The State Auditor just told Doña Ana County that its many faults include a culture in which many workers feel management exhibits favoritism, cronyism, and a tendency to retaliate.
My July 26, 2015 column, "County Must Face Music Juries Hear." recited that two years earlier, after witnesses repeatedly testified to discrimination and retaliation against those reporting it, the jury awarded money to terminated county employee Armando Granados; and that in July 2015 similar testimony led another jury to award terminated employee Kim Stewart $1.9 million. Jurors in both cases told me they wanted to send county management a powerful message. The Stewart jurors, post-verdict, hugged Kim. As I wrote then, “Twelve everyday people, given a sudden glimpse into how the county operates, were disgusted.”
I’ll need time to digest the 355-page report; but it’s bad. As State Auditor Joseph Maestas said, auditors found “serious weaknesses in crucial systems” affecting “virtually every aspect of county government, . . . Employees complaining of favoritism, lack of fairness, and fear of retaliation. The people of Doña Ana County deserve a government that operates with integrity and confidence, and the county workers who serve them are entitled to a workplace grounded in fairness and accountability.” Too, county government is a little careless with our money. He said, “the urgent need for corrective action is immediate and non-negotiable.”
Maestas will report to the state attorney-general that (as I’ve written) the County breaks the Inspection of Public Records Law. Yoli Diaz recently filed suit alleging many such violations. As independent auditor Nelson Duran said during public comment, “Do a word-search for ‘significant finding.’” The phrase turns up a lot.
Part of how we got here was a long-running dispute between county management and Sheriff Stewart. When management threatened an audit, Stewart said, “bring it on! Let’s audit everyone.”
A half-dozen of the 42 findings do concern DASO, from the Sheriff’s failures sometimes to attend County Commission meetings, as required by law, to some inadequate training (or documentation of training).
But on one issue, the auditors said what this column said at the time about County interference with Stewart. State law requires police cadets to take tests, including psychological. A state-certified psychologist assesses those and advises the police chief or sheriff. County HR (perhaps just to interfere with Kim) jumped in and belatedly overruled the shrink and the sheriff, saying some guys we were training should be dismissed. Hnnh? The experienced, state-appointed shrink evaluates the entire file, including the tests, decides the relative weight of good and bad evidence, and reaches a conclusion, and then some HR pencil-pusher vetoes that? Didn’t make much sense to me. Nor did it to these independent auditors, who wrote, “The Sheriff should be afforded to use his or her judgment and authority to bestow or remove their powers from deputies,” adding, “Repeated overriding of the licensed psychologist’s statutory authority under 10.19.9.12, which explicitly assigns psychological suitability determinations to the evaluating psychologist, not HR, created material legal and operational risk.” A cadet wrongly denied accreditation might have a good lawsuit. If these bozos overruled the psychologist in the other direction, requiring the Sheriff to hire someone the psychologist warned was unstable, a later victim of misconduct by that individual could sue the county.
Compounding the problems, the county didn’t even allow for appeal until Stewart demanded it – then sued Stewart, without asking the County Commission’s position or providing Stewart conflict counsel.
– 30 –
[The above column appeared Sunday, 31 May 2026, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the Sun-News website and (presently) on KRWG’s website. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version of this Sunday column will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/)]
[This was a quick initial response to the audit, of which I’m reading most of the 355-pages, so I may have further comments next week. Folks should recognize (a) that this is serious, (b) but that, as the Auditor assured us at the meeting, the County is not broken, (c) and that while I’m sure not thrilled with some of the behavior of present commissioners, many of these problems pre-dated their tenures and may not have been so easy to uncover. Blame county management, current and recent and long-ago; but let’s withhold judgment on the commissioners. Let’s watch how they do now. Also, much of the material regarding moneys seems to involve "inadequate controls" rather than "X stole $$$ from the Y Department." That is, things are not quite as they should be, but there's not necessarily specific intentional misconduct regarding finances.]
[If you want to read the audit, I heard Commission Chaparro request that the County Manager put it on the County’s website, which he said he would do. ]
[I also understand that Cari Neill, the County Attorney I’ve often criticized, is on her way elsewhere. If so, I wish her well. ]