In my 29 May blog, I questioned whether Attorney General Raúl Torrez is committed to open government or not. The answer is probably not. The New Mexico Department of Justice’s (NMDOJ) has thus far failed to respond to several requests to reopen my complaint about Open Meeting Act (OMA) violations by former members of the Las Cruces City Council, including incumbent Democratic Congressional District 2 candidate Gabe Vasquz and independent candidate for governor Ken Miyagishima. Vasquez and Miyagishima need NMDOJ protection.
On 28 May, the Foundation for Open Government (FOG) submitted a request to Government Counsel and Accountability Bureau (GCAB) Deputy Director Rebecca M. Guay to reopen my complaint. The request was based on its thorough, year-long investigation of abundant evidence obtained by my Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request and FOG’s further research. Its investigation supersedes the brief, perfunctory, skimpy work of GCAB lawyers. Presumably, Ms. Guay must consult her superiors whether she or they will or will not reopen my complaint. FOG has received no response to its request over seven weeks later.
On 29 May, I made a request to Ms. Guay (copied to Torrez) to reopen my complaint on the basis of FOG’s investigation. I have received no response to my request over seven weeks later. On 30 June, I restated my request to Mr. Blaine Moffatt (copied to Torrez and Ms. Guay), Ms. Guay’s immediate superior. I have received no response to my restated request over three weeks later.
Whatever decision Torrez, Moffatt, or Guay make, their individual failures to respond to a reasonable request is inexcusable, shabby treatment of a private citizen by government officials. That treatment might reflect the usual bureaucratic reluctance to admit a mistake, an incomplete, if not incompetent, investigation of my earlier complaint, as disclosed by FOG’s investigation.
Other reasons might also explain their failures, discussed in my blog, which I summarize. I said that Torrez faces two risks to reopening my complaint. One, he might offend the political establishment, mainly Democrats, if he directs the NMDOJ to reopen my complaint and thereby investigates current candidates for office. An investigation of Vasquez, a Democrat, might anger Democrats by jeopardizing his re-election to the District 2 seat in the House of Representatives (Miyagishima’s candidacy is a vanity project of a fading politician). Two, he might offend officials and employees in the department. Novice attorney Isabelle Lopez would not appreciate the implicit judgment of her cursory initial investigation; and GCAB Deputy Director Rebecca M. Guay would not appreciate the reversal of her reflexive ratification of Ms. Lopez’s work.
I also noted that Torrez runs two risks if he does not reopen my complaint. One, he might appear to be protecting members of his party. Two, whatever his professed commitment to open government, a negative decision might suggest political hypocrisy. I now add that, if he does not reopen my complaint, he makes Government Counsel and Accountability Division Director Blaine Moffatt look like a blowhard; his letter on another matter to the Las Cruces City Council promised that “Future complaints related to your public body will be examined with increased attention.” Thus far, they have not been so examined. If Moffatt appointed or approved the appointment of Ms. Lopez to investigate my complaint, then he showed himself a blowhard.
My guess: Torrez will try to reduce or avoid some of these risks by slow walking a reopening of the investigation until after the November midterm elections or by refusing to reopen it altogether. In the expected close race for the District 2 Congressional seat—Cook Partisan Voter Index rates this district “even”—Vasquez, a weak incumbent candidate, needs all the help which he can get. If Torrez slow walks or does not reopen the investigation, he would seem to agree with my assessment of this Democratic candidate.
This complaint to NMDOJ about OMA violations is not my first and only one. Two others occurred under AG Hector Balderas’s leadership. One was that an LCPD Internal Affairs (IA) investigation of my complaint about five false allegations of code violations violated my due process rights. Although IA found that the allegations were false, it neither reported that finding to me nor acted upon to clear my LCPD file. This complaint went unanswered. The other was that IA’s violation of my due process rights was motivated by antisemitism. This complaint also went unanswered. NMDOJ does a lot of not answering complaints about government agencies.
I assume that I am not the only citizen of New Mexico who has filed complaints with NMDOJ alleging violations of laws by government agencies, including police departments, and has received no answer. (If I am the only such citizen, then I must wonder why my complaints do not matter.) Since the common element of my three complaints is local government officials and agencies, I infer that NMDOJ is reluctant to investigate as many cases as a lack of adverse publicity allows in order to protect state and local officials, ranking employees, and agencies from scrutiny. For NMDOJ, transparency and accountability appear to be merely ideals “more honored in the breach than in the observance.” Attorneys General honor them when they choose to avoid them because of political consequences adverse to their aspirations to higher office. Which is to say that public relations and personal politics deny justice for citizens with complaints about state and local officials and ranking employees. Officials and employees know that NMDOJ prefers to tolerate and protect rather than to deter or prosecute illegal behavior. The refusal of NMDOJ officials to investigate complaints encourages misconduct; immunity leads to impunity.
I doubt that the New Mexico legislature is scrutinizing the NMDOJ in matters concerning citizen complaints about local governments and state agencies. Does the legislature know what number of citizen complaints NMDOJ receives? Or what percentage of citizen complaints it acknowledges? Or what percentage of citizen complaints it dismisses without investigation? Or what percentage of citizen complaints it investigates? Or what percentage of citizens receive a report on the disposition of their complaint? Or whether it measures citizen satisfaction with its handling of complaints? I doubt the legislature can answer any of these questions because it has not asked NMDOJ for answers.
If I am right that the legislature is ignorant in these matters about local governments and state agencies, the legislature cannot ensure that the NMDOJ is a department acting for good government throughout the state—a fact not suggesting good government. Perhaps legislators on the House and Senate judiciary committees should conduct investigations of the NMDOJ. But it is unlikely that Democrats on those committees would approve inquiries or investigations of their political brethren. NMDOJ under Torres will remain corrupt in its protection of government officials and employees from the rule of law regarding open government.
No comments:
Post a Comment