Whistleblower wants NM investment off...

Whistleblower wants NM investment officials ousted

There are 21 comments on the KOB-TV story from Jul 27, 2011, titled Whistleblower wants NM investment officials ousted. In it, KOB-TV reports that:

A former pension fund official behind a whistleblower lawsuit is calling for the resignations of state pension and investment officials because of their ties to former Democratic Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOB-TV.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1 Jul 27, 2011
Let me guess: The legislators who defended the status quo, and chided the whistle blower, were Democrats.

“Eat me. I'm a Danish.”

Since: Dec 10

Las Cruces, New Mexico

#2 Jul 28, 2011
Regardless of political stripe a crook is a crook. We all know the SIC is the root of evil in New Mexico because that is where the money is. The Richardson administration took control over the comission and Susana said she would stop that, but then went back on that promise, so it looks like a little filth on both sides of the aisle.

Either way we should invest that money in viable New Mexican business as it was intended rather than grease up greedy businessmen. Those businessmen by the way are not loyal to any party except the "easy money party".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3 Jul 29, 2011
Sol Rebl wrote:
Regardless of political stripe a crook is a crook. We all know the SIC is the root of evil in New Mexico because that is where the money is. The Richardson administration took control over the comission and Susana said she would stop that, but then went back on that promise, so it looks like a little filth on both sides of the aisle.
Either way we should invest that money in viable New Mexican business as it was intended rather than grease up greedy businessmen. Those businessmen by the way are not loyal to any party except the "easy money party".
Governor Martinez said she would end Richardson's control of the commission, and she did so by being elected Governor. She has no power to control who the New Mexico senate approves for their 4 public members, and has no power to remove members prior to the expiration of their terms, other than the "Governor's Appointees", who serve at the Governor's pleasure. ALL other public members must be confirmed by the Senate. From reading the commission's own website, it would appear that Governor Martinez only has direct control of two memberships. Three members must be whomever is chosen to certain state offices.

http://www.sic.state.nm.us/council_members.ht...

Seems to me some folks have railed against Governor Martinez for overstepping her bounds by attempting to fire government officials who do not agree with her vision for New Mexico..yet some of those same people would rail against her for remaining within her legislated legal bounds as well. Can't have it both ways. Some folks will simply disagree with Governor Martinez no matter what she does.

As for me, I'm more than satisfied with my vote, and Governor Martinez's performance so far. She's lived up to her promises. Her only stumbling block has been the power hungry status-quo, including long-time New Mexico legislators, who will use any means necessary to block Martinez's initiatives, and thwart the will of the people.

THOSE long-time legislators are the people who need to be summarily removed from office during the next election cycle.

My personal opinion?: The State Investment Council is a useless entity which should be eliminated entirely. It's functions could be consolidated into other existing state agencies.

“Eat me. I'm a Danish.”

Since: Dec 10

Las Cruces, New Mexico

#4 Jul 29, 2011
You dont have a clue as to what the SIC does, much less how it operates. The issue is the governor being able to control the investments of the state. Susana said she would bring an end to politicians controlling the investment decisions of the state. She did not. She refused to remove herself from the board after specifically saying she would do that. It was a main campaign point as several SIC comissioners were under indictment.

Her promise was not to remove Richardson from the board. Her promise was to remove the governor from the board. Just one more promise broken and a vote for the status quo.

What other departmnt would handle the duties of the SIC Cary? Do you even have a clue?

“Come walk with me...”

Since: Feb 11

through the Ninth Gate...

#5 Jul 29, 2011
Sol Rebl wrote:
You dont have a clue as to what the SIC does, much less how it operates. The issue is the governor being able to control the investments of the state. Susana said she would bring an end to politicians controlling the investment decisions of the state. She did not. She refused to remove herself from the board after specifically saying she would do that. It was a main campaign point as several SIC comissioners were under indictment.
Her promise was not to remove Richardson from the board. Her promise was to remove the governor from the board. Just one more promise broken and a vote for the status quo.
What other departmnt would handle the duties of the SIC Cary? Do you even have a clue?
In all honesty man we need to start a few "JFK" specials on all these politicians who forget who they are working for. They get the job, elected by us, then forget us, get fat, smoke crack, and get a cadilac. Iwould realy dig a caddy. Smoke some good weed and drive up 70 to them rocky mountain highs. 7mm magnum packs a punch and a straight answer.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#6 Jul 30, 2011
Sol Rebl wrote:
You dont have a clue as to what the SIC does, much less how it operates. The issue is the governor being able to control the investments of the state. Susana said she would bring an end to politicians controlling the investment decisions of the state. She did not. She refused to remove herself from the board after specifically saying she would do that. It was a main campaign point as several SIC comissioners were under indictment.
Her promise was not to remove Richardson from the board. Her promise was to remove the governor from the board. Just one more promise broken and a vote for the status quo.
What other departmnt would handle the duties of the SIC Cary? Do you even have a clue?
You don't have a clue as to how state government operates (Actually, I believe you do, but that you are being purposefully misleading in order to bolster your continued anti-Martinez rants). The governor does not have the authority to "remove" herself from the SIC, as the political positions are determined by statute, and the internal workings of the SIC, as allowed by statute.

In case you haven't figured it out yet (of course you have, but that doesn't suit the purpose of your continued anti-Martinez rants, does it?), Governor Martinez does not control the legislature.

You want the Governor, and other politicians off the SIC? Contact your state legislature and demand they change the law.

Governor Martinez can only enact her campaign pledges to the extent that the entrenched powers allow her to. She has the mandate of the people, but the old Richardson cronies from the New Mexico Democrat Machine still hold the legislative power. When she's tried to find ways to circumvent that power and do the will of the people, you, among others, have howled your protests from the rooftops, railing against her as if she's some sort of rogue governor.

So spare me your sanctimonious BS now, because I'm not buying it.
Nope

Huntsville, AL

#7 Jul 30, 2011
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
.
she vetoed the SIC reform package. Nuff' said.

“Eat me. I'm a Danish.”

Since: Dec 10

Las Cruces, New Mexico

#8 Jul 30, 2011
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a clue as to how state government operates (Actually, I believe you do, but that you are being purposefully misleading in order to bolster your continued anti-Martinez rants). The governor does not have the authority to "remove" herself from the SIC, as the political positions are determined by statute, and the internal workings of the SIC, as allowed by statute.
In case you haven't figured it out yet (of course you have, but that doesn't suit the purpose of your continued anti-Martinez rants, does it?), Governor Martinez does not control the legislature.
You want the Governor, and other politicians off the SIC? Contact your state legislature and demand they change the law.
Governor Martinez can only enact her campaign pledges to the extent that the entrenched powers allow her to. She has the mandate of the people, but the old Richardson cronies from the New Mexico Democrat Machine still hold the legislative power. When she's tried to find ways to circumvent that power and do the will of the people, you, among others, have howled your protests from the rooftops, railing against her as if she's some sort of rogue governor.
So spare me your sanctimonious BS now, because I'm not buying it.
She definitely has the power to remove herself. This is an executive decison only and has nothign to do with statute. She promised to do it and then did not. She was offered a reform package that conformed to her wishes as she has laid out personally and then she VETOED IT.

You are so far off base her ethat you are out in left field. You dont even know enough aut the subject you speak on to hold an intelligent conversation.

Plain and simple she said she would reform and then did not. This is because she has a good deal of political influence over the State's investment dollar. It should be a wise economic decision to invest in business, and New Mexico money should be invested in New Mexico business. Instead her supporters enjoy this money just like Bill's did. The same old corrupt story.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#9 Jul 30, 2011
Sol Rebl wrote:
<quoted text>
She definitely has the power to remove herself. This is an executive decison only and has nothign to do with statute. She promised to do it and then did not. She was offered a reform package that conformed to her wishes as she has laid out personally and then she VETOED IT.
You are so far off base her ethat you are out in left field. You dont even know enough aut the subject you speak on to hold an intelligent conversation.
Plain and simple she said she would reform and then did not. This is because she has a good deal of political influence over the State's investment dollar. It should be a wise economic decision to invest in business, and New Mexico money should be invested in New Mexico business. Instead her supporters enjoy this money just like Bill's did. The same old corrupt story.
Incorrect. Any governor who is elected automatically becomes a member of the board. She can choose to simply not appear at the meetings, I suppose, and then honesty and reform would have little to no representation.

And a "reform package" that was written and passed by the same liberal progressive corrupt Democrats who've run the SIC since it's beginning? Please. You certainly are not that naive. If it conformed to her wishes, she would have passed it. Just ask her.

I have to believe you are playing dumb merely for the sake of argument, and to give you an excuse to continue your anti-Martinez ranting.

I am more than happy with Governor Martinez's performance so far. Hopefully, the people of New Mexico will remove more Democrat obstructionists from the statehouse in future elections.

If I were governor, I'd be pushing to eliminate the entire SIC as merely another example of needless duplication of government agencies. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to agree, your knee-jerk negative reactions to most of my posts is so severe, you havn't even realized when I've played "devil's advocate" merely to see what you'd do.

But I've gotten a big smile from it.

“Eat me. I'm a Danish.”

Since: Dec 10

Las Cruces, New Mexico

#10 Jul 30, 2011
So what function of the SIC is duplicated in anouther branch of the govt Cary? Can't find one can you? That is because this state does a very creative thing with investment.

The SIC was a creation of the governor and is a COUNCIL and not a department of the state. So the legislatiure has very little to say about it and the Gov has everything to say about it. And the addition of the Gov as a member of the council is entirely up to the Gov. She does what she wants. And she wants control of that money for her political cronies JUST LIKE RICHARDSON.

I like a lot of what she is doing. I also like most of her propoganda. But her action is lacking in my opinion. Too many 180 degree turnarounds from what she said she would do.

I would eliminate the SIC too Cary. But not because it is a "duplicated department" because it is definitely not. The legislature has no say over that money anyway, because it is not tax money. But since you seem to know all about the SIC I will just let you flounder until you realize that you have once again made a complete ass of yourself.
We know

Huntsville, AL

#11 Jul 30, 2011
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>

.
But I've gotten a big smile from it.
It is the smug smile of someone who believes the BS they make up. The sign of a disordered mind.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#12 Jul 31, 2011
Sol Rebl wrote:
So what function of the SIC is duplicated in anouther branch of the govt Cary? Can't find one can you? That is because this state does a very creative thing with investment.
The SIC was a creation of the governor and is a COUNCIL and not a department of the state. So the legislatiure has very little to say about it and the Gov has everything to say about it. And the addition of the Gov as a member of the council is entirely up to the Gov. She does what she wants. And she wants control of that money for her political cronies JUST LIKE RICHARDSON.
I like a lot of what she is doing. I also like most of her propoganda. But her action is lacking in my opinion. Too many 180 degree turnarounds from what she said she would do.
I would eliminate the SIC too Cary. But not because it is a "duplicated department" because it is definitely not. The legislature has no say over that money anyway, because it is not tax money. But since you seem to know all about the SIC I will just let you flounder until you realize that you have once again made a complete ass of yourself.
Oh good God! I know you can read. Apparently you cannot comprehend?

Apparently you've never read the SIC's own website? Or are you saying that it is lying? If so, perhaps you should contact them so that they may make the needed corrections at your insistence.

From the link I provided earlier:

"The State Investment Council is chaired by Governor Susana Martinez and composed of 11 members: the Governor, the State Treasurer, the Commissioner of Public Lands, the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration, four public members to be appointed by the Legislative Council, and three public members appointed by the Governor, one of whom must be the Chief Financial Officer of a state institution of higher learning. Public members are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, and must subsequently be confirmed by that body.

The membership changes to the SIC are a result of legislation passed in the 2010 session. To view that legislation, follow this link: http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/10%20Regular/...

The State Investment Officer Steve Moise was appointed by the Council in April 2010.

The terms of the six public members appointed by the Legislature and Governor are five-years long, and the term lengths are staggered starting with the initial appointments in 2010. Members chose random lots to determine the following initial Council terms:

Public Member Leonard Lee Rawson: 2010-2012
Public Member Michael Martin: 2010-2013
Public Member Douglas Brown: 2010-2014
Public Member Peter Frank: 2010-2015

Public Member Vacant (Governor): 2011-2016
Public Member Vacant (Legislative Council): 2011-2013

Members must be confirmed by the Senate and may be reappointed at the end of their initial term. The public member/University CFO serves at the pleasure of the Governor, and also must be confirmed by the state senate."

It's all right there in plain English. No translation by me needed. Of course, I can understand why you would want to continue to complicate the issue so that you may continue to defend your indefensible argument.

All members must be approved by the legislature, which works very well when the governor is a Democrat, is appointing Democrats, and they must be approved by a Democrat senate. When the Governor is a Republican? Not so much.

And you still just can't seem to come to grips with the idea that I am right about eliminating the SIC..you finally admit you would do the same thing as I, and then qualify your agreement with the lame argument that you would do it for different reasons.

Just frigging' admit I was right all along, as I usually am, and get over it.

“Eat me. I'm a Danish.”

Since: Dec 10

Las Cruces, New Mexico

#13 Aug 1, 2011
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh good God! I know you can read. Apparently you cannot comprehend?
Apparently you've never read the SIC's own website? Or are you saying that it is lying? If so, perhaps you should contact them so that they may make the needed corrections at your insistence.
From the link I provided earlier:
"The State Investment Council is chaired by Governor Susana Martinez and composed of 11 members: the Governor, the State Treasurer, the Commissioner of Public Lands, the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration, four public members to be appointed by the Legislative Council, and three public members appointed by the Governor, one of whom must be the Chief Financial Officer of a state institution of higher learning. Public members are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, and must subsequently be confirmed by that body.
The membership changes to the SIC are a result of legislation passed in the 2010 session. To view that legislation, follow this link: http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/10%20Regular/...
The State Investment Officer Steve Moise was appointed by the Council in April 2010.
The terms of the six public members appointed by the Legislature and Governor are five-years long, and the term lengths are staggered starting with the initial appointments in 2010. Members chose random lots to determine the following initial Council terms:
Public Member Leonard Lee Rawson: 2010-2012
Public Member Michael Martin: 2010-2013
Public Member Douglas Brown: 2010-2014
Public Member Peter Frank: 2010-2015
Public Member Vacant (Governor): 2011-2016
Public Member Vacant (Legislative Council): 2011-2013
Members must be confirmed by the Senate and may be reappointed at the end of their initial term. The public member/University CFO serves at the pleasure of the Governor, and also must be confirmed by the state senate."
It's all right there in plain English. No translation by me needed. Of course, I can understand why you would want to continue to complicate the issue so that you may continue to defend your indefensible argument.
All members must be approved by the legislature, which works very well when the governor is a Democrat, is appointing Democrats, and they must be approved by a Democrat senate. When the Governor is a Republican? Not so much.
And you still just can't seem to come to grips with the idea that I am right about eliminating the SIC..you finally admit you would do the same thing as I, and then qualify your agreement with the lame argument that you would do it for different reasons.
Just frigging' admit I was right all along, as I usually am, and get over it.
That is pretty funny Cary. You only edited the quote three times to get it to read the way you want it to. Changinh the wods to supopirt your position is LYING. And believe you are lying yto yourself as much as you are t the readers of this forum. It is one thing to talk oout your ass about things you know nothign about but then to lie when you realize you are speaking to someone who does is just tacky.

If anyone is interested in knowing the truth, and seeing how desperate Cary is to be right 100% of the time I urge you to visit the SIC website asnd read for yourdelves. As for Cary you can go to your room and promise not to lue anymore to make yourself look smart.

BTW Cary, I am not a liberal and never have been. Jjust becasue I cant stand to hear you lie and brag constanly does not make me a lioberal. SWe have never even discussed politics on any occasion. it has alwauys been your lies and attitude that was at issue. If you believe that at anmyu time I have ever supported a "liberal" point just point it out., You simply are not the voice of conservatism and simply because you make people sick with your bragging does not make them liberal even though you would like to believe that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#14 Aug 1, 2011
Sol Rebl wrote:
<quoted text>
That is pretty funny Cary. You only edited the quote three times to get it to read the way you want it to. Changinh the wods to supopirt your position is LYING. And believe you are lying yto yourself as much as you are t the readers of this forum. It is one thing to talk oout your ass about things you know nothign about but then to lie when you realize you are speaking to someone who does is just tacky.
If anyone is interested in knowing the truth, and seeing how desperate Cary is to be right 100% of the time I urge you to visit the SIC website asnd read for yourdelves. As for Cary you can go to your room and promise not to lue anymore to make yourself look smart.
BTW Cary, I am not a liberal and never have been. Jjust becasue I cant stand to hear you lie and brag constanly does not make me a lioberal. SWe have never even discussed politics on any occasion. it has alwauys been your lies and attitude that was at issue. If you believe that at anmyu time I have ever supported a "liberal" point just point it out., You simply are not the voice of conservatism and simply because you make people sick with your bragging does not make them liberal even though you would like to believe that.
Not even a good try, you shyster.

I posted the link that you refused to read, and then I cut and pasted the link verbatim, only editing out the names of the members, since they would only take up space, and have no bearing on procedure.

I changed nothing. Anyone can compare the two.

Here's the same link I posed earlier, which goes directly to the page I posted:

http://www.sic.state.nm.us/council_members.ht...

Funny though, you apparently were so angry you couldn't type straight.

Or were you drunk?

“Eat me. I'm a Danish.”

Since: Dec 10

Las Cruces, New Mexico

#15 Aug 1, 2011
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even a good try, you shyster.
I posted the link that you refused to read, and then I cut and pasted the link verbatim, only editing out the names of the members, since they would only take up space, and have no bearing on procedure.
I changed nothing. Anyone can compare the two.
Here's the same link I posed earlier, which goes directly to the page I posted:
http://www.sic.state.nm.us/council_members.ht...
Funny though, you apparently were so angry you couldn't type straight.
Or were you drunk?
Angry? No, why would I be? Drunk, no, I dont drink. Just typing without my glasses.

You edited the post three times to change the meaning, and yes anyone who would like to compare will see that.

The Gov can remove herself and promised she would in the campaign. She did not do that when she had the chance. She also vetoed the bill containing the exact language she used in the campaign. She said she wanted to be on the council to insure it was "cleaned up". All this is a matter of public record. It is a fact. Your trying to say she is powerless to do this is nothing but lies. You are a political apologist. Susana's surrogate penis. And a small limp one at that.

Back before she anounced she would run I posted at length about the SIC and how important it was to get the Gov off the council. WHy on earth woudl this state want a politician with that much investment money at their disposal? It smacks of pay to play badly. It does not matter whether a Rep or a Dem is in there, they both do favors for supporters. Why give them the money intended to finance New Mexico business at ultra low rates?

The SIC needs to be overhauled badly. There is no other department that duplicates the tasks. That money needs to be available to New Mexico businesses that meet a fair set of standards rather than some politically governed council. The SIC should be an office under State governmnet that serves businesses. At least the only direct political influence would be at the cabinet level.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16 Aug 1, 2011
Sol Rebl wrote:
<quoted text>
Angry? No, why would I be? Drunk, no, I dont drink. Just typing without my glasses.
You edited the post three times to change the meaning, and yes anyone who would like to compare will see that.
The Gov can remove herself and promised she would in the campaign. She did not do that when she had the chance. She also vetoed the bill containing the exact language she used in the campaign. She said she wanted to be on the council to insure it was "cleaned up". All this is a matter of public record. It is a fact. Your trying to say she is powerless to do this is nothing but lies. You are a political apologist. Susana's surrogate penis. And a small limp one at that.
Back before she anounced she would run I posted at length about the SIC and how important it was to get the Gov off the council. WHy on earth woudl this state want a politician with that much investment money at their disposal? It smacks of pay to play badly. It does not matter whether a Rep or a Dem is in there, they both do favors for supporters. Why give them the money intended to finance New Mexico business at ultra low rates?
The SIC needs to be overhauled badly. There is no other department that duplicates the tasks. That money needs to be available to New Mexico businesses that meet a fair set of standards rather than some politically governed council. The SIC should be an office under State governmnet that serves businesses. At least the only direct political influence would be at the cabinet level.
If you say so.

Since: Jun 11

Farmington, NM

#17 Aug 6, 2011
While I generally do not like agreeing with Cary - he is correct about the Legislature's statute defining the members of the SIC

http://www.sos.state.nm.us/2010Bills/Chapter1...
She

Huntsville, AL

#18 Aug 6, 2011
The Dr Who wrote:
While I generally do not like agreeing with Cary - he is correct about the Legislature's statute defining the members of the SIC
http://www.sos.state.nm.us/2010Bills/Chapter1...
vetoed the 2011 SIC reform bill.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#19 Aug 6, 2011
She wrote:
<quoted text>
vetoed the 2011 SIC reform bill.
Because it wasn't real reform. It was written by the same people who've controlled the SIC since it's creation. You liberals may think the allowing the fox to guard the henhouse constitutes "reform", but thinking people know better.
It would

Huntsville, AL

#20 Aug 6, 2011
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it wasn't real reform. It was written by the same people who've controlled the SIC since it's creation. You liberals may think the allowing the fox to guard the henhouse constitutes "reform", but thinking people know better.
have removed the governor from the SIC which should have been done a long time ago and the chief need for reform. If you are waiting for a republican legislature, you will be waiting for a long time. And judging from the current administration, you won't get anything ethical either.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bill Richardson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Freed US student - brutalised' by North Korea c... Jun '17 Ronald 30
News Hillary is best candidate for U.S. president (Feb '08) Jul '16 Responsibilty 938
News Once again, Hispanics were considered for VP. O... (Jul '16) Jul '16 All For Show 1
News Republican Martinez claims NM governor's seat (Nov '10) Jul '16 Lorenzo 247
News 'Double dippers' fought legislation (May '09) Apr '16 concerned citizen 56
News Who still takes global warming seriously? (Jan '10) Jan '16 Brian_G 30,923
News Janway: Plutonium has already been disposed at ... (Sep '15) Sep '15 texinnewmex 2
More from around the web