Roberta Vigil pleads not guilty in corruption case

Roberta Vigil pleaded not guilty today to fraud and other felony charges related to the misuse of public money at the West Las Vegas School District.

She entered the plea in district court in Santa Fe, the Associated Press is reporting. After the hearing, her lawyer, Sam Bregman, characterized the charges as “absolutely ridiculous.”

“I can understand no other reason why they would indict Roberta Vigil on anything based on the fact that the West Las Vegas school district had a party, except for the fact that right now her last name is Vigil,” the news service quoted Bregman as saying.

Vigil is the wife of state Rep. Richard Vigil, whose brother, former state Treasurer Robert Vigil, is currently in prison for his role in the scandal that rocked that office.

Roberta Vigil’s trial date has been set for Jan. 8 and, in the meantime, she has been released on her own recognizance.

Vigil used to run the school district’s bilingual education program, and the charges do stem in part from the fact that she held an annual, invitation only party – one that took place late at night and included an expensive band – under the guise of a staff training event. But the allegations involve the misuse of other state and federal money as well.

In addition, she’s accused of reporting false test scores to increase the amount of funding for the district.

Three others are also charged in the case. School Board member Ralph Garcia, former Superintendent Joe Baca and former bilingual assistant Beverly Ortega waived their arraignments today and entered not-guilty pleas, the news service reported.

Vigil is charged with two counts each of conspiracy to commit fraud over $20,000, fraud over $20,000, misuse of public money, conspiracy to commit misuse of public money, prohibited sales by school board members, conspiracy to commit prohibited sales by school board members, and one count each of making or permitting false voucher, tampering with evidence, tampering with public records and a violation of the procurement code.

Comments are closed.