On Friday, Feb. 14, District Judge Mercedes Murphy issued a court order naming her selection of five Sierra County Arroyo Flood Control District directors.
State law 72-18-1, et seq., allows county and city governments to petition their district court directly to put the question whether to form a flood-control district on the ballot.
The Sierra County Commissioners filed such a petition/court case with the district court last April, and the court approved its inclusion on the November 2024 general election ballot.
Candidates seeking to hold the position of director was also supposed to be on the November 2024 ballot, until Flood Control Commissioner Sandy Jones asked to intercede in the Sierra County Commissioners’ court case. He argued, or would have argued, that state law requires the election of the five directors to oversee the governance of a flood control district must be done in an odd-year local election. He asked that the question and board of directors’ election be put off until November 2025.
District Judge Mercedes Murphy said Jones could not intercede, claiming he had a conflict of interest, because the county collects the flood-control tax and the lawyer Jones hired would be paid from that tax.
The Secretary of State’s attorney, at the last minute, also asked to intercede in the case, which Murphy allowed. The SOS attorney gave the same argument that Jones would have given.
Murphy ruled that the question whether to form the flood control district under state law 72-18-1 would go on the November 2024 ballot. She also ruled that she would appoint the first five directors, who would serve until the November 2025 election.
Jones was appointed by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham to be flood control commissioner of Sierra County in 2019, as allowed under state statutes 4-50-1 et seq.
Both the 72-18-1 flood-control district and the 4-50-1 flood-control district are taxing districts. Both districts are contiguous with the county boundary. The former allows an automatic .50 mill levy (a higher tax is allowed if voters approve it) and the latter a 1.50 mill levy.
So now we have two flood control taxing districts. It’s extremely doubtful voters understood that they were voting to increase their property taxes and that they already pay a tax for flood control.
Judge Murphy gave those interested in becoming one of the five flood control directors a Jan. 10 deadline to submit their resumes, cover letters and nominating petitions with at least five signatures from registered voters. To see their submissions, refer to the Citizen’s earlier article: https://sierracountycitizen.org/not-even-trying-to-look-impartial-elected-officials-and-county-manager-nominate-sierra-county-arroyo-flood-control-district-directors/
The five directors Murphy selected from the seven who applied:
Bobby Blackwood, Jr., Winston
Barry Ragsdale, Highway 187, near Williamsburg
William (Billy) Neely, Highway 187, near Williamsburg
Beau Marshall, Cutter
Creeden Coil, Monticello
As stated in the previous, above-linked article, William Neely appears to have a conflict of interest, since he is the Sierra County road supervisor.
The Government Conduct Act, if I am interpreting it correctly, prohibits Neely to hold public office unless it is at the county, city or school board level. The Sierra County Arroyo Flood Control District is a state agency. See the law below:
10-9-21. Prohibited acts.
- No employer shall dismiss an employee for failure or refusal to pay or promise to pay any assessment, subscription or contribution to any political organization or candidate; however, nothing contained in this section shall prevent voluntary contributions to political organizations.
- No person in the personnel office or employee in the service shall hold political office except for a non-partisan county or municipal office or be an officer of a political organization during his employment. For the purposes of the Personnel Act, being a local school board member or an elected board member of any post-secondary educational institution shall not be construed to be holding political office, and being an election official shall not be construed to be either holding political office or being an officer of a political organization. Nothing in the Personnel Act shall deny employees the right to vote as they choose or to express their opinions on political subjects and candidates.
- Any employee who becomes a candidate for public office shall, upon filing or accepting the nomination and during the campaign, take a leave of absence. This subsection does not apply to those employees of a grant-in-aid agency whose political activities are governed by federal statute.
I also pointed out, in the above-linked prior article, that county officials signing Neely’s nomination petition sent the message to the judge and to the people that the flood control .50 mill levy should and could be spent to hire county employees and to lease or purchase equipment for the county road department. The county had purchased about $600,000 of county road equipment with tax money from the 1.50 mill levy under state law 4-50-1 flood control district’s fund. Flood Commissioner Sandy Jones made the county reimburse that fund for those purchases.
With Judge Murphy’s aid, it looks as if there is at least one director who will be in favor of mixing county road and flood control duties, funded by the new tax.
I also pointed out in the above-linked article that the director applicants emphasized their big-equipment-operator bona fides, giving the impression they thought they could hire themselves and pay themselves from flood-control tax revenue. If I am interpreting the following law correctly, they can, which would sanction what should be a conflict of interest:
72-18-18. Interest in contracts and property disqualifications.
No director or officer, employee or agent of the district may be interested in any contract or transaction with the district except in his official representative capacity and except for any contract of employment with the district.
My third concern is that this appointed board will pass bylaws, setting the course of how this board will operate for years to come. Since it must wait a year before it gets tax money in its coffers, I fear that the board will be offered and will use Sierra County Attorney Dave Pato to guide them in drafting the bylaws, thus making it more likely the county will control the new tax fund and puppeteer the directors’ moves.
My fourth concern is that the county will take over the public notification and minute-taking duties for this newly appointed board of directors, who have no tax money to rent space, pay for administrative services, or pay for legal ads, thus giving the county control over how this board interfaces with the public.
My hope is that this board of directors will pass bylaws that set up district voting. Directors are at-large in the current set up. If there were five districts, if electors could only vote for one candidate who resided within their district, it would dilute the county commission’s power over the directors. It would better ensure that the tax money would be spent equitably throughout the county. For years most of the money has gone to the northwestern part of the county, with very little going to the municipalities of Truth or Consequences, Elephant Butte and the Village of Williamsburg. I also think the people would be more likely to know or to contact their director if he or she were only representing residents in their district.