Trending Topics

Ex-Corrections worker charged in New Mexico

Laurie Chapman is charged in a 30-count indictment with theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds

By Mike Gallagher
Albuquerque Journal

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A federal grand jury has charged the former state Corrections Department facilities manager with taking more than $230,000 in bribes from a Santa Fe roofing contractor for state work.

Laurie Chapman is charged in a 30-count indictment with theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds. She also faces charges of aiding and abetting.

The indictment unsealed late Thursday in Albuquerque alleges Chapman received 30 payments ranging from $1,000 to $39,000 between February 2007 and August 2009.

Some payments were made directly to Chapman by the roofing contractor, Omni Development Corp., while others were funneled to her though a company she set up, according to the indictment.

Chapman allegedly received her first payment in February 2007. A month later, she was instrumental in setting up a “price agreement” procedure that allowed her to select Omni to do work for the department without going out for competitive bids.

Omni was the only roofing company listed in the price agreement to repair roofs for the prison system, and the indictment alleges Chapman selected Omni to do all the roofing work.

Omni was paid about $4 million by the department for various roofing and construction jobs between January 2007 and July 2009.

Chapman, 50, was an appointee in the Richardson administration. She left the Corrections Department in 2009 and went to Department of Indian Affairs. She was fired earlier this year, after Gov. Susana Martinez took office.

She will be summoned into court for an initial appearance. Her attorney, Jacquelyn Robins, had no comment.

In 2008, the indictment alleges, Chapman incorporated a company called Zia Construction Inc., of Santa Fe, to which Omni began making payments. The payments were made by cash, online transfers, checks and credit card payments. The indictment said Zia never performed any work for Omni.

Chapman then arranged for the price agreement to be extended for 2008 and 2009. Again, according to the indictment, Omni was the only company listed on the department’s roofing price agreement.

U.S. Attorney Kenneth Gonzales said, “Corruption of this nature strikes at the heart of good government and erodes public confidence.”

Gov. Martinez said through a spokesman, “The employee we inherited from the Richardson administration was terminated within weeks of taking office. We welcome the investigation and prosecution.”

Omni Development

Omni Development Corp. of Santa Fe is owned by Anthony Moya, who recently completed a federal prison sentence for embezzling money from a pueblo. The indictment does not name Moya as the person paying the bribes and only says the bribes came from the company. The company is not charged.

Omni Development continued to operate after Moya was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison last year as part of a guilty plea to embezzling more than $140,000 from Santo Domingo Pueblo.

Moya managed the pueblo’s gas station under a contract the pueblo had with his former father-in-law, lobbyist Butch Maki.

Moya diverted rebates from wholesale gasoline suppliers to accounts he personally controlled. He was ordered to pay restitution and fined $25,000.

State Auditor Hector Balderas last year began looking at prison construction contracts dating back to 2007 after outside auditors raised questions.

For instance, a 2009 audit by Meyner’s & Company found that vendors in two instances had been paid more than $224,000 that was not supported by documentation.

The f irst contract had a change order issued for $94,000 for increased cost of material with no suppor t i ng docu mentat ion. The same contract had a $30,000 contingency that was paid without supporting documentation.

A second contract, according to the audit, had a $50,000 change order paid without supporting documents and an additional $50,000 in contingency payments with no explanation for what the money was used.