Potential for runoffs left out of new law
Candidates don't have to disclose their finances

By Zsombor Peter
Staff Writer

GALLUP — Mary Ann Armijo isn't the only first-round challenge Pat Butler and Harry Mendoza won't have to contend with in the run-up to their March 29 runoff election for the City Council's southside seat.

Council candidates had to file campaign finance statements for the first time this year in compliance with a new ordinance the council approved last November. But complying with the ordinance has proven a challenge to most of the candidates as it is, and there's one scenario the ordinance forgot about altogether: a runoff.

The ordinance is clear enough about when candidates must file their statements during the general election: the Tuesday of the third week before the election, the Tuesday immediately before the election, and one last time no later than 30 days after the election. But it sets no filing dates in case of a runoff.

"It would be nice if the candidates voluntarily disclosed," said City Manager Eric Honeyfield. But, he added, "if it's not in the ordinance, we have nothing to enforce."

According to Mayor Bob Rosebrough, who proposed the ordinance, it never occurred to the council what to do about financial disclosure if there were a runoff. "But I think it needs to be considered," he said.

Once the elections are over with, the council may end up considering more than whether or not to add a runoff provision.

When the council decided to mandate financial disclosure, its hope was that the ordinance would keep the public up to date on how much candidates were spending, who was backing their campaigns, and whether they were spending more than they were putting in.

Most of the candidates said they backed the ordinance's goals, but complained about the "cumbersome" details. In one way or another, most of the candidates didn't even manage to comply fully with the ordinance. Some never handed the city clerk the necessary information on the bank accounts they were supposed to use for all their campaign contributions and expenses. Some didn't use the accounts properly. Some didn't follow the ordinance's guidelines when they filed their financial statements.

Some of the violations were deliberate, while others were of the sort committed out of confusion or carelessness, the consequence of learning to abide by a new law.

Rosebrough still likes the ordinance, but believes the city will have to do a better job of educating candidates on its details in the future.

He also believes the ordinance could use a little updating.

One provision allows candidates to withhold the source of any contributions less than $100. Rosebrough said that wasn't the council's intention.

"The intent of the council was to have only contributions in excess of $100 disclosed," he said.

It's only a difference of $1, but the mayor would like to see it fixed. He's also thinking of adding a provision that would allow the city to notify candidates of any violations and give them a chance to set things right.

Whether "less than" or "equal to and above" $100, some of the candidates thought the threshold for anonymous contributions was too low, and would like to see it raised.

In any case, it's the financial disclosure ordinance the candidates were stuck with this year, the same ordinance Butler and Mendoza now that they're in a runoff are free to ignore. So if they're planning on accepting any more contributions and doing any more spending, the city and the public isn't required to know about it.

All three southside candidates Armijo, Butler and Mendoza received approximately one-third of the vote Tuesday, not enough for the 40 percent any one of them needed to win the election outright; however, Armijo received the fewest votes of the three, which left Butler and Mendoza in the March 29 runoff.