Seven men have been nominated to be appointed to the five-member board of directors that will run the Sierra County Arroyo Flood Control District.
See their resumes, letters of interest and nominating petitions at the end of this article.
The Sierra County electorate approved the new taxing district at the polls last November.
Of course, the ballot question didn’t state the flood control district would be a taxing district automatically imposing a .50 mill levy to property owners’ bills. It also didn’t mention that a 1.50 mill levy already exists for flood control.
The Sierra County Commission put the question on the ballot, claiming that the 1.50 mill levy didn’t address arroyo flooding, which is incorrect.
So now we have an additional, redundant tax, another taxing authority, and another set of elected officials, which Sierra County Flood Commissioner Sandy Jones and I tried to warn you about:.
To make matters less worse, the people won’t vote for the first board of directors, who will draft by-laws and set the course for how this flood control district is governed and how it taxes the people (special taxing districts within the county are an option) and how it spends the tax money.
Local District Court Judge Mercedes Murphy ruled that she would select the first board:
Maybe Murphy’s authoritarian exercise of judicial powers in the election process encouraged other elected officials and the county manager to also use their respective legislative and executive powers to get who they want in power by nominating candidates.
Murphy said that if too few people applied to be directors, then the county commission would come up with the necessary remaining candidates, further erasing the checks and balances between the judicial and legislative branches of government.
Murphy obviously believes the county commission can do no wrong, even though Sandy Jones caught them usurping the Sierra County Flood Commissioner’s office when the last one died. They used the tax money to buy county road equipment and to supplement employee salaries. The little amount of flood control work that was done was for the county, excluding the municipalities, with ranchers’ interests being served.
Of the seven men who have applied to be directors, six are ranchers (see applications and nominating petitions below.)
Of the seven, five emphasize they know how to operate heavy equipment, giving the impression they expect to be subcontracted to clear out arroyos. Do they know that they can’t hire themselves, that as the fiduciary overseers, they cannot benefit from their appointed position?
And one of the candidates is the road supervisor for Sierra County, Billy Neeley. If he is appointed by Murphy, does he think he can subcontract his county crew to do the arroyo work, including himself?
County Manager Amber Vaughn and County Commissioner Jim Paxon signed Neeley’s nominating petition, giving the message to the judge, the county employees and the public that the county’s road department should benefit from this tax.
State Representative Rebecca Dow and County Commissioner Hank Hopkins signed Creeden Coil’s nominating petition, letting the judge, county employees and constituents know who they think should be appointed.
Amanda Forrister, City of Truth or Consequences mayor pro tem, signed her husband’s nominating petition, Lane Forrister, letting the judge and her constituents know who should be appointed.
Since Murphy opened the door, giving herself this initial-board appointment power, and let it be known she would take names from county commissioners, why would other government officials abstain from trying to influence her?
If directors were being elected, not appointed by Murphy, Dow, Hopkins, Forrister, Paxon and Vaughn would probably be in violation of the following state law:
1-20-13.1. Coercion of voters.
Coercion of voters consists of compelling any voter at any election to vote for or to refrain from voting for any candidate, party, proposition, question or constitutional amendment either against the voter’s will or in the absence of the vote’s ability to understand the purpose and effect of his vote. Whoever commits coercion of voters is guilty of a fourth degree felony and shall be sentenced pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978.
And the following state administrative code:
1.7.6.11 PUBLIC/POLITICAL OFFICE:
A. Employees covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act [5 U.S.C. Sections 1501 to 1508] may not be candidates for partisan political office elections.
B. Employees not covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act [5 U.S.C. Sections 1501 to 1508] may be candidates for any partisan political office if, upon filing or accepting the nomination and during the entire campaign, they are authorized full-time continuous leave without pay.
C. Employees may be candidates for nonpartisan political office, subject to the restriction set forth in 1.7.6.11 NMAC, without taking a leave of absence.
D. Employees may hold only a nonpartisan county or municipal political office during employment in the classified service.
E. Being a local school board member or an elected member of any post-secondary educational institution shall not be construed as holding political office.
F. Employees running for or holding public office shall not use state equipment, facilities, property or time dedicated to employment duties to conduct campaign or public office related business.
And the Government Conduct Act:
10-16-3.1. Prohibited political activities.
A public officer or employee is prohibited from:
A. directly or indirectly coercing or attempting to coerce another public officer or employee to pay, lend or contribute anything of value to a party, committee, organization, agency or person for a political purpose;
B. threatening to deny a promotion or pay increase to an employee who does or does not vote for certain candidates, requiring an employee to contribute a percentage of the employee pay to a political fund,influencing a subordinate employee to purchase a ticket to a political fundraising dinner or similar event, advising an employee to take part in political activity or similar activities; or
C. violating the officers or employees duty not to use property belonging to a state agency or local government agency, or allow its use, for other than authorized purposes.
It is infuriating but not at all surprising. Dirty, rotten grifters the whole lot of them!
I would think Amanda Forrister Pro Tem ( Mayor) Husband ,Lane Forrister,shouldn’t be allowed . Well since the animal abuse ordeal .
But then again they changed the law ..just for the Mayor!