Lujan Grisham offers insight into priorities
The New Mexican spoke with Gov.elect Michelle Lujan Grisham last week about a wide range of topics as she prepares to take charge in January. The following is a transcript of that conversation, edited for brevity.
Question: Your party’s majority in the House has grown significantly, but the Senate remains the same and conservative Democrats still hold a lot of sway in that chamber. I’m curious if some of your campaign promises, such as a $12 minimum wage or a ban on so-called assault weapons can really get through the Senate in 2019.
Answer: … We just had another terrible gun violence massacre in California. They continue to occur. And interestingly enough, there are already bans in California.
So, I think the debate is going to be about the things that we know have made a difference: keeping guns out of the hands of convicted domestic abusers, the extreme-risk protection orders, making it much safer for families and children by requiring different lock systems and gun safes, and studying [gun violence] as a public health issue.
I think these are things — background checks — that we are likely to be able to get through the Senate.
We had a couple of things already get through the Senate. But the governor vetoed them. So, you’ve got a shift. One, we continue to see these tragedies and people want us to do something, particularly about making sure kids are safe at school. And two, now [New Mexicans have] a governor who ran on sensible, smart gun violence strategies and reform. And that’s a different environment. So, I do think we will have greater success.
But I’m clear that the Senate’s a different chamber and that there are many things — including a minimum wage increase, looking at a responsible way to use a little bit more of the interest in the Land Grant Permanent Fund. … That’s going to take real work. And we are hopeful. And that’s why I’m meeting with the Legislature already.
Question: Does there need to be a debate about the permanent fund in 2019? Is the surplus enough to make the improvements you believe are necessary in public education without touching the permanent fund?
Answer: … A lot of this money is nonrecurring.
I don’t know what the projections are for 2020 and 2021.
And it’s the mistake that this state has always made. We say we want to diversify the economy. We say we want to make sure that we are creating revenue streams that will stay the course so that you actually achieve some of the goals by having universal pre-K or recruiting, hiring and paying teachers more.
If you do that haphazardly and you don’t have recurring revenues identified that you can point to, we will not meet those goals in any shape or form.
And it’s one of the reasons I think New Mexico fails to lead. We get a windfall and we’re like, “We’ll deal with the hard stuff later.”
And what happens is, “later” doesn’t get to you in a way that’s productive and the bottom always falls out.
So, yes, I think we need to have that conversation and that debate in the 2019 session. And I’m feeling hopeful but not Pollyanna. These are all tough issues.
Question: What should we do with the state’s projected surplus? Like you say, it could be one-time money — a windfall we can’t count on in future years. Is there any particular direction where we should be pointing these funds?
Answer: One easy one for us, certainly, is to make sure that we’re getting the infrastructure needs addressed.
That’s a boost to the economy, particularly if we’re investing it in broadband and roads and renewable energy infrastructure.
This diversifies the economy, brings in new businesses, creates jobs immediately and is clear that we understand that there is a nonrecurring theme to some of this money. So, you are spending it in exactly the way that you should be.
That’s certainly going to be where we are leaning in.
But there are also some recurring deficiencies that have to be taken care of, not the least of which is making sure critical positions in [the Children, Youth and Families Department] for protective services, and critical positions in [Aging and Long-Term Services] for adult protective services, get filled.
The fact that vulnerable populations
and the fact that child well-being is so poor here and children are so at-risk — it’s unconscionable that we would not fill those gaps through this legislative cycle.
Question: You were outspoken as a Cabinet secretary. How much freedom will you give your Cabinet secretaries to speak out?
Answer: That’s what I’m looking for. And let me tell you, it’s much easier, in my opinion, to be the kind of leader who defers — that way you don’t take any risk: “Let the governor speak to that.” “Let the lieutenant governor speak to that.” “Let the Legislature get that passed on their own and then if the governor signs it, it’s a mandate for me.”
Well, that’s not leadership. And sometimes, the executive is wrong.
I have surrounded myself with strong leaders in every job I’ve ever had, and I want the very same. …
I think that when people are given the opportunity to be true leaders, I think they rise to that challenge. And it actually excites people to be more interested in those kinds of jobs because these jobs require sacrifice by the people who take them. You have to give them a reason to want to take them. …
I was outspoken, independent, fair, transparent and respectful. I always knew who I worked for, and I always made it clear to the Legislature when I was taking a different position. And I always alerted my boss, the governor, when I just wasn’t up on the same page.
I think you can be professional and a productive member of a Cabinet and be independent and outspoken.
They don’t necessarily always have to be mutually exclusive. And so, I’m looking for folks who can enhance how I perform and do it even better.
Question: Your opponent made it a
kind of line of attack in insinuating your administration would include a lot of people from the Richardson administration. Can we expect to see many veterans of the Richardson administration? And to what extent are you looking to include younger leaders or people from outside New Mexico in your Cabinet?
Answer: I think people should expect that we want the best and the brightest.
Look, it’s been eight years since anyone in the Richardson [administration] was working, and there are a lot of incredible folks who have experience in higher education and experience in health care, experience in the economy and as entrepreneurs who were not in the Richardson or the Johnson or the King administrations, and I think there’s real talent out there.
I expect that folks will see we appointed the strongest candidates. And the notion that it would have to be a return to any administration doesn’t even make sense to me. That’s not where we’re headed.
Question: Are you considering merging any Cabinet-level departments?
Answer: My preference today is to leave it all alone and not do any of that consolidation.
I’ve been through many government reorganizations.
In fact, when I left the Richardson administration, I was immediately put on as co-chair of the government reorganization task force by the Legislature. So, I see the benefits of that.
I think government reorganization is something that you should be looking at, frankly, all of the time if you really want it to be efficient and effective and you don’t want it to be redundant.
If there’s a place for real cost savings and doing a better job, well, you should absolutely be dedicated to doing that.
But these are departments that have been decimated, that have lacked real leadership, that have serious issues that have to be addressed. I’d like to get all of that addressed. That’s going to take more hands on deck, not less. And I would ask the Legislature — with all due respect — to hold some of those ideas until we have a chance to get through our first year and then to look at it after that.
Question: Why do you think Republicans washed out this year, not just in the race for governor but in races across the state? What, in your estimation, was their undoing?
Answer: I think it was several things. I don’t think it was one thing.
Here, the fact that after eight years, there has been so little progress and a sense we got further and further and further behind, particularly in public education. People were just furious and said, “Here’s an administration that promised us they could lead, and they didn’t.”
And Republicans, in their own right, in the Legislature, didn’t do anything about it.
Two, they didn’t develop relationships anywhere — in the Legislature, in rural New Mexico, with local bodies of government. There was a real void. And I think people spoke there.
And third, I think that New Mexicans really were pained by the fact we feel left behind and that there’s this negative, angry, brutalizing environment at the federal level that is disrespectful and, frankly, racist.
I think New Mexicans said, “You know what, we want a vision. We [want] somebody positive; we see all these new Democrats running; we see all these new women who are campaigning on getting things done who have a real record.”
And that is where their votes went.