At its monthly meeting Tuesday (July 27), the State Investment Council (SIC) voted to extend by three years a contract to Peter Dekom, who is serving as the SIC’s film consultant.

But — like so many discussions about film production backed by the state government — it didn’t come without some spirited debate.

First, there was some discussion about Dekom’s salary. While it has been reduced by $90,000, Dekom will still earn $260,000 a year. Not bad, considering that SIC staffers admit that Dekom is only required to work a minimum of 30 hours a month Plus, since Dekom works in Hollywood, the SIC staff has few ways to monitor his work — outside of receiving copies of his e-mails. “We don’t have a time sheet for Mr. Dekom,” SIC Officer Steve Moise said.

Peter Dekom, NM Film Consultant

Second, there is concern that Dekom is vulnerable to a number of conflicts of interest since he advises producers and directors about doing business in New Mexico while, at the same time, his law firm writes contracts and represents Hollywood clients who make and distribute movies and television shows.

And then there are larger questions, such as: Should the state even be in the business of film-making? (Zero-interest loans are among some of the enticements New Mexico has offered to movie producers.) And should the SIC — which is pledged to generate revenue for the state — be involved at all?

After nearly an hour of sometimes pointed debate, Dekom’s contract was extended by a 7-3 vote. Council member Lee Rawson led the dissent:

The other two members who voted against the contract extension were Michael Martin and Land Commissioner Pat Lyons.

Gov. Bill Richardson has been a big supporter of the film business in New Mexico and his cabinet secretary, Katherine Miller, defended Dekom’s extension, pointing out that if the SIC board ever wants to end Dekom’s tenure, it can do so by simply exercising a 60-day termination clause. That seemed to assuage a number of members, including Peter Frank:

Budget secretary Miller also said the film program was created with legislative intent to set aside money for films. “We have it, we have a program and we need to move forward,” Miller said.

But Rawson countered by saying that the SIC is not mandated to spend money on the film program, that is merely allowed to make investments in TV and movie productions. And he’s not comforted by the 60-day termination clause:

One other interesting note from the meeting: During a question and answer session, a representative of the state film program mentioned that the movie iniatitive generates more than 4,000 jobs for the state. But when pressed about the distinction of whether that figure actually represents 4,000 people working at 4,000 individual jobs, the state official admitted that the figure could represent a double-counting, i.e., one person who works in two or three different film productions could be counted two or three times.