The Saga of Chris Barela, Jailer

Sometimes everyone's wrong.

Take the saga of Chris Barela, jailer.

He's a likable guy, but has a very mixed record at the Doña Ana County Detention Center. 

Years ago people alleged serious misconduct by him, some criminal. Internal county reports concluded he'd misappropriated county resources. (Astonishingly, higher-ups took no action on those reports.) Barela also seemed to exhibit extensive favoritism in running the jail. I wrote about some of this in 2013. I also investigated some charges I concluded were nonsense, and some I couldn't get to the truth on. 

Criminal investigations started and stalled. I doubt the initial investigators did all they should have. Some of the most promising charges never got acted upon until it was too late. Then Mr. Barela ran afoul of Sheriff Kiki Vigil (who'd gotten significant campaign contributions from two private-prison executives from Louisiana). DASO investigated vigorously – then, in December 2015, (a) made a big public show of Barela's arrest; (b) took him all the way to Lea County to book him; and (c) took over the jail the day they arrested him. 

A judge ordered Vigil to give back control of the jail. Criminal charges were eventually dropped. DASO's handling of the arrest and booking helped Barela get a $201,000 settlement check without even filing suit. Some said Barela got the easy settlement because of connections. Others said DASO's conduct under Vigil was so far off the mark that Barela could have won far more by suing.

More recently, a jail officer complained that Commissioner John Vasquez had told him in Santa Fe that Vasquez was going to get rid of Barela and then-County Manager Julia Brown. Vasquez allegedly suggested that the jail officer might get Barela's job. If the story is accurate, Vasquez was conducting himself inappropriately.

Barela served a tort claims notice against the County over Vasquez's alleged comments.

But acting like a horse's hind end isn't always a crime or even actionable. Barela's tort claim notice speaks of defamation, a legal subject I actually know a little about. From what I've read and heard, Barela has a steep uphill battle. First of all, for a “public figure” like Barela to prevail, he must prove Vasquez made false statements of fact that Vasquez knew or really should have known were false. The statements must be of facts. Opinions won't cut it. Nor will threats to fire someone, or statements that someone should be fired. That is, calling the jail “horrible” and saying “You should get rid of Barela” are nonstarters.

Further, if Vasquez said that Barela committed crimes, that's either true or such a reasonable mistake that Barela's lawsuit should fail. There are written reports that strongly suggest Barela committed crimes. That he wasn't prosecuted in time is irrelevant. Vasquez would have to have said something extra special – claiming it was fact – for Barela to prevail. I'm not even sure the County would be on the hook for Vasquez's conduct in Santa Fe.

 

Then a week ago Barela was hit with four misdemeanor charges of possession of marijuana.

In context, these charges initially look like harassment. But one knowledgeable source says the officer who probably okayed the operation has integrity and isn't the Sheriff's pawn. Although using undercover “reverse transactions” to bust someone for personal-use marijuana looks odd, my source says there may be more to come. Who knows?

But it could end Barela's charmed career as jailer. Smoking a few joints is a yawner; but dealing with drug dealers, who may sell other substances and could end up detained, will raise concerns about further favoritism.

                                                             -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 23 July, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.   KRWG will also air a spoken version periodically during the week.]

[I initially ended the column stressing the relative pettiness of busting a guy for buying small amounts of marijuana.   As a matter of criminal law, it is petty.  But if I were in the county administration, thinking about terminating Mr. Barela, I'd have to take the incident more seriously.  First of all, it's a[nother] violation of law.  Secondly, as I note in the column, if proven it establishes that he conspires with drug dealers to break laws, and some of those drug dealers could end up in the Detention Center, possibly charged with selling to kids or with selling some less benign substance than weed.  (And in the employment context, his employers shouldn't be limited to the appropriately high standard of proof for criminal convictions, "beyond a reasonable doubt," but to a lower standard in which they can act if reasonable evidence convinces them that he did it.)   Third, in my view Mr. Barela has demonstrated a tendency toward favoritism in running the detention center.]

[At the same time, authorities should be alert to whether or not there was inappropriately selective law enforcement here.  As noted, someone I trust strongly believes there wasn't.  But people can be wrong in their trust of colleagues.  Too, I've heard one credible, first-hand account of what appeared to me a tendency by Sheriff Vigil toward selective law enforcement, unrelated to Barela.  (Of course, one could reasonably argue that a crime is more serious when committed by someone in charge of folks accused of crimes, often drug-related crimes, so that a somewhat heightened interest in marijuana purchases by Barela would not necessarily be improper.)]

[It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.  Barela has excellent and experienced defense counsel.]

Update on Earlier Sunday Columns

This column is an update on several past columns about matters as to which there have been recent developments worth mentioning.

A December 2014 column concerned initial efforts to build a non-profit community radio station in Las Cruces. Since then, it has acquired a name (K-TAL, aka “Que tal?”); a studio location; some money to help get on the air, and a lot of new volunteers. At a recent meeting we heard from many talented and enthusiastic people who want to help make this happen. Some of them have extensive radio experience or other great backgrounds. The next few months should see us acquiring the necessary equipment, setting up the studio, raising more funds, getting some interesting shows from elsewhere, and starting to train local folks to create and air a wide variety of interesting shows. 

An October 2015 column outlined why we should set up a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) concerning the detention center. Recently the County Commission directed the County Manager to put together a proposal. The CAC must be independent of the Commission and seen to be independent. I''m hoping that in addition to Commission appointees we see members appointed by LULAC, perhaps the NAACP, the mental health treatment community, and others. If you have suggestions, write Julia Brown or watch for announcement of a work session on the subject.

A more recent column hoped the authorities would act appropriately to evict Bundy and friends from the Malheur refuge in Oregon. To some degree, that's happened. Sadly, one fellow was shot when he reached for a pocket with a gun in it, although I've wondered if he meant to hand in his gun but just didn't make that clear to the authorities. But he'd said he wouldn't be taken alive. Those captured should face appropriate charges.

Overall it's a little depressing to glance back. Columns about lawsuits by former County employees (two big jury verdicts) and by alleged victims of detention center mismanagement (e.g. Mr. Slevin)? More such lawsuits are coming, with one set for trial in March, I think. Some of the alleged bad actors seem to find a strong champion in Julia Brown. I don't know why. I've written columns about alleged misconduct by Detention Center Director Chris Barela; but while charges have been filed and a grand jury will take a look at him shortly, delay let the statute of limitations run out on some charges. (I state no conclusions about whether or not he should or will be convicted. Depends on the evidence. He's got a real good defense attorney.)

I've written a lot about what seems to me excessively acrimonious politics, and about the influence of outside oil and gas interests, and even the Koch Brothers; but although the dishonest recall campaign failed a year ago and PAC attacks on Mayor Miyagashima failed to dissuade many citizens from voting for him, money in politics is a problem we haven't solved and probably can't; and the acrimony grows to absurd proportions with the national examples of Donald Trump and the other clowns vying for the Republican Presidential nomination. Politics is way too influenced, if not controlled, by money.

And HJR9 could help the corporations destroy the U.S. as we know it, by triggering a potentially disastrous constitutional convention orchestrated by ALEC.

And one very sad local note: I've written columns praising Chope's. One included an image of the matriarch, Lupe Benavides. A great lady. Her death this week is sad for Chope's, for La Mesa, and for all of us. 

But her life exemplifies how much good one person can do.

                                                          -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 7 February, and will appear later this morning on the KRWG-TV web-site (News --> Local Viewpoints).]

[Guess I should add two updates from this morning's Sun-News: the County Commission will vote Tuesday morning on a resolution asking County Treasurer David Gutierrez to resign, as my previous column  did; and February 16 will be Miguel Silva Day in Las Cruces and probably Dona Ana County.  There'll be a ceremony at 10 a.m. at Klein Park.]

[It's a beautiful, sunny morning here.  Cold, but warmer than it has been.  Bird-baths only lightly frozen this morning.]
          * * *        ** *        * * *        * * *        * * *        * * *        * * *        * * *
          strong morning sunlight.
          cat springs, mouse dead.  soon the cat
          will follow the mouse
          -- as will i, later the sun.
          who will notice our passing?

Avoidable Jail Beatings: Wrong and Costly

This is a tough column to write, and maybe to read.

Sex offenders have not only violated the law, but have sometimes done things most of us find unimaginable. Messing sexually with children is unimaginable to me. 

But people who commit such crimes do not give up their humanity, or their entitlement to the protection of our laws. Unfortunately, it may take fresh lawsuits and more huge jury verdicts to get that point through the skulls of the folks who run the Dona Ana County Detention Center.

We've all heard how sex offenders are often treated by other prisoners. Therefore they're housed separately; and when they're in contact with others, you watch carefully; and you don't let other inmates know that a particular inmate is a sex offender. These are the rules.

CASE: Mr. A writes me that after his arrest (for an unspecified sex crime) a jailer placed him in a holding cell with a regular inmate and let that inmate see what he was in for. Mr. A was beaten to within an inch of his life. (Call me if you're a lawyer who has time and the skills to represent him.)

CASE: Mr. B had just returned from court. Completely shackled, he sat on a bench, helpless, waiting for the guard to remove his restraints. The jailer first unlocked a maximum-security inmate who had apparently heard the charges against Mr. B in court. The other inmate beat Mr. B so badly that Mr. B was beyond the capabilities of our local hospitals and had to be transferred to El Paso. 

Sorry, but that's just wrong.

We're not talking about a father or brother so angry over the rape of a sweet, innocent girl (or boy) that he attacks the rapist. (I'll admit having said and meant that if someone molested a certain innocent, creative, and loving 11-year-old female relative, I'd kill him myself. Even though I understand that most such molesters have first been victims.)

We're talking about the deliberate indifference of a jailer who likely hasn't met the victim, but dislikes sex offenders or gets some jollies watching a beating. Or is so careless that he should find some job where people's lives aren't at stake.

Meanwhile, “sex crimes” have expanded far beyond what most of us realize. Some poor soul who never touches anyone but watches a couple of pornographic films with underage kids in them could be locked up for decades. Such films aren't to my taste; and I understand the theory that jailing customers diminishes the market for such films. But the penalties can be draconian.

Too, an 18-year-old having a fling with a 15-year-old who says she's 17, and looks and acts it, could be jailed on a charge that sounds worse than it was. 

I concede that the two incidents cited above are allegations, not yet tried in any court of law, civil or criminal. 

But note that I don't do criminal law or hang around the jail a lot. If I know of these two cases, from the past few months, how many more might there be that we know nothing of?

As a tax-paying citizen, I don't want jailers conducting themselves this way: it's legally wrong, and it risks a Slevin-size jury verdict. Folks complaining about alleged waste at the County should sure complain far more loudly about this stuff.

These problems illustrate why we need a Citizens Advisory Committee here. Ethically or financially, we cannot afford to view our jails as septic tanks into which we need not look.

                                                       -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 15 November.and will appear later today on the KRWG-TV website.]

A point worthy of a column itself is the draconian nature of the penalties for watching porn on the Internet. A first offense of watching child porn on the Internet could carry a 10-year statutory minimum sentence.  We could be talking about some troubled fellow who has never touched a child and never would -- or even someone who stumbled onto a site by accident or out of curiosity about what all the fuss was about.   Congress has vastly increased the penalties in recent years not based on any science or studies or sense of justice, but out of irrational revulsion and quite rational political calculations.  

Many judges are appalled by the sentences they have to hand down.    I've read several essays by lawyers, and surveys by the U.S. Sentencing Commission have confirmed that.  According to one organization:  according to one organization:

According to a survey conducted by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, federal judges believe that many child pornography sentences are too long – 71 percent of respondents believed that the mandatory minimum for receipt of child pornography was too high.25 . . .  70 percent of the judges surveyed respond[ed] that the guideline ranges for possession were too high. Additionally, 69 percent believed that sentences for receipt of child pornography were excessive.  Unsurprisingly, federal judges are responding to this excess by handing down sentences below the guideline range when they are able and when they believe it is appropriate. In 2010, less than 55 percent of child pornography sentences fell within the guideline range or below it pursuant to a government-sponsored departure, while nearly 43 percent of offenders received nongovernment-sponsored below-range sentences.  In 2008, Robert W. Pratt, a U.S. district judge in Des Moines, Iowa, wrote that the sentencing guidelines for child pornography crimes “do not appear to be based on any sort of [science] and the Court has been unable to locate any particular rationale for them beyond the general revulsion that is associated with child exploitation-related offenses.”   Since then, other judges have spoken out, including Judge Jack Weinstein, of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. In an interview with The New York Times, Judge Weinstein said of child pornography sentences, “We’re destroying lives unnecessarily.”  

In any case, a Detention Center prisoner is in our care.  A jail-sponsored beating (or one in which jailers acquiesce, or one our jailers' carelessness facilitates) is both wrong and potentially costly.  To us.  Arguments about how much we spend on transportation or how much we pay our deputy sheriffs should not be complicated by allotting money to pay huge jury verdicts to prisoners. 

A Suggestion on Improving the Jail

A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) could help improve the Doña Ana County Detention Center.

This proposal is independent of any criticisms I may have of the jail administration. It's based on successful models as diverse as Canada and New Mexico's own San Miguel County.

The Canadian CAC system, initiated in 1965, began to function as a national organization after the 1977 MacGuigan Report, which was sparked by several serious prison disturbances. The Canadian Government believed that the disturbances showed the need for community representatives who could monitor and evaluate correctional policies and procedures. As the Report noted, “correctional agencies traditionally operated in isolation” and “the public had never been well informed about corrections or the criminal justice system.” Both observations accurately describe our jail.

The Canadians saw that properly structured CAC's could both inform the public about prison realities and advise the Canadian Correctional Service (CSC) of its own shortcomings. For nearly forty years the CSC and the CAC's have been refining their relationship.

In the successful Canadian program, CAC's have three main roles: as advisors, impartial observers, and liasons.

As advisors they provide impartial advice from a cross-section of community members concerning operations. Their suggestions are based on regular meetings with offenders, local union representatives, and local detention center management. 

They observe during both day-to-day operations and institutional crises, so as to assist detention center officials in evaluating and monitoring how well the detention center fulfills its missions in accordance with laws and policies. They also help demonstrate – to the public, to employees, and to incarcerated persons – the detention center's commitment to openness, integrity, and accountability. 

As liaisons, they provide management a community perspective, help tell the jail's story to the public, and encourage additional public understanding of and participation in the correctional process.

In Las Vegas the CAC has some definite accomplishments to report. Construction on a “re-integration center” right near the jail is nearly complete. Maybe we couldn't replicate that here; but I lunched Tuesday with a fellow whose felony conviction as a teenager has made it difficult for decades to get back into the work force.

Warden Patrick Snedeker, who went to NMSU back around when I did, speaks highly of the CAC for just the reasons the Canadians do. (Caveat: Las Vegas is a much smaller town with a smaller jail at 50% capacity, and is (enviably) focused on rehabilitation.) 

“We've been very successful with the CAC,” Snedeker told me recently. “The CAC can help with things as diverse as legislative funding, getting information to decision-makers such as the County Commission, and identifying resources within the community. It also helps the community understand our purpose and our plans.”

“We absolutely try to focus on rehabilitation, whether through grant funding or partnerships with other entities.”

“Our three major concerns are violence, substance abuse, and recidivism.”

The need for an independent CAC is more urgent here than in Las Vegas. We have a much bigger jail, setting a much harder set of tasks for our jailers, including Mr. Barela. 

At least here, things happen that either don't reach Mr. Barela or reach him but not the public or the County Commission. The name Slevin should ring some bells; and I'm aware of a few more recent situations that could lead to huge verdicts if prisoners sued. And I don't even spend much time at the jail. Most of the problems are avoidable.

Again, Mr. Barela has a huge, difficult task. Even without the current investigation, he – or anyone in his position – could use the help of a CAC. Let's get one going.

                                                          -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 4 October 2015.  For further information on Canadian CAC's, click here.]  The site also has links to recent annual reports by the national CAC.]

Detention Center Investigation Heats Up -- Years Later than it Should Have?

Internal reports suggest that Detention Center Director Chris Barela may be guilty of misuse of public funds, and perhaps of crimes.

I don't pre-judge him. I do ask why it's taken so long for us to reach this point in the investigation, In late 2013, I wrote about these matters and discussed them with law enforcement. At least one Doña Ana County Commissioner also contacted the DA. The State Police began an investigation.

In two different subpoenae, the state police sought internal reports on Barela. Then-County Counsel John Caldwell objected that the reports were protected by attorney-client privilege. By early 2014 some judge should have decided whether or not the privilege protected the documents from the subpoenae – and perhaps whether invoking that privilege was proper when we are arguably the County Counsel's real client.

Lawyers and law professors have written extensively about the question of who is a city or county attorney's client. The mayor or manager? The council or commission? The public? Some combination, depending on circumstances? These can be complex questions. The public nature of the job raises considerations and requires choices that Exxon's in-house counsel doesn't confront.

To me and to many County employees, the County administration seemed dominated by a clique of high-level administrators who watched each other's backs and valued loyalty to the clique above loyalty to the public good. It was widely believed that people the “bosses” trusted could get away with anything, while people they didn't could get fired for trivial or trumped-up reasons. Trials, including Granados (2013) and Stewart (2015), explored the situation. Two different juries heard from both sides and reached very similar conclusions: they were appalled and angered by the portrait of County administration that emerged. (The Slevin jury had something to say about Mr. Barela's management of the detention center.)

Caldwell was central to the alleged clique. Many people said, “Caldwell really runs the County.” Employees and even Commissioners complained that he intimidated them or tried to.

County Manager Julia Brown and County Counsel Nelson Goodin arrived after the events the trials concerned. But they've continued to refuse to hand over certain documents on Barela, despite grand jury subpoenae. (They've also provided some documents, including a CD with a year's worth of purchase orders.) They apparently will provide former auditor Milton Duran's report on Barela by the subpoena deadline for that.

Whoever wins the attorney-client privilege conflict, I'm wondering why we're messing around with these issues at least two years after law enforcement started investigating. Duran's audit was in 2009! (I'm told there was also an even earlier report.) County Commissioners are appalled by the delay – and by the apparent lack of oversight of the Inmate Welfare Fund. Some of these issues were finally aired in a work session Tuesday.

Barela may have committed crimes. If he did, will the statute of limitations run out because the County was stiffing the State Police and/or D.A.'s Office and no one pushed back hard enough? The report I've seen certainly points toward questionable conduct.

The State Police got two subpoenae served seeking the internal reports, but no motion to enforce those was filed. The D.A. says he referred the matter to the State Police, understood there were some problems, indicated that lawyers in his office were available to deal with those problems, then didn't hear further for quite awhile. He and DASO are definitely pushing it now. (There's certainly some intra-governmental tension: some on the investigating side call the attorney-client claim nonsense and one labeled Brown a liar.) I suspect a motion will get filed this week.

Meanwhile the State Auditor reportedly will start investigating in a few months.
                                                         -30-
[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 20 September.]


[ I wrote about part of the problem in a December 2013 column and have mentioned it elsewhere.  Issues include alleged use of Aramark employees for non-county work while they were being paid by the County, possible misuse of the inmate welfare fund, and other complaints.]

NM Must Provide Indigents a Fair Defense

New Mexico faces a Constitutional/financial crisis, given pleadings filed in more than a dozen criminal cases.

Poor persons accused of crimes are treated unfairly. U.S. and N.M. Constitutions, court decisions, and statutes say the poor have a right to counsel. If someone can't afford a lawyer, the State must provide one. Courts define “assistance of counsel” as effective assistance of counsel. That should mean a defense as diligent and competent as a paying client would get.

D.A.'s offices get plenty of funding, often screaming “law-and-order” to voters and legislators. Public defenders and contract defense attorneys get paid at rates that would be comical if those rates didn't have tragic consequences for many defendants.

The New Mexico Constitutional amendment removing control of public defenders from the Governor's Office and creating a Public Defender Commission was a great step forward. Voters backed it strongly, and local defense attorney Michael Stout has been an able chairman.

But the work ain't over. Contract public defenders (who defend poor persons in rural areas or when the P.D. has a conflict of interest) get specified amounts for specific classes of cases. Low specified amounts.

How low? $180 for a misdemeanor. Ethical representation requires at least three or four hours for a defendant pleading guilty. Fifty or more hours would be above average, but not unheard of, if a paying defendant chose to fight a misdemeanor charge. (One lawyer told me of spending a week trying game charges against a rancher.) If the necessary work in a contested misdemeanor case took only 20 hours, the attorney would get paid like a McDonald's burger-flipper.

Try $700 for a 1^st degree felony. You could talk the facts over with the client, review the charges and a little discovery, and either interview a few witnesses or do a little legal research, even write a short motion; but then you'd have spent the State's money and be well into spending your own, long before trial. Maybe you should talk the defendant into the plea bargain, even if it sucks.

In short, the defense attorney can fail to represent the client properly or spend a bunch of uncompensated time. Is that fair?

Recently Lincoln County defense attorney Gary Mitchell filed motions demanding that the State and its court system put our money where our mouths are.

His motion requests that the court stay prosecution until the State “makes adequate funds available for the defense.” Since Defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel at state expense, the State should fund that assistance or stop the prosecution. Further, he suggests that each case should be dismissed if the State doesn't fund a defense within 30 days. (We also have a U.S. Constitutional right to a speedy trial.)

Sound far-fetched? Courts have “inherent supervisory authority” to do such things. New Mexico courts have already done so with regard to capital crimes. A long term of imprisonment could be worse for some of us than a quick death.

If it happens, D.A.'s around the state will have to let a lot of folks go free in borderline prosecutions – and come up with unbudgeted cash for a proper defense in cases that really should be prosecuted.

Mitchell says he may file such motions in up to 200 cases. Contract public defenders from around New Mexico have asked him for copies, presumably to file similar papers.

None of his motions have yet gone to hearing, but Mitchell sounds guardedly optimistic. “There are numerous courageous district judges in our state who are fully aware of the problem,” he says. So is the Supreme Court.

Stout says, “Many contract public defenders like Gary Mitchell give their all to protect clients. They shouldn't also have to give the shirts off their backs to provide a constitutionally-mandated service.”

While the Commission takes no position on Mitchell's motions, Stout said, “It agrees that the present system for paying contract counsel to represent indigents accused of serious crimes is unsustainable.” The Commission “has learned that the indigent defense system is severely underfunded, even more so than it imagined. The PDC is striving vigorously to improve the system and its funding.” However, it has no budget.

Local D.A. Mark D'Antonio could not be reached for comment.

I'd guess the New Mexico Supreme Court will look favorably on the motions.

Many legislators also understand the problem, but it's not politically convenient to deal with it.

Constitutions and statutory requirements? Criminally accused indigents ain't major campaign contributors. Let's kick the can down the road, until there's a crisis. Then we can stand around on a desert road kicking ourselves for ignoring the oil warning light.

We'll pay more than we should have – and/or release a lot of folks our district attorneys wanted in jail.

And speaking of jail, here's another column update: allegations concerning Detention Center head Chris Barela are finally going before a grand jury, possibly this week.
                                                      -30-

[The foregoing column appeared in this morning's Las Cruces Sun-News, under the slightly unfortunate title, "NM Faces Public Defender Problem."  I don't share what may be a widespread sentiment, that the public defenders are the problem.  As is so often true, we are the problem.]
[Fact is, it was a strange week.  For awhile I thought I was going to write a column updating three issues, each of which deserved a whole column: the situation with legal representation of indigents, discussed above; the revived Barela investigation; and the mysterious disappearance of a judge I'd written about; but since there wasn't a lot to say about the Barela situation and I couldn't quite figure out the situation on the judge, I decided to write the column I wrote, await developments, and keep on investigating the situation involving the judge for a probable column.  (Both  my column on why we needed an independent Public Defender Commission and my earlier column on Barela are available on this blog.)]
[The magistrate judge situation seems kind of wacky right now.  The judge ain't there, other judges are "doing double dockets because he isn't there," lawyers are getting notices that their cases before him are now before other judges, and one source says "he's moved out, lock, stock, and barrel."  A memo went around saying he'd been removed by the NM Supreme Court; but both the NM Supreme Court and the memo's author say there's been no order removing him, and I haven't learned what the memo's author saw that indicated otherwise.  Meanwhile, we don't know; and as one source put it, "I'm pissed off that we don't know.  The public has a right to know."   Wherever he's holed up, the judge, who had been pretty diligent about returning my calls, hasn't responded to several messages during the past ten days.  Something's going on; likely it involves serious allegations and a "confidential" suspension pending determination of them; but for now, we can only wait and hope the authorities will deign to inform us eventually.]
[With regard to the issues discussed in the above column, I'll add an update on the blog when I hear about some judge's reaction to one of Mr. Mitchell's motions to stay.  In my view (and probably his) Mr. Mitchell would also have had standing to bring a suit against the state for declaratory and injunctive relief, based on the impact of the State's misconduct on his own professional work, forcing him to act unprofessionally or volunteer a whole bunch of time taxpayers ought to be paying for.  However, what he did is probably more direct, and protecting his clients more urgent than protecting himself.]

County and Jail Employees Privately Question how the Detention Center is Being Run

Twice last week people asked me about the County's deficit and the huge Slevin verdict. They asked, “Why didn't heads roll?”

Fact is, some county employees opined privately that Detention Center Manager Christopher Barela should have been fired well before the Slevin trial.

The jury socked Barela with $3.5 million in punitive damages. The overall verdict of around $22 million led to a settlement for more like $15 million, of which the County paid half.

But lower-ranking county employees, who fear retaliation and won’t let their names be printed, point to longer-term problems, including alleged favoritism and an allegedly dubious relationship with a vendor. (Independent contractor Aramark employs Barela’s younger brother, and Aramark employees have allegedly spent parts of their shifts working at the boxing gym where Barela coaches.)

Jail officers point to Barela’s special treatment of jailed relatives and friends, including David Peña and convicted murderer Moses Mancheca, Barela’s nephew.

Barela’s great love is the PAL Boxing Gym. Peña was a young boxer there. He got hired at the Detention Center. While on probation he survived two disciplinary issues that one long-time officer said would have gotten most people fired. The same officer said Peña later quit in lieu of attending a termination hearing.
In February Peña tried to kidnap his ex-girlfriend from in front of her place of work on Amador Street. It was his second arrest, and violated a restraining order imposed after the first.

Peña was isolated for his own protection from inmates who had known him as a jailer. A long-time officer says the isolation was right and proper, but that where he was isolated wasn’t.

Peña was allowed to stay in the medical wing. That was allegedly Barela’s decision, overriding the judgment of the Health Care Lieutenant and the Classification Lieutenant. If so, it also allegedly violated written policies against giving preferential treatment to friends and family, or even appearing to do so, and against using one’s position of authority to get an inmate preferential treatment.

Officers had been trying unsuccessfully for two years to get televisions in that area Within three days of Peña’s incarceration, holes were drilled and a TV was installed in Peña’s single-man cell (though not in a nearby four-man cell), allegedly on Barela’s order . One officer called it “direct favoritism.” ( I wrote this shortly after the incident. I assume the neighboring cell also has a TV by now.)

Barela denies favoritism. He told us they had been looking for a way to put a TV in such cells, which are not as tall as normal cells. That means a destructive inmate could reach the TV. He said that once they found a TV they hoped could withstand attack, they wanted to experiment. The first inmate they spoke to said he didn’t want a TV. The second was highly destructive. Barela said Peña just happened to be the next chance to test a TV.

Barela also allegedly made a change to accommodate his brother Ronnie, who had been arrested for a third DWI. There were no curtains on showers. This fact troubled Ronnie. Very soon some curtains appeared. Some subordinate officers viewed this as favoritism.

A few years ago, Barela’s nephew Moses Mancheca was charged with first-degree murder. Normally, such prisoners are housed in maximum security. As one officer put it, “A man looking at twenty years or more has a lot less to lose. And they’re more of a predatory type inmate than a prey type.”

Mancheca was reportedly permitted to roam among medium security prisoners.

Barela says the decision on Mancheca was made by the classification officer, based on published criteria, and that he didn’t participate.

Barela denied knowledge of an investigation of his relationship with Aramark, an independent contractor at the Detention Center.

Aramark employs Ronnie Barela. Chris Barela says that although Ronnie got his job at Aramark during Chris’s tenure at the Detention Center, there’s no connection.

Other officers say Aramark would have fired Ronnie but for Chris's position. One, asked whether Aramark employed a brother of Chris Barela’s, replied, “Oh, you mean the one they’re scared to fire.” Another said Aramark changed Ronnie Barela's job after his third DWI conviction, but would likely have fired anyone else.

Officers also allege that Aramark employees, sometimes as part of their shifts at the Detention Center, work at the boxing gym.

Documents show two Aramark employees admitted they work at the Detention Center, apparently on the County’s nickel.

A commissioner reported this issue to new District Attorney Mark D’Antonio for investigation, and D’Antonio passed it on to the New Mexico State Police. Agent Clint Norris was reportedly investigating this and other issues.

That was months ago. The investigation appears to have stalled. Officer Norris failed to respond to several phone messages. When asked, Commissioners Wayne Hancock and David Garcia confirmed their understanding that Norris was assigned to investigate, but said they’d received no report. When I asked D’Antonio recently, he said he hadn't heard back but would check with the investigator. (Calls to D’Antonio late last week and early this week have yielded no further information.)

Then, just at this column's deadline I spoke with Agent Norris.  He said, "It's still under investigation.  There's been some road blocks we've run into that I've been trying to push through." He'd also been called out of the area on other business during the past several months.  He said he couldn't estimate when the investigation might wrap up -- that of course he hoped to wrap it up within a few more weeks, "but couldn't swear to it." He did not, of course, specify the road-blocks or divulge any specific information regarding his investigation.

We deserve to know the truth.



                                                                       -30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, December 15th.  It represents my opinions, not the newspaper's.]  

[I'd postponed publishing this column, for various reasons, for months.  I should say that in my discussion with Barela himself he was gentlemanly and courteous and said some good things about running a prison; and I['m well aware of the challenges he faces in his job; but the problems discussed in the column -- and a couple of others I didn't feel sufficiently knowledgeable about to include in the column -- need a fair and thorough investigation.  I hope Agent Norris is giving them that, and have no reason to believe he isn't.   It was reassuring finally to talk to him.  However, if we don't see some coherent resolution of this soon, that will be troublesome.  

I believe Mr. Barela's contract may be up for renewal soon.  Both he and we would be well-served by seeing the fruits of Agent Norris's work sooner rather than later.]