Complaint against Commissioner Gilmor...

Complaint against Commissioner Gilmore dismissed

There are 27 comments on the The Deming Headlight story from Jun 7, 2009, titled Complaint against Commissioner Gilmore dismissed. In it, The Deming Headlight reports that:

A motion to dismiss a criminal charge against Luna County Commissioner Becky Allen Gilmore was granted Friday by Grant County Magistrate Judge Hector Grijalea, sitting in Luna County Magistrate Court.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Deming Headlight.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Happy Trails

Longmont, CO

#1 Jun 8, 2009
No surprise here.
Gordon Mast

Hollister, CA

#2 Jun 8, 2009
I posted once--not accepted...hmmmm? I will tone it down a bit.

POST # 2

This case should (probably will)(I believe they have up to 15 days) be re-filed in District Court, where it should have been filed in the first place.

Also, every one involved should be taken to task...not just Becky. This should not just be a question of improper involvement on Becky Gilmores part....many issues were not made public, as required.

"Watson; something is afoot"

If you have not signed the Citizens Grand Jury petition as yet, please do so this week, we will be filing very soon.
wrongstatue

Columbus, NM

#3 Jun 8, 2009
Hey DA Newell...

If you screwed this case up,(BTW, that was expected from you), and filed it using the wrong criminal statue... then re-file the case using the CORRECT CRIMINAL STATUE...

Wow... that seems to be a pretty basic concept... Just how long have you been that stupid? You got a law degree out of a corn flakes box or what?

Good ol boys and girls club united...

Duhh... Dooohhh...
Happy Trails

Longmont, CO

#4 Jun 8, 2009
What you suggest gordon would of course be the proper course of action. However I doubt very seriously if that is going to be how this plays out. this thing has been back-doored just as sooo many other events. Get the paper work filed and lets move this CGJ forward!
Gordon Mast wrote:
I posted once--not accepted...hmmmm? I will tone it down a bit.
POST # 2
This case should (probably will)(I believe they have up to 15 days) be re-filed in District Court, where it should have been filed in the first place.
Also, every one involved should be taken to task...not just Becky. This should not just be a question of improper involvement on Becky Gilmores part....many issues were not made public, as required.
"Watson; something is afoot"
If you have not signed the Citizens Grand Jury petition as yet, please do so this week, we will be filing very soon.
Gordon Mast

Hollister, CA

#5 Jun 8, 2009
Happy Trails wrote:
What you suggest gordon would of course be the proper course of action. However I doubt very seriously if that is going to be how this plays out. this thing has been back-doored just as sooo many other events. Get the paper work filed and lets move this CGJ forward!
<quoted text>
I have asked everyone with signed petitions to get them in this week---there are quite a few, if they get turned in---should put us near or over the 400 mark (this is what I am hoping for) then we wait for verification, then judge to set date.


Then we see what our jury pool is really made of.
Happy Trails

Longmont, CO

#6 Jun 8, 2009
Who ever finds themselves on the jury are sure to have an awakening, as to the depth of this cesspool known as Luna Co Government, of that I am quite certain. The corruption, criminal acts and a blatant disregard of the public’s trust and best interest will shock their minds. Hopefully the state has enough handcuffs….that is my only concern.
Bleetus

Perrysburg, OH

#7 Jun 8, 2009
Corruption abounds in this dusty southwest town! When our political officials fear no reprimand or consequence for their actions, it is easy to understand the expected vandalism of the new entertainment complex. If I possibly could, I would view this as vindication for Gilmore, but my better judgment makes me heavily suspicion more foul play and crony skullduggery!
Gordon Mast

Lodi, CA

#8 Jun 8, 2009
30-23-6. Unlawful interest in a public contract.(1963)
Unlawful interest in a public contract consists of:
A. any public officer or public employee receiving anything of value, directly or indirectly, from either a seller or a seller's agents, or a purchaser or a purchaser's agents in connection with the sale or purchase of securities, goods, leases, lands or anything of value by the state or any of its political subdivisions, unless:
(1) prior written consent of the head of the department of the state or political subdivision involved in the transaction is obtained and filed as a matter of public record in the office of secretary of state; and
(2) subsequent to the transaction a statement is filed as a matter of public record in the office of secretary of state by the purchaser or seller giving anything of value to a public officer or public employee and this statement contains the date the services were rendered, the amount of remuneration for the rendered services and the nature of the rendered services;
B. any seller, or his agents, or a purchaser, or his agents, offering to pay or paying anything of value directly or indirectly to a public officer or public employee in connection with the sale or purchase of securities or goods by the state or any of its political subdivisions unless the requirements of Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Subsection A of this section ar [are] complied with.
Any person violating the provisions of Subsection B of this section, where such violation forms the basis for prosecution and conviction of a public officer or public employee, shall be disqualified from transacting any business with the state or its political subdivisions for a period of five years from the date of such violation.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a public officer or public employee from receiving his regular remuneration for services rendered to the state or its political subdivisions in connection with the aforementioned transactions.
Whoever commits unlawful interest in public contracts where the value received by him is fifty dollars ($50.00) or less is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Whoever commits unlawful interest in public contracts where the value received by him is more than fifty dollars ($50.00) is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Any public officer or public employee convicted of a felony hereunder is forever disqualified from employment by the state or any of its political subdivisions.
History: 1953 Comp.,§ 40A-23-6, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303,§ 23-6.
Cross references.— For Conflict of Interest Act, see 10-16-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references.— 63A Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and E
10-16-1. Short title.(1993)
Statute text
Chapter 10, Article 16 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Governmental Conduct Act".
Scope of act.— This article applies only to state agencies and that term would not include a county commission. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-135.
FACTS
A Board of County Commissioners desires to appoint a local insurance agency as an exclusive agent for the life, accident, sickness and hospital benefits for the employees of the county. The duties of the exclusive agent would be to (1) conduct the survey of the needs of the employees for insurance coverage; (2) prepare specifications to be submitted in invitations to bid to the insurance companies; (3) take care of all mechanical work in the bidding process; (4) recommend to a county commission which bid should be accepted; (5) service the policy of the successful bidder as if it were the agent of the bidder and receive the commission for such work from the successful insurance company.
Gordon Mast

Lodi, CA

#9 Jun 8, 2009
QUESTIONS
Would the appointment of an exclusive agent for the above purposes by a county commission violate the Conflict of Interest Act or the Public Purchases Act?
CONCLUSION
The appointment of an insurance agent as an exclusive agent for the purposes outlined above would be a violation of the Public Purchases Act.
Since the exclusive agent would not actually bid on the insurance in this case it appears 5-12-13 would not be violated in this instance.
Furthermore, the Conflict of Interest Act applies only to state agencies and that term would not include a county commission. See, Ward v. Romero, 17 N.M. 88, 97, 125 P. 617 (1912). See also, Opinion of the Attorney General No. 69-19, dated March 12, 1969, where it was held that a school district was not a state agency within the terms of the Conflict of Interest Act.
However
The Public Purchases Act does apply to the County Commission since it is included in the definition of a local public body under that act. See,§ 6-5-18 P, N.M.S.A., 1953 Compilation, 1969 Supp. All purchasing for a local public body must be performed by a central purchasing office designated by the governing authority of the local public body, with certain exceptions.§ 6-5-21 B, N.M.S.A., 1953 Compilation, 1969 Supp. The exceptions to purchasing through a central purchasing office do not apply to the instant problem. See,§ 6-5-22 B, N.M.S.A., 1953 Compilation, 1969 Supp.
Gordon Mast

Lodi, CA

#10 Jun 8, 2009
PART ONE.

30-23-6. Unlawful interest in a public contract.(1963)
Unlawful interest in a public contract consists of:

A. any public officer or public employee receiving anything of value, directly or indirectly, from either a seller or a seller's agents, or a purchaser or a purchaser's agents in connection with the sale or purchase of securities, goods, leases, lands or anything of value by the state or any of its political subdivisions, unless:
(1) prior written consent of the head of the department of the state or political subdivision involved in the transaction is obtained and filed as a matter of public record in the office of secretary of state; and
(2) subsequent to the transaction a statement is filed as a matter of public record in the office of secretary of state by the purchaser or seller giving anything of value to a public officer or public employee and this statement contains the date the services were rendered, the amount of remuneration for the rendered services and the nature of the rendered services;
B. any seller, or his agents, or a purchaser, or his agents, offering to pay or paying anything of value directly or indirectly to a public officer or public employee in connection with the sale or purchase of securities or goods by the state or any of its political subdivisions unless the requirements of Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Subsection A of this section ar [are] complied with.
Any person violating the provisions of Subsection B of this section, where such violation forms the basis for prosecution and conviction of a public officer or public employee, shall be disqualified from transacting any business with the state or its political subdivisions for a period of five years from the date of such violation.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a public officer or public employee from receiving his regular remuneration for services rendered to the state or its political subdivisions in connection with the aforementioned transactions.
Whoever commits unlawful interest in public contracts where the value received by him is fifty dollars ($50.00) or less is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Whoever commits unlawful interest in public contracts where the value received by him is more than fifty dollars ($50.00) is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Any public officer or public employee convicted of a felony hereunder is forever disqualified from employment by the state or any of its political subdivisions.
History: 1953 Comp.,§ 40A-23-6, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303,§ 23-6.
Cross references.— For Conflict of Interest Act, see 10-16-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references.— 63A Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and E

10-16-1. Short title.(1993)
Statute text
Chapter 10, Article 16 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Governmental Conduct Act".

Scope of act.— This article applies only to state agencies and that term would not include a county commission. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-135.

FACTS
A Board of County Commissioners desires to appoint a local insurance agency as an exclusive agent for the life, accident, sickness and hospital benefits for the employees of the county. The duties of the exclusive agent would be to (1) conduct the survey of the needs of the employees for insurance coverage; (2) prepare specifications to be submitted in invitations to bid to the insurance companies; (3) take care of all mechanical work in the bidding process; (4) recommend to a county commission which bid should be accepted; (5) service the policy of the successful bidder as if it were the agent of the bidder and receive the commission for such work from the successful insurance company.

QUESTIONS
Would the appointment of an exclusive agent for the above purposes by a county commission violate the Conflict of Interest Act or the Public Purchases Act?
Gordon Mast

Lodi, CA

#11 Jun 8, 2009
PART TWO

CONCLUSION
The appointment of an insurance agent as an exclusive agent for the purposes outlined above would be a violation of the Public Purchases Act.

Since the exclusive agent would not actually bid on the insurance in this case it appears 5-12-13 would not be violated in this instance.

Furthermore, the Conflict of Interest Act applies only to state agencies and that term would not include a county commission. See, Ward v. Romero, 17 N.M. 88, 97, 125 P. 617 (1912). See also, Opinion of the Attorney General No. 69-19, dated March 12, 1969, where it was held that a school district was not a state agency within the terms of the Conflict of Interest Act.

However

The Public Purchases Act does apply to the County Commission since it is included in the definition of a local public body under that act. See,§ 6-5-18 P, N.M.S.A., 1953 Compilation, 1969 Supp. All purchasing for a local public body must be performed by a central purchasing office designated by the governing authority of the local public body, with certain exceptions.§ 6-5-21 B, N.M.S.A., 1953 Compilation, 1969 Supp. The exceptions to purchasing through a central purchasing office do not apply to the instant problem. See,§ 6-5-22 B, N.M.S.A., 1953 Compilation, 1969 Supp.
Gordon Mast

Lodi, CA

#12 Jun 8, 2009
PART ONE

30-23-6. Unlawful interest in a public contract.(1963)
Unlawful interest in a public contract consists of:

A. any public officer or public employee receiving anything of value, directly or indirectly, from either a seller or a seller's agents, or a purchaser or a purchaser's agents in connection with the sale or purchase of securities, goods, leases, lands or anything of value by the state or any of its political subdivisions, unless:
(1) prior written consent of the head of the department of the state or political subdivision involved in the transaction is obtained and filed as a matter of public record in the office of secretary of state; and
(2) subsequent to the transaction a statement is filed as a matter of public record in the office of secretary of state by the purchaser or seller giving anything of value to a public officer or public employee and this statement contains the date the services were rendered, the amount of remuneration for the rendered services and the nature of the rendered services;
B. any seller, or his agents, or a purchaser, or his agents, offering to pay or paying anything of value directly or indirectly to a public officer or public employee in connection with the sale or purchase of securities or goods by the state or any of its political subdivisions unless the requirements of Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Subsection A of this section ar [are] complied with.
Any person violating the provisions of Subsection B of this section, where such violation forms the basis for prosecution and conviction of a public officer or public employee, shall be disqualified from transacting any business with the state or its political subdivisions for a period of five years from the date of such violation.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a public officer or public employee from receiving his regular remuneration for services rendered to the state or its political subdivisions in connection with the aforementioned transactions.
Whoever commits unlawful interest in public contracts where the value received by him is fifty dollars ($50.00) or less is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Whoever commits unlawful interest in public contracts where the value received by him is more than fifty dollars ($50.00) is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Any public officer or public employee convicted of a felony hereunder is forever disqualified from employment by the state or any of its political subdivisions.
History: 1953 Comp.,§ 40A-23-6, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303,§ 23-6.
Cross references.— For Conflict of Interest Act, see 10-16-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references.— 63A Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and E

10-16-1. Short title.(1993)
Statute text
Chapter 10, Article 16 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Governmental Conduct Act".

Scope of act.— This article applies only to state agencies and that term would not include a county commission. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-135.

FACTS
A Board of County Commissioners desires to appoint a local insurance agency as an exclusive agent for the life, accident, sickness and hospital benefits for the employees of the county. The duties of the exclusive agent would be to (1) conduct the survey of the needs of the employees for insurance coverage; (2) prepare specifications to be submitted in invitations to bid to the insurance companies; (3) take care of all mechanical work in the bidding process; (4) recommend to a county commission which bid should be accepted; (5) service the policy of the successful bidder as if it were the agent of the bidder and receive the commission for such work from the successful insurance company.

QUESTIONS
Would the appointment of an exclusive agent for the above purposes by a county commission violate the Conflict of Interest Act or the Public Purchases Act?
Gordon Mast

Lodi, CA

#13 Jun 8, 2009
SORRY ABOUT THE REPEATED POSTS

They were not being accepted
Gordon Mast

Lodi, CA

#14 Jun 8, 2009
Purposes.— The Procurement Code [13-1-28 NMSA 1978] protects against the evils of favoritism, nepotism, patronage, collusion, fraud, and corruption in the award of public contracts. Planning & Design Solutions v. City of Santa Fe, 118 N.M. 707, 885 P.2d 628 (1994).
Duty of fair and equitable treatment.— The duty of good faith and fair dealing in the bidding process required that the city abide by the strictures of the Procurement Code [13-1-28 NMSA 1978] and the purchasing manual. Specifically, the criteria provided by the city were an implied contract that if any bids were accepted, the acceptance would be based on these criteria and no others. Planning & Design Solutions v. City of Santa Fe, 118 N.M. 707, 885 P.2d 628 (1994).
By unlawfully introducing, considering, and relying on a criterion not listed in the request, the city breached an informal contract that it would follow the Procurement Code [13-1-28 NMSA 1978] and the purchasing manual in considering each bid. Thus, though no formal contract was ever concluded between the parties, the city's conduct was a breach of an implied contract for which damages will lie. Planning & Design Solutions v. City of Santa Fe, 118 N.M. 707, 885 P.2d 628 (1994).
Licensed contractors only.— Reading the Procurement Code, 13-1-28 NMSA 1978 et seq., and the Construction Industries Licensing Act, Chapter 60, Article 13 NMSA 1978, together, it is clear that the legislature intended (1) that public contracts should be awarded only to licensed contractors and (2) that purchasing authorities should be relieved from the necessity of making an independent investigation into the qualifications and fiscal responsibility of a contractor who is not licensed at the time of bidding. Thus, the doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply to the requirement of 60-13-12B NMSA 1978 that a contractor have a valid license when submitting a bid on a public contract. BC&L Pavement Servs. v. Higgins, 2002-NMCA-087, 132 N.M. 490, 51 P.3d 533.
FIRST

Albuquerque, NM

#15 Jun 8, 2009
When you are a friend of the court, you
are a friend of the court.

I'm not saying that Luna county has a
crooked government.
Oh wait a minute, YES I am.

I didn't vote these people in office.
You did, and you know who you are.

This is the way it is in:
The Socialist Republic of Deming.
Marge

Las Cruces, NM

#16 Jun 8, 2009
I guess her husband's big settlement from the county will not be used as a legal defense fund.
R Las Vegas

Las Cruces, NM

#17 Jun 8, 2009
Luna County Government = A Big Joke and Orgy.... isnt that how anyone gets there job there, they sleep around hehe What a Joke!!
Webster

Albuquerque, NM

#18 Jun 8, 2009
Marge wrote:
I guess her husband's big settlement from the county will not be used as a legal defense fund.
Probably agreement for him to quit and then she would have charges dropped.
Conspiracy?????
Puzzled

Albuquerque, NM

#19 Jun 8, 2009
Nice rack!
Happy Trails

Longmont, CO

#20 Jun 8, 2009
"Conspiracy?" No, CGJ!
Webster wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably agreement for him to quit and then she would have charges dropped.
Conspiracy?????

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grant County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Interest waiver Jan '18 Bigbadbean 1
News Murdered woman found at Mule Creek (Dec '08) Apr '16 wwwnorthfortyhomecom 7
News County Clerk Office to Close March 21-23, 2016 (Mar '16) Mar '16 Franco 2
News 1 rancher renounces federal grazing contract at... (Jan '16) Jan '16 Vcubed 1
News Commissioners approve preliminary budget (Jun '15) Jun '15 Mimbrenaenm 3
News Lawsuit filed in federal court alleges murder c... (Jul '14) May '15 Pepper Dine 2
News Horror: Police force man to undergo invasive an... (Nov '13) Nov '13 careful out there 1