Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.

>> Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus.

Albuquerque will vote for mayor in just a few short months.

We meet a couple of the candidates from the crowded field.

>> Chavez: Crime is completely out of control here.

Homelessness is more than doubled under the current ministration.

>> Varela: Small business is the backbone of our city, and I will aid in every way I can.

Business people in our community.

>> Nash: Plus, incumbent Mayor Tim Keller is the only one running to qualify for public financing.

We hear from one of the law's architects about whether the bar is too high.

New Mexico In Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us this week I'm Nash Jones.

Government finances can be kind of a muddled mystery to those of us on the outside looking in.

But a budget and what lawmakers do and don't include in it is, as the saying goes, a moral document.

So as New Mexicans may be particularly in an era when the state has had record breaking budgets year over year, it's important for us to pay attention to what's getting funded and how.

Later this hour, we hear from David Abbey, who led the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee for decades.

He's since retired and written a book all about what he learned and encountered.

He sits down with someone else who herself has years of experience inside the Capitol.

Former state Senator Dedi Feldman to discuss his new book, 40 Years in the round House.

Later, we'll move on to campaign finances, namely in the city of Albuquerque.

Yet again this year, candidates for the city's top job are crying foul over who got access to public financing, and who's going to pay their own way.

The bar to qualify for taxpayer funded campaigns is high.

And this year, that's led to only one candidate making the cut.

Mayor Tim Keller, who's running for a third term, a former city councilor who helped design that system.

Eric Griego, joins senior producer Ludovico to discuss the origin of the law and whether it's due for an update.

But first, let's meet some of those privately financed candidates.

In the first of several installments over the next few weeks on the crowded Albuquerque mayoral race, In Focus's, Cailley Chella introduces us to two of the less well-known contenders.

In an effort to fairly give all seven candidates airtime over the next few weeks, our team has set a threshold for who would qualify for one on one interviews.

We factored in fundraising, excluding any contributions candidates made to themselves, along with ballot petition signatures to suss out which candidates had the most and least support among voters.

Here's Cailley.

>> Cailley: I sat down with two Albuquerque mayoral candidates separately, Daniel Chavez and Andy Barela, and asked them three questions, giving them 90s to answer each.

I asked about the top issues facing Albuquerque crime, homelessness and immigration.

All right, Mr. Daniel Chavez, thank you so much for speaking with me today.

>> Chavez: Nice to meet you.

>> Cailley: Mr. Eddy Varela, thank you so much for sitting down with me today.

>> Varela: Thank you for having me today.

>> Cailley: Let's go right into it with the first question.

>> Chavez: Okay.

>> Cailley: Crime in Albuquerque is among voters biggest concern heading into this election.

What is your perception of crime in the city?

And what 2 or 3 specific actions would you take to address it in your first 100 days if elected?

>> Varela: My perception of of crime is reality.

I was a paramedic for 17 years.

I worked the streets.

I'm actually from the streets.

I know what crime is and it's at an all time high.

It's terrible.

I do have a plan.

And the plan is very, very simple, but not very difficult to enforce.

I don't believe it's going to be hard.

The first thing we do is we're going to institute a curfew for 18 year olds and under.

They will not be on the streets of Albuquerque.

We have young people 14, 12, 12 and 11 killing people.

We have a new generation of youth out there, so we have to find a way to deal with it.

So we're going to do a curfew.

We're also going to start a new program called police ROTC in the high schools.

Juniors and seniors, boys and girls, will be in a program that teaches them law enforcement, and it will be taught by, retired law enforcement officers.

When they graduate from this program, they will be immediately put into our police safety aid program, and they will be guaranteed a job, and they will work there until they reach age 21, which makes them eligible to be a police officer.

And then we will absorb them into the police department.

And, also the most important part of our plan is we're going to do something called police day work, where we're going to bring in retired certified peace officers, and they'll be able to work day shifts of their choice, and we'll pay them well.

And they're going to do one thing and one thing only.

They're going to be visible in our community because peace officers tell me that's the key to success.

Visibility.

>> Chavez: Crime is completely out of control.

You know, per capita, we're actually one of the most dangerous cities in America, and it has gotten, exponentially worse with our homeless problem.

The police currently do not enforce an entire list of misdemeanors, believe it or not.

Trespassing.

I've had trouble with trespassers.

Police will not say for it.

There's.

They literally have a multiple list of things.

They don't.

They don't, cite.

And, that's part of the problem, with Albuquerque.

But the original question is, what would I do to solve it?

Was that correct?

Yes.

Number one, we need a new police chief, and it's not even anything personal against the police chief.

Any new administration coming in?

Should should have, police chief that has their own vision.

And, so the police chief has to go day one.

Secondly, we have to, enforce all of the laws.

We are literally not enforcing misdemeanors like I just mentioned.

And three, we have to get up to the maximum number of police officers.

So I think we're short.

I believe it's about 200 right now, but we need to get to the maximum.

We need to enforce the laws.

And I want a police chief.

It was tough as nails and straight as an arrow.

And I'm willing to search, within APD.

But I'm also going to search across the country, and, I want to hire the best person.

You know, in business, we business owners, we always hire the best.

We could care less about gender.

So you know, if I have a woman and a man and the woman is just a little bit more qualified, or I think would do better, you know, heading APD, we're going to go with the woman.

If the man is a little bit better than we're going to go with, who's ever better.

But, you know, APD needs to be a place that officers want to work.

And, one thing that, that's very tough to do, and, you know, what's what's interesting, you know, every profession, you're going to have some bad apples.

And the police, of course, have some bad apples.

Okay.

Well, we need to, we need to, clear the department of the bad apples, and there's more than just one.

And so I need a police chief who has the guts to do it, and, it's going to take somebody that's very exceptional to to take that on, because it's not easy to get rid of, bad cops.

And, you know, to the police departments credit, I think compared to the business community, it's a very, very low.

I think there's way more bad, business people out there than than police.

It's just sad.

You know, in a profession, you get some that don't belong there.

So I think that's important to, to, you know, fixing the crime problem because, you know, you don't want you don't want any crooked cops there.

And we've had our share here.

I'm sure you've heard about the DWI scandal, but we you know, that's another issue.

>> Cailley: Thank you.

on to question two.

The city's unhoused population has been growing steadily in recent years and has exploded since 2022.

This is happening alongside a growing affordable housing crisis.

How would your approach to tackle these two intertwined issues differ from the current administration's?

>> Chavez: Well, you know, a lot of this, first of all, our homeless population has doubled.

And, I you including them in, in our house.

I assume you're including them in our unhoused population, or are you okay?

We need, you know, when I was talking about the police, we need to enforce the laws right now.

The homeless are sleeping.

Passed out.

On drugs, whatever it is, in front of taxpaying businesses.

I've never seen it in my life.

I've been here 55 years.

We used to always go on central to hang out when I was younger.

Never in a million years would you see, 3 or 4 homeless people going down the block, like 2 or 3 blocks.

Just passed out, literally on Central Avenue proper, while everyone's trying to walk on the sidewalks.

People are trying to run their businesses.

That will not be allowed under my administration.

We will enforce the law.

We want to help these people.

We do not.

It kills me to see people on the sidewalk, without help.

But they also have to want to help.

So we're going to offer them help.

And we we spent a staggering amount of money on homelessness.

And that gets me off to another another issue.

It's not managed.

It's not a okay.

It's not managed properly.

But we need to we need to offer them help.

And we need to clear out.

Clear.

Clear them off the streets.

But beyond that, I have I have housing ideas, but I know we ran out of time on that.

>> Varela: Its dramatically different.

The current administration throws $200 million a year into the homeless situation, and, I have, walked the streets of Albuquerque for over two years.

And once a week I actually go to First Street and fourth and I-40, and I talk with the homeless.

I try to find out why they're here, who they are and what and what is they need.

Well, the situation is that the homeless is far more complex than the word unhoused or homeless.

There's very different levels of homeless.

I have, much compassion for about 15% people that are born that way without the ability to care for themselves, missing limbs, whatever.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the street name is called zombies.

Where they're gone.

They're gone.

The fentanyl has destroyed their bodies.

What we're going to do when I become, the mayor is I'm going to hire private security firms.

And the reason I'm going to use them is because we don't have enough police officers.

We only have 288 police officers, and they are going to walk with the homeless.

And this is not an aggressive thing.

This is to get to know who they actually are, where they came from, and how to manage this.

Once they report back to me, we're going to know who's recoverable and who's not.

We're going to cite the homeless for infractions of the law, and then we're going to offer them tickets back to their hometowns, because 50% of the homeless are not from Albuquerque.

And right now, if you offered him ticket to go home, they'd go.

And so I think my plan will work.

And it's going to be dignified and Darian, but we're going to reduce the numbers substantially.

>> Cailley: Thank you.

On to question three, the Trump administration has designated 19 U.S. cities, including Albuquerque, as sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants, and indicated that this designation could lead to legal actions or reductions in federal funding.

Mayor Keller has said Albuquerque will remain what he calls immigrant friendly as long as he is mayor.

How would your administration approach a relationship with federal authorities when it comes to people in the country without documentation, and why?

>> Varela: This is a very sensitive issue.

But I can assure you what Mayor Keller did recently.

And his executive order will cost the city of Albuquerque at least $80 million in federal funding.

It will cost far more than that when it gets trickles down to the nonprofits.

I am against sanctuary city, and I have studied this issue extensively.

And I am Hispanic.

I speak the language.

But what has happened to our city is, we just have too many people that have come in to get on medical support.

And the cost to the city is tremendous for illegal immigrants, and it's tremendous for the homeless.

I will not stop the federal government from coming in and arresting criminals.

Will I call them to come and pick up everybody?

No, I'm not going to do that.

But when they come to pick up criminals, I will not stand in the way of federal agents.

And I'm doing that to keep the funding flowing to our city.

It's.

We are running out of money in this city.

We're spending $200 million on the homeless, and we're spending just tons of money on other than hardworking taxpayers.

And I'll stop there.

And I just thought about this for many, many years, and that's my position.

I do not support Sanctuary City.

>> Cailley: You still have, about 40 seconds left.

Is there anything you wanted to add?

>> Varela: Yeah.

You know, our city is a beautiful, wonderful place.

It's gone down downhill, under this administration, and we're going to recover our city and get back to where we were just a few years ago.

Money is not solving our problems, and we're going to find a way to make to find other ways to make our city great again.

We are not going to continue to spend the kind of money that that we have been spending under this administration, because it's not working our businesses are going out of business because of homeless, and it has to stop.

Small business is the backbone of our city, and I will aid in every way I can business people in our community.

>> Chavez: Well, first of all, I'm going to everyone has their different definition of sanctuary city.

So I'm going to I'm not going to, use that word.

What I will tell you is that we will, respect all laws, federal laws included.

We will not protect anybody, regardless of immigration status, who has committed a violent crime.

And I don't think I, I think probably 84 people, I'm sure 75 to 80% would agree with that.

Why in the world would we be protecting people who have committed violent crimes?

And from what I understand, that is currently happening right now.

So I think the number one thing is, like I said, we we we cannot risk it.

We're in dire straits in Albuquerque.

We have three I that's why I'm running for mayor.

I'm not a politician, I never, I'm independent, I never dreamed I'd be running for office.

I mean, I thought about the back of my mind, but when I registered independent 15 years ago, I figured that's it.

Because in general, in politics, you got to be a Democrat or Republican.

Luckily for, you know, this race is nonpartisan, so I'm an independent.

No problem.

I lost my train of thought there.

Where was I before I mentioned that sanctuary cities?

Well, where was I on that?

Well, you know, we we.

Well, we cannot risk losing any federal funding.

We have, I guess I know where I was, the three major problems we have.

Crime is completely out of control here.

Homelessness is more than doubled under the current ministration.

Why in the world?

I do not believe that, Albuquerqueans will give him another four years.

So, crime is out of control.

Homelessness is out of control, and economics is a disaster.

We have not built a new building, privately, since the 1990s.

I mean, since the early 2000.

We need to bring big companies downtown.

I want to bring an NBA team downtown proper.

But we cannot risk.

Not only do we need to respect for our laws, we cannot risk losing federal money, especially Albuquerque, where we're in dire shape.

So I think that sums up my position on that.

>> Cailley: Alright, Those are all my questions.

Thank you so much.

That was Eddie Barela and Daniel Chavez, two of the seven candidates vying for your vote for Albuquerque mayor.

We'll speak to the rest of the candidates later this month for New Mexico in Focus.

I'm Cailley Chella reporting.

>> Abbey: I want to shed light on how government works, because I think that's what we count on in our democracy is to understand it.

And finances seem mysterious to many.

And I want to make it more accessible.

>> Nash: Our conversation with David Abbey about his four decades in the roundhouse is coming up in about ten minutes.

But right now, we're going to take a different kind of look at the upcoming mayoral races around the state, in Albuquerque and in Santa Fe.

Candidates have an opportunity to fund their campaigns with public money.

In both cities, several council candidates are in that opportunity.

And in Santa Fe, two of the people running for mayor qualified.

But in Albuquerque, just one of the candidates for mayor reached that threshold for public dollars.

Incumbent mayor Tim Keller.

This week, senior producer Lou Divizio chat with one of the people who originally crafted Albuquerque's public campaign financing system to ask if it's still working.

Eric Griego Great to see you.

Thanks for being here on New Mexico in Focus.

>> Griego: Thanks for having me.

>> Lou: Of course.

Now today I want to talk about public financing and local elections.

And where does that money come from?

And what can candidates use it for wants to get it?

>> Griego: So it comes from, partially from the contributions that come in when you have to collect these $5 contributions in the Albuquerque case, but it also just comes from an appropriation from the from the general fund.

Right.

So there's a special fund that's been created and the fund funding goes into the into the Clean and Open Elections Fund.

I think it's what we call it.

And it's used to fund it's and it's a regular sort of distribution.

I think it's pretty solvent.

And, and so the funding comes out of that, you have to obviously, you have to qualify by having, you know, 1% of, $5 contributions from 1% of registered voters in the city or in a council race in your district.

And, and, and, you know, it's, it's $5 contribution, so significant increases to get a significant amount of work.

And we're going to talk about that.

It's not it's not exactly a walk in the park to get public financing.

So.

>> Lou: Sure.

And that's taxpayer money, Correct.

>> Griego: It is absolutely taxpayer money.

Yep.

It's all public funded.

>> Lou: So as you mentioned, we're in the homestretch of Albuquerque's mayoral race.

And as usual, public financing is a headline already.

We'll get to some of the complaints that some of Mayor Keller's challengers have had.

So far.

But I want to start with a little bit of a public policy question.

What problem or problems was this system aiming to fix when it was enacted in Albuquerque in 2009?

>> Griego: So in 2005, we had the most expensive mayoral, race in history.

So the current mayor at the time, Marty Chavez, raised $1.2 million.

We really felt like that.

That was a lot of money.

And it wasn't just the amount of money, it was who was giving.

Right?

Obviously, folks who had an interest in city business are most interested, but also it's a small pool of people who have the ability who played.

So it was a, a group that doesn't really represent most Albuquerqueans, Right.

So sort of sort of sort of local elections really dominated by, a small group of people who had the deep pockets.

Right?

So a number of advocates and when I was at the time I was in city, city council came and we were to say, okay, how do we make it so that anybody, not just who's well-heeled or an incumbent or the party's nominee or the party's darling or has a high profile, because in politics, anyone who's a credible candidate if if they if they've sort of use this system, importantly, if they reject any of this private money.

So, you know, whether it's a labor union or a development organization that they would have, they would have the ability to, to, to, to be funded with public money and really be beholden to the public, not to any special interest.

Right.

The first election was actually the 2007 City Council election, which several candidates ran on public financing, and some of them won.

And then 2009.

I know we can talk about this, but there was a, the first mayoral election that was a real big test because, you know.

>> Lou: Yeah, yeah, let's talk about that right now.

That was the system's first year for mayoral election.

As you mentioned, Marty Chavez was the incumbent of course, he qualified for public financing.

So did his two main rivals.

Richard Romero, R.J. Barry.

Barry ultimately won the race.

Two city councilors dropped out after failing to qualify.

Michael Cadigan and Debbie O'Malley.

Both of them made similar claims to what we've heard in this race about it being too difficult, favoring incumbents.

Have politics or in the nature of campaigning for this office changed that much in these 16 years or were candidate those two candidates just better at fundraising and appealing to the public at that point?

>> Griego: Well, actually, policy change, it wasn't politics or the nature campaigns.

It was it was policy.

It was it was actually the law changed.

So the system that we created was predicated on the fact that if you went publicly financed and one of your opponents decided to go privately financed, you would actually get matching funds.

So there wouldn't be this huge disparity, right?

So why else would an incumbent like Marty Chavez, who had already raised 1.2 million in the previous race, go publicly finance and the reason is, why would you all this money to do all this work, to raise all this money if you're publicly financed opponents?

So the I think that's why all three of these candidates, decided to go that way.

There is also another unique thing about these three candidates you had incumbent mayor, Marty Chavez, who was a two term mayor, former gubernatorial candidate.

You had, Richard Romero, who had been a two time congressional candidate, so well known pro tem of the Senate.

So he wasn't exactly someone who was just walking out of, been a high school teacher or something, although he used to be a high school teacher.

But, and then R.J. Barry, who was a legislator, he didn't have high name I.D., but, I talked to him in those early days when he was going to run, and really, he became the Republican Party's nominee.

So I think two things happened.

One is these are all candidates who had high profiles or strong party support.

In the case of R.J. Barry, and the law changed, at the time you could get matching funding and in 2011 you'll see a complete change in how many people took public financing because you no longer got these matching funds.

So there was a disincentive to do it, right.

>> Lou: Some of the challengers to Tim Keller, of course, they're a little upset that what they think is a system that's a little bit too hard for them to breach.

He's seeking his third term as mayor.

He's the only candidate to qualify, earning about $780,000.

That dwarfs the sums raised by any of his opponents, even those who have contributed quite a large sum of their own money.

What are their fundamental arguments about the difficulties of this system?

>> Griego: Well, I think the argument is the threshold to get, voters when you have such a wide field, to give you $5, you know, having done this for myself, for other candidates, it's, you know, it's one thing to ask somebody to sign a petition, right?

It's another thing to say, give me $5.

And it's a significant amount of signatures.

It's, you know, to really have a cushion and so on.

You have to get 4000 people to give $5.

It doesn't sound outrageous, but if you've tried to do it, it's difficult.

I mean, I think Mayor Keller gets a lot of credit for having the operation, for doing it, and having a really good system absolutely worked hard.

But I think it's not fair to say that the others didn't work hard, because I know at least a couple of them were out there trying to do it right.

Crowded field.

Incumbent mayor with a good a good network who'd been in that office for eight years.

I actually thought that the if the Republicans had rallied around Darren White, who was the most prominent Republican, who is the most prominent Republican in the race that they might be able to do it.

So I think it is a kind of a, not unique, but it is unusual the way that this has played out.

It's disappointing.

I wish more more of them had been able to to get public financing.

I think it makes for a better, race.

It makes for a much more accountable mayor.

But, it is what it is, you know?

>> Lou: So do you think that they're right?

Is it too difficult?

>> Griego: It is.

It is, you know, again it wasn't my original idea.

There were a lot of folks who had been working on this.

We tried to strike that balance, and the numbers were the same.

You know, it's 1% back then, and it was hard back then.

And I think the dynamics have changed.

I think if we want more people who aren't incumbents, party, you know, high profile party officials, to be able to run that we have to make it a little easier.

I'm not saying we make it a walk in the park, you know, but 1%, you know, to say you should get you know, almost 4000, $5 contributions, I think, is we've learned is that's that's a difficult thing.

It's a very short time period to do it.

So we should extend the time and we should lower the amount.

One idea and I think there's some legal arguments against it, but I think we could try to do it is to say to have a threshold.

So if you get a certain number you get a certain amount of public financing.

If you're not able to get to the full 4000, maybe you get half the money, but you at least get some assistance and you can again turn down the private money.

>> Lou: So you spoke of Darren White being the most high profile Republican, but the fact that there are so many other candidates on the table that might have made it more difficult for him than it otherwise would have been if he was one of just a few challengers.

If the system doesn't change, could we see the growth of some sort of a political apparatus that would support challengers better to try to coalesce behind one candidate so that they can earn public financing and legitimately challenge to the incumbent?

>> Griego: That's a great question.

I think if, you know, one of the benefits of our system is that, you know, we had seven candidates for mayor.

I think that's a good thing.

I think more options is better.

But it does create some problems when you're trying to you're trying to create a system that doesn't, that money doesn't advantage certain candidates over the other.

One thing we haven't talked about is the other wrench in the system is the fact that, you know, another Supreme Court decision, you know, Citizens United, which, you know, the gift that keeps giving has also made it illegal to prohibit, unlimited contributions to sort of independent organizations, PACs, we call them measure finance committees in the city.

Those organizations can spend money on, on any candidates as long as they they don't coordinate with them.

And that's limited amounts of money as well.

So, the other factor we haven't talked about is that, several of the candidates will have these independent PACs, with sort of, donors who are giving to support, individual candidates right.

It's one of the reasons why, Keller was able to win, in his first run, because there was a huge amount of money that was raised by these independents.

I think that's a problem.

But the Supreme Court decided there's nothing you can do to regulate those.

So, that's the other dynamic that could possibly really determine the outcome.

And based on what we've seen at the federal level and even at the state level, the more people use those sort of independent committees, they're going to have huge influence.

It could become a moot point.

Who has the most, money in terms of public financing?

I can see them easily eclipsing, let's say if Keller wins based on public financing.

I could see people were strongly opposed to him saying, okay, next time we're going to create one of these major finance committee that's going to have a lot of money and we get to determine who the next mayor is based on the money, right.

>> Lou: Is that something that city officials could proactively work against to try to by making it a little bit easier to qualify for public financing, or at this point.

>> Griego: We could we could no, we could decide tomorrow.

You know, the system has changed a number of times since we created it in 2005.

The other thing we again, we haven't talked about is the other fix we tried to make is in 2019, we tried, expanding the system to give public finance more money and use this as democracy dollars.

There was a couple of those.

There were a couple of ballot, essentially they were both placed on the ballot to change the the basic way we fund public financing.

One was democracy dollars that if you're willing to get these $25, a certain amount of contribution you get $25 vouchers to give, to give to the candidate of your choice.

That would have made the system.

But the voters, unfortunately were confused and voted that one down and voted the proposition two, which increased the amount of distribution to the mayor and to city council races and, so, you know, we've tried to change it.

I think it definitely could use more form.

As someone who worked on it in the beginning, you know, I have no pride of authorship.

Like, let's make it work for everybody.

Let's try to strike this balance between making it accessible to as many candidates as possible, but also not just handing people who aren't serious candidates.

But I think we're out of balance right now.

>> Lou: Eric Griego, great to see you.

Thanks for being here.

>> Gabauer: National History Day is a worldwide competition to show history to others and also show students what they can do with their abilities.

As we were going along, we were learning about all these atrocities that Japan did to all these Chinese or Korean or Asian or East Asian people all over the globe.

And we all just felt so bad that we had to share this experience that they had, that these people shouldn't be forgotten.

>> Nash: My interview with those two students representing New Mexico at a National History Day competition earlier this year is coming up in about 15 minutes.

But first, as the leader of the budget making arm for the state legislature, David Abbey has had a ringside seat to political squabbles for decades while serving as the director of the legislative finance committee.

He navigated boom and bust cycles, corruption scandals, Covid and much more.

In 2010, the Santa Fe New Mexican called Abbey quote “one of the finest fiscal minds in captivity.” Well, now he's out of captivity, having retired, and is telling us all about it in his new book, 40 years in the New Mexico Roundhouse.

Working alongside Abbey at the Capitol during that time, former Democratic state Senator Dede Feldman saw a lot of Abbey and his work.

This week she moves into this chair to lead the conversation with her former colleague.

Here's Dede.

>> Dede: Welcome, David Abbey to New Mexico in Focus.

>> Abbey: Thank you Senator.

>> Dede: Tell us a little bit about your book and why you wrote it.

And why ordinary folks should be should be interested in the budget and policymaking in New Mexico.

>> Abbey: So I want to shed light on how government works, because I think that's what we count on in our democracy is to understand it.

And finances seem mysterious to many.

And I want to make it more accessible in by teaching both how the finances work as well as the history.

>> Dede: You know when I started in 1997, I think it was the same year you started in the New Mexico LFC.

The budget was about $1 billion or so, maybe 1.5 billion or something.

And now it's what, 12, 11 and recurring, >> Abbey: 11 billion recurring >> Dede: 11 billion recurring And tell us what recurring mean.

>> Abbey: Recurring means we count on it generally year after year with a little volatility.

>> Dede: Well, it must be tough to, first of all, come up with a recommended spending plan that satisfies everybody, the, legislators from both parties, the governor, the public to some extent, lobbyists, and one that, you know, doesn't, doesn't violate our constitutional requirement that we can't have deficit spending.

First of all, walk us through how you how a budget works and how you develop it in New Mexico.

>> Abbey: We start out with a revenue estimate how much is coming in.

We look at what is spent in general fund for the current year.

And we look at the difference and we call that new money.

And that tells the legislature how much they can grow spending and stay and keep things in balance.

There's not a prohibition on spending more, revenue than comes in, as long as they don't send the checkbook into the red.

But they don't generally like to use non-recurring one time revenue for ongoing operations because they're going to run out sooner or later and then have to shut things down, which are very consequential.

>> Dede: Given that constraint, how does the budget actually take shape every year?

>> Abbey: So it starts with the agencies submitting budget requests on behalf of the executive branch.

And they were due, by the way, yesterday, September 2nd.

September 1st is the due date.

That's the starting point.

The budget request from agencies LFC, Legislative Finance Committee has hearings all fall, on on what the agency needs are and what their requirements are, and they compare that to how much is available.

And over the staff plays a very important role in this process because legislators aren't paid they're volunteers.

They're not in Santa Fe except for three days a month through this period.

So the staff plays a significant role coming up with spending plans and scenarios.

What does the governor want?

What the members want, what the leadership wants, balance the minority in the majority party and develop spending plans that by December, LSC adopts a spending recommendation.

The governor has her spending his or her spending recommendation.

In January and then the the full legislature comes in House appropriations.

And again, here's the request from every agency.

What they want to get, what the governor wants them to get, compares it to what LFC recommends.

It starts developing a budget during the session.

>> Dede: How do you keep everybody happy during that process, or do you feel that you've done your job when no one is happy?

The LFC takes sort of a middle of the road approach to budgeting.

We've got to find a balance between middle ground, between more extreme positions.

So for example, the legislature has educators who are in the chambers and they want all the money for public schools.

Well, we can't give it all to public schools.

And somebody else wants it all for health care.

And so there's there's a lot of pushes for, for more for this.

But nobody wants to nobody wants less in order to get more for something else.

But I think part of it is legislators, by temperament, and especially the appropriators, are used to compromising and finding balance and giving and taking and not expecting to win all the marbles.

And so I think that that need of the legislators to strike compromises helps the staff come together with plans together to that can get broad support and and representative colleagues to say you you knew you were done when nobody liked it, but nobody knew how to make it better.

Nobody knew how to cut something in order to pay for something else somebody wanted.

They felt, you know what?

This is fair.

This is balanced.

And and the legislators are good at that.

And, yeah, the staff helps them.

>> Dede: And Representative Cole of course, the long time, Max Cole, chairman, of the House appropriation and Finance Committee from Santa Fe.

Another part of your book is kind of a review or a survey of events during various governors, starting with Anaia and ending with, Michelle Lujan Grisham.

And you've written, I think, that leadership in both the executive and the legislative is the most important thing, in how we're doing as a state.

So tell me, who were some of your heroes during the period that you were there?

And what do you consider some of their greatest accomplishments?

>> Abbey: From the executive branch I most positive about Governor Crothers.

For, for a couple reasons.

On the heels of the Anai administration, which was very turbulent, very competitive, a lot of my way or the highway Crothers, who was a moderate, viewed as a conservative then by today's standards, more like a moderate Republican.

But he knew that it was important to find to move forward with broad support rather than winning.

So his willingness to compromise was critical.

The hardest problems, from a legislative point of view, is we've had governors who didn't have a compromising approach to the legislature, and that's a lot of them.

Bill Richardson, who was very strategic, who was a great political thinker and had big visions for state, but also, he didn't tolerate very much different points of view.

The Martinez administration was at times chaotic, you know, ranging from just bad publicity to ineffective administrators.

So.

>> Dede: Well, and we could go on about that, I think, for a long time.

But, I think one of the most important parts of your book is where you deal with, the low rankings of New Mexico in almost every area, from education to, child welfare and the problems the legislature and the executive have had in moving the needle.

Now, you say in your book that money is not the problem, that our fiscal house is in pretty good order.

Now, I would expect you to say that having been, kind of in charge of that for the past, years.

But if it's not money here, that's holding us back.

What is the problem?

And what can we do?

>> Abbey: Well, I want to distinguish a little bit between prior to the last 7 to 10 years.

>> Dede: Okay?

>> Abbey: You know, New Mexico had, you know, we're a low, high poverty state with low per capita income and dependent a lot on volatile oil and gas revenues.

And we had years I called the decade of the teens 2010 to 2020.

The lost decade we had ambitious goals to improve.

We had lawsuits like Martinez Yazzie, and we didn't have money.

And that was challenging to put budgets together at that time.

Now, it's -- we've had a dramatic change in our fiscal situation with the boom -- the oil and gas boom in the Permian Basin, mainly oil, oil production has grown almost ten times in a decade.

We've gone from 70 million barrels a year, to 700 million barrels a year.

An oil and gas history is now dominating the revenues for government, so much that we've been able to suck a lot of money away.

So, we've had a very different circumstances then versus now.

But we've seen that despite all that money coming in, we're not seeing gains in our outcomes.

Now, we know that takes time.

But take education, for example.

It's grown 75% since 2018, since Martinez -- 75%.

We've gone from low ranks in teacher salaries.

We're not 22nd.

We're one of the highest states in the region for paying teachers, but our outcomes have not improved at all.

Worth the bottom in reading and math proficiency.

So, education is perhaps the most important area where I think we're seeing that pouring money in hasn't improved results.

>>Feldman: You identify yourself as a fiscal conservative.

But during the time of Senator John Arthur Smith in particular, there was the feeling that the LFC and that chairman was holding back progress, particularly when it came to, tapping the Permanent Fund for Early Childhood Education and that the LFC had kind of centralized power and was not letting sort of the rank and file, much less the public, into, into its deliberations.

What is your response to that?

>>Abby: I think that's part -- comes with the territory.

So, I guess I would disagree a little bit with the view that they didn't, involve other members and that they were secretive.

But on the other hand, you know, that tension is there.

You've got only 15 or maybe 20 or 30 at most legislators who are really involved in finance, which are the most important things.

And the others at times feel left out.

So, you know, that's a challenge to -- address that.

I certainly can look back and think, we could have done better.

But I think part of what's at work, too, is simply we've had a political change in tide in our state in the last decade.

We've got more polarization of our political environment at both the state and the federal level.

And people get to elect what they want.

And I think some of -- looking back at Senator Smith is kind of a pariah or an obstructionist to progress, that was the Times.

>>Feldman: One of the things that you wrote that struck me was, for those in public service, corruption is the greatest sin.

So, since 1997, you have been the witness to a number of different, legislative and executive, scandals.

Do you think that things are improving?

>>Abbey: I don't really -- I think the Ethics Commission, does represent an improvement.

They've got strong leadership.

They've got a small staff, but now there's so much money.

And particularly in the area of procurement, we've seen soar the exemptions from competitive procurement, more sole source, more emergency and I think that's at the expense of confidence that we're doing fair and equitable and efficient purchasing to have so many exemptions to the procurement code.

And, you know, capital outlay, there's so much money sloshing around without adequate accountability and oversight.

I'm worried that we had not made the gains we should make and that any public integrity >>Feldman: At the end of your book, you wrote that you hoped that the, the that it inspired people.

I think that you hope that that well, somebody would read it and have an idea about what they could do to make New Mexico better.

What would that be?

>>Abbey: I would say -- study how decisions are made, study how finances are structured, look at our metrics, go to the LSC website and look at all the reports that are available.

You know, there aren't many other places to look, but there's enough there.

Go to the capital, go to hearings, talk -- call members, they, as you know -- I think members like talking to citizens.

They won't feel bothered when they get those calls and so, seem at home in their district -- in your districts, come to the Capitol.

I think you were also asking, how do we continue a pipeline of citizens and young people?

Of all ages, to get involved in government because we count on the best we can can afford.

And, I think there's a lot we can do in that area.

I think universities play a critical role in that.

They've got we have good professors who, or have programs, but they could be coordinated more effectively.

We should be working on pipelines of students going to the capital for internships.

So, things like that.

>>Feldman: Well, thank you so much, David Abbey not only for this interview, but for your long time service to the legislature for explaining it all to us in your book and for being on New Mexico in Focus.

>> Abbey: Thank you, Senator Feldman.

and thank you for your friendship, and hard work too, for our state.

>>Nash: Thanks to author and state finance expert David Abbey and to former State Senator Dede Feldman for that conversation.

Earlier this year, a group of New Mexico high schoolers got the chance to compete in a national documentary competition put on by National History Day, a nonprofit education organization The four students from the Albuquerque School of Excellence Nicole Briceno Gabauer Masara Algburi, Tam Pham and Smriti Monger, with guidance from their teacher Shannon Beyer, went through a rigorous research and production process to tell the story of Unit 731, a classified human experimentation project in Japan during World War Two.

If you aren't familiar with the subject, we're going to take you back to my June interview now with two members of the team.

I asked them about what they learned and what it took to bring their short film to the national stage.

>>Nash: NICOLE BRICENO GABAUER, MASARA ALGBURI, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME.

THE DOCUMENTARY COMPETITION THAT YOU COMPETED IN WAS FOR NATIONAL HISTORY DAY.

WHAT IS NATIONAL HISTORY DAY, NICOLE?

>> Gabauer: NATIONAL HISTORY DAY IS A WORLDWIDE COMPETITION BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONLY IN AMERICA, BUT ALSO PEOPLE IN ASIA, LIKE KOREA AND CHINA, ALSO JOINED THE COMPETITION.

IT'S BASICALLY JUST A COMPETITION TO SPREAD HISTORY.

TO SHOW HISTORY TO OTHERS.

AND ALSO SHOW STUDENTS WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THEIR ABILITIES AND ALSO MAKE THEM GO AND COMPETE AND LEARN AND EVERYTHING.

THAT'S USUALLY WHAT NATIONAL HISTORY DAY IS.

IT'S JUST TO SHOW OFF HISTORY.

SHOW OFF FORGOTTEN HISTORY.

AND SHOW STUDENTS THAT THEY CAN RESEARCH AND DO SO MANY THINGS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE AND LEARN AS THEY LEARN ABOUT HISTORY AND ALL THINGS THAT HAPPENED.

>> Nash: AWESOME.

YOU ALL MADE A DOCUMENT.

IS EVERYONE DOING DOCUMENTARIES?

>> Gabauer: NO.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES IN THE COMPETITION.

THERE ARE EXHIBITS, PERFORMANCES, PAPERS.

AND ALL OF THAT -- AND ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, DOCUMENTARIES.

AND ALL OF US COMPETE ALL AT ONCE.

BUT WE DON'T ALL GET THE SAME AWARDS.

SO, A DOCUMENTARY HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE AWARD AND PERFORMANCE AND EXHIBIT AND PAPER.

AND ALL THAT COMES TOGETHER AT THE END OF THE CEREMONY.

>> Nash: OKAY.

YOU ALL WENT THROUGH A LOT TO GET TO NATIONALS.

MASARA, CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE STEPS YOU TOOK TO GET TO MARYLAND?

>> Algburi: SO, WE FIRST HAD OUR SCHOOLWIDE COMPETITION.

IT WAS JUST MS. BEYER AND OUR AP SEMINAR CLASS.

SHE STARTED US OFF WITH NHD, WHICH IS NATIONAL HISTORY DAY, SHORT FOR NATIONAL HISTORY DAY WE STARTED OFF AS A CLASS COMPETITION.

BUT ALSO, A SCHOOL-WIDE COMPETITION TO SEE WHO CAN GO ON TO REGIONALS.

AND AFTER REGIONALS, WE WENT TO STATE.

AND FROM STATE TO NATIONALS.

SO, I'M PRETTY SURE FOR THE SCHOOL-WIDE COMPETITION WE WON SECOND.

>> Gabauer: WE PLACED SECOND.

>> Algburi: AND FOR REGIONALS WE PLACED THIRD.

AND STATE FIRST.

>> Nash: CONGRATULATIONS.

>> Gabauer: THANK YOU.

>> Nash: THAT'S HUGE.

YOUR TEAM CREATED A TEN-MINUTE DOCUMENTARY.

IT'S ENTITLED, THE HIDDEN ATROCITIES OF UNIT 731: DENIAL, DUTY, AND THE RIGHT TO JUSTICE.

I'D LIKE TO PLAY A CLIP FOR OUR VIEWERS NOW.

>> IN 1936, JAPAN ESTABLISHED UNIT 731 UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF DR. SHIRO ISHII.

DISGUISED AS THE EPIDEMIC PREVENTION AND WATER PURIFICATION DEPARTMENT, ITS TRUE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN PREPARATION FOR WAR.

THIS PROGRAM DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED JAPAN'S RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

DESPITE SIGNING THE 1925 GENEVA PROTOCOL WHICH BANNED CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE, JAPAN FAILED TO RATIFY IT DOMESTICALLY.

AS A RESULT, THERE WAS NO LEGAL ENFORCEMENT TO PREVENT THE CREATION OF UNIT 731.

OR TO UPHOLD JAPAN'S BROADER RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROTECT PRISONERS OF WAR AND CIVILIANS UNDER THE HAGUE CONVENTIONS.

UNDER ALIASES, FACILITIES ACROSS EAST ASIA PROCEEDED WITH EXPERIMENTS THAT VIOLATED THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THEIR VICTIMS.

EXPERIMENTS SUBJECTED PRISONERS OF WAR TO VIVISECTION, FROSTBITE, AND WEAPON TESTING FOR KNIVES, FLAMETHROWERS, AND GAS.

PRISONERS WERE INFECTED WITH VARIOUS DISEASES, STARVED, SHOT, STABBED, BOILED ALIVE, HUNG UPSIDEDOWN FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, AND THEIR LIMBS WERE CUT OFF AND ATTACHED TO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BODY OTHER THAN THE AMPUTEE SITE.

FEMALE PRISONERS WERE IMPREGNATED BY MALES WHO WERE INJECTED WITH DISEASES AND THEN DISSECTED TO LOOK AT THE DISEASE'S PROGRESSION IN THE FETUS.

THESE EXPERIMENTS RESULTED IN AN ESTIMATED 850,403 DEATHS AND NO RECORDED SURVIVORS.

>> Nash: SO, NICOLE, WE JUST HEARD ABOUT SOME OF THE ATROCITIES THAT JAPAN COMMITTED UNDER UNIT 731.

WHAT WAS IT LIKE TO RESEARCH BUT ALSO RETELL SUCH A BRUTAL HISTORY?

>> Gabauer: AS WE WERE GOING ALONG, WE WERE LEARNING ABOUT ALL THESE ATROCITIES THAT JAPAN DID TO ALL THESE CHINESE OR KOREAN OR ASIAN OR EAST ASIAN PEOPLE ALL OVER THE GLOBE.

AND WE ALL JUST FELT SO BAD THAT WE HAD TO SHARE THIS EXPERIENCE THAT THEY HAD.

THAT THESE PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE FORGOTTEN.

THAT WE SHOULD SHARE WHAT HAPPENED IN JAPAN AT THAT TIME PERIOD AND WHAT UNIT 731 DID TO THESE PEOPLE AND HOW MUCH PEOPLE THEY HURT.

BUT WHILE WE WERE ALSO RESEARCHING THIS, WE HAD EACH OTHER TO COPE AND TO, YOU KNOW, ALMOST MAKE US FEEL GOOD THAT WE'RE DOING THIS.

THAT WE'RE SHARING WITH PEOPLE THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS HAPPENED, WE'RE SHARING IT NOW.

AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE HARMED AND WERE VICTIMS OF THIS ATROCITY ARE NOW ABLE TO GET SOME SORT OF JUSTICE, WHERE PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO LEARN ABOUT IT MORE NOW THAT WE'RE SHARING THIS WITH PEOPLE.

>> Nash: YEAH, KIND OF THE GRAVITY OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS WORK.

A LOT OF FOLKS ARE PROBABLY UNFAMILIAR WITH UNIT 731.

MASARA, WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS BEFORE YOU CHOSE THIS AS YOUR TOPIC AND STARTED LEARNING SO MUCH ABOUT IT?

>> Algburi: NO.

BEFORE OUR TOPIC, WE NEVER CAME ACROSS UNIT 731.

WE TOOK A LOT OF ADVANCED HISTORY CLASSES.

LIKE AP WORLD HISTORY, AND A LOT OF AP CLASSES, AS WELL AS HONOR CLASSES FOR HISTORY.

BUT NOT ONCE DURING THE MENTION OF THE TIMELINE OF WORLD WAR II DID WE EVER HEAR THE WORD IN PASSING, UNIT 731.

SO, WHEN WE CAME ACROSS THIS TOPIC, WE WERE REALLY ASTONISHED THAT SUCH A HUGE ATROCITY WAS COVERED UP AND IS NOT EVEN CONVEYED OR SHARED IN HISTORY CLASSES.

>> Nash: SO, HOW DID YOU GO ABOUT CHOOSING THIS ONCE YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT IT?

>> Algburi: IT PIQUED OUR INTEREST THAT SUCH A HUGE AND FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC WASN'T TALKED ABOUT.

>> Nash: HOW DID YOU LEARN SO MUCH ABOUT THE TOPIC?

ALSO, OUR VIEWERS WILL SEE YOU ALL USED A TON OF ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE, VIDEO AND IMAGES, BOTH.

SO, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW YOU RESEARCHED THE TOPIC.

>> Gabauer: WHAT WE DID WAS THAT, WE SPLIT OUR WORK INTO PERSPECTIVES.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, I WOULD LOOK AT THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE AND HOW JAPAN WENT THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO ACTUALLY START UNIT 731 AND HOW THEY WERE ABLE TO, WITH THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS, ABLE TO HIDE THAT.

AND THERE WAS NO LEGAL ENFORCEMENT FOR THAT.

ALSO, AT THE END, THEY WERE BEING TRIED FOR THESE CRIMES AND HOW THEY WERE ABLE TO BE LET GO FREE, EVEN THOUGH THOSE ATROCITIES HAPPENED.

AND MASARA WAS LOOKING AT THE MEDICAL AND ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE.

HOW WAS THIS MEDICALLY ADVANCING?

OR HOW WAS THIS EVEN ETHICAL FOR THE JAPANESE TO DO THIS?

SO WHAT WE DID IS WE SPLIT THAT INTO PERSPECTIVES, AND THEN AS WE RESEARCHED WE LOOKED AT ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, AND ALSO PROFESSORS FROM ALL OVER THAT WERE ACTUALLY RESEARCHING AND SHARING ABOUT UNIT 731 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT IT.

AS WE WERE DOING THAT, WE WERE ALL COMMUNICATING AND MAKING SURE WE ALL HAD THE SAME STORY BECAUSE SO MANY SOURCES CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER.

BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF INFORMATION ON UNIT 731.

WE ALL MADE SURE WE WERE ALWAYS COMMUNICATING.

ALWAYS MAKING SURE WE WERE ON THE SAME PAGE, SO WE COULD FORMULATE THE STORY OF UNIT 731 TO SHARE WITH EVERYONE ELSE.

>> Nash: WELL, YOU FOUND A LOT, INCLUDING FOOTAGE OF THE WAR CRIME TRIALS THAT OCCURRED AFTER WORLD WAR II.

HOW DID THAT TRIAL TURN OUT, MASARA?

AND WHAT IS THE LASTING PRECEDENCE THAT IT SET?

>> Algburi: SO, FOR UNIT 731, AFTER THE WAR ENDS, THE BOMBING OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI.

THE UNITED STATES AND I THINK 13 OTHER NATIONS, TYPICALLY FROM THE UN, WENT AND TRIED JAPANESE SOLDIERS IN THE TOKYO TRIALS, ALSO KNOWN AS THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL FOR THE FAR EAST.

THEY TRIED LOTS OF JAPANESE OFFICIALS, BUT THE OUTCOME OF IT WAS ACTUALLY GRANTING THEM IMMUNITY IN RETURN FOR ACCESS TO THE DATA.

THIS WAS THE UNITED STATES ITSELF.

BECAUSE THEY WENT IN AND THEY GOT JAPAN FIRST.

THEY CAPTURED, THEY CONQUERED, THEY OCCUPIED FIRST, AND THAT ALLOWED THEM TO CAPTURE A LOT OF THE JAPANESE OFFICIALS -- AND THEY GRANTED THEM IMMUNITY TO GAIN DATA THAT THE JAPANESE GOT FROM UNIT 731, IN ORDER TO KEEP THIS AWAY FROM THE SOVIET UNION.

BECAUSE THE COLD WAR IS ON THE BRINK OF HAPPENING.

AND THEY DON'T WANT ANYONE DO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION THAT CAN GIVE THEM A HUGE MILITARY ADVANTAGE.

>> Nash: IN ADDITION TO A MILITARY ADVANTAGE, HOW WAS THAT DATA USED?

>> Algburi: WELL, THE DATA FIRST -- THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T FIND IT REALLY USEFUL ACTUALLY, FOR MILITARY ADVANTAGE.

THEY FOUND IT USEFUL FOR PREVENTING DISEASES.

APART FROM THE DATA, THEY ALSO BEGAN EMPLOYING JAPANESE OFFICIALS.

SO, THEY GRANTED THEM IMMUNITY AND GAVE THEM JOBS TO WORK UNDER THEM, TO HELP THEM DEPLOY AND MAKE MORE BACTERIOLOGICAL WEAPONS.

>> Nash: SO, IT WAS KIND OF AN EXCHANGE AT THAT POINT.

AND DID THAT PLAY INTO WHY SO FEW PEOPLE HAVE HEARD OF UNIT 731?

>> Gabauer: THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

SO, IN THAT TIME, THERE WITH WAS A LOT OF MEDIA CENSORSHIP ON THOSE TRIALS.

ALSO, AS THE TOKYO TRIALS, LIKE MASARA SAID, BUT ALSO THE KHABAROVSK TRIALS THAT THE SOVIET UNION DID, WHICH HAD A SIMILAR OUTCOME TO THE TOKYO TRIALS.

WHERE THEY WOULD CENSOR EVERYTHING AFTER THEY RECEIVED THE DATA.

THEY WOULD CENSOR ANYTHING ABOUT UNIT 731.

THEY WOULD CENSOR THE PROTESTS THAT WERE HAPPENING.

THEY WOULD CENSOR EVERYTHING AND ALL THE INFORMATION LEADING UP TO THE TRIAL, SO THAT THE PEOPLE WOULDN'T ALSO SEE THAT JAPAN DID THIS, BUT ALSO THE UNITED STATES OR THE SOVIET UNION COVERED THAT HORRIBLE ATROCITY UP.

>> Nash: WHAT ABOUT JUSTICE?

HAVE THE VICTIMS OR THEIR FAMILIES EVER SEEN JUSTICE?

>> Algburi: NO.

SO, AFTER THE TRIALS WERE HELD, AND AFTER ALL OF THAT, A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE ANGERED.

A LOT OF THE CHINESE AND KOREAN AND RUSSIANS HAD BEEN PROTESTING AGAINST THIS.

AND THERE HAS BEEN SLIGHT COMPENSATION, BUT ONLY TO SELECT VICTIMS THAT THE JAPANESE ACTUALLY VIEWS AS VICTIMS.

THEY SAY A LOT OF THE PEOPLE ARE PRETENDING THEY'RE VICTIMS.

AND LOTS OF PRIME MINISTERS, OR JUST LEGAL OFFICIALS IN JAPAN, HAD BEEN DENYING THAT THIS EVER OCCURRED.

>> Nash: Y'ALL'S EXPERTISE IN THIS TOPIC IS REALLY IMPRESSIVE.

YOU CLEARLY DID A TON OF RESEARCH.

I THOUGHT THE DOCUMENTARY WAS REALLY WELL-SOURCED AND REALLY WELL DONE.

WHILE YOU DIDN'T PLACE IN NATIONALS, YOU GOT THERE.

YOU WENT THROUGH ALL THOSE STEPS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT IN STATE COMPETITIONS.

AND THAT'S AN ACCOMPLISHMENT IN AND OF ITSELF.

SO, CONGRATULATIONS.

>> Algburi: THANK YOU.

>> Nash: IN GENERAL, EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T CONTINUE MAKING DOCUMENTARIES, DO YOU SEE THIS PROCESS IMPACTING YOUR FUTURE?

WHETHER THAT'S ACADEMICALLY, OR ANY FUTURE CAREER THAT YOU SEE FOR YOURSELF?

>> Algburi: I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE MAIN PART OF THE DOCUMENTARY ITSELF IS THE RESEARCH.

AND RESEARCH IS REALLY ESSENTIAL FOR ACADEMIC CAREER.

BEING ABLE TO FIND SOURCES THAT ARE IMPORTANT AND SYNTHESIZING THEM AND GAINING WHAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT FROM THAT.

AND THEN, BEING ABLE TO CONVEY THAT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE NHD ALLOWS YOU TO CONVERT IT INTO DIFFERENT MEDIA WAYS.

SO, YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENTARY.

YOU HAVE AN EXHIBIT.

YOU HAVE A PERFORMANCE.

I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO RESEARCH.

TAKE OUT THE INFORMATION YOU WANT, SYNTHESIZE THAT, AND COMPACT IT AND CONVEY IT.

>> Gabauer: ALSO, NATIONAL HISTORY DAY, FOR US ESPECIALLY, TAUGHT US HOW TO WORK IN A GROUP.

USUALLY, IN GROUPS YOU ALWAYS HAVE LET'S DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

YOU DO THIS PART.

YOU DO THIS PART.

YOU DO THIS PART.

WE ALL COME TOGETHER, PRESENT THE POWERPOINT OR GOOGLE SLIDES, AND THAT'S IT.

FOR THIS SPECIFIC ONE, SINCE IT WAS SUCH AN UNKNOWN TOPIC, WE COULDN'T DO THAT.

WE HAD TO CONTINUE CONVERSING, LIKE I SAID BEFORE.

WE HAD TO CONTINUE TALKING.

WE HAD TO MAKE SURE WE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, THE SAME STORY, BECAUSE ALL OF THESE CONFLICTING AND SOURCES AND EVERYTHING WAS BLOCKED.

SO, WE DIDN'T WHAT TO TRUST.

LIKE IF THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED, WAS THIS TRUE?

WAS THIS NOT TRUE?

WITH THAT, WE WERE ALSO ABLE TO SEE HOW WORKING IN A GROUP IS DIFFERENT FOR THIS SPECIFIC PART AND LEARNING FOR FUTURE PROJECTS HOW THIS IS MORE EFFECTIVE IN TERMS OF ALL OF US UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE DOING.

>> Nash: TOTALLY.

I IMAGINE THOSE SKILLS WILL SERVE YOU WELL.

NICOLE, MASARA, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING ON TO TALK ABOUT YOUR DOCUMENTARY AND YOUR PROCESS.

AND CONGRATULATIONS AGAIN.

>> Gabauer: THANK YOU.

>> Algburi: THANK YOU.

>>Nash: Thanks to those student documentarians from the Albuquerque School of Excellence and everyone else who contributed to the show.

And a quick update on the story we brought you last week after two Democrats resigned from the New Mexico Redistricting Task Force in response to the partisan gerrymandering fights across the country.

The task force is changing its mission and its format.

The League of Women Voters, which convenes the group, announced this week that instead of a closed meeting of lawmakers and experts coming up with recommendations to inform a fair process and eventual resolution, the group will become an educational panel.

President Hannah Burling wrote that the task force was undermined by the resignations and that without full representation, the task force can quote, “No longer fulfill its promise of fairness and balance.” The two-part webinar series on September 10th and 17th is open to the public.

It will cover why the task force made this change, how national battles could impact New Mexico, along with past recommendations and resolutions for New Mexico PBS I'm Nash Jones until next week, Stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by Viewers like you.