>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS PROVIDED BY THE MCCUNE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION AND VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

>> Gene: THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS, AS WE HEAD BACK TO RESTAURANTS, AN INTERVIEW ABOUT THE SEPARATE WORLDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO WORK THERE.

>> Ellison: AND SO I WAS INTERESTED IN EXPLORING WHY DO WE SEE THIS TREMENDOUS DIVIDE?

THESE DIVIDES OF RACE AND SOCIAL CLASS.

>> Gene: WE CONNECT WITH TWO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTERS TO GET A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON TOXIC PFAS CHEMICALS.

NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS STARTS NOW.

THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS WEEK.

I AM YOUR HOST, GENE GRANT.

PFAS INTERVIEW IS PART OF OUR GROUNDWATER WAR INVESTIGATION.

IT IS GREAT TO GET A SENSE OF HOW OTHER STATES AND COMMUNITIES ARE DEALING WITH IT.

THE LINE OPINION PANEL TALKS ABOUT ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS PNM AND AVANGRID CONSIDER A MERGER AND A LOOK AT THE BATTLE OVER PUBLIC FINANCING IN ALBUQUERQUE'S MAYORAL RACE AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT A CAMPAIGN MONEY SYSTEM USED BY MANY CITIES ACROSS NEW MEXICO.

WE BEGIN WITH A SUPREME COURT DECISION SURROUNDING FUEL SALES TO SUSPECTED DRUNK DRIVERS.

>> Gene: RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU SAW THIS COMING.

BE HONEST NOW, BECAUSE ON MONDAY, NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT RULED THAT GAS STATIONS HAVE A DUTY TO REFUSE TO SELL FUEL TO DRUNK DRIVERS.

IF THEY DO, IF THAT DRIVER HURTS SOMEONE, THEY COULD BE LIABLE AND THAT IS WHERE WE BEGIN WITH THE LINE OPINION PANEL.

JOINING US FROM SANTA FE, WHERE SHE IS THE EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR FOR THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN, INEZ RUSSELL GOMEZ IS BACK.

DIANE SNYDER IS BACK, ONE OF THE REGULARS, A FORMER STATE SENATOR AND UNM LAW PROFESSOR AND LINE REGULAR SERGE MARTINEZ RETURNS AS WELL.

WE START WITH YOU SERGE.

DOES THIS FEEL LIKE A DRAMATIC EXPANSION OF LIABILITY OR IS THIS A NATURAL EVOLUTION OF THE LAW AS OUR LAWYER FRIENDS LIKE TO SAY SOMETIMES.

>> Serge: I WAS REALLY SURPRISED BY IT.

SO, FOR WHAT THAT IS WORTH.

I THINK IT WAS -- I WAS NOT AWARE THAT ANYBODY SAW THIS COMING OR THOUGHT THAT, YEAH, THIS IS A NATURAL EFFECT OF WHAT THE COURT HAS BEEN DOING OR THE STATE'S PUBLIC POLICY AROUND DWI'S.

SO, I THINK THE REASON IT CAME UP WAS BECAUSE THE TENTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT ASKED THIS COURT, NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THEY DIDN'T GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DO THIS BUT ONCE IN FRONT OF THEM THEY MADE A DECISION, TO ME ANYWAY, WAS SURPRISING.

>> Gene: IT WASN'T A UNANIMOUSLY DECISION.

RETIRED JUSTICE BARBARA VIGIL HEARD THE CASE BEFORE HER CAREER WAS OVER.

SHE JUST LEFT AND SHE SAID, THIS IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR, SHE SAID.

IT COULD THEORETICALLY PUT AT RISK PLACES LIKE AUTO PARTS STORES, TIRE RETAILERS, ANYBODY WHO PROVIDES SOMETHING TO A SUSPECTED DRUNK DRIVER.

SHE HAS A POINT, DOES SHE NOT?

>> Inez: SHE HAS A POINT BUT I THINK SHE IS EXAGGERATING SLIGHTLY.

IF YOU READ THE DECISION, WHAT IT IS SAYING IS THAT THIS WAS A CASE WHERE THEY ARE LOOKING AT AN ATYPICAL SET OF FACTS.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT SOMEONE THAT DRUNK IS GOING TO GO INTO STORES TO BUY GAS AND THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO, THEN, SUE FOR THE STORE BEING LIABLE.

SO, WHAT I THINK IS THAT IN MOST CASES, THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE APPLICABLE BECAUSE GAS IS SELF SERVICE SO THE CLERK IS GOING TO HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER HIS CUSTOMER IS DRUNK OR NOT DRUNK.

EVEN IF YOU TRY TO SUE THE GAS STATION, IT WOULD GET THROWN OUT.

THIS TO ME JUST GIVES YOU OPPORTUNITY TO SUE IF SOMEONE WALKS IN DRUNK, PAYS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, TOTTERS OUT TO GET THEIR GAS.

I DON'T THINK IT COULD BE THAT FAR REACHING.

AND THE IDEA SOMEONE LIKE TOTALLY DRUNK GOES TO AUTO PARTS STORE TO GET A BATTERY AND CAN BARELY CARRY THE BATTERY OFF AND YOU LET THEM DRIVE OFF, YOU ARE, IN A SENSE, AIDING POTENTIAL FATALITY OR INJURY.

>> Gene: LET ME PUT THIS BACK ON YOU A LITTLE BIT, INEZ.

IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT MUCH IN OUR STATE TO BE LEGALLY DRUNK AND APPEARANCE WISE YOU CAN APPEAR TO BE QUITE SOBER AT .08 AND BLOW OVER THE LIMIT.

I HAVE TO ASK IF THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE AN UNTRAINED PERSON HAS TO LOOK AT SOMEONE AND MAKE AN ASSESSMENT INSIDE 10 SECONDS, ISN'T THAT JUST AGAIN ASKING FOR A PROBLEM HERE?

>> Inez: IT SAYS -- IN THE CASE IT SAYS VENDOR KNOWS OR HAS REASON TO KNOW.

SO SOMEONE AT .08 WHO DRINKS A LOT AND DOESN'T LOOK DRUNK YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO KNOW.

I THINK THIS IS FOR THE CASE WHERE THE PERSON IS CARRYING A BUCKET TO PUT HIS GAS IN AND SLOSHING IT OUT ON THE WAY OUT AND CAN'T COUNT HIS PENNIES WHEN HE IS PAYING YOU.

AT THAT POINT YOU SHOULD SAY, WOW, SOMETHING MIGHT BE WRONG.

>> Gene: THE CASE COMES FROM THE DEATH OF A NAVAJO MAN THAT WAS STRUCK AND KILLED BACK IN 2011.

HIS BROTHER FILED A WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT.

IT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS THAT ASKED THE SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH IN.

IN THAT CASE, THE DRIVER RAN OUT OF GAS, WALKED TO A STATION, FILLED UP, AND WENT BACK TO BUY MORE GAS SO THAT IS TWICE HE BOUGHT GAS WHILE DRUNK.

DOES THAT SEEM LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE GAS STATION?

IT IS EASY FOR US TO KIND OF JUDGE THESE THINGS BUT I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN, YOU KNOW, SAME QUESTION I PUT TO INEZ, HOW DOES ONE KNOW WHAT MAKES UP A DRUNK PERSON BY SIGHT?

>> Diane: I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS KNOW.

IT REMINDS ME OF ONE OF THE QUESTIONS HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TRAIN ALL THE CLERKS TO RECOGNIZE AND WHICH WE DO HAVE IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY LIQUOR RECOGNITION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS BUT THEY ARE SEEING PEOPLE, CUSTOMERS, REGULARLY WHERE YOU MIGHT NOT SEE A DRUNK CUSTOMER AT A GAS STATION ONCE IN TWO YEARS OR SOMETHING.

SO, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY ARE GOING -- I WENT THROUGH THAT TRAINING BACK BECAUSE WE WERE HAVING EVENTS AND STUFF YEARS AGO AND YOU JUST CAN'T ALWAYS TELL.

I THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM.

THE MAIN THING THAT I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PROBLEM WITH IS, TO ME, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SUPREME COURT IS WRITING LAW FOR NEW MEXICO.

WHICH IS A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS NOT THE SUPREME COURT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE FEDS SENT IT DOWN TO THEM BUT THEY COULD HAVE SAID -- THEIR RULING COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY OUR LEGISLATURE.

WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN TIME FOR PUBLIC INPUT, TIME FOR THE INDUSTRY TO BE A PART OF IT AND IN THE DISCUSSION AND DO WE WANT TO GO THAT FAR.

ALL OF THE THINGS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN A LEGISLATIVE HEARING.

THEN ONCE THE LEGISLATURE MADE A DETERMINATION AND MADE IT LAW, REGARDLESS OF WHICH WAY THEY WENT, THAT WOULDN'T END THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A LAWSUIT AND EVENTUALLY HAVE THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT LOOK AT IT.

BUT I JUST -- MY VERY FIRST RESPONSE OTHER THAN HOW ARE THEY GOING TO TELL WAS, THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE THE RIGHT, BECAUSE IF YOU READ THE RULING, WHAT IT SAID IS, WELL, BASED ON THIS LAW OVER HERE WE ARE THINKING THIS.

WELL, IF YOU'RE BASING IT ON THAT LAW OVER THERE, THEN YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT IT IS A LAW THAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO DEFINE YOUR OPINION.

I BELIEVE THAT JUSTICE VIGIL ACTUALLY MADE THAT POINT IN HER DISSENT.

SO I JUST THINK WE ARE KIND OF GETTING THAT OLD CLICHE THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE HERE AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE SUPREME COURT HAD TO MAKE THIS RULING THE WAY THEY DID.

I THINK THEY EASILY COULD HAVE GIVEN IT BACK AND LEGITIMATELY GIVEN IT BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF LAW WE WANTED TO HAVE.

THEN THEY COULD HEAR WHETHER THE INCIDENT -- >> Gene: I APPRECIATE THAT.

THAT IS A VERY KEY POINT.

SERGE, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

BACK ON THIS LOGIC OF WHO IS DRUNK WHERE AND WHO CAN TELL AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING.

THE DRIVER -- LET ME GO BACK TO SOMETHING IN THAT CASE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE.

THE DRIVER WAS OUT OF GAS, CLEARLY DRUNK COULDN'T HAVE DRIVEN OTHERWISE, BUT WHAT ABOUT A DRUNK DRIVER WHO ISN'T OUT OF GAS.

HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHETHER THE GAS IS SOLD IF THE GAS USED, IF THAT DRIVER THEN GOES OUT AND HITS SOMEONE.

YOU KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING HERE?

IF A DAY LATER HE CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE HE GOT THE DAMN GAS, WHO IS LIABLE HERE?

IT IS INTERESTING THAT WAY.

>> Serge: I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THAT, RIGHT.

THERE IS A SPECIAL SET OF FACTS.

WE KNOW THE GAS THAT WAS SOLD TO THIS PERSON BY THIS PLACE WAS WHAT MADE IT SO HE COULD DRIVE OFF AND KILL THIS OTHER PERSON.

IF THERE IS SOMEONE THAT ALREADY HAS GAS AND THEY WANT TO TOP OFF.

WE DON'T KNOW IF THE GAS THEY BOUGHT IS THE FINAL STRAW OR NOT.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT IS EASIER TO TELL BUT THERE IS SOME LOGICAL CHALLENGES TO THAT SORT OF APPROACH OF JUST HOW MUCH PURCHASING OF THE GAS WAS CONTRIBUTORY TO WHAT HAPPENED.

>> Gene: I WANT TO ADD TO THAT.

I HEAR YOUR POINT EARLIER.

I DO WANT YOU TO HAVE A CHANCE TO DEFEND YOUR POINT.

AS YOU HEAR THESE FOLKS TALK ABOUT THIS, ARE YOU IN THE SAME POSITION YOU WERE EARLIER?

>> Inez: I THINK IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY IN EXTREME CASES FOR PEOPLE TO WIN DAMAGES.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO APPLY IN EVERY CASE OF DRUNK DRIVING WHERE YOU SEARCH BACK AND GET THEIR CREDIT CARD RECEIPTS TO SEE WHERE THE GAS IS FROM.

I AGREE WITH DIANE THAT OBVIOUSLY THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD WRITE THE LAW SO WHETHER THE DECISION HAS TO BE WRITTEN THIS WAY IS A GREAT POINT TO DISCUSS BUT NOW THE LEGISLATURE CAN COME BACK AND DECIDE HOW IT WANTS TO DEAL WITH THIS NOW THE COURT HAS PUT IT OUT THERE SO THAT IS ANOTHER RESPONSE THAT COULD HAPPEN.

>> Gene: I SHOULD REMIND THE FOLKS AT HOME, THERE IS ONLY ONE OTHER STATE IN THE COUNTRY THAT DOES THIS, WHICH IS TENNESSEE.

MIGHT THERE BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, SAY IT HAPPENS IN A SMALL TOWN, GAS STATION IS PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BY A SUCCESSFUL LAWSUIT AS INEZ JUST DESCRIBED.

THIS ISN'T JUST A PLACE TO BUY GAS IN SOME OF THOSE PLACES.

IT IS A GROCERY STORE, THE ONLY PIZZA JOINT IN TOWN.

IS THAT A CONCERN?

IS IT TAKING IT AS A HYPOTHETICAL TOO FAR.

>> Diane: LEGISLATORS FROM THE RURAL AREAS, TOO OFTEN WE BASE DECISIONS ON ALBUQUERQUE'S, SANTA FE, FARMINGTON OR LAS CRUCES INSTEAD OF THE RURAL AREAS AND DON'T -- IF SOMEBODY BRINGS IT TO OUR ATTENTION, THEN WE LISTEN.

BUT WE DON'T AUTOMATICALLY THINK OF THE LITTLE PLACES THAT JUST HAVE ONE LITTLE GAS STATION AND THE THING ABOUT IT IS THEN YOU GET INTO THE CLERK -- TWO THINGS.

ONE IS THE CLERK MIGHT KNOW THE PERSON IN A SMALL TOWN.

>> Gene: GOOD POINT.

>> Diane: AND IS MORE RELUCTANT TO BRING THAT TO SOMEONE'S ATTENTION AND THE SECOND THING IS WHAT IF -- THIS IS ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL -- WHAT IF THE PERSON BUYING THE GAS GOES IN, HAS ONLY HAD A COUPLE OF BEERS, THEN GETS -- BUYS HIS GAS, SO HE ISN'T DRUNK OR DOESN'T LOOK DRUNK, HE GETS BACK IN THE CAR, YOU KNOW, HOISTS A FEW MORE AS HE IS DRIVING ALONG AND THEN HITS SOMEONE.

DOES IT PLACE THAT CLERK AND STORE IN ANY LIABILITY?

HOW CAN YOU PROVE HOW DRUNK HE WAS BECAUSE THERE IS NO TESTS TO TELL.

NO TEST HAS BEEN DONE AT THAT POINT.

>> Gene: THAT IS RIGHT.

>> Diane: HOW DRUNK HE WAS AT THE GASOLINE PLACE.

>> Gene: GOOD STUFF THERE.

SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT.

PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE EXPECT THE 10TH CIRCUIT THAT SERGE MENTIONED TO SEND IT BACK TO FEDERAL COURT IN NEW MEXICO.

DON'T FORGET THAT NOW.

WE ARE BACK IN A FEW MINUTES TO TALK ETHICS AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

>> Warren: TREATING PFAS IN WATER SYSTEMS IS A REALLY -- IT TAKES EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT THAT UP TO THIS POINT WATER SYSTEMS HAVE NOT NEEDED.

SO WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THAT?

AND WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ULTIMATE REMEDIATION OF THE MESS?

THAT IS ALL TO BE DETERMINED.

>> Gene: THINK ABOUT THE LAST TIME YOU WENT TO A NICER RESTAURANT.

WHO SERVED YOUR FOOD?

WHO COOKED IT?

HOW WERE THEIR LIVES DIFFERENT?

ARE THEY DESTINED FOR DIFFERENT THINGS?

IS THERE CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS DISCRIMINATION INVOLVED?

THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ON THE MIND OF UNM PROFESSOR ELI REVELLE YANO WILSON WHEN HE STUDIED UPSCALE RESTAURANTS FOR HIS BOOK, FRONT OF THE HOUSE, BACK OF THE HOUSE.

NMIF CORRESPONDENT, GWYNETH DOLAND SPOKE WITH MR. WILSON ABOUT WHAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR AND WHAT HE FOUND.

>> Gwyneth: ELI REVELLE YANO WILSON, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> Wilson: THANK YOU AS WELL, GWYNETH.

IT IS AN HONOR TO BE HERE IN THE STUDIO.

>> Gwyneth: IN YOUR BOOK FRONT OF THE HOUSE, BACK OF THE HOUSE, YOU SAY RESTAURANTS ARE PLACES OF SOCIAL SEGREGATION.

THEY ARE INEQUALITY REGIMES.

HOW DO RESTAURANTS BREED INEQUALITY?

>> Wilson: I KNOW.

I AM GLAD WE ARE STARTING THERE, GWYNETH, BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE GO OUT TO EAT, RESTAURANTS ARE A TREMENDOUS SOURCE OF PLEASURE.

THEY ARE PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT, LEISURE AND ALL OF THESE FEEL GOOD WONDERFUL REASONS WHY WE PATRONIZE RESTAURANTS.

MY JOB AS A SOCIOLOGIST, IN PARTICULAR A TYPE OF SOCIOLOGIES KNOWN AS AN ETHNOGRAPHER IS TO GO IN DEEPER, GO BEHIND THE SCENES AND REALLY EXAMINE AND BE CRITICAL IN DOING SO IN THINKING ABOUT, WHAT ARE WE SEEING GOING ON WHEN YOU LOOK UNDERNEATH THE HOOD, SO TO SPEAK, AND YOU LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY ARE ENTERING INTO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE SPACES THAT ARE FAR LESS VISIBLE TO CUSTOMERS.

IN MY BOOK, REALLY WHAT I AM EXPLORING IS IT IS IMMEDIATELY EVIDENT TO ANYONE WHO WORKS IN RESTAURANTS OR IS ABLE TO SET FOOT IN THOSE BEHIND THE SCENES SPACES THAT AS I LIKE TO SAY, PEOPLE WHO LOOK DIFFERENT, SOUND DIFFERENT, HAVE DIFFERENT SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES WORK IN VERY DIFFERENT CAPACITIES IN RESTAURANTS, PARTICULARLY ON THE HIGHER END OF THE SPECTRUM.

IN OTHER WORDS, NOT FAST FOOD BUT YOUR TYPICAL, MAYBE SIT-DOWN RESTAURANT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE LIKE A FRIDAY NIGHT DATE SPOT, SO TO SPEAK, THOSE TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTS.

I WAS INTERESTED IN EXPLORING WHY DO WE SEE THIS TREMENDOUS DIVIDE?

THESE DIVIDES OF RACE AND SOCIAL CLASS AND ALSO GENDER AND OTHER TYPES OF SOCIAL STATUSES AND THAT BECAME SORT OF THE PUZZLE THAT BECAME THE SOURCE OF MY DRIVING MY INVESTIGATION.

>> Gwyneth: WHAT DO THESE DIVIDES LOOK AT IN TERMS OF RACE AND CLASS?

WHO IS WHERE, FOR THOSE OF US NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

>> Wilson: TO BE VERY BRIEF ABOUT THIS, IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THAT IS THE SPACES, THE PUBLIC SPACES OF RESTAURANTS, HOSTS, SERVERS, BARTENDERS, THESE TEND TO BE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LIGHTER IN SKIN, OFTENTIMES RACIALLY WHITE.

THEY ARE YOUNGER, THEY TEND TO BE BOTH MEN AND WOMEN BUT SOMETIMES PREDOMINANTLY FEMALE.

AND, IN THE SETTINGS, THEY OFTEN TEND TO BE SETTINGS WHERE THOSE INDIVIDUALS TEND TO HAVE GREATER LEVELS OF EDUCATION AS WELL.

WE'LL GET INTO A LITTLE BIT WHY THAT IS THE CASE.

NOW, IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, YOU SEE PEOPLE AGAIN VERY DIFFERENT SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES.

THEY TEND TO BE IN A PLACE LIKE NEW MEXICO OR IN LOS ANGELES, HOME BASE FOR MY STUDY, THEY TEND TO BE INDIVIDUALS PREDOMINANTLY FOREIGN BORN OR MAYBE THE CHILDREN OF FOREIGN BORN IMMIGRANTS AND THEY TEND TO BE DISPROPORTIONATELY LATIN X.

IN THIS CASE, PRIMARILY LATINO MEN.

SO, AGAIN, VERY DIFFERENT PATTERNS WE SEE BEHIND THE SCENES IN TERMS OF WHO DOES WHAT TYPE OF JOB WITHIN RESTAURANTS AND OTHER TYPES OF SERVICE ENVIRONMENTS AS WELL, NOT JUST RESTAURANTS.

>> Gwyneth: SERVICE IS THE KEY HERE.

WE ARE NOTE TALKING ABOUT MOM AND POP PLACES WHERE THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PEOPLE MAKING THE TACO AND PASSING THE TACO ACROSS THE COUNTER.

IT IS THE TIPPING SYSTEM THAT DEFINES THIS INEQUALITY, IS THAT IT?

>> Wilson: IN LARGE PART.

JUST TO QUALIFY WHAT I THINK YOU SAID, WHICH IS SPOT ON, THE KIND OF ENVIRONMENT I WAS LOOKING AT ARE NOT AS YOU SAY MOM AND POP RESTAURANTS.

I WOULD GO AS FAR AS TO SAY, CASUAL OR FAST FOOD.

THESE ARE SETTINGS WHERE THERE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN A LOT OF LITERATURE BOTH BY JOURNALISTS AND ACADEMICS LOOKING AT SETTINGS OF LOW WAGE LABOR SETTINGS, PLACES WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN WIDELY CRITICIZED AS KIND OF EXPLOITIVE OF WORKERS IN TERMS OF LABOR HOURS AND PRECARIOUS WORKING CONDITIONS AS WELL AS LOW WAGES.

SO THAT IS ONE VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY.

I CAN SAY MORE ABOUT THAT BUT WHAT I WAS INTERESTED IN WAS SETTINGS IN WHICH HOSPITALITY, THAT SORT OF SERVICE YOU RECEIVE FROM WORKERS, DIFFERENT KIND OF WORKERS TOO, WHERE HOSPITALITY PLAYS A CENTER ROLE IN WHAT IT MEANS TO LABOR IN THAT ENVIRONMENT AND THOSE ARE SETTINGS WHERE TIPPING BECOMES A KEY DIMENSION OF BOTH THE KIND OF MONEY WORKERS MAKE BUT ALSO IT GETS FUSED IN ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS THAT GO ON BEHIND THE SCENES, NOT JUST BETWEEN TIPPING CUSTOMERS AND WORKERS THAT RECEIVE THAT EARNING, BUT ALSO WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT?

RIGHT?

WHERE DO THE TIPS GO?

WHO DO THEY FLOW TO?

WHO DID THEY NOT FLOW TO?

IN WHAT QUANTITY?

WHAT ROLE DOES MANAGEMENT PLAY?

THERE IS A WHOLE SET OF REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS BEHIND THE SCENES SORT OF AFTER THE DINER HAS ALREADY LEFT, YOU KNOW THAT MARKING ON A CREDIT CARD SLIP, OR LEFT SOME DOLLARS AND MAYBE CENTS ON TOP OF THE BILL.

>> Gwyneth: I AM SURE THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO OWN RESTAURANTS OR HAVE OWNED RESTAURANTS OR WORKED IN THEM WHO ARE HORRIFIED BY THE IDEA THEY ARE PART OF THIS INSTITUTION THAT ENFORCES A RACIST UNEQUAL SYSTEM.

IS THIS AN INTENTIONAL THING OR ARE PEOPLE AWARE OF IT?

PEOPLE IN MANAGEMENT?

>> Wilson: THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION AND THERE IS A SIMPLE ANSWER AND PROBABLY A MORE COMPLICATED ONE.

I AM GOING TO TAKE THE LATTER ROUTE HERE SINCE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE DEALING I THINK, AN EDUCATED INFORMED AUDIENCE HERE TODAY.

SO, THE MORE COMPLICATED ANSWER IS IT IS SOME OF BOTH.

I THINK IN MANY WAYS, AS I PUT IT IN MY BOOK, WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH HERE IS BUSINESS AS USUAL FORMS OF SOCIAL INEQUALITY.

WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS SOCIAL INEQUALITY THAT IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF OVERTLY RACIST OR SEXIST OR EVIL EFFORTS.

TO ME THAT STORY, ALTHOUGH STILL MAY BE PRESENT IN POCKETS EVERY NOW AND THEN, WE HAVE SOME EXPOSE STORIES THAT COMES OUT, YOU AND I HAVE BOTH HEARD SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.

BUT THAT WAS LESS OF INTEREST TO ME.

FRANKLY, MANY OF THE MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS THAT I INTERACTED WITH OVER THE COURSE OF DOING MY FIELD WORK, WERE WONDERFUL, LOVING, CARING HUMAN BEINGS THAT WANTED THE BEST FOR NOT JUST THEMSELVES BUT FOR THEIR STAFF AND GUESTS.

THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS THE PRIMARY SORT OF POINT OF INTEREST FOR ME.

I WAS FAR MORE INTERESTED IN THIS PHENOMENA IN SOCIOLOGY THAT HAS BECOME A TREMENDOUSLY FRUITFUL LINE OF RESEARCH WHICH IS THE WAY IN WHICH SOCIAL INEQUALITIES GET REPRODUCED WITHOUT ANY OF US KNOWING, ALL OF US GOING ABOUT OUR DAILY BUSINESS IN THE WAY THAT WE BEST SEE FIT.

THAT BECOMES A FAR MORE INTERESTING, AND I WOULD SAY, INSIDIOUS WAY THAT TODAY HERE IN 2021 WE SEE THESE SOCIAL INEQUALITIES GET REPRODUCED.

>> Gwyneth: THAT IS SUPER INTERESTING.

IF PEOPLE WANT TO CHANGE THIS SORT OF SYSTEM THAT THEY ARE A PART OF WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING, WHAT DO THEY NEED TO DO?

IS IT JUST LIKE GET RID OF THE TIPPING SYSTEM, EVERYBODY GETS A LIVING WAGE AND CALL IT GOOD?

>> Wilson: WOULDN'T IT BE SO EASY.

LET ME BACK UP A HALF STEP BEFORE FULLY ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.

WHICH IS TO KIND OF UNPACK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT I FOUND, MY ARGUMENT AS TO HOW INDEED SOCIAL INEQUALITY GETS REPRODUCED AND REPRODUCED IN RESTAURANTS.

I ARGUE IN MY BOOK, BASED ON EXTENSIVE FIELD RESEARCH, IT IS BOTH THE PRODUCT OF DISTINCT MANAGERIAL CHOICES.

CHOICES ABOUT HIRING, ABOUT SUPERVISORY PRACTICES THAT ARE NOT SO OVERTLY SEXIST OR RACIST BUT ARE LOOKING FOR CERTAIN QUALITIES IN A WORKER, SAY, IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE VERSUS THOSE IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.

AND, AS A FUNCTION OF SCREENING PEOPLE THAT COME IN FOR A JOB APPLICATION, IN THESE SUBTLE WAYS, FOR INSTANCE, MOST PROMINENTLY IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE LOOKING FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO CARRY THEMSELVES WELL.

RIGHT?

A MANAGER MAY SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT PERSON SOUNDS GOOD OR JUST FEELS LIKE THEY WOULD BE A GOOD FIT IN THIS KIND OF UP SCALE SETTING OF HOSPITALITY OR MY CUSTOMERS ARE GOING TO ENJOY TALKING TO THAT PERSON.

WE CAN THINK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IS BEING CODED, WHAT ATTRIBUTES ARE BEING CODED IN WHEN WE GET THAT KIND OF COMMENT.

IN MY VIEW IT IS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT RACE, THOSE WHO ARE LIGHTER SKINNED, MAYBE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, PRESENT BETTER.

IT IS ALSO A CLASS COMPONENT, RIGHT?

SPEAKING WELL.

RIGHT?

ARTICULATING WORDS, USING CERTAIN WORD CHOICES, IMAGINE DESCRIBING A FILET MIGNON.

>> Gwyneth: THEY SPEAK WELL BECAUSE THEY ARE GRAD STUDENTS, RIGHT?

>> Wilson: ABSOLUTELY.

YES, ABSOLUTELY.

SO, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE SUBTLE WAYS, THE WAY WE LOOK, THE WAY WE SOUND BECOMES -- ARE NOT DIRECTLY -- MANAGEMENT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THEM AS CODES FOR RACE, BUT MAYBE MORE SUBTLY IF THEY REALLY EXAMINE WHO BEST FITS THAT TYPE OF ROLE, WE SEE THESE SCREENS OF RACE AND CLASS AND ALSO GENDER HERE PLAYING OUT AND SORTING PEOPLE INTO THESE UNEQUAL TYPES OF JOBS.

THAT IS MANAGEMENT'S ROLE.

I WOULD ADD BRIEFLY I ARGUE IN MY BOOK IT IS NOT JUST MANAGEMENT THAT ENACTS THIS SOCIAL INEQUALITY.

COWORKERS PLAY A VERY KEY ROLE HERE.

WHAT I ARGUE IN MY BOOK IN VERY SUBTLE WAYS IS THAT AS A FUNCTION OF PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES BEING SCREENED INTO THESE STRUCTURALLY DIFFERENT JOBS WITHIN RESTAURANTS, IMAGINE WORKING DEEP IN THE KITCHEN WASHING DISHES IN THE HOT AND NOISY ENVIRONMENT OR WORKING IN THE DINING ROOM AMONG COLLEAGUES THAT MAYBE AS A FUNCTION OF WHAT I JUST SAID LOOK LIKE YOU AND SOUND LIKE YOU.

YOU KIND OF HAVE SIMILAR SORT OF INTERESTS.

AS A FUNCTION OF THAT, WORKERS THEMSELVES START TO UNDERSTAND THEMSELVES AS DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER.

THEY START ENACTING SOCIAL AND SYMBOLIC BOUNDARIES AGAINST ONE ANOTHER AS IN, THIS IS WHO QUOTE, UNQUOTE WE ARE, SAY AS SERVERS AND BARTENDERS.

HERE IS HOW WE ACT, THIS WHY IS WE DESERVE THESE JOBS AND THIS IS WHO THEY ARE AND I AM POINTING OVER THERE AND OVER THERE, OF COURSE, WOULD BE IN THE KITCHEN, LATINO IMMIGRANTS MAYBE SPEAKING SPANISH, OBVIOUSLY MAYBE LOOKING DIFFERENT OR AT LEAST THE WAY THAT WORKERS THEMSELVES UNDERSTAND THESE DIFFERENCES.

SO WORKERS ENACT THEIR OWN KIND OF BOUNDARIES THAT MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR, SAY, A LATINA OR LATINO IMMIGRANT TO MAKE THE CROSSOVER AND WORK IN A HIGHLY TIPPED BARTENDING ROLE, CUSTOMER-BASED BARTENDER ROLE.

SO WORKERS PLAY A ROLE THERE TOO AS WELL AS CUSTOMERS WHICH I CAN GO INTO LATER.

>> Gwyneth: ARE YOU SAYING THAT MANAGERS NEED TO BE AWARE OF THIS AND CHANGE THEIR HIRING PRACTICES?

HOW DOES THAT LOOK?

I MEAN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU WANT THEM TO HIRE PEOPLE WHO DON'T LOOK LIKE THEM, DON'T FEEL LIKE THEM?

IS THAT IT?

>> Wilson: THAT IS A GREAT OBSERVATION.

ONCE AGAIN, GOING BACK TO WHAT I SAID EARLIER, MANAGERS ARE JUST DOING WHAT MAKES SENSE TO THEM.

OF COURSE, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOMETIMES PROBLEMATIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE WAY MANAGEMENT USES SOME OF THESE SCREENING DEVICES.

BUT TO GET AT YOUR POINT, WHAT CAN MANAGEMENT DO.

I AM A BIG ADVOCATE OF GOING TO MORE PRACTICAL STEPS OF SORT OF WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT ALL THIS.

I AM A BIG ADVOCATE OF CREATING JOB LADDERS FOR EMPLOYEES, BREAKING DOWN WHAT IS PREVIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD AS JUST THAT PERSON EITHER HAS IT OR THEY DON'T.

THEY ARE EITHER FRIENDLY OR CUSTOMERS LIKE THEM OR THEY DON'T.

BREAKING THAT DOWN INTO SPECIFIC SKILLS, TRAINING AND PROVIDING RESOURCES FOR WORKERS TO GAIN THOSE SKILLS, AND, ULTIMATELY, IF THEY DO GAIN THOSE SKILLS, ALLOWING THEM TO MOVE UP IN THE HIERARCHY.

ALLOWING THEM MORE POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITIES.

IN OTHER WORDS AGAIN BREAKING DOWN SOME OF THESE SOCIALLY CODED DIFFERENCES IN HIERARCHIES AND ACTUALLY CREATING BRIDGES INTO BETTER QUALITY JOBS.

>> Gwyneth: RESTAURANTS HAVE HAD A HARD TIME DURING THE PANDEMIC.

A LOT OF THEM WENT COMPLETELY BROKE AND HAD TO CLOSE.

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF WORK.

WHAT IS IN IT FOR RESTAURANTS TO ACTIVELY MAKE ALL THESE CHANGES?

>> Wilson: THAT IS A WONDERFUL POINT.

THIS HAS BEEN AN ABSOLUTELY BRUTAL YEAR.

I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS.

I HAVE TALKED TO SOME OF MY OLD COLLEAGUES IN RESTAURANTS AND EVERYONE WAS SUFFERING, BOTH MANAGEMENT, WORKERS, EVERYONE INVOLVED, AS I AM SURE YOU'RE WELL AWARE.

SO, THE QUESTION OF LIKE, ISN'T THIS JUST TOO MUCH WORK?

CAN RESTAURANT OWNERS AS WELL AS MANAGERS, CAN THEY REALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?

THE WAY I LIKE TO KIND REFRAME THAT, AMIDST TREMENDOUS CHALLENGE, WHICH IS MAYBE A TOPIC FOR ANOTHER TIME, BUT THE KEY HERE IS WHAT I ADVOCATE IS THE MORE RESTAURANTS CAN SEEK TO EMPOWER WORKERS, IT IS ACTUALLY GOOD BUSINESS FOR THEM AS WELL.

RIGHT?

THE MORE YOU REDUCE TURNOVER, FOR INSTANCE, THE MORE YOU EMPOWER WORKERS TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OVER BEING THERE RATHER THAN SEEING THIS AS A PART-TIME JOB WHILE YOU'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE.

THIS IS THAT KIND OF MINIMAL RELATIONSHIP WITH WORKERS THEMSELVES NOT REALLY SEEING THEIR IDENTITY, THEIR WORK IDENTITY AS A RESTAURANT WORKER, AS A RESTAURANT PROFESSIONAL.

THE MORE YOU CAN EMPOWER WORKERS TO TAKE THAT ON IS ULTIMATELY GOOD BUSINESS.

IT BUILDS CUSTOMER RELATIONS.

IT CAN DO A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE REALLY PRODUCTIVE.

I WOULD ADD ONE MORE THING, WE ARE ALSO IN A TIME THAT IN MY MIND THERE IS SORT OF DUAL PRONGS GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

ONE, OF COURSE, BEING THE PANDEMIC AFFECTING INDUSTRY.

THE SECOND IS THE RISE OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS SUCH AS BLACK LIVES MATTER OR THE ME TOO MOVEMENT THAT WAS A FEW YEARS BACK AND STILL ONGOING TODAY.

WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE IS THAT MORE OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IS TAKING INTEREST IN THESE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE WANTING TO SEE A BIT MORE OF THAT MESSAGING COMING FROM WHAT THEY CONSUME, RIGHT?

WHERE THEY PUT THEIR DOLLARS.

WOULD THEY RATHER, YOU KNOW, SPEND MONEY AND SPEND TIME IN ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ARE SHOWING ADVOCACY, TRUE ADVOCACY TO BETTER THE COMMUNITY?

OR FOR A LARGER, A LITTLE BIT MORE NONDESCRIPT KIND OF CORPORATE ENTITY NOT MADE THOSE KIND OF OVERTURES, SO CUSTOMERS, TOO, HAVE A VERY DISTRICT OPTION AND I WOULD SAY THAT, AGAIN, IN THIS CONTEXT OF THE MOMENT WE ARE IN RELATED TO SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, A VERY POWERFUL THING FOR RESTAURANTS TO UNDERSTAND IS THE MORE THEY CAN GET ON BOARD WITH THAT, SO TO SPEAK, NOT IN A CORNY WAY, BUT IN THE MORE AUTHENTIC WAY, I THINK THAT IS ALSO GOOD BUSINESS AND A WAY FORWARD FOR THE INDUSTRY.

>> Gwyneth: ELI REVELLE YANO WILSON, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

>> Wilson: THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> Gene: SET AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF A PROPOSED MERGER BETWEEN PNM AND A COMPANY CALLED AVANGRID, AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEY GENERAL HECTOR BALDERAS ALLEGES HE WAS TOO EASILY SWAYED BY THE LAWYER FOR AVANGRID WHEN HE VOICED SUPPORT FOR THE SETTLEMENT DEAL.

FILED WITH THREE STATE AGENCIES, THE COMPLAINT SAYS IT IS MR. BALDERAS' RELATIONSHIP WITH MARCUS RAEL AND HIS LAW FIRM THAT IS GETTING IN THE WAY OF HIS DUTY TO BE THE LAWYER FOR NEW MEXICANS AND TO LOOK OUT FOR THEIR INTERESTS.

THE TWO ARE FRIENDS.

BUT AS SEARCHLIGHT NEW MEXICO AND THE SANTA FE REPORTER HAVE POINTED OUT, MR. BALDERAS' OFFICE HAS HIRED MR. RAEL'S FIRM TO REPRESENT THE STATE FAR MORE OFTEN THAN OTHER LAW FIRMS FOR FAR MORE MONEY TOO AS A MATTER OF FACT.

DIANE, WATCHDOG GROUPS WHO FILED THE COMPLAINT SAY EVEN THOUGH HECTOR BALDERAS CHANGED HIS MIND WHEN THERE WAS A BETTER SETTLEMENT OFFER GIVING MORE MONEY TO RATE PAYERS AND IMPACTED COMMUNITIES, HE CLEARLY LEFT MONEY ON THE TABLE.

DOES THIS SEEM LIKE A CLEAR CONFLICT TO YOU?

>> Diane: JUST WITH YOUR STATEMENT, MAYBE NOT.

BUT THE WHOLE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE SCENARIO OF IT, INSTINCT SAYS THERE IS SOMETHING ROTTEN IN DENMARK, SO TO SPEAK, AND IT HAPPENS MORE OFTEN IN NEW MEXICO IN STATE AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES THAN I THINK WE SHOULD BE SEEING.

THE ONLY THING THAT I DO THINK IS YOU HEAR ALL THE TIME, OH WELL, LOOK AT THE RECORD, WE DID THIS, THIS AND THIS.

THAT IS TRUE.

YOU DID FOLLOW -- AND I DID SEE THAT, WE FOLLOWED ALL THE PROCUREMENT CODE STATUTES.

HOWEVER, THERE IS A THING CALLED AN RFP.

AND WHEN YOU WRITE -- THE AGENCY REQUESTING THE SERVICES IS THE ONE WRITING THE RFP.

YOU AND I KNOW THAT YOU CAN WRITE THAT RFP TO WHERE ONLY ONE FIRM MEETS -- YOU CAN SAY LIKE, MINIMUM 10 YEARS OF ACTING AS THE LEGAL FIRM FOR A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.

WELL, THAT WIPES OUT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE RIGHT THERE.

BUT YOU CAN PUT THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, WHICH IS LEGITIMATE, INTO THE RFP SO THAT ONLY THE FIRM YOU WANT GETS SELECTED AND DOES MEET ALL THE CRITERIA.

I THINK THAT IN THIS CASE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE REAL REASONS ARE AND MAYBE THERE WAS NO HANKIE PANKIE, CYNIC IN ME SAYS, AHA, BUT I THINK IT IS THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL IS SO STRONG IN THIS CASE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OUR AG HAD BEEN SAYING THAT THIS REALLY WASN'T A BIG DEAL FOR NEW MEXICO.

AND THEN AFTER THESE LONG MEETINGS WITH HIS GOOD FRIEND -- BY THE WAY, THEIR LAW FIRM IS A GOOD LAW FIRM, BUT AFTER THOSE MEETINGS, THEN HE SUDDENLY SWITCHED HIS POSITION, THAT MAKES MOST OF US VERY SKEPTICAL AND I THINK THAT -- >> Gene: I HEAR THAT.

LET ME ASK INEZ TO GET IN ON THIS TOO.

REGULATORS IN THE AG'S ARE OFTEN LOOKING AT WHETHER THE BALANCE OF SUCH DEALS, AS DIANE MENTIONING, TILTS TOO MUCH TOWARD SHAREHOLDERS AND AWAY FROM RATE PAYERS.

WHEN YOU'RE SITTING ACROSS THE TABLE, AS DIANE MENTIONED, FROM AN OLD LAW SCHOOL BUDDY AND A GUY YOU HAVE HIRED A BUNCH OF TIMES TO WORK FOR YOU, HOW DOES THAT BALANCE WORK?

PROTECTING THE RATE PAYERS VERSUS THE SHAREHOLDERS' DESIRES?

>> Inez: IT IS OBVIOUS THAT PEOPLE TRUST FOLKS THEY KNOW AND AVANGRID PNM HIRED SOMEBODY THAT WAS KNOWN TO THE AG'S OFFICE AND PROBABLY A LOT OF OTHER IMPORTANT NEW MEXICANS, WHICH IS SPENDING THEIR MONEY WISELY, EVEN IF THEY DID PAY THEM DOUBLE WHAT THEY USUALLY MAKE AT THE AG'S OFFICE.

THE PROBLEM -- >> Gene: I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IT WAS -- IT IS IN THEIR BETTER INTEREST TO WORK WITH SOMEONE THEY KNOW EVEN THOUGH IT MAY COST THEM OR THE TAXPAYER DOUBLE THE AMOUNT?

>> Inez: I AM TALKING ABOUT THE PRIVATE COMPANY.

THE PRIVATE COMPANY HIRED SOMEBODY THAT THEY KNEW HAD AN IN AT THE AG'S OFFICE AND IT SAID IN THE REPORTING THAT HE IS GETTING DOUBLE WHAT HE GOT FROM THE AG'S OFFICE FROM THE PRIVATE COMPANY.

HE IS MAKING A LOT OF MONDAY BUT THEY ARE GETTING ACCESS THEY WOULDN'T GET OTHERWISE AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

HE MIGHT BE PERFECTLY CORRECT IN HIS ARGUMENT, HE MIGHT BE MAKING A GREAT CASE, BUT THE FACT IS THAT BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL KNOWS HIM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY WENT TO LAW SCHOOL TOGETHER THEY ARE NECESSARILY BUDDIES.

MY HUSBAND HAS A MILLION LAW SCHOOL PEOPLE THAT WERE HIS CLASSMATES THAT ARE NOT HIS FRIENDS.

SO, WHO KNOWS.

THAT PART OF IT.

THAT IS KIND OF SPECULATION.

BUT, WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THEY HAD ALL THOSE MEETINGS AND AFTERWARD HECTOR CHANGED HIS MIND.

SO, WHAT I THINK IS THIS IS ANOTHER ISSUE FOR OUR ETHICS COMMISSION BUT ALSO FOR THE LEGISLATURE.

CAN NEW MEXICO HAVE SOME SORT OF STATUTE THAT SAYS IF YOU ARE PAID BY A STATE AGENCY X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS WITHIN A YEAR, YOU CANNOT LOBBY THAT SAME AGENCY WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME AND THAT WAY THEY CAN'T HIRE THE GUY WHO HAS CONNECTIONS TO WALK INTO HIS FRIEND OR COLLEAGUE'S OFFICE TO SIT DOWN ACROSS THE TABLE.

SO, I THINK THIS OPENS UP A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHO DO WE WANT GETTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND THEN TURNING AROUND AND USING THAT ACCESS TO GET PRIVATE DOLLARS AND CAN WE STOP THAT?

>> Gene: LOVE THE WAY YOU PUT THAT LAST BIT.

SERGE, PICK UP ON THAT.

SHE LEFT A GOOD ONE FOR YOU.

THAT IS FOR SURE.

>> Serge: I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO HEAR ME COMPLAIN ABOUT PEOPLE EMPLOYING OUR GRADUATES, SO, YOU KNOW.

>> Gene: FROM UNM LAW, THAT IS RIGHT.

>> Serge: BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK OBVIOUSLY THE OPTICS OF THIS ARE NOT GREAT.

AND I GET THAT.

AND WHILE I DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE QUESTION ABOUT ETHICS, I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT ONE AND SORT OF HOW WE DO THIS IN A STATE LIKE NEW MEXICO WHERE PEOPLE -- EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYBODY.

IT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING QUESTION LIKE HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT AND HOW DO WE DO THAT?

BUT, I AM ALSO A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED THAT THIS IS FLARING UP RIGHT NOW AT A REALLY IMPORTANT TIME FOR THIS MERGER AS WELL.

THE HEARINGS.

AND TO SAY, YOU KNOW, FOCUSING ON THIS WITH HECTOR BALDERAS IS -- IT IS NOT UNIMPORTANT.

I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT BUT I DO THINK, YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS MERGER IS A HUGE THING FOR NEW MEXICO AND THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE STILL OUT THERE LIKE THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED SUCH AS WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, THE AMOUNT THAT IS GOING TO COME TO RATE PAYORS, HOW IS THIS DIVIDED?

THOSE ARE STILL OPEN QUESTIONS AND STILL THINGS THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED AND SO I WANT TO ALSO MAKE SURE WE FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL MEAT OF THIS, WHICH IS THIS IS THE ACTUAL DEAL IS SOMETHING THAT WILL AFFECT EVERY SINGLE NEW MEXICAN AND DEFINITELY THE BALDERAS/RAEL CONNECTION IS PART OF THAT, BUT IT IS NOT THE WHOLE STORY AND WE ARE APPROACHING A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT IN THESE HEARINGS.

>> Gene: I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT.

SENATOR, I GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU.

WOULD MR. BALDERAS HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF COMING UP WITH A POLICY HE COULD POINT TO THAT WOULD PROTECT AGAINST APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT INSTEAD HIS OFFICE CALLED THE COMPLAINT BASELESS.

DOES IT SEEM BASELESS?

IS THAT A WAY TO PUSH IT BACK TO THE PUBLIC LIKE THAT?

>> Diane: NO.

I WOULD LIKE JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AND TO FOLLOW-UP ON SOMETHING, INEZ SAID.

I LIKE THE IDEA -- >> Gene: ABOUT A MINUTE-AND-A-HALF.

>> Diane: LIKE IF THE LEGISLATURE, IN LOOKING AT CURRENT LAWS, MAYBE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, YOU COULD SAY, OKAY, IF THIS LAW -- IF A LAW FIRM OR ANY OTHER ENTITY, BUT A LAW FIRM, HAS DONE BUSINESS WITH THIS AGENCY IN THEIR DEFENSE, REPRESENTING THEM IN LEGAL CASES, REPRESENTING THE AGENCY, THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, THEY MAY NOT FOR X YEARS, OR WHATEVER, WORK FOR A COMPANY, PRIVATE COMPANY, THAT IS COMING BEFORE THE AGENCY FOR HELP OR A REQUEST FOR HELP.

THAT IS A LITTLE SCATTERED BUT THE IDEA IS YOU DON'T -- BECAUSE TO ME THE BAD PART HERE IS THE LAW FIRM THAT HAS BEEN WORKING FOR THIS STATE AGENCY FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW HE IS WORKING FOR THE PRIVATE ENTITY IN FACE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SO, MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE ALONG THOSE LINES, AND I SEE SERGE RAISING HIS HAND THERE.

>> Serge: THAT RAISES CONCERNS FOR ME BECAUSE ONE OF THE BED ROCK PRINCIPLES OF OUR PROFESSION IS ANYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHOEVER THEY WANT AS THEIR LAWYER.

THAT APPLIES TO THE STATE AS WELL AS SOMEONE ELSE, RIGHT?

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHO YOU HAVE REPRESENTING YOU AND ADVOCATING FOR YOUR INTERESTS.

SO THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS BUT LIMITATIONS ON WHO YOU CAN HAVE AS YOUR LAWYER ARE -- THERE ARE A FEW SITUATIONS WHERE THAT APPLIES BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE REALLY WARY OF.

>> Gene: GO AHEAD.

>> Inez: I WANTED TO FOLLOW-UP TO WHAT SERGE SAID ABOUT THE BIGGER ISSUE.

TO ME THE BIGGER ISSUE, EVEN MORE THAN STAKEHOLDERS VERSUS STAKEHOLDERS OR RATE PAYERS IS WHETHER AVANGRID PURCHASING PNM PUTS NEW MEXICO IN A BETTER PLACE TO BECOME A RENEWABLE ENERGY STATE AND IS IT BETTER FOR THE PLANET?

I MEAN YOU LOOK AT WE ARE PART OF A BIG GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS.

ARE WE GOING TO BE BETTER OFF WITH A RICH COMPANY THAT CAN INVEST IN SOLAR, ET CETERA, ET CETERA THAN WE ARE WITH PNM.

THAT IS THE QUESTION WE OUGHT TO BE ASKING.

>> Gene: THIS IS THE ONLY PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY WE HAVE.

THIS IS KIND OF A DEAL TO GET THIS RIGHT.

I WANT TO TOUCH ON ANOTHER TOPIC THAT HAS TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT'S ROLE AS A REGULATOR.

THAT IS PFAS, THE TOXIC CHEMICAL THAT IS OMNI PRESENT IN OUR WORLD.

IT CAN CAUSE MYRIAD HEALTH PROBLEMS FOR DECADES.

NOW THE U.S. MILITARY USED IT IN FIRE FIGHTING FOAMS AND IN PLACES LIKE CLOVIS AND CANNON AIR FORCE BASE.

IT CONTAMINATED THE GROUNDWATER THERE AS YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING.

NEW MEXICO HAS BEEN BEGGING THE FEDS TO REGULATE PFAS AND WE HAVE BEEN COVERING IT IN OUR GROUNDWATER WAR SERIES.

WE ARE NOT THE ONLY STATE DEALING WITH IT, THERE ARE NEARLY 700 COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE.

ENVIRONMENTAL CORRESPONDENT LAURA PASKUS TALKED RECENTLY WITH REPORTERS GARRET ELLISON AND MICHAEL SOL WARREN, A UNM GRADUATE, AND NMPBS ALUM, BY THE WAY, TO HEAR WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITIES THEY COVER IN MICHIGAN AND NEW JERSEY.

>> Laura: MICHAEL, GARRET, THANKS FOR JOINING ME ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS.

I AM REALLY GLAD TO HAVE YOU TWO HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT PFAS.

MICHAEL, I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH YOU IN YOUR COVERAGE OF NEW JERSEY.

WELCOME BACK TO NEW MEXICO PBS.

WE MISS YOU HERE IN NEW MEXICO.

NEW JERSEY IS A STATE WELL-KNOWN FOR MANUFACTURING.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE PFAS CONTAMINATION, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT MANUFACTURING?

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE MILITARY?

KIND OF WHAT IS THE BIG ISSUE IN NEW JERSEY.

>> Warren: IN NEW JERSEY, WE GET IT FROM ANYWHERE.

WE ARE AN INDUSTRIAL STATE WITH A BIG LEGACY OF CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING HERE.

THAT IS WHERE A LARGE SOURCE OF THE CONTAMINATION AROUND US IS COMING FROM.

WE DO HAVE OUR FAIR SHARE OF MILITARY BASES, LARGEST OF WHICH IS A JOINT BASE DOWN IN THE PINE BARRENS AND THAT ACTUALLY HAS, ACCORDING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, ONE OF THE HIGHEST KNOWN LEVELS OF PFAS THAT THE DOD HAS FOUND IN THEIR INITIAL ROUND OF TESTING.

SO, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE BUT I THINK IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PICTURE HOLISTICALLY, POLLUTION FROM CHEMICAL COMPANIES AND CHEMICAL PLANTS HAS BEEN THE STATE'S PRIMARY CONCERN.

>> Laura: GARRET, MICHIGAN HAS BEEN DEALING WITH PFAS CONTAMINATION FOR A LOT LONGER THAN NEW MEXICO HAS.

I AM CURIOUS, THE STATE HAS TAKEN SOME INTERESTING STEPS FROM MY MIND WATCHING FROM A DISTANCE.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THE STATE OF MICHIGAN HAS TRIED TO TACKLE THE PROBLEM WITH RESPECT TO THE MILITARY CONTAMINATION?

>> Ellison: THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MILITARY CONTAMINATION.

MOST SIGNIFICANT AND MOST HIGH PROFILE OF THOSE IS THE WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE IN OSCODA BUT THERE ARE ISSUES AT SELFRIDGE INTERNATIONAL GUARD BASE ON LAKE ST. CLAIRE.

THERE IS K.I.

SAWYER, FORMER AIR FORCE BASE UP IN THE UP BUT THOSE, THE MILITARY PIECE, IS ONLY A SMALLER FRACTION OF THE OVERALL CONTAMINATION PICTURE IN MICHIGAN WHICH TENDS TO LARGELY BE CENTERED ON SORT OF A COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL TYPE OF CONTAMINATION.

SO IF YOUR VIEWERS HAVE HEARD OF THE WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE ISSUE IN THE KENT COUNTY AREA NEAR GRAND RAPIDS, IT IS A FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURER, HUSH PUPPY SHOES, MERRELL SANDALS, THAT SORT OF THING, AND THAT IS THE MOST SEVERE EXAMPLE OF THE CONTAMINATION IN MICHIGAN.

IT IS A 25 SQUARE MILE CONTAMINATED AREA, INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVELS IN DRINKING WATER WELLS AND RIVERS THAT ARE AFFECTED.

IT IS A PRETTY BIG DEAL.

>> Laura: HERE IN NEW MEXICO THE PUSH REALLY HAS BEEN WE NEED EPA TO SET FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A FEDERAL STANDARD AND THEN THE STATE HOLD THE MILITARY ACCOUNTABLE.

WHAT ABOUT THESE INDIVIDUAL STATE'S DRINKING WATER STANDARDS?

HOW HAVE THOSE PLAYED OUT AND ARE THEY ENFORCEABLE?

LET'S START WITH NEW JERSEY.

>> Warren: WE HAVE THREE DRINKING WATER STANDARDS IN PLACE IN NEW JERSEY.

THE FIRST ONE WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 2018 FOR PFNA WHICH IS AS FAR AS PFAS GOES IS ONE OF THE LESSER KNOWN OR TALKED ABOUT ONES.

THAT IS BECAUSE IN SOUTH JERSEY AROUND A CHEMICAL PLANT RUN BY THE COMPANY SOLVAY, IN AROUND 2013 WE FOUND REALLY SEVERE PFNA CONTAMINATION IN MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER.

IT WAS A BIT OF A CRISIS.

THERE WERE BOTTLED WATER HANDOUTS.

AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT, THE STATE DEVELOPED DRINKING WATER STANDARDS OF PFNA AND THOSE WERE PUT IN PLACE IN 2018 AND FOLLOWED IN 2020 BY STANDARDS FOR PFOA AND PFOS, WHICH ARE MUCH MORE COMMON AND THE WAY IT WORKS IN NEW JERSEY IS THE LEVELS IN A MUNICIPAL SYSTEM ARE ASSESSED ON A QUARTERLY BASES AND IT IS KIND OF LIKE AVERAGES FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

SO, YOU NEEDED TO WAIT A YEAR FOR ENFORCEMENT TO KICK IN AND NOW WE ARE AT THAT POINT WHERE THE STATE IS STARTING TO HAND OUT VIOLATIONS TO DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS THAT ARE OVER THE LIMIT.

AND WE ARE SEEING THAT.

THAT IS A BIT OF REPORTING THAT I AM CHECKING IN ON RIGHT NOW.

BUT I KNOW THAT THERE IS AT LEAST FIVE COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS IN THE STATE THAT HAVE PFOS VIOLATIONS ON THE BOOKS AND WILL NEED TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION.

SO, THAT RAISES ANOTHER REALLY BIG QUESTION THAT NO ONE AT THIS POINT HAS AN ANSWER TO, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, TREATING PFAS IN WATER SYSTEMS, IT TAKES REALLY EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT THAT UP TO THIS POINT WATER SYSTEMS HAVE NOT NEEDED.

SO, WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THAT?

WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE ULTIMATE REMEDIATION OF THE MESS?

IT IS ALL TO BE DETERMINED.

>> Laura: THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH FOR YOUR STANDOUT REPORTING ON THIS.

THAT SERVES NOT JUST YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES BUT FOR SOMEONE READING FROM ANOTHER STATE.

IT IS REALLY GREAT REPORTING SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND THANKS FOR JOINING ME TODAY.

I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

>> Ellison: THANKS FOR HAVING US.

I APPRECIATE YOU'RE DOING THIS.

>> Warren: THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE INVITATION, LAURA, ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO HEAR FROM NEW MEXICO PBS.

>> Gene: FIRST IT WAS ALBUQUERQUE MAYOR TIM KELLER COMPLAINING ABOUT HIS NOVEMBER OPPONENTS EFFORTS TO GET PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCES, THEN THE CITY CLERK AGREED.

THEN A HEARING OFFICER THIS WEEK SAID THE SAME THING.

BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF MANNY GONZALES USED SOME FORGED DOCUMENTS TO TRY TO GET HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR HIS CAMPAIGN.

MR. GONZALES SAYS HE'LL APPEAL TO STATE DISTRICT COURT, AND, SERGE, ONE OF THE SHERIFF'S POINTS IN DEFENSE WAS THAT CHALLENGES SEEM TO HAPPEN IN EVERY CAMPAIGN AND THERE ARE ALWAYS INACCURATE OR FORGED SIGNATURES.

THAT WASN'T VALID IN THE HEARING OFFICERS' EYES.

THINK HE'LL HAVE ANY LUCK IN COURT WITH THAT?

>> Serge: EVERYBODY DOES THIS DOESN'T WORK WITH MY KIDS AND IT DOESN'T WORK IN THE COURT SYSTEM ESPECIALLY WITH PUBLIC FINANCING AND ELECTION LAW.

I WOULD NOT BE CONFIDENT THAT WILL PREVAIL.

>> Gene: I'LL GO TO THE SENATOR FOR THIS.

ONE OF THE POINTS THE SHERIFF MADE IN HIS DEFENSE WAS, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT HAPPENS EVERY CAMPAIGN AND HE IS RIGHT IT DOES HAPPEN EVERY CAMPAIGN.

IS HE NOT RIGHT?

>> Diane: YES, HE IS RIGHT.

AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT HAVING -- I NEVER DID PUBLIC FINANCING BUT I DID HAVE TO COLLECT SIGNATURES.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT IS WHEN YOU HAVE A PRIMARY, PARTICULARLY, AND SAY I HAD THREE OR FOUR REPUBLICANS RUNNING WITH ME, THEN, PEOPLE DO MAKE THE MISTAKE, BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE SIGNED MY PETITION AND THEN THEY SIGN SOMEBODY ELSE'S.

SO, MOST CANDIDATES ALLOW FOR THOSE KIND OF MISTAKES THAT HAPPEN OR SOMEBODY SIGNED THEIR NAME LIKE I AM REGISTERED AS H DIANE SNYDER AND SOMEBODY SIGNED IT DIANE H OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT GET REMOVED, SIGNATURES THAT GET REMOVED.

SO YOU MAKE ALLOWANCES AND COLLECT ADDITIONAL, MORE SIGNATURES THAN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE.

>> Gene: THERE YOU GO.

>> Diane: I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, SHERIFF GONZALES ADMITTED THAT SOME OF THAT HAD HAPPENED AND HE KNEW A PERSON, ONE OF HIS VOLUNTEERS, WHO HAD DONE IT.

THAT TO ME MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE CONCERNING BECAUSE YOU CAN, AS A CANDIDATE, GO THROUGH AND WIPE OUT SIGNATURES YOURSELF.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO TURN THEM IN IF YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE INAPPROPRIATE OR COLLECTED INAPPROPRIATELY.

>> Gene: IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I AM SORRY TO JUMP IN ON YOU, ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS IS THAT A BUNCH OF CITIES HAVE PUBLIC FINANCING INCLUDING YOURS, INEZ, IN SANTA FE.

IS THIS COLLECTION AND QUALIFICATION STANDARD AND PROCESS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, IS THIS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.

>> Inez: I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE YOU CAN DECIDE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE MONEY.

BASICALLY YOU'RE TAKING TAXPAYER MONEY THAT WE AGREED AS TAXPAYERS TO GIVE TO PUBLIC FINANCING AND THEY WANT TO SHOW THAT THE PERSON SIGNING UP HAS SOME SEMBLANCE OF SUPPORT.

AND GETTING SIGNATURES AND COLLECTING MONEY DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A BAD WAY TO DO IT UP.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO, A, FORGE SIGNATURES OR TELL THE PERSON I'LL PAY FOR YOU SO IT IS OKAY.

I MEAN THOSE ARE THINGS THAT CAMPAIGN CHOSE TO DO.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT AND THAT HASN'T REALLY BEEN A PROBLEM IN SANTA FE.

WE HAVE HAD A CANDIDATE WHO RUNS, GETS SIGNATURES SOMEHOW OR THE OTHER, NO CLUE HOW, AND SPENDS ALL THE CAMPAIGN MONEY ON LUNCH WITH HER FRIENDS.

AND THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A PROBLEM BUT IN TERMS OF THE ELECTION, THAT HASN'T BEEN A HUGE ISSUE IN SANTA FE.

>> Gene: I HAVE GOT TO GO BACK TO THE ACCUSATION BY THE SHERIFF TO THE KELLER CAMPAIGN THAT MR. KELLER HAS APPOINTEES WORKING AGAINST HIM.

WHAT HAPPENS IF HE LOSES IN DISTRICT COURT BECAUSE MR. KELLER DOES NOT APPOINT JUDGES.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT?

>> I WOULDN'T GIVE MUCH TO THAT ARGUMENT TO BEGIN WITH.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS YOU KEEP APPEALING AND YOU APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT I DO THINK THERE IS INTERESTING -- A KERNEL OF SOMETHING INTERESTING THERE WHICH IS PROBABLY THE BEST PRACTICE WOULD BE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF HAVING THE CANDIDATES THEMSELVES OR THE APPOINTED CITY CLERK BE IN THIS ROLE, BUT HAVE, YOU KNOW, A COMMISSION, EVERY FOUR YEAR COMMISSION, THAT DOES THIS, THAT REVIEWS THIS, THAT GOES THROUGH THESE.

THAT SAYS THESE ARE LEGIT, THESE ARE NOT LEGIT.

THIS IS A REAL ISSUE AND THIS IS A NONISSUE, WHATEVER.

THAT APPLIES SAME STANDARD BUT OTHERWISE WE REALLY DON'T KNOW.

THERE IS NO PROCESS FOR DOING THIS UNLESS, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE FROM THE OTHER SIDE SAID, AHA, I AM GOING TO CHECK ALL THESE.

TAKING THIS OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE CITY CLERK WHO HAS A WHOLE OTHER JOB MAKES SENSE TO ME.

>> Diane: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FIND REALLY MOST DISTURBING ABOUT IT IS THAT A CANDIDATE WHO DID NOT NEED TO DO THIS.

HE HAS GOT ENOUGH SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT WASN'T NECESSARY.

AND WHAT THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS MAY BE IS MAJOR CHANGES IN OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCING LAWS AND I JUST WANT CANDIDATES TO BE ON THE UP AND UP ALWAYS.

I THINK -- I KNOW SERGE IS LAUGHING AT ME.

I THINK IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT NOT JUST -- BUT REALLY WHEN YOU ARE TAKING THE PUBLIC'S MONEY, THEN TO ME IT REACHES ANOTHER DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE THAT IT BE ETHICAL, MORAL AND THINGS TO BE DONE.

THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS -- >> Gene: DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE HE WEARS A BADGE, THE SHERIFF?

MEANING, SHOULD HE HAVE TAKEN EVEN MORE PRECAUTIONS ON THIS?

>> Diane: I THINK ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE EVEN MORE OF A RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE YOU SWEAR TO A CONSTITUTION OR A CHARTER THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE ETHICAL AND MORAL.

QUICK POINT.

I HAVE HEARD SOME PEOPLE SAY WHILE WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS, THE IMMEDIATE REACTION IS, WELL, I NEED TO SEND MANNY A CHECK.

SO THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND THEY DO FEEL LIKE THERE IS SOME BIAS SO WHAT IT MAY HAVE DONE IS GIVE THE SHERIFF A GREATER POT OF MONEY IN WHICH TO RUN, MUCH GREATER THAN THE PUBLIC FUNDING MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

>> Gene: YOU THINK HE CAN MAKE UP A $600,000 GAP.

>> Diane: OH, YES.

>> Gene: OKAY.

LET ME ASK SERGE THIS.

SHOULD THE PRESENCE OF SOME NON-MATCHING SIGNATURES DISQUALIFY POTENTIALLY THOUSANDS OF OTHER VALID ONES?

YOU SEE THIS IS MY POINT HERE.

DOES THE PRESENCE OR ADMISSION IN MR. GONZALES' CASE OF BAD SIGNATURES OR FORGES, DOES THAT INDICATE A CANDIDATE CAN'T KEEP HER OWN HOUSE IN ORDER?

OR IS THIS JUST STUFF THAT HAPPENS ON THE STREET, OUT OF THEIR CONTROL?

>> Serge: I THINK THAT GOES TO DIANE'S POINT.

THEN GET 5,000 BECAUSE THEN YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS.

I DO THINK THERE IS A FEW HERE AND THERE TO BE EXPECTED BUT A LARGE NUMBER WHERE YOU KNOW ABOUT IT AND SUBMIT THESE ANYWAY, THAT BRINGS IT TO A WHOLE OTHER LEVEL, RIGHT?

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE THRESHOLD IS PROBABLY TOO HIGH AND PROBABLY -- THE ACTUAL NUMBERS RIGHT NOW BUT I DO THINK -- >> Gene: YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LEGITIMATE MACHINE TO PULL IT OFF.

IT IS NOT STANDING OUT THERE WITH CLIPBOARDS.

INEZ GO AHEAD.

>> Inez: THERE IS A REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING AN ERROR, WHICH EVERYONE CAN DO, AND COMMITTING FRAUD.

AND ONE IS A CRIME AND IF YOU'RE THE SHERIFF OF BERNALILLO COUNTY AND YOU'RE RUNNING BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO CLEAN-UP ALL THE CRIME IN ALBUQUERQUE, THE CRIME THAT YOU DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF WHEN YOU WERE BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF, BUT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DO AS MAYOR, BY THAT LOGIC, COMMITTING FORGERY OR HAVING YOUR EMPLOYEES OR WORKERS COMMIT FORGERY DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO BE THE BEST CAMPAIGN MESSAGE.

>> Gene: ENDING NOTE THERE.

OUT OF TIME FOR THIS WEEK.

THANKS TO EVERYONE HERE FOR THEIR TIME AND THOUGHTS.

I AM BACK IN A MOMENT.

WHEN IT COMES TO WATER, A LITTLE BIT GOES A LONG WAY AS WE HAVE BEEN BLESSED WITH A MINI MONSOON OF SORTS, BUT WELCOMED, NONETHELESS.

BUT AS WE SAW ON TUESDAY A LOT OF RAIN POURING INTO A SPECIFIC AREA CAN MEAN A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY.

TOTAL OF THREE BODIES IN THE DIVERSION DITCH DURING THE STORM HAVE BEEN RECOVERED NEAR TRAMWAY.

IT WAS SHOCKING AND SOBERING, AND MORE THAN THAT, A REMINDER WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD TO BE AWARE OF THE TREACHEROUS NATURE OF DITCHES DURING MONSOON BECAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN MONSOONS TO WARRANT IT IN RECENT YEARS.

DITCHES ARE DEADLY.

ACCIDENTAL DROWNING IS THE NO.

2 CAUSE OF DEATH IN NEW MEXICO FOR AGES 1 TO 44 WHICH INCLUDES DITCHES AND ARROYOS.

WHILE ANY DROWNING IS TRAGIC NO MATTER WHERE IT HAPPENS, IT ALL SEEMS SO AVOIDABLE WHEN IT COMES TO DITCHES AND ARROYOS.

WE DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF TUESDAY'S TRAGEDY, NO NEED FOR ASSUMPTIONS, BUT IT HAS BEEN A FEW SUMMERS SINCE WE HAVE HAD TO PULL OUR RADAR UP ON THIS ISSUE.

WE HAVE A REASON NOW.

THANKS FOR JOINING US AND STAYING INFORMED AND ENGAGED.

SEE YOU AGAIN NEXT WEEK, IN FOCUS.