John Fund is National Affairs Columnist for National Review magazine and an on-air analyst on the Fox News Channel. He is considered a notable expert on American politics and the nexus between politics and economics. He spoke at the Albuquerque Museum in Albuquerque on Monday, April 29, 2013. His presentation is below:

4-30-13 John Fund from Paul Gessing on Vimeo.

With just a few weeks left in the 2013 legislative session, the wheat is beginning to separate from the chaff among legislators in terms of pro-and anti-freedom votes in the New Mexico Legislature.

Click here to access the site.

The good news is that two bills (both of them positive in terms of freedom) have passed both houses at this point.
Under the “Index Summary” tab, you can see how many points, positive or negative, your legislator has earned so far this session;

Under the “Compare Parties” tab you can find out which of the two parties in Santa Fe are voting FOR freedom and which are voting AGAINST freedom;

The “Legislators” tab allows you to look at details of each legislator;

The “Legislator Record” allows users to see which bills are included in the analysis and whether they are pro or anti-freedom;

The “Rated Legislation” tab allows users to access analyses for each bill included in the report and better understand the ratings.

Unfortunately, not much in the way of needed reforms has passed out of either house this session to date. Fewer bills have made it through both houses.

And, so far, the following priorities have either been killed completely or are on “life support.”

No “Right to Work;”

No pro-business tax reforms;

No serious effort at deregulation;

No school choice; and

No serious education reforms;

Our tracking site called “Freedom Index” allows users to see how all members of both parties are voting on freedom issues. More importantly, users (including legislators) can find out how pro-or anti-freedom various pending bills are.

With less than two weeks left in the legislative session, a lot can happen. We’re not impressed with the lack of action on some of the big economic and educational problems facing the state, but we remain hopeful that some additional pro-freedom reforms can take place in the closing days of the session. Be sure to contact your legislators to share your views with them.

With just a few weeks left in the 2013 legislative session, the wheat is beginning to separate from the chaff among legislators in terms of pro-and anti-freedom votes in the New Mexico Legislature.

Click here to access the site.

The good news is that two bills (both of them positive in terms of freedom) have passed both houses at this point.
Under the “Index Summary” tab, you can see how many points, positive or negative, your legislator has earned so far this session;

Under the “Compare Parties” tab you can find out which of the two parties in Santa Fe are voting FOR freedom and which are voting AGAINST freedom;

The “Legislators” tab allows you to look at details of each legislator;

The “Legislator Record” allows users to see which bills are included in the analysis and whether they are pro or anti-freedom;

The “Rated Legislation” tab allows users to access analyses for each bill included in the report and better understand the ratings.

Unfortunately, not much in the way of needed reforms has passed out of either house this session to date. Fewer bills have made it through both houses.

And, so far, the following priorities have either been killed completely or are on “life support.”

No “Right to Work;”

No pro-business tax reforms;

No serious effort at deregulation;

No school choice; and

No serious education reforms;

Our tracking site called “Freedom Index” allows users to see how all members of both parties are voting on freedom issues. More importantly, users (including legislators) can find out how pro-or anti-freedom various pending bills are.

With less than two weeks left in the legislative session, a lot can happen. We’re not impressed with the lack of action on some of the big economic and educational problems facing the state, but we remain hopeful that some additional pro-freedom reforms can take place in the closing days of the session. Be sure to contact your legislators to share your views with them.

(Albuquerque) In an effort to improve government transparency throughout New Mexico, the Rio Grande Foundation has requested and published payroll data for the 35 largest cities throughout New Mexico and all 33 counties in the state.

Some cities including Albuquerque and Rio Rancho post payroll information online. Bernalillo County also posts salary data on its website. However, few city website has a comprehensive listing of payroll data from New Mexico cities and counties. Find city data here and county data here. 

Said Rio Grande Foundation President Paul Gessing of his organization’s role in releasing the data, “Taxpayers are the ultimate ‘bosses’ of government workers and should have access to this data. Government is the only ‘business’ in which the boss often doesn’t have access to the company payroll.”

Under New Mexico law, employee salary data is already public information, available on request from the county or city government. Now, thanks to legislation passed during the 2011 legislative session, this and other data must be made available in a format preferred by the requestor.  

Unfortunately, being required to comply with a request and actual compliance are not the same thing. All counties complied with our requests, but several cities including Bernalillo, Las Vegas, and Roswell failed to comply.

Responding to the most likely critique of having this information online, Gessing said, “Having salary information online is not a privacy threat. The Rio Grande Foundation has had similar information posted for cities, counties, and institutions of higher education online for years and we have not heard any specific complaints.”

“We at the Rio Grande Foundation believe strongly that transparency and openness are keys to achieving a more limited, fiscally-responsible government. Information on who is hired to do what and how much they are being paid is information that must be available and accessible to the public” said Gessing.

Counties

Bernalillo

Catron

Chaves

Cibola

Colfax

Curry

De Baca

Doña Ana

Eddy

Grant

Guadalupe

Harding

Hidalgo

Lea

Lincoln

Los Alamos

Luna

McKinley

Mora

Otero

Quay

Rio Arriba

Roosevelt

Sandoval

San Juan

San Miguel

Santa Fe

Sierra

Socorro

Taos

Torrance

Union

Valencia

City Payroll

Alamogordo

Albuquerque

Anthony

Artesia

Aztec                                                                                                                       

Belen

Bernalillo

Bloomfield

Carlsbad

Chaparral

Clovis

Corrales

Deming

Española

Farmington

Gallup

Grants

Hobbs

Kirtland

Las Cruces

Las Vegas

Los Lunas

Los Ranchos de Albuquerque

Lovington

Portales

Raton

Rio Rancho

Roswell

Ruidoso

Santa Fe

Shiprock

Silver City

Socorro

Sunland Park

Tucumcari

Truth or Consequences

See what the legislature is doing relative to open government:

Since publication of our paper, “Lack of Transparency for New Mexico’s

Not-For-Profit Hospitals Cost Taxpayers Dearly,” we have engaged in an extensive dialogue with various representatives of UNM Hospital. They have brought to our attention some concerns relating to the paper. This document is intended to offer a critique/correction of errors within the paper and clarify the issues presented within. It is also designed to offer an update on public meetings that have been planned to discuss the proposed expansion.

1)      UNMH is not a not-for-profit hospital; rather UNMH is a government-owned and-operated facility. This is true and, although UNMH does have a not-for-profit fundraising arm, it is technically a government-owned entity. This actually worsens some of the issues with UNMH potentially moving into new areas of care (taxpayer-funded institution competing with a for-profit, tax-paying institution) outlined in our paper.

UNMH is funded in part through a Mil Levy that is voted upon by the citizens of Bernalillo County every 8 years, with the last vote being in 2008

2)      In the RGF paper on UNMH, concerns were raised over the types of treatments to be offered at the new facility and why taxpayers should be asked to fund care targeted at non-indigent and non-native populations.

UNMH responded that it “distinguishes between emergent and elective care. Emergent is defined as immediate threat to life or limb if care is not provided quickly. Elective care, which might be better defined as scheduled, is defined as all other care. Cancer patients are treated as elective care patients because their care needs are urgent, but not emergent.”

While the distinction is welcome, RGF remains concerned that UNMH will be using taxpayer dollars to compete with existing, tax-paying, for-profit hospitals. More information on the specifics of this new project and how it will serve the Hospital’s existing mission (as opposed to expanding it) is needed. Some third-party analysis may be needed in this area.

3)      RGF expressed a great deal of concern about transparency and the new UNMH wing.

UNMH responds that UNM Hospital is a part of the University of New Mexico and is a governmental organization. It is subject to the New Mexico Opens Meeting Act and the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. It posts its financial information and its Board agendas and minutes on its Hospital web site. Combined with voter approval of bond measures and regular updates to Bernalillo County Commission, UNMH states that transparency has been adequate

RGF responds that while meetings have indeed been public and in keeping with New Mexico law, there is a need for additional public input from various stakeholders throughout the Albuquerque area and the state as a whole prior to making such a large investment.

This project may ultimately be deemed necessary or it may be modified somewhat in order to address the concerns of RGF and others in the community. Before we invest $146 million taxpayer dollars in the construction of a new hospital wing (not to mention annual operating expenses), we need to have a more thorough discussion.

According to this document from UNMH, the Hospital has agreed to hold a series of meetings at which the public will be provided additional information and given the opportunity to offer input. The schedule and locations of those meetings are as follows:

Oct. 2, 6–7:30 p.m. Indian Pueblo Cultural Center
2401 12th Street NW, Chaco I and II

Oct. 3, 6–7:30 p.m. Jewish Community Center
5520 Wyoming Blvd. NE, Auditorium A

Oct. 4, 6–7:30 p.m. – Alamosa Community Center
6900 Gonzales Rd SW, Room A

We are encouraged by UNMH’s willingness to hold these hearings. It is our hope that the community will turn out both to receive information on this project and to be allowed to ask questions and express their own concerns.