Jordan appeals NM state bar complaint against ethics chairman
Jeremy Jordan, husband of embattled El Paso city Rep. Cassandra Hernandez, has appealed the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Board over his complaint against Ethics Review Commission Chairman Casey Williams.
Williams heads the El Paso city ethics commission that reprimanded Hernandez in July for her use of a city-issued gas card last year.
The New Mexico board ruled last month there was “insufficient evidence to support (Jordan’s) allegations that (Williams) has violated the rules of professional conduct.”
Williams said the complaint filed by Jordan is an attempt to “silence and intimidate” him.
“I think it demonstrates this is a clear act of retaliation for the work the commission has done in finding his wife guilty of her violations of the (city) Ethics Code,” Williams said. “I maintain that I have not done anything wrong.”
Jordan filed his initial complaint with the State Bar of New Mexico, where Williams is licensed to practice law, in early August, only days after the Ethics Review Commission slapped Hernandez with a reprimand over her use of a city-issued fuel card.
In his initial complaint, Jordan presented much the same argument as Hernandez did in her recent request for reconsideration by the Ethics Review Commission.
Though both complaints were ultimately thrown out — the New Mexico bar took less than a week to dismiss Jordan’s claims while the Ethics Review Commission decided the “newly-discovered evidence” presented by Hernandez did not warrant a reconsideration — Jordan’s appeal presents much of the same evidence, specifically screenshots of social media posts Williams made during and after his campaign against Hernandez in the 2017 District 3 race.
Jordan filed his official request for reconsideration on Aug. 22, according to an email he sent to the state Disciplinary Board, reasserting, among other things, that Williams’ “conduct during the (ethics) hearing exceeded his role as a moderator” and that he assumed “a prosecutorial stance.”
“While acknowledging that this grievance may not affect the hearing’s outcome, it stands as a testament to the pressing need for an investigation into Mr. Williams’ conduct,” Jordan wrote in the complaint. “Such an inquiry will determine if further training in ethics and recusal procedures is warranted, or if more stringent measures are necessary.”
Though he declined to be interviewed, Jordan said in a statement that he and Williams were directed not to discuss the matter before it is heard by the Disciplinary Board.
“As per the instructions of the Disciplinary Board of the New Mexico Supreme Court, I am obligated to maintain confidentiality and therefore, I will refrain from providing any comment,” Jordan wrote in a text message. “It comes as no surprise to me that Mr. Williams has chosen not to follow the Board’s instructions.”
But Williams contests that assertion.
“There is no instruction on not commenting on the matter,” he said. “Given the fact that Mr. Jordan has already openly discussed the matter and has attempted to embarrass me publicly ... I have a responsibility as the chair of (the Ethics Review) Commission to provide the public with an explanation from my side.”
Williams is hopeful that the Disciplinary Board will act with the same haste it did in dismissing Jordan’s first bar complaint.
“I don’t think anybody that’s a volunteer public servant should have to worry about having their professional work attacked,” he said.