parties affected were not willing participants in the occurrences. The right of privacy is to be applied to the individual of ordinary sensibilities not the supersensitive. Blount v. TD Publishing Corp., 77 N.M. 384, 423 P2d 421 (1966).
The question in the article asked specifically; Bulletin: …your supporters say you were “set up”….The other question is how would they know your flight schedule and where your bag was…? I responded; Baca:…”The former chief of staff would have had to approve all travel for commissioners or for staff….At least two weeks in advance, the chief of staff has to approve our travel. The chief of staff not only knew my travel agenda and schedule, but likewise knew where my flight was because everything is done through the state procurement, so he knew that. Also, the chief of staff had control of all of the keys of the fleet vehicles… New Paragraph…”I believe the whole intent of the “set up” was absolutely for the purpose of me to step down.”
My statements to the Las Cruces Bulletin are absolutely true and protected by my freedom of speech, namely; (1) the former chief of staff approved all travel for commissioners and staff, (2) knew my travel agenda, and (3) had control of all keys of the fleet vehicles. I likewise believe that my “set up” was for the purpose of me to step down, and evidenced by the process of series of incidents that occurred to me following the December 8, 2005 arrest at the Albuquerque Airport.
Mr. Hollington, it is YOU who state in your letter, “The clear meaning and understanding of the context in which you answered the question about being set up was your evidence that others understood your accusation that Mr. Patrick Baca planted illegal substances in a fleet car as part of a setup.” Then you further state that, “Joe Monaghan’s New Mexico Politics website contained the statement, “She (E. Shirley Baca) hinted that former PRC Chief of Staff Patrick Baca was involved in what she said was a conspiracy to set her up.”
As a lawyer, I realize it is your privilege to pursue representation of any client seeking your assistance. However, I find it inciteful for you to interpret my answers to the Bulletin as evidence that I am accusing Patrick Baca of planting illegal substances in a fleet car. Never did I state Patrick Baca’s name [or any specific individual] in my interview, and any reasonable reader would not have even known him from any past NMPRC chief of staff. Never did I accuse Patrick Baca [or any specific individual] of “planting illegal substances in a fleet car.” The “others” whom you referenced in your statement clearly names a political blogger named Joe Monaghan, and a statement that he wrote regarding a “hint” that I made about a former chief of staff. Again, it is Monaghan who specifically names Patrick Baca, and it is Monaghan who alludes to my “hinting” that Patrick Baca was involved in a conspiracy to set me up.
Fortunately, New Mexico extends broad protection to speech and press. It also allows to giving evidence of truth as defense in criminal libel suits. The interpretation by Patrick Baca, Edward Hollington, and Joe Monaghan of what is factually printed in the Bulletin is exactly that; your interpretation and innuendoes.
I will provide the Albuquerque Journal and Las Cruces Bulletin a copy of my response to your letter. I am sure that they will agree that this article abided by Article II, §17 of the Constitution of New Mexico’s protection of speech and press.
Sincerely,
Commissioner E. Shirley Baca