Ethics board dismisses two complaints over missing treasurer information on campaign flyers

The City of Santa Fe Ethics Review Board dismissed two complaints alleging campaign fundraising flyers lacked required treasurer identification, ruling the filings did not state legally sufficient facts to proceed. The board said the complaints failed to show, on their face, that the material met the code definition of campaign material (including the requirement that material be disseminated to more than 100 people) and raised procedural defects in the complaint form used. Board members said they were reluctant to hold nonlawyer complainants to hypertechnical standards, but several commissioners agreed the filings here were too vague to satisfy the board's preliminary threshold for probable cause. "I don't see any indication that the flyer came from the campaign," Member Miller said during the hearing, noting the complaint did not allege who disseminated the flyer or that it reached the statutory dissemination threshold. Outside counsel for a respondent, attorney Peter Dwyer, argued the complaint cited an incorrect code section and was not a sworn complaint. "That is an incorrect citation," Dwyer said of the form's reference to SFCC section 16-16, and he told the board the form on its face did not constitute a sworn pleading required by the board's rules. The clerk acknowledged the form available at the office and on the city's website contains the incorrect printed citation and that the office had received the attachments as provided by the complainant. At the start of the meeting the board discarded a procedural draft vote and then voted to dismiss the first complaint (against Commissioner Justin Green) without prejudice. After a board member disclosed a potential conflict related to the complainant, the board voted to reconsider, accepted the member's recusal on that matter, and voted again to dismiss the complaint. The final roll call on the motion to dismiss the complaint against Justin Green recorded affirmative votes from Member Amer, Member Black, Member Miller and Chair Bitterman; Member Sullivan recused himself from that re-vote. A second, substantially similar complaint against candidate Tara Nicks was considered later in the meeting. The respondent had submitted a written response. The board voted to dismiss that complaint for lack of legal sufficiency; the motion passed on recorded votes in favor by Member Miller, Member Amer, Member Black and Chair Bitterman. Board members and staff discussed technical fixes to the complaint form and the clerk said the office could correct the printed citation and the notarization language to reduce future procedural objections. "It might be helpful to get some of those technicalities out of the way," a member said, and several commissioners urged staff to update the form and to seek drafting support from the city attorney's office. Public comment during the meeting urged the board to consider campaign finance questions beyond these filings. County Commissioner Justin Green, who was a respondent in the first complaint, commented near the end of the meeting: "I do encourage you to look at PACs," and told the board there have been concerns about outside groups in the campaign. The board said it would consider broader campaign-code review separately. The board’s dismissals are procedural determinations at the preliminary stage; the members emphasized the rulings were made on the face of the written complaints and not on the merits of any underlying factual allegations. The complainant may refile if they can provide additional information that addresses the board's noted deficiencies.