
Apparently taking a cue from McCain’s campaign, Matthew Ortiz suspended, um, reason in order to take charge of the economy.
Truth Be Told
Ethics turns out to be a word in the dictionaryPerhaps Santa Feans should thank City Councilor Matt Ortiz for failing to disclose a conflict of interest arising from his legal representation of a city contractor. So says activist Marilyn Bane, who helped draft the bill to reform the city’s ethics code.
After all, Ortiz’ controversy prompted city officials and concerned citizens on an ethics code reform odyssey. Some hope a new code will result in clearer and more functional rules in 2011.
While under contract with Santa Fe County, contractor Advantage Asphalt & Seal Coating became the target of an as-yet-unresolved fraud probe [News, Aug. 18: “Anthony’s Empire”]. Over at the city, it came to light that Ortiz never notified city officials that he was representing the company as its lawyer, and voted on Advantage contracts with the city.
Ortiz maintains the ethics code is vague. And proposed changes to the code do include a new, broader definition of “conflict of interest.” However, even the old code makes it clear that a council member should disclose if he or she has financial ties to an entity affected by the council’s vote, as Councilor Miguel Chavez points out.
“An attorney is confused about when he’s supposed to disclose?” Chavez asks SFR rhetorically.
Chavez and former city Ethics and Campaign Review Board member Fred Flatt lodged the original complaints against Ortiz last summer, although Chavez subsequently dropped his. Flatt’s complaint lead to the ECRB in November fining Ortiz nearly $500 for failing to disclose the relationship.
Jim Harrington, who serves on the board for government accountability group Common Cause New Mexico, and is one of the proposed code’s authors, believes the current code defines conflict of interest clearly. But Harrington says the code is vague on the remedies and repercussions when conflicts of interest arise. Although concerned parties can complain to the ECRB, the code suggests the council should first pass a motion to disqualify the conflicted official from voting.
Ortiz didn’t reference this portion of the code in his situation, Harrington notes, but “I was so concerned that the next time this happened, some councilor” could use that portion of the code to argue against a complaint’s validity, if it wasn’t preceded by such a motion.
Ortiz continues to maintain that the complaint against him was politically motivated.
He says when the original ethics code was created in 2004, he expressed concern “that this is going to be used for political purposes and, lo and behold, when the opportunity arose, a complaint was filed against me for what I believe was political purposes.”
Drafters of the revision say the new code attempts to address such concerns by restructuring the ECRB.
The board currently has nine members, one appointed by Mayor David Coss and one by each of the city councilors. Proposed changes would give the ECRB one ethics officer and six board members chosen by Coss from a pool recommended by the State Bar of New Mexico and civic groups.
“What we are trying to do is to depoliticize it,” Bane says. “Politics will never be out of anything—the issue is how can you minimize it as much as possible.”
Bane, Harrington and other concerned citizens took over the revision process, in part to ensure the ethics code is effective and not political.
Harrington says the current code contradicts itself; at times, it is unnecessarily specific and, at others, too broad. He believes this is because many sections were, in fact, created in response to political situations.
“The concern is so many of these darn things at the city happen because somebody is after somebody else,” Harrington says. “You can probably see them if you read the code carefully. You remember back. ‘Oh, so and so was trying to get so and so here; that’s why we got this in there.’ A lot of that is getting cleaned out.”
Both Harrington and Bane say that while Ortiz’ situation set the ethics code reform process in motion, these reforms, unlike previous amendments, don’t target any individuals.
“If anybody ever accuses me of being politically motivated on this, I’ll chop off their head,” Bane says. “We have approached this in the most honorable way possible. It’s an honest effort to try and get the best ethics ordinance we can.”
Mayor Coss says he expects a study session with city councilors to convene and discuss the draft in early February. After that, he expects the city will move to publish a new ordinance amendment.







Zane flatters us expressing his opinion that WhyFry.org or the Santa Fe Alliance for Health & Safety (founded years ago by four MDs, scientists, and residents) has "been effective in stopping planned towers for Solana Center and Fort Marcy.
Sadly, my sense is that the hundreds of towers in the offing are simply waiting for the Santa Fe City Council's vote Jan 12 to prohibit citizens rights to appeal future towers...and we already have hundreds, most "unregistered." Use antennasearch.com to check your neighborhood. Living near a tower has been proven to raise cancer rates from 4 to 8 times higher than those lucky (or wealthy) enough to NOT live near them.
Oh Zane, your office has 215 antenna and 15 towers within 200 feet (11 "unregistered"--and a new application for a tower only 60 feet away. Snuggle up, your reception will be great! An investigative journalist might start keeping a journal of co-workers health issues.
Is this a conspiracy? Naw, just good ol' American greed...identical to the tobacco companies in marketing and ethics. Latest studies prove only 30 minutes/day for ten years qualifies you to have 240% higher chance of brain tumors, 320% higher rate of eye tumors--right next to where you hold your cell phone. Check www.WhyFry.org/videos/ at the bottom of page is Dr. Oz telling the whole USA--just not the Santa Fe Reporter!
When newspapers depend on Cellular Advertising, they seem to look the other way, but not matter which way they are looking wont change the truth about the science behind microwave radiation, and its effects on health
Not a bad summary. But this really is going national now. Devra Davis' book Disconnect about how cell phones got approved despite the DNA damage observed in several laboratories around (but only 1 of several industry funded studies) is selling on Amazon. She testified before the US Senate on the issue several months back. Another book is called Zapped by Ann Louise Gittleman. And the DVD full signal. The issue was front page news on Yahoo and Women's Health. And the effect of Wi-Fi on trees covered in the Wall Street Journal. And Dutch researchers actually tested what Wi-Fi does to trees. It isn't good:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1332310/Is-Wi-Fi-killing-trees-Dutch-study-shows-leaves-dying-exposure-Wi-Fi-radiation.html