There’s nothing ‘right’ or ‘honorable’ about Scott Krahling’s actions

COMMENTARY: The sudden resignation of Doña Ana County Clerk Scott Krahling and subsequent release of the county’s investigative report is best summed up with this quote from Moira Donegan: “Misogyny is not compatible with any honest conception of morality.”

At the very same time that the progressiveness of the clerk was lauded throughout the state, the trust of the electorate was being betrayed by the same sort of behavior that the #metoo movement was about — women’s careers being tied to participation in a sexual relationship with someone who had the power to affect their future and men abusing their power for personal satisfaction.

Mr. Krahling was elected to be a steward of the public interest. It is a sacred task and one that involves swearing to uphold the office and the best interest of the people. Instead, the county’s report indicates that he made deliberate and unethical decisions that resulted in significant damage to the office. Despite this clear evidence of wrongdoing, some have suggested that Mr. Krahling did the “right” thing in resigning. His attorney stated he acted in an “honorable” way by stepping down just two months before the upcoming mid-term election in November.

There are those who would like us to separate Mr. Krahling’s actions as county clerk from his actions as a private person such that we can still laud his accomplishments outside of addressing his behavior — disconnecting his misogyny from his morality. If Mr. Krahling had chosen to have an affair with someone outside the office who was not his employee, perhaps we could make that argument. We might find it distasteful, but not within the realm of public interest. We could say that he was a great county clerk who made a mess of his private life.

Mr. Krahling didn’t just have an affair. He made a deliberate decision to engage in an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate employee, Ms. Rose Ann Vasquez, then allegedly granted that employee special treatment based on the relationship. This is the most basic definition of sexual harassment, and it is impossible that the clerk could have been unaware of this at the time. We cannot attach the words “right” or “honorable” to those decisions. His chance to be honorable and right is located in the past, not the present.

His first chance to be honorable and right occurred during his campaign, when he had the opportunity to not engage in this relationship. His second chance came the first time he chose to treat Ms. Vasquez differently based on or due to the relationship. There is evidence that the relationship may have influenced the decisions he made about numerous aspects of Ms. Vasquez’s employment, or at least created the perception that’s what was happening, including arranging for public monies to be spent on trips that allowed them to spend time together, altering her time cards, and promoting her to the position of chief deputy county clerk. Even if the relationship had ended prior to that promotion, there is no scenario where Mr. Krahling could be impartial and objective in his decision-making.

According to recent articles, the county began investigating complaints about the relationship this past Spring, and interviewed both parties as well as other employees in the Clerk’s Office. Ms. Vasquez resigned within days of those interviews. I have not heard it suggested that Ms. Vasquez was “honorable” or “did the right thing” when she resigned in March. This despite the fact that legally, she is less responsible for the relationship than Mr. Krahling — he was her superior and therefore had power over her employment.

It is not necessary for Ms. Vasquez to agree with that assessment as that is precisely why we have such laws. The power differential is too great and therefore compromises the ability to give true consent. Legally, Mr. Krahling is the harasser and Ms. Vasquez the victim of a quid pro quo situation in which her participation in the relationship affected how her supervisor treated her.

Mr. Krahling’s third (or tenth or twentieth) opportunity to do “the right thing” was when he learned of the complaint that was filed in January and the subsequent investigation. He could have stepped down immediately, as Ms. Vasquez did. That he did not step down suggests Mr. Krahling was far more interested in protecting his ego than the voters of Doña Ana County.

Stepping down immediately (or once the primary election results were certified) would have provided the office and the county commissioners more time to stabilize the leadership ahead of the general election. It would have potentially limited the amount of damage to the office itself. As County Commissioner and Chair Ben Rawson pointed out, once Mr. Krahling resigned, the county had no other options to address what had happened. The only other possible outcome would be if Ms. Vasquez chose to sue Mr. Krahling for sexual harassment.

At no point did Mr. Krahling do anything that suggested he felt responsible for his actions. He continued to operate as a highly regarded, successful public official with a strong ethical record all the while knowing that he had failed to uphold the ethical and legal responsibilities of his office. He did not make any statement as to his reasons for resigning when he stepped down. To date he has made no statement accepting responsibility for his actions and stating that he understands that his behavior was deliberate, unethical and inexcusable. He jumped ship and left his staff to clean up his mess. This is not honorable, nor is it “doing the right thing.”

Should the classic historical pattern of male privilege repeat itself, Mr. Krahling will sit out a few rounds and then reappear in the public arena. We will be asked to remember the “good work” he did and to partition that from any “lapse in judgement” he may have exhibited. His actions in stepping down will continue to be described as honorable rather than selfish, and his predatory behavior in engaging in an intimate relationship with a subordinate employee will be cast as a “mistake” instead of a grievous violation of the public trust.

As a former candidate for office, a woman, a feminist and a voter, I am deeply disappointed in the former county clerk and his apparent decision-making from the outset of his campaign. That he was so emboldened as to present himself as a progressive and a feminist when he was behaving in a manner that is the antithesis of both is a betrayal. That I believed there to be at least a friendly acquaintance with someone who shared my views on important issues is disheartening.

Given the recent scandals involving similarly misogynistic behavior on the part of former County Treasurer David Gutierrez, former County Commissioner John Vasquez, and now former County Clerk Scott Krahling, I am afraid that our hopes for a #metoo inspired change in male behavior are even now being dashed.

It will be up to voters, especially women, to decide if we are going to demand more from our elected officials than what men like these have been willing to offer. We certainly deserve at least a commitment to the most basic professional standards that prohibit sexual harassment and abuse.

Guenevere McMahon is an artist and costume designer who has lived in the Las Cruces area for 37 years. She holds a bachelor’s degree in government and a master’s degree in public administration, and recently ran in the Democratic primary for state representative in House District 33. Agree with her opinion? Disagree? NMPolitics.net welcomes your views. Learn about submitting your own commentary here.