Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You >>Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, it is run off time in Albuquerque, where three city elections are set to finally reach the finish line, and, >>Hudetz: Last year you would see the direct message about getting vaccinated and that being the best -- best defense against illness.

Now, that sort of language typically, if ever is not there.

>>Nash: Investigative journalist Mary Hudetz, reveals how the Federal Indian Health Service is censoring its own doctors over vaccine messaging.

New Mexico in Focus starts now >>Nash: Thanks for joining us this week I'm Nash Jones.

If the internet was easy to build, it would have already been built.

That's what the Acting Director of the state broadband office told us on this program last year.

Now the office has a permanent leader in former Congressional Staffer, Jeff Lopez.

He concedes that access to cyberspace is essential for healthcare education and myriad other elements of daily life.

And later this hour, he explains the challenges of making sure everyone in a state is spread out as New Mexico can connect to the internet and lays out some of its programs and strategies for getting the whole state online.

Journalist Mary Hudetz published a hell of a story a couple of weeks back for nonprofit investigative newsroom ProPublica.

Hudetz reviewed emails, talk to doctors and other public health experts to try and figure out why the federal Indian Health Service is essentially gone dark over the past year when it comes to messaging about vaccines.

What she found was a disturbing new censorship practice within the IHS that is muzzled clinicians and left them feeling like they can't adequately serve their patients on the Navajo Nation.

Hudetz spoke with Executive Producer, Jeff Proctor about her reporting and what impacts the new look, tight-lipped IHS could have on Native communities.

We'll bring you that interview a little later in the show, but, we begin with next week's runoff elections in Albuquerque.

Voters will make a final decision on City Councilors in Districts 1 and 3, and, of course, for Mayor.

And that's where we're going to focus.

Incumbent Mayor, Tim Keller finished last month's regular local election with 36% of the vote.

In failing to reach that 50% majority, Keller now has to face his closest challenger, former law enforcement official turned weed magnate, Darren White.

He earned 31% of the vote in round one.

Both candidates knew they were in for another month of campaigning on the night of November 4th, when ballot tallies showed voters had spread their support across the wide field of six candidates.

Both White and Keller told supporters st thier Election Night Watch Parties that they were pleased with the result and eager to move forward to this coming Tuesday's One on One showdown.

>>White: It's clear -- this race is going to a runoff.

It's also clear that voters said tonight, “enough is enough and we want change.” >>Keller: We are ready for a runoff for the future of our city, and we're going to defend our families.

We're going to defend our city, and we're going to stand up for what we believe in, whether it's inside our city or whether it is against Washington, D.C., and their efforts to divide us.

Darren White, we are coming for you!

Bring it on, Darren!

[Crowd cheering] >>White: If you believe Mayor Keller has done a good job on the big issues like crime and homelessness, then vote for him.

If you believe that Albuquerque right now is as good as it gets, then vote for Mayor Keller.

But if you think that we can do better and we can do better, I ask you to join my campaign and bring the change that is needed to Albuquerque, and we will make it happen.

>>Keller: The truth is -- deep change does take time.

It takes hard work.

I see the challenges that we all see every day, all around our city, but we also see the answers.

The answers are what we have been doing with respect to things like -- the Community Safety Department, the first of its kind in America right here in Albuquerque!

[Crowd Cheering] We see all the things that civilian-ization and technology have done to bring down crime.

We have a long way to go, we know that.

But we know what's working.

And now is no time to turn back.

>>White: We will unite -- change-minded voters regardless of party.

I will appoint, if elected, a bipartizan cabinet -- of the best and the brightest.

I will only serve four years.

And let me tell you why -- I'm not interested in padding my political resume.

And I'm not trying to punch my ticket to higher office.

I want to go in on day one.

I want to roll up my sleeves -- and get to work with my team and clean up the mess that has been created over the last eight years.

>>Keller: This is my hometown and we've seen that show before -- that he brings; the hate, the division, the fake answers seemingly waving a magic wand that will solve all our problems.

We know it's harder than that.

It takes grit.

It takes guts.

It takes a real plan.

It takes more than a talking point.

It takes more than trying to say that we're going to have a slogan, or that someone is going to be the savior.

It takes hard work every day.

That's what this campaign -- that's what my administration has been about.

That's what our city stood up for today -- is because we're not interested in one off ideas that just come from some other state or come from the 1990s, back when he was in charge, or come from ideas from our president, Donald Trump.

We are going to have Albuquerque Solutions for Albuquerque.

That is what I promise.

That is what I'm going to go on.

[Crowd Cheering] >>Nash: So after Election Night, we got hold of both campaigns, hoping to sit down with each of the candidates, either for a debate or an in-depth one on one discussion about their policy perspectives and how each would approach leading Albuquerque next year and beyond.

Both Keller and White refused while accepting timed debates at all three commercial television stations.

You may have seen my request on social media for viewers like you to contact the campaigns and let them know that you wanted to see them here on NMPBS.

Well, we understand that some of you did that, and we appreciate it.

Though, your efforts don't appear to have swayed the candidates, neither of whom will be answering our questions tonight.

But KOB TV has been kind enough to let us use some clips from their November 11th debate, so we can help you understand the candidates stances on some of the key issues affecting the city.

First up, a back and forth of rebuttals on crime.

After stating that he agrees with white on the need for criminal justice reform to end the, quote, “revolving door.” Keller lambasted White's record as the Chief Public safety officer for the city, arguing that a string of high profile police shootings during White's 18 months on the job was reason not to elect him.

>>White: Mayor, you are so hypocritical.

In the last eight years, there have been 100 police shootings.

When you became mayor in 2017, you went out and you apologized to the families of all those people who were shot under Mayor Berry.

Have you apologized to the people of Albuquerque for the 100 shootings?

And let me make this very clear.

This is not a criticism of the officers who are out there risking their lives.

But 100 shootings involving police officers is an example of how vicious and violent our streets have become.

Under your watch.

>>Keller: Well -- >>Moderator: Mayor Keller, go ahead, 30 more seconds for a rebuttle -- >>Keller: There is a very big difference, the key is justified.

Yours were unjustified.

And that is why the DOJ came in.

That is why they identified, what you said was, “un-shackling the police and taking the gloves off on homeless.” >>White: Yes.

>>Keller: As a huge problem of why we have officer involved violence.

That's why officers left in droves.

That's why you got a no confidence vote from your own department.

It is because you were a failed leader of APD.

That is undeniable.

And that's why we can't have you again.

>>White: Mayor, and I wish you would have taken the gloves off the homeless problem, because we wouldn't have the situation that we're currently in.

>>Nash: We wanted to point out that the term justified, which Mayor Keller just used during that clip, is colloquial.

It's not a standard recognized by internal and police investigations or found within Civil or Criminal law.

The DOJ did find that a number of those shootings the Mayor Keller was referring to were unconstitutional.

So next up on the list of top issues: Homelessness.

KOB asked the candidates how their administrations would balance compassion and services with accountability and law enforcement.

>>White: As I've said, when I'm elected, the homeless tent cities will come down on day one.

We will offer the services and the shelter that's available on hundreds of millions of dollars that the mayor have spent.

We will offer them services if they refuse.

The laws will be strictly enforced.

You know, KOB did a story yesterday.

Mayor, and you're -- you, have gone after a bookstore owner in Nob Hill, and you are taking him to court because he has a homeless tent city in his parking lot.

Now, what you've said to the court and what you're asking a judge to do is because all of the neighbors complained, they said there were needles, there was open air drug use.

There was human waste.

You have gone to the city -- or to this judge, and you have said, I want them to be declared a public nuisance.

Mayor, my question for you, if that business owner in Nob Hill is a public nuisance, What does that make you?

>>Moderator: Mayor Keller, you have 60s seconds, go ahead.

>>Keller: So, you are not the answer for public safety.

You are part of the problem.

You cost our city and your policies that you're describing $130 million in lawsuits because they're illegal.

You cost lives because innocent people, including some who were homeless, were killed.

And you cost confidence in our entire city and in our police department.

That's why they gave you a No Confidence Vote.

And it wasn't your first one.

You had one when you were in charge of the State Police, too.

And you also had one from the Fire Department because you interfered with paramedics.

This is your story and it's wrong.

It's the wrong way to deal with the homeless, the homeless on day one to do what you're saying.

You are literally describing Trump-style roundups and chaos and violence, and no one wants that.

Instead, what we have to do is make sure that we enforce our laws, which we do.

But you also have to have a place to take people.

You have to have services to give them, and you have to do things in a legal way so you don't get sued.

That's what real leadership is about.

That's what governing is about.

It's not just getting angry and shouting out slogans.

It's about a real plan.

And that's what I offer.

>>Nash: And finally, an exchange on immigration from the KOB debate.

When asked how the city should interact with federal immigration authorities, Keller touted the city's policy of never asking people for their immigration status.

White argued that it needs an update, allowing the city to share information about people who commit crimes with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE, after they've served their sentences.

>>Keller: Well, there's two things about that.

Number one is we've had our policy since, Trump the first time.

And so it's not new.

And it's something that we just made sure works for our city.

And it has over that time period.

So there's no reason to change it.

The second thing is, ICE is supposed to do ICE's job.

And whether we like it or not, we understand that is their function.

Police officers don't want to be ICE agents.

Police officers don't want to go through a bunch of immigration information, nor do we want them to.

They are our police department, the city of Albuquerque's.

That's why we need them doing what we need them to do in terms of fighting violent crime, not spending time helping ICE.

>>Moderator: Mr.

White, you have 30s, go ahead.

>>White: Yeah, thank you.

Now, let's look at some of these people that are being charged with these crimes that are here illegally.

They're being charged with murder.

They're being charged with violent crimes.

They're being charged with human trafficking and drug trafficking.

They are preying on our communities.

And the mayor is shielding them by his policy, which says, we're not going to provide any information to Immigration, that is dangerous.

All I'm saying is, it's a very simple process.

You give that information to Immigration and let them decide and let them take the steps necessary that they feel are appropriate.

>>Reporter: Mr.

White, thank you.

Mayor Keller, you also have another 30 seconds >>Keller: Yeah, so your point actually proves my policy because you said, they are in jail and they're in the court system.

That's my point.

And what happens to them in that system is a different issue.

I'm just talking about when APD responds to a call.

And that's the big difference.

So I think you actually validated exactly why we have the policy we have and why it keeps us safe and why it works with respect to the larger criminal justice system.

If you commit a crime, you should be in jail, and you should be in the criminal justice system that is exactly what you just described.

>>White: But, mayor, they're being released after they served their time.

>>Moderator: Final 30 seconds.

>>Keller: That is not because of APD.

That is because of the court system which the mayor doesn't control.

And you should know that.

>>White: Mayor, if you get charged with maybe drug trafficking, you may do 5 or 6 years after that time is up they get released.

Listen Mayor -- >>Keller: ICE can do what they want to do at that point.

>>Moderator: Final 30 seconds Final 30 seconds for your final rebuttal.

Go ahead.

>>White: Mayor, you have said that you've created a tip line.

You don't want Immigration to do their job.

You want to make this a partizan issue.

So you can -- >>Keller: I want to make the city safe.

>>White: You want to make this a Partizan issue.

You've set up a tip line to tip off people where law enforcement officers are working.

And let me tell you this, Mayor, if we were to provide that information to them, if we were just to give them the records of everybody who was arrested, they wouldn't have to be out in the streets looking for these people who are committing murder, drug trafficking, human trafficking -- >>Moderator: Okay!

>>Nash: A big thanks again to KOB-TV for sharing some of their debate with us.

You can catch it in full on the KOB 4 YouTube channel.

But before we move on, we are going to spend a little more time on what has been the most significant issue on the minds of Albuquerque voters.

Crime in Albuquerque Journal poll conducted in September found it's what people in the city are most concerned about.

It is also dominated the city's mayoral campaigns from the start.

But Mayor Keller says that the reality of the situation is being misrepresented.

While his campaign refused to return to our studio ahead of the runoff.

Mayor Keller did sit with me for a lengthy interview before November's regular local election.

The mayor told me that he inherited a dysfunctional police department and a ballooning crime rate.

But the steps his administration is taking are working.

>> Keller: When I came in, the department was literally falling apart.

We had hundreds of officers leaving a consent decree.

So we said, we're going to fight crime differently.

We're going to use technology, we're going to use civilians.

Now we finally have crime going down in every category.

But we have a long way to go.

But we know it's working.

And that's why I want to keep doing that, to make sure that we we finish and we follow through on this deep change that we've been working so hard on.

>> Nash: As you mentioned, crime is going down.

What would you say to Albuquerque residents who say they feel less safe than when you took office in 2017?

>> Keller: First, I would just understand that I, I probably feel the same way in a sense that the difference between perception is that it just trails, the actual crime statistics.

So, you know, I'm looking at a situation where we've had crime going up for ten years, and now, thanks to civilians and technology, it's finally going down.

But that just started last year.

And so I believe that if we continue that for another couple of years, we will all feel safer.

So, we just got to continue the path and not go backwards.

But I agree right now it still hasn't the perception hasn't caught up with the statistical reality.

And that's that's normal and expected.

>> Nash: So let's nail down what we know about the reality of Albuquerque's crime situation.

According to APD data, property crimes are down 23% from last year.

Violent crimes, including aggravated assaults, sex crimes and robberies are all down to a combined 13%.

Homicides are also down from 87 total last year to 58 so far this year.

That's an 18% drop.

As for arrests, they are up this year, with the city reporting a 26% increase in felony arrests, 18% increase in misdemeanor arrests and a bump in warrant arrests to now, we should acknowledge that these numbers are from APD, posted on the city website, and we are in an election year.

We have no reason to believe they're inaccurate.

But during our interviews leading up to November's election, two candidates, City Councilor Luis Sanchez and Mayling Armijo, both alleged without evidence that the city might be juking the stats, so to speak, to boost the mayor's credibility before the election.

There is no proof of that.

What we can report is these are the city's official stats and the Keller administration, as it does every year, has reported them to the FBI.

You can watch my entire interview with Mayor Keller from before the regular election right now on the New Mexico InFocus YouTube page.

The runoff election for Albuquerque mayor and city councilors in districts one and three is Tuesday, December 9th.

We'll break down the results and what they mean for residents of the city next Friday night here on In Focus.

>> Hudetz: It's the subtlety of the language change and the shift that like, I think there's concern, at least within public health community, that it's sowing a bit of confusion.

When you're saying talk to a doctor about options, what does that mean?

You mean other options, like is there an option besides getting vaccinated that could result in me preventing serious illness?

You know, the questions start to sort of snowball.

>> Nash: Executive producer Jeff Proctor's, interview with investigative reporter Mary Hudetz is coming up in just a bit.

New Mexico's greater Chaco landscape is at the center of a fight over oil, gas and indigenous land.

Next Friday, InFocus reporter Cailey Chella takes you inside that fight with the people living in its shadow.

Here's a first look at that story.

>> Atencio: This is the greater tribal landscape.

This is the ancient Navajo homeland from here, stretching north to Colorado is considered Dinétah, old.

The old among the Navajo is how it translates.

And that's where the Navajo people emerge.

Culturally at least, the level of sacredness, which can only be, compared to like the land of Canaan.

>> Chella: In 2023, after years of advocacy from Pueblo leaders and the Navajo Nation, the U.S.

Department of the interior enacted a 20 year ban on new federal oil and gas leasing within a ten mile buffer zone around Chaco Canyon.

When it was enacted, the ten mile zone was hailed as an important but incomplete step, with many tribal groups and advocates hoping to expand the length and area of the ban.

You'll know you've left the ten mile buffer zone when these yellow pipeline markers start popping back up like a less fun yellow brick road that lead not to Oz but to oil.

But now the Trump administration is working to expand domestic oil and gas production, stripping protections across the country and looking to Chaco next.

While the ban is largely seen positively, local communities are divided, including the Navajo Nation.

Some see the ban as negatively impacting livelihoods, and others say it's a step in the right direction to protecting cultural heritage and the health and well-being of the community.

Navajo organizer Mario Atencio, and Daniel Tso have seen the negative effects that the oil and gas industry has had on their community firsthand.

>> Tso: Anthropologists call it rituals, but on our side, it was to acknowledge that we exist between Mother Earth and Father Sky.

This is where we're put, and this is where we will live and we will thrive.

It's a spiritual food that provides sustenance to the people.

And so it's already impactful.

>> Chella: On a tour through dusty, sometimes rocky back roads.

I got a firsthand look at the land they and their family owned just outside Chaco's ten mile buffer zone, where oil and gas wells litter the sacred landscape.

>> Atencio: That is probably the most sacred place in our world.

And there's well, well, gas sites all the way in the whole area.

And it's hurts.

>> Nash: Oil and gas, sacred land and a temporary ten mile buffer zone that some feel doesn't go far enough.

Tune in next Friday when reporter Cailey Chella looks at what's at stake for the people who call Greater Chaco home.

The U.S.

Department of Justice this week added New Mexico to a growing list of states it's suing to gain access to its voter registration rolls.

These lists include voters personal identifying information like birthdays, as well as Social Security and driver's license numbers.

Among the six additional states now getting sued over the matter is Vermont.

That state's Democratic Senator Peter Welch, pushed Attorney General Pam Bondi on her office's rationale for requesting the data.

At a Senate hearing in October.

>> Bondi: We have every right to have that information.

>> Schiff: Here's where I'm goin >> Bondi: Why wouldn't they want to turn it over?

>> Schiff: You're a prosecutor with the awesome authority to make the decision that you're going to start an investigation against the state or against an individual.

And I know from your experience as a county prosecutor and as the attorney general in Florida, you took seriously that obligation to have a factual basis before you proceed.

Right.

>> Bondi: Senator, I take that role.

I take my oath very seriously.

and I take fair and free elections in this country very seriously.

All and that information are office is entitled to have that information.

litigation on that.

>> Schiff: Here's the question I have >> Bondi: In a statement Tuesday Bondi said quote, accurate voter rolls are the cornerstone of fair and free elections, and too many states have fallen into a pattern of noncompliance with basic voter roll maintenance.

New Mexico's elections were ranked best in the nation last year by MIT Elections Performance Index.

Alex Curtis, spokesperson for Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, said as much in an email to us, adding, quote, any suggestion otherwise is baseless.

In response to the lawsuit, Curtis added quote, we have already made available to the DOJ the public data federal law requires they are seeking access to sensitive data that's simply not needed to comply with voter list maintenance and which is protected by state law.

Curtis says the Secretary of State's office will always vigorously defend new Mexico's voters and election system integrity.

Just before the Thanksgiving break, a story from nonprofit newsroom ProPublica caught our eye with the headline The Indian Health Service is flagging Vaccine Related speech.

Doctors say they're being censored.

It carried the byline of investigative journalist Mary Hudetz, who reported on New Mexico for the Associated Press back in the 2010's and is now back in Albuquerque after a stint at the Seattle Times.

Well, now it is known that U.S.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has long been skeptical of vaccines and has even suggested without evidence, that they're connected to conditions like autism.

But she has uncovered some concrete evidence of how RFK Jr is reshaping the federal government's approach to public health.

She dropped in for a conversation with executive producer Jeff Proctor about what she found.

>> Jeff: Mary, it's great to have you here, and welcome back to New Mexico and focus.

>> Hudetz: Thank you.

I'm glad to be here.

>> Jeff: I read with, I think, what would have been pretty sufficient horror your, November 21st story and ProPublica.

I think part of the reason that I was so horrified is because the notion of censorship does that to me.

And this felt, to me, at least at bottom, to be a story about censorship in the public health space and what some of the potential consequences might be.

I would like to begin, though, by rewinding the clock just a bit and asking how a year ago was the federal Indian Health Service messaging saying its recommendations on immunizations and vaccinations?

>> Hudetz: Yeah, I would say a year ago Yeah, I would say a year ago and even going back a few years, I looked closely at, their social media presence, which is how a lot is communicated this these days with the public.

And it was robust.

Like the volume was really high.

There were many, many like fliers and messages going out saying, very clearly that getting vaccinated is the best defense against serious illness.

For whether that's measles, flu, Covid, and so I would say in addition to that, what I saw a year ago, like in years past before really January 20th of this year, was that also like the there was subtle messaging in addition to saying very clearly, get vaccinated.

There was also like smiling and like photos of families and just sort of indirectly conveying that, you know, vaccines are a positive thing.

>> Jeff: They had some heart to them.

Right?

I saw some of those images in your pieces.

Sort of culturally relevant images, those kinds of things.

>> Hubetz: Yeah, for sure.

I think IHS leaned it very much into the cultural aspect of it.

And this idea that getting vaccinated is not totally about you at least leaned into these very, you know, many cultures have these values that I think native values of community and taking care of your elders and thinking about future generations.

That messaging was very present, within like a class IHS Facebook pages, you know.

>> Jeff: And what about now, Mary?

How is IHS, messaging its recommendations around vaccines?

These days.

>> Hudetz: I think, has changed quite a bit.

And, you know, in some ways, I had to have public health professionals walk me through like the significance of these changes.

But whereas last year you would see the direct message about getting vaccinated and that being the best way, best defense against illness.

Now, that sort of language typically, if ever is not there, in a flier or any sort of public messaging, now or even just like sort of a more stark, like public service announcement.

Now it says like, talk to your doctor about your vaccine options >> Jeff: shared decison making >> Hudetz: Yes.

That's used a lot and I would say like the administration, you know, Trump administration and like HHS today, like they say like, well, we're just trying to encourage people to talk to their doctors and make a person like vaccinations, an individual decision which does contrast a bit with the communication here, like a year ago, leaning into native values of the community decision, a community responsibility of vaccination.

So that is extremely different.

Of course, the volume has decreased significantly.

And one thing I had as part of my reporting gone.

And, you know, one thing, as a reporter, we're always trying to like, we're hearing there's a change.

How do we document that?

So I went and looked at a several years worth of, IHS messaging and saw like in the past, there was post every day and, then at the start of this year, there was none, you know, and we'd learned later that that was because most likely, that IHS had decided to go back and, I think remove a lot of that messaging post, Trump Trump's like a term.

>> Jeff: That leads me to my next question.

Ordinarily, my question would be what changed?

I think the simple short answer is Robert F Kennedy Jr.

Of course, the Health and Human Services secretary, whose department oversees IHS.

But what is the public justification for this shift in messaging?

What did they tell you?

What are they saying in terms of the difference between the way they talk about this now versus how they did before?

>> Hudetz: I mean, what they're telling, what the administration is telling me?

They're saying like, again, like we're we want to encourage something called shared decision making.

And all doctors will say, of course, like if you have any questions, talk to your doctor.

But it's the subtlety of the language change and the shift that like, I think there's concern, at least within public health community, that it's showing a bit of confusion.

When you're saying talk to a doctor about options, what does that mean?

You mean other options, like is there an option besides getting vaccinated that could result in me preventing serious illness?

You know, the questions start to sort of snowball, a bit with the current messaging.

At least that's what's been described to me.

>> Jeff: And I can imagine that it was somewhat unsatisfied, by the way, that the questions were answered.

Just opened up a Pandora's box for you in terms of what went forward.

I want to catch up to just a little bit of context here.

I think that many of my viewers will remember, the way that the Covid 19 pandemic ravaged the Navajo Nation.

But for those who don't, can you talk just a little bit about the toll that the Coronavirus took on those communities?

>>Hudetz: Yeah, absolutely, there were times when -- during the pandemic where I think the Navajo Nation could have been considered ground zero for, the Covid outbreak in the country, dealt with some of the highest fatality rates in the country.

Tons of socioeconomic factors contributed to this, you know, so, for instance, I think a lack of adequate housing or adequate amount of housing, people have pointed to running water.

And also like even with messaging like the broad, you know, the lack of like cell service, I think could sort of inhibit back in 2020 or 2021, like IHS is ability to communicate about virus prevention.

Now, the other hand, like the Navajo Nation did an extraordinary job of like turning the tide on the virus.

I think by September or the fall of 2020, Anthony Fauci was, the former, like, preeminent disease expert of the federal government.

Was commending the Navajo Nation for, like, practicing social distancing and masking.

And of course, like I think masking is still very present.

If you go to Gallup, New Mexico today, and then like, I think because of the one thing that was said to me and which I could feel, I think coming from a child coming from myself was like the the memory of infectious disease is so present for like native people.

And so I think that can often like spur, there's sometimes distrust of the government and vaccine messaging in some places, but by and large, there's also like an embrace of any measure that would help, you know, minimize the impacts of really like, atrocious diseases.

You know.

>> Jeff: Mary, when the Covid vaccine did finally arrive, how did the Indian Health Services old strategy for how to message, around things like vaccination and immunization, how did that impact or maybe help improve things on the Navajo Nation?

>> Hudetz: Yeah, I think they basically had a strategy in place for always saying like, vaccines are the best way to prevent illness.

Before Covid, I think the memory of infectious disease was still like present in native communities.

And so, and understanding, like the effects of vaccination and what that could do for a community, I think that they really just elevated the messaging.

And then, you know, when the vaccine came available, of course, there's like this rush to get it.

And then nationally, like some, yeah, like distrust took place of the Covid vaccine.

And, but I think IHS certainly persisted in that way.

Like I said earlier, like the volume of the messaging went way up.

And then beyond the messaging, there was also this, like, extraordinary, push to make sure everyone got the vaccine.

So they were going to clinics.

They're going to chapter houses, and very small communities that might not have a clinic like a true IHS or tribal clinic in it to make sure everyone had access to the vaccine.

Like one thing public health experts will often say to me in my reporting is like vaccine access is the key.

And anything that like puts a hurdle in that starts to like, become problematic.

You know, whether that is like more like kind of creating a fuzzy message or just not making the vaccine available.

>> Jeff: Let's get back to that a little bit from your story.

One of the parts that really kind of struck me, two doctors you spoke with said that they really began to notice the shift in messaging, the lack of messaging during this past winter and spring.

That would have been right around the time that a measles outbreak was starting to worsen across Texas and New Mexico.

So I want to get to the email that you reported on in this story, Mary, who is Ryan Goldtooth and what did he write in an email on March 13th?

>> Hudetz: Ryan Goldtooth is someone I reached out to to try to get comment from first of all, but he is a person who, I believe is described in emails as a public information officer for IHS, and he works on the Navajo Nation.

You know, he was one of many public information officers, I think, that were given directions to, explain to people within hospitals in IHS, these new directives that we're being handed down from somewhere higher than them.

About how to talk about vaccines moving forward, how like doctors needed to start to get more clearance, before they could even say, like, these very, what would have been very like normal medical terms in the past, which were measles, immunizations and vaccines, to say those words in public, they need a clearance, which I think, like I said, barriers like any barrier in public health, as I'm told, like starts to become a problem.

And so this sort of like can be a new step in the system to seek out clearance.

But I think what stood out to me was just, like I said, like, like the normalcy of these terms and that they were now becoming, considered buzzwords.

And I believe the email, I had obtained also said something to the effect of how like they had once been considered and this is very probably government speak, but a minimum threat and had been elevated to be categorized as a medium threat terms.

>> Jeff: And that's what would have triggered needing to have approval from a public information officer to use those words publicly.

Correct.

Gotcha.

>> Hudetz: Correct: >> Jeff: Gotcha.

>> Hudetz: And you know, that becomes an issue, I think doctors or anyone who wants to go out and give a public health presentation and works for the IHS, or they want to create these fliers and posters that we're talking about that, that say, like, get your flu or measles shot like that starts to need to go through a whole new, start a process for approval.

And what happens?

I mean, I think like the great fear and hasn't happened is like, what if, you know, measles is cropping up in the southwest, on both sides, like we've had the outbreak that originated in on the Texas New Mexico border right now.

There's been a high number of cases in Arizona, Utah.

So east and west.

I think just the concern is like at this point and maybe the question I will keep kind of asking as a reporter is like.

Is the response fast enough is, you know, are people able to respond to, cases, whether it's measles or something else?

>> Jeff: I did notice in your story that we don't know yet.

And in terms of sort of getting to the impact portion of the story, we don't know yet whether this shift in messaging, this decrease in messaging has led to a reduced uptake, for example, in Covid and flu vaccines.

Did I read that right?

>> Hudetz: Yes.

>> Jeff: Okay.

>> Hudetz: And MMR, I would say measles, mumps, rubella for children.

And I think part of that like well, and it's only, it's been less than a year.

Right.

And things sort of like data runs on cycles.

But on the other side, it's worth mentioning, like what the Navajo Nation is doing, you know, the, the landscape of health care on that reservation, is pretty complex.

There's the Indian Health Service, which has been there forever.

And, it's really like the known name, you know, in health care.

But the tribe has also taken control of many hospitals and runs those, has an epidemiology office, works with John Hopkins.

So there's still a lot of work on vaccines being done.

Even as, like, IHS seems to have changed its, like approach to public communication >> Jeff: Yeah.

While we obviously can't quantify yet the impact that this has had on the potential reduction in vaccine uptake, one of the things I really appreciated about your story is that you talked to a number of actual clinicians, and while we may not know the data yet, the folks who spoke to you in terms of Indian Health Service, clinicians, practitioners are unambiguous, for the most part.

And what they said to you, I want to read you a quote from one woman who spoke to you.

Just before she quit her job at IHS.

She said, I can't keep people safe.

I don't have any of the words anymore to say anything.

I need to say.

Mary, that is bleak.

What will you be watching for going forward in terms of the way IHS serves those communities?

>> Hudetz: I will be looking very closely at everything they put out publicly.

Whether they're starts to be even maybe a change.

Sometimes reporting has that capability.

I would also say be really vigilant about looking at, Tracking these measles outbreaks and, of course, hoping that they do not become much bigger, but also seeing where they move to.

And, whether the IHS is really equipped to respond and is responding, in a way that people outside of the IHS think is sufficient, for something like measles.

>> Jeff: Mary, thank you so much for sharing your reporting with us and we will continue watching and reading.

Thanks again.

Thank you.

>> Hudetz: Thank you.

>> Nash: Thanks to Propublica's Mary Hudetz for coming by to break down her reporting.

Access to high speed internet is no longer a luxury.

It is increasingly essential to work, attend school, get health care to stay connected and informed.

And yet, about 45,000 households and small businesses in New Mexico don't have it.

The state's Office of Broadband Access and Expansion is working to cut that number down to zero.

With the help of federal and state funding, and has a new director steering that work.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham appointed Jeff Lopez, a former staffer for U.S.

Senator Ben Ray Lujan, to the job in June.

He joins us now to discuss the efforts to get all of New Mexico online.

Director Lopez, thank you so much for coming on the show.

>> Lopez: Thanks, Nash.

Thanks for having me.

>> Nash: So, last year, your predecessor, acting director, Drew Lovelace, was on this program, and he told our senior producer, Lou de Vizio, quote, if the internet was easy to build, it would have already been built.

So what is so hard about building it?

What are the challenges?

>> Lopez: There are many challenges.

One of the things I deal with on a daily basis is just state government, and it's, a challenge of making sure that we have the right staff in place, the funding necessary.

The procurement steps.

But that is really our day to day.

But there's much more fundamental issues.

Internet is an essential good.

It's essential service.

It is a utility.

If folks don't have access to the internet, they can't participate in education or health care or workforce development or work in many cases.

So that creates a pretty huge demand for internet.

And it's not always the situation where industry can meet that demand, particularly if you're a low income households in a very rural area, which we have many of in New Mexico.

So that is why internet is critical.

We need access to the internet for all those, participation in society, whether it's, workforce development, accessing education, making sure that everybody in New Mexico has these resources.

>> Nash: And, last year, Lovelace said at the time, around 45,000 New Mexico households lacked broadband access.

High speed internet.

Yeah.

Where does that stand today?

>> Lopez: Yeah.

>> Nash: Where does that stand today?

>> Lopez: So about 90% of households, that's, broadband cervical locations, is what we call them, but that includes households and small businesses.

Has access to internet.

What we define as access is 100mbps download and 20mbps upload.

And that's what you need for a teleconference or, access to an online class.

>> Nash: Could you stream a video at that speed link just to give people ideas?

>> Lopez: Yeah, you can stream, without a lot of need for buffering at that speed.

So all those things combined, usually you can have, 3 or 4 members of a household doing everything they need at the same time with 120.

>> Nash: And so 90%.

Where does that stand?

We had 45,000 New Mexican households last year.

Do we have a number that would be comparable to that today?

>> Lopez: Yes.

So right now, today, 90% of households and about 90,000 locations are unserved or underserved.

But we have funding deployed that has reduced that to 45,000.

So with our state funding, with the Connect Mexico Fund, with federal funding from the American Rescue Plan, Act Capital Project Fund, we've been able to reduce that to about 45,000 locations.

>> Nash: So that's about the same as it was last year.

Is that right?

>> Lopez: The number of locations served has decreased, but the amount that we've deployed has increased.

So we are closing that gap.

So last year >> Nash: it's not apples to apples in that it's different sites that are unserved at this point is what you're saying.

>> Lopez: Yes.

>> Nash: Okay.

>> Lopez: But just, last month, we submitted our final proposal to the federal government for connecting those last 45,000 locations.

So that's where the previous acting director really focused on.

That's what we are focused on, is making sure that we get to 100% and increasing from 90% to 100% all locations served >> Nash: And he had said it would probably take about five years to get that number down to zero.

Is that still your timeline?

>> Lopez: That is still the timeline.

But by the end of this year, the end of 2025, we're hoping to have enforceable commitments.

That means signed grant agreements between the Office of Broadband and Internet Service Providers, rural electric co-ops, low-Earth orbit satellite providers to connect every household in New Mexico.

So by the end of this year, we're hoping to have those grant agreements, those enforceable legal commitments to serve everybody in New Mexico.

From there, the work really begins.

You start the the capital infrastructure projects, whether it's digging trenches for fiber, standing up wireless towers for fixed wireless or launching satellites for, some of our more rural areas in New Mexico.

>> Nash: And that's only just a few weeks out at this point.

And that feels realistic, still?

>> Lopez: It feels realistic.

We are hopeful.

At this point, 19 states have been approved by the federal government.

So each state has submitted a final proposal to the National Telecommunications Information Administration.

19 have been approved.

So we're not one of the first tranche, but we're hoping to be on the next.

>> Nash: Okay.

And President Donald Trump has vocally opposed the Digital Equity Act.

So to what extent did the white House changing hands this year affect federal support, federal funding for broadband expansion?

>> Lopez: So, I was a staff member in Congress in 2021 when Congress was negotiating the bipartisan infrastructure law.

That's the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

There are a couple of broadband programs included, that Congress passed and the president signed at that time.

One is our broadband equity access deployment.

That's capital infrastructure, the $675 million that we're seeking approval of, today, hoping to get it very soon.

Another component was the Digital Equity Act.

What you referenced, that was unfortunately canceled by the current federal administration.

That meant money for, access and adoption, making sure that everybody understood how to participate in the services that we are creating, whether it's from, building fiber or fixed wireless.

A lot of households don't understand necessarily what is capable, how to access work, how to access health care.

That's what the Digital Equity Act was intended.

>> Nash: But the Trump administration does back this other pot of money that you are looking to deploy by the by the end of the year.

>> Lopez: Yeah, fortunately, all these programs are passed in a bipartisan manner with the bipartisan infrastructure law.

But the current ministration is still very supportive of the capital infrastructure that we need through bead.

>> Nash: Ok, and while the the plan is not listed as approved, you are expecting it to get that approval in the next, what, weeks?

>> Lopez: In the next weeks.

Yes.

Hopefully, before the end of the year is what they promised us.

We submitted our final proposal on September 4th.

That was our proposal to connect 43,000 locations, those small businesses, those households in New Mexico with broadband connectivity.

>> Nash: And now, during the pandemic, I remember hearing a lot of stories of students who didn't have broadband access needed to be submitting assignments online, attending class online.

And they were doing things like going to the parking lots of restaurants like McDonald's to get Wi-Fi.

You all have, the Community Connect program that you're rolling out, in hopes of expanding the number of public Wi-Fi spots.

Is that right?

So what does that look like?

How how would people access public Wi-Fi?

>> Lopez: Yeah, so the Community Connect program is through our state, connect New Mexico fund.

It's state funding.

We deployed it in October of this year.

We're taking applications now, and there's $7 million available.

The purpose of this program is exactly what you said during the pandemic, we had students gathered around libraries, gathered around fast food restaurants, trying to access the internet to do their homework.

That really brought the point home.

There was a pretty common understanding before the pandemic, but now I think it's the universal understanding that you need these services in communities, in households to make sure everybody can participate.

The community Connect is extending a public Wi-Fi, so either on your phone or your laptop or whatever device you come with, that would mean you were able to access the internet at community anchor institutions and things like libraries, health care clinics where people gather today is where we need these services available.

The grant program is prioritizing areas that don't have that access today, that don't necessarily have even a LTE or 5G signal for your cell phone, making sure that they have access to these public resources, able to access everything else they need to participate.

>> Nash: And we were talking about unserved households.

Would a public Wi-Fi start to chip away at that number?

Does it count if somebody has access to public Wi-Fi?

>> Lopez: Public Wi-Fi is really focused on those community anchor institutions where people leave their household and gather within the community.

The other programs that we have available, the Student Connect program and the capital infrastructure, whether it's through state funds or federal funds, that is where we are providing service directly to the household.

>> Nash: Okay, and I do want to talk about Student Connect.

But first, with the Community Connect program, this public Wi-Fi program, how much money is available and who can apply?

>> Lopez: Community connect is the $7 million available.

We are allowing, local communities to apply.

So state, municipal, county, government, we are allowing internet service providers to apply if they have support from those local governments, rural electric co-ops are eligible.

And of course, our tribal partners, our tribal governments and tribal agencies are able to apply for that funding, focusing on, community anchor institutions on Indian country.

>> Nash: My understanding is the grant program is reimbursement based.

So do those say local governments need to already have the money to front those costs?

And if so, how much are we talking.

>> Lopez: No, the l ocal governments do not have a match requirement.

So we do not require, the local governments to put up any matching funds for this grant program.

It is reimbursement based, which is which means they build the infrastructure and we, reimburse them.

That's typically within 10 to 30 days.

So it's not really expected to put that burden on the local governments to carry the cost.

The state government will provide it as soon as possible.

>> Nash: So how do how do they pay for building that, before they get their reimbursement then?

>> Lopez: Typically if they have any bonding authority or any existing funds.

And again, it's a pretty minimal timeline and we do allow advance payment.

So if a local government in particular is not able to carry that cost even for 10 to 30 days, they can request advance payment in our reimbursement system.

And that's all state procurement.

Something I referenced earlier.

It's within our state laws and regulations, making sure that these programs work as intended.

And the bureaucracy can be a big impediment to actually getting the funds deployed on the ground.

But we're trying to make it as easy as possible.

We have a team of project managers that can really guide our tribal governments, to guide our internet service providers, our rural electric co-ops, through that process, making sure that they are submitting reimbursements and actually getting paid for the work that they're doing.

>> Nash: How much are we talking?

Like, what would what would the reimbursement be for?

How much?

>> Lopez: Yeah, it varies.

It depends on, what the reimbursement request is.

Sometimes it's for engineering and planning, actually laying out the network diagrams for buildings infrastructure, sometimes it's for trenching, for actually digging, into the earth and digging into hard rock and some of our hard to connect areas in New Mexico.

And that can be very expensive.

Sometimes it's, personnel costs for making sure that the engineers or the experts that are actually doing the construction.

>>Nash: Let's say they need all of that.

I mean, let's say they are unserved, not just underserved.

What what kind of, price tag are we talking?

>> Lopez: Our average for that final proposal we submitted to NTI is $10,000.

Or actually, a little less than that, about $9,000 per location.

So that's typically especially in our hard to connect parts, these are the last 5 to 6% of New Mexico that has not been connected, where the market hasn't provided that service.

And it's more expensive than other parts of New Mexico.

But in our very rural areas, that's on average about $9,000 to connect an individual household or location.

So you can see where a household is not able to carry that cost.

And in many cases, local government is not able to provide that, upfront capital expenditure to actually connect, those households to fiber or fixed wireless.

It can be pretty pricey, but it means access to society today.

It's pretty it's vitally important that everybody in New Mexico has this ability to connect to the internet.

>> Nash: And, you mentioned another grant program, the Student Connect program.

It aims to get more than 3600 students and staff online by June.

That's about six months from now.

Are you on track for that timeline?

>> Lopez: Yeah, so Student Connect, was again, part of that state funding, the Connect New Mexico Fund.

The legislature mandated that we deploy $25 million for connecting students in New Mexico.

So it's again focused on those unserved and underserved households with students in them that do not have access to educational resources via the internet at home.

>> Nash: Okay, so we're not talking schools, we're talking households.

>> Lopez: Yes, so the technological solution this one uses is largely fixed wireless.

So we will pay for construction of a wireless tower or attachment on an existing tower and be able to connect that via antennas on households to the internet.

So that is the most cost effective.

And this is again coming out of the pandemic, where many of those households didn't have access coming out of many state, programs focused on education in New Mexico within the household, making sure everybody has access to close that homework gap.

>> Nash: And, what's the onus on the homeowner or the, the renter to get that satellite connection?

>> Lopez: Zero cost.

So the requirement of the program is that the sub grantee, whether it's a local government or a internet service provider, provides access for at least three years, hopefully longer, but that the individual students in that household will get to access the internet for free for three years.

>> Nash: Okay.

And, according to an analysis by the Santa Fe New Mexican, not all Student Connect grant recipients were kind of receiving the same amount.

It looked like the Espanola public schools received about a million, whereas Quemado independent schools got 2.5 million.

How does your office determine how to divvy up those funds?

>> Lopez: So, a big part of the cost is the what's called backhaul to those wireless towers.

And sometimes it's a pretty straight shot and not very long distance to have that fiber backbone to the wireless tower to connect individual households.

Sometimes it's much further.

Sometimes you have to go for tens to dozens, hundreds of miles.

>> Nash: And this is underground fiber?

>> Lopez: It's mixed either attaching to existing poles where you can see a lot of old copper lines or power lines.

There is, sometimes the possibility to attach to poles and that's a little bit more affordable.

But oftentimes and the most resilient infrastructure is buried.

So that is probably the most future proof is when you can actually bury the fiber for that.

>> Nash: Okay, so when we're looking at Quemado that may have been a further distance to get the fiber to where the tower needed to be.

>> Lopez: Exactly.

I don't have the details of that project in front of me, but that's most likely the case.

>> Nash: Sure okay, thanks for explaining that.

The public education department, we've been, reporting somewhat on their new action plan to come into compliance.

Finally, with the Yazzie Martinez ruling, part of that is about, you know, educational equity, making sure that all students, including at risk students, have the same access to a constitutionally sufficient education.

I imagine that internet access is a piece of that.

So to what degree is your office collaborating with the public education department or sees your work as part of this educational equity push on the state level?

>> Lopez: Yeah, the Office of Broadband Access and Expansion owe by is not a party to the case individually, but as a agency of the state, we are definitely involved.

I've been working directly with the public Education department to see where the programs that we have deployed, focusing on those unserved, underserved students really meets the needs of that litigation.

So with the Student Connect program providing $25 million to connect those households, and we're really focused on those unserved students, whether they are, within the tribal education system or in our public education systems, in our rural districts, we are able to provide equitable access to these resources in the home for education.

So it is meeting the needs, meeting the demands of that case of Martinez Yazzie.

We also have the bead program, which is connecting those last 43,000 locations, which means 100%, 100%, every single household in New Mexico will be connected by broadband.

That solves a lot of the problems of the technological aspects of that case, where there was not equitable access, where some households didn't have it, some households, unfortunately, still won't be able to afford it.

And I think that's the next step, making sure everybody can afford it.

>> Nash: And are these steps that you're taking, official within the action plan or within the the court mandate that, the state is under?

>> Lopez: The public education department work directly with us to include some items in the action plan.

And I think there's about four items that specifically cite the Office of Broadband as the responsible party for making sure it gets done.

>> Nash: Okay.

Jeff Lopez, thanks so much for coming on New Mexico in Focus.

>> Lopez: Thanks for having me Nash, I appreciate it.

>> Nash: We appreciate the state broadband director, Jeff Lopez, stopping by the studio for that conversation.

And thanks to everyone who contributed to this week's show.

And a reminder that if you are an Albuquerque voter, the runoff election for mayor and city Council Districts one and three are this coming Tuesday.

Early voting wraps up tomorrow, Saturday, December 6th at 7 p.m.

On Election Day, 50 voting sites will be open from 7 to 7, with same day registration available.

Santa Fe voters, you, of course, are not returning to the polls because your city uses ranked choice voting and automatic runoff of sorts.

Not only did you find out on Election Day that City Councilor Mike Garcia will be your next mayor, but at no additional cost.

Bernalillo County, on the other hand, has estimated the price tag of Tuesday's runoff at more than $1.5 million.

City councilors rejected an effort last year to institute ranked choice voting in the state's largest city.

Dan Boyd over at the Journal reports Tuesday's election has spurred some renewed interest in giving that effort another go.

So we'll keep an eye on that.

Join us here next week when we will break down the election results and what they could mean for Albuquerque's future.

For New Mexico PBS, I'm Nash Jones.

Until then, stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You.