National Education Association- New Mexico

                                                     Links to:

Contact Policy Makers	Recent Legislative Session
Find and Contact Your Legislator	Legislative Education Study Committee Information
Contact Governor Richardson	LESC Bill Analysis for 2006 Regular Session (FTP Site)
New Mexico Legislature	Public School-Related Legislation Passed in 2006 Session
Legislative Website	Forms to Report Legislative Contacts to NEA-NM
Session Dates	Legislator Contact Form
Committee Membership	Legislative Meeting Report Form
Legislative Site Bill Finder

2006 Legislative Summary

 Budget Bill Signed by Governor
Measure Has 5% Average Salaries Restored

As this legislative session ended, a compromise version of the General Appropriations Act  passed both the House and Senate .

On Wednesday, March 8, Governor Richardson signed the General Appropriations Act with several line item vetoes-follow this link for the final version.  (One of the educational items vetoed was the unnecessary pre-funding of school year 2007-08's employers' share of retirement;  while the extra cash wouldn't have hurt, it was an unnecessary statement by some on the Legislative Finance Committee about the financial stability of educational retirement.)  He also vetoed a small fund of $6.3 million designed to help school districts meet minimum salary requirements if they do not receive sufficient funds through the funding formula; in reality this fund helped districts that had not emphasized employee salaries over the years.  These districts will have to do some of the same belt-tightening that many other districts have already done so that they can prioritize their employee salaries!  

The important news is that the measure signed by the governor raises school employee salaries by an average 5%, inclusion of the required advancement of level three teachers to next year's $45,000 minimum increases the average available for teachers to about 5.5%.  The language also includes an average 9.5% increase for educational assistants. The language requiring an average, rather than across the board increases, is important to make sure that career employees who may not have received significant increases as three-tiered licensure was implemented can be treated fairly.  This language makes collective bargaining even more important as a process to insure that school employees can be a part of the decision-making on salary schedules.  The actual language requiring school district budgets to contain the average salary follows:

"The general fund appropriation for the state equalization guarantee distribution contains sufficient funds to provide an average five percent salary increase for all teachers, an average nine and one- half percent salary increase for educational assistants and an average five percent salary increase for other instructional staff and other licensed and nonlicensed staff, effective on the first full pay period after July 1, 2006. Prior to the approval of a school district’s or a charter school’s budget, the secretary of public education shall verify that each school district or charter school is providing an average five percent salary increase for all teachers and other licensed school employees; an average five percent salary increase for nonlicensed school employees, except educational assistants; and an average nine and one- half percent salary increase for educational assistants. The general fund appropriation for the state equalization guarantee distribution contains sufficient funds to implement the forty- five thousand dollar ($ 45,000) minimum salary for level three- A teachers. The secretary of public education shall verify that school districts and charter schools have implemented the salary increases for teachers prior to implementing the minimum salaries for level three- A teachers."  

This language means that school districts must demonstrate that their budgets provide an average salary increase for three distinct groupings of employees. 

First, teachers and other licensed employees (teachers, librarians, counselors, special educational specialists, administrators, social workers, etc) as a group must show an average five percent increase.

For teachers there is a two pronged test of compliance.  The first test is compliance with language that states, “The secretary of public education shall verify that school districts and charter schools have implemented the salary increases for teachers prior to implementing the minimum salaries for level three-A teachers.”  This means implementation of the five percent average must be demonstrated before school districts make up the difference between those teachers moving to the new $45,000 minimum and the effect of the average five percent increase. Next all level three teachers who are below the $45,000 minimum receive whatever it takes to bring them to the minimum (the legislature funded an extra half percent increase above the average five percent for teachers for this purpose).   This should result in about an average 5.5 percent increase for the teachers in this group.

The second test for compliance for teachers is making sure that the group “teachers and other licensed employees” as a whole gets a five percent increase.  However, meeting the first test invariably means that unless all level three-A teachers were earning more than $42,857 (the salary exactly 5% below $45,000), the salary  increase for this group will exceed five percent.

Second, budgets must demonstrate an average five percent salary increase for nonlicensed school employees, except educational assistants.

Finally, school budgets must demonstrate an average nine and one- half percent salary increase for educational assistants. This is also an important bargaining incentive.  Relatively low paid assistants received the benefit of two increases in minimum salary requirements, $11,000 in 2004-05 and $12,000 in 2005-06.  This presents an opportunity to place funding on levels of EA salary schedules that may have received as little as 1.25% last year, while younger colleagues may have gone from $11,000 to $12,000, a nine% increase!  

The language for public school transportation employees also provides an average 5% salary increase for all transportation employees.  

"The general fund appropriation for the transportation distribution includes sufficient funding to provide an average five percent salary increase for transportation employees effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2006".

The language provided for higher education is less tight and simply states that a 4.5% average increase is provided.

"Thirty-nine million nine hundred fifty-six thousand seven hundred dollars ($39,956,700) is appropriated from the general fund to the higher education department for expenditure in fiscal year 2007 to provide faculty and staff of four and two-year post-secondary education institutions with an average of four and one-half percent compensation increase."

While this measure is not all we wanted, your great effort helped convince legislators to restore the salary cut made by the Senate and helped convince the Governor to sign the salary language with no line-item vetoes!

Legislative Clock Runs Down with no Minimum Wage Bill

The Senate failed to approve a conference committee report designed to salvage an acceptable minimum wage bill.  The report would have adopted a modified Senate Bill 449.  Therefore, the Legislative ended without approving one of Labor's and the Governor's top priorities for the 2006 session.

Original Senate Version

Senate Bill 449, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Ben Altamirano, would have raised the wage to $6.50 an hour in January 2007, to $7 in 2008 and to $7.50 in 2009.The Senate Finance Committee amended the bill to increase the state's minimum wage to $6 an hour Jan. 1. An employee who remained with an employer for a year would have to earn a minimum of $6.75 an hour. Once the employee stayed two years, he or she would have to earn at least $7.50.    The new, amended measure also would prohibit Santa Fe's wage from going higher than $9.50 an hour and would permanently prevent local governments from raising their own minimum wages higher than the state level.  Altamirano's original bill would have left Santa Fe's living wage ordinance alone and would have prevented local wage increases for five years.  The amended bill also exempts food processors from having to pay the minimum wage.  Late Tuesday night,  the Senate  passed the bill with the crippling amendment intact.

Original House Version

House Bill 258, sponsored by Speaker Ben Lujan,  passed the House Monday on a near party-line vote of 38-30.  With 10 days left in the annual legislative session, the measure headed to the state Senate.

The House bill would increase the state's current $5.15 minimum — same as the federal minimum — to $6.75 in 2007 and to $7.50 in 2008.  Employers could pay a "training wage'' of $5.15 for the first 60 days a worker was on the job. And, in a concession to chile producers, food processors could apply to the state Department of Labor for exemptions.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 38-30 after three hours of debate.  Democrats went along with a Republican amendment that would bring state and local governments under the minimum wage law. Currently, they're exempt. Supporters said there would be minimal budget impact on state government. The bill provides a cost of living increase of the annual Cost of Living Index or 3% whichever is less, and protects Santa Fe's already higher living wage ordinance. 

Educational Assistant Career Ladder Bills Did Not Make their Way to Floor Calendars

House Bill 206-Educational Assistant Career Ladder, introduced by Representative Rick Miera, provides an EA career ladder and minimum salaries: Level 1 $12,000; Level 2 $13,000; Level 3 $15,000; Level 4 $17,000. The House Education Committee gave a do-pass recommendation to the measure.  The bill is temporarily tabled in the House Appropriations and Finance Committee.  That tabling was part of a strategy to keep the measure alive in case the 9.5% salary increase provided Educational Assistants in the General Appropriations Act does not survive in the final budget. The 9.5% increase is in the budget passed by the legislature.  We need to ask the Governor to leave this increase intact (see above).

The Senate version of the bill, Senator Mary Kay Papen's Senate Bill 232 received a do-pass recommendation from the Senate Education Committee.  It died awaiting a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee.

Since the 9.5% salary increase for Educational Assistants survived the budget battle, neither of these measures moved out of committee.  Instead the process of collective bargaining will be very important to insuring a fair application of the average salary language (see above).

Bill to Provide Education Support Providers Licensure System and Minimum Salaries Dies in Senate Finance Committee for Second Year in a Row

An amended version of House Bill 418, Instructional Support Provider Licensure, introduced by Representative Mimi Stewart passed the House and received a favorable recommendation from the Senate Education Committee.  However, for a second year in a row the measure died in the Senate Finance Committee, even though it had no financial impact this year and minimal impact in subsequent years.  The amended version would have been effective with the 2007-2008 school year and would have amended the School Personnel Act to provide a licensing framework and minimum salaries for certain instructional support providers: Level 1, $30,000; Level 2, $40,000; and Level 3, $50,000.  This legislation was needed to make sure that education professionals, such as counselors and therapists, are not treated unfairly. It would have created the same minimum salary structure as that currently in law for teachers.

Your Efforts Helped Kill Bad Legislation

Bill to Raise Your Retirement Payroll Tax Killed in Senate Education Committee

Senate Bill 541 could not have been construed as anything other than a crass attack on public school and higher education employees' paychecks.  It was revenge because you won the battle last year to protect your paycheck from greatly increased payroll taxes for educational retirement.  This bill sponsored by Senator Sue Beffort-Wilson would have simply made you pay more of your salary in educational retirement withholdings for no apparent actuarial reason.  It would have raised withholdings to 8.6% by full implementation in 2008, .7% more than current law.  It was tabled and killed in the Senate Education Committee.

Bill to Cut Retirement Benefits for New Employees Died Without a Hearing In Senate Finance

Senate Bill 206, sponsored by Senator John Arthur Smith, would make it harder for new employees to retire.  Currently employees are eligible to retire after 25 years of service or when their years of service and age equal 75, the so-called Rule of 75. This bill proposes a Rule of 80 as the requirement new employees who choose this retirement option.

This bill has been on the Senate Finance Committee  agenda for days and  apparently will not move any further. 

We oppose any change that increases the disparity between ERA and PERA members or any change that makes new employees second class citizens with inferior benefits to current employees.

Bill to Give Private Schools Tax Money for Technology Meets Quiet End

Senate Bill 743  was scheduled in the Senate Education Committee for several days, but was never heard.  This bill would have added a new section to the Technology for Education Act to allow accredited private schools to receive distribution from the Educational Technology Fund.  Even though well intended, the measure would have allowed public money to be spent, in an unconstitutional manner, for private and religious schools. 

The bill would have required the Public Education Department to annually fix a means of distributing state Educational Technology Fund monies to private schools, thus reducing the $16 per student currently distributed to public schools. Such a distribution of funds to a private school is a violation of Article IV, Section 31 of the New Mexico Constitution, which prohibits a direct educational appropriation to any person, corporation, association, institution or community not under the direct control of the state and is also in violation of the anti-donation provisions in the constitution. Additionally, the measure also violates Article XII, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution  because it prohibits the use of public money for the support "of any sectarian, denominational or private school…"

Tuition Tax Credit Bill Stalls Out

Senate Bill 238, also sponsored by Senator John Arthur Smith was a voucher in disguise.  This terrible measure would have cost the treasury of New Mexico at least $10,000,000 and allow this money to flow directly into private and religious schools.  The measure would provide a $500 tax credit to anyone who makes a donation to an organization that provides private school scholarships!  This dangerous and unconstitutional measure received a do-pass recommendation from the Senate Corporations and Transportation Committee several days ago and apparently  will not get another hearing and, thus, die at adjournment.

A credit against income tax is considered a tax expenditure in that, while it is not a direct payment from the state to the taxpayer, the taxpayer reduces the amount of tax paid to the state. Thus this measure violated the establishment clause of the US Constitution and several provisions of the New Mexico Constitution.  As an expenditure of tax dollars it is a violation of Article IV, Section 31 of the New Mexico Constitution, which prohibits a direct educational appropriation to any person, corporation, association, institution or community not under the direct control of the state.  Additionally, the measure also violates Article XII, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution  because it prohibits the use of public money for the support "of any sectarian, denominational or private school…"

Spring Budget and Advocacy Conference

Attend NEA-NM's Spring Budget Advocacy Conference on April 7 in Albuquerque for more details on the effect of this legislative session on school district budgets and collective bargaining.

Find and Contact Your Legislator

Back to Legislative Advocacy

Hotline Achieve