4.1 Chair

CH reported that she has been very busy and thanked especially AC and NO for their work during the legislative session. She noted that there seem to be no reports of actual suits relating to state or Federal boundaries, although there are county-commissioner boundary suits in Sandoval and San Juan.

As discussed at the February EC meeting, CH would like to step back from chairing duties for a while to reduce overload and to deal with some health issues. PF is willing to serve as acting chair but placed some weight on the modifier “acting”. After discussion of how to handle the mechanics of the change, the consensus appeared to be that CH should remain chair but delegate more of her work, possibly including the chairing of meetings, to PF.

4.2 Secretary

The secretary reported that at the last update of the membership list, we had 100 members in good standing.

The semi-annual report to DPNM has gone in; he asked whether it should be posted on the web site. The consensus was that it would not be useful to do so; it’s mostly a summary of things already documented on the site.

4.3 Treasurer

No report from the treasurer this month.

4.4 Political director

The political director reported that she will give a summary of the legislative session at the legislative planning meeting this Sunday.

4.5 Administrative director

NO reported that during the legislative session she had worked closely with AC on lobbying.

She has been looking at the Google Drive preparatory to reorganizing it into subfolders for documents with 2022 data, older documents, and documents which need to be reviewed to see if they must be kept or can be deleted.

5.1 Who is running for what?

CH observed that owing to resignations and retirements, there will be a fair amount of turnover in the legislature this year. There has been discussion, and a story in the New Mexican, about an expected backlash of conservative Democrats against progressives. CH thinks the progressive wing can be organized and prevail.

We discussed expected candidates in various legislative districts. Among other points:

• Kay Bouneua is not running to keep her seat in HD 19; Colton Dean is weighing a run.
• Word from the Democratic House caucus is that they will concentrate their effort on swing districts. So not much help is to be expected there for candidates in districts which are historically strongly D, or strongly R.
• NO is running in HD 12; she said it was not yet clear whether Art de la Cruz is collecting signatures or not. Melissa Armijo has also announced in that district.
• Eleanor Chavez, who represented HD 13 from 2009 to 2012 but had to step down to focus on other work, has landed in HD 26 as a result of redistricting; she is running for that seat.

CH noted that there are statewide judicial races where more $5 contributions are needed to allow candidates access to public funding. She encouraged $5 donations for Baca, Vargas, and Zamora. Or get in touch with Brian Morris.

5.2 Endorsements

CH asked where we stand. Do we want to make endorsements in statewide races? There was discussion. AC said not before the primary convention and maybe not at all. Two of the candidates in contested statewide races are APC members; the other four candidates in those races are not; there is some risk of the process being a little fraught.

On endorsements in legislative races, opinions were initially divided. Some saw no up side (and a lot of work), others argued that part of the expressed mission of the caucus is to get more progressives elected, and endorsements are a means to that end. Suggestions were made of ways to reduce the work (by putting more of the onus on the candidates) and ways to engage the membership of the caucus as a whole, to ensure the endorsements carry more weight.

The chair asked PF to lead a committee to review our endorsements policy and put together a process both for the candidates forum we are co-sponsoring with the Environmental Justice Caucus in March and for voting on endorsements. Committee members to be appointed by PF.

There was some sentiment that it might be good to have an electronic ballot of the membership ready to go after the forum, using an online voting service like OpaVote.

ACTION: PF to chair a committee to handle the endorsement process.

5.3 Black History Month

PF pointed out that it’s Black History Month. She suggested that it might be good if CH could interview the Jewells (Angela, Tommy, and Tommy Jr.) and we could put the interview up on the caucus web site. There was general consensus that that would be a good idea.

PF pointed out that next month is women’s month and suggested that we need to find someone to feature for that, as well. Perhaps we should feature someone monthly.

5.4 Candidate Forum 3 March

PF noted that we are scheduled to host a candidate forum on 3 March. There will be two moderators, one from APC and one from EJC. She thought Dimid Hayes would be a good candidate from the APC side.

She asked how we could gather useful, thought-provoking questions from our membership at this short notice. Can we do an email blast to members, or get a form on the web site, or get it in the newsletter? We want questions that will make candidates stop and think and elicit thoughtful responses.

There was some discussion; NO suggested that it would be helpful to ask them how their candidacy aligns with or serves to advance progressive values. KN urged that we do what we can to promote the forum, since it will only be useful if members attend it. Something in the newsletter, something in the Blue Review, perhaps mail to SCC members, mail to other caucuses. If other nearby counties also have newsletters, those too.

ACTION: PF to create the Zoom link and send it to CH.

ACTION: PF and CH to get an announcement into the Blue Review.

5.5 APC meeting after the state convention in Roswell

CH renewed her suggestion that we have a caucus meeting at the conclusion of the state convention in Roswell. There was discussion.

RESOLVED: to authorize CH to spend approximately $10 per head for a box lunch in Roswell. (Moved PF, seconded NO.)

5.6 Letter to the legislature

CH asked where we are with regard to the letter to the legislature. MSM noted that at the meeting of 1 February we voted to table it until mid-March.

CH suggested that in the meantime we should think about how to reward the legislators whose work we value. A positive letter is better than a purely negative one.

There was discussion, and some support for the idea that a campaign contribution would be a persuasive token that we valued the legislator’s work. One danger, CH suggest, is inadvertently leaving out someone who should be included. She asked AC to put together a list for discussion. AC said it would be discussed at the legislative action team meeting on Sunday.

ACTION: AC to prepare a draft list of legislators whom we should thank for their work.