Another Sad Case at DASO

Imagine you're a young cadet in the Doña Ana Sheriff's Office Academy. 

 

You're an army reservist, having made it through basic training. You're being consistently called lazy. You're the only cadet being told to suck your thumb and asked to repeat various tasks after completing them. “Why me?” you wonder.

You are the only black cadet. 

 

On June 5, after an incident, you tell the instructor, Frank Kaiser, that you feel you're being discriminated against because you're African-American. The County's strong anti-discrimination policies require Kaiser to report your allegation immediately to H.R. for independent investigation. Instead, he sends you home and tells you to go see Undersheriff Ken Roberts the next morning.

Roberts asks why you made your claim, then interrupts and tells you that you're history. Gone. He says all your fellow cadets want you gone, and that Sheriff Vigil has approved the termination. You wonder how he talked to so many people so fast. Maybe you wonder if having a DASO officer “investigate” your complaint about a DASO officer is entirely fair. 

 

The above is from legal pleadings in Johnson v. Doña Ana County. Plaintiff is Tederick Johnson. His lawyer is Ben Furth. (Furth is an experienced employment lawyer who also represents Julia Brown against the County.)

Here we go again. 

 

I'd love not to be writing about another dumb move by Vigil and Roberts. I'd love not to be wondering how much we will pay for this one. Obviously I'd also like to learn some day that this was not motivated by racism. I want to believe we're better than that.

Johnson may have been a lousy cadet. Maybe he deserved to be canned, though apparently DASO didn't plan to terminate him on June 4, then did immediately after he alleged discrimination. Suddenly DASO concluded he wasn't deputy material. Officially he was fired for insubordination, which the Complaint calls “pretextual” – a cover story for racism. The County will likely claim Johnson cried racism to avoid or delay being fired. 

 

Whatever the facts, it was not Roberts's province to investigate them. Even if there was no racism, Roberts's conduct seems arrogant and imprudent. 

 

Once someone raises allegations of racism, sexual harassment, or retaliation, the matter must be handled by someone as neutral as possible – for the sake of both the organization and the individual. The County fired Johnson before investigating his complaint. (The County admits the firing occurred June 6 and that Johnson's supervisor reported the EEOC complaint June 6. The County claims it started the investigation before firing Johnson, but admits it finished investigating afterward.

Both Kaiser and Roberts were required to: (a) report the allegation immediately to HR; and (b) request that the employee fill out an internal EEO complaint, or fill one out for him. Failure to do so would subject Kaiser and Roberts to disciplinary action.

I called County Counsel Nelson Goodin, who said no one would comment on the pending litigation. 

 

I've no idea whether Johnson should or shouldn't be a deputy; but Roberts seems to have ignored mandatory procedures he must have been familiar with. Whether the reason was laziness, arrogance, prejudice, or to cover up questionable conduct by Kaiser, Roberts's mistake is likely to cost us more money. (A friend asked after the Slevin case why the County couldn't go after the employee whose conduct cost us so much. We can't.)

When will DASO learn to follow the law?

                                                    -30-

[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 10 December 2017, and also on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on KRWG Wednesday and Saturday and on KTAL on Thursday.]

[I've little to add to the column, except that the immediate response has been some positive comments from insiders.  People in the know are concerned about DASO, and say the Vigil-Roberts regime has done real damage to the department.  It's unfortunate.  I think Kiki Vigil meant well would have liked to do a bang-up job running and improving DASO.  He hasn't.  I'm not expert in law-enforcement matters, but I'm hearing that morale and response times are down; and a lot of officers who seemed pretty capable are gone, something I wrote a few columns about quite awhile ago.]   

[I should reiterate that I'm not presuming to decide whether or not racism was the basic reason for Mr. Johnson's firing.  That'll be up to a jury, if the case doesn't get settled first.  However, I don't understand, and will be interested to see the explanation offered at trial, why DASO had to act so precipitously.  What would we have lost, except a few extra days or a couple of weeks of continued pay to this cadet, by responding appropriately?  Any schoolkid would know that having Roberts send a crony along to interview all the other cadets could not be a fair inquiry and couldn't help but muddy the waters for any independent investigator later.   You send a cadet packing -- justifiably or not -- and then send an officer around to tell the cadets about the controversy and ask who's side they're on, the terminated cadet's side or the side of the instructor who could get another cadet or two terminated, uhh, gee whiz.   That's why we have procedures in place.   If -- as I expect the County to argue -- this guy was under-performing and tried to fend off termination by alleging discrimination, then recognize he might find a lawyer and handle his case by the book.  Why react as Roberts did and help the guy make his case against you? 
The unseemly rush to get Mr. Johnson off the payroll seems particularly odd when I keep hearing that Vigil and Roberts have had an experienced officer on administrative leave for many months.] 
 

Our Sheriff Should Concentrate on the Sheriff's Office

My intense study of DASO, including interviews with most everyone I could talk to, leaves me with further questions. 

One is whether Sheriff Enrique Vigil is violating NMSA Section 29-7-6.1 requiring new sheriffs without “a certificate attesting to completion of a basic law enforcement training program” to “complete an administrative law enforcement training program” within twelve months. Vigil apparently looked into taking a course, but there's no record he completed an appropriate law-enforcement course. He may now be contending that his training as a U.S. Marshal many years ago exempts him. Is he right? Or breaking the law? I've asked the appropriate state agency for its interpretation of the statute. No answer yet.

Are the people unhappy with Vigil and Undersheriff Ken Roberts a small group of malcontents, as management suggests, or a departmental majority, as the “malcontents” assert? I can't say, but I've had exactly one person contact me to speak up for management, and quite a few on the other side. There are a lot of complaints by a lot of good current or former employees. Still, being numerous doesn't make them right.

In any case, the existence of large numbers of angry people, inside DASO, ex-DASO, or dealing with DASO, isn't a good sign. Vigil and Roberts have rightly fought for higher pay for deputies. (I applaud them for this.) It seems significant that, despite that advocacy, they are not nearly so popular as Vigil appeared to be less than a year ago seems significant.

Should Vigil (as some friends have advised him) jettison Roberts as undersheriff? Could he then turn his remaining two years as sheriff into a success? We'll see. One knowledgeable source told me recently, “the complaints I'm hearing now are mostly concerning the Undersheriff.”

Most all the top law-enforcement people are gone and/or unhappy. Vigil-Roberts has stripped DASO of experienced command staff, exposing the county to potential lawsuits and citizens to less certain protection. (See my columns January 29 and February 5 (SWAT incident), Sheriff Vigil's on February 5, and my comment on his column.)

Meanwhile, Sheriff Vigil is said to have aspirations to run more than DASO.

Vigil said that in January 2017, with a new county commission, County Manager Julia Brown would be gone quickly. (Brown says that shortly after a conversation with Vigil, she received an unsigned note warning her she'd be gone soon.)

Vigil then did a lot of politicking. He contributed to the defeats of former commissioners Wayne Hancock and Dr. David Garcia. People tell me he was of major assistance in new Commissioner Ramon Gonzalez's victory over Garcia. Vigil clearly campaigned against Hancock, whom Isabella Solis beat in the Democratic Primary. John Vasquez ran successfully for the seat vacated by Commissioner Letitia Benavidez. I don't know Solis, but she doesn't strike me as a pawn of Sheriff Vigil. Vasquez certainly strikes me as an independent person, a war veteran and a political progressive who has a strict sense of right-and-wrong and is likely to act on it. 

The holdovers are Billy Garrett (another bete noir of Vigil's) and Ben Rawson. They don't agree with each other much; but I believe they both know that the County ought to be run by the commissioners.

I've criticized Ms. Brown sometimes. More often, I've been quite impressed with her. She should stand or fall on her merits, not because Sheriff Vigil finds her presence inconvenient. (Note Vigil's winless record in lawsuits against the County.) The Commissioners should take the necessary time to figure this out themselves.

As for Sheriff Vigil, he'd do well to concentrate on the job to which we elected him.

                                                       -30-

[The above column appeared this morning in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 12 February, as well as on the newspaper's website and the KRWG-TV website.  I've since learned that at Tuesday' County Commission meeting Ms. Brown's contract will be reviewed.]

[After writing the column, I learned something further that had me shaking my head again.  I'd omitted statements that Vigil and Roberts planned to fill the higher positions within DASO with cronies from elsewhere.  It was a prediction that could prove inaccurate.  

Then a couple of days ago, someone from DASO called me.  A memo had been circulated saying that, by the way, openings for promotion to captain and major had been posted -- about ten days earlier, the previous Monday -- and would close in about ten days -- the following Friday.  They were also advertised externally.  It'll be interesting to see how that goes.]

[Undersheriff Roberts responded in today's (Sunday's) newspaper to my column last week on the SWAT incident.  (I haven't found his column on-line yet, or I'd include a link to it.)  It's well-written, and sounds good, and I wish he'd deigned to respond to me in person.  However, there are points in it I don't understand.  Several sources said eight people were on the scene.  Roberts says there were "23 available DASO staff members on the shift."  That's different.  He proclaims: "It is always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but those who are at the scene aren't afforded the same clarity when making critical decisions that are matters of life and death."  

I agree; but it's precisely the folks on-scene, in their written reports, who criticized Roberts (who was not on the scene).  Other current or former DASO personnel and a national expert seconded those criticisms.  I'm just sharing them with the community, after checking everything out as best I could.

Interestingly, too, the official story seemed to change a little after my first of these three DASO-related columns appeared. 

I remain, as Mr. Roberts suggests, "an ardent advocate for civil rights protections, [and] against excessive use of force or a militarized police force."  However, I am also for reasonable protection of the public and the police themselves.  A lot of people who know more than I about this subject felt that DASO didn't provide that as well as it should have on this occasion.]

[On  purely trivial note: In their responses, both Kiki and Ken start with my full name, "Peter Powers Goodman," as if they find it significant in some way, or amusing.  Which is fine.  It does sound a little funny.  My mother chose my middle name to honor one of her twin brothers, Perrin and Powers.  Powie was the more mischievous and adventurous of the two.  Soon after their service in Europe during World War II, Powie died in a car accident.  I arrived a year or two later, or maybe just a few months.  Powers himself was so named because a dozen generations earlier, 14-year-old Walter Powers had come to this country from Scotland.  In 1648, I think.  Generations with the last name Powers followed, mostly farming but also teaching, and serving in wars, down to my great-grandfather Clarence Powers, in Fort Fairfield, Maine.  Powers was my maternal grandmother's maiden name.  If any of that amuses the Sheriff and the Undersheriff, or seems relevant in rebutting my columns, they're welcome to use it as they like.  It's public information.  As to me, I don't often think about that stuff, but if I do think about it, I wear that name proudly.]

More on the Doña Ana County Sheriff's Office

I'd urge folks to read Sheriff's Vigil's "response to Peter Powers Goodman's column."

I had written two recent Sunday columns (and blog posts) on the Doña Ana County Sheriff's Office, Problems Again at Doña Ana County Sheriff's Office and Doña Ana County SWAT Team Hampered by Unusual Ground Rules.  Sheriff Vigil had declined to return my phone calls but did publish this response Sunday in the Las Cruces Sun-News. 

I have long agreed with Sheriff Vigil that DASO law-enforcement personnel should be better paid. I also advocated fairer treatment for them under the previous sheriff. I voted for Mr. Vigil.

Sheriff Vigil also misread my initial column if he thought it was about sacking Undersheriff Lerma. That's Vigil's prerogative; but eliminating Lerma and installing Roberts has proven unwise.   I'm no expert on running a law-enforcement agency. Maybe Vigil could have appointed someone who was a vast improvement over Lerma (although Lerma had extensive pertinent experience). But unfortunately that isn't what Sheriff Vigil did, according to all but one of the folks I've talked to.

Below, I've taken excerpts from Sheriff Vigil's column, mostly italicized, and added my response to his comments:

As I've noted, I repeatedly sought to discuss these matters with Mr. Vigil. He states now that he “decided not to interview with Mr. Goodman because I feel he has not been objective in previous columns he has written concerning the Doña Ana County Sheriff’s Office. I cannot discuss pending litigation or personnel matters. Finally, we cannot compromise officer safety by revealing tactical strategies with respect to SWAT operations.”

Objectivity: I have striven to be objective. I hope and believe I've succeeded. I have no political or personal animus toward Mr. Vigil, for whom I voted. Further, he knows of things that I did not publicize, or delayed publicizing, during his battles with county administration; and others have criticized me for writing too sympathetically to Sheriff Vigil. (I recall criticizing certain positions he took in lawsuits; but I said essentially what judges later wrote in their decisions – so unless he also considers all those judges biased, then this can't be the basis for his allegation.) In any case, I invite Sheriff Vigil to point to some specific evidence, such as something I've written that's false and negative concerning him. He offers none.

I agree that Sheriff Vigil is severely limited in what he can say about pending litigation or personnel matters. That can be unfair: an aggrieved employee can speak privately, but a supervisor risks legal problems if s/he does so.  Thus to some degree we must wait and see; but the sheer numbers of people who are gone or unhappy should be of concern to anyone who cares about good law-enforcement.

However, it's pure nonsense to say he “cannot compromise officer safety by revealing tactical strategies with respect to SWAT operations.” First of all, the basic “tactical strategies” are outlined on the website of the National Tactical Officers Association, taught in classes, and studied extensively.   Second, my IPRA request yielded documents, with only the names of certain parties redacted for reasons I agree thoroughly with. IPRA has an exception for investigatory documents that reveal confidential sources or methods.  If there were confidential SWAT team methods revealed by those documents, they should have been redacted; but there were none.

I agree with much of what Sheriff Vigil says:

“I promised changes in DASO. These changes were transforming DASO from a traffic citation quota system into a department that is engaged in community-oriented policing.”  I agree with his de-emphasis of traffic tickets. (In my youth I got too many of them.)

I agree thoroughly that DASO law-enforcement personnel should be better paid. I've said so often. I was troubled by the County's appeal of If there's a way I can help, let me know.


I agree that Ken Roberts makes a good first impression. We first met him as we emerged from voting for someone else in the Democratic Primary for Sheriff, He was standing by a truck advertising his own candidacy. During our brief conversation, he thoroughly looked and sounded the part. I immediately wondered whether maybe we should have voted for him. I just wish Roberts's positive qualities were turned toward more often toward improvement of the department.

Unfortunately, he apparently hasn't panned out so well. In discussing him with others recently, “ambitious” and “vindictive” are the most common words in the conversation. “There's just something really wrong with that guy,” a non-DASO person who has dealt with Roberts complained to me this week.

Obviously I disagree that Roberts has demonstrated “leadership.” I did have one person contact me to defend Roberts, and passionately argue that he was doing a great job; but most accounts have been sadly different from that. Real-life “leadership” is a more complex skill than Mr. Vigil suggests, and while it can occasionally create widespread resentment, as it does in the movies when a tough but fair military commander forces pilots to their limits because he must, that kind of resentment more often develops from bad management or the kind of “cronyism” some accuse Vigil and Roberts of.

Nor was his background auspicious. Here, folks who've worked with him generally didn't rate him highly as a detective. Undersheriff Roberts was also a policeman for several years in Shawnee, Oklahoma, many years ago. That ended badly. Demoted, he sued the department; and his lawsuit did so badly that he ended up getting ordered to pay money rather than collect it. He also went to the Border Patrol School several years ago, but apparently never got hired and never returned to try again. And he was apparently in the military police, with the Air Force.

Sheriff Vigil's “defense” on the SWAT Team debacle was no defense at all. A better defense would have been to admit the facts, call this a glitch or an exception, and state that Roberts will trust what the men on the ground are telling him a little more next time.

I applaud Sheriff Vigil's desire “to develop and oversee programs that promote positive community outreach and race relations.” However, he adds, “Unfortunately, the current county management has interfered and thus far prevented us from achieving these much needed goals.” If he ever talks with me again, I hope to hear more about that.

I'm also puzzled by some of his comments.

He says he “received numerous complaints from the public” when he appointed Eddie Lerma as his undersheriff; but my IPRA request to DASO for complaints from the public about Lerma yielded none.  

He says Ken Roberts “was the favorite candidate among the progressives. Ironically, Mr. Goodman is now questioning his qualifications and professionalism.” I had never heard that Roberts was the favorite among progressives. I saw candidates J.R. Stewart and Curtis Childress most often at the P.V.A.

He writes, “The state Department of Public Safety has my credentials and certifications. I completed the required courses provided by the New Mexico Association of Counties and the New Mexico Sheriff’s Association in January of 2015.” However, (a) oral and written IPRA requests to the Attorney-General, the state police academy, DASO, and the County yielded no hint that he'd taken the Sheriff's Association course in January of 2015. In fact, I thought the NMAC course and the NMSA courses both occurred in the second week of December 2014, making it tough to attend both.


I wish Sheriff Vigil well.  He holds an important position in our community, and can improve or weaken law enforcement and the relationships between law-enforcement and citizens.  I believe he has some good intentions.  I also believe he's made some mistakes.  He has nearly two full years left in his term, and I hope those will be so successful that if he seeks re-election we all avidly support his campaign.  

Sheriff's Lawsuit is the Wrong Answer to Some Serious Questions

The “investigation” of Sheriff Enrique Vigil was a sad joke, rivaled for silliness only by Vigil's lawsuit against two county commissioners.

Sparked by some now-departed county employee, the investigation accused Vigil of saying bad things about the County's HR Department and “contributing to a toxic environment for county employees.”

Hilariously, the investigator “found some support for the allegation of a perception of a toxic environment, but could not limit the cause to the sheriff.” Unambiguous decisions by several juries have confirmed the existence of that “toxic environment,” as have sources for several of my columns. That atmosphere was toxic before Vigil's election, and many employees would point to HR as a major reason.

Vigil was charged with speaking “badly about the human resources department without providing a factual basis.” Well, he spoke plenty bad to me about HR around the same time, but provided factual support. I'm just not seeing the factual basis for the investigation, unless the ex-employee's complaint required the County to conduct it. Waste of money.

But Vigil's responsive lawsuit strikes me as nonsense. It tries to allege that the “investigation” not only was improper but could intimidate Vigil from speaking out.

“Could intimidate?” Most lawsuits allege actual damage. Your car hit mine, or ran over my donkey and killed it. Not, “I'm suing you because you drove too fast and could have hit my cat.”

But if Vigil claimed flat-out that he'd been intimidated, jurors would laugh. A sheriff in Pat Garrett country alleging he was intimidated by some investigator asking him if he said any bad words? Vigil has spoken out long and loud to everyone who'd listen, and didn't stop when someone started “investigating” him. His lawyer, Gene Chavez, told me Vigil was speaking in his constituents' interest and that “attempts to intimidate him from that will have the opposite affect.” So the lawsuit can't allege they've shut him up.

A little research showed that the Workman's Comp Board suspended Chavez in 2012 for a long list of violations including “false statements to a tribunal” and “failing to communicate with clients.” When he appealed, the NM Supreme Court affirmed. (Chavez said the experience taught him a lot and made him a better, more careful lawyer.)

An earlier Chavez case arose from a late-night incident at a McDonald's. A 19-year-old girl was in her car in the drive-thru lane. A McDonald's customer, not entirely sober, found the girl attractive and made this known to her, then continued pressing his attentions on her after she signified her lack of interest. Her car allegedly dragged him a little ways. 

Chavez filed suit for the rejected would-be lover against McDonald's for not having had a security guard on duty to prevent such incidents. The jury quickly decided against the Plaintiff. 

Is his current case more promising?

Vigil has Chavez answering local reporters' questions. Yo, Kiki: we elected you, not an Albuquerque lawyer. 

Vigil's lawsuit could prove costly for us taxpayers. Even if it's thrown out at an early stage, some lawyer gets well-paid to file the papers to make that happen.

Further, it contributes to a stupid and unproductive polarization – also costly.

It also distracts us from some real issues: are DASO deputies underpaid? What can and should we do about that? Is HR as bad as almost everyone claims? Did HR folks indeed get a string of consultant-blessed raises that deputies and road department crews didn't see? Was that justifiable? As regards DASO, is HR being unnecessarily uncooperative or providing a useful check against imprudent hires?

These serious issues should be examined fairly and openly – not litigated.

                                                -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 6 December.  As it turned out, Sun-News Editorial Page Editor Walt Rubel had already written his own Sunday column before receiving mine, and they were on the same subject.  Both, independently, criticizing both the "investigation" of Sheriff Vigil and the lawsuit on Sheriff Vigil's behalf against two County Commissioners.  Both Walt and I regretted the way such steps hinder communication between county offices, and urged the combatants to get back to a reasonable and fact-based discussion of the original issue: how to ensure the County finances local law enforcement adequately.  Both sides want that.  So do most citizens.   (I'd include a link to Walt's column, except that I couldn't find either his or mine on the Sun-News website this morning.)]

 

[The lawsuit alleges“retaliation and measures designed to chill and inhibit [Vigil] in that exercise [of First Amendment free-speech rights].”  It adds that: “46. The degree and type of actions taken by Defendants and by others at Defendants behest against Plaintiff Sheriff Vigil have been sufficient to chill a person of ordinary firmness in the continued exercise of his or her First Amendment rights.”

I asked the Sheriff's lawyer whether the Sheriff was alleging he'd been chilled in expressing his views.  Mr. Chavez stated to me that the Sheriff had been faced with a very difficult situation, with the County “whittling down the department's budget” over time, and had spoken up because it was duty to his constituents, and that the response he'd gotten was consistent with the “culture of bullying” County management had exhibited. Asked point-blank whether the pressure had in fact dissuaded Vigil, he said that Vigil “won't be dissuaded, because he has the good of his constituency in mind.  Attempts to intimidate him will have the opposite affect.”

I also asked him about the three-month suspension (October 2012 to January 2013) from practice before the Workman's Comp board. Initially he said, “I have no comment on that,” adding that it was “something that happened in 2012” and that he'd been practicing successfully, without such problems, ever since. Eventually he added that he had learned a lot, that the Supreme Court might have been not only upholding his suspension but sending a more general message to other lawyers, adding that “since that time I have not only double-checked but triple-checked every letter and every pleading to make sure that it is not only accurate but ethical. I've been down that road, and don't want to go there again. I think I'm more cautious and careful than some lawyers who haven't had that experience.”

The Supreme Court opinion denying his appeal states that the WCA alleged against Chavez "seventeen separate violations of the Workers' Compensation Act [including] that Chavez willfully refused to participate in the mediation process in three (3) different instances; that Chavez willfully disregarded the rights of the parties in eight (8) different instances; that Chavez advocated meritless claims in four (4) separate instances; and that Chavez behaved in a non-courteous and disrespectful manner in two (2) separate instances."  He was penalized $17,000 and suspended for three months.  However, he states that his record has been clean since then, and I believe him.

Chavez pretty much declined comment on the McDonald's case, except to say he remembered it vividly but wondered why I considered it relevant.  Fair question.  I had questions about this lawsuit, just from reading it.  A few minutes' research disclosed his 2012 problems with the Workman's Compensation Board (including alleged false statements to a tribunal) and news stories on the McDonald's case.  That raised the question of whether there was a pattern here.   Lawyers get paid to argue cases, which involves presenting the facts in the best light for their own clients.  There can be a fine line between an aggressive, imaginative argument and one that strays into falsity or unethical conduct.  Most lawyers never go through what Mr. Chavez did.

He's right that this additional information about Vigil's lawyer wouldn't be admissible in a trial of Vigil's case; but where that case is brought by an elected official against two other elected officials, he information seems of public interest.

His comments to me were reassuring.  That whatever may have been true earlier in his career, the Workman's Comp situation had taught him something, he said.  I take him at his word.  I'm in no way alleging that bringing this case is in any way unethical.  I just doubt it will ever end in a judgment for Vigil; and I certainly doubt whether upping the ante this way is going to help fix the County's problems rather than exacerbate them.

On the other hand, some of the discovery in the case could be interesting.]

County Manager Criticizes Jury Verdict

Last week's column discussed the message sent the County Commission by the jury in Stewart v Dona Aña County. Rejecting testimony from HR Director Debra Weir and former county officials Sue Padilla and John Caldwell, the jury awarded $1.45 million to Stewart, whom Weir fired from her County position. Jurors were so appalled by the county officials' conduct that some hugged Stewart after the trial and thanked her for fighting. Stewart's lawyer stated in closing that Weir had to go.

County Manager Julia Brown's response has been somewhat graceless: she disagrees with the verdict, as she has a right to do, and has accused county-related witnesses whose testimony she didn't like of perjuring themselves. That's strong. Perjury is a crime. I tend to disagree with her. She's declined to answer questions concerning the specific evidentiary support for her contention.

I like Brown, and I'm mystified by the strength of her support for Weir, whose alleged misconduct caused or contributed to two large jury verdicts and some settlements of suits by former employees. (It's also strange that pay for folks working at HR has improved since 2011, while pay for road-workers, detention center employees, and deputy sheriffs generally hasn't.)

Meanwhile, there's an interesting battle brewing between County Sheriff Kiki Vigil, on the one hand, and Weir.

Vigil feels pretty strongly that Weir has hampered his efforts to hire deputies. He says he's short 45-48 deputies from what should be 164 (or 210, according to the most recent census).
He says several criminal justice graduates were eliminated by HR because they didn't have work experience and left that line blank on applications, and that other minor defects in applications had elicited rejections; that at a recent meeting judges asked the County Manager why hundreds of applications for jobs at the jail had been rejected; that more than 125 credible applicants for deputy sheriff positions have been turned away; and that it took a month to get job notices posted. (A judge confirmed the meeting, and had serious questions about the County Human Resources Department.)
“HR is broken,” the Sheriff told me recently. He added that HR has also sought detailed justifications from Vigil, an elected official, for personnel hires, though no ordinance or rule required such justifications.

Addressing employees regarding Stewart, Brown said witnesses had perjured themselves. Employees understood her to mean witnesses who had worked for the County or still did – and possibly a County Commissioner. She emphasized that these were her conclusions as a lawyer.

Brown, who generally speaks well, appeared to be trying to reassure employees they could come to her with discrimination/retaliation complaints. But is it reassuring to defend former high-up County officials (and Weir), who many employees (and two juries) say were guilty of discrimination/retaliation?

Brown explained that problematic employees sometimes try to avoid discipline by filing preemptive complaints of discrimination, which make it hard for managers to fire them. She spoke of such employees (Stewart?) trying to reap big pay-days by suing for discrimination/retaliation. When two juries find discrimination/retaliation, is it reassuring to label as perjurers people who testify to having seen or experienced retaliation? When others see Stewart as a straight-shooter, is it reassuring to use her case as a platform to discuss under-performing employees seeking big pay-days in court?

Clearly Brown has disappointed the County Commission. You don't spend hours discussing someone's evaluation, then call another closed meeting to continue the discussion if everything's peachy. Commissioners' veiled public comments suggest that there are many reasons for the disappointment, and that all Commissioners share it to some degree.

Presumably if they terminate her employment she won't turn to litigation.
                                       -30-
[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 2 August, and will appear shortly on the KRWG-TV website.]
[The County Commission met Friday in closed session.  I'm pretty sure they discussed (1) possible post-trial settlement of the Stewart matter [see below] and (2) the sources of their dissatisfaction with the County Manager and how she might improve on her performance as they perceive it.  I'd be shocked if she were fired any time soon; but I'd be even more surprised if that possibility weren't in the minds of some Commissioners, perhaps all of them.]

[Several sources complained to me about Brown's briefings concerning the Stewart verdict.  Therefore I requested copies of the tapes of the two briefings, an watched them.  Brown certainly sounds as if she really does want to reassure employees and is truly committed to rooting out discrimination and retaliation by County officials.   Unfortunately, she didn't listen to her own talk, in her mind before giving it, from the employees' perspective.  People I've talked to consider Kim Stewart a straight-shooter, and many employees have complained to me about actual or alleged misconduct by Padilla, Caldwell, Weir, and their pals.  While some of the complaints seem exaggerated, many seem to check out.  Too many.  In that context, Ms. Brown could assume a large percentage of her audience sympathizes with the verdict and with the county-related witnesses who dared speak up about discrimination or retaliation they felt they'd experienced.   If so, adding the unnecessary complaints about bad employees making up frivolous lawsuits, or about perjury, or about calculating employees seeking a big pay-day in court is bound not to play too well, and to add to employees' uncertainty about where the County Manager stands on this stuff.  
By the way, in requesting the tapes I also asked for documents supporting her statements about perjury.  (Someone had told me Brown said during her briefing that she'd seen documents proving perjury.   I didn't hear that.  She did strongly imply it, by coupling the allegations of lying witnesses with a statement that she'd seen evidence that the jury didn't get to see; but she didn't state that any specific document proved any particular witness perjured himself or herself.)  In any case, the County objected to production of any documents, on the ground of attorney-client privilege.]

[Above, I mentioned possible settlement.  Lawyers in civil cases are always open to discussions of settlement.  It's not unusual that a case will settle after judgment.  The winning side expects an appellate court to uphold the victory, but knows there's no certainty.  The losing side hopes to overturn the judgment and walk away scot-free, or at least get the appellate courts to find a sufficiently serious problem to remand the case to the local court for a new trial.   As with settlement discussions before trial, the parties bargain/bluff/negotiate.  The difference is that the winning side -- Stewart here -- has a much stronger bargaining position.  How much stronger depends on both sides' appraisal of the loser's chances on appeal, of course.
Here the County stands to pay more than $1.9 million as things stand.  That's $154,840 in lost wages, $80,163 in lost benefits, $1 million in emotional distress damages, another $154,840 because under New Mexico's Whistleblower Protection Act the lost wages get doubled, plus $123,872 to $309,680 in interest on the doubled lost wages, depending on which of two statutes is applied.  In addition, Stewart's lawyers will seek more than $400,000 in attorney fees/costs, and would be likely to get that or something close to it.  
But Stewart doesn't have the money in hand, and wouldn't get it until after a lengthy appeal process, perhaps two years -- and, theoretically, perhaps even a second trial.  Depending on the legal issues, she might even have to factor in a very slight possibility of getting nothing.
What should the County do?  I won't say, but here are some of the factors the decision-makers should consider:
1. It's more likely than not that an appeal would fail, and that the judgment would stand.
2. If the County pursued a fruitless appeal, it would pay, in addition to the $1.9 million, (a) interest on that $1.9; (b) outside appellate attorneys, who don't come cheap; and (c) Stewart's equally expensive set of appellate attorneys, along with a some further hours worked by her trial attorneys helping the appellate specialists.  In addition, the matter would get dragged out (not desirable, when it's as divisive as Ms. Brown's "briefing" demonstrates it is) and there'd be additional headlines.  Thus the County could pay hundreds of thousands of additional dollars -- and more if there were a second trial and it came out similarly.
3. If the County appealed, it would pay highly-priced appellate lawyers, expend some energy, extend the bad publicity, and perhaps end up getting the judgment amount reduced or even an appellate order throwing the case out or, much more likely, remanding it for a new and equally costly trial.  I lack sufficient information to quote odds on some form of "partial success", but getting the case tossed out is extremely unlikely.]

[One further note with regard to Ms. Brown's suggestion that there existed documentary evidence, perhaps not allowed into evidence by the trial judge, that either showed people had perjured themselves or would have changed the result at trial.  (From what I saw, it's hard to imagine a document that would have changed the result with the jury.)  When I called Brett Duke, one of Stewart's attorneys, for comment, he said that in the evidence the County had tried to get in, there was "nothing that would even come close" to doing that.   "There was nothing they did not present that would fall into that category."  He said there were other discrimination/retaliation claims he and co-councsel Daniela Labinoti might have introduced at trial; that the County's lawyers had responded by planning to introduce the EEOC response to those; and that those witnesses were never called by Plaintiffs -- but that even in the documents rebutting those additional claims there was nothing that would have shown perjury. ]

[Finally, the conflict over DASO hiring is something I want to look into further.  It troubles me because I see some basically good elected officials in conflict with each other, and wish someone could mediate.  In concept, HR is supposed to hire almost all the DASO deputies and civilian employees.  That makes sense, since DASO doesn't have an HR Department, the County HR Department theoretically has important expertise in that area, and creating a whole new HR Department at DASO would be wasteful.  But the different departments obviously need to work together better.]

Public Records Request Yields Look at Seeberger Complaints

Thanks to the Public Records Act, Monday I inspected several Internal EEO Complaint Forms made against then-vendor Rick Seeberger. Although partially redacted, they are eloquent evidence that the Sheriff and his Chief of Staff have not been candid with news media.

Sheriff Garrison and/or Seeberger have repeatedly claimed: Seeberger doesn't actually give anyone orders; Seeberger's at DASO to improve morale and there are “just a couple of malcontents”; his teachings weren't religious; there's been no retaliation against folks who complained; and Seeberger's teachings were worth tens of thousands of dollars and many lost person-hours. The documents tend to disagree.

Improved morale? KVIA reported Monday that two-dozen employees have approached the station about Seeberger. About a dozen have complained to me.

No mandatory religiously-oriented training?

Officer X, insisting that “religion does not belong in the workplace,” wrote that Seeberger's religiously-oriented teachings “disturbed me so much that it is affecting me mentally, emotionally, physically (stress) and ultimately affecting my performance and enthusiasm for my job.”

Officer Y stated that “the training being mandated is religious-based and the consultant is referencing biblically-based philosophies and mentions Jesus Christ in the training.” He wrote that the Sheriff told officers “they will not be working for the Sheriff if they do not 'buy in' to the training program.” (Several informants say a Captain on bereavement leave, days before or after his father's death, was told he had to attend training at Mr. Seeberger's compound – or find another job.)

Y added that after Seeberger confronted him and “I told him my innermost thoughts and feelings were private and I did not wish to share them with him, Seeberger responded by telling the whole group “if we all did not get on board with the process we would be working somewhere else.” Y called it “disconcerting” to have a consultant threaten him with loss of his job. “I wake up thinking about the situation and it is causing stress and anxiety knowing there is an upcoming meeting with Seeberger. I am distracted at work daily by old feelings that are dragged up by this mandated training. Seeberger directly threatened participants.” He voices fears of being retaliated against for having beliefs different from Seeberger's.

Having “old feelings dragged up” can be healthy, though unpleasant, at a shrink's office or in personal writing or contemplation; but should we be spending public money to force that on people in the workplace?

Officer Z charges Seeberger repeatedly touched him in ways and places he doesn't want to be touched by Seeberger. Seeberger touched him around the neck and shoulders from behind, while he was seated. Z stated that he didn't care for the touching, and Seeberger removed his hands. However, “Rick Seeberger has continued to touch my person. He has done this approximately four times. He always touches me near my shoulder and neck.”

“I do not understand why Rick Seeberger continues to touch me after I told him in no uncertain terms not to touch me. I am a married heterosexual male, and his advances are extremely distressing.”
Whatever the point of the unwanted touching, why are we paying for it?


Garrison's response? He created a “Chief of Staff” position for Seeberger and made him a county employee, without advertising the position or doing the normal stringent background check.
Several officers who complained about Seeberger used to be among the department's top officers. Now they sit off to the side, commanding nobody and doing paperwork. I'm aware of no complaint against them except their failure to share Garrison's fascination with Seeberger. Garrison says they are performing important functions, working on certification and writing policy.

A recent complaint also expresses a deep concern about retaliation, but a stronger feeling that the writer “cannot in good conscience allow what I believe is a violation of County Policy to go unreported.”

I also reviewed email strings in which Seeberger apparently tries to get two senior officers disciplined for not making compliance with Seeberger's demands their top priority.

My conclusion is that while some of Mr. Seeberger's teachings may be capable of improving his students' insights into themselves and others, help them form and pursue goals, and learn management concepts, Mr. Seeberger's own management skills have been severely criticized. I also hear that the two he wanted to discipline or fire are good officers. They shouldn't be tossed on the slag-heap because they won't mouth Seeberger's words.

Further, one can't help wondering about the supposedly dramatic changes Seeberger's being paid to make. We're told there's no problem with the department's law-enforcement skills. I'm hearing no whisper of corruption or brutality. If the changes are as major and necessary as Garrison suggests, then is the problem one he inherited and spent eight years unable to fix – or one he created? And if it's merely a change in "strategic plan," why bother with it when someone else is about to take over and change things?
                                                        -30-
[The foregoing column appeared this morning, Sunday, 27 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News.  By the way, it's important to note that the "complaints" I got to see are only the internal ones.   Officials conceded that there were several more complaints, but said that since those went to the EEOC, the County didn't have any copies of them.  I do not know the total number of formal complaints filed by officers about this stuff.]
[As part of the IPRA inspection, I waded through a lot of the "teaching materials" said to be used by Seeberger.  Many involve reasonable management or interpersonal skills principles.   Things that aren't clear include:
-- how a possibly useful one-day seminar, even a weekend session, has expanded into $30,000 worth of teaching by Seeberger as a consultant, then a new chief of staff job?
-- why Seeberger's "reorganization" to improve DASO's "strategic plan" has such high priority, particularly when just as he gets it instituted (if he ever does), a new sheriff will come in -- probably one that will bring his own ideas and won't seriously consider a further contract for a non-law-enforcement  management teacher as Chief of Staff; and
-- whether, if Garrison had a longer tenure, Seeberger's "teaching" would ever reach completion; and -- why county leaders, including the new County Manager, have been so patient with all this.  In my humble opinion, what's going on is just plain nutty -- and destructive of DASO morale.  And we continue to shell out public dollars for it, every pay period.  ]


                                                          

Further Thoughts on DASO

I'm still investigating the DASO problems I discussed in two columns several weeks ago.

I've done a few things.

First, I have repeatedly asked Sheriff Todd Garrison, and his new Chief of Staff, Rick Seeberger, to email DASO employees stating that they may speak honestly to me without fear of reprisals. That's what the New Mexico Whistleblowers Act promises, so reprisals would be illegal anyway. Shouldn't we air issues voluntarily, rather than pay for the County to defend costly employee lawsuits later? Still, they've sent no such email. They've not even replied that they will or won't do it.

Second, I filed a public records request. In my view the Sheriff and County haven't fully complied with it.

There are certain emails I haven't yet seen, but that appears to be more a misunderstanding than anyone hiding anything.

There are also complaints that were made against Rick Seeberger, before he was a County employee arguably entitled to confidentiality under the personnel exemption. I contend those employee complaints are public records. County lawyers apparently disagree. I've asked that they respond, either agreeing or explaining their position. I've suggested they compromise by producing these records with sensitive information (employees' identities) redacted. And I've urged them to supply a list of withheld documents, identified sufficiently for someone to determine their basic nature and the basis on which they're withholding each.

County lawyers haven't deigned to reply to informal requests, so I'll send them a letter with a deadline, hoping they respond. Under the law, if I must file a lawsuit forcing compliance, the County could end up paying $100 a day plus my legal fees. I hope the County complies voluntarily.

Third, I've continued to listen to what people who work for Sheriff Garrison tell me. Sometimes DASO employees I don't know just appear beside me somewhere and quietly thank me for shining a light on these matters. Others speak at more length. Of others, I hear second-hand that they would like to voice their concerns to me.

It's my strong impression that for at least some employees Mr. Seeberger is the boss from hell. There are signs that Garrison and Seeberger have seriously damaged DASO morale. As one employee remarked, “It breaks my heart, because there are some very fine officers in the Department.”

And I've been working my way through the documents the County has produced.

Those documents tend to corroborate that in hiring Mr. Seeberger the County didn't give him the scrutiny they'd give a trainee. I also have questions about some of his responses to the written questionnaire he filled out.

An anonymous complaint alleges, “Employees have voiced their concern about Seeberger and have been moved to menial positions.” The new organization chart shows that some formerly major figures in the department have been moved off to the side. Garrison says that's because they're needed to work on the departments' accreditation.

But the main sense I get from the documents is that we have paid too much for something we may not have needed.

The County paid Mr. Seeberger $30,000 or more for training before he was an employee. That “training” also cost extensive lost employee time, with people paid to attend sessions and travel to and from Mr. Seeberger's compound near the El Paso border. Was the total cost $50,000? More?

The training concerned playing well with others, being a good manager, reading people better, and the like – not how to use new weapons or ensure everyone's safety when arriving at a possible crime scene. Reviewing the training materials, I see some good stuff, but a lot of fluff. I see obvious observations about human interactions, maybe worth a short lecture. I see material that seems to use important-sounding names, slogans, and categories to make concepts look so complex that you need continuing help from an expert to master them.

I saw a “Personality Test” of the sort you can find free online. We paid the Seebergers $25 apiece for the tests, and probably something for interpreting results. One DASO officer described taking much the same test online, free, with the same interpretation we paid Mr. Seeberger for.

Let me be clear: this isn't about Mr. Seeberger, although I doubt his contribution as a management and organizational consultant warranted paying $30,000 or $50,000. then hiring Seeberger to do more of the same. (Did he fail as a trainer or are our employees kind of slow?)

This is on Sheriff Garrison. Seeberger's doing what he does, perhaps with the best intentions. It's Garrison who's wasting our money on more of Mr. Seeberger's services than we might have needed. Distracted from their basic duties, officers are spending too much time reporting to Mr. Seeberger regarding the continuing “reorganization.” Sadly, they're looking over their shoulders, uncertain whom to trust.

Maybe the Sheriff could begin restoring trust by assuring DASO employees that they may speak honestly, without fear of the kind of retaliation the NM Whistleblowers Act forbids.
                                                               -30-
[The column above appeared today, Sunday, 6 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News.]  

Questions About a Surprising Hire by the County Sheriff

Dona Aňa County Sheriff Todd Garrison must figure no one cares what he does, since he's near the end of his term, but hiring an apparent con man as Chief of Staff seems a little much. 
 It's also spectacularly unpopular within DASO.

First Garrison forced officers to attend “training sessions” run by one Rick Seeberger. 

Officers complained that Seeberger's training included religion, which would be improper at a mandatory gathering of public employees. (HR Director Deborah Weir denied the complaints, reportedly ruling that (1) Garrison did tell people they'd get fired if they didn't attend, but wouldn't really have fired anyone and (2) The inspirational talks featured Jesus, but in a historical sense, not a religious sense. 
 
Background research quickly triggers an avalanche of embarrassing details about Seeberger.

Possibly Garrison thought Seeberger's leadership was exemplified by the string of bankruptcies, complaints, lawsuits, broken friendships, and contempt of court orders Seeberger has left trailing behind him like muddy footprints.

Public records show he's created at least ten companies, most “not in good standing” or bankrupt. Seeberger filed for personal bankruptcy in 1985 and in 2006 – and people who know him say he may well do so again fairly soon. One of his corporations has filed for bankruptcy three times – each time shortly after a judge issued an order against Seeberger . 
 
According to a May1985 story in the Los Angeles Times, a PTA Fundraiser involved first-graders selling chocolate Santas and such for a company called “Community Fundraisers, Inc.” The kids brought in more than $17,000 in less than three weeks. CFI never paid the school a nickel.

“I think it's terrible that anyone could do this to the school and children,” said one parent. 
 
CFI did provide an unsigned check that wasn't any good, and a worthless promissory note. The company also offered the “incredulous” PTA officials another fundraiser in which CFI would donate its share of the profits.

Rick Seeberger was the contact with the school; he was the CEO, CFO, and director of CFI. CFI was his California corporation. Nevertheless, Seeberger reportedly told the PTA he'd left the company because it couldn't pay his salary, causing him to file personal bankruptcy. 
 
This is the man Garrison brought in (we paid) to teach leadership to (and reportedly pray with) DASO officers. Then the Sheriff created a new and unnecessary position, chief of staff, for Seeberger. With our tax dollars. (Garrison tried to give the guy $70,000 per year, but settled for close to $60,000.)

Seeberger runs numerous enterprises out of his home. One lawsuit involves three different entities which the court says “conduct businesses out of the home of Rick Seeberger.” Another, his ORSA Institute, LLC has declared bankruptcy – or tried to. He also has Businesses for Christ International, Inc., Community Fundraisers, Inc., the 20-20 Leadership Foundation, Rjs & Associates, Bfc International, Inc., and BFCI Learning Systems, Ltd. 20-20 Leadership filed for bankruptcy in Texas, then withdrew the filing when the bankruptcy judge made an order Seeberger didn't like; then Seeberger filed bankruptcy for 20-20 in New Mexico, but the court wouldn't have it. Near as I can tell, 20-20 has filed bankruptcy three times. Most recently, Mr. Seeberger created BASF (Build A Strong Future) in Irving, TX.

You gotta wonder why one man needs quite so many corporations. 

Why would we hire as DASO “Chief of Staff” a fellow with little or no relevant experience and this appalling trail of inactive corporations, bankruptcies, and fraud allegations? Garrison reportedly announced that no one would report directly to Seeberger, then published a flow chart that seems to have everyone reporting to one captain who reports to Seeberger, who reports only to Garrison.

Seeberger has a high-school diploma and attended Arizona State University for six months. He's talked his way into a host of business deals and training gigs, but so far I haven't found a deal that didn't go sour or a business partner who'll describe him in words we can print. He has several lawsuits going. That alone ought to have sparked concern. 
 
Instead, Seeberger (now a county employee) is reportedly selling the county “EduKits” at $29.95 a throw, and is publishing plans for the county to endorse him as a consultant to sheriffs' departments around the country. 
 
I tried to ask Garrison about this. He delegated Undersheriff Eddie Lerma to call me back; but Lerma, who hadn't been involved in the decisions I questioned, didn't really have a lot of answers. (I hope to speak with Sheriff Garrison soon.)

You gotta wonder at Seeberger's eloquence and articulateness; but even so, you gotta wonder how nobody at the county questioned the guy's background. 
 
And you gotta wonder whether Todd Garrison could look those L.A. schoolkids and parents in the eye and explain this move to them.

[Note: this is the first of two columns that will deal with this situation. The second will explain why what's going on may be significantly worse than this column makes it seem.]

                                                        -30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 2 March.  It represents my opinions, and not necessarily those of the Sun-News.  I'm continuing to investigate the subject.  The column and the further comments below represent my opinion at this point.]

As the column notes, I had tried for days to reach Sheriff Garrison.  (I absolutely do not mean to imply that he was ducking me.  After I'd sent in the finished column, he reached out to me and spent well over an hour with me on Friday, probably closer to two, and had Mr. Seeberger with us.) 
Had we met earlier, how would the column be different?   I would certainly have included some of the things Garrison and Seeberger said in response to my questions, and I'll try to summarize some of that below.  Mr. Seeberger corrected or tried to explain several facts, many of them minor:
-- that BASF was technically started by his wife, not by him;
--that he was working only a 30-hour week (and thus receiving a pro-rated part of the "close to $60,000 I'd been told);
-- that a Jerry Thiesen (or the failure of a company Thiesen and Seeberger had invested in) was really ultimately at fault for the failure to pay the L.A. grade-school PTA;
-- that a Ronald Woods was really responsible for the ORSA bankruptcy, because (according to Mr. Seeberger) Woods owed ORSA $150,000 and decided not to pay it;
-- that the three times 20-20 declared bankruptcy then withdrew the filing were each connected to settlement discussions; and
-- that the $200,000 judgment against his companies in one case had actually been stipulated to or agreed to.

But he didn't really dispute the major points.  Some of his corrections he seemed to contradict moments later.  For example, when I referred to Orsa as his corporation (or LLC), he quickly stated, "I'm a member of Orsa"; but moments later, when he stated that "we" decided to put the company into bankruptcy and I asked who the "we" was, he replied, "My wife and I."  That seemed to evidence the kind of control that I'd thought he had, and that the "member" reference appeared designed to contradict. 

Has the basic opinion expressed in my column changed?  Not yet.  Mr. Seeberger still has a record that would not encourage me to hire him; each incident may be explainable, but I think I'd have pressed harder than Sheriff Garrison did to hear those explanations, and then I'd have investigated them.   It's clear that corporations controlled largely or wholly by the Seebergers left a lot of people short a lot of money; it's clear that at least some of those situations have resulted in judgments against his companies, while I know from my own research that other people express deep fear of him.

I think Sheriff Garrison and Mr. Seeberger underestimate the negative feelings Seeberger's appointment has caused within the DASO, where morale may have tanked; and Mr. Garrison's passionate defense of the hiring, which I think was sincere, hasn't yet persuaded me.

Interestingly, although Seeberger appeared to suggest that blame for several incidents really belonged elsewhere, he conceded that aspects of his record looked bad; but he also said he and his wife had written a book in 2012 that 'fessed up to some mistakes and problems but showed how he had learned from those mistakes and was a better teacher of leadership because of what he'd learned from mistakes.  He also said he'd fully disclosed everything to Sheriff Garrison.  He promised to provide me a copy of the book, and I promised to read it.

The two men estimated that we had spent $28,000 on Mr. Seeberger's training and planning efforts prior to the hiring of him as Chief of Staff.  The contract was with his wife's new company, BASF.   At least some who attended the training session were very unimpressed.

Regarding formal complaints that he'd mixed religion in his lectures (improperly at an event that was mandatory for DASO public officers, Seeberger declined to offer his side of the facts.  He denied he'd done anything improper.  He said an independent private investigating firm had decided he hadn't done anything improper.  (I'd thought County HR Director Deborah Weir had made the decision, and I still think so, but I haven't seen it.)  I'd run across Ms. Weir in watching the Granados trial, and told Mr. Seeberger that I didn't assume her decision was correct -- just as he doesn't agree with judge's adverse decisions in legal cases -- and would like his account of the actual facts, such as whether and how he mentioned Jesus in his training and whether or not there were religious books in the back of the room or quotes from Jesus on the wall.  He said he'd been cleared by an investigator and he wouldn't talk about it.

(I should note that I have nothing against the words of Jesus.  They're great!  I think highly of most or all of them.  I just don't think a mandatory county event can properly preach any religion, and I've been told that the training sessions violated DASO policies.)

Garrison's defense of the hiring is summarized well in James Staley's Saturday morning article in the Las Cruces Sun-News.   I still have questions, and so should county commissioners.  Garrison says the DASO officers are great at law enforcement and perform well, and that there are no real problems; but they don't always fill out forms as well as they might or communicate as well as they might, or they're not well-trained as leaders, and sometimes they're not unified in their approach to something, and sometimes one of them asks Garrison a question, then another does, and it would be more efficient to answer the question only once.  Garrison says Seeberger will remedy these problems, facilitate communications in DASO meetings, and facilitate communications with other county departments.  Although Sheriff Garrison seemed very sincere and passionate, I'm not yet seeing these problems as justifying the expense here.  I'd also opine, based on the record, that the County will ultimately regret working with Mr. Seeberger.  
But I look forward to reading his book.