BY LISA SHIN
When former councilman Sean Williams resigned, he stated, “I hope that the county will stop viewing small business owners as a nuisance… Unfortunately, there was nothing I could do for small business owners and, as I said, the county is whistling down a very dangerous path.” … Further inflation of the commercial market, and with it the cementing of the district as the arbiter of who gets to do business, will be disastrous … In fact, one of the problems with opposing small business owners is that we can leave.” With that, the community lost its Download “Automotive Professionals”.
Sirphey’s $5 million lawsuit marks another casualty for our small business community, and our local entrepreneur is striking back in a rare and unprecedented way.
So far, things are not looking good for the district. Aside from the $5 million lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, county attorneys have been ordered in Los Alamos 1st Circuit Court to pay all attorneys’ fees to Sirphey’s attorneys, up to $30,000 -could cost dollars. District Council nominee Sharon Dry pointed out that “Judge Lidyard’s recent ruling and supporting comments in the Sirphey case demonstrate the failure of the council to deal with this local business. The judge in this case severely rebuked the county’s oversight, appeals process, and decision-making. The result of the Council’s mismanagement will now require taxpayers to foot the bill for unnecessary litigation. Councilor Reagor’s sole decision to oppose the Boards of Appeal’s conclusions was correct on this matter.” In contrast, on March 25, 2022, Councilor Hand voted in favor of the Boards of Appeal’s decision and against Sirphey. Previously, on July 14, 2020, Councilor Ryti voted against Sirphey as a member of the Board of Appeal.
In fact, Judge Lidyard did not take too kindly to our council’s actions:
No. 21: The complainants have not entered this new territory with caution and prudence,
decided to disregard basic legal concepts and legal interpretation in favor of strict application
Interpretation of the word “find” and indulge in all sorts of interpretations to maintain its claim
the right of citizens to due process.
#25. The Los Alamos County government knew at the time of the council review
Decision of the Board that there are problems in fulfilling the obligation under the Regulations and
procedural due process of a finding and decision and to inform the complainant of why he acted
in the way they did.
#26. Despite this knowledge, the Council confirmed the in
#27. The Council then pursued requests for dismissal of the complainant’s complaint at every opportunity
avoid having to correct a mistake of which they were aware.
#28. The council had its attorney take the boldest of baseless positions on the
Interpretation of a word that is clear to every lawyer.
#29. The Los Alamos County government has sanctioned these baseless interpretations.
#31. The complainants violated the complainant’s right to due process through their sanctionable conduct.
The $5 million lawsuit filed in US District Court names councilor Ryti as a defendant for his actions. Read more about his alleged “direct and apparent conflicts of interest” from the 115-page Sirphey case filed 6/22/22 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PanfwV0Vzwkvn4uMqXDeoUEeGRopzdD-I2ZjrFsFgBU/edit?usp= sharing
On its campaign website, Rat Ryti admits that high rents and a shortage of skilled workers are a problem. “I believe the county needs to prioritize helping small businesses with these issues … by engaging county staff and outside agencies like the LACDC and the Chamber to set up a one-stop approach for existing or potential businesses to get involved in our.” develop community, thrive, or expand. ” However, he avoids another catastrophic problem because he is part of the problem: The county arbitrates over who gets to do business, picking winners and losers. His “punishable conduct” in violation of Sirphey’s due process rights and his alleged “conflict of interest” in the Sirphey $5 million lawsuit seriously challenged his commitment to small business growth.
Councilwoman Melanie Hand’s campaign ad features “Support and Attract Small Businesses.” This should also be questioned given her vote against Sirphey on March 25, 2022. When the opportunity arose to hold the county accountable and “referred the matter back to the board
Fulfilling the obligation under Regulation 10-84 (Right of Appeal) and due process requirements,” she simply stamped the county board’s “baseless interpretations.” Such actions “do not support and attract small businesses” but harm and drive them away.
We’ll hear more about Sirphey’s $5 million lawsuit after the election. Councilor Ryti may be forced to devote even more time, money, and county resources to the lawsuit than to council duties. Will he resign and will our council again appoint an unelected official to represent us?
Both Council members Hand and Ryti demonstrate a broad understanding of the issues facing our community. However, based on their actions with Sirphey, they should have omitted “local businesses” and “support and win small businesses” from their campaign platforms.
Editor’s Note; Please note that the links provided in this letter were provided by the author of the letter and not the Los Alamos Reporter