Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Fe ethics board advances complaints alleging illegal signs and questionable expenditures against two candidates
Summary
The Ethics and Campaign Review Board found probable cause to proceed with complaints that David Montoya posted campaign signs on public property and that Leroy Trujillo posted signs after notice; the board will request responses, collect evidence and reconvene to determine whether violations occurred.
The Santa Fe Ethics and Campaign Review Board voted Nov. 7 to advance two campaign-related complaints after hearing sworn testimony and examining supporting materials.
Complainant Stephanie Benanato told the board she had photographic evidence and emails showing campaign signs placed on public property by David Montoya and by Leroy Trujillo, and she alleged Montoya also reported several expenditures — including vehicle registration work, tires and audio equipment — as campaign expenses that, in her view, did not meet the municipal definition of a political purpose.
On Montoya, Benanato described signs placed on bridges, near Saint Francis and Alameda, and in the Rail Park and shopping-center planters; she also questioned purchases reported on Montoya’s campaign finance disclosure and said some items (a gimbal stabilizer, tripod, microphone adapter and a sound system) appeared to be long-term acquisitions rather than short-term campaign expenses. The board agreed there was a prima facie issue that required further investigation, including obtaining Montoya’s response within the 10-day window and asking staff to gather documentation about the allegedly improper expenditures.
Benanato’s complaint about Leroy Trujillo likewise alleged widespread placement of signs on public property (parks, utility poles and bike/ped trail areas), including repeat postings after the city clerk had notified Trujillo. The board voted to find the Trujillo complaint legally sufficient under §6-16.4 and set the matter for the next investigatory steps.
Chair Bitterman said staff will distribute responses and the board will review evidence before reconvening. A board member suggested some aspects of the finance complaint might warrant an executive-session review depending on the type of information gathered, while others said the matter could remain in open session. The board asked staff to coordinate follow-up and offered that two or three board members could work with staff to advance the investigation.
No final findings on the merits or sanctions were made at the meeting; both matters were advanced to the investigatory phase so the board can collect responses and corroborating evidence before deciding whether to hold a formal hearing.
