County Government Gets Weird Again

County government is getting a little weird again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But “can't we all get along?”

                                               -30-

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

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

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

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

"Memory" -- copyright Peter Goodman

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