Lawsuit against Many of Us Crashes and Burns

Some readers will remember Rick Seeberger. Sheriff Todd Garrison was so charmed by Seeberger that he placed him high in DASO, though Seeberger had never been a cop and had neither experience nor a degree in law enforcement. DASO Deputies reported disastrous results. Morale seemed to go through the floor. The basement floor. Eventually Seeberger departed, after a public controversy.

Seeberger then sued pretty much everyone he could think of,: several DASO Deputies, County Commissioners and officials, Channel 7, this newspaper, and me. His claims were nonsense. The absence of any cognizable legal claims made one wonder about his intentions: did he think someone would pay him a bunch of money to avoid court? Did he just seek revenge on everyone who didn't share Mr. Seeberger's high opinion of Mr. Seeberger?

Any lawyer could see that he hadn't fashioned any claims a competent court would grant relief on. Suing the newspaper on a cause available only to employees? Suing a private company on a cause you can only use against public actors? Sue for defamation when the law's clear that opinions can't constitute defamation?

U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth has tossed the whole case – and ordered Seeberger to come in and “show cause why the Court should not find that the copy of Plaintiff Rick Seeberger’s EEOC Charge of Discrimination submitted by Plaintiffs . . . was fraudulently altered from what was actually filed with the EEOC, and, if so, why the Court should not impose sanctions under Rule 11 or for contempt of court.” That is, did Seeberger fraudulently change a key document, by checking off a critical box not checked on the original? Oops!

Judge Wormuth's 70-page opinion was detailed and well-reasoned. He looked into and cited important details a lot of judges would have missed. He understood the situation and acted appropriately.

I feel two ways about that.

[Note added Saturday, 5 September: U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth took testimony and heard arguments for nearly three hours yesterday afternoon on whether or not to hold Rick Seeberger in contempt of court and/or sanction him under Rule 11 for fraudulently proffering a document to the court.  EEOC officials testified to their procedures, and that their document file on Seeberger did not include a complaint form with the "Religion" box checked.  Seeberger (who had earlier filed a Complaint not checking the Religion box) testified that he'd brought such a form, along with two copies of one without the Religion box checked, to the EEOC on a certain date and had given both versions to the clerk, though without saying anything about changing or amending his claim.  He denied simply checking the box afterward to help his position in the litigation.  Wormuth made clear he had extreme difficulty crediting Seeberger's account, but took the matter under advisement.  The County has asked him to order Seeberger to defray some of the County's attorney fees, and Judge Wormuth urged Seeberger to review that request and opine on whether or not the numbers are reasonable if he ultimately decided against Seeberger on the document fraud issue.   Notably, he did not discuss Seeberger's right against self-incrimination when putting Seeberger under oath, which seemed to signal he will not treat this as criminal contempt.  Because Seeberger has 14 days to respond to the County's attorney-fees motion, it appears likely Judge Wormuth will not rule on the contempt issue for another two weeks or more.]

Obviously I'm gratified. I took great care to write my columns accurately. I always do; and I was saying some strong things. I also believed Seeberger might sue anything that moved. He had threatened me, warning that inaccuracies would have serious consequences. His voice and facial expression seemed meant to frighten me. I'm gratified that Judge Wormuth took the time to parse out the facts, the columns, Seeberger's pleadings, and the law, then write a clear, strong opinion.

But I'm chagrined that his Honor had to do so, that the public had to pay for his time doing so, and that various parties had to spend significant sums on lawyers to fight a complaint that (in my opinion) never should have been filed. I'm chagrined that some fine DASO Deputies who had suffered through Seeberger's bizarre reign then had to worry about whether some crazy quirk in the legal system or a biased jury might someday require them to pay Seeberger. Everyone knew there was no way that should happen; but it's no fun to be defendant. We've all seen or heard of crazy results in courts.

Seeberger is interesting. To me, he seemed a mixture of con man, evangelist, businessman, and self-help guru. But he didn't belong as DASO Chief of Staff. When I was writing columns questioning Garrison's hiring of Seeberger, DASO personnel would materialize out of the woodwork wherever I went to say, “Thank you!” Sadly, he cost us a lot, in money paid to him, money spent rebutting frivolous allegations, and DASO morale. 

 

Now we can hope we're finished with him, although I do wonder how Friday's hearing will go.

If he's guilty, I hope he pays for it. Thereafter, I wish him well in his future endeavors.

                                                         -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 30 August and will appear on the KRWG-TV website shortly.]

[Sometimes the law does work.  We saw it in the lawsuit regarding the municipal recall effort here.  Now we've seen it in the Seeberger lawsuit.   I hope Seeberger chooses to forget seeking revenge against our County, which paid him a lot of money, and turn his talents to good works as he continues his career.
Still, the title the Sun-News gave the column could be a little optimistic: "An end to the sad, strange DASO Seeberger saga."   It captures the tone of all that's happened, but I think some state court litigation between Seeberger and some of the deputies may linger; theoretically, some defendants could sue Seeberger for abuse of process or malicious prosecution; and Seeberger could appeal, although appellate courts are likely to be less patient with causes of action that come nowhere near the legal mark, and could order him to pay some defendants' fees responding to what they might well term a frivolous appeal.  (As one example of the nature of the claims, I just glanced again at the opinion and realized Seeberger had a cause of action in there for "Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  The opinion briefly quoted from long-standing precedent that “The Eighth Amendment, for its part, can only be invoked by persons who have been convicted of crimes” and noted that since Seeberger had never been convicted or incarcerated, he didn't qualify.  The opinion had similarly quick and cogent answers to most of Seeberger's claims.  In my view, most if not all of those claims could not have been brought in good conscience if someone had researched them even briefly.)
I hope it's over, for Seeberger's sake as much as everyone else's. ]

Public Records Request Yields Look at Seeberger Complaints

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

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

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

No mandatory religiously-oriented training?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


                                                          

Sheriff Garrison and Mr. Seeberger

I still can't see why Richard J. Seeberger should be Chief of Staff in the Doña Ana County Sheriff's Department. He's never been a cop or a deputy. He has a few semesters of college. If he has unique or magical “leadership” secrets to impart to our deputies, he could be a temporary consultant.

Sheriff Todd Garrison says Seeberger doesn't command anyone; but when every soul in the department knows Seeberger has extraordinary control over Garrison, Seeberger commands them. Questions I asked Garison in a meeting often got answered by Seeberger. When Garrison started to answer, Seeberger often interrupted and answered for him. Nor was my experience unique.

Why Garrison genuflects to Seeberger isn't clear. He and the County hired Seeberger without normal background checks – or he pressed HR to ignore that background.

Garrison says Seeberger can re-focus the department and instill “leadership” and communication skills Garrison has long wanted to instill. Others guess maybe Garrison has, or has been led to believe he has, a post-DASO career with Seeberger's consulting business. Seeberger says, “That's not true.”

Seeberger suggested I read The Journey, a book he co-wrote with his wife and self-published in 2012. (When I picked up the book I had to sign and date an acknowledgment that I'd received it from him.)
He said it showed their life journey to where they are now, and said it illustrated how they'd learned from their mistakes. I thought it might be . . . well, I hoped maybe . . . a come-to-Jesus confession of sin and redemption and genuine change and growth.

But the “mistakes” mostly involve trusting others who prove untrustworthy. So far, there's no hint that the Seebergers were ever really at fault for anything. There are allegations of fraud and betrayal against many people and businesses, most unnamed.

Their history includes two personal bankruptcies, some corporate bankruptcies, and plenty of lawsuits. Seeberger says he himself is currently involved in five lawsuits.

Most folks never sue anyone, unless it's over a car accident. I've personally had a few situations where misunderstandings or bad luck could have led to litigation, but we settled on a liveable compromise. I've never sued anyone personally. I've occasionally threatened to sue if something wasn't changed, but either it was changed or we compromised.

Asked about their many lawsuits, Seeberger says that “When you teach integrity, as I do, and you have individuals who attack you in that area, there's really only one choice you have. You have to stand up and defend your integrity.”

Or does he use corporate structures to evade paying people what he might owe them in an ethical sense? An adversary who Seeberger admits has a $200,000 judgment against his 20-20 Leadership Foundation, Inc. is suing Seeberger personally, alleging fraudulent transfer of assets. Is Seeberger's conduct legal? A judge or jury will eventually decide. (The Seebergers' book explains that such luminaries as Mark Twain, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, and Donald Trump each went bankrupt.)

KVIA did some advertising for one of the Seebergers' entities, Build a Stronger Future. (BASF, which DASO is in contract with, is technically owned by Seeberger's wife, and in a flyer they proudly announce it's “100% woman-owned.) When KVIA sued to get paid the $20,000 it was owed, BASF counter-sued for $1 million. Seeberger says KVIA never proved it ran the advertising, and his wife's corporation got zero hits on its website from the advertising. Again, courts will decide the matter.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Mott appears tired of the Seebergers. They filed their second personal bankruptcy and were discharged in 2007. They re-opened the bankruptcy in 2008 and were discharged again. They asked again in 2009, saying they now wanted to sue Bank of America, and Judge Mott permitted that. They lost. Then they asked again in September 2012, “suggesting possible mistakes by their prior counsel years ago during their bankruptcy case in connection with an entiry called ORSA Institute LLC.” Mott told 'em to go away. He wrote, “[A] debtor does not have eternal access to federal court for all alleged disputes related in some way to a bankruptcy case that has been closed for several years.” He had already dismissed the Seebergers' efforts to use bankruptcy with ORSA Institute, with Seeberger's agreement. “Now, the Seebergers want to try yet again and create another litigation platform in this Court for alleged disputes by reopening this very old Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Simply put, enough is enough.”

One chapter in The Journey describes “entitlers.” Entitlers feel entitled to everything.  They “do not want to take personal responsibility . . . it is always someone else's fault they lost something.” “They clog our courts with frivolous lawsuits.”

I feel bad about writing all this. I had coffee with Seeberger Wednesday, and he's an affable, intelligent fellow who projects a strong belief in what he's doing. But so far, what I've learned remains troubling.

The situation troubles DASO employees, County Commissioners, and the public. I'm pretty sure even the HR Department is embarrassed and annoyed that they didn't or couldn't oppose Garrison, an elected official, on this one.

I've requested relevant documents. I'll try to attend a training session. I may write a third column about this; and there's further information on my blog.

But I'm with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Mott: “Simply put, enough is enough.”
A good leader knows when to step away.

[Three corrections from previous column: Mr. Seeberger gave the PTA in L.A. “an unsigned check” rather than “a worthless promissory note” (although the L.A. Times reported both); he has sold no EduKits to DASO; and DASO is paying him a little less than had been reported.]
                                                                         -30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, 9 March; and the newspaper also editorialized on the subject on Friday, 7 March.   (I did not contribute to the editorial.)]

[It seems as if people inside and outside DASO question the Sheriff's action in creating the Chief of Staff position specially for Seeberger and placing Seeberger in it without advertising the position at all.

Seeberger is a smart fellow, and can be personable.  He is said to have skills in teaching management, leadership, organization, and the like.   He's done it for years, and in the past couple of days a couple of former clients told me recently that they were satisfied with their dealings with him (though one added that a former associate whom Mr. Seeberger has blamed for some problems, Ronald Woods, was a better trainer than Seeberger.).  Saturday Mr. Seeberger sent me copies of people's rave reviews of him at one-day "Value-Based Leadership and Managing Change" workshops he and his wife have put on at the City of El Paso Supervisory Academy four times during the last 12 months or so. If he were conducting an occasional training session with DASO, maybe no one (except people who complained that he mixed religion in) would be complaining seriously. 

But he's never been a cop or a sheriff.  Or a patrolman or deputy sheriff.

There also seem to be more than a few people who trusted him or invested with him and didn't make out very well.  That doesn't mean he's dishonest.  He may just be overly optimistic, and spend his (and perhaps others') money in ways that just don't pan out. He may have run into a lot of bad luck.
These facts, plus a couple of complaints about him, raised questions.

As often happens, the response to those questions raised more questions.  Sheriff Garrison and Mr. Seeberger have insisted he actually doesn't order anyone around.   Others disagree.  As I stated in the column, I doubt anyone's actively disobeying Mr. Seeberger, when everyone sees the hoops Garrison has jumped through for him.  Further, I suspect that once I see departmental emails, one subject of my IPRA request, we may find that Seeberger does tell people what to do on occasion. 

Mr. Seeberger insisted the other day that Sheriff Garrison didn't make Seeberger's training sessions, conducted as a consultant before this Chief of Staff business, mandatory.  Then he retreated to saying, "Sheriff Garrison can answer this but certain training within any organization is mandatory."   I think that when the evidence becomes available it may show that Sheriff Garrison told people they had better attend if they wanted to keep their jobs.

Sheriff Garrison and Mr. Seeberger insist that everyone in DASO is completely on board with what they're doing except "a very few malcontents."  I'm not convinced.  I'm curious.  I've heard the department has been "fractured" by all this.  Mr. Seeberger gave me a list of five persons he said where wholly on board.  I've sought the Sheriff's permission to speak freely with those and the rest of the command staff, on a strictly confidential basis, with the Sheriff guaranteeing that folks who talk with me won't be retaliated against.   It will be interesting to see whether he will do that -- or hide behind the fact that he has no legal obligation to do it and the fiction that those who work in DASO do not have reason to fear possible retaliation.  

What's next?  There's said to be an investigation going on by an outside agency.  County Manager Julia Brown confirmed Friday that it hasn't been completed.   I don't even know precisely what aspect(s) of the situation the agency is investigating.  I've heard informally that additional complaints have been made, concerning Mr. Seeberger's conduct as a DASO chief of staff, but I have no idea what may happen with those -- or what should happen.

Questions About a Surprising Hire by the County Sheriff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Thoughts on DASO

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

I've done a few things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote Tuesday! Preferably against Trumpism

Please vote Tuesday. 

This election is important. Mr. Trump is so dangerous in so many ways, his Republican enablers are so deferential, and there's so much at stake, that a Democratic majority in the House is essential. 

So, please, vote for our wonderful, home-grown Xochitl Torres-Small.

Even with local races, it's important to ask why Republican candidates don't speak out against Trump. Do they blind themselves to Trumpism's dangers, see it clearly but accept it to accomplish certain ideological goals, or simply lack the courage to speak out? Trump is making a last-ditch effort to deepen white Christian male privilege, and to “save us” from the modern world by simply denying its realities. He shows open contempt for Mexicans, Muslims, and women. Do we want local leaders who find that acceptable?

One local Republican leader told me, “I haven't spoken out on President Trump, because I'm focused on the County. I didn't speak out against President Obama, even when I disagreed with him.” That sounds reasonable; but we all have a duty to speak out when our national leaders are dangerously wrong. If someone I supported behaved as badly (and dangerously) as Trump, I'd have to speak out. Having helped empower him, I'd try to limit the damage.

A philosophical difference permeates the local races: shall we use the power of government to make our state or county as good as possible, for all of us – or strictly limit government's activities, even starve government as Republicans are doing nationally?

I'd choose the former, so long as we can pay for beneficial programs. So would most Democratic candidates. Local Republicans have deepened this divide by running folks who aren't just somewhat conservative but extremely so. (Exceptions include John Zimmerman and Kim Hakes. Ben Rawson is a closer call.)

In several state races, the Republican candidates are disastrous: Steve Pearce, who consistently puts his extremist ideology before state and national good; PRC candidate Ben Hall, whose record is beyond spotty; and Pat Lyons, who wants to recover the Land Commissioner position where he once did so much harm. Why trust any of them – when we can vote for the extremely appealing Michelle Lujan-Grisham, Steve Fischmann, and Stephanie Garcia Richards?

Our Republican former sheriff, Todd Garrison, seeks to regain the office he nearly destroyed during his Seeberger episode, while the thoughtful Democrat Kim Stewart has both experience and smart, modern ideas. (Allegations that Stewart would take away deputies' long rifles or disband the SWAT Team, are just plain false.)

Lynn Ellins should win his county commission race, and likely will. He truly knows county government and the law, and works well with others. I'd prefer Karen Trujillo to Kim Hakes, although Hakes seems sensible and good-humored on the dais. (I just think Karen has a better understanding of their district's needs.)

Although I have a good working relationship with Ben Rawson, he seems to lack the vision to make our county the best it can be for all its citizens. Although he emphasizes constituent service, he (and county government) dropped the ball on fire-fighting, sending insurance rates skyrocketing; and he resisted the UDC, an effort at coherent planning. (The last-minute Talavera uproar over trailers, which the county handled just fine, didn't have to be so last-minute.) Relative newcomer Shannon Reynolds holds more moderate views that are more in tune with a majority of District 3 voters. 

In any case, vote!

                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, 4 November 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air both on KRWG and on KTAL (101.5 FM / www.lccommunityradio.org)]

[Voting against Trumpism is a basic duty this year -- even for folks who understandably wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the system.  As I've mentioned elsewhere (see earlier posts, including http://soledadcanyon.blogspot.com/2018/10/please-vote-our-tattered-democracy.html ), Trump is doing more damage than we could have imagined, and a Democratic House majority is probably essential to maintaining our country in anything like the form it should be.]

[I've also touched at times on some of the local and state races: 
If Kim Stewart's combination of experience and modern ideas aren't enough reasons to vote for her as sheriff, glance again at these past columns concerning Todd Garrison.  (From  Questions about a Surprising Hire by the County Sheriff on 2 March 2014 to Lawsuit against Many of us Crashes and Burns on 30 August 2015, you can read the sad saga by searching "Seeberger" on my blog or just clicking here.  The misery Garrison caused the majority of employees with his Seeberger fixation was astonishing -- and heart-wrenching, if you happened to be airing that story publicly and talk to deputies suffering under Garrisonburger.  (And don't forget the contributions of Garrison's would-be undersheriff, Curtis Childress.  It was Stewart's investigation of his racist drawings that led to (or contributed to) her firing, which jurors later concluded was wrong enough that they gleefully ordered the county to pay her a big judgment.  See Jury Orders Dona Ana County to Pay (17 July 2015)) 
If Steve Fischmann's consistent consumer advocacy, record of integrity, and mix of business savvy and awareness of the urgent need to radically increase our use of renewable sources of electricity aren't enough for you to want him on the PRC, contemplate Ben Hall's record contemplate Ben Hall's record.  (And I may have just scratched the surface.)
Incumbent state legislators Nathan Small, Joanne Ferrary, Rudy Martinez, and Doreen Gallegos have worked hard and thoughtfully for our community's interests, and our state's, and deserve re-election.  To varying degrees, the Republican Party has made these choices even easier by running extremists.  Similarly in the District 33 race between newcomers Micaela Lara Cadena and Charles Wendler, she's a sharp young progressive with good ideas and he's somewhat of a Tea Party Republican with a strong ideology. I voted for her.
Lynn Ellins should and will win, but if you're a new resident or a forgetful one, take a look at this moment in our past, when Ellins recognized constitutional truth and acted, as county clerk, in a way the Supreme Court then agreed our constitution required regarding same-sex marriage: County Commission Knocks One out of the Park (1 September 2013).]

[County Commission Chair Ben Rawson has his good points.  However, his vote last year to fire Julia Brown (Julia Brown's Firing Was Foreseeable but Abrupt --  April 2017) has already led to a huge payment to Ms. Brown in settlement of her lawsuit.  (Rawson had the grace to apologize to her immediately.  I happened to be sitting at the table with her and county staff when he did, during the break after the vote, and wondered a little about what was in his mind.)  Too, I don't agree with his consistent and sometimes misleading trashing of the nascent bus system.  (Commission Ducks Transit Issue -- Citizens Shout "Shame!" -- 14 May 2017  )  I also didn't agree with the rightwing position the county (definitely including Ben Rawson) took regarding a union issue.  The deputies union consistently won in arbitration, trial, and appeal, and the County's intransigence cost us more money in legal fees and perhaps interest.  (County and Deputies Union -- 29 October 2017)   I also questioned the Commission's move to add an extra step that could slow down opposition to El Paso Electric moves to raise our rates, although the Commission's justification wasn't wholly unreasonable. (Did the County Commission Just Do El Paso Electric a Favor? 2 April 2017 )  I'd also note that while 70 to 80% of the citizenry supported designating the Organ Mountains / Desert Peaks National Monument, and the City Commission voted unanimously in support of that designation (opposed vigorously by Steve Pearce), when Trump's administration threatened to reduce the monument, Mr. Rawson was "the lone holdout" when the County Commission voted 4-1 to support keeping the monument intact -- as reported by the Sun-News on June 2017.  
Rawson works hard.  He knows the rules and procedures.  He's a very reasonable guy to talk to.  But Shannon Reynolds barked like a watchdog about the fire insurance issue, well before I got interested and well before the Commission did anything; and his views would appear to be more in line with those of the district's voters.]

[Finally, Probate Judge Diana Bustamante has done a good and professional job in that office, and should be retained.   This is not an ideological or "political" office; she has four years of experience and knowledge; and to unseat her should require her opponent to show some misconduct or serious mistakes on or part or propose some brilliant innovation in how to run the office, which he couldn't do and hasn't done. He's also a newcomer, who moved here in 2014 from California, and I don't know that he speaks Spanish or knows the country very well. ]

County Administration and County Elected Officials

The Doña Ana County Commission needs to schedule a work session with other elected officials – Sheriff, Clerk, Treasurer, and Assessor – concerning a key problem.

A city's comptroller and police chief aren't elected. The U.S. President appoints the FBI Director and U.S. Treasurer, with the Senate's “advice and consent.” If you and I were assigned to create an effective local government, we'd likely not fill so many positions through elections.

Elected county officials are a vestige of New Mexico history, for better or worse. That creates problems; and problems, like carpets, need to be aired out now and then. Beaten with a broom, maybe. Neither averting one's eyes nor manipulating the ambiguities to grab power is helpful.

There are grey areas regarding how county manager and elected officials work together. Voters elect a clerk or treasurer or sheriff based on his or her reputation and ideas; each enters office intent on doing a good job; but in certain areas – notably human resources, purchasing, and the legal – the elected official's power and discretion is limited. That naturally creates conflicts.

How we view those conflicts can depend on the elected official. Some who supported Kim Stewart's request for a big raise for Undersheriff Jaime Quesada would have lost their breakfasts on the commission-chamber carpet if Kiki Vigil had obtained commission approval of a similar raise for Undersheriff Ken Roberts. Kiki objected violently to county interference with his personnel decisions; but what sane observer wasn't relieved that the County managed to sack Sheriff Todd Garrison's pal, Rick Seeberger. (Full disclosure: Seeberger sued everyone in sight, including me; the U.S. District Court eventually took his money, not defendants'.)

Some of what goes on would be comical if it didn't waste our money and our county government's energy. The County needs to avoid paying gobs of our money to unqualified cronies of elected officials; but maybe when officials need to retain a genuinely valuable employee, HR should work with them more flexibly.

County Manager Fernando Macias would undoubtedly say he acts to preserve the County's funds and ethical rules. Some folks in other departments see some of his actions as “a power grab” and resent both the content and the manner of those actions.

I'm neutral, but I'd urge the County Commission to look at this and either figure out the rules or make some. Some rules seem familiar. For example, the elected official can name his or her chief deputy; but is that person's compensation fixed by the official, the county manager, the commission, or some combination? 

Where there are actual rules, let's publish them. Where there are unwritten rules, let's find out where they came from and decide whether or not to retain them. What kinds of contracts involving elected officials' departments must be blessed by the County Commission, and why? Should the Law Department's legal review of contracts be limited to changes that are clearly required by law or clear practical concerns? (The contract for Magistrate Court security is a great example of how things shouldn't work. Even two-year-olds – or cats – could have done better!) 

Finally, this process should involve the Law Department; but the discussion should also include questions to the Attorney General, where appropriate, and the commission should hear from other lawyers and former officials familiar with the problem. We need an open discussion – open to the public and open to creative ideas.

                                                    -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday. 8 September 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and  KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week both on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (Las Cruces Community Radio), and will shortly be available on demand on KRWG's website.)]

["Should we continue to have elected county officials other than commissioners?" is a bootless question.  We have them under our state constitution.  Theoretically, they give the people more direct control over county government.  Whether or not these offices should be political popularity contests is a fair question, but not one that New Mexico is likely to examine seriously in the foreseeable future.

That very fact accentuates the need to figure out, as best we can, how to deal with the situation.  That won't necessarily be easy.  How do you write a rule or procedure that works both for a situation where a sheriff is saddled with a bad hire high up in the administration and has appointed a sheriff with substantial police experience and a clean record and for a situation where a sheriff has appointed a political hack or crony whom other local law enforcement laugh at?  We generally don't want commissioners or county manager dictating policy to other elected officials or telling them how to do the jobs; but we've had some ugly situations recently, ranging from Treasurer David Gutierrez remaining in his office despite admitted bad conduct and his own party's suggestion he should resign through Seeberger to Undersheriff Ken Roberts, whose questionable management skills and questionable conduct was fine with Sheriff Vigil for quite a long time.]

[One tends to think county government interference with elected officials should be minimal, but four years is a long time, and -- as we all saw with Gutierrez -- recall is dauntingly difficult.]

[By the way, speaking of local elections, we'll be doing a series of candidate fora on KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org), starting this coming Wednesday, 11 September, with candidates for Las Cruces Public School Board Position 5 (8-9 a.m.) then Las Cruces City Council, District 1 (9-10 a.m.).

The full schedule is currently:

                                           8-9 a.m.                                               9-10 a.m.

11 Sep		L.C. School Board Pos. 5 Ed Frank Carol Lynn Cooper  Gloria J. Martinez  Maria G. Pacheco	LC Councilor Pos. 1 Kasandra A. Gandara Shelly A. Nichols-Shaw 496-4701 Shanntiles@gmail.co
18Sep		8-9 City Council District 2 Tessa Stuve Philip Van Veen Jason D. Estrada  Jack L. Valencia, Jr.	Could run over into 9 hr. if more candidates join the race Consider Constitution Day this hour or shortened for 18 Sept.
25Sep		8-9 City Council District 4 Johana Bencomo  Robert Palacios Antoinette Reyes	Could run over into 9 hr. if more candidates join the race
2 Oct		8-9:30 Las Cruces Mayoral Race Bev Courtney  Alexander Paige Baca Fresquez  Jesusita Dolores Lucero  William “Bill Mattiace Ken Miyagashima  Eugenia “Gina” Montoya Ortega Jorge Sanchez Gregory Z Smith Isabella Solis Mike Tellez	8-9:30 Las Cruces Mayoral Race [ could run past 9:30 with so many candidates! ]
9 Oct		LCPS Board Election – 4? Jesus Joaquin Favela, Jr.  [by pre-recording] Margaret Montoya  Jeffrey R. Silva  Teresa Tenorio Janice Marie Williams William J Zarges	DASWCD Supervisor 1 1 Kurt SJ Anderson 1 Jerry Guy Schickedanz
16Oct		Presiding Municipal Judge Joy Goldbaum Richard Jacquez	DASWCD Supervisor 2 2 Fernando Clemente 2 David Joseph Martinez Supervisor 5 5 Christopher Kost Podruchny Cardenas 5 Joshua L. Smith
23Oct
30Oct
6 Nov	Post-election

City Employee Wins Judgment against City

A year after a jury awarded former Doña Ana County Public Works Director Jorge Granados $250,000 in damages, another jury has awarded Las Cruces City employee Sandra Hunter $ 50,000. 

 

On July 3, 2013, a jury determined Granados had been retaliated against and subjected to a hostile work environment. I talked to jurors afterward. They were in Howard Beale mode: damned mad and not going to take it anymore. 

 

On July 11, 2014, a jury held the City liable for a hostile work environment suffered by Hunter. (She did not succeed on other claims.)

(Lawyers Daniela Labinoti and Brett Duke, who represented both Granados and Hunter, also recently filed a lawsuit against the D.A's Office.) 

 

Ms. Hunter began working for the City in 2004. She complained of discrimination, and in 2006 she pointed out that employees were getting paid for unworked time through falsified time records.  

The City allegedly responded by punishing her. She filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Although filing such charges is legally protected, the City punished her further. Allegedly, Hunter kept doing her job well but the City repeatedly transferred her, placed her on administrative leave, put her through a forced psychiatric evaluation, and unfairly disciplined her for matters that other employees weren't disciplined for. 

 

For example, Hunter alleged that one day she called to tell her supervisor she would be fifteen minutes late.  Her supervisor being unavailable, Hunter left a message with the supervisor's assistant.  The City investigated this incident at length, conducting multiple interviews and drafting numerous memoranda, and eventually suspended Hunter without pay for one day. Hunter says other employees were frequently late and went unreprimanded. 

Hunter will receive some compensation for her emotional distress.

We get no reimbursement for any tax dollars spent harassing this woman. Or for the $50,000 plus very substantial attorney fees we'll pay. 

 

I sat through the week-long Granados trial. (The jurors' disgust with then-County-Manager Sue Padilla and other officials was readily understandable to me.) I also knew the case could have and should have been settled before trial, saving the County a million dollars or so.

I didn't hear a word of testimony in Hunter, so I won't assess the verdict. (I've spoken a bit to lawyers on both sides, but don't feel comfortable getting into detail about testimony I wasn't present for. The City disagrees with the verdict but hasn't decided whether or not to appeal.)

But I did immediately wonder how this happened. 

 

One key witness was EEO Specialist Mary Pierce. Ironically, Pierce, then employed by the County, was a major player in the Sally Ramirez discrimination case – which, as I discussed in a column last year, ended with Doña Ana County subjected to U.S. Department of Justice monitoring and required to retrain County employees.

Did the City factor in Ramirez when hiring Pierce? Will the City require some retraining of her after Hunter? Or is Pierce blameless?

Don't know. City officials can't discuss personnel matters.

Meanwhile the recent effort by Sheriff Garrisonberger to fire Undersheriff Eddie Lerma was a ready-made lawsuit. Todd Garrison's the third Sheriff to have Lerma serve as Undersheriff. Lerma served under Garrison for nearly four years – then had the sense to doubt whether Rick Seeberger's tight control of Garrison's operation was good for the County. A firing offense. I doubt Seeberger cared about fairness or whether the County paid Lerma damages some day. 

 

Granados was one among many recent cases by former employees against the County. I hope Hunter is anomalous, and doesn't mean the City is getting equally careless in its treatment of employees.

                                                          -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, 20 July 2014.]

[With regard to the last paragraph: I can't overstate the difference in context.  I was hearing incredible numbers of complaints -- and incredibly passionate complaints -- about the county manager and her pals from county employees, former county employees, and others doing business (or charity) with the county.  Most of the places I saw or smelled smoke, further investigation turned up a lot of fire.  In addition, there were a host of lawsuits by employees and former employees.  Too, I have the impression from a variety of sources that the Granados case could have been settled for a small fraction of what the County ultimately spent on it.  (I know a lot less about Hunter, but the verdict was a lot smaller than the Granados verdict.) 
I spent a week in court observing the Granados trial because it seemed symptomatic of a serious problem; and when I wrote about it on the blog, hundreds of people, including many county employees and officials, read the posts and many individuals contacted me, some of them anonymously, concerning problems with county administration.  Hunter -- the facts of which started nearly a decade ago, even before the tenure of current City Manager Bob Garza -- seems a more isolated case (and a closer one, if I read the jury's verdict right).    
Having said that, though, let me make clear that I'm open to hearing about problems with any government entity. ]