Thursday, April 10, 2008

Suspects held in area robberies

By James Robinson

Two suspects possibly linked to a string of area bank robberies, including one at the First Southwest Bank in Pagosa Springs April 1, are in custody, according to an FBI spokesperson.

Steve Marshall, public information officer for the Albuquerque division of the FBI said 32-year-old Kacey Fisher of Bloomfield, N.M. and his alleged accomplice, 31-year-old Julia Norris of the Farmington, N.M. area are both being held in the San Juan County, N.M jail without bond. Both face a number of federal charges.

Fisher is being held on a state parole violation and will likely face federal bank robbery charges.

Investigators say Fisher could be linked to three robberies in northern Arizona earlier in the year, and three others — one in Durango March 26, another in Farmington and the April 1 incident in Pagosa Springs.

Norris faces three federal charges of aiding and abetting in a bank robbery.

Marshall said Fisher was arrested April 4. According to Marshall, Fisher barricaded himself in a Farmington hotel room, but ultimately surrendered after talking to local and federal authorities.

Marshall would not disclose the amounts of money taken in any of the incidents, although local officials reported $2,000 stolen in the Pagosa Springs robbery.

Hospital design flaws will cost $67,000

By Chuck McGuire

Whether by error or oversight, the newly constructed Pagosa Mountain Hospital (PMH) suffered four significant design flaws that cost $67,000 to correct. Now, the Upper San Juan Health Service District is seeking partial compensation from the project architect.

In mid-December, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) inspected PMH to verify compliance with mandatory life safety features stipulated by the 2000 edition of the National Fire Protection Association 101 Life Safety Code Chapter 18, pertaining to the occupancy of new health care facilities. The survey was an essential part of the process in licensing PMH as an acute care hospital before its official opening, Jan. 7.

On Jan. 2, following nearly two weeks of revised engineering, hospital CEO Dan Boatman submitted a plan of correction outlining steps to remedy the deficiencies. A day later, after reviewing the plan, the CDPHE issued the hospital its license, contingent on completion of the required corrections within two weeks of the opening.

As described by the CDPHE, the four deficiencies included:

• Failure to provide a one-hour fire resistive rating of smoke barrier walls in two rooms of the surgical recovery suite (medgas manifolds compromised the rating).

• Failure to provide double smoke barrier doors that swing in opposite directions as required (the installed double doors swung in the same direction).

• Failure to provide one-hour fire protection of the fire pump and components in the mechanical room (they should’ve been placed in a separate room).

• Failure to provide mechanical ventilation for the windowless operating room (an automatic system is required, should smoke be detected).

According to USJHSD board chair Neal Townsend, Prochaska & Associates of Omaha, Neb. — the chief project architect — should have known of the various state requirements during the initial design phase, and ought to bear some responsibility for the costs of curing state concerns. In formulating his opinion, Townsend cited the firm’s many years of experience in developing medical facilities, some of which are located in Colorado.

During a Monday phone interview, Townsend said past experience with developing another area healthcare facility prompted him to recommend Prochaska confirm state life safety requirements, before finalizing hospital design.

“I put Prochaska on notice early on,” he said, “but they apparently failed to take my advice. Now, they’re resisting any ownership or responsibility.”

Townsend said the district still owes Prochaska $58,000 for its final design work, and expressed hope in deferring at least some of it in consideration of the $67,000 repair bill. In a recent letter to Don Prochaska, owner of the architectural firm, he asked for just such consideration, but had not received a response by press time, yesterday.

In another Monday phone interview, Prochaska first expressed words of praise for Townsend, the health district board and their work in bringing about what he described as an “extremely right-sized” hospital facility. He then went on to explain how his firm became involved in the project, and how cost-cutting measures eventually reduced its compensation 25 percent.

“When they (the district) took 25 percent of our fee away, we had already worked a year and had a huge investment in the project,” Prochaska said. “To negotiate that reduction, some of the engineering was farmed out to design/build (other firms). I felt we were misled, after having worked for almost a year without any compensation whatsoever. Because the district had to cut its budget, we were basically told it was a take-it-or-leave-it situation.”

Prochaska said he originally agreed to do all the architectural and engineering work under one roof, including mechanical, electrical and civil engineering design, but sub-contractors were eventually allowed to perform certain tasks at lesser rates. That resulted in his firm’s reduced compensation, while another firm performed peer review (plan review).

“The fire system was designed by A.E. Associates, a subcontractor to G.E. Johnson (the general contractor),” Prochaska explained. “We cautioned Neal about not doing it that way. The independent company paid to do a thorough review of the plans saw nothing. We weren’t hired to do peer review, we were the architect of record.”

According to Townsend, however, Prochaska was charged with peer review, but hired the unnamed independent firm to perform the task. Nevertheless, oversights occurred and the district now faces consequent expenses.

Meanwhile, Prochaska expressed open frustration after the district stopped payment on three checks it had written the firm, toward the end of 2007.

“We had checks in hand for work performed, and the district put stop orders on them without telling us,” he said. “This, after waiting a year for payment for some of our work.”

When asked about the stop orders, Townsend explained that, after weeks, the checks had not been cashed and the district needed to close out 2007 finances. Too, he said, “it was the same time those huge life safety issues came up and I thought it was a good reason to stop payment on them.

“It was probably out of order on my part,” Townsend admitted, “but at the time, I probably thought I was doing what was best in protecting the district. It wasn’t the smoothest move I’ve made.”

Townsend hopes Prochaska will respond to his letter soon, thus opening the door to further dialog. In the meantime, Prochaska seems to recognize the need to find an equitable solution to the matter.

“I have a lot of respect for all involved in the project,” Prochaska reiterated. “Everyone worked very hard and did a great job. I hope we can work with all of you for decades to come. We’ll find middle ground and get this resolved.”

Whatever the outcome, the district has maintained a construction contingency fund for the purpose of covering final unanticipated expenses. Just the same, reimbursement of at least some of the $67,000 would help offset costs in acquiring much-needed equipment.

As Townsend put it Monday, “The ball is in Prochaska’s court.”

Effort underway to recall Sheriff Gonzalez

By James Robinson

An effort to recall Archuleta County Sheriff Pete Gonzalez is underway according to Archuleta County Clerk June Madrid.

Madrid said the Gonzalez recall petition was filed and approved by her office yesterday, after a previous petition was rejected due to formatting issues.

According to petition sponsors (also known as the recall committee) Galen Erin, Homer McClure Trout and Charles Thomas, Gonzalez should be recalled for a variety of reasons.

According to the petition, Gonzalez has:

• mismanaged his office and failed to carry out the responsibilities and duties of Archuleta County sheriff;

• is not a resident of Archuleta County, a violation of Colorado Revised Statute 30-10-501.5;

• has repeatedly and egregiously abdicated his duty to protect and serve all the people of Archuleta County and failed to enforce the laws of the state of Colorado;

• has engaged in discriminatory and selective harassment and intimidation of innocent law-abiding citizens while simultaneously engaging in selective non-prosecution of individuals known to be committing crimes;

• through his deputies, has engaged in harassment and intimidation of citizens and tourists, targeting specific individuals, business owners, employees and patrons;

• through his deputies, has unlawfully taken the personal property of citizens during traffic stops and never returned the citizens’ property;

• through his deputies, has failed to write reports, investigate and assign case numbers to citizens’ reports of bona fide crimes, including violent crimes, and has destroyed evidence and personal property belonging to crime victims.

According to Madrid, the petition requires signatures from 903 registered Archuleta County electors. Signatures, Madrid said, are subject to verification. In addition, the recall committee has 60 days to complete the task.

Madrid said if the petition effort is successful and goes the full 60-days, it could force the recall question to a special election. A special election could cost taxpayers as much as $40,000.

Gonzalez said he has been aware that a recall effort has been in the works, however Gonzalez said he looks forward to addressing the issues head on and in an open manner.

“Now that the petition has been filed, and recognizing some of the names on the petition, I am hoping the truth will come out and The SUN will report both sides of the story. All three individuals have issues with the sheriff’s department that haven’t been addressed to their satisfaction. I look forward to responding to all these false allegations, including the residency issue,” Gonzalez said.

In the summer of 2006, the courts ruled that Gonzalez met the sheriff’s residency requirements. The ruling came after Steve Wadley, a challenger to Gonzalez in the 2006 sheriff’s race, filed a lawsuit challenging Gonzalez’s residency status.

When SUN staff contacted District Attorney Craig Westberg to ask if any formal complaints had been filed against Gonzalez, DA’s office staff said Westberg was unavailable. According to DA’s office staff, only Westberg handles media inquiries.

An individual close to the recall effort said the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was in the midst of investigating Gonzalez. However, Lance Clem, public information officer for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, said he spoke to both the CBI director and division director of investigations, and neither was aware of any inquiry into Gonzalez’s conduct.

See next week’s SUN for interviews with Gonzalez and members of the recall committee.