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.]

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.]

Further Thoughts on the County's Settlement with Chris Barela

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

But questions remain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                     -30-

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

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

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

Crazy Week in County Government Raises More Questions Than It Answers

*Should Doña Ana County jailer Chris Barela have been arrested?

Yes. I don't say Barela should be convicted. I haven't seen all the evidence; and conviction requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I have seen enough to believe he should be charged. I'd seen enough years ago. (So had county officials and the state police. Someone's inaction let the statute of limitations pass on some of Barela's alleged crimes.) 

*Will Others Be Charged? Investigators note “the investigation is ongoing,” but they also note that charging documents mentioned some other names. We know that folks including John Caldwell and eventually Julia Brown received reports on Barela's alleged misconduct and didn't have him prosecuted or, apparently, discipline him. (Did they stop some alleged misconduct?) Does that mean they've “obstructed justice” or become “accessories”? I'm not a criminal lawyer and haven't investigated fully.

*Did the Sheriff Act Prudently and Lawfully in taking over the jail? Tougher question than either side will concede.

Sheriff says yes, as a conservator of the peace under Section 4-41-2. Two supporting arguments: (1) that prisoners might riot upon hearing that their jailer was accused of misusing their money, and Barela hadn't implemented contingency planning for his absence, so that action was required for safety; and (2) jail was a crime scene, with others (perhaps including Barela's superiors) possibly involved in wrongdoing, so that not to act would be turning the jail over to suspects.

County Attorney Nelson Goodin says, “We didn't believe he had the authority” and that if Vigil felt he had to take this action he could have applied to the court, as for control of any crime scene. County also says contingency planning was in place and adequate; but a DASO source says interviews with jail personnel proved otherwise. DASO also notes the Sheriff's “team” included experienced corrections personnel, current and retired, approved by the State Director of Corrections.

*Didn't the Judge Find the Sheriff Acted Illegally? Yes and No. The County applied for an Order ex parte (with the Sheriff not represented). Judge Arrieta watered down the order, signed it, and set a December 18 hearing on whether to continue the order. Technically, he found that the County was “likely to prevail” – but without hearing the Sheriff's side. Probably no one will bother to argue December 18 because the issue will be “moot”: whether the Sheriff was right or wrong in taking over the jail temporarily will be academic. 

 

*Should County Commissioners have delayed renewing County Manager's contract after being forewarned that Barela would be arrested soon and that other arrests were possible? The vote was 4-1. 

*Did the Commissioners violate the open meetings law? Depends: was this an “emergency meeting?” Legally, an emergency requires “unforeseen circumstances that if not addressed immediately will likely result in injury or damages to persons or property or substantial financial loss to the public body.”

Certainly the situation was unforeseen. Did having DASO in charge of the jail for 48-72 hours threaten to do the requisite damage?

Goodin said “we looked at it fairly extensively” and that he was “pretty confident” they'd reached the right answer. (One commissioner was insufficiently reassured by Goodin's expression of confidence and refused to participate.) Goodin added that law requires a report to the AG within ten days, and the County will do that. 

*Why can't reasonably intelligent public officials, presumably of good will and with our interests in mind, cooperate a great deal more effectively than this? Beats me. Everyone on both sides makes very strong arguments why s/he's right; but county government still threatens to become a sideshow.

                                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, December 13 (which would have been my mother's 95th birthday, and I wish she were hear to read the column]) in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and will appear later today on the KRWG-TV website's "Local Viewpoints" section.]

It's odd to feel, moments after sending off a column, that although everything I've written is accurate, to the best of my knowledge, the column seems decidedly more sympathetic to one side in the controversy than I feel. But that's how I felt with this one.

Why? First of all, because while I discussed a lot of issues and legal points and what-not, and faithfully reflected what some people said on each side, I didn't voice some gut feelings. One of those is that Billy Garrett and Wayne Hancock are damned good public servants. Whether I agree with them on every issue or not, they're dedicated, hard-working, open-minded, and caring – and neither is in it for the money or for his political future. Neither deserves the shit that gets hurled at him.  (In fact, both Hancock and I initially reported to law enforcement certain allegations of criminal conduct by Mr. Barela.)  I would hate to see the conflict with the Sheriff distract from their work.
Secondly, although I support DASO and agree with some of the Sheriff's complaints, and have great personal trust in some of the officers working with him, there's just an extra level of truculence in the discussions we've heard lately. Usually that kind of extra truculence means something more is going on than simply a debate about policy. One side (or both) has some hidden agenda or motive. Could be as simple as long-suppressed anger by deputies that they aren't as well paid as they feel they should be, or that they're stretched too thin in a rather vast county. Could be something more. I don't claim to know. I just smell something. Don't know what it is yet.

Third, in interviewing both sides I should have explored with Sheriff Vigil whether or not he should now recuse himself from the investigation, or should have done so. Investigating Mr. Barela is one thing. I'm unaware of any bad history between the two. The State Police didn't seem to have gotten much done, for reasons I haven't yet identified. Someone needed to carry the investigation forward. 

Maybe the same is true as to Ms. Brown and others; but there, at least arguably, Vigil shouldn't be supervising the investigation. There's been a very public history of Vigil's quarrels with Debra Weir (Human Resources), and with Ms. Brown when she jumped in on Weir's side. Now it isn't as if Sheriff Vigil were the judge in this matter, where he would obviously have no choice but to step aside. He's investigating. Maybe it's okay, because the ultimate decision on any charges would be made by D.A. Mark D'Antonio, not Sheriff Vigil. 
But although I've disagreed with Ms. Brown often enough, and my mind is surely not closed to the possibility she could have acted illegally, I'd feel more comfortable if someone were investigating her who had neither been sitting in her lap nor poisoning her coffee last week. Nothing in the foregoing should be taken as reflecting doubt on Vigil's integrity. He just ought to remove himself from having that integrity unnecessarily tested. It would look better.

At the same time, certain aspects of the Sheriff's side of this needed expression. One was that although they may be wrong, his investigators honestly and probably reasonably see other county officials as persons of interest. Another was that although I don't know whether or not whether the statute cited by the Sheriff authorized his action in taking over the jail, it was unfair to let unknowing readers assume that Judge Arrieta had acted after hearing each side make its best arguments. Rather, as Mr. Goodin readily acknowledges and most trial lawyers would know, the order was issued after only one side's story got told, and was intended as a temporary order pending a fairer and fuller examination of the facts and the law. 

Too, I'm put off by some of county management's tactics -- such as removing information officer Kelly Jamison, whom all sides agree is a great asset, from DASO temporarily -- ostensibly to prevent her from experiencing a conflict-of-interest but obviously to punish the Sheriff in a petty way.  Remind him who's boss, legally, over DASO employees.  Fortunately she's been returned to DASO.

Another observation worth making is that just as wars drown out a lot of subtle differences in people's pre-war positions on whether or not there should be a war, folks who get drawn into battles (like this current one in county government) quickly find themselves pushed toward the extremes, not only less and less able to accept opposing arguments but less and less able even to listen meaningfully to anyone “on the other side.” Inevitably that saddens us non-combatants. Not only because unnecessary friction is not conducive to a harmonious and peaceful life but because truth also tends to be an early casualty, and each side's inability even to realize the possible sincerity of opponents makes productive discussion awfully difficult.

I'm not on either side, although I have friends and people I trust on both sides. 

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.]

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.]

Fellow Republicans Point to Martinez-McLeskey Corruption

Has anyone noticed how strongly the sweet scent of corruption permeates the New Mexico Governor's Office these days?

Maybe not. Newspapers, barely surviving economically, often don't report the facts in much detail; and as our politics grow more polarized, folks no longer bother to read critically. If there's an unpleasant fact about someone in the opposing party, it's probably true. If it concerns someone in your party, it's been fabricated or exaggerated by the other side.

But many of the most troubling accusations against Ms. Martinez and Governor Jay McLeskey come from credible Republicans appointed by Mart-lesky.

The recently unsealed whistleblower complaint against the Martinez Administration should be the final straw for anyone who still believed Martinez was some sort of antidote to corruption in Santa Fe.
 
She's right in the middle of it. She and her people aren't even subtle. But they're consistent: if you're a generous friend, they'll pay you back with our money or softened regulations; but if you speak up, they'll try to bury you.

The 33-page complaint filed in February alleges that a company co-founded by Jon Barela, Mart-leskey's secretary of the New Mexico Economic Development Department, secretly benefited from a state tax credit program. It also claims: aides to Martinez instructed a state employee to use his personal email for sensitive government work to evade public records requests; Barela and his deputy, Barbara Brazil, ignored waste and management at the state's Spaceport project; and that Brazil ran several Dairy Queen franchises she had an interest in “while simultaneously being paid by the State of New Mexico.” When other officials questioned the apparent misconduct, they were demoted, then fired.

Interestingly, the lawsuit echoes earlier complaints about evasion of IPRA requirements, and involves the same private lawyer who was right in the middle of the Albuquerque Downs mess.

There, Martinez stacked a board with folks who would ignore the facts and give a lucrative contract to a company owned by Martinez campaign contributors, despite that company's poor record.
The whistleblower plaintiffs are two Republicans, appointed to office by Martinez. The wife of one had worked as a scheduler during the 2010 election campaign.

Two of the most consistent voices discussing the Albuquerque Downs misconduct were Republicans Tom Tinnin, and Charlotte Rode. Both were Martinez appointees. Ms. Rode, a reform Republican and political neophyte, is a true soccer mom (and long-time basketball coach) and life-long Republican. Caught letting campaign contributions override prudent government, Mart-leskey immediately attacked the messengers. (Martinez even tried to threaten Tinnin, he says.)

To be fair: Mart-leskey's Albuquerque Downs misconduct resembles Governor Richardson's; and I can't prove in either case that laws were broken. Ethics were sure scarce.

Partial releases of the “audit” Mart-lesky used to destroy mental health outfits in southern New Mexico keep adding more evidence that supports charges that the disruption was purely political. It looked that way initially: with no semblance of due-process, small companies were “suspended” and effectively destroyed, supposedly based on an audit by an out-of-state firm that found massive alleged fraud. Previously, in another state, the same audit firm had found massive that state auditors reviewing the allegations found were only minimal amounts of problem bills. Nevertheless, Mart-leskey declined to let the companies keep operating pending an investigation – and lied to the public by claiming the Administration had no choice.

It quickly became public that Mart-leskey had actually signed up the Arizona replacement mental-health firm before the audit that allegedly sparked the concern. This was done without bidding. Mart-leskey doesn't care for public bidding, as demonstrated in the Albuquerque Downs case, where the bidding was open only a token length of time. Public bidding can be so inconvenient when you have a paying pal eager to do the job.

Then Mart-leskey's people allegedly gave the State Auditor a version of the report that omitted the conclusion that there was no “credible evidence of fraud.”

As the AG's Office looks into the alleged mental-health scandal, the “fraud” diminishes with each closer look. The audit work on two or three of the mental-health firms has now been checked, and the fraud seems as illusory as the “widespread voter fraud” Mart-leskey used to push for a Voter ID law that conveniently would tend to decrease turnout among poor folks and non-native-English speakers.
A week ago the AG reported some overbillings but “no actionable evidence of fraud” by one of the companies. The State is trying to recover $340,000 in alleged overpayments to another, while the company denies any overbilling and the AG found $19,000 in overbillings.

Meanwhile, we keep hearing that significant Republican donors with a taste for good government are finding Mart-leskey unpalatably arrogant.

Will any of this make much difference in November? New Mexico voters are traditionally a little slow in responding to corruption. And the Koch Brothers, oil and gas interests, and other deep pockets are sending Mart-leskey plenty of loot to flood the airwaves with misleading commercials.
                                                                    -30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, 18 May, 2014.]

Intra-County Squabbles Diminish Credibility -- and County Treasury

County officials should get out of our adversarial legal system and talk honestly. 

Neither side has everything right. There have been honest misunderstandings/disagreements, but each side accuses the other of grandstanding – and using litigation to divert attention from real issues.

The Sheriff should dismiss his lawsuit against two commissioners. I sympathize with some of his frustrations, but this lawsuit isn't the best course of action. He has little chance of winning. (See my blog for details.) 

The County Manager should dismiss her suit against the Sheriff over his seizing the detention center the day jailer Chris Barela was arrested. The Sheriff claimed: that (1) the jail was a crime scene, and other county officials were “persons of interest” and (2) prisoners might riot upon hearing of alleged misuse of their inmate welfare fund, and Barela allegedly hadn't set up viable safeguards to run the place without him. The Sheriff said his presence would be temporary. He also stated that he had legal authority to do what he was doing.

The County Manager sought an emergency court order ex parte (without the other side's presence). That's legal; but why didn't the County Attorney call the Sheriff a half-hour before the hearing to alert him to be there? Why didn't Judge Manuel Arrieta insist on that, or have his clerk call DASO? Arrieta did request an affidavit from the County Attorney; but the purported notice was rather lame. (See blog for details.)

The Sheriff was reachable. Having him present his side of things would have given the court a fuller picture. (Arrieta did weaken the County's proposed order.) 

On the merits, maybe Vigil was right, maybe not, and maybe, as Arrieta apparently felt, Vigil was overstepping his authority but had some legitimate concerns that the County's draft of the order would have threatened.

Either way, it's over. Who was right holds some interest, but nothing worth paying two sets of attorneys and a judge to fuss over. 

The lawsuit sought injunctive relief, which everyone agrees is moot because the Sheriff left the jail. It also sought a declaration that the Sheriff was wrong. Take egos out of it, and that's moot too. (The Sheriff is extremely unlikely to repeat his actions.)

Both sides should agree, quickly and cheaply, to dismiss the case without prejudice, conditioned on an agreement that if Sheriff Vigil ever thinks circumstances warrant such action, he'll notify the County and the two sides will expeditiously consult a judge before action is taken. Neither side need admit anything. DASO sources suggest the Sheriff would agree. The County Manager should too, although one commissioner stressed they had no clear idea what the Sheriff might do and would feel more comfortable getting judicial guidance now. (Maybe Judge Arrieta should appoint me as a mediator.)

We face real issues. The Sheriff should play better with his peers. Other county officials should realize that some officials (including a former county attorney and perhaps present or former county manager) are honestly viewed as “persons of interest” in the jail investigation. The Sheriff should recognize that other officials are by no stretch of the imagination suspect. The investigation should proceed. (In a perfect world, someone who hadn't been at odds with the County Manager so loudly and so often would investigate; but at least the investigation is being done. The District Attorney, and ultimately judge or jury, will make the ultimate decisions.) 

Tuesday's County Commission meeting revealed that the two sides had discussed one issue and cleared up honest misunderstandings. Each side had made mistakes. They solved the problem together. Let's hope they continue rebuilding trust.

                                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 17 January (under "Opinion" and will appear on the KRWG-TV website later this morning (News-->Local Viewpoints).  As I worked on this column, I quickly recognized that if I filled in details regarding the two lawsuits mentioned, I'd hardly have room to say much more.  Therefore I'm posting additional material regarding Sheriff Enrique Vigil's lawsuit against Commissioners Billy Garrett and Wayne Hancock, see the separate pose on that by clicking here or just paging down to it.  (It was published yesterday, and includes a transcription of the employee complaint that sparked the recent investigation of the Sheriff, which found nothing significant but upped the tension levels.)  I planned a second to discuss County Manager Julia Brown's suit against the Sheriff.  I haven't posted that yet, but will try to get it up here later this morning.   And again, this column and the supplemental post(s) contain my opinions, which are not necessarily those of the Sun-News or KRWG.]

 [In addition, though, it was encouraging to here at Tuesday's commission meeting that in a couple of meetings (apparently initiated by Commissioner Leticia Benavidez) top staff both at DASo and the County Administration discussed the recent issue concerning computers for new DASO vehicles and resolved it.   Folks on both sides said they'd learned from the sessions.  From both sides, I'd heard expressions of anger and frustration, and beliefs that the other side was consciously being obstreperous or uncooperative.  I've hoped some of that has been miscommunication.  Thus the recent rapprochement is somewhat encouraging.

Dropping all these lawsuits and having a frank but courteous discussion at the highest level would be a great next step.]

 

Louisiana Cares about Dona Ana County!

NMSU hosted a panel discussion Wednesday on outside money spent to influence local elections. Is this a small example?

In 2014 two gentlemen from Louisiana (Glenn Hebert and Steve Afeman) contributed $2300 each to a candidate for Doña Ana County Sheriff. 

Louisiana's a good way off. Apparently, neither man had previously contributed to candidates in other states. Mr. Afeman is the CEO of Emerald Companies, a private prison outfit. Mr. Hebert is Emerald's founder and board chairman. Each gave $5,000 to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in 2007. Governor Jindal has pushed hard for more private prisons. 

Disclosure: I find private prisons unappealing; and the scandal where private managers of a prison for young offenders were found to have bribed Pennsylvania judges to give youthful offenders longer sentences was just what I've always feared from these outfits.

Why would Mr. Hebert and Mr. Afeman (who do run a private prison in Lincoln, New Mexico) take an interest in who's sheriff in our little corner of the world. 

In Doña Ana County, the sheriff doesn't run the jail. 

On the other hand, Sheriff Enrique Vigil, the beneficiary of their largesse, not only has been quite diligent in investigating allegations against the jailer, Chris Barela, but briefly took over the jail this year. Allegations against Barela did deserve a vigorous but fair investigation. County officials differ over whether the jail incident was legal or illegal. And over DASO's motives. (I'm convinced that the actual DASO deputies involved in locking down the jail for awhile had no idea that Emerald had supplied $4,600 – upwards of 20% – of the total $21,274 donated to Vigil's campaign during the general election.) 

Coincidence? Maybe. 

Emerald has run (or tried to get built) a lot of prisons, mostly in Texas and Louisiana.

Some local communities have been very unhappy with Emerald. There's at least a suggestion that Emerald wasn't fully candid with local citizens.

In one town, many citizens strongly opposed Emerald's plans, but community political leaders kept on pushing those plans. 

In Lake Providence, Emerald cut a deal with the lame-duck sheriff, and the incoming sheriff sued to get rid of Emerald. In mid-2012 authorities made a surprise search, found a great deal of contraband, and removed 350 prisoners – more than a third of the population there, apparently. Mr. Afeman reportedly said the search was a ploy by the sheriff to pressure Emerald, and shrugged, “You're always going to find contraband in a prison.” Emerald is no longer running the prison there. “There's not a lot of people here that like them,” one person told me.

One newspaper said Emerald “hustled” small towns: “Like the Music Man, they'd go into small, isolated, and impoverished counties and persuade local officials that an economic boom was just a detention center away. Local officials had only to pay to build the facility and pay them to operate it. Emerald . . . leaves behind . . . some business success but some bad feelings.” In La Salle County, commissioners reached an agreement with Emerald without much public involvement; but when the public realized the bonds “paid an outrageous 12-percent interest, underwriter fees were six percent, [and] Emerald would get a flat amount for operating the prison no matter how small the inmate population, . . . the public was not amused. Lawsuits ensued. It was too late to stop the bond fiasco.” [Links to sources on my blog.] Emerald left. The local government couldn't.

Our concern is Kiki. Was his conduct tied to these donations? Don't know. He hasn't returned my several phone calls. 

                                              -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 27 March, 2016, although I haven't found it yet this morning on the Sun-News website, and should presently appear also on the KRWG-TV website.  I invite comments and criticism, here or at either or both of those sites.]

[Let me be real clear: I can't state that any of Sheriff Vigil's conduct resulted from these campaign contributions.  I regret that he didn't accept my invitation to comment, so that I could include his views.  He got the messages.  He knew I was writing a column he probably wouldn't like, and that I wanted to talk with him, so as to include his views and make the column as fair and accurate as possible.]

[I understand that he (and they) may say that these two guys who head Emerald Correctional Management met him in the course of his work with the U.S. Marshal's Office and were deeply impressed, and that they had no mercenary motives in contributing to his campaign.  I also understand that there are arguments on both sides of the dispute over why the sheriff took temporary control of the Dona Ana jail -- and whether that was justified, legally or factually.  I've taken no position on that, and take none now.]

[If you want to read more about Emerald, here, in no particular order, are: a December 2015 piece in something called "Prison Bidness" , a November 2015 piece on a town moving ahead with Emerald despite a warning , an April 2009 article in "Prison Bidness" , material from the "Private Prison Working Group" , Emerald's website , a blog post from an organization critical of Emerald ]

[I should add that the panel discussion mentioned at the start of the column went well.  It was the annual Sunshine Week panel at Zuhl Library.  Always a topic related to freedom of the press, openness in government, public access to public documents, etc.  This time it concerned contributions, often anonymous and often from outside the local area, to political campaigns, and the Citizens United decision.  It generated a lively discussion among some prominent folks with very divergent views, and kept a relatively large audience interested throughout.  A lot of people were left with things they wanted to say (or ask) and I'm told that there may be a "Great Conversation" on the subject as a follow-up.  (If there is, I'll likely be there.)  Looking back at the Citizens United decision I realize it was even worse than I'd recalled -- not so much in its ugly consequences as in the way the majority ignored basic law and principles, not only on the merits but even more blatantly with regard to basic judicial principles the Supreme Court follows.]

Would you trust these folks?

Imagine someone wants you to invest in a big company. 

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

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

“Who replaced him?”

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

“Who replaced her.”

“No one yet.”

“Well who's your risk manager?”

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

“Who are your internal investigators?” 

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

“And?”

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

“Which investigator?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                       -30- 

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

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

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

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

An Admirable Friend

Everything is in bloom, the Western Tanager returned this week, and violent winds have given way to a sun that hasn't grown as merciless as it soon will.

One recent evening we watched some kids dancing. Young kids, maybe eight years old. The boys wore dark vests, Mexican hats, and false black moustaches, the girls Mexican dresses. It was part of a fundraiser for the J. Paul Taylor Academy, and J. Paul Taylor sat watching them, clapping his hands, smiling, often pointing or waving at a particular kid. It was nearly sunset, the first wonderfully mild First Friday Art Ramble we've had this spring.

This morning, as the quail wander in to eat the seed we've tossed out and drink from the water bowls, that Friday evening scene wanders into my mind.

I have tremendous respect and affection for J. Paul.

This is a man who grew up on a farm in the southern part of our county. He started working and teaching at a time when his peers at work could visit his home in Mesilla and shake their heads over his choice to live out there restoring an old house. “You don't want to raise your children out here, in this culture!?” they clucked. “Why not? I was,” replied Taylor, whose ancestors include the Spanish explorer Robledo, who died here centuries ago, giving his name to the nearby mountain peak.

After retirement at 66, he got talked into running for the State Legislature, served 18 years, and retired from that gig as “the conscience of the Legislature.”

In Mexican dress
the children dance as they've learned.
The village elder
has only to smile and clap
with delight he seems to feel.

I have seen J. Paul in a receiving line, greeting hundreds of friends from a variety of generations, ethnic groups, and economic levels. Many he taught in school. In some cases he's taught two generations from the same family, perhaps even three. What amazes me is that he recognizes them all, knows their names, and usually knows which class they were in. (I can barely recognize people I've met during the past year or two.) I have watched and wondered what it must be like to occupy such a prominent spot in so many hearts.

He has seen seasons
come and go, fought many fights.
Now they honor him.
His body fails more and more,
as they learn to control theirs.

Paul mixes a boundless capacity for love with a strict sense of what's right and what isn't. Gentle as he is, he stands up strongly for education, tolerance, and economic equality. Stricken now by Parkinson's, he suffers its indignities with rare grace. He still attends community and political functions. He can still walk through his marvelous home for hours, explaining to a visitor what everything is, how he and his late wife, Mary Daniels Taylor, came by it, and mix in some historical detail or a funny anecdote. He and Mary made a warm, personal home for their seven kids of their place on the Mesilla Plaza, then donated it to the public to be a State Monument after Paul finishes living there. (The State currently has someone working part-time with Paul on which pieces from the collection will stay in the Monument.)

He waves as they pass.
He knows all the village kids,
taught their grandfathers.
When a great tree dies, it leaves
a huge hole where its roots were.

It's not something we've discussed, but I think he lives each day with gratitude, as all of us should. He mourns his wife, one of his sons, and who knows what and whom else; but while J. Paul is alive he will not only enjoy each day but bring some joy to others.

Though he would likely demur, he has at every stage of his life been an example to his community. As a young man of mixed ethnicity in an unwise world, he got on with his work; was a loving husband and father, and a caring teacher; and (without a chip on his shoulder) said what needed to be said, probably in a way uniquely capable of being heard by those who needed to hear. Later, at an age when most are preoccupied with golf or bridge, he battled politically for what he believed. At an age most of us won't even reach, he continues to stand up for what he believes is right. Quietly, with an apparent humility that only makes his words more effective.

That's worth remembering and appreciating every so often. It's also a spirit worth emulating, if we can.

Thanks, Paul!

The Friends of the Taylor-Barela-Reynolds-Mesilla State Monument will hold a party at Josefina's in Mesilla to celebrate J. Paul's 94^th birthday on Sunday, August 24 (which is his actual birthday).

                                                            -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, May 11th.]

[Meanwhile, life in local politics seems particularly interesting these days.   
Notably, Magistrate Judge Rick Wellborn's "disappearance" remains a bit of a mystery.  No one has disclosed the accusation(s) against him so serious as to warrant a New Mexico Supreme Court session on what to do with him; and no one will even admit officially that any such thing is on tap.  Among the questions, as I read the law, are how it remains non-public information and whether that's lawful.  As I read the rules, a Judicial Standards Committee allegation, investigation, hearing, or recommendation is confidential, but when the matter reaches the Supreme Court it loses its confidential character.  But since the Supreme Court is the body authorized to take action, and to suspend someone pending a hearing, there should be public information -- unless Wellborn, knowing the accusations against him, took a "voluntary" leave pending a Supreme Court hearing, which would have delayed the need to make anything public.  However, with a hearing said to be imminent, one might reasonably expect some public information this coming week.  And, again, whatever the charges, Mr. Wellborn isn't legally guilty of them unless and until the New Mexico Supreme Court says he is.
The primary races (including the one in which Norman Osborne may or may not face Wellborn) are interesting.  Imminent columns will touch on at least a few of them.  There are a couple in which I see a number of credible candidates and one I wouldn't consider voting for.]
And will Mr. Pofahl meet his pushed-back deadline to bring the City Council a deal with regard to the possible plaza downtown?  Mr. Pofahl is interesting.  He says all the right things when one speaks with him, but a lot of other folks have plenty of questions about him.  The City of Hatch, of course, bought some investment land it now doesn't want, under the belief that if it wanted out of the deal it could sell the land back to Mr. Pofahl, then found it couldn't; and neighbors and other citizens strongly opposed the Pofahl proposal for the old country club property, and ware watching with interest to see how that'll play out.  I'm agnostic for now.]