Several public statements about the County’s controversial Barkhouse sole-source contract negotiations differed greatly from the documentary evidence. County Manager Fernando Macias and/or former Animal Control Manager Jeanne Quintero made these statements, while appearing to ignore credible negative information regarding Barkhouse. (Last week, Barkhouse declined to go forward.)
A court judgment against Kelly Barker for defrauding folks of $50,000+ seemed a huge caution flag. Macias said Friday the judgment meant little because it was from 2009 (when Barker was in her 50s), and because the County has had a positive experience with Barkhouse. Macias also stressed that this contract was just one among many matters he deals with, and that the planned contract covered a six-month pilot project, during which the County could evaluate both the four-pronged plan and Barkhouse’s performance.
I was also troubled that Barkhouse attacked critics and had a lawyer send threatening letters, and that in March Barker alleged “sabotage” by county employees – but asked to delay any investigation until after contract-signing. I thought Macias should investigate immediately, and either protect the employees or punish them; but Macias says he never heard of the allegation.
When people questioned letting Barkhouse keep its own dogs in the county hold facility, officials said, “[A]ll the animals [housed therein] are county animals;” but a February 8 Barker→Quintero email states, “[T]hese are NOT county dogs, these are ours.” In April, Macias called it “a misconception” that the County was permitting Barkhouse to use the hold facility to conduct its business. Friday, Macias said that legally, any dog in the facility was a county-owned animal, and that he so advised everyone about two months ago.
Officials also said, “Barkhouse volunteers have no keys or means of access” to the county hold facility, but on March 30, Quintero told Barker, “Key ring should be ready tomorrow for Barkhouse use.” Other emails suggest Barkhouse had free access to the facility. (Macias says he had no knowledge of this.)
Asked by Commissioner Reynolds about a March 29 Cessna charter to move dogs out-of-state, Macias replied that the County paid nothing; but South Aero invoiced the County for $13,294. Macias readily conceded Friday that he’d been misinformed.
February emails also show Barker reaming out Quintero because a county employee was honest with a veterinarian about the maturity of some puppies. (Apparently the pups were weaned in early February, but disclosing this before the scheduled February 26 flight would delay matters and incur charges for more than just the one health certificate required for a nursing mom. Barker writes it’s “clear” the employee is “unable to be a team player.” Barker then suggests moving county dogs and Barkhouse dogs to different wings.
Macias points out that many of these emails didn’t (and normally wouldn’t) reach his level, and that Quintero (who hasn’t yet returned my calls) made most of the questionable public statements. Still, the amount of apparent misinformation is troubling.
I don’t agree with allegations of corruption here. But I think “due-diligence” was lakcing; and management should have been more forthcoming and should not have largely discounted criticism as “other operations wanting some of the money.” Officials seemed to circle the wagons around Barkhouse. Were I a commissioner, I’d ask some serious questions.
All that aside, I completely agree with Macias that we need to do something about our homeless dog population, starting with a countywide ramped-up spay and neuter program.
- 30 -
[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 30 May 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newpaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will shortly be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]
[So where does all this leave us? I’m not sure Barkhouse’s “withdrawal” had been publicly reported before, except on Facebook; the Barkhouse letter started:
It is with regret that we inform you Uncaged Paws, Inc. dba Barkhouse and our management company BarkWorks Productions are declining the award of the sole source contract. After careful consideration it is not in our mutual interests to move forward.
Meanwhile, Ms. Quintero, initially hired as the 3rd lawyer in the County Law Department, has quietly left the County’s employ and gone back to the employ of the 3rd Judicial District Court. (Mutual friends tell me she’s smart, and cares about dogs, and express wonder that she got involved in this.) It may be that although the reaction to the sole-source contract was publicly pooh-poohed by Mr. Macias and others, there was behind-the-scenes concern among management. A more recent email from Kathy Tarochione of Barkhouse to County Counsel Nelson Goodin seems to express annoyance at the pace of contract negotiations:
Are we going to do anything about Peter Goodman? He is continuing to spread false narratives and will have a radio show on Friday about this. Nelson, it would be greatly appreciated if you could please respond to my emails. It is extremely difficult for the Barkhouse team to be left in the dark on so many issues… The status of our contract. Are we moving forward?
Thus, it seems as if the concerns voiced and evidence supplied by various citizens, particularly other folks involved with helping dogs, were having some effect. Some went to great lengths, and supplied important information both to the County and to me. It’s reasonable to ask whether the county ought to have come up with much of that information itself, and/or reacted more gracefully to the folks who supplied it. ]
[The process still troubles me. An initial draft of this column was far more negative regarding Mr. Macias; emails seem to bear out that he was not told about much; but other county officials say he’s a micromanager (an allegation heard elsewhere about him) and that “procurement doesn’t go to the bathroom without checking with him first.”
The misstatements to Commissioners and public are concerning, whether or not they were deliberate. Further, Ms. Barker’s attack on county employees elicited no response by the County. (Again, Mr. Macias appears not to have heard of this. My draft column reamed him out for not investigating the allegation of “sabotage,” either to protect his employees from defamation or to punish them if Ms. Barker came up with serious evidence.) Ms. Quintero or Mr. McMahon should have investigated. I haven’t seen evidence that they did. (An email from the accused employee to Barker shows significant knowledge and concern about dogs.)]
[People are obtaining formerly hidden county records, including abotu 1,500 emails between county and Barkhouse, and some are interesting. As noted in the column, some confirm widespread suspicions that certain things Quintero or Macias were saying publicly weren’t supported by the internal documents and emails. Saturday a source sent me the one about Kathy Tarochione’s letter to Nelson Goodin. Id’ suggest that Kathy, if still interested in correcting my “false narrative,” actually talk to me, perhaps on radio. As she knows, before my first column about this deal I called Kelly Barker to hear her side of things. (Through an intermediary, she declined, citing lawyers’ advice.) Since, on social media, I think I’ve invited Kathy to share her views. I have no agenda here except to try to learn and articulate what seem to be truths, and try to raise questions that may help in that process, or at least engage some folks in thought. If she disagrees with stuff others have said, maybe we can have some of them on radio with her. I’m open to discussion and am not under any illusion that I have all the answers.]