KCEC Activist Pursues Alleged Wrong-Doer
Below Taos Friction posts two letters, one to Gov. Susana Martinez and a second to the Secretary of State’s Business Division, responsible for supervising notaries statewide. Letter writer Linda Bence alleges and the record apparently confirms that the hierarchy at Kit Carson instructed a secretary to notarize the signature of an absent CEO for the sake of filing court documents, which record of decision stopped members from recalling nine members of the Board of Trustees. While the infraction of the rules seems petty, the offense is symbolic of the way the Coop does business and allegedly coerces employees in a process of alleged wrong-doing.
Friction has posted the following from the The Secretary of State’s web site.
New Mexico Notary Public
Effective July 1, 2003, a new notary public law went into effect. In addition to an increase in the application fee and the surety bond amount, the new law also provides duties and responsibilities for the notary, as well as increased fees that notaries may charge for their services. The new Notary Public Act is included in this handbook for your reference. As a notary public you are a state official serving an important function. Your role as an impartial witness to the signatures on documents and the affixing of your seal plays an important role in the prevention of fraud and protection of the parties involved. It is your responsibility to determine that a person signing a document is the person he or she claims to be. The duties and responsibilities of New Mexico Notaries Public are set forth in Chapter 286, Laws of 2003, which are reproduced herein. If you have questions of a legal nature you should consult an attorney. However, if you have any questions that are not of a legal nature and are not addressed here, please telephone the Office of the Secretary of State at (505)-827-3600, or (800) 477-3632. You may also write or visit us at the New Mexico Office of the Secretary of State, State Capitol North, Suite 300, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501.
To Gov. Martinez
SENT BY MAIL AND BY FAX to (505) 827-3026
Enforcement: Complaint # OS-NOT-2011-05
The Honorable Governor Susana Martinez
Office of the Governor
490 Old Santa Fe Trail
Room 400
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Dear Governor Martinez:
On May 24, 2011, I filed a complaint with Patricia Herrera (attached) for a possible violation of notary law against Carmella Suazo, a notary under the employ of Kit Carson Electric Cooperative. My complaint was subsequently turned over to the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department and I have tracked my complaint periodically with Ms. Shannon M. Garcia. I must commend your office for its diligence in keeping me informed and the timely, professional and polite manner of Ms. Garcia. Things have certainly changed from the last administration.
Today, I learned from Ms. Garcia that on January 6, 2012, Ms. Suazo had requested a hearing and that subsequent to that, attorneys on both sides came to a settlement which is now on your desk awaiting your signature. The settlement is a Letter of Warning and if Ms. Suazo does not commit a similar offense within two years, that the matter will be considered dropped. It is difficult to determine if this is indeed her first offense and if she will commit another in the future because all access to the records of Kit Carson Electric Cooperative are denied as Mr. Reyes has informed me that the cooperative does not have to adhere to either the Open Meetings Act or the Inspection of Public Records Act. All business of the coop is conducted in a bifurcated two-day monthly board meeting. All matters of substance and import are discussed in the CLOSED Monday meeting which is followed on Tuesday by a perfunctory meeting lasting as little as one hour where votes are taken but no discussion or information is imparted to members who may wish to attend. In addition, generally, the public is NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK OR QUESTION the trustees at this meeting. Trustees collect $150 for each day’s meeting for a total of $300. All of the other fourteen coops conduct their business in the presence of the public in a one-day meeting which pays substantially less.
I herein respectfully request that you deny Ms. Suazo her request for a settlement and that you grant her a hearing wherein both sides can be heard as per the aforementioned and following reasons and information stated herein.
In conversation with Ms. Garcia, I asked her if these settlements were the norm and she told me that when it is a first offense and one that is not of a “serious” nature and that the Letter of Warning is a usual resolution.
I must differ with Ms. Garcia that this was not a serious offense on the part of Ms. Suazo. It was a deliberate and informed decision of Ms Suazo. She is not a new notary. She studied for and took the test for her Notary License. She performed her notary services in the presence of Attorneys John F. McCarthy and Arturo L. Jaramillo of the law firm of Cuddy and McCarthy, LLP. If she didn’t know that what she was doing was illegal, the two older established attorneys surely did. They were well aware that Mr. Luis Reyes, whose signature she “notarized”, was in the State of Virginia at that time.
The document that Ms. Suazo notarized had a serious impact on the more than 24,000 members of the coop. It imposed on the time of the courts and interveners and the expense for a hearing was borne by the beleaguered taxpayers of the county and state. The notarized document caused an expensive hearing as well as costs for a process server to serve each of the ten respondents individually. Some of these expenses were borne by the members of the cooperative. Ms. Suazo knew what she was doing was wrong and actions should be taken so that it doesn’t happen again. The most egregious result of Ms. Suazo’s notarization of Mr. Reyes’ signature was that it denied over 24,000 customers of Kit Carson Electric Cooperative the opportunity to have their matter placed on the agenda for discussion and action at the Annual Meeting of Kit Carson Electric Cooperative. Dissenting members of the cooperative had followed the KCEC Bylaws and they had gathered over 800 names of coop members, as was required, to be put on the agenda to challenge nine of the eleven trustees who have been derelict in their duties and who have squandered the funds of the cooperative.
This is particularly egregious because Kit Carson HOLDS A MONOPOLY for electric service in three counties. Unlike other utilities and services like telephone, cell service, fuel delivery, internet providers, insurance, etc., we have no choice but to subscribe to the ONLY electric provider, Kit Carson.
Over 400 dissenting members of the cooperative appeared at a hearing last January on a day when they braved blizzard conditions driving down the mountain to appear at a PRC hearing in Santa Fe. Members were stacked in all corners of the PERA Building. The Albuquerque Journal stated that this was the largest protest that the PRC had ever seen.
This past summer ten interveners appeared before Mr. Lee Huffman, Hearing Examiner for the PRC, for a five-day hearing which challenged the electric cooperative’s requested $10.50 rate INCREASE per meter, its manner of operation and finances.
Kit Carson had asked for an increase in meter charges from $10 a month to $20.50 which would have imposed a hardship for many of the customers who reside in one of the poorest counties in the country. The PRC allowed Kit Carson a $4.50 increase. So far I haven’t heard the trustees and CEO complain about not receiving an additional $6 for each meter. They clearly attempted to GOUGE the members to give themselves more money to squander on questionable, money-losing subsidiary operations and out-of-line personal expenses for the trustees and CEO. Nearly all of the trustees came to parts of each day of the hearing and billed the coop $9,500 for hearing appearances along with additional monies to cover their mileage and $24 each day for lunch. Only the chair of the trustees spoke for five minutes and the rest of the time they came in late, left early and napped. The coop bore the expense of putting up the CEO, his wife and daughter at the Hotel Santa Fe and most likely covered their meal expenses.
In addition to denying the coop the huge increase requested, the PRC directed the cooperative to provide a report within six months of the hearing decision which should outline what steps the coop has taken to cut operating costs and trustee expenses. Within nine months of the hearing, Kit Carson must provide the PRC with evidence that they have completely split the propane operations and the broadband/internet services from the electric services and to show that electric members are no longer SUBSIDIZING the operations of propane and broadband/internet, both entities which have operated without profit for ten or more years. The CEO and trustees of the cooperative were dipping into the electric customers’ funds and not reimbursing same. The cooperative had taken the capital credits of the members to begin and bolster the two subsidiaries.
Kit Carson has filed a protest with the PRC as they do not feel that they should have to comply with either recommendation and it feels that the PRC has no business in asking for such compliance.
Unfortunately, although over 24,000 members OWN the coop, we are DENIED ALL ACCESS to any of the coop’s records. CEO Luis Reyes has sent me a letter stating that they do not have to comply with either the Open Meetings Act or the Inspection of Public Records Act. THERE IS NO TRANSPARENCY FOR THE MEMBERS. Our only recourse, at this point, is to make a concerted effort in the next two years to elect new trustees to the board who will be more responsive to the needs and wants of the more than 24,000 members.
It is in light of the above account that I respectfully request that you not approve the settlement that Ms. Suazo is requesting as she clearly understood that what she was doing was illegal and that you require that she be ordered to appear at a hearing wherein dissenters can attend and have some input. It is unfair to allow the disreputable and dishonest actions of the coop to continue and by signing the settlement, that is exactly what will be happening.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Bence
To Secretary of State
Linda Bence
P. O. Box 469
Taos, NM 87571
(lbence502@hotmail.com)
(575) 751-4465
May 24, 2011
Complaint regarding a possible violation of Notary
Ms. Patricia Herrera
Secretary of State
State of New Mexico
325 Don Gaspar – Suite 300
Santa Fe, NM 87503
Dear Ms. Herrera
On Friday, May 6, 2011, Attorneys John F. McCarthy and Arturo L. Jaramillo of the Law Offices of Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP, located at 1701 Old Pecos Trail, Post Office Box 4160, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-4160 (telephone: (505) 988-4476 and (505) 954-7373 (facsimile)) drove to the offices of Kit Carson Electric Cooperative on 118 Cruz Alta Road, Post Office Box 578, Taos, New Mexico 87571 (telephone (575) 758-2258)) to be present at or to conduct an Emergency Board Meeting of the Kit Carson Electric Cooperative to discuss with the Board of Trustees presenting a Verified Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief upon ten members of the Kit Carson Electric Cooperative who had filed a petition to have the matter of recalling nine of the eleven trustees placed on the agenda for the Kit Carson Electric Cooperative’s Annual Meeting to be held on June 18, 2011 at 9 a.m. at the Taos Senior High School.
Also present at the meeting was Ms. Carmela Suazo, assistant to Mr. Luis Reyes, Jr., CEO of Kit Carson Electric Cooperative and Attorneys John F. McCarthy and Arturo L. Jaramillo.
The emergency board meeting, announced by word of mouth, the day prior was set for 9 a.m. and it started on time with all eleven of the board of trustees present. MISSING WAS CEO Luis Reyes. I noted upon entering the building that Mr. Reye’s car was not in his usual parking spot. The board retired into executive session at 9:05 a.m. to discuss the motion as well as to discuss awarding themselves legal representation from Cuddy and McCarthy to fight the recall to paid for out of electric ratepayer funds. At 9:50, they returned to the board room, held the vote for the motion as well as for their legal fees. The meeting concluded at 10:00. At that time, I followed the attorneys out of the building. At 10:18, the attorneys filed the motions with the District Court. This can be verified by the date stamp on Page one of the motion in the upper right-hand corner.
I was one of the ten that was served with the motion and when I read the Verification and Acknowledgement, I couldn’t believe how Mr. Reyes could have signed it as he was out of town in Washington, D.C. that day. This is verified by a copy of an e-mail (attached) sent on April 27, 2011 at 9:38 a.m. from Mr. Charles V. Garcia, attorney for Cuddy and McCarthy to Mr. Link Summers, et al.
The Verification and Acknowledgement, a copy of which is attached stated that:
“I, Luis Reyes, being first duly sworn upon my oath, depose and state that I am the Chief Executive Officer for Kit Carson Electric Cooperative, Inc., one of the petitioners in the above-entitled cause; that I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction; and know the contents thereof, and that the matters and statements therein set forth are true to my knowledge, save where the same are or must of necessity be set forth upon information and belief, or are matter of law, and as to those statements I believe the same to be true and correct. Signed by Luis Reyes’ initials “LAR” , Chief Executive Officer, Kit Carson Electric Cooperative, Inc.”
The following paragraph then stated:
“On May 6, 2011, before me personally appeared Luis Reyes personally known to me or proven to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted executed the instrument.”
On Thursday, May 19 at 3:00 p.m., I was in the lobby at the Taos County District Court and I approached Mr. Reyes who was standing with the Attorneys McCarthy and Jaramillo and I asked him how it was that he could sign the motion when he wasn’t in town. Mr. Reyes said, “I was out of Taos that day.” I then turned to Attorney McCarthy and I asked, “How could this be, didn’t you bring the motions up to Taos with you that morning?” Mr. McCarthy stated: “Yes, I did.”
How is it that Mr. Reyes was able to be present in Taos to sign this document when he was in Washington, D.C. that week and on that day? I allege that there may be illegal or dishonest acts by Notary Carmela Suazo and that she did so with the full knowledge of both Attorneys McCarthy and Jaramillo. I allege that either Mr. Reyes or Attorneys McCarthy or Jaramillo told Ms. Suazo to sign it for Mr. Reyes. I realize that it is customary in offices to have one’s assistant prepare letters, notes or memoranda and for them to sign their superior’s signature. I DO HAVE a problem with this practice being engaged in when a NOTARIZED signature is signed. I have compared the initials on the document with other documents and samples that I have of Mr. Reyes and they do appear somewhat different but I am not a handwriting expert.
I am attaching a copy of an e-mail sent from Attorney Charles V. Garcia of Cuddy and McCarthy, LLP dated April 27, 2011 at 9:38 a.m. to Mr. Link Summers, et al regarding the setting up of a date for a deposition to be taken of Mr. Reyes wherein it states that: “Mr. Reyes is already scheduled to be out of town the first week of May. So in an effort to meet your deadline of getting his deposition prior to May 7, the only day that he is available is this Friday, April 29, 2011.”
I would like an investigation to ascertain whether Mr. Reyes, Notary Carmella Suazo and Attorneys McCarthy and Jaramillo followed the law or whether they committed a misdemeanor crime.
I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Linda Bence
Attachments – Copy of Page 1 of Verified Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief as well as page 11 as well as two pages of Verification and Acknowledgment.
Copy of e-mail dated April 27, 2011 at 9:38 a.m. from Charles V. Garcia to Mr. Link
Summers, et. Al.