Ethics and Campaign Review Board Thu, Nov 13, 2025 · Ethics and Campaign Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/899 == Executive Summary == The Ethics and Campaign Review Board held a meeting covering several active complaints and procedural matters. The board reviewed a complaint filed by Suzanne Romero against Councilor Alma Castro regarding the use of the city logo and official title on a personal Facebook page during election season. Castro acknowledged the confusion caused and removed the problematic elements, but noted a lack of city communications support. The board clarified its role at this stage is only to determine whether complaints meet legal sufficiency standards, not to impose penalties. Member Miller recused himself from that matter due to a conflict of interest. The board also addressed multiple complaints related to candidates David Montoya and Leroy Trillo. A complaint about improper use of city symbols (seal vs. shield) was dismissed 4-1 after the board found no clear code violation. However, the board unanimously found probable cause (5-0) to proceed with an investigation into David Montoya's campaign finance expenditures — including vehicle costs, food purchases, and equipment — as well as illegal campaign sign placement. A separate complaint against Leroy Trillo for unauthorized signage on public property is also moving forward. Response deadlines for both Montoya and Trillo were set for November 17th. Finally, Chair Beerman proposed expanding the board's jurisdiction to cover discrimination and harassment complaints, which currently fall outside its authority. Member Brennan opposed the idea, citing better-equipped state agencies and resource limitations. The board agreed to gather more information and discuss the proposal with the incoming administration taking office January 1, 2026. A public commenter noted that the state ethics commission is developing model rules for local governments and praised Santa Fe's board as a model. == Key Decisions == - Meeting agenda approved unanimously - Three sets of meeting minutes approved (May 8, 2025; September 11, 2025; September 6, 2024) without objection - Complaint regarding improper use of city seal/shield dismissed 4-1 (Member Amr dissented), finding no clear code violation - Board found probable cause 5-0 to proceed with investigation into David Montoya's campaign finance expenditures and illegal sign placement - Board voted 5-0 that the Trillo/Montoya complaints fulfill requirements of section 6-16.4 and should be set for a hearing - Response deadline for Montoya and Trillo complaints set as Monday, November 17th - Board agreed to gather more information before deciding whether to pursue expanding jurisdiction to cover discrimination and harassment complaints == Motions & Votes == - Approve meeting agenda — Passed unanimously - Approve minutes from May 8, 2025; September 11, 2025; and September 6, 2024 — Passed without objection - Dismiss complaint regarding improper use of city seal/shield — Passed 4-1 (Member Amr dissented) - Find probable cause to proceed with investigation into David Montoya campaign finance and sign placement complaints — Passed 5-0 (Miller, Sullivan, Amr, Brennan, Beerman all in favor) - Find that complaints against Montoya and Trillo fulfill requirements of section 6-16.4 and should be set for hearing — Passed 5-0 (Sullivan, Amr, Brennan, Miller, Chair Beerman all in favor) == Public Comment == Several members of the public and involved parties spoke during the meeting. Complainant Suzanne Romero urged the board to establish clear distinctions between official government pages and personal pages for elected officials, and called for future policy guidance on social media use. Councilor Castro acknowledged causing confusion by mixing official photos and logos on her personal Facebook page, noted she had removed the problematic elements, and highlighted the lack of city communications staff support. A complainant (identified as Benato) objected to the board's dismissal of the seal/shield complaint, arguing the lack of independent legal review was unfair and illegal, and indicated intent to file an additional complaint about the process. In the Montoya and Trillo matters, the complainant argued that a 'reasonable person standard' should apply to determining political purpose for campaign expenditures, noted Montoya's party affiliation as evidence of knowledge of campaign rules, and described Trillo's unauthorized signage as effectively littering the neighborhood. A public commenter suggested the board send hearing rules to all complaint parties for clarity, and another commenter praised Santa Fe's Ethics and Campaign Review Board as a model, noting the state ethics commission is developing model rules for local governments. == Full Transcript == Speak into the mic so they could hear us. That would make sense for that. Let's once again open up this meeting of the Ethics and Campaign Review Board as has been noticed to the members and to the public. What we are convening to deal with are several complaints that we have received recently. I'd also like to briefly talk about moving forward on an idea that we've had for a while now that the new counselors are in office. So let's take a roll call. Start off. Member Ammer? Present. Member Black? Member Brennan? Present. Member Miller? Member Pentez? Member Sullivan? Chair Beerman? Here. You have a quorum, Mr. Chair. So you have the agenda in the book that we've received. Can we have a motion to approve the agenda, please? To approve the agenda. Is that seconded? Second. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Motion's approved. We will proceed on this agenda and start with—oh, here. Can we add—that's all right. Let the record reflect that board vice chair Miller has taken his seat. So we have minutes from several meetings. Let's see. Can Javier present those or just indicate what we have here? Yes, Chair. So we have requests for approval of the May 8th, 2025 Ethics and Campaign Review Board meeting minutes. We also have requests for approval of the September 11th, 2025 Ethics and Campaign Review Board meeting minutes. And lastly, we have requests for approval of the September 6th, 2024 Ethics and Campaign Review Board meeting minutes. Okay, we're all caught up. Any questions about these minutes? Well, let me ask first if there's a motion to approve them and then we'll discuss it. I move to approve the minutes referenced. Okay. Second. Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Any questions about it? Do people want to have a chance to go through them first? I read them beforehand. I thought they looked fine to me. Okay. Then any objection to adopting all three minutes that we've been presented with? Hearing none. The minutes are approved. Now discussion and possible action items. We have three complaints that have been filed with the board that have occasioned this meeting. The first we'll take them in the order in which they are presented in the book, starting with case 2025-3, and that is a complaint by Suzanne Romero. Can I ask who is present? And you can identify yourself? Yeah, please. Good afternoon. My name is Suzanne Romero. I live here in Santa Fe, 210 Mayor District 1. And you—well, is it convenient for you to sit down or how do you— I'm okay. Thank you for asking. Okay. Well, let me start by saying before we get to any presentation by you, let me give the background for this because our role today is not to actually hear the merits of this complaint or accept it or reject it. That's not what we're doing. We have a rule that binds us which provides that we have to conduct this meeting, and this is for all three complaints that we have today. We have to conduct this meeting as a determination of whether the complaints that we've received are legally sufficient. In other words, are they stating a claim that is within the jurisdiction of this commission or this board to decide, and are there at least some substantive facts that give us enough information to carry that forward and to actually look into it? So today's not a day when we decide on whether or not to actually take action under the complaint, like a penalty of some kind or not. That would happen afterwards. What happens afterwards? You listen to what the person has to say and then you meet again, you look at law. You basically have the idea. Okay. So with that understanding, how would the board like to proceed? Should we hear from Miss Romero first? Yeah. Is that okay? Okay. So why don't we hear from you as to what you're stating as the violation, and then we'll decide if that's something we need to investigate further and research further for a decision at a later time. I understand. Thank you for the information. I'm on for hearing me today. Okay. Um, my complaint— Do we need to swear in Suzanne Romero? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Out of it. My complaint is in relation to today's technology, and the thing that we look at in this complaint has to do with Facebook. It is a confusing situation, but from where I stand as a citizen, my main focus is that there should be a Facebook page that says that you are a city counselor, as several counselors do. They may say John Doe, city counselor, district 3. Then there's the personal side. Everybody's entitled to their personal Facebook page if they so choose. And I'm using Facebook because that's what I'm basing this on. The person that I'm here about is Councilor Castro, who endorsed a candidate for district 1. People can endorse whoever they want as far as I'm concerned. But the difference comes in with her page. The way it came across to the general public is that it was the city of Santa Fe page. It had the shield—I guess we now use shields rather than our emblem—and it had her as district one city counselor. So to me, as just a member of the public, it showed that that was a government official page. I felt, and compliance is my background, that even though it did not say "official page" as other city counselors have put it, they don't use the official designation, but they'll just say counselor, district, whatever. So my complaint is that by endorsing the candidate, it really showed that this was not in compliance with the rules. Either you have a direct page as being a member of this governing body of the city of Santa Fe, or it's your personal page. The way that it came to me with the city shield, the official picture, and stating that she was a city counselor, and then endorsing somebody, I felt was inappropriate and against good government and good governance. I noticed as of last night that the page was changed. The shield is no longer there. But I think it is important for this body to know what is the proper etiquette going forward, because I felt as a member of the community that it was disrespectful to all the other candidates on a government website. So was it a government website or was it a personal website? The city of Santa Fe shield was there. I'm glad that the shield has been removed, but it's important that we make that distinction of how we're going to post information or how the governing body members are going to post that information. It's really quite simple. What is important—a year ago in August, the same counselor had on the page, the same page, and she referred to members of our community as "couto." For those of you who do not know what the word "couto" is, it's— On that same page, to have this, it does not give the representation. I didn't make a picture. Let's just go with the way she endorsed. It's just a simple thing of how we want to go forward. I don't think there was hatefulness. I just think it was disrespectful and not in compliance. I think that going forward, the city needs to determine how we're going to use social media going forward, especially during election time. Okay. I think you've stated your position pretty clearly. Thank you. Let me just go over the criteria, and then we can hear from anybody else who wishes to comment. The criteria in section 6-16.4 of the city's code provides that the board at this point shall determine: one, if the face of the complaint sets forth legally sufficient facts which, if true, show probable cause to believe that there was a violation; two, if the complaint was filed within one year after the complainant first discovered the violation; three, if the complaint is frivolous or intended solely to harass or intimidate; and four, if the board lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. So, given that it's clearly within one year because it was just this last election, the other three criteria—do we have to make a determination at this point? If it goes that far, then we can continue. I'm wondering if we have received a statement by Councilor Castro. Do we want to hear any more? Anybody want to provide more? Is the statement from Miss Castro part of the record here? Okay. We can do that. We can introduce it into the record. But we can also hear from her personally. You've been sworn in, in case there are any questions. Please raise your right hand and state your name. Alma Castro. Do you solemnly declare that the information you have in reference to this case is the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. So, Councilor Castro, we've seen your statement. I imagine we've all read it. But would you like to add anything? I would just add that this page actually was originally my campaign page. I do see the confusion and having some of the official photos and logos, which is why I removed those from the page. I do see the benefit of having some sort of policy. My understanding, and there are complexities in policy, when I started this job, is that we would be having staff. I have requested on several occasions that city communication staff be available to us to create some sort of policy. Unfortunately, we don't have the capacity at this time to provide that to counselors. But we are on the road to potentially having staff and some communication staff to help us with this type of issue. I do also want to point out that the endorsement was not by myself. It was by a national organization. My excitement really is that Santa Fe has become part of a national discussion. We are setting the bar at a national level, and regardless of who folks endorse, I am excited that we are being viewed as someone important, a city that is important on a national platform. Thank you. So if we've all had a chance to read the written statement that we've admitted by Miss Castro, okay. Then let's see. Can we have discussion? Is the board ready to discuss this? Okay. Anybody wish to comment or have any questions of either of the two witnesses? Well, I'll just start with this. I look at the complaint as raising really four issues: that the counselor identifies herself on her web page, lists her position as part of the governing body, displays the Santa Fe shield, and uses the page to communicate about official business. Of those four, I think the first, second, and fourth are expected of who's a public representative who has a—I think it's the third one that I don't have my head fully wrapped around because I don't know what the rules are related to use of the city shield. I thought I might ask Mr. Martinez if I looked in the city ordinances to see what kind of prohibitions there are or guidelines for use of the shield. I see that they talk of the shield and the crest. I think we're talking about maybe shield isn't the right word, right? It's the crest or the logo. Well, the shield. Okay. It's the seal. The seal is different. The seal is the circle with the full name of the city. Shield is the—yeah, that's this. We're not talking about the seal. We're're talking about the shield. I can add a little context. Sure. I can provide this information, but when I did ask for support from communications, I was given a guideline sheet for their communications. And if it is official city business, the city seal is used and that is what demarcates official as opposed to just communications things that we can use for flyers, mayor's youth advisory board, things of that nature. But if it is an official city document, it will have that city seal. And city employees might—let me finish my thoughts real quick and then—but city employees might use the seal as part of their email, right? But is there a prohibition on the use of the shield or the logo? Is that prohibited? Is there something in ordinance that prohibits that? Member Miller and other members of the CRB, I was hoping not to have to be called on in this matter because Councilor Castro is a sitting councilor and I feel there's a conflict of interest. I've discussed this with the city attorney and there's a bit of a conflict of interest in my representation of the city with a sitting member. And so if I could be excused from not answering questions on this matter, I'd be happy to answer them on the other two complaints. Otherwise, the clerk's office has engaged an outside attorney in order to address questions where this conflict arises and he's not here today. So although I'd like to answer your question, due to my conflicts, I feel like it would be inappropriate for me to answer it right now. Understood. And I don't want to push you on those lines. But I guess that's the question that I have: what are the proper uses of logo, shield? That's what had a comment. Oh, go ahead. Thanks again. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. My concern with that question regarding the seal—de Santa Fe, de San Francisco—that is my home, Santa Fe. The shield came on and lo and behold, I had a meet with the mayor session when the shield started coming out and the mayor expressly said to me, and I know it comes across as secondhand, but it does reflect city of Santa Fe business and that is part of the reason why I decided to file this complaint. It is not just something to look pretty. It refers to city of Santa Fe business. And that came from the mayor himself. I met the mayor face to face. Okay. Councilor Castro, would you respond in terms of your perception of the seal issue, seal versus shield issue? Sure. And I am going to forward that style guide on to you. But my understanding from what communications told me was that formal documents were to be used with the city seal and that the shield was more for communications. It came along with the types of fonts we should be able to use, the types of logos that we should be able to use. It was a very different scenario. And the only reason I know this is because at the time we were sending letters to our national legislative team regarding a ceasefire resolution and that was used with a city seal. Are there other questions or comments from the board? Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I would agree with Mr. Miller that number three regarding those four alleged conducts is the one that might fulfill a legal sufficiency for a complaint. I'm not saying it's been proven yet, but I believe that according to the standards of 6.16.4A, if the face of the complaint sets forth legally sufficient facts which, if true, show probable cause to believe that there was a violation, I would say in my opinion at this point regarding the use of an official press or shield makes it appear to just a regular person. I don't even think regular citizens know the difference between the shield and the seal. So in some ways, I feel like that's like a red herring to this issue. That being said, because it has the appearance of the city, that could be—but I'm not saying that it's been proven. We have to have a hearing on it, right? But I'm saying that it meets the standard of legal sufficiency for setting a hearing. Board member Brandon. Yes. Well, I understand your position. I do disagree because looking at the Facebook printouts themselves, I think that it's clear that it is not an official city communication. And so I would move to dismiss based on insufficiency of the complaint itself. But it is clear that it's not a city communication regardless of the propriety, let's say, of the blue craft or shield. Okay. So you've moved to dismiss. Is there a second for the motion to dismiss? I would second that. Jamie Sullivan. Okay. All right. So we have a motion on the floor, but we can keep discussing the motion unless you have something else. No, that's fine. I'd like to—and going back to what Miss Ar said, I didn't say that I think that this meets the sufficiency. I raised questions I had about where I don't see anything in city ordinance talking about limitations on the use of the crest or the shield. I understand the seal is different. Looking at the sections of the code that are alleged to be violated here, I think that's another place to look at. And the complaint cites 1-7.2 and 1-7.3, which are really aspirational sections that don't set out something to do or not do. 1-7.7 deals with improper IFS and other prohibitions and that's where she cited to subsection E and F—E and H, sorry. H is improper political campaigning and I don't see anything that would raise a violation of that subsection as on someone's personal web page they can endorse somebody else. And then the other one, the only one that I think arguably could apply is misuse of city resources, but that applies to—says an employee or public official shall not use city services, personnel, or equipment. And I don't think we have services, personnel, or equipment here. We're talking about intellectual property or emblem or logo. I don't think there's a clear prohibition on it. I'm not seeing it. So I think even if everything is true that she alleges here, I'm not sure that I see a possible violation of that issue. Yeah, I might respond to that by saying I agree. It does not technically—the part of the code that I see as may be violated would be section 1-7.7E. It's not necessarily services or personnel, but equipment is an interesting term. It would be a stretch to put it in there. That being said, if it were equipment, I mean it does serve a function. It is in a way being used to turn a personal account into appearing to be a city account. I believe councilors have freedom of speech to endorse candidates, but if then they're purporting to be doing it from a city account by using the shield, that's where I might agree with the complainant. That might be a misuse of city resources. So that's the reason for my position. Okay. So at this point I think we have two options. One is to dismiss on the grounds that the criteria in this kind of threshold inquiry we have have not been met. And the other option is to go into this further to at least explore what the limitations are and what the appropriate use of equipment, represent or facilities represents, and also what the meaning of the shield versus the seal are. So I think we have that choice. We can either end it here or try to get clarification based on this complaint, or we can dismiss it and try to get clarification as well. We could try to do that if we feel that there's any ambiguity that needs to be explored. I'm kind of inclined to the last one myself. Further comments from anyone? I'll say that I think that the section that we're talking about with equipment, we also need to show that there is personal benefit. That has not been shown. Obedience or profit has not been shown. So I still think that this should be dismissed for insufficiency regardless of the shields. Okay. And Chairman, I would agree with that also. Just a plain reading of 1-7, it's talking about city services. We know what those are—the city services, the city personnel pull out there for you, and equipment. Equipment's like trucks and things like equipment. I don't see this as equipment. I see it as a symbol. Any further? Okay. Well, we have a motion on the floor and I think we're finished with debate. So I'll ask for a vote. All in favor of dismissing the complaint, please raise your hand or let's have a roll call. Member Brennan. Member Miller. Yes. Member Sullivan. Yes. Member Amr. No. Chair Beerman. Yes. With an explanation. The motion has passed. Okay. And the explanation is that I would like us—I think a good issue has been raised here that something needs to be clarified so that people, including councilors and other members of the city staff and electorate, have a better understanding of what the limitations are because I think there was not a clear description that made this, as much as it feels wrong, there was not a clear rule that said it was wrong. And I think that needs to be explored and I think it's a fertile topic for us to explore in another meeting. Yeah. Because we broadcast this. That's why we need your microphone. I will accept, of course it is. However, I feel that my rights were overshadowed because of the city councilor's office or the city attorney's office not being able to comment. And I think that was illegal to me. It did not give me a fair chance on my hearing because this gentleman could not do that. So I feel that your vote was done incomplete because you did not get a legal person to make comment on this. And so I think that you have disregarded your duties by not allowing a legal review of this complaint. Well, let me just indicate that all five of us are lawyers. You did get lawyers. That's correct. And had we decided that there was enough connection to enough clarity about the law—because that's what— From my perspective— Please don't interrupt. If we had decided there was enough clarity to make this a viable complaint based on how we read the law, we could have continued and we would have sought that attorney that Mr. Martinez referred to as an independent source who's not employed by the council. I'm going to have to do a complaint on that as well. Go for it. Thank you. Okay. That matter has been disposed of now. Next we have 2025 for Stephanie Beninato. It's the complainant and you've all received that and we are in the same status right now of discussing this to see whether there is legally sufficient facts to continue with this matter. Complaint? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. It's not on— Number four? I know 2025-4, but is that Leroy Tillo or David Montoya? Oh yeah, David Montoya. David Montoya. Okay. Let her be sworn in. # Transcript of Government Meeting **Oath of Witness:** Please raise your right hand and state your name. Stephanie Benato. Do you declare that the information you have in reference to this item is the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the perjury penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. **Complaint Regarding Campaign Signs:** Thank you. I think mine is a little clearer than the complaint before you. I think it's very clear that David Montoya posted campaign signs on public property in violation of 92.15B, which clearly says you may not post campaign signs on public property. He also violated posting on private property without owner approval. I provided you with photographs that show these signs on public property, including on the bridge over the sidewalk by St. Francis and Alameda, by the bridge on Guadalupe and Alameda, on the fencing on Alameda on both sides of Guadalupe. He also had signage in the rail park east of Santa Fe, clearly within the park. He also had signage in the shopping center in the planted area where Trader Joe's is. He had a sign in the planted area near Whole Foods, and he had signage way out on Cerrillos Road in front of another commercial property. I sincerely doubt he got Jeff Desess's approval to put his sign up. The property manager for the complex where Trader Joe's is an out-of-state corporation and not easily found in terms of how to contact that person. So I believe there's probable cause to go forward with that part of the complaint. I think that's fairly straightforward and easy. If you need more information, please ask me questions. **Complaint Regarding Campaign Expenditures:** The other complaint is about political expenditures. It says that the expenditure has to be for a political purpose. I don't believe that re-registering your truck, putting tires on a truck, or getting fuses and lights for a truck qualify for political purposes. I think that's the strongest part of my complaint concerning political expenditures. I provided you with his own report showing that. I'm going to get my glasses so I can actually be sure. The other thing I think is problematic is any of the equipment that he bought, including a microphone adapter cable, a phone gimbal stabilizer and tripod, and I believe there was something else. I think there was some kind of a sound machine that he bought as well. When you said that the microphone adapter cable was for parades, I'm not seeing that right now. It's on the second page under the third line down with the candyman. Okay. August 1st. So again, his truck signs would be for political purposes. Paying for gas, which he also claimed is for political purpose. You're driving around, you're spending money on gas, but I don't think re-registration, uses, lights, and tires to get your truck running really comes close to qualifying for political purpose. The sound system again he said was for parades, but the date of the purchase was the day after Fiestas, the day after virtually any parade that the city or any organization would have concerning a campaign had ended. When I sent a letter to the paper that was published, he responded saying that he used the sound system at forums, candidate forums, which is totally untrue because each candidate forum the organizations provided their own sound system. So he didn't use it or volunteer it for the forum itself. Some of these other things, these gimbal, phone gimbal, stabilizer, and tripod, I just feel like these are inappropriate expenditures. They're not for political purposes. They're definitely long-term acquisitions, and it feels like self-enrichment. He also bought brisket for the Democratic picnic. This is supposed to be a nonpartisan election, and yet he's buying supplies for the Democrats and claiming it as a political expense. I feel like that's questionable. There's also a lot of buying of barbecue, burgers, and hot dogs. I would just like him to justify that he actually had these events. One's on the 11th of May, then you have one on the 20th of May. He bought a cooler for parades, and then he bought soft drinks on 5/23 and more brisket. It seems like he's stocking up for his year supply of food using campaign expenses. I just feel that that's inappropriate. **Board Member Interruption:** Let me interrupt if I may. These are all factual issues that you're raising and raising questions. So I think we have a good picture as to what you're suggesting may have been inappropriate. I think that puts on the table whether we should proceed further with an investigation to see if it violates the rules. Okay. Is that a fair statement? Yes. I just want to say that I'll do more research, but I didn't really find any definition in the code for political purpose. But when I tell people how he spent money on the truck and everything, they just go, "What?" or laugh. So I think we have to use a reasonable person standard. Okay. Is that fair enough? So I mean we have the picture, right? Okay. **Board Discussion on Signs:** So let's just take that one case to start with. Any discussion or questions from the board? As far as the signs go, did you go to the clerk's office? We hear complaints about signs happen all the time. They go up and they come down and they're put in the wrong place and somebody complains and the clerk talks to them and they remove them. It usually happens more expeditiously than a complaint to this board. But did that process happen? Did they get removed in a timely way? David Montoya's signs that were on public property went up in the last weekend before the election. I did email the city clerk. They had to notify him and wait 24 hours, and I did come in on election day. It was unknown whether he had been contacted to remove the signs, but by then the damage was well done because it was already halfway through election day. Montoya has claimed that he was an official in the Democratic party, and I think that it's clear what public property is. Certainly if you've been working in a political party, I think you have a higher expectation of that kind of knowledge. I did contact the city clerk, and there are emails in my complaint verifying that. **Board Member Comment:** Any other questions? If no other questions, is there any discussion? I just want to add that I have no personal animosity towards either of these two candidates. I just feel there needs to be a level playing field, and I resent it when people take advantage. **Motion Discussion:** Any motion from the board? Let me offer this thought. I think there's at least a prima facie issue here that signs may have indeed gone up inappropriately. I think there are questions remaining as to whether or not—I'm sorry, I meant to ask: has there been any response from Mr. Montoya? Our office did reach out to David Montoya, and he responded that he wanted his 10 days to respond to this. We had already set this meeting up and it fell within the 10 days. So he has not responded yet. Okay. Going back to what I was saying, I think there seems to be a prima facie case here that at least needs looking into. Not saying what the outcome would be, but if in fact these were public, if in fact people were sent out by his campaign or went out on their own initiative and posted flyers inappropriately on public property, and the rule is fairly clear about that, that you're not supposed to. So that may be an issue. I think it's going to be a little digging in the weeds as far as the campaign expenditures. I don't think we want to get line item by line item, but I think if we see some that really stand out as potential problems, based on the nature of the—we don't have a definition, but if it becomes really clear that something was not a campaign expenditure—I mean, somebody may put some kind of equipment onto their truck in order to go through the streets and broadcast their campaign that they wouldn't have had otherwise. But if they buy a whole new truck just for that purpose for a couple of weeks campaign, I think that would be pushing it. Excuse me, but I think the idea of the re-registration is just that the registration is good for a year. It's not just good for a couple weeks. That's the kind of issue I'm discussing. So I think we could look and see if there were more than kind of arguable issues but really pretty clear issues that there were improper expenditures. So I would suggest we hold this over for further discussion at another meeting and further review and research. And that's right, M. Martinez, you are able to talk about this one because he's not a counselor. Do you have any insights? I'm not sure I have any insights to add at this time. I think if the board finds that there's probable cause to proceed, then I could do some research into purposes, and depending on the forum it may be something to discuss in executive session or it may be something that we can discuss in open session. I think if we get to the point where we are—and the other thing is we haven't seen the response yet, and it's not untimely. So we do need to see that response. **Board Member Statement:** I don't think there's any real question in my mind that the complaint sets out facts that would show violation if they're true. So I mean on that basis alone, I would move that there's probable cause and that it meets the criteria moving forward. I second. Any discussion? I would like to see the response. So by setting it—are the two choices just so I'm clear: to either postpone decision until we have a response, or is it to go forward, determine that there is probable cause, and have a hearing? Those are the two choices? I think there's one motion, which is to move forward with the case. But I think the first step is to get the response and review that because without that we don't know what may have been done that may mitigate the concerns. So I'm phrasing it as I'm understanding it: the motion is to proceed with this to the next step in our investigative process, which is starting with receiving Mr. Montoya's response, and then working with the staff to plan some research. I think we still have a full complement of seven members. So I think we could have a couple of people, two or three of us, meet with the staff just to move the process along. So it's more of an administrative aspect, not a policy one. Yeah, I'm still not totally clear on that. My emotion was that we would find it legally sufficient to proceed. Yeah. And set a hearing. I'm kind of—you're right. I'm assuming there are a bunch of steps that may go on to get to that point, but I just wanted to make sure that we're on the same page. Yeah, motion. Okay. I accept that, and that was my understanding of my second—that you made a motion that it fulfilled 6-16. So are we ready to vote on that issue? We all understand the motion? Then let's take the roll on that motion please. Member Miller? Member Sullivan? Member Amr? Member Brennan? Yes. Chair Beerman? Yes. The motion passes. Okay. And what I was talking about was more the implementation, not the motion itself. So thank you for correcting me on that. So our next step will be to receive and distribute the response from Mr. Montoya. We can review that and then I don't think we're ready to convene another meeting just because we have that. But then work with the staff to figure out what kind of information we need to either gather or confirm, because we're likely to get different information from both sides, which is often the case. And use that information to then reconvene and based on that evidence decide whether there's been a violation and what action to take. And I assume that I would get Mr.'s response and also any documentation you will have about what political purpose. Yes. Right. Thank you. Yeah, staff is going to make sure of that. Okay. Anything further on the Montoya matter? And so Miss Ben Ginato, do you want to now present your second matter 2025-5 regarding Leroy Trillo, a different candidate? Yes. I think this one's even simpler in that it's simply about posting campaign signs on public property. I first noticed Mr. Trillo's sign on the river park at Galesteo and Vargas Street. And then I started seeing campaign posters on utility poles that are on sidewalks, just public property, on Don Diego and Camino de los Marquez. I did report this to the city clerk. I do understand the city clerk contacted Mr. Trillo, but that didn't slow Mr. Trillo down. I went away for about ten days, and when I came back, there literally was a campaign sign on every utility post from Don Diego to St. Francis on Cordova Road. Sometimes on both sides of the utility pole. I noticed there was a campaign sign in Salvador Petta's Recreation Park. And there's the sign. I noticed he had a sign in front of a bank, again on a utility pole that was at PO and Guadalupe. He also had signs. I'm not exactly sure, but I think it's the rail trail. It goes out where St. Michaels comes in, or St. Michaels is at Galesteo. You cross St. Michaels, you begin on a bike pedestrian trail, you go under a tunnel, you come out by the Zia station, and you keep on going and you get to Rodeo Road. At that intersection, Rodeo Road and Galesteo, between the Velop Trail and the street, there was a giant sign and then a smaller sign, I guess north of there. People had actually taken those down, but they were still visible that they had been put up and were there. Mr. Trillo is a park employee, and I think he should know what a park is. And again, I think he should know that a park is a public place. And I think it's fairly clear that despite what the city clerk told him, he continued to violate this rule. And I just don't think that's fair. I really felt like he was literally littering our neighborhood with these signs. There were just so many of them. It reminded me of people who go, "We will haul your trash," and they have it on every utility post. That's what it reminded me of. So I do believe that there's probable cause to go forward on this. Okay. Any— I do have emails attached about me contacting the city clerk. Okay. Did staff get any response from Mr. Trillo? Chair Beerman, Mr. Trillo has not responded to our office. And the deadline—has that passed yet? It would be the same as Mr. Montoya's. He might still show up with some response. Correct. All right. Any questions for— May I ask you when the ten-day deadline is? Because I filed this on the 4th of November, and it's the 13th. Yeah. So I'm just curious what ten days is that? We distributed it to him last Friday. So does he have till this Friday or till Monday of next week? Let me count days. Bear with me one moment. Either of them, actually. I believe Saturday the 15th would be ten days. So I'm assuming he has Monday. Yeah, actually it's the 17th. What was that? November 17th. Monday, November 17th. We should expect his response. That's for both of them. Okay. Correct. Any questions for Miss Benato or any motion? Ready for a motion? I move to find that the complaint fulfills the requirements of 6-16.4 and that it should be set for hearing. Second. Any discussion? Let's take the roll then. Member Sullivan? Yes. Member Amr? Yes. Member Brennan? Yes. Member Miller? Yes. Chair Beerman? Yes. The motion passes. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for looking at this. So as I indicated, I can probably just go ahead with the staff, but I would like some input from other folks on the board—at least one—in case I overlook anything, to make sure that we cover all the bases. Anybody like to work with me on this? You're not a member of the board. Sorry. All right. I can go ahead and I will have you on speed dial and I'll get one of you to help answer questions if we run into a problem. Okay. So that takes care of that. You have something? You're raising it? Yeah. Okay. Then I guess we're on to number six for public comment. Chair Beerman, there is item D, which is proposal to the governing body to add jurisdiction of the board for complaints of discrimination. Thank you. I didn't see that. Okay. So yeah, that was something I asked for. This is something we've raised several times. Member Amr helped to do some research on this. And you know, I think if you'll recall—which we don't because it may have predated you—there are a few areas that we see that other local government entities have covered for their ethics commissions or equivalents of our group. And those include some areas that we just don't have any authority over. So if somebody claims discrimination or harassment, we don't have any authority. We can't address those. We have no jurisdiction. There are provisions in the city's municipal code to deal with those, but the question might be if those are sufficient. And in particular, an issue might be whether the same people who would be accused would be in charge of analyzing and determining whether they had violated the rule. So this is just a discussion for if we wish to proceed with a conversation about this, to see whether or not there is space for us to try to develop this. And we have had some conversations about this already. The main change now is that we have a new board and a new council that's coming in. What's the effective date? January 1st, 2026? Yeah. So by January 1st, we'll have a new council, new mayor, and that's an appropriate time to probably raise this with them and propose that if we have a proposal, either perhaps they could make the process a little less subject to any counter influence, so that there could be public confidence in the rulings, or that we could be given the authority to do some of these things. For example, with discrimination, there is a discrimination rule in the city and it's pretty comprehensive. But the question is the enforcement mechanism and whether it can be done objectively. So I'd like some guidance from the board as to what you think. Should we be pursuing this, and if so, how? I have a comment, and I think that would be a bad idea. So I disagree. There are many mechanisms in the law with departments of the state and otherwise that are much better equipped, both financially and with investigators and so on, to handle that. And I think that this board would be badly served by adding that to our agenda. And so that's my two cents on it. I would agree with Miss Brennan, but both come from the same area of practice. But the other point is I'm just curious: have there been complaints that we're aware of? Have there been discrimination complaints during campaigns, and we've said we can't handle them? We don't have jurisdiction. Is this something that's been out there? This is not limited to campaigns. We're the Ethics and Campaign Review Board, not just the campaign review. Well, my same question. I think it has come up. I would agree in large part with Miss Brennan, but I'm still unclear as to whether or not the city has an EEO policy and procedure in place already. Do you have a person designated for that? Sure. My understanding is that a lot of this falls under the ambit of the HR department and the city manager, and their appeal avenues through that process, that internal administrative process. But I can also consult with the city's employment attorney if the board would like more information on that. The city's employment attorney. Yes. I have one other question. Are there any city employees that are covered by a collective bargaining agreement? Absolutely. The collective bargaining agreement typically contains provisions regarding discrimination complaints or complaints of any sort, right? Yes. And we have three collective bargaining agreements. I think it would be helpful to hear from the city employment attorney if there's a particular person who would know about what procedures are in place currently for a non-collective bargaining agreement employee, counselor, or mayor—whether any of those current procedures apply to any of those categories. I feel like we need more information before we proceed in any way. And you have the most experience of any of us on this board. Well, I have a question: is this coming up in the context of—I know last meeting we talked about our ongoing charge of considering subjects and whether they should be approved. Is this part of what we broke up into one subcommittee looking at ethics and one looking at campaign? That's what we did at the last meeting. Is this coming up in that context? Okay. I feel a little bit like we're talking about it in a vacuum though, without a proposal. I don't know if the question is: should this board be charged with claims of discrimination against public officials and employees? That's the question. # Meeting Transcript It seems like she sees some materials on what other jurisdictions are doing. What is there a recommendation? I feel like I'm in a bit of a vacuum here and I don't quite have a response to something that stands exactly. >> No, I don't think there is an exact proposal yet. This is even more preliminary than that. I just wanted to know if we should even be looking for proposals. We do have the discretion or the opportunity to hire investigators. We have done that through the city. My concern actually is that if you look at what the city's mechanism is now, there seems to be an inherent flaw. As I read it, the people who could be accused of being discriminatory or harassing could be people who have to go to somebody who hired that person—who is that person's supervisor—and that's kind of their last resort unless they then go on to the state human rights commission. So the question was: would there be an interest in having a more intermediate body such as us? At least if you are going to continue to go to the supervisor of the individual who hired the individual who's accused, or maybe is the individual who's accused, is there someone else to turn to? Another group to turn to that could be intermediate and not at the level of the human rights commission of the state? This is just an idea. >> Just to give my initial reaction, I will be leaning towards that being a bad idea given the significance and serious consequences for the subject and those investigations. This doesn't seem okay. Is there any level of discussion that we should have with the incoming administration? When we follow up on the two complaints we're going to be dealing with as a result of today's meeting, maybe we could discuss it at that time. Since we have a new mayor coming in and some new counselors, is there something we should be discussing just to at least introduce ourselves so they know we're here? And perhaps explore any other areas of jurisdiction that we want to explore. If not the ones I mentioned, we can leave it at that. I just wanted to—I'm not an empire builder, so it's not my— >> On our subcommittees, I do think that work is important. I tried to convene the campaign committee and we'll do that. Is the other subcommittee talking about possible changes or things or issues that need to be brought before the board? How is that going? >> Okay, well, we'll do that at the next meeting or— >> Okay, or something like— >> Right. The committee that I was working with—the ethics one—we discussed those two issues of harassment and discrimination. Those were our issues that we talked about, but that doesn't mean there aren't other possibilities. I'll go back again and look at the codes of conduct from other local governments, primarily counties. Since I teach the ethics laws to counties around the state through New Mexico State University, I will go back to the codes that I have and see if there's any major areas that we are not covering other than those that I mentioned. I'll see if there's other ethics concerns and I'll share that with Miss Brennan and Miss Amimer, who are both with me. That sound good, right? Thank you for reminding me of that topic. Now, is there public comment? There's only one member of the public left. Okay. Is it executive session? I don't see any discussion items. No action matters from the staff. >> No matters from the staff. >> Okay. Marcos? >> Yes. Sorry. I just want to make a suggestion that we send the complainants and the responding parties a copy of the rules. I think most people have access to the city code, but the rules give a little bit more detail on how to conduct the hearing. I think that might help make the process go a little bit more smoothly. Miss Benonato left unfortunately. I wanted to wait until this matter to speak to the board and public if they were here. And then on the last question you were posing, Chairman Utman, I wanted to let you know that I was at a state ethics commission panel last week and they mentioned they're going to be working on a set of model rules for local governments. That might be something to keep your eyes open for or look out for in the future. Otherwise, they generally applauded the work of the City of Santa Fe's DCB, which I discussed, and Albuquerque was there as well. >> Okay, thank you for that. Yeah, I actually drafted some of their previous rules—early ones, the very first ones. >> Okay. I have a question. Are they going to be doing a rule making or— >> No, because they'll be model rules. They're not going to be mandatory, at least as far as I understood it from Mr. Jeremy Ferris. >> Yes, that's what they do. Those are the ones I worked on too. They put them out there so people can use them, but it's only adopted by people who want it. >> Okay. Nothing else from the chair. So we're ready for a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Okay. Any objection? None. I'll be in touch with the staff about following up on the research after we get the response. If somebody concedes it and says, "Yeah, put me in jail. No need to—" >> They might. >> I can't promise it.