From: Jacob Candelaria

Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2018 8:05 AM

To:
jacob@jacobcandelaria.com;petecampos@newmex
ico.com;Joseph Cervantes;Cisneros,
Carlos;iveysoto@usa.net;lopez4148@msn.com;rich
ardcmartinez@mail.com;Cisco
Mcsorley@swcp;hcm260@gmail.com;munozgeo@g
mail.com;oneillsd13@billonei!
llfornm.com;jortizyp@msn.com;michael.padilla@vo
tepadilla.com;Mary Kay
Papen;thesheepcompany@yahoo.com;Rodriguez,
Nancy;cszrunner@gmail.com;Sapien,
John;john@sapienforsenate.com;benny.shendo@g
mail.com;jas@zianet.com;billsoules@hotmail.com;l
stefanics@msn.com;Jeff
Steinborn;senmimistewart@gmail.com;w.tallman5
909@comcast.net;Wirth, Peter;
Cc:
Subject:Resignation as Caucus Chair

Senat! or Wirth:

This morning, I received a copy of an email you

sent to your constituents. Among this year's
legislative accomplishments, you write that "we
stopped Senate Bill 47, a utility bill asking the
state to securitize energy bonds."
In my short time in the legislature, I have never
seen legislative leadership message against a bill
sponsored by a member of their own caucus. Your
use of the collective "we" also implies that
stopping this bill was a Democratic
initiative/priority.

This was not a utility bill. This was my bill.

Your email goes on to say that a problem with the

bill was it "went too far by guaranteeing 100%
stranded asset recovery." As you know, I spent
weeks bringing together PNM and representatives
of CVNM, Western Resource Advocates, and other
environmental groups to find a compromise. In
addition to the stranded asset recovery, the bill
also included an increase in the state renew! able
energy portfolio standard to 50% by 2030. It also
required that PNM re-invest nearly 20 million in
the Farmington community for job training and
economic redevelopment. By requiring that PNM
rebuild its assets in the Farmington community,
the bill would help prevent the loss of thousands
of jobs. That's why the private sector unions
supported it I believe. None of this was mentioned
in your email. I believe your messaging against
the legislation makes bringing the parties
together that much harder moving forward.

I certainly respect any senator's right to

communicate with their own constituents. At the
same time, I believe it is the role of leadership to
foster an environment where the diverse opinions
and political beliefs of our caucus are respected.
I do not see how attacking a Democratic
member's bill in this way accomplishes that goal.

I also respect that we can disagree about po! licy.

We can debate issues in caucus. We can debate
bills, as I have certainly done, in committee and
the floor. But I feel that claiming that the defeat
of a Democratic member's bill is a key legislative
accomplishment is something quite different than
that.

As such, I am resigning my position as caucus

chair effective immediately.

I understand there are those who will consider

this a rash move, or say this action is a hasty
over-reaction. The truth is, I have been
considering this action for some time. This email
further confirms for me that diverse voices and
opinions are not being represented, or
empowered, in our caucus. I feel this is the right
thing to do, regardless of the repercussions. As
the old saying goes...prefiero morir de pie, que
vivir de rodillas.

I believe these are real issues that must be

addressed. My own sense of integrity will not
allow me to continue in my role as caucus chair
until that happens.&nbs! p;

Best,

Jacob