sa国际传媒官网网页入口

What happens when the leader of a group suing the Village of Los Ranchos over a $58 million controversial development becomes the village鈥檚 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.

鈥淚鈥檓 in a funny position,鈥� said Craig, who was elected mayor on Nov. 7 with 35 percent of the vote. 鈥淎s far as the Friends (of Los Ranchos) go, we were trying to protect our village. I鈥檓 now on the other side, and we (as elected officials) have to protect our village.鈥�

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鈥檚 alleged conflict of interest that both sides cite in their favor. The law firm guiding the village in the lawsuits and thorny administrative processes may be on its way 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 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鈥檛 been approved by a state district judge.

Critics say those measures don鈥檛 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.

鈥淭he 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,鈥� 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 鈥� instead of Craig 鈥� to work with separate litigation counsel in communications about the village鈥檚 鈥減osition and direction鈥� 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.

鈥淲e believe that the ordinance (for approvals of such projects) was violated. Now we have to find out, 鈥榠s that correct?鈥欌�� Craig said.

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

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 鈥渕ea culpa鈥� 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.

鈥淣o, pleading guilty won鈥檛 end the litigation,鈥� Winter said during the trustees鈥� meeting. 鈥淚t probably would invite a breach of development contract lawsuit from Palindrome.鈥�

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

Craig鈥檚 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鈥� cases are administrative appeals of village actions.

Beck told the Journal on Friday that the 鈥渕ea culpa鈥� statements attributed to him aren鈥檛 accurate.

Beck said he told Winter that it is to be expected when a new administration takes over, 鈥渢he Village would reassess its position on whether all of the approvals for the Palindrome Village Center are legal.鈥� He said that statement was made because the village wanted to take depositions of Craig, which Beck said wasn鈥檛 鈥渦seful鈥� 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 鈥渙bvious interest in the outcome鈥� of the litigation because she was involved in drafting the controversial development agreement for Palindrome鈥檚 Village Center.

Beck was retained to handle the Friends鈥� litigation after a team that included attorney Mel Eaves withdrew this fall. Winter鈥檚 firm was still village general counsel as of Dec. 31 and represents the Village in the litigation. But its future with the village isn't clear under Craig's administration.

An attorney for Palindrome Communities couldn鈥檛 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鈥� lawsuits.

Craig must make full disclosure of real or potential conflicts of interest, can鈥檛 take actions that directly affect his financial position and can鈥檛 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 鈥渨hat if he (Craig) comes and sits across from my desk and says he wants all of my emails on this particular project?鈥�

Asked about that, Craig told the Journal, 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 anything to ask the staff.鈥� 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鈥檚 fees and costs, under state law. Winter said if Friends loses that case, the nonprofit organization will be asked to pay the village鈥檚 attorneys fees and costs.

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

鈥淭his case still is Joe Craig v. Village of Los Ranchos,鈥� Winter told the trustees, 鈥渁nd it could stay that way for months until the court acts.鈥�

CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to show the status of the law firm representing the Village of Los Ranchos.