AG: Sheriff's contract may have been improper

Projects Editor

[email protected]

New Mexico’s attorney general contends Curry County Sheriff Matt Murray’s 2013 consultant contract at the jail may have been improper.

The opinion, issued Nov. 21 in the form of a letter to state Sen. Stuart Ingle of Portales, concludes the $3,000 a month contract approved by Curry County commissioners may have violated the state’s Governmental Conduct Act.

First, the opinion says, is because it wasn’t advertised for bids and Murray didn’t disclose his substantial interest. Second is because the contract didn’t clearly separate the sheriff’s obligations as a contractor from his official duties as sheriff, according to the opinion.

County Attorney Steve Doerr said he is not convinced the AG’s opinion is on point.

“I agree with a lot of it,” Doerr said, “but I disagree with their interpretations.”

Murray did not return phone calls seeking comment.

The AG’s opinion notes Murray may have vacated his office as sheriff by performing work as a security consultant for the jail.

“In fact,” according to the opinion, “all the responsibilities prescribed by the Agreement appear to require the Sheriff to perform those responsibilities during his regular work hours as sheriff. As discussed ... a public office is vacated or abandoned if the public officer takes another public position or private employment and fails for ‘thirty successive days or more to devote his time to the usual and normal extent during ordinary working hours to the performance of the duties of such public office.’”

The contract — retroactive by about a month — was approved by commissioners in May 2013 on a 3-1-1 vote with Commissioner Wendell Bostwick voting no and Commissioner Tim Ashley abstaining. A few weeks later, Bostwick asked Ingle to formally request a ruling from Attorney General Gary King.

Bostwick said then he was concerned the contract authorized payment to the sheriff in excess of Murray’s salary, which is determined by state law.

“I think,” Bostwick said Tuesday, “the attorney general has validated all of my concerns.”

Doerr said he still has multiple questions.

First, Doerr said, the law cited concerning disclosure of a substantial interest applies to businesses, not to individuals.

“This was an individual ... nothing was concealed,” said Doerr. “Everybody knew that he was the sheriff.”

Second, said Doerr, the opinion implies part of Murray’s job as sheriff was to control or operate the jail. Doerr said the Legislature changed the law decades ago and Curry County adopted an ordinance taking the jail away from the sheriff and placing it under the direction of an appointed jail administrator.

“It (the opinion) still doesn’t answer the question, can you pay the sheriff more than his salary ... that was and remains my main concern,” said Doerr. “I don’t see it as being illegal. It’s still a gray area ... I said that at the time.”

Doerr also said the sheriff’s contract was on a month-to-month basis and ended sometime between October and December 2013 without being renewed.

Doerr said he considers the issue “over and done with. It’s an informal opinion. It’s educational. It’s guidance.”