Sandoval County ethics board dismisses complaint alleging assessor data misuse

The Sandoval County Ethics Board voted unanimously on Sept. 15, 2025, to dismiss with prejudice an ethics complaint alleging that assessor staff misused county computer systems and manipulated property valuation data.

The complaint, brought by Ken D. Hoff, alleged that staff assigned a uniform valuation of $204,000 per acre to about 2,500 acres in the village of Corrales and then used county systems and records to provide inaccurate, incomplete or conflicting responses during an informal valuation protest and a later IPRA (Inspection of Public Records Act) request. Hoff told the board, "The evidence will show that the respondents misuse their privileged access to the public records to intentionally withhold, manipulate, and misrepresent county data."

The board’s dismissal followed repeated procedural objections over the admissibility of exhibits and a defense argument that the board lacked jurisdiction. Charles Renick, attorney for the respondents, told the board, "Not a single word of the allegation is true," and argued the board’s review should be limited to whether there was an "unauthorized use of county property." Renick also told the board that two named employees cited in the complaint are classified county employees and, under the ordinance, complaints against classified employees must be handled by the county manager or county attorney rather than this board. He further argued the ordinance requires complaints to be resolved within 90 days and that the delay — the complaint was filed more than a year earlier, according to the complainant — deprived the board of jurisdiction.

Board members spent part of the hearing resolving how to handle submitted exhibits and objections. The complainant sought to offer audio excerpts from a lengthy previous protest hearing; defense counsel objected and asked the board to require certified transcripts because the audio excerpts were "very hard to hear." The chair sustained an objection to certain exhibits "for right now," and the board debated whether objections should be resolved when each exhibit is offered or upfront.

After the procedural debate, a board member moved that "complaint number 2023-003 be dismissed with prejudice." The motion carried on a roll-call vote: Nancy Jinx — yes; Robert Wilkins — yes; Amina Everett — yes. The board did not publicly adopt findings on the substantive allegations during the session; the action recorded on the transcript is the dismissal motion and the roll-call vote.

During the meeting’s public-comment period, Russell Trujillo of Corrales described his own frustrations with the assessor’s office, saying the process felt "more like a courtroom hearing" and that attempts to remove a departed mobile home from his parcel’s record had not been timely resolved. The board did not take separate action on public comment.

The board also set its fourth-quarter meeting for Oct. 20, 2025, at 4 p.m., approved routine minutes and adjourned later that afternoon.

The record of this session shows the board resolved immediate procedural questions but dismissed the complaint before taking a contested evidentiary ruling on the substance of the allegations.