Luna County settles procurement violation
Mar. 27—DEMING — A Luna County commissioner who is also a contractor for the county agreed last week to pay a civil fine to settle violations investigated by the New Mexico State Ethics Commission.
Christie Ann Harvey was hired as the county's community and economic development director, a staff position, in 2021. The following year, she resigned and founded the Luna County Economic Opportunity Council, a nonprofit for which she serves as executive director. She then continued working for the county under a no-bid contract.
That violated the state's procurement code, the SEC alleges. Its investigation found that Harvey participated "directly or indirectly" in the bidding for her services while she was an employee. Moreover, working for the county through the council within one year of her departure as an employee, including contract negotiations, violated the state Governmental Conduct Act, the complaint alleges.
Harvey told the Journal the noncompliance was "a horrible mistake and a learning experience."
In the settlement, she agreed to pay a $500 penalty to the state without admitting any wrongdoing, and for the council to pay $1,000 to Luna County. The county agreed to cancel the council's current $125,000 contract and launch a bidding process, with county officials to undergo training in the state procurement code.
The ethics commission found that the county awarded four contracts to Harvey's organization, totaling $412,328, without issuing a request for proposals or reviewing competitive bids. Procurement code requires contracts for such services to go out for bid if they exceed $20,000.
The most recent of these contract awards was on July 1, 2024, four months before Harvey, a Republican, was elected to Luna County's three-member board of commissioners last November. Harvey is also a board member of the New Mexico Border Authority, appointed by Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham in 2022.
County Manager Chris Brice told the Journal his office cooperated fully with the SEC investigation: "We went in with the attitude, 'If we screwed up, you tell us where, and we'll fix it.' We're not hiding anything."
Brice said the prospect of working with Harvey as a contractor for economic development initiatives came about after she resigned as a county employee. The arrangement made sense, he said, because "she does a lot of stuff outside the realm of what a normal employee would do."
Now that Harvey is an elected commissioner, Brice said she must recuse herself from votes having to do with the council and its contract. This potentially presents an obstacle, because the county has just three commissioners and no provision for breaking a tie vote.
Harvey said she enjoyed serving on the county board and the Border Authority, and that she "may or may not" bid for a new contract.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.
Fox News
4 minutes ago
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.
New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
Uber, Goldman Sachs and Salesforce CEOs to boost ‘Trump Accounts' for kids at White House event
WASHINGTON — An octet of CEOs will hit the White House Monday to support President Trump's plan to give $1,000 to almost every child born during his second term — by pledging to match the federal benefit for their employees' children. Under the 'Trump Accounts' program, the federal government would provide an initial $1,000 tax-deferred, low-cost account that will grow with the stock market. Children born between Jan. 1, 2025 and Jan. 1, 2029 will be eligible for the parent-controlled fund, which will allow up to $5,000 to be contributed annually. The program is a part of the president's 'Big Beautiful Bill' which is currently being debated in the Senate — and the meeting with CEOs is meant to boost public interest in the program while the bill still has votes pending. Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump walks from the Oval Office before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, June 6, 2025, in Washington. AP Attendees at the 2 p.m. event include Dell CEO Michael Dell; Altimeter Capital CEO Brad Gerstner, a prominent advocate of giving kids some form of investment account from birth; ARM Corp CEO Rene Haas; Salesforce Co-Founder Parker Harris; ServiceNow CEO William McDermott; Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi; Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon and Robinhood CEO Vladimir Tenev. 'The creation of investment accounts for every child will compound into substantial nest eggs providing support for education, home ownership, and starting families,' Dell said in a statement, vowing that his company will 'proudly match dollar for dollar the government's seed investment into these accounts for all the children born to Dell team members.' Advertisement Trump has been keen on ensuring the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and has met with Republican members of Congress both on Capitol Hill and at the White House to push for it. 3 David M. Solomon, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, speaks during the Milken Institute's 22nd annual Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, April 29, 2019. REUTERS 3 CEO of Uber, Dara Khosrowshahi, speaks onstage during GE The Lean Mindset: The Pursuit Of Progress Event at Chelsea Industrial on September 06, 2023 in New York City. Getty Images for GE Some GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) have indicated they won't support the bill over the prospect of it adding trillions to the federal deficit. Advertisement Former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk went on a tirade against the 'pork-filled' bill last week, leading to the demise of his relationship with Trump. Republicans hold a 53-47 Senate majority, meaning only three senators can defect on the legislation before it fails. 'The passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill will literally change the lives of working, middle class families across America,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, 'by delivering the largest tax cuts in history, increasing the child tax credit, AND by creating this incredible new 'Trump Account' program, which will put the lives of young Americans on the right financial path!'
