WITH FRANK KATZ
***image1***
SFR: So, long before you became city attorney, I understand you were in the Peace Corps in Afghanistan. When did you go and what was it like?
FK:
That's true. I went in 1964, and it was very primitive. It was very hard. Afghanistan was, as it is now, an extremely religious culture. It was also quite undeveloped. So living was hard. The country was just opening up. They had not allowed foreigners outside of the capital Kabul until 1959, and we were out in Mazari Sharif. I was teaching English.
You went to Stanford Law School, correct?
I did indeed.
How does a public defender from California end up in New Mexico?
Uh, he hooks up with a woman who was from New Mexico. And when I wanted to build a house and stop practicing law for a while, we decided that this would be the place we would build the house. And here we are, 27 years later.
Do you ever get bored at City Council meetings?
No, I haven't at all. I may someday. But, I haven't, which is fortunate because I do need to stay on my toes.
What is every city attorney's worst fear?
Oh boy. That's a tough one. Well, one of the biggest fears is being asked a question at a City Council meeting and coming up with the wrong answer. But I managed to have that happen last time already. It was a question of the votes necessary to pass a matter and the City Attorney's Office had been using an interpretation for a long time. I repeated that interpretation and then I had discussions later with some folks who had been representing folks before the Council. From that discussion, I have come to a different interpretation of the votes necessary for that matter.
Workers from the Santa Fe Sage Inn recently came to City Hall voicing complaints about the city's lack of enforcement regarding the living wage. Is the city doing a good job enforcing the living wage?
The city is doing quite a good job. I think we're getting very, very good compliance. With that particular situation, that had been brought to our attention well before I was here. An investigation had been done, and they went and talked to everybody. I just read that investigation, and I was very impressed with the job that the investigator had done. And the thrust of that case, all of the stories were consistent. There were two or three incidents where somebody from the Inn of the Governors went over to the Sage Inn to work. But that didn't change the fact that there weren't 25 workers, except for one month. And so we thought that was taken care of and that's where we came out on that.
Recently we quoted you in a story about a woman, Nina Hart, whose house was ruined because of a city sewer problem. She's suing the city because the amount of money the city is offering doesn't cover the damages. Doesn't it seem to you unfair, given that the city basically destroyed this woman's house-albeit inadvertently-that the city won't reimburse Ms. Hart for the value of her home?
Two points. It's by no means clear that the city caused anything. My understanding is that it might have been vandalism. That does not remove the damage this woman suffered. Then you come to who should pay for it. Should there be sovereign immunity from damages? As we talked before, if there is no sovereign immunity, that opens up everybody's pocketbooks to pay because it doesn't come from anyone but us, the citizens. One might argue that this approach is the fair thing, and that's certainly a balanced philosophical position to take. But that's not the rule now. There is a fear of unlimited access to the government's purse that could cripple government. But as I indicated, we can protect ourselves from some of these kinds of situations with homeowners' insurance that covers a sewage backup.
Given that most folks don't know about sewage backup insurance, do you think the city should consider some sort of public information campaign?
They already have done that. A flyer has been developed, and I believe it has already been sent out.
What are the biggest differences between Frank Katz and your predecessor, Bruce Thompson?
I am older and more grizzled. I'm loving this job. I've lived in Santa Fe for 27 years, but I worked most of the time for the state. This opportunity to be integrally involved has been just great. I thought Bruce did a great job because he seemed to stay out of the newspapers and stay out of trouble and had a very calming effect on everything and I think that's a great virtue. I hope that I can do that same thing. One of the things that I enjoy doing is trying to defeat people's preconception of government being bureaucratic and unresponsive, trying to get answers to people promptly. There are rules and reasons to why we have rules and reasons and those are to be respected. But that doesn't mean you just hide behind those rules. I don't think the public needs various kinds of roadblocks in their way when there is a way to get something done.
