From plaintiff to defendant, new Los Ranchos mayor navigates legal quandary

Jan. 1—What happens when the leader of a group suing the Village of Los Ranchos over a $58 million controversial development becomes the village's mayor?

For a while, or maybe longer, Joe Craig will be both a named plaintiff and a defendant representing the village in the numerous court challenges over the project.

"I'm in a funny position," said Craig, who was elected mayor on Nov. 7 with 35 percent of the vote. "As far as the Friends (of Los Ranchos) go, we were trying to protect our village. I'm now on the other side, and we (as elected officials) have to protect our village."

And so the legal plot thickens for the North Valley community of 6,000 residents.

So far, the state Ethics Commission has issued an opinion on Craig's alleged conflict of interest that both sides cite in their favor. The law firm guiding the village in the lawsuits and thorny administrative processes is out. And two new members of the village board of trustees accused of siding with the new mayor have been elected, potentially changing the dynamics of the elected board that effectively approved the project in August. Meanwhile, construction on the project has already begun.

To allay ethical concerns, Craig said he has cut ties with the nonprofit Friends of Los Ranchos, which has filed four lawsuits involving the 12-acre project at Fourth and Osuna. Craig is the named plaintiff on a fifth case involving alleged violations by the Village of the state Open Meetings Act.

The 12-acre project by the Palindrome Community aims to provide affordable housing, a grocery store and other retail establishments.

The attorney for the Friends, which opposes the project and wants to retain the cultural heritage of the area in the North Valley, is also seeking court-approval to substitute another Friends member for Craig in the ongoing lawsuits. But that hasn't been approved by a state district judge.

Critics say those measures don't go far enough, with Village attorneys questioning in a motion filed on Friday whether a conflict of interest still remains despite Craig handing off his interests in the Open Meetings Act case to another Village resident Nancy Nangeroni.

"The Village has a significant concern that the assignment may be a sham assignment simply for the purposes of avoiding actual and perceived conflict of interest," states a motion asking a state district judge to require Nangeroni to have no communication with Craig as the litigation proceeds.

In that quest, the Village board of trustees on Dec. 18 agreed to name a village trustee — instead of Craig — to work with separate litigation counsel in communications about the village's "position and direction" in the legal cases involving Friends and Craig. That also includes administrative actions involving another development matter relevant to Chavez Guadalupe LLC.

But in an interview with the Journal last week, Craig said he was planning a special meeting of the new board of trustees on Jan. 8 to repeal that resolution, which was aimed at isolating him from being involved in the litigation he and his nonprofit group initiated.

Last week, Craig told the Journal that, as mayor, he will obey village ordinances and other state laws, but he stopped short of promising to recuse himself from the issues involved in the ongoing litigation.

"We believe that the ordinance (for approvals of such projects) was violated. Now we have to find out, 'is that correct?'" Craig said.

Asked if he will be involved in the direction of the litigation, Craig said, "As the mayor, I'm trying to be careful here, I think it's already done. The lawsuits have been filed. The village needs to work with the judge."

Village attorney Nann Winter told the trustees at the special meeting Dec. 18 that her firm, Stelzner, Winter, Warburton, Flores & Dawes, sought an informal advisory opinion from the State Ethics Commission after she said an attorney for the Friends indicated that Craig, once mayor, would be pleading "mea culpa" in the lawsuits. She said the attorney for Friends, Matthew Beck, also said as much in a court filing.

Mea culpa in Latin translates into pleading guilty, Winter said, and that could be costly for the village.

"No, pleading guilty won't end the litigation," Winter said during the trustees' meeting. "It probably would invite a breach of development contract lawsuit from Palindrome."

Countersuits could be filed that allege civil rights violations by the village, violations of other village ordinances and inverse condemnation, she said.

Craig's lawsuit alleged that the public was illegally left out of the process that has permitted the development, which is under construction after more than two decades of planning that has also involved Bernalillo County, the Mortgage Finance Authority and private investors.

Another lawsuit filed by Friends alleges the village violated the anti-donation clause, and two other Friends' cases are administrative appeals of village actions.

Beck told the Journal on Friday that the "mea culpa" statements attributed to him aren't accurate.

Beck said he told Winter that it is to be expected when a new administration takes over, "the Village would reassess its position on whether all of the approvals for the Palindrome Village Center are legal." He said that statement was made because the village wanted to take depositions of Craig, which Beck said wasn't "useful" in light of the change in administration.

He said Craig, who is no longer his client, no longer has financial ties to the nonprofit Friends organization.

In a statement of issues Beck filed last with the court last week, Friends contended Winter has an "obvious interest in the outcome" of the litigation because she was involved in drafting the controversial development agreement for Palindrome's Village Center.

Beck was retained to handle the Friends' litigation after a team that included attorney Mel Eaves withdrew this fall. Winter's firm was replaced as village general counsel as of Dec. 31.

An attorney for Palindrome Communities couldn't be reached for comment.

Seeing both sides

The state Ethics Commission advised on Dec. 12 that Craig needs to comply with the state Governmental Conduct Act, and cannot use the power and resources of his office in a way that directly benefits the Open Meetings Act lawsuit or the other Friends' lawsuits.

Craig must make full disclosure of real or potential conflicts of interest, can't take actions that directly affect his financial position and can't use or disclose confidential information he obtains about the litigation via his position as mayor, the commission said.

Winter told the trustees on Dec. 18 that village staff have asked her "what if he (Craig) comes and sits across from my desk and says he wants all of my emails on this particular project?"

Asked about that, Craig told the Journal, "I don't think there's anything to ask the staff." He said Friends already had emails and other records from the village for their lawsuits.

The Ethics Commission opinion also states that Craig would need to recuse himself from taking actions which causes either himself or Friends to benefit financially.

Typically, a plaintiff who wins an Open Meetings Act lawsuit is entitled to attorney's fees and costs, under state law. Winter said if Friends loses that case, the nonprofit organization will be asked to pay the village's attorneys fees and costs.

There's no telling when Craig will be officially removed from the court cases by a judge.

"This case still is Joe Craig v. Village of Los Ranchos," Winter told the trustees, "and it could stay that way for months until the court acts."