FORMER Gov. Ralph DLG Torres has petitioned the Superior Court for a judicial review of the secretary of Finance’s final agency decision ratifying James Robert Kingman’s special prosecutor contract.
Torres is challenging Finance Secretary Tracy Norita’s Feb. 5, 2025 second administrative order regarding the contract.
Torres is asking the court to vacate or set aside Norita’s final agency decision ratifying Kingman’s contract, arguing that it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and/or contrary to law.”
“The Secretary ruled that the Kingman contract did not comply with the procurement regulations,” Torres’s petition stated. “As a matter of law, that meant the Kingman contract was invalid,” it added.
Background
On Feb. 28, 2023, Kingman was hired through a $50,000 contract by the Office of the Attorney General as a special prosecutor in its misconduct-in-office case against Torres pertaining to first-class travel.
On March 23, 2023, Torres served an Open Government Act request upon the Department of Finance, requesting to inspect an extensive list of documents associated with the solicitation, negotiation, execution, and payment of Kingman’s contract.
On June 20, 2023, Gov. Arnold I. Palacios informed the Legislature that he had certified and approved Kingman’s employment as an assistant attorney general with an annual salary of $85,000.
Five days later, the Office of the AG announced that Kingman would head a task force to investigate and prosecute government corruption, white collar and financial crimes.
1st judicial review petition
Torres, through his legal team, filed a petition in court requesting a judicial review of a May 17, 2023 final administrative order by the secretary of Finance, who stated that the department had no authority to issue a ruling and declare that Kingman’s contract, which was executed by the OAG in connection with Commonwealth v Torres, Criminal Action No. 22-0050, was invalid.
According to Torres’s attorneys, the OAG response “produced only two documents: 1) a copy of the Kingman contract; and 2) a check stub and copy of a $50,000 check to Kingman as full payment for the Kingman contract. The documentation that DOF provided indicates that on Feb. 28, 2023, the same date on which the Attorney General signed the Kingman Contract, the AG also requested DOF to issue the Kingman Payment. DOF issued the Fifty Thousand [Dollars] for [the] Kingman Payment by check dated March 20, 2023.”
Torres sought a declaratory ruling “because the OAG response indicates that the solicitation, preparation, and processing of the Kingman contract as well as the Kingman Payment failed to comply with significant and material provisions of the Commonwealth’s procurement regulations.”
Torres asked the Superior Court to set aside DOF’s May 17, 2023 administrative order.
On Nov. 5, 2024, Judge Pro Tempore Arthur Barcinas remanded the case to Finance and ordered the department to issue a declaratory ruling on the validity of Kingman’s government employment contract.
2nd judicial review petition
According to Torres’s petition filed on March 3, 2025, DOF’s authority on remand ended with the determination that the Kingman contract was invalid.
“However, the Secretary did not stop at that point and proceeded to make an additional ruling beyond the scope of the remand. Without any communication or correspondence to Torres, without any evidentiary hearing, without providing Torres any notice of or opportunity to be heard and in acting ultra vires to the Court’s remand order, the Secretary raised, and decided, the issue of ratification. The ratification issue is and was outside of the scope of the Remand Order as pursuant to Procurement Regulations codified at NMIAC § 70-30.3-510(b)…,” Torres’s petition stated.
“Ultra vires” is a Latin term that means “beyond the powers.” It refers to actions taken by a government body that exceed the scope of its legal authority.
Torres is represented by attorneys Joaquin DLG Torres, Viola Alepuyo, and Anthony Aguon.
Conflict of interest
They said that Finance’s second administrative order ignored or otherwise failed to address, discuss, or rule on the former governor’s concern and claim that the Finance secretary had a conflict of interest in ruling on the former governor’s request as it concerned a contract involving the OAG, which was the attorney and legal counsel for the Finance secretary and her department.
The Finance secretary also “ignored or otherwise failed to address, discuss, or rule on Torres’s concern and claim regarding a violation of the Government Ethics Act; issued a final agency ruling relying on evidence or information that was also unknown and not disclosed to Torres; issued a final agency ruling relying on documentation outside of the Administrative Record without providing any notice to Torres or providing Torres with an opportunity to be heard regarding such documentation; wrongfully or erroneously ruled that there was no new evidence in the case; not providing Torres notice of or an opportunity to be heard regarding the contract ratification issue; not identifying the specific procurement regulations violated by the Kingman contract; and in deciding to grant ratification, not explaining why DOF approved the contract and prepaid Kingman the full contract price when the contract did not comply with the procurement regulations,” the former governor’s petition stated.
It added that the Finance secretary “did not act impartially as DOF considered and adopted the ratification remedy, which was in excess of the Remand Order for the benefit of its legal counsel….”
The Torres legal team also argued that the Finance secretary decided “on the remedy for the invalid contract without providing Torres notice of such consideration or providing Torres the opportunity to show ratification was improper as Kingman did not possess legal expertise in the area(s) of public corruption and/or white collar crime; [and] by not disclosing or otherwise revealing who determined how much of the contract price Kingman had to refund to the Commonwealth….”
In addition, the Finance secretary did not disclose “how the determination on the amount of refund was made given that the Kingman Contract was a lump sum payment for prosecuting a case to its conclusion in the Superior Court and the case had not been concluded at the time of the termination,” the Torres legal team stated.
Moreover, the Finance secretary did not disclose “the documentation establishing the calculation of the amount Kingman had to refund to the Commonwealth,” and “did not assign…this matter to an independent hearing officer,” the Torres legal team stated.
“The Secretary not assigning this matter to an independent hearing officer on remand violates the Government Ethics Code…since the request involved and concerned DOF’s legal counsel,” the Torres legal team stated.
In her administrative decision letter to Torres dated Feb. 5, 2025, the Finance secretary stated, among other things: “On June 30, 2023, the OAG issued a notice of termination of the contract which became effective on July 3, 2023, when Mr. Kingman became a fulltime employee of the OAG. On November 2, 2023, Mr. Kingman returned $16,835.35 of the $50,000 retainer.”
发表回复