A complaint filed Wednesday against Las Cruces City Councilor Jose Frietze alleges that he violated the city ethics code by failing to disclose land transactions between his non-profit and a Las Cruces developer during council meetings at which he voted to approve that developer’s projects.
A non-profit Frietze founded and runs, Resources for Children & Youth, Inc., had been in negotiations with developer Philip Philippou for three years, and land changed hands several times beginning on Dec. 30, 2005, county records indicate. Not once during a council meeting in that time did Frietze disclose the negotiations or land transactions.
Frietze has been one of Philippou’s biggest advocates on the council, promoting and voting for approval in May of the annexation and master-plan approval of a 6,000-acre East Mesa development called The Vistas at Presidio and, several months earlier, approval of the 2,600-acre Sierra Norte annexation north of Highway 70, another Philippou project.
“These real estate transactions of large value appear intended to influence his vote and also create an appearance of impropriety,” Las Crucen Jackye Meinecke stated in the complaint. “Councilor Frietze not only failed to disclose these as he was required to do, he advocated for and voted for Mr. Philippou’s requests for annexation before the City Council.”
In an interview, Frietze said he did nothing wrong. He said he wasn’t aware until recent media reports came out that land changed hands before July of this year, when Philippou donated a 2-acre parcel valued at $180,000, and said he didn’t believe he was required to disclose anything until the land actually changed hands – if at all.
At issue are two provisions in the city’s ethics code. The first states that a conflict of interest exists when an official’s personal interests conflict with public duties or “when, to a reasonable person, it would appear that the actions of a public official are partial, biased, or otherwise compromised due to the public official’s private interests or personal gain being in conflict with the public interest.”
The second provision states that an official should disclose any situation that could be a conflict of interest, “be it real, potential, perceived or alleged.” It’s then up to the council to decide whether the official can participate in discussion or a vote on the agenda item in question.
Meinecke’s complaint will be sent to an independent attorney. If he or she determines that a formal hearing is warranted, a board made up of five randomly selected members of standing city boards and committees will be assembled to consider the complaint.
Ultimately, if an ethics violation is proven, the council could take action that includes issuing a reprimand, referring the complaint to the district attorney or filing a complaint in District Court seeking Frietze’s removal.
Frietze said, in the future, he will disclose the situation when the council is considering Philippou-related items and let the council decide whether he should participate. But he also defended the fact that he’s never disclosed it at a council meeting.
“I’ve never hidden it,” he said of the land deal. “I see it as an opportunity to talk about this project, to bring attention to it. I don’t think I’ve ever done anything wrong.”
The project is a living facility for people ages 16-21 who are transitioning out of foster care.
Meinecke said the merit of the project is “beside the point.” And though Frietze said he didn’t make any money off the land deals, she said that’s also not the point. The ethics code states that the entire council is supposed to decide whether a conflict exists.
“The ethics code states absolutely that councilors are to disclose their conflicts of interests, whether real, potential, perceived or alleged. In (the individual councilor’s) view it may not be an issue, but they’re not the ones who get to decide,” she said. “The point of ethics codes is to make sure that the process is transparent to the public. With his failure to disclose these connections, he is not making these transparent.”
Frietze says ‘dirty politics’ are at play
In a letter submitted after his interview, Frietze wrote that both organizations he runs, RC&Y, which will build the facility, and Families and Youth, Inc., which will run the facility, are non-profit organizations. He also said the timing of Meinecke’s complaint is “suspect” because he’s up for re-election on Nov. 6 and facing three challengers.
“I am disappointed that (opponents) are resorting to ‘dirty politics’ such as I have never encountered before,” Frietze wrote. “I believe that the voters of District 1 will see through this negative approach and will make their decision based on the issues at hand and my past performance.”
Meinecke said politics have nothing to do with the complaint. She said she was present for the May Vistas at Presidio vote and wondered “why the City Council was rushing through this annexation” when there were outstanding questions about the manner in which Philippou acquired the land from the State Land Office and other issues.
She admitted that she is an activist in what she called the “slow growth, or the controlled growth, or the responsible growth movement,” but said she’s never been to a meeting and is not a member of the Progressive Voter Alliance. Though that group has no official position on candidates in the upcoming election, many of its members are part of an active movement to replace councilors they view as overly friendly with developers.
Meinecke said that’s not her motive.
“For other people, it probably is exactly about (the election), but for me, it is about this whole idea that he should have disclosed this,” she said. “All he had to do was disclose it. We’re not saying that it was wrong, or he couldn’t do it.”
In addition, she pointed out that she lives in City Council District 2, not Frietze’s District 1.
Land transactions raise questions
The land deals between Frietze and Philippou raise several questions Frietze said he could not answer. On Dec. 30, 2005, Philippou, LLC deeded two separate parcels of land – both in the Sonoma Ranch area on the East Mesa, and one of them 10 residential lots – to RC&Y. On Jan. 5, RC&Y deeded the 10-lot parcel to a separate Philippou company – Logos Development. On Jan. 6, the non-profit deeded the other Sonoma Ranch parcel to a third Philippou company, Katerina, Inc.
Meinecke alleges in her complaint that the deeding of the residential parcel violated the city’s subdivision code because it had no final plat approval that is required for land transfers. If she’s right, that could constitute a misdemeanor violation.
Then on Jan. 6, 2006, Philippou’s Katerina gave a 1.7-acre parcel near Community of Hope on
Frietze said he knew nothing about a possible misdemeanor violation related to the plat approval and didn’t recall dealings related to the
“I remember somebody called me and asked me to go back and sign something, but I didn’t really look closely at the documents, to be honest with you,” Frietze said of the Dec. 30, 2005 deals.
He said Moberly recently explained to him that some of Philippou’s corporations are controlled by or actually belong to his children. The two parcels of land in the Sonoma Ranch area that Philippou gave RC&Y “weren’t his” to give, Frietze said he learned recently from Moberly, because they “had already been sold.” That’s why he gave them back days later, he said, but he couldn’t explain why he deeded the land to different Philippou companies than the one that gave the land to him.
Frietze said he still doesn’t know why Philippou gave him
“
Philippou could not be reached for comment.