County Government Gets Weird Again

County government is getting a little weird again.

At Tuesday's meeting: (1) someone urged the Commission to put County Manager Fernando Macias on administrative leave; (2) Macias accused County Commissioner Shannon Reynolds and Sheriff Kim Stewart of “blatant misrepresentations”; (3) County Attorney Nelson Goodin told Reynolds, “I'm trying to give you my legal opinion and you seem to want to argue” – then walked away; and (4) we learned that Macias and Stewart never sat down and discussed a contract (for magistrate court security) they were at odds over. 

The Third Judicial District Court (“3JDC”) now has management responsibility for magistrate court and wanted the Sheriff's Office (“DASO”) to provide security. Somehow both Macias and Stewart talked with 3JDC – separately. At one point, per 3JDC sources, there were two contracts floating around. 

As 3JDC Executive Officer David Borunda said Wednesday, “We wanted to fill this critical security need. We didn't care who signed for the county. Who had to approve it on the County's side was between the County and the Sheriff. We didn't care, and wouldn't have been in a position to offer a legal opinion.” He confirmed that the Administrative Office of the Courts reviewed the contract had “didn't have any concern” based on the fact that Sheriff Stewart signed it. 

Apparently Macias doesn't talk to Stewart. Both told Reynolds they hadn't sat down and talked about this. Eventually 3JDC and Stewart signed an agreement. DASO started providing security August 1^st.

Macias told the Commission that Judge Arrieta told him the BoCC needed to approve the security contract. Sources at 3JDC (and DASO) say different. After seeing two versions and discussing them with Macias, 3JDC signed the one the sheriff had signed. So 3JDC knew of the intra-County bickering and signed with DASO. 

How did Macias, whose job includes helping elected officials such as Stewart to do their jobs, not sit down and discuss this with her? That's bad government – although, individually, these are good people, who care about the county. 

We also learned that Stewart filed an EEOC complaint against Macias, alleging that he discriminates against female county elected officials. I have my doubts about that EEOC claim, but wonder whether the County followed proper procedures. County officials referred it to an outside law firm. That firm rejected the Complaint without investigating. In three days. Like a judge granting summary judgment, essentially announcing that even if the plaintiff's factual allegations are correct, there's no legal case. But is that appropriate here?

Personalities complicate things. Although Macias is smart and charming, and brings a boatload of relevant experience, I keep hearing allegations that as judge and as county manager he doesn't always play well with others. Macias might say he is sticking to laws and policies others may not understand or like.

The larger issue is inherent in our mixed system in which elected officials are autonomous – but not really. Certain things aren't spelled out in our laws, which go back to territorial days. (For example, no statute or court decision clearly says whether or not a sheriff can sign a contract without commission approval.) A county manager wants to make sure things run right (as he sees right) while elected officials say they were elected to run an office, and county management shouldn't use purchasing procedures or legal review of contracts as a way of dictating to them.

But “can't we all get along?”

                                               -30-

[This column appeared this morning, Sunday, 18 August 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air Wednesday and Saturday on KRWG, Thursday afternoon on KTAL (101.5, FM / www.lccommunityradio.org ) and is available at the KRWG website.  Comments, including criticisms, are invited, here and on those sites.]

[This continuing issue will likely warrant a further column in the foreseeable future.  I should say, these issues, involving the relationships among county officials, the conflicts between elected officials and the county manager, and the degree to which those may be hindering effective county government.]

[Ultimately, the Commission moved to postpone the court contract discussion to its next meeting.  One thing still not clear to me is why the contract with signatures by Third Judicial District Court and DASO was not presented to the Commission, to make clear that one option was to approve that contract as such, after the fact (or if the Law Department insisted, add a signature line for the County Commission, or sign it again -- whatever!).  Also unclear is who at the County is trying to insist on two additional provisions unacceptable to the Court: one involves allowing DASO to hire private security guards in a pinch, and the other would allow either side to cancel the contract in 30 days instead of 60.  If I were the court I'd sure refuse that, lest some political madness at the county lead to a cancellation that left me less than a month to get a new deal in place with someone else. There's also an issue about a provision in the signed contract regarding cost of living increases for deputies -- when the County has a union contract with them.]

[Meanwhile I do want to mention, for folks interested in local government, that preceding the 5 November local election, we've scheduled discussions with candidates for some local offices, and will schedule others, on my show (Wednesdays, 8-10 a.m.) on KTAL, 101.5 FM Las Cruces.).  Walt Rubel and I will question candidates for Las Cruces Mayor on 2 October from 8 - 9:30, and candidates for City Council from 8 to 9 on the last two Wednesdays in September (District 2 on 18 September and District 4 on 25 September.  On 9 October from 8-9 we'll talk with Las Cruces school board candidates.  We have signed up all the candidates for those offices whom we know about, and even reached out to some we've heard may join races.  (If you know of someone planning to run, please tell him or her to contact me!)   We hope to add other races shortly.  Again, those will be on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (or stream us) starting at 8 a.m. on the stated Wednesdays, repeating from midnight to 2 a.m., and the station almost certainly will re-air them at some other time; and we'll also add them to our archives on the website.]

"Memory" -- copyright Peter Goodman

[By the way, Sunday I spoke w Lynn Ellins, Chair of the County Commission.  
He stated, as to the discrimination complaint, that "It came directly to me.  I sat down with Human Resources and the Legal Department.  Each of us concluded independently that she failed to state a cause of action.  She never sated that men would be treated differently.  But I decided to send it to an outside attorney, and she reached the same conclusion.  Procedure was followed.  On the face of the complaint, there was nothing to investigate.
On the issue of whether or not the sheriff had authority to sign, he stated [as an experienced lawyer] that he'd made his own independent search and concluded that she did not, that the Commission is responsible for all county matters fiscal in nature.]
[I remain concerned about how things are going in county government, and so stated to Mr. Ellins. As I see it, sometimes a discrimination complaint is made by someone who has fair reason to complain, but the grounds don't quite fit that legal hook.  A court or hearing officer might dismiss it on that grounds, and in some cases should; but that doesn't mean a good manager should ignore it.  Such complaints are crafted by non-lawyers, and if the complaint didn't include the allegation that Mr. Macias treated or would have treated a man differently, but didn't exclude that, maybe the investigator should have asked Sheriff Stewart.
Too, while Mr. Macias may be giving some county employees reason to complain, that doesn't mean he's evil, or ill-intentioned.  Good communication -- with all parties genuinely open to it -- might go a long way.]

A Bit of Democracy?

The County Commission got a redo on rural buses Tuesday – and did what seems the right thing.

Last meeting, dozens who wanted to speak didn't get the chance.

Tuesday turned into a rather wonderful moment. More than three dozen people spoke, including bus-riders speaking Spanish, several elected officials, and dedicated non-profit leaders. None opposed transit. We marveled at the variety of speakers, the power of their words, and the moving human stories. 

A 27-year Anthony resident recalled being pregant and unable to reach doctors in Las Cruces or buy medicine: “This service is very important to me. Please don't take it away!”

A lifelong county resident, Dr. Leti Mora, recalled that as a child in the 1960's she suffered severe eye problems requiring numerous surgeries. She used an old county bus service to reach doctors. Unfortunately, the bus ran just once a day. She and her mother had to spend a whole day in Las Cruces waiting for the return bus. During their long absence, her father suffered a stroke in their home. Had they returned earlier, he might have been saved from such complete paralysis. 

A 97-year-old man thanked the drivers, said “God Bless” everyone, and sweetly called for unity. 

State Senator Jeff Steinborn noted that 39% of our county's children live in poverty, compared to 22% nationwide.

City Councilor Gill Sorg said we needed the buses “for the poor, so they can rise out of poverty.” State Representative Nathan Small said that funding transit “would leave a better legacy,” adding, “If it's not working the way it should, make it better.”

The previous meeting was highly unpleasant. This was less so. Credit the passion of people who were angry they couldn't speak at the last meeting; but credit also the new county commissioners: they listened courteously to a parade of people hoping to preserve the buses. Chair Isobella Solis, disagreed with the speakers, but heard them out. For an hour and forty minutes. 

After lunch Billy Garrett moved to reinsert the transit $350,00 into the preliminary budget. John Vasquez seconded it, but noted he's still not persuaded that the buses are efficient and effective. (He'll give folks a chance to convince him, from 10-11 a.m. daily at the Ledesma Center, at 5745 Ledesma Drive.) Ramon Gonzalez joined them for a 3-2 vote. 

Folks for or against transit should visit Vasquez. All of us should thank Vasquez and Gonzalez for their willingness to be persuaded by their constituents.

The naysayers – Ben Rawson and Solis – advance two basic arguments: that the voters' rejection in 2016 of a tax increase to fund a $10 million bus system tied commissioners' hands, at least ethically; and unspecified mismanagement or inefficiency. If management problems got you defunded, several county departments would be gone already. The Commission should discuss its questions / complaints / suggestions with the transit board, and seek improvement – not blow up the whole thing.

And it's dishonest to claim the 2016 vote controls. If the voters had rejected a special tax to buy DASO $5 million worth of training cars and protective vests, would the commissioners have rejected Tuesday DASO's request for $350,000 for that? No. Nor should they. Many who voted against the tax because of cost might recognize the need to support a more modest system and see how it grows. Even Solis says she's not against public transit.

I'm glad our commission voted to spend $1.75 per person next year – less than the price of a cup of coffee these days – on a really worthy effort. I hope they stick to that.

                                                       -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, as well as on the newspaper's website the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.]

[This is the announcement on the county's website regarding Mr. Vasquez's daily "Coffee with the Commissioner" sessions.  I'll go one morning this week.]

[Folks concerned about the buses should probably mark 25July on their calendars.  I've no reason to think commissioners will change their minds on this; but it happens.]

Commission Ducks Transit Issue -- Citizens Chant "Shame!"

Tuesday's county commission meeting started with Commission Chair Isabella Solis urging citizens to respect commissioners and ended with citizens chanting “Shame!” 

At issue: should the County provide $350,000 toward continuing bus service throughout the south county?

The transit folks were to make a presentation. The chamber was full of people wanting to speak. Suddenly none of this was permitted.

The Chair asked for a motion. Commissioner Garrett made one. Some thought Commissioner Gonzales, whose district includes many who use the buses, would second. He didn't. Meanwhile Commissioner Vasquez had disappeared – apparently to avoid facing the issue. (He hasn't yet explained.)

An unseconded motion dies. No vote. No discussion. No public comment. Gonzales stayed silent. Vasquez stayed away. Garrett tried to withdraw the motion, to permit discussion. Commissioner Rawson said the commission should move on. 

The room erupted in shouts of “Shame! Shame!” I went to the microphone to urge the commission, if it wanted respect, to extend respect – by letting folks speak. 

Solis is right: we should show commissioners respect – or at least civility. “Civility” and “courtesy” differ from “respect.” Respect is something we feel. I respect the commissioners for taking on a tough job and for hoping to do right. I respect Garrett and Rawson for standing up and defending their positions when asked. When newer commissioners duck questions, I can't respect that. I hope they learn better soon. Meanwhile, we should express our disappointment courteously. Courtesy should be mutual.

I'm appalled that the commissioners simply refused to hear their constituents. Garrett called their conduct “disrespectful, whatever your position.” Some came from the south county, at some inconvenience. Bus dispatcher Leticia Lopez said, “I hear the cries of need every day from people who ride the buses.” She described a lady from Mesquite with two children, whose mother was dying of cancer in Juarez. They take the blue line to Anthony, the purple line to El Paso, then the metro to Mexico. “Before us, she had no way to go even to Anthony.”

Commissioner Gonzalez, these are your people. You coached many of them. You taught them history. You requested their votes as an upstanding man who cared about them and their communities. 

I haven't heard good reasons not to listen to the bus company. Rawson says he opposes the measure because “the voters rejected it.” Voters rejected $10 million to start something – not $350,000 to keep something going, with the state paying more. (Further discussion on today's blog post.) The buses seemed a good idea, seem to be gaining riders, serve a need, and have drawn funding from other sources. Our poorer citizens need transportation – and our rural areas have plenty of poor people.

That doesn't mean the system is perfect! I hear meaningful criticisms and questions, not just from commissioners. But elected commissioners should face this issue like grownups, listening to the arguments, asking appropriate questions, and making reasonable decisions. (They probably should approve the funding but suggest improvements.) 

Whether the bus company and its riders are right or wrong or some of each, sticking our fingers in our ears and running away, as Vasquez and the others did, is not fair or meaningful consideration of an issue. (Vasquez has scheduled three community meetings this week.)

Proponents note that the requested amount is only $1.75 per county resident. I'm delighted to pay $1.75 so that residents of the South County have low-cost transportation to schools, jobs, medical facilities, and family. Friday I sent a check for $17.50. That should cover me -- plus Rawson, Solis, Gonzalez, Vasquez, Enrique Vigil, and four neighbors.

                                                        -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 14 May 2017, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website -- and a spoken version airs on KRWG a couple of times on Wednesdays.]

[Further reflections on "respect," and Chairperson Solis's request for it: as I mentioned, I feel we ought all to be civil and courteous to each other as much as we can; but I'd urge the Commission to gather respect by conducting business with more apparent thought, more openness and transparency, and more consideration (and respect) for constituents.   As the Sun-News recently editorialized, government is an open, loud, and sometimes messy business.  Commissioners should not have run from reporters, immediately after sacking Julia Brown a few weeks ago.  They should have faced those reporters, even if fear of a lawsuit would limit what they could say to explain their action.  They should have listened to the citizens who'd come to speak on transit, and to the transit folks, either during initial public comment or when the agenda item came up.  They should have listened both because they might have learned something (as Commissioner Vasquez has said he did when riding the buses and talking to folks, which was a good thing on his part) and because people who've come all that way to speak on an issue that matters to them deserve that respect.  If (as some fellow commissioners believe) Solis had prior knowledge that there'd be no second, she should have permitted such discussion during public comment; if she didn't know, then when the agenda came up and she discovered the fact that these folks would be tricked out of their chance to talk to their commissioners, she could have and should have allowed discussion then.  And Commissioner Rawson should not have encouraged her to move on.  Yeah, it would have cost an hour's time; but that's part of what commissioners get paid for.]

[The column mentions that District 5 Doña Ana County Commissioner John L. Vasquez has scheduled three community meetings to address issues of constituent concerns.  Here's further information:
Meetings are scheduled at 6 p.m. on Monday, May 15, at the Doña Ana Community Resource Center, 5745 Ledesma Drive in Doña Ana; then Tuesday, May 16, at the Radium Springs Community Resource Center, 12060 Lindbeck Road; and finally, Wednesday, May 17, at  the Village of Hatch Community Center, 837 Highway 187 (West Hall Street) in Hatch.
Commissioner Vasquez has invited New Mexico State Sen. Jeff Steinborn and State Representatives Rudy Martinez and Nathan Small to each of the meetings.
Here, he's doing something he should do.  I hope the three are well-attended.]

Julia Brown's Firing Was Foreseeable, but Abrupt

We're seeing officials jump into high positions and take immediate and drastic actions based not on observations made in their new posts, but on ego or ideology, or what they've heard (or covertly promised) before taking office.

In Washington, that could destroy the fabric of our civil society – or worse. 

In our county, we'll survive the sacking of County Manager Julia Brown. 

I've criticized Brown. I've praised her. So has at least one commissioner who voted to fire her. 

Last fall, I criticized the old commission for extending her contract by three years. The next commission might fire her, as Sheriff Vigil was urging. One year seemed more prudent. But the extension didn't put us on the hook for the whole three years. There's a six-month severance package. Brown was an at-will employee. Terminable for no reason. So long as her civil rights weren't violated, which a lawsuit may explore, we'd owe six months' salary not years'. The commission also sought to raise her salary over three years to be comparable to salaries of similar county managers in New Mexico. 

A critic of that decision could argue that tripling her severance package from two months to six, while perhaps fair, was “very disrespectful to the incoming commissioners – and the voters.”

I've criticized Vigil for threatening to get rid of Brown. But I'm not sure her firing was entirely his doing. I'd heard some complaints about Brown unrelated to Vigil. So had commissioners. Also, Vigil has repeatedly urged the commission to drop its appeal of a court decision upholding a union arbitration. (I think I agree with him. Deputies deserve raises. Soon!) The case has been on the agenda for several closed sessions. If Vigil completely controlled three commissioners, maybe the commission would have done his bidding on that by now.

Firing Brown was abrupt and ill-considered, but no great surprise. The three new commissioners almost fired Brown in February. Apparently the new commissioners had decided on that before taking office, but Vasquez changed his mind. Therefore the commission told Brown it would evaluate her. Brown responded by proposing some items she thought reasonable to include in a performance review. The commission never even responded – except by firing her. (Only Billy Garrett dissented Tuesday.) 

It's wrong to fire someone without an evaluation, barring some very serious misconduct. Ms. Brown committed none. Running our county is complex, particularly coming in, as she did, when some extremely bad management had created distrust and torpedoed employee morale. Commissioners say Brown was stellar at much of what she did, but could have improved on some points. That calls for evaluation and clear direction – not an abrupt firing.

Several – including a couple of courageous DASO employees – spoke up for Ms. Brown Tuesday. No employee criticized her. A DASO employee called the firing “political corruption at its finest,” and Deputy County Clerk Lynn Ellins called it “insanity.” Sadly, the three new commissioners made no explanation, then fled like frightened rabbits from reporters. Had they nothing to say in their defense? At least Ben Rawson faced questions. And (despite his vote) thanked Ms. Brown for all she's done.

We'll be paying for this in many ways, including a probable retaliation claim. We may not get such a skilled replacement.

Afterward, Brown lunched at Mariachi's. Returning, she was startled by an atrium full of county employees greeting her by cheering loudly and clapping, as she received a big bouquet flowers. (See Patrick Hayes's video.) The sight of employees publicly cheering the person their bosses had just fired speaks eloquently: she will be missed.

                                                               -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, 30 April 2017, as well as on the newspaper's website the newspaper's website and KRWG's website, and a spoken version will air Wednesday on KRWG Radio.]

[I note in the column that I've both praised and criticized Ms. Brown.  Less than two years ago, I tended at one time to think she should either be terminated or be given an evaluation including some strong comments on certain points.  However, I have come to understand why commissioners value her professionalism.  But I also know that some folks see Brown's ouster as the first shot in a civil war within county management.]

[People often ask me whether Ms. Brown is likely to win if she files suit.  I answer that I'm not her lawyer, and that there's a lot I don't know.  Speculating as an outsider?  As an at-will employee, she'd have little basis for a simple employment claim, unless they violated a required step in reaching their decision.  With other county employees, I'm pretty sure such a summary action, without first evaluating the employee and giving her an opportunity to improve, would violate the personnel manual, which is taken by courts as a term of employment.  (I should note that Ms. Brown was evaluated twice prior to the seating of the three new commissioners; and that I'm hearing from various sources that although she was orally advised of the commissioners' views, she was given no written evaluation.)  You follow procedure.  I doubt there's any such thing in her contract.  She can be fired at will, just as Trump can fire Flynn.  Or the Sheriff can fire his undersheriff.  And that's true for a reason: it's a political office, and the elected officials can choose whom they want to manage the city or the Defense Department.   The wisdom of a particular firing is a political issue, assuming all required procedural steps were taken and no contractual promise broken.

However, just because you can fire someone for no reason doesn't mean you can fire someone for an illegal reason.

One example is the Whistleblower Act.  I've worked on a few such cases.  Even if someone is an at-will, or even a temporary employee hired to teach or clean for a year, with no legal right to being re-hired the next year, you can't fire (or decline to re-hire) that employee because he reported to the police or your board or the newspapers that you'd embezzled $100,000 or ordered employees to pour mercury in the river.   (Ironically, a suit on those grounds has been filed against the County by some Sheriff's Department employees Ms. Brown disciplined or terminated.  They have counsel who are very experienced at pursuing employment claims against the County.)  

Similarly, even if you could fire someone for no reason, you can't fire someone because s/he's of a certain ethnicity or in retaliation for making claims on her own or others' behalf of ethnic or sexual discrimination.  

But to appraise anyone's possible claim, a lawyer needs to ask a lot of probing questions and then often do some legal research.  I won't speculate just now on whether Ms. Brown will sue or how that lawsuit might go. She's a lawyer herself, and I'm sure she's been consulting some lawyer who specializes in employment claims -- other than Daniela and Bret, who will be saying bad things about her as part of their work for other clients.   If she files a complaint, I'll look at that before opining.  For now, I'll merely hope that the commissioners ultimately select an able and experienced county manager.  And that Ms. Brown enjoys her retirement. ]  

Did County Commission Do El Paso Electric a Favor?

El Paso Electric made an interesting announcement recently: its plan to request a rate hike in 2018 in southern New Mexico will be delayed.

It's going ahead as planned in El Paso; but not here.

We owe gratitude to Merrie Lee Soules, Positive Energy Solar, Allen Downs, Rocky Bacchus of One Hour Air-Conditioning, and Steve Fischmann; but also to the City of Las Cruces and the County of Doña Ana. All those folks filed as intervenors in EPE's most recent cases; they questioned and rebutted EPE's “facts” with a clarity the PRC wouldn't have managed without them; and EPE apparently doesn't want to see them again real soon.

So when you pay your electric bill each month, thank these folks that it isn't higher.

Sadly, the County Commission moved to make it a little harder for the County to intervene next time around – and there's always a next time with EPE. A publically-traded corporation exists to make a profit. The current system means EPE gets paid off for capital expenditures. So EPE will do its damndest to built new power plants on very flimsy excuses.

Tuesday the Commission passed a resolution under which each time there's a new rate case, it'll require a vote by the commission to intervene. That sounds innocuous enough, and maybe it won't be a problem; but it's odd. These are 4,000-page cases. I'm doubting the commissioners will wade through that.

The general interpretation of Tuesday's action was that it was meant to pull County Manager Julia Brown's chain. The effect is that if EPE's timing is tricky or it can influence a couple of commissioners, our county commission will fall silent when the utility tries to rip us off.

Commissioner Billy Garrett said the intervenors saved county residents $7.5 million recently. He and Brown pointed out that in complex rate cases things change rapidly, and that Tuesday's change could cause the County to miss important deadlines. I completely agree.

Interestingly, when Garrett proposed an amendment, under which the Commission would have been informed in detail every two weeks and could instruct Brown accordingly, Commissioner John Vasquez (who had proposed the resolution) saw the wisdom in that. Three others didn't. Commissioner Ben Rawson then moved Vasquez's original version, which passed 4-1.

The three new commissioners want to send Brown a message – but their chosen method could end up costing us money. One observer said Rawson might be trying to use the anti-Brown sentiment to help tilt the playing field to ease the utility's course. But Rawson, who voted for the 2015 resolution delegating the matter to Brown, said that when he asked about one matter there was confusion among county management about whether or not the County had intervened. Thus he felt the commission should tighten up control.

It seems sad, coming just days after folks at a Progressive Voters Alliance meeting had congratulated some of the intervenors, including the City and County. I hope the commissioners weren't acting in concert with the utility. I wonder if EPE will spend considerable sums to influence the results of local elections here. Electing commissioners and councillors who'd back off this intervention business could be real profitable.

Meanwhile, the Commission also looks poised to let Bowlin's sell fireworks. I hope Vasquez and Isabelle Solis recuse themselves from that vote. They might mean well, but collecting $2,500 in campaign money from Bowlin's, then voting for a dumb measure that would benefit Bowlin's, wouldn't look real good. 

During a local election in a rural county, $2500 is a lot of money. I hope EPE won't be asking what it buys.

                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 2 April, 2017, and also on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  KRWG also broadcasts a slightly shortened spoken version twice on Wednesday.]


[With regard to EPE's situation and rate-hike requests, see also Steve Fischmann's recent column
published in the Sun-News several days ago.  Some of the intervenors prepared a summary of issues with El Paso Electric.   This is the summary from February.  As that summary notes,

"EPE is a sophisticated, publicly traded corporation valued at nearly two billion dollars.  It has enormous resources at its disposal and a shareholder expectation that corporate managers will maximize profits. This is what EPE is doing, relentlessly and without shame, in every position it takes throughout the regulatory process."

Maximizing profits is, of course, exactly what a corporation's job is.  So EPE's highly-paid lawyers and press people are doing their job, full-time, to spin stories their way and camouflage or ignore facts that don't fit their version of events.  That's what they are supposed to do.   Meanwhile the PRC is not necessarily a group that will investigate fully and discover the well-hidden holes in EPE's reasoning.  The PRC does have staff; but it's important than when a $2 billion corporation is spending time and resources to make things look one way, we ought to have at least someone to examine the corporation's version of events and point out errors that could save customers money.  We'd sure like the County to continue participating in that effort.]

[With regard to Commissioners Soils and Vasquez and the fireworks issue, I do not mean to cast aspersions.  I'm not accusing them of anything.  I do not contend that they are legally required to recuse themselves.  On the other hand, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask public servants to go above and beyond the minimum legal requirements with regard to ethics.  I understand we'll never consistently get that level of ethical conduct from folks running for higher office; but we could try to ask it of local office-holders.]

[NOTE: Allen Downs has pointed out that while my column "focuses on County intervention in rate cases, but the point we interveners tried to make at the County Commission meeting is that it is important for the County to be involved in the cases that precede a rate case. It is during these other cases (renewable energy, Energy efficiency, IRP, CCN) where the decisions to spend money are made.  By the time a rate case rolls around most of the spending decisions have been made and the issue being decided is which expenses can be charged to rate payers and which rate group will pay what share of the increase (in the last rate case it was also determined that rate payers should NOT pay some of the expenses EPE was asking for, thus reducing the overall increase amount)."  In other words, the issue is much wider than merely rate cases; and (in my view) the fact that there are a variety of other varieties of cases, some of which may superficially appear insignificant, heightens the importance of allowing for the more flexible procedure in which the County can intervene without a formal commission vote.  County manager must report at each meeting of any intervention-related developments.  Commission retains control, of course.  If the commission disagrees with an intervention, it can vote to withdraw the intervention, limit it to particular aspects of the case, or simply not to file any substantive papers after the notice of intervention.  Much safer.]

County Commission Questions More Frequent ICE Raids

Tuesday's Doña Ana County Commission meeting was startlingly cordial and collegial. 

 

A group of schoolkids was there on a field trip. I hoped the cooperative spirit would survive their departure, and was glad to see that it did. Chairwoman Isabella Solis, looking increasingly comfortable in her new role, praised the other Commissioners; Commissioners differed on some points, but expressed those differences in a cooperative manner; and Billy Garrett and Kiki Vigil even agreed on a couple of things. When Garrett and Undersheriff Ken Roberts discussed a budget issue, they acknowledged that they held opposing views but expressed respect for each other's positions.

Among other business, the Commission considered a resolution, introduced by Commissioner Ramon Gonzalez, expressing distaste toward ramped-up ICE raids on undocumented residents living peaceably among us. (It did not oppose enforcing state laws or arresting criminals.) Resolutions have no legal force. As Solis noted, it was “not telling the Federal Government what to do, but only telling the Federal Government of our concerns.”

Lengthy public input featured a heavy majority favoring the resolution, some eloquently, and some vigorous opposition.

A middle-aged Hispanic woman, who owns a farm near the border described working in the fields with her son “who is also brown,” and being invaded on occasion by border patrol agents asking to see her papers. She said she could understand the fear felt by those without papers. 

 

Others gave moving accounts of fear and suffering by split families and children. Several veterans said the current overeager enforcement of the law wasn't what they'd fought for. Sheriff Vigil read a strong statement that his job was not enforcement of federal law but enforcement of state laws.

 

Opponents tended to express fears of crimes by illegal immigrants, although such crimes represent a tiny percentage of crimes here. (One result of the ICE raids will be increased fear, which will further chill crime victims who fear that reporting crimes could get victims or witnesses deported.) Others apparently missed the fact that the resolution lacked legal force, didn't purport to “nullify” any federal law, and violated neither the U.S. nor the New Mexico Constitution. 

 

The most articulate opponent, a former DASO detective, praised Commissioner Gonzalez for “standing up for something he truly believes in,” and said that while he sympathized with the feelings behind the resolution, he ultimately had to support “my brothers in ICE” and DASO.

On both sides, I heard more than the usual expressions of sympathy or understanding for the opposition speakers. One opponent urged proponents to “sponsor an illegal alien,” helping the person to get a green card. She described a friend doing so for a gardener, who now has green card and a regular job.

The schoolchilden I asked all said they felt “sorry for those people.” 

 

So did the Commission, which approved the resolution 4-1. Commissioner Rawson dissented. 

 

Legally, this resolution means nothing. County commissioners have no authority over federal agents.

But maybe it means a lot. We live in uncertain times. That gentleman in the White House dials up the hate rhetoric frequently. He demonizes newspaper reporters, senators, judges, and even Gold Star Parents who disagree with him. All his life, he's violated the legal rights of blacks and women – and contractors with the gall to seek full payment for their work. He's prepared to run roughshod over the rights of immigrants, Muslims, and women. He may or may not also someday threaten our Constitutional and human rights in even more dangerous and less legal ways. If so, it will be important to stand up and be counted.

Maybe it's important now.

                                                        -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 5 March 2017, and also on the newspaper's website and KRWG-TV's website.]

[Later in the day, the Commission decided to appeal an adverse decision in favor of the sheriff's deputies' union.  Apologies for not discussing that here.  Although I recall questioning the decision to appeal in the first place, and am a strong believer that deputies should be paid better, I need to read Judge Arrieta's decision -- and perhaps the written briefs the two sides submitted to him -- before expressing an opinion.]

[On another subject: Thursday evening at 5:30 the Zuhl Library on NMSU will host the annual Sunshine Week panel.  Topic is "The Presidency and the Press -- Will Free Speech Survive," and we'll look at how current Press-Presidency relations compare to the past and what the current situation may suggest about the future. Panel (which I moderate) will include County Attorney Nelson Goodin, Sun-News Opinion Editor Walt Rubel, Journalism professor emeritus Frank Thayer, and Professor David Irvin.  Audience questions are encouraged -- from people of all political views, particularly those who think highly of Donald Trump.  Refreshments will be served. (Well, the flyer says they'll be served.  I think they'll just be on tables, and you'll have to snag them yourself.)]

"If you don't stop disseminating fake news, . . ."

 

Valentines Day at the County Commission

Tuesday's county commission meeting felt like a scene in a reality TV series: tangled plot and subplots, threats and harsh words, naked human emotions on public display.

The obvious tensions between Chairwoman Isabella Solis and County Manager Julia Brown,

and between County Sheriff Kiki Vigil and Commissioner Billy Garrett, reminded me of family quarrels. I recalled my father saying sternly to us, “I don't care who started it, but I'm finishing it.”

Citizens and a few county employees spoke up to defend Ms. Brown from what seemed an effort to fire her, for reasons that seemed vague. Many were angry. Some threatened lawsuits or organized electoral opposition. 

Perhaps it's my advancing age, but I suspect most folks, though influenced by some large or small amount of selfishness and greed, would like to be good and tend to believe they are. When they behave badly, or in a fashion that you or I might abhor, they are usually not trying to be evil. Rather, we all have constructed quite complex and varied prisms through which we view the world. Through these, each of us sees our own conduct as perfectly rational and right.

Watching Tuesday's meeting reminded me of what seems a universal difficulty: being so much ourselves, seeing through our own eyes and emotional filters, we can never quite get a fix on how others perceive us.

I learned that lesson as a young lawyer. A poet, former civil rights worker, and underdog-lover, I couldn't figure out why my secretary was crying after I pointed out a mistake, until I realized (or someone explained) that she saw not the nice kid I felt like but her new, powerful boss. Potential tyrant. My words had caused fear or pain I hadn't intended or imagined.

I should have learned it earlier, when the headmaster, as he expelled me from school, said I lacked compassion. How could that be, I wondered? I was kind and friendly to the workers, though I rebelled against the autocratic masters [teachers] who seemed to misuse their power. I hadn't conceived that, as a mere student, my mischievous words might actually wound adults, who seemed all-powerful. 

Julia Brown seems (and sees herself as) a good person. She believes in justice and fairness, and has worked against discrimination. But she is also the Boss. When she wonders how employees can be afraid to bring some complaint to her, the “her” she's thinking of is the inner Julia, generally trying to do right, while the “her” the employee perceives may seem powerful, sharp-tongued, and closer to supervisors than to the supervised. The employee has heard tales – true, false, or exaggerated – of her treatment of others. The employee may also see her as part of the elite: the folks with advanced degrees, flowing English, and a certain self-assurance that can come across as a sense of entitlement.

Isabella Solis likely feels nervous, being suddenly in a position with unfamiliar rules and procedures but having to act quickly and confidently under a bright spotlight. But most citizens and employees see none of that, only the chairwoman's power. She too wants to do right, I believe.

Billy and Kiki not only can't agree, but can't even conceive of each other as sincere.

During the closed session, my wife and I take refuge in Nessa's. Sitting together in the small café (at Picacho and 2^nd), talking in between bites of Nessa's imaginative and tasty food, and gabbing with James about Valentine's Day and his delight that he and Nessa are to be parents . . . heals us.

                                              -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 19 February 2017, and also on the newspaper's website (under the perhaps unfortunate title, Empathy for Others Lacking in County Drama) and KRWG-TV's website.

[The Sun-News headline should not be read to say I'm singling out the County.  Lack of understanding or empathy marks most of us in too many situations, personal, and professional; I called it a "universal difficulty"; and it's one of those problems like alcoholism, which we would do well never to claim we've eradicated in ourselves.  In fact, if we all looked in the mirror each morning and said, "I'm a biased person who doesn't try hard enough to understand others and see how they formed their points of view," the world would be a better place -- although as phrased it's too unwieldy a sentence to bother with each morning.  Also sounds too damned preachy for my taste.]

[But while I don't mean at all to single out the County, plenty of people came up to me afterward and said some version of, "Wasn't that disgraceful?"  To some degree they blamed different figures, depending on their own views and allegiances; but I met no one who was pleased by the tone or content of the meeting.  The Sun-News's editorial stance is at "County board should be more deliberate."]      

Fitting the County Commission's UDC Meeting into a Busy Day

I rush from the County Commission UDC meeting to take my 86-year-old friend to the doctor. 

My friend was an NMSU professor here for thirty years. In 1965, he briefly made Cruces famous, when he and some other locals made a low-budget feature film, in days when only Hollywood made features. AP ran a national story on him. Now he shuffles into the doctor's office, unknown.

“Beautiful mountains,” he says, pointing at the Organs. (I could do a column on people's first reactions to the Organs.) He first saw them in newspaper articles NMSU professor Newman Reed sent after NMSU offered him a job. (When Reed started here, Solano still had cattle-gates.) 

Thinking cattle-gates reminds me of the UDC, which so many worked so hard to make the best it could be. Others tried to sabotage it, saying it's imperfect (which, like anything human-made, it is) and should be tabled, left to the next commission. “Left to die,” they mean. If they really meant improvements, then amendments could do that. Why would we want new commissioners to spend hundreds of hours, or make Planning & Zoning and scores of citizens repeat endless hours of hearings, to make unspecified small improvements? 

After the doctor, I take my friend to the bank. From the parking lot on Telshor, I let the western mountains on the horizon catch my eye. I'm glad I returned to live under this vast sky. 

A realtor told the Commission he'd heard a lot of talk about democracy, and that the UDC shouldn't be passed. He didn't really explain what was wrong with it, except that it was “restrictive.” Reasonable restrictions, while they may protect citizens, can be inconvenient for realtors.)

So I said more about democracy. The county worked on this thing for years. I feel like people have been inviting me to UDC meetings since I was about seven years old. There were countless public-input meetings throughout the county. The P&Z held lengthy, detailed meetings – some of which my wife attended, hour after hour, watching the sausage get made. Right up to the end, staff and the P&Z were making recommendations responding to public input. The P&Z made recommendations. The elected Commission acted. Commissioner David Garcia, who always seems painfully earnest about trying to do what's right, ensured that key questions concerning affordable housing and grazing rights were aired, heard from numerous citizens, then cast the deciding vote. Yep, democracy.

I stop for supper at the Co-op, a democratic institution which is celebrating its 40^th year. I'm thinking about time and change and our varied roles over time in a place we call home. Tuesday the huge Commission Chambers were filled today. Forty years ago, when I was a reporter, the commission (just three commissioners then) met in the old courthouse, in a small room with hardly a dozen chairs. No one contemplated a UDC – or a county nearly so populous! Everything east of Tortugas Mountain was desert where we dirt-biked. Retired City Manager Robert Garza was a mischievous kid. Saturday we watched his son help NMSU beat UNM. 

My wife joins me at the Co-op. She talks and laughs with staff, hugs some of them, listens. Earlier she spoke passionately at the Commission meeting. After the UDC passed, she stood talking at length with people who'd opposed it, listening to their arguments, hoping to facilitate better communication between them and County staff.

We all do the best we can. The Commission did its best. We all owe thanks to the departing commissioners, even if we sometimes disagreed with them.

                                                   -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, 18 December 206, and on  the newspaper's website, and will appear presently on the KRWG-TV website.]

[I wasn't happy with this column.  Maybe trying to mix things that don't mix so well: a brief account of the County Commission meeting on the Uniform Development Code and a more impressionistic portrait of a day that seemed to feature a couple of things I think about now and then, the varied roles we perform in our community in a given day and the changes in our roles and relationships over long periods of time in a particular place.  The latter fit in with part of what I wanted to say about the UDC, while the former was just something my day seemed to thrust into my thoughts.  (Before dawn I was writing a fictional scene set in 1968, a scene in which one character, listening on radio to the Chicago Convention, concludes that the only way to stop the Viet Nam war would be to start assassinating high public figures; riding to pickleball, I spent 20 minutes counseling a legal client, then spent another ten minutes talking with a second client before I got to play; I enjoyed pickleball; then I listened and even got up a couple of times to speak about the UDC; then I was sort of a caregiver for my friend; then I supped at the Mountain View Co-op, to use up the hour before my KTAL Radio board meeting.)  
Driving my friend around helped make me think about changes over time.  He got here in 1959, I think.  More than a half-century ago.  I arrived 20 years later.  He was a professor, married, with a daughter and soon a son as well.  At 40, he had never camped in the wilderness or ridden a motorcycle, although a few years later those became the focus of his life.  He got divorced.  We rode dirt bikes around outside our small town, and street bikes across the country.  He retired and became a hermit on our land at the southern end of Sierra County, building a modest home himself, for perhaps $5,000, and living out there without electricity or indoor plumbing or paved road for 24 years, until health mandated the move back into town.  Now he no longer drives, or walks very far.  His mind's still sharp, though, and he's still funny.  Friends and former students still enjoy hanging out with him, making a trip with him to the grocery store much more a pleasure than a chore.  Too, he was always an open, generous sort, inspires the same attitude toward him now.
An incident at the Co-op illustrated the change theme too.  An acquaintance joined me briefly.  Thinking about the idea of a column about people's first glimpses of the Organ Mountains, I asked about his.  He recounted a visit here in the early 1990's to his brother.  That reminded me that although I'm not sure I've ever actually met his brother, about 45 years ago we were seeing the same woman (who was actually married to someone else) for a short time.  I thought about how much that all mattered at the time, and about the fact that now I can't recall her name.  
And a community changes over time too.   This one is no longer what it was in many memories; but the populous county we are now, with all sorts of development all over, probably needs a UDC.
At any rate, sometimes a piece of writing can combine a couple of very different elements in a way that sheds a little more light on both.  I don't think I managed that here.  Sorry.]

Further Thoughts on the County's Settlement with Chris Barela

The recent op-ed defending the County's $201,000 settlement with Detention Center Director Chris Barela was sincere and made some valid points. The County Commission genuinely feels it dodged an expensive bullet by settling with Barela. 

But questions remain.

In late 2013, it appeared that Barela had committed breaches of duty that might constitute crimes. Some were reported to authorities by a commissioner and others. Some had been reported to county management earlier, in detailed writings.

A state police investigation ensued. Too much time passed. Some say that the state police sat on it. At least one state police source suggested it was the District Attorney's fault. Eventually DASO investigated. 

Sheriff Kiki Vigil probably should have recused himself. He was already at odds with the County Manager and Commission. Two of his most generous campaign contributors ran private prisons, we later learned. (See March 2016 column.) I've learned since that Vigil articulated (and may still hold) an intention to take over the Detention Center. 

Vigil was not the ideal person to investigate Barela; and the showy arrest, and transportation of Barela to a distant county were unnecessary. 

Still, that investigation by two DASO deputies was thorough. While some of the apparently criminal conduct was time-barred and couldn't be prosecuted now, the investigation uncovered evidence of other possible violations. 

Barela is legally innocent of crimes; but we can still question his conduct and that of other public officials. 

Commissioner Billy Garrett's op-ed takes too much comfort from the grand jury's failure to indict Barela. If prosecutors felt some charges wouldn't sufficiently impress a criminal trial jury, that doesn't mean the alleged actions weren't taken. Statutes of limitations prevent criminal charges, but not administrative discipline. Further, as neither commissioners nor I sat on that grand jury, we don't know why it made certain choices, or even whether it heard all the witnesses it should have heard.

I can't make a reasoned decision on Mr. Barela's guilt unless and until I read the entire investigatory file. I won't rely on others' varying accounts of the facts.

A seasoned magistrate, who has a law degree and is not known (at least by me) to be aligned with any party in county government's civil war, signed the warrants. A seasoned and hard-working prosecutor believed this was a good case. These facts would have weakened Barela's false-arrest claim.

I know too much and too little. I know that Vigil had extraneous reasons to want Barela arrested and convicted, but did those reasons motivate the Sheriff's (mis)conduct? I know that other officials might wish to rub Vigil's nose in this mess by settling generously with Barela; but did those wishes help bring about the settlement? 

I watched the County fight tooth and nail against other employees. It offered no viable settlements to Jorge Granados or Kim Stewart. When two juries gave them ringing endorsements, the County appealed, on dubious grounds. (New Mexico Association of Counties was apparently making decisions in those cases, not the County. NMAC invoked a contractual exclusion to refuse coverage against Barela's claim, leaving the County on its own. Thus it's probably not fair to conclude that the County dealt more generously with Barela because he was one of the gang or knew where the bodies were buried.)

Did an overzealous Vigil screw this up? Did political considerations lessen prosecutorial vigor? Was embarrassing Vigil a motive for the settlement or just a happy by-product for some county officials?

I don't know. I do know that Barela is neither as evil as some detractors charge nor as guiltless as some supporters say. Most of us aren't.

                                                     -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News and other newspapers this morning, Sunday, 11 September.  It's also up on the newspaper's website (supposed to be, anyway) and will soon be up on KRWG-TV's website.]

[September 11!  It snuck up on me this year, that this was the 15th anniversary of that terrible morning.  I was actually in the Library of Congress that morning, researching.  An underground passage away from Congress.  They told us we had to leave -- but not why.  But people knew.  As I motorcycled away from the Capitol, toward where I stayed, there was a humongous traffic jam, of course.  I was grateful for the motorcycle's small size and maneuverability.  At supper that night, we could see the smoke from the Pentagon, still.  For days, people tended to stay in their houses, and numerous military helicopters swarmed overhead.]
[The next morning I motorcycled downtown.  Almost no one was out, except police and military folks.  I had to park further from the Lincoln Memorial than usual.  Security.  But I could walk to it. It was dawn.  None of the usual tourists and joggers.  Just me and the cops and soldiers -- and this one guy, doing his job.  While everyone else was trembling at home, in fear of going down to where the bad guys might strike again, he was just doing his job:]

[I should have written about September 11th in this morning's column.  And a glance at the morning paper, in which Steve Pearce misuses the heroism of everyday people by suggesting it shows that everything is Barack Obama's fault, tells me I'll remedy that omission next Sunday.]

A Lawsuit and a Candidacy for County Commission

A young man with a trailer full of hay rams his truck into a metal barrier protecting the gas pumps at a Las Cruces Pic Quik. Doing very little damage.

Pic Quik reports the incident to the police. The young man sues Pic Quik for $10,000, claiming that the manager ran out, tried to batter him, and chased him off the property. He also sues for defamation, saying Pic Quik lied in telling police he left without providing contact information. 

Unfortunately for the young man, Pic Quik's four video cameras tell another story. Video shows that after strikng the metal bar, he gets out to look at the damage, then gets back into the truck. An employee approaches and stands near the truck's passenger-side window for about four seconds before the young man drives away. No one chases him around or tries to batter him. The video doesn't show any exchange of information.

Why should this crazy tale make an ocotillo seed's worth of difference? Maybe because the young man and plaintiff recently won the Republican primary for Doña Ana County Commissioner (District 4). His name is William Jarod Webb.

Not surprisingly, Pic Quik moved to toss the case out on summary judgment. (Meaning there ain't enough to the case to justify wasting public resources on a trial.) Webb reiterated that he'd given his contact information, but also argued that he'd been in a hurry. Judge Rossner held a hearing in which Pic Quik was ably represented by Raul Carrillo. Mr. Webb didn't show up. He lost. Later he indicated an intention to seek reconsideration, but he never filed any motion.

Based on the Pic Quik incident in January, and the resulting lawsuit, you might worry that maybe this guy shouldn't be out on the street by himself – let alone help run the county you live in.

But Webb's an interesting guy. He speaks several foreign languages and has a bachelor's degree from Baylor. He appears to have gotten an M.A. in business administration from the (in)famous University of Phoenix, attended Capital Law School for a semester, then started a masters of divinity at Liberty Theological Seminary, a Jerry Falwell creation that other chaplain schools tend to disparage.

You'd guess maybe Webb hasn't figured out what he wants to do. But he told the Sun-News, “I've been planning to enter politics since I was 16, when I started writing presidents and world leaders.” He also told the Sun-News he had no idea who the county manager was.

When I spoke with Mr. Webb this week, he didn't want to talk much about the Pic Quik case. He did say that he hadn't done enough damage to anything to worry about and didn't know “why they're making such a big deal out of this.” It's true, he did little damage to the barrier; but his bogus lawsuit cost Pic Quik whatever the Carillo Law Firm charges per hour. (Webb also didn't want to talk much about Donald Trump, beyond saying he supported the party's candidate.)

He's working hard on an economic development plan he'll share with us when it's finished, and said jobs are the key issue here. He particularly wants to streamline permit and rezoning processes because “county red tape” doesn't help draw businesses that could create jobs. 

He also said that building so many new residences without jobs for residents would lead to a housing glut. Another important issue, to a member of a farming family, is improving irrigation canals, either with a pipeline or by covering them to limit evaporation.

I'll be interested to see how Webb's campaign progresses.

                                                  -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, June 26th, and will appear presently on the newspaper's website and on KRWG-TV's website.   I welcome question question and criticisms here or there.]

[I initially drafted this based on the documents in  the court file, plus the video.  I didn't print it during the primary, figuring that Mr. Webb might not prevail in that, and this material isn't of public interest if it concerns a private citizen, not a candidate.  After Mr. Webb finally called me back, I softened the resulting column, because he seems a nice kid, despite this lawsuit; but the lawsuit wasn't something from long ago, in that the accident was in January 2016 and I think he filed the lawsuit in February; nor is it harmless: he may or may not have done more damage to the protective bar than I realized, but he surely damaged Pic Quik by forcing it to pay lawyers to defend a frivolous lawsuit, and they're after him now to recover those damages.]

[I didn't mention in the column that on February 12th Mr. Webb swore before a notary that he was a pauper, and should not have to pay for filing and serving his lawsuit.  Some might find that document as telling as the bogus lawsuit.  Not because poor people shouldn't run for the county commission; obviously I don't feel that way; but a man running on a conservative "fiscal responsibility" platform ought to be asked about the fact that his business failed six months ago (nine or ten months, now) and he's unemployed (though he may have a job now) and receives food stamps and medicaid.  None of that disqualifies him from holding office; but none of it really shouts "fiscal responsibility" at me, either.]
[Too, just a few months after that Affidavit he funded his primary campaign all by himself.   Maybe he had a good few months.  Not that he's spending Trumpish money, but according to official filings he donated $1500 to his campaign, recorded no other contributions during the primary, and spent $1200.  He donated the $1500 on May 10.] 
[How seriously to take all this is up to each voter.  Mr. Webb thinks it's private and shouldn't matter to his candidacy, and also says he's going to turn the Pic Quik case around and repair whatever damage it has done to his reputation.  He says the dismissal of his claim on summary judgment was unfair, and Friday he sent me a copy of a motion for reconsideration.  (I promised that if he successfully changes the result I'll try to give that equal play with this column.  I do not know whether or not he's filed the motion.)  I think that all of the foregoing is quite relevant to his campaign; but it might be fair to regard all this as raising questions, not providing answers.  Maybe he will create such an imaginative program or display other personal qualities that outweigh what I consider a real problem.]

Would you trust these folks?

Imagine someone wants you to invest in a big company. 

“Who's your internal auditor?” you ask.

“Milton was, but he kept reporting embarrassing facts. We fired him. Some allegation of misconduct.”

“Who replaced him?”

“A very experienced lady, two or three years ago, but she took one look and quit within a week.”

“Who replaced her.”

“No one yet.”

“Well who's your risk manager?”

“Was Fridenstine, but he got crossways with our attorney. Wondered whether it was right for our in-house attorney to also be our outside counsel, paid separately. And other stuff. He's gone.”

“Who are your internal investigators?” 

“We had two, Kim Stewart and Lupe Quezada. Working under the attorney so he could control them.”

“And?”

“Well, a jury awarded Kim a million bucks because we fired her after she made an embarrassing report about Curtis Childress. She was pesky that way. Lupe's still there. She's good, but the grand jury got hold of a report she did on jailer Chris Barela. We often go around her now. Use an outside investigator. Costs extra, but it's not my money.”

“Which investigator?”

“UIS, but sometimes they're a little too objective, so we're switching.  Maybe we'll try a law firm - make sure reports come out right.”

Sound familiar? The “big company” is Doña Ana County. And I wouldn't invest if I didn't have to.

This situation is wrong. As one employee told me Wednesday, “If an auditor says 'This isn't quite right,' you're not supposed to tell him to go pound sand. That's how you get sued.” The employee had called about problems at the County.

As I started to have coffee with him, my cell-phone rang. Unfamiliar number. “Hi, I'm Jane, I work at the County. We talked once a long time ago, do you have some time right now?”

Employees say that if management doesn't like you, you get suddenly told you're on administrative leave. Ask why, and you're told: “You'll find out, an investigator will contact you.” Maybe the employees exaggerate; but how would we know, as things stand now?

County management has had serious problems for years. The commissioners made what looked like a good move by hiring Julia Brown; but it hasn't worked out. They should face up to that. (Folks act like Leticia Benavidez was some nut case for being the only commissioner who voted not to extend Brown's contract; but as one employee said, “Leiticia's the only one who ever worked at the County and knows the shenanigans that go on.” 

Commissioners (for good reason) have limited power. They have none over elected officials like Treasurer David Gutierrez or Sheriff Kiki Vigil. They have little over the County Manager.

Before Ms. Brown, management acted badly, morale was terrible, and Commissioners trusted management too much. Now under Julia, management seems to be acting badly, and morale is terrible. 

There needs to be an auditor. There needs to be a way for employees to complain without the complaint going through the County Manager. And Ms. Brown should probably be gone.

On a happier note, there's Wally. Wally plays pickleball with us. He came from some tiny Texas town. I think his wife was his high-school sweetheart. Wally's so popular that Meerscheidt Rec Center staff brought out a surprise cake for his birthday Wednesday. We sang to him, but Wally still kept beating our butts. Hard shots, precisely aimed. It was his 81^st birthday.

                                                       -30- 

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, February 14  and will appear shortly on KRWG-TV's veb-site under News-->Local Viewpoints]

[The County may well have a good excuse for each of the events above: firing or driving away Duran and Fridenstine and Stewart, etc.  But the pattern - including apparent inaction as far as filling positions -- seems awfully suspicious.]

[As to whether Brown is getting revenge on enemies, I can't fully say; but certainly it's convenient for her to have Dennis Montoya (Sheriff Vigil's right-hand man in disputes and discussions with her and HR) out of the way.  Maybe he deserves it.  Two investigators who'd been working on the investigation of Barela (and ultimately Brown herself) are also gone.  These are not the only example.  Maybe each of her non-friends against whom action has been taken deserves the action; only time will tell, I guess.  Or a series of judges and juries will.),]

[I do feel I should add, again, that the County Commissioners have surprisingly little power.  Laws wisely implemented to protect against political interference necessarily restrict them.  As the embarrassing Mr. Gutierrez, our County Treasurer, proudly proclaims in a column in this morning's Sun-News, they can't do anything to him for his admitted misconduct.  Similarly, with regard to personnel the Commissioners can only hire and fire the County Manager.]