New Mexico State Senator Daniel Ivey-Soto has been credibly accused by multiple women of sexual harassment and other forms of abuse – and the independent special counsel hired by the legislature determined there was probable cause. However, the legislature's flawed process has stood in the way of holding Ivey-Soto accountable. 

Read the below op-ed by former Navy officer Merritt Hamilton Allen and then the Albuquerque Journal's editorial pointing out the flaws in the legislature's process:

Carlsbad Current Argus: The Legislature's anti-harassment policy is clouded in secrecy by Merritt Hamilton Allen

Remember the sexual harassment complaint filed against Senator Daniel Ivey-Soto, Senate Rules Committee Chairman, earlier this year? You probably haven't heard much about it.

Because that's how the system is set up.

In February, a lobbyist filed a complaint against Ivey-Soto, citing events in 2015 and 2022. This complaint was followed by an open letter published from the lobbyist, and another open letter from eight nonprofits, which outlined eight additional incidents citing harassing behavior toward women from the senator.

On Tuesday, Senator Ivey-Soto sent a letter to the Albuquerque Journal stating that the Legislative Ethics Committee sent a letter to his counsel that the complaint is indefinitely suspended, and no further action will be taken. Furthermore, no details of the process undertaken by the Ethics Committee, or any details of the investigation will be released.

Well. This is sadly unsurprising.

The actual process of the Ethics Committee investigation is unknown. The criteria to bring a complaint to a hearing are unknown. The influence the accused has over the investigative proceedings is unknown. The rights of the complainant are unknown.

From brief interviews with Ivey-Soto and the complainant this week, the Journal reported that overarching confidentiality requirements keep the proceedings under wraps and prevent the complainant from describing the process from her perspective. The confidentiality can be waived by the accused; Ivey-Soto has opted not to do so.

In his letter this week, Ivey-Soto takes the typical harasser's stance: A tepid apology and some excuses that cover the behavior he had earlier claimed he didn't commit, but I guess now was misinterpreted. In this case he alludes to past abuse as a child and a hearing problem that makes him talk loudly.

I have been profoundly deaf since the age of 28 and I understand it's hard to modulate your voice. Yet, I have not had nine harassment accusations slapped on me. And I imagine other hard of hearing people have the same experience. We're annoying, perhaps, but not abusive.

I wrote about this previously in the spring after I interviewed three of Ivey-Soto's accusers for two hours on live radio. I don't believe that these women would spend the time and expose themselves to the public scrutiny of live radio if their claims were false.

Let's not forget that the complaints included allegations of Ivey-Soto drinking during the session day and keeping a wine refrigerator in his Capitol office. Ivey-Soto made no denial of these claims in a previous newspaper interview noting that drinking in his Senate office makes the tone of his meetings more "collegial."

I have had the unfortunate duty of completing numerous sexual harassment investigations while serving as a naval officer. And I understand the need for confidentiality. However, the process was a matter of public record. And just from my own experience, there are some things in this case I don't like.

First, that eight more victims stepped forward after the first complaint. This demonstrates a possible pattern of behavior which lends credence to the original complaint. Second, there is the complicating factor of alcohol in the workplace, which Ivey-Soto appears to have freely admitted to in the media.

Finally, Ivey-Soto's own public statements on the matter raise my hackles. This statement in an interview with the Santa Fe New Mexican was completely inappropriate: "I'm not going to ask a Jehovah's Witness to vote, and I'm not going to make a pass at a lesbian. There's just no return on investment." This statement speaks volumes about how Ivey-Soto views women. Either you can hit on them, or you can't.

I know that hackles aren't necessarily actionable, and this is where the current model of the Legislative Ethics Committee falls far short. It looks like serious allegations were made against a senior senator, and nothing happened. That's because the process is secret.

Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart, herself a previous target of misogynistic behavior on the Senate floor at the hands of Ivey-Soto, has called for revisions to the anti-harassment policy to introduce greater transparency and increase the amount of information that can be shared with victims. It's a step in the right direction.

But too late to reverse perceptions that you can get away with anything if you are a powerful senior senator.

Merritt Hamilton Allen is a PR executive and former Navy officer. She appears regularly as a panelist on NM PBS and is a frequent guest on News Radio KKOB. A Republican, she lives amicably with her Democratic husband north of I-40 where they run two head of dog, and two of cat.

–
 

Albuquerque Journal: Editorial: Ivey-Soto fiasco fueled by secrecy and flawed process

Whether one thinks state Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto should stay or go, the shrouded process in which sexual harassment claims against him have been investigated has proven opaque and deeply flawed. It's been a case of a subcommittee of senators investigating a fellow senator behind closed doors, some of the parties involved being required to clam up but not always doing so and with little or no apparent consequences for breaking said confidentiality.

To recap last week's twists and turns, the Journal on Thursday published a front-page story about, and a guest column from, Ivey-Soto in which the Albuquerque Democrat said a legislative ethics committee investigation into sexual harassment claims against him had been closed with no finding that could lead to discipline. Discipline could range from a reprimand to expulsion from the Senate.

Later Thursday, his accuser, Roundhouse lobbyist Marianna Anaya, filed a lawsuit in state district court claiming the confidentiality rule in the Legislature's anti-harassment policy had placed an unconstitutional limit on her free speech rights. Prior to filing the complaint, she released an open letter accusing Ivey-Soto of sexual harassment but has not publicly spoken about the case since.

Later again Thursday, the Santa Fe Reporter published a story based on the report by the special counsel tasked with investigating the complaint. The 29-page supposedly "confidential" report recommended lawmakers serving on the subcommittee find probable cause existed on two of Anaya's allegations against Ivey-Soto and also outlined a previously unreported incident in which the senator was accused of pinning a woman to a couch after a consensual encounter turned non-consensual.

No wonder Ivey-Soto didn't release the special counsel report; the leaked report portrays him as a misogynistic big mouth. As the accused, Ivey-Soto is the one involved party who can have the ethics documents released; he can do so by giving the committee permission in writing to waive the confidentiality rule.

Instead, Ivey-Soto on Friday said he had reported Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart, a fellow Albuquerque Democrat, to the FBI for threatening to leak the confidential special counsel report unless he agreed to step down as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. She denies it.

Cue the circus music.

The Legislature's anti-harassment policy has proven so unworkable that it demonstrates the need for a complete overhaul, and the need to turn over sensitive investigations to a more apolitical venue.

Under the Legislature's anti-harassment policy, public findings are not issued unless an internal investigation determines there's enough evidence to merit a hearing. The intent is to protect the wrongly accused. But, as in the Ivey-Soto case, we're left with a spin cycle of allegations.

Anaya says Ivey-Soto asked her sexualized questions and also groped and pinched her in 2015. Ivey-Soto denies the allegations, adding he has PTSD and a hearing loss that can lead to his loud voice that some might find intimidating. Of course, that's irrelevant to an allegation of a lawmaker touching someone inappropriately.

Debates in the Roundhouse get heated, sure enough. But sexual harassment and intimidation have no place in our lawmaking and must be purged from the process. Yet it's hard to do so when lawmakers are left to investigate each other, the process is shrouded in secrecy and the public has zero access to an official version of events. In their quest to "protect" staffers, lobbyists and lawmakers, our legislators have embraced partisan backroom deals.

What is clear at this point is the case against Ivey-Soto/his accusers is anything but over, and the process to investigate harassment complaints against lawmakers is deeply flawed. Even Stewart says it's "broken" and she will push for a group of legislators to propose revisions to the anti-harassment policy.

Unless and until they have a truly independent, apolitical process done in the sunlight, keep the circus music handy.