Public Safety Tax

Proposal is Seriously Flawed

Albuquerque Journal Editorial Page Editor Bill Hume edited the original piece down to how it appeared in the Wednesday September 27, 1995, on page A11, the Op-Ed Page with the headline "Public Safety Tax Proposal is Seriously Flawed" with the by line "Mark G. Bralley Albuquerque Police Officer."
The Albuquerque Police Officers' Association's stand against the Public Safety and Community Policing tax has attracted a great deal of publicity, controversy and political pressure. The public has been confused by disinformation misrepresenting APOA's position. There is not just one thing that is being objected to in this tax, that if fixed will win our support.
The APOA President appointed a committee to research and recommend a position about this tax. Although a member of the APOA, I am not a member of the executive board. I independently came to the same conclusion as did the committee, that this tax was inappropriate.

While some items to be funded by this tax are worthwhile, one must look at the nature of the legislation and see it as the poor public policy that it is.

Some assert that the items listed in this tax are either so critical or so important that we should not worry about the propriety of how the tax came about or how it will be implemented. Chief of Police Joe Polisar has said, "I need 800 megahertz (radio system) and I need more officers and I don't care how you give it to me, I need it!" However, we, as police officers, do care about good government -- and so should the public we serve.
Members of the Safe Streets Committee, after meeting with opponents of the tax, suggested that APOA would withdraw its opposition if some guarantees were made that all money in this tax would stay in the area of public safety. The only statement made was that the APOA's members would be informed of the meetings, discussions and last minute introduction of legislation that was designed to "strengthen" the tax.

Councilor Steve Gallegos, sponsor of the tax, said he was told he was told that the solution was beyond his legislative reach, but he wished to, "provide further assurances," that the funds would be expended in the manner identified. He went on to say, "this bill will lay to rest any thoughts in our community that the tax would or could be used for any other purpose..." Unfortunately, this last minute patch job does not alleviate the concerns arising from this issue.

Special arrangements were made for Mayor Martin Chavez to speak to officers at Field Services Divisions City-wide briefings recently. The mayor mentioned that this tax would fulfill some of his own political objectives. He has capitalized on his campaign platform of crime and gangs by beating the drum of fear long and hard. He preys on the consternation of citizens beyond the point of our actual crime problem. The Police Department can not even produce accurate statistical numbers to back the mayor's claims. This allows him to engage in demagoguery by exploiting the public's fears of a popular issue to obtain further power.
Officers were required to attend the Field Services Division briefings while on duty and listen to a purely political position. This occurred just a week after all city employees were ordered to refrain from engaging in political activity while on the job.
The mayor threatened at the briefings to eliminate 50 officers and has since been quoted in neighborhood newsletters saying that defeat of the tax will in fact remove 50 officers from our force. However, we are now more than 100 officers below authorized and budgeted strength.

The question is, should the 1/4 cent Quality of Life tax be continued as the Public Safety and Community Policing tax?

This question was put to a public referendum even though a simple majority of the City Council with the signature of the mayor could impose this 1/4 cent -- and an additional 1/8 cent gross receipts tax on their own. In a representative democracy, legislators are voted into office to figure out what the needs and demands are for service. If there is not enough money to accomplish the tasks, they are empowered to raise taxes. Our elected officials are failing to perform responsibly by refusing to make the tough political choice to impose a tax and stand the heat in the next election. Instead of doing their duty, they delegated this really hard decision to the public. However, it is singularly offensive to have elected officials force try to force the citizens to pass a tax by threatening to shut down vital services.
Some opponents point out that this tax , at least in part, violates several tax finance theories. This includes two or three buildings (the communications center, a detoxification center and possibly another jail facility) from general fund revenues, instead of as capital improvements through the (property tax-supported) capital improvements program.
Several things in the mayor's list of projects cross jurisdictional lines and raise the constitutional issue of separation of powers. Funding educational programs through Albuquerque Public Schools -- and in particular by operating a city juvenile boot camp -- cross into the state's exclusive jurisdiction and responsibility. Moreover, it is imprudent for city government to take over financial responsibility for activities that should be funded by another independent government body. It is possible that the mayor, as a lawyer, already knows that this will be declared illegal and the money that was "earmarked" towards these projects would become available for "other purposes."
The proposals in this tax have been put together quickly without the benefit of good or valid research. As with so many other things that city government does, we think we see a problem and before we can even asses it, we throw money at it without a plan...
The mayor has insisted that there are no "backdoor" methods for diverting money "protected" by this tax, but there are several ways this could be done. One is; that I, along with several other officers, will be retiring in the next few years. Our salaries and benefits are currently paid from the general fund. When we leave, our replacements will be hired at half the cost of us, but added as one of the 150 additional officers in the Public Safety and Community Policing tax. What had been our pay could then be diverted to any other activity. This does not just apply to retirements or resignations, but to any other police activity currently paid for by the general fund.

The City Council has chosen to forgo its inherent responsibility to oversee the budget. The Council also is unwilling to hold the mayor strictly accountable for expending appropriated funds as they have specifically directed. Passing this tax in such an atmosphere virtually opens the public treasury to the unfettered discretion of the Mayor.

"A 19 year APD veteran, Mark G. Bralley holds a master's degree in public administration from the University of New Mexico and is a past president of APOA."