Allegations on misuse of taxpayer funds from Mayor Tim Keller’s staff, top city administrators raise questions

Click here for updates on this story

    ALBUQUERQUE (KOAT) — The Office of Inspector General released a 16-page report alleging misuse of taxpayer funds from the city of Albuquerque in June 2024 in connection to sick pay leave upon resignation. The OIG received a complaint alleging violations of “the city’s personnel policy and abuse of power by a department director” on Thursday, January 4, 2024.

The report details several employees who have received more than $50,000 in taxpayer funds, regarding “preferential treatment” received for sick pay.

“There are no teeth to the inspector general’s efforts in this matter. They can’t force the city to pay the money back. What they can do is shine light on it, and it’s up to the public to decide, is this something that we care about? Is this something that concerns us?” KOAT legal expert John Day said.

The report reads, “The OIG was able to substantiate that the violation of City policies resulted in the City paying out an additional $52,659.43, to certain employees absent a settlement, which is considered a waste of City resources and Taxpayer monies.” As a result, the OIG recommends the city to review, recalculate and recoup excess payments.

“As a taxpayer, you want someone keeping an eye on how your tax dollars are being spent. They found cases where tens of thousands of tax dollars were being spent basically to reward people who are in the high-level mayor’s office, staffers in the high levels of the city, essentially as a reward for their service on their way out,” Day said.

A former city administrator listed as ‘A3’ in the OIG report indicates the former chief administrative officer physically worked in the city through April 2022. Findings through the OIG report, revealed, “A3” continued to earn vacation and sick leave between April 2022 and August 2022.

The report alleges the former CAO had an accrued vacation balance totaling 300.41 by Dec. 31, 2021. Findings show the former CAO earned 61.60 vacation hours in 2022, used 327.37 hours and had an adjustment of accrued vacation totaling to 34.64.

The OIG report also alleges the adjustment was a loss of vacation hours. However, pay summaries do not reflect “A3” was paid out for 34.64 hours of vacation time, per city policy. A3 was paid for 312.63 hours of Paid Leave Other between June 2022 and August 2022. On July 1, 2022, the report alleges A3 received a pay increase per the City’s approved budget.

“The inspector general’s office is supposed to be the independent watchdog over city activities. It’s not supposed to be connected in any way or biased in any way,” Day said. “The fact is you want an inspector general’s office to be keeping a close eye on city government on any government.”

City records reveal Sarita Nair was appointed as chief administrative officer by Mayor Tim Keller during this specific time period.

In March 2022, Nair announced she would be leaving her position after having completed key accomplishments. According to the city’s website, Nair said, “The time is right for her to pursue new opportunities now that she finished filling out Mayor Keller’s second-term team of directors and key leadership positions at APD and AFR.”

Nair is currently the secretary for the Department of Workforce Solutions. KOAT reached out to Nair by phone in regard to the allegations but did not receive a call in return.

KOAT reached out to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham regarding the allegations and Nair’s current position with Workforce Solutions, but a spokesperson for her office stated: “Hi, Faith. We’re going to respectfully decline to comment on this matter at this time.”

KOAT reached out to Mayor Tim Keller’s office as well as the city of Albuquerque. A spokesperson for the city of behalf of Human Resources sent us the following statement:

“The City can create exceptions for leave policies, and it is not unusual to do so for senior employees to take into consideration their health and retirement, as the demands of their roles often restrict them from taking large chunks of leave during their service. We acknowledge the City’s longstanding practice of negotiating vacation and sick leave, and we disagree with the OIG’s subjective opinions. It is noteworthy that the Accountability in Government oversight committee, which oversees the OIG, did not approve the report.” – Ava Montoya, spokesperson for the Department of Human Resources.

KOAT reached out to city councilor Dan Champine, but he declined to comment at this time due to “ongoing investigation.”

KOAT reached out to New Mexico state auditor, Joseph Maestas, and sent a copy of the report via e-mail. They returned our call and we’re waiting to hear back from Maestas regarding his response, if any.

Allegation 1 Alleged violation of City policies

Finding:

The OIG’s investigation of eleven (11) city employees who allegedly received benefits not afforded to other employees revealed deviations from City Ordinances Article 1 §2-8-1-1 and § 2-8-1-4, Article 1 § 3-1-13, §3-1-14, and §3-1-20 as well as City Policies and procedures, sections 401, 402, 403, and 801. The investigation revealed that six (6) of the employees received additional sick leave in violation of the policy and were able to utilize the sick leave as paid time off, up to their date of resignation. Management override and deviations from City laws, regulations, policies, and procedures create the perception of preferential treatment for certain employees resulting in a benefit to certain employees and an additional cost to the City.

The OIG was able to substantiate deviations from the City policies for six (6) of the investigated employees received additional sick leave in violation of the policy and were able to utilize the sick leave as paid time off, up to their date of resignation. Management override and deviations from City laws, regulations, policies, and procedures create the perception of preferential treatment for certain employees resulting in a benefit to certain employees and an additional cost to the City.

Allegation 2 Finding:

Alleged abuse of power by a Department Director

The OIG’s investigation of eleven (11) city employees who allegedly received benefits not afforded to other employees revealed deviations from City Ordinances Article 1 §2-8-1-1 and § 2-8-1-4, Article 1 § 3-1-13, §3-1-14, and §3-1-20 as well as City Policies and procedures, sections 401, 402, 403, and 801. The investigation revealed that D1 directed other city employees to process deviations in the City policies for three (3) of the eleven (11) employees investigated.

The OIG was able to partially substantiate the alleged abuse of power by D1 because D1 directed other city employees to process deviations in City policy, resulting in the perception of preferential treatment for certain employees resulting in a benefit to certain employees and an additional cost to the City.

Allegation 3 Alleged waste of City resources and Taxpayer monies

Finding:

The OIG’s investigation of eleven (11) city employees who allegedly received benefits not afforded to other employees revealed deviations from City Ordinances Article 1 §2-8-1-1 and § 2-8-1-4, Article 1 § 3-1-13, §3-1-14, and §3-1-20 as well as City Policies and procedures, sections 401, 402, 403, and 801. The investigation found that both Administrators and D1 granted additional benefits of sick leave to certain employees and permitted it to be paid out to the employees before their resignations. The payouts to the employees are additional monies that the City would not have otherwise had to pay out.

The OIG was able to substantiate that the violation of City policies resulted in the City paying out an additional $52,659.43 to certain employees absent a settlement, which is considered a waste of City resources and Taxpayer monies. The OIG is considering the $40,365 and the $17,760.60 paid under the release waivers as a questioned cost, as this was not a formal settlement but rather an agreement entered into with no basis of a legal claim. If considered extra compensation, the $58,125.60 paid did not meet all criteria outlined in Article 1 § 3-1-20 as required. Additionally, the city did not provide a pre-existing plan or program authorized by the Chief Administrative Officer, which sets up specific criteria for such extra compensation.

Please note: This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.