Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Prosecution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects county-funded contract prosecutors after debate over liability and precedent
Summary
The Lea County commission declined a staff-backed resolution to reissue an RFP to hire contract prosecutors for the Fifth Judicial District Attorney’s Office, after commissioners raised liability and precedent concerns and public testimony produced sharp exchanges.
A motion to reissue a request for proposals to hire contract counsel to assist the Fifth Judicial District Attorney’s Office failed at the Lea County Board of Commissioners’ March 12 meeting after a contentious debate about liability, staffing precedent and whether the county should fund salaries.
The proposal (Resolution 26March068) was presented by staff as a short-term fix to address a reported shortage of prosecutors and heavy caseloads in the Fifth Judicial District. The Fifth Judicial District Attorney told the commission the office is in trial every week, carries a significant caseload and has critical gaps in in-person trial coverage; the DA said remote-only hires have limits and argued an in-person-capable contract attorney would help handle motions, hearings and trials.
“...we go to trial every week,” the Fifth Judicial District Attorney said, framing the request as necessary to ensure victims’ cases can be prosecuted in court.
Commissioners questioned whether the county can or should be asked to fund salary positions, and whether doing so would expose the county to litigation risk. One commissioner warned funding salaries might prompt other jurisdictions or agencies to request similar support; another said the county historically funds projects rather than ongoing personnel costs. Staff advised the county could face legal exposure if contract attorneys were sued, and that immunity for contract attorneys does not extend automatically to the county.
Attorney Kurt Chavez, speaking during public comment, urged approval and described sustained local prosecutorial need; he acknowledged liability concerns but said risk management and legal insurance typically respond to suits. “What she’s telling you is 100% true,” Chavez said in support of the DA’s staffing claims.
After discussion, the board voted. The transcript’s recorded roll-call responses for the vote were: “Sherry Pierce” No; “Vice Chair Weber” Yes; “Commissioner Kimbrough” No; “Commissioner Eaton” No. The motion did not carry.
The commission did not adopt the resolution and did not take further binding direction on an alternative timeline at the meeting. Staff noted the commission could revisit the issue later with additional information.
