Arguments For and Against Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2
2012
Arguments For - Broad PRC Powers Require Qualifications - Commissioners Have Vast Regulatory Powers And Should Therefore Possess Minimum Qualifications:
An elected commission is a political commission, and the PRC is even more so because its members are elected to represent specific districts in the state. When elected members represent districts instead of the entire state, their focus may be on the views and needs of the voters in their respective districts and not necessarily the views and needs of the voters throughout the state. Such a scheme may work well with 112 legislators representing their individual districts, but it has proved to be less than ideal when the number of policymakers is limited to the five commissioners of the PRC. With only five commissioners, an alliance of just three can control any and all decisions made by the PRC. Those decisions range from whether a utility company may increase its rates, and whether a shuttle service can operate, to what company can offer phone service or insurance coverage to New Mexico residents. So few commissioners, coupled with the PRC's vast decision-making abilities, provide far too much power to individuals whose only required qualifications are that they are at least 18 years of age, are not a convicted felon and are registered to vote in the state. This amendment simply attempts to ensure that the five PRC commissioners, empowered to make decisions impacting the lives of all of New Mexico's citizens, have a modicum of knowledge about the fields and industries they regulate. - Renew Public Trust - Past PRC Scandals Require Qualified PRC Commissioners To Regain Public Trust:
This constitutional amendment is long overdue. After numerous scandals in the agency's 16-year history, it is time that the voters demand that public regulation commissioners be qualified for their jobs, either through expertise or experience in relevant fields. After all, it was scandal and controversy that contributed in no small measure to the calls a few years ago to reform both the State Corporation Commission and the New Mexico Public Utility Commission. Those calls resulted in the 1996 merger of the two entities to form the Public Regulation Commission. Fast forward to 2012, and once again controversy abounds. The PRC has suffered from controversy and lack of public trust throughout its existence. Of the 16 people who have served as PRC commissioners, nearly one-third have been embroiled in scandal. A highly publicized case of a commissioner who pleaded guilty to multiple felonies related to misusing public funds is among the most recent. Additionally, in January 2012, the State Auditor called upon the PRC chair to resign in the wake of a special audit that revealed "irregularities". The minimal qualification requirements currently in place for eligibility to serve on the PRC have contributed to the perception, if not the reality, that the commissioners lack the requisite expertise. Increased qualifications requirements, coupled with the already high-paying commissioner salaries, would likely attract individuals who are more qualified and competent to hold those positions. Passing the amendment will ensure that New Mexico legislators require more from PRC commissioners. - Legal Concepts Must Be Understood - Commissioners Must Know And Understand Laws Pertaining To The PRC's Work:
The PRC is a quasi-judicial body, and as such, it is critical that commissioners know and understand the law and the specifics of the subject areas they regulate. But too often, and at too high a cost, the New Mexico Supreme Court has overruled PRC decisions because commissioners have either not understood the law or, worse, have disregarded the law. It is the right time for the state to establish minimum educational and professional qualification requirements for PRC commissioners. New Mexico residents need more education and expertise from their PRC commissioners. - Education And Experience Are Necessary - Job Of PRC Commissioner Not Well-Suited For Layperson:
New Mexico PRC commissioners have the broadest regulatory mandate in the entire country but have not been required to possess even minimal subject-matter expertise or experience. Utility and telecommunications regulation, insurance regulation, pipeline and railroad crossing safety, the State Fire Marshal, market entry regulation of motor carriers and ambulance regulation are among the exceptionally complex topics under the jurisdiction of the PRC. These areas of government directly and profoundly affect all citizens of New Mexico, every day of their lives. The duties of PRC commissioners are not well-suited for the inexperienced or uninformed. - Aligns With Other States - Other States Require Regulatory Commissioners To Have Backgrounds In Accounting, Finance, Related Business Education And Experience:
Without question, New Mexico's PRC is one of the most powerful state regulatory bodies in the nation, with authority over a broad spectrum of industries within the state. Notably, the PRC's rate-setting function affects virtually every citizen and business in New Mexico. Upon passage of this amendment, what constitutes "increased qualifications" will be determined by the Legislature and incorporated into the Public Regulation Commission Act. New Mexico should follow the lead of many other states that require commissioners to be qualified in either accounting, finance, professional engineering, public or business administration, administrative law or economics and to have professional experience in a field relevant to utility regulation. Additionally, Think New Mexico, an independent organization, has suggested that, if the commissioners were themselves better educated and qualified, they would not need to employ as large a staff to assist them in understanding the industries they regulate.
Arguments Against - Flawed And Unpredictable - Proposal's "Increased Qualifications" Not Specified So Voters Can't Predict Type Or Level Of Qualifications:
This amendment is seriously flawed and its application unpredictable because although it calls for "increased qualifications" for commissioners serving on the Public Regulation Commission, the words "increased qualifications" have no context, therefore rendering them ambiguous. First, the voter does not know which qualifications are being increased. Must the increase apply only to existing qualification requirements that are virtually nonexistent, or can entirely new qualifications be imposed? Is it a question of the quality of the qualification, the type of qualification or perhaps the number of qualifications? Another possible reading of the amendment's language raises the question of whether the Legislature could ever change the qualification requirements in a manner that could be construed as decreasing the qualifications in even a minor way, such as requiring four years of experience in a related field after previously establishing a five-year requirement. If the Legislature wants to change or impose qualifications for PRC commissioners, it needs to adopt a clearly written proposal authorizing it to establish specific qualifications, not a proposal so ambiguous that it could be interpreted to mandate that the Legislature may only "increase" commissioner qualifications. - Layperson Unable To Serve - Imposing Qualifications Could Preclude Average Citizen's Opportunity To Serve As PRC Commissioner:
Depending on what qualifications and educational standards are enacted into law, average citizens may not have the same opportunity to seek election to the PRC as they do for the Legislature and numerous other positions in state and local government. Because the amendment does not specify what the increased qualifications will be, legislators could place onerous qualifications on the PRC positions precluding the average citizen from serving as commissioner. In no event should there be more qualifications required to run for PRC commissioner than are required to run for a seat in the Legislature. As this amendment is written, the voter cannot be certain that the increased qualifications will be reasonable. - Too Vague And Overly Broad - Without Specifics Given, Voters Are Asked To Give Legislature Broad Powers To Increase Unknown Qualifications:
This proposed amendment is vague and overly broad because it does not specify even minimally what "increased" qualifications for PRC commissioners the Legislature can or might enact, and it asks the voters to provide unlimited power for the Legislature to change anything regarding the qualification requirements. While it may make sense to impose certain qualifications for commissioners, unfortunately, there is no guidance as to what type of qualifications should be "increased". Is "increased" age, education or experience the qualification to be changed? Or perhaps must something else be "increased"? Currently, the only qualifications required to serve as a PRC commissioner are that a candidate be at least 18 years old, be a qualified voter living in the district for which he or she would serve and have no felony convictions. The amendment's lack of specifics presents a significant problem. Since a PRC candidate must be at least 18 years old, simply requiring him or her to be 19 years old would be an "increased" qualification, but it is doubtful that such an increased qualification would satisfy the intentions of the voters being asked to approve the amendment. - Legislative Intent Unclear - Qualifications Not Specified, Unclear How Serious Legislature Is About Imposing Significant Commissioner Qualifications:
If the Legislature enacts increased qualifications for commissioners comparable to those expected of private sector executives with similar duties and responsibilities, it could minimize the chances of an unqualified commissioner being elected by an uninformed electorate. However, an earlier version of the amendment may be an indicator that the Legislature is more likely to continue to accept the lowest common denominator when it comes to establishing "increased" qualifications. A previous version of the proposed amendment provided that to be qualified to run for PRC commissioner, a person would need at least a bachelor's degree or five years of "relevant experience". But under that proposed increased requirement, a person with a bachelor's degree in a completely unrelated field would be deemed "qualified" to serve as a PRC commissioner. It can be argued that there is no legislative commitment to getting qualified candidates for the PRC. One could also argue that the mere fact that the Legislature contemplates imposing continuing education requirements could indicate its unwillingness to mandate that established professionals serve as commissioners, again keeping the bar low. A commissioner should come to the PRC position with current and appropriate education and expertise.
|