A Sun-News article (14 June) reports something about the previously clandestine departure of City Attorney Jennifer Vega(-Brown) seven months ago. I publicly asked my District 1 Councilor Kasandra Gandara some simple questions about Vega’s departure, but, as is typical of this Mayor Pro Tem’s disdain for transparency, I received no answer. Additionally, Gandara was very close to Vega and probably wants to protect her. I knew her to rise to Vega’s defense by blaming another in the Law Office for its lies about IPRA exemptions to the NMOAG. Gandara probably knows the reasons for Vega’s departure.
Those reasons, still undisclosed after seven months, cannot be good. A friend who has heard conflicting versions of them tells me that, although I have an ability to find the worst in any situation—while some debate whether the glass is half-full or half-empty, I see no water—, the reason is worse than even I can imagine—no glass. What little we know confirms that the reasons must be bad. City Manager Ifo Pili fired her, surely for cause. Otherwise, Vega, who won a $500,000 whistleblower suit against Albuquerque for retaliation for her filing a complaint for sexual harassment, would likely have sued Las Cruces were there a hint of wrongdoing on its part.
We do not know and probably shall never know the reasons for her firing. There are many possibilities; I can think of four. One is mismanagement. Vega had a staff and may have played favorites, treated them abusively, or operated inconsistently or unreasonably. Another is incompetence. Vega managed a risk reduction committee and was expected to reduce the city’s legal risks, but she negotiated large settlements for police misconduct. Yet another is dishonesty. Vega was supposed to tell the truth about cases under her purview but sometimes departed from it. Last, financial scrupulousness. In appreciation of the larger settlements which she negotiated and recommended, she may have received kickbacks. My guess is that, whatever the reasons, they also reflect so badly on others for their dereliction of duties that transparency is out of the question.
That Sun-News article also reports Law Office staff shortages and case backlogs. Understaffing, five out of twelve positions—one city attorney, one deputy city attorney, two assistant city attorneys, one staff member—, does not occur overnight. Presumably, Pili as well as Vega knew about it, but neither seems to have done anything about it. Now, after her abrupt exit, City Council is rushing to the rescue with a larger and longer contract for legal services, and Pili is (at last?) looking for a City Attorney. Given that Pili is supposed to be a Council pacifier, he will probably look for someone who can maintain peace and quiet. Which means more big settlements in lieu of police reform—business as usual—and no more accountability or transparency than before.
(Council passed, with no dissenting vote, a contract to a local legal firm with a 75%—not, as reported, a 33%--increase in fee and an extension in duration. Need detailed in the agenda package might explain unanimity. Still, its sudden appearance on the consent agenda suggests prior discussion among Council members in possible violation of the Open Meetings Act. If so, more clandestinity, not transparency, by Council.)
But the problems do not end there. Police Chief Miguel Dominguez has been a disgrace since assuming this office. After proclaiming himself “Mr. Transparency,” he has declined to being the producer of Baca eye-blear by means of doctored body-cam footage, to being the dissembler of truth to City Council and the withholder of information from the LC Police Officers Association (its 4 May 2022 letter of criticism indicts his leadership. See extract below indicating that the rank and file have the same problems with Dominguez as citizens do.) He may be nearing retirement—one can only hope—, or, if not, his incompetent leadership may soon wear out his welcome to his seniority-based promotion from an administrative job. Pili’s first choice is a dud.
Poor Las Cruces. When it comes to the city government’s legal community, there is nary a worthy senior official or officer in the city’s employment. Yet the blame cannot fall entirely on the Police Chief or the City Manager. The members of City Council have shown no interest in or commitment to good government, with good personnel operating according to good professional and ethical standards. Of course; why would they, with little or no experience in an executive capacity or on civic committees related to government functions? Having run only on good intentions, they have a flimsy basis for convictions, confidence, and courage to assert themselves and advance worthy causes. So, in matters of law and order, Las Cruces will continue to have weak Council leadership which, though capable of funding programs providing social services, is incapable of facing problems affecting public safety.
Extract: “The department suffers from a lack of leadership, from a lack of transparency, from a lack of accountability, from miscommunication, and a discounting by the chiefs of the learned input of personnel, supervisory and non-supervisory, who possess specialized knowledge and skills that the department’s chiefs do not have.
No comments:
Post a Comment