[Note: I sent the following text under the title "Open Letter to All Members of the New Mexico Senate and House Judiciary Committees" to them and members of the media.]
The New Mexico Department of Justice (NMDOJ), under the leadership of the Attorney General Raul Torrez, is doing everything possible to avoid enforcing the Open Meetings Act (OMA) against former members of the Las Cruces City Council who, through a select committee operating in secret, influenced public safety policies and practices usually without the knowledge of City Council or the public and thereby violated OMA for several years. Its investigation of my complaint about OMA violations avoided this core of my complaint. Its response to FOG’s request that it re-open my complaint in light of its year-long investigation documenting OMA violations is silence. Its rationale for refusing my request that it re-open my complaint defies logic. Its responses to my Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request to know about NMDOJ’s decision making in this matter have violated this act.
I do not know the purpose, mission, or writ of either Senate or House Judiciary Committees, but I assume that some element of oversight is involved in your work. I hope that there is no parallel between the USDOJ and the NMDOJ, both contextualized by one-party control of government and liable to political considerations, and that New Mexico’s Democratic-controlled legislature has more integrity and courage than the Republican-controlled Congress has. So I write to bring your attention to NMDOJ’s reprehensible response to my complaint and to request that you review its performance and prompt NMDOJ to do its proper work properly. Those who have read my blogs know some of the details; I summarize them for those who have not.
Context is important. In his 20 December 2024 letter to the Las Cruces City Council about improper hiring practices, Mr. Blaine Moffatt, Director, Government Counsel and Accountability Bureau (GCAB), concluded with a warning: “Future complaints related to your public body will be examined with increased attention.” With respect to my complaint, his office and lawyers did not practice what he preached.
My 19 December 2024 complaint about OMA violations was assigned to Isabelle Lopez, an Honors (that is, a newly hired) Attorney. In May 2025, her questions to the City Attorney and the City Attorney’s answers failed to address the core of my complaint. I wrote to Ms. Lopez and criticized her investigation, but she did not reply. In October, Rebecca M. Guay, Deputy Director, GCAB, replied with an elaborated restatement of Ms. Lopez’s answer to my complaint; it, too, failed to address the core of my complaint. I wrote to Ms. Guay and criticized her reply, but she did not reply. And there my complaint has rested, closed out.
In May 2025, I contacted the Foundation for Open Government (FOG) and provided it with the approximately 500 records which I had received from the City of Las Cruces in response to my successful suit about IPRA violations by the City Clerk and City Attorney: improper redactions, improperly withheld records, and failure to describe the records redacted or withheld.
On 28 May 2026, FOG submitted a report of its findings to the Las Cruces City Council and to NMDOJ. City Council responded by implementing FOG’s recommendation to repeal the ordinance establishing select committees. NMDOJ did not reply to FOG. On 29 May, I wrote to Ms. Guay to request a “reconsideration of my complaint in view of documentary evidence supporting allegations of OMA violations.” She did not reply. On 30 June, I wrote to Mr. Moffatt to request that his Bureau reopen my complaint. He did not reply.
In late July, I submitted an IPRA request to NMDOJ to learn about its handling of these requests to re-open my complaint. In an exchange of correspondence with Ms. Carrie Cook, IPRA Attorney, about this request, she has feigned to be responsive, but she has given me wrong, misleading, or no reasons for not complying with IPRA requirements: to provide all relevant records, to state the exemption for any redaction or withholding, and to describe the records redacted or withheld. I do not know whether she provided all relevant records; the nature of her emails does not inspire trust. She cited the attorney-client privilege to justify redactions and withholdings; I doubt that the attorney-client privilege applies to inter-departmental NMDOJ communications. She failed to provide descriptions—in particular, repeatedly failing to identify the authors or the audience–by falsely claiming that providing this information would require NMDOJ to create a record—which it is not required to do; she tried to mislead me by equating the disclosure of required information and the creation of a record.
On 19 August, I received an 18 August close-out letter from Christopher M. Harrington, Assistant Attorney General, GCAB. He states that my complaint is now void because the Las Cruces City Council repealed the ordinance establishing select committees. He avoided the core of my complaint: city counselors in a select committee violated OMA by operating in secret and making decisions about policy and practice. His position is that a case against a bank robber is mooted if the bank later installs better vault locks.
NMDOJ’s handling of my complaint reflects badly on NMDOJ lawyers—from staff lawyers Isabelle Lopez, Rebecca M. Guay, and Carrie Cook to officials Blaine Moffatt and Christopher M. Harrington. Their performance discredits NMDOJ and Raul Torrez.
When NMDOJ responds to a citizen with discourtesy, dissembling, dishonesty, and defiance, the question is why. I have two answers: partisan political considerations to protect Democratic incumbent Congressman Gabe Vasquez in the fall election and protection from embarrassment at the exposure of its politically corrupt investigation. NMDOJ lawyers who found no basis for my complaint after a cursory investigation now confront FOG’s thorough investigation rebutting their finding. Rather than reveal political motives, admit investigative error, and take corrective action, these lawyers have not replied to FOG’s report and request to re-open my complaint and have denied my request to re-open it. In short, in my case, NMDOJ has deliberately failed to follow its IPRA guidance, to enforce OMA, more generally to adhere to the rule of law, and to pursue justice in response to a valid complaint by a citizen who trusted that NMDOJ was more ethical and professional than its federal counterpart.
I make this letter to members of the New Mexico Senate and House Judiciary Committees public so that it can better understand NMDOJ’s efforts to protect Democrats and to maintain a cover-up of its flawed investigation. I also want the public to observe how elected officials with legislative and oversight duties in their respective judiciary committees react to NMDOJ’s reprehensible performance.
No comments:
Post a Comment