Griego’s ex-colleagues testify that they were misled

Both say ex-senator did not inform them of his role in sale of state property

Two of Phil Griego’s former colleagues in the New Mexico Senate testified Monday that they would not have supported legislation authorizing the sale of state property to a downtown Santa Fe hotel had they known Griego would be making a commission on the sale.

And while Griego’s lawyer, Tom Clark, has repeatedly pointed out that Griego did not sign a contract with the Inn of the Five Graces until after the Legislature authorized the sale in 2014, Assistant Attorney General Sharon Pino pointed out that shortly before he resigned from the Senate the next year Griego signed an agreement with a Senate ethics committee acknowledging that he had wrongfully agreed to help the hotel owners buy the historic stateowned building on DeVargas Street.

In that document, Griego admitted that he violated the state constitution, which prohibits lawmakers profiting from legislation they helped pass. He also admitted to violating Senate ethics rules. While the jury was out, state District Judge Brett Loveless told lawyers on both sides that he is concerned that jurors will conflate violating Senate rules with violating state law.

Monday marked the beginning of the second week of Griego’s corruption trial. Griego, 69, a San José Democrat who resigned after an ethics investigation, faces eight criminal counts including charges of bribery and fraud. The trial is expected to last at least two weeks.

One senator who testified Monday was Carlos Cisneros, D-Questa, who presented the legislation authorizing the property sale on the Senate floor. Answering a question from Pino, Cisneros said he wouldn’t have agreed to carry House Joint Resolution 8 had he known about Griego’s financial involvement.

Cisneros presented the resolution on the Senate floor at the request of Rep. Jim Trujillo, D-Santa Fe.

Asked if he would have voted for it, Cisneros said the measure never would have made it to the Senate floor had it been known that Griego would be paid as a broker. Griego made $50,000 in the deal.

“In my opinion, the measure wouldn’t have reached the last leg [of the process] and likely there would not have been a vote,” Cisneros said. When Pino asked why, Cisneros said, “Because of the ethical considerations.”

During the floor hearing for HJR 8, which took place shortly before the Legislature adjourned, Cisneros gave incorrect answers to questions about property sale.

He said the state was spending more on maintenance than it was receiving in revenue from a lease agreement. Asked whether the state would put the sale of the property out for competitive bids, Cisneros said anyone could bid on it.

Actually, the Inn of the Five Graces, which had been leasing the property for more than a year, was required to pay for maintenance costs. Also there was a lease provision that gave the hotel the first right to purchase the property. Previous testimony from state witnesses in the trial indicated that the Seret family had been pushing to buy the property for at least two years before the vote.

Cisneros said he based his answers to those questions on information in a fiscal impact report on the resolution. The report was done by the Legislative Finance Committee based on infor-

mation provided mostly by the state Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, which owned the property. The building had been used as the headquarters of the State Parks Division between the early 1960s and the mid-1980s. A handful of state employees remained there until about 2012.

Pino stressed several times that Griego, who was in the Senate chambers when Cisneros gave the false information, did not try to correct the mistakes.

Earlier Monday, Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque, testified that when a lawmaker has an undisclosed financial interest in a piece of legislation, it “casts a pall over the process.”

Under questioning from Ortiz y Pino, the senator said, “The most important thing is the disclosure so people may know there may be a conflict.”

Sometimes when there is a perception of a conflict, he said, lawmakers recuse themselves from voting on an issue.

“The essence of it is to make clear to the rest of the body that you have or may have appearance of a conflict,” Ortiz y Pino said.

Clark, during his cross-examination of the lawmakers, pointed out that Senate rules leave it up to a senator’s personal judgment when to disclose possible conflicts or appearances of conflicts.

The trial is scheduled to resume Tuesday.

Contact Steve Terrell at 505-986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com. Read his blog at www.santafenewmexican.com/roundhouse_ roundup.