By JASON R. BOWIE
Cabinet Secretary
New Mexico Department of Public Safety
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the members of this board, (New Mexico Law Enforcement Certification Board) (LECB), who work tirelessly to ensure accountability in law enforcement. Your service, largely voluntary, is essential to the State of New Mexico and does not go unnoticed. Also, there are chiefs and sheriffs, current and retired, on this board which I’ve witnessed firsthand have demonstrated exceptional leadership throughout their career and while serving their communities. My remarks today are not directed at the board as a whole but rather at the actions of a board employee.
In my 30 years in law enforcement, I have never had to publicly address an issue in front of the media or through public statements. However, after waiting more than two months for an opportunity to discuss concerns with this board and now being subjected to public allegations of misconduct, I have no other recourse—outside of litigation, which I wish to avoid.
The public agenda for today’s (Feb. 21, 2025) meeting includes:
Section IV: Disciplinary and Litigation Matters
A. Jason Bowie, Case #25-008 – Department of Public Safety
Given the lack of communication and the decision to publicly list my name on the agenda without notice, I must respond. This matter not only impacts my personal and professional reputation but more importantly the credibility of the Department of Public Safety and, by extension, the Office of the Governor.
Background
On October 18, 2024, at the request of newly appointed CEO Joshua Calder, I met with him to discuss the relationship between DPS and the LECB. The meeting was productive, and I made clear that DPS had no interest in interfering with the board’s core functions. Instead, DPS sought to maintain a cooperative relationship and provide administrative support as appropriate.
On November 26, 2024, Calder emailed me, citing challenges and concerns about the administrative attachment between LECB and DPS. Specifically, he requested a temporary salary increase (TSI) for an employee. Our HR department provided a permissive alternative to align salaries properly. Disagreeing with HR’s decision, Calder escalated the matter to the office of the Secretary. In poor judgment and bad taste, Calder took additional steps to copy his subordinates on the email.
As was the case in other emails and interactions, Calder quoted state statute; NMSA 9-1-7 for administratively attached agencies. His misinterpretation asserts his decision-making authority over DPS employees, despite clear statutory language stating that administrative support must be “mutually agreed” upon by DPS.
In regards to this issue in particular, the HR action which was being requested was not consistent with past practice, department policy, and inconsistent with past guidance from the State Personnel Office, and therefore we did not mutually agree. HR was correct in providing the alternative solution.
However, before a final decision was rendered, Calder’s assertions prompted us to research, in great detail, legislation enacted regarding the LECB, the implementation under DPS, and applicable law, rule and policy regarding an administrative attached agency.
Our internal review confirmed that while Calder is an LECB employee, the staff assigned to carry out the functions of the LECB remain employees of DPS. This required realignment through a formal HR action as DPS employees cannot be managed and supervised by an LECB employee. Additionally, the New Mexico General Services Department confirmed that DPS could not provide a state vehicle to an LECB employee.
Dissatisfied, Calder emailed this board on January 6, 2025, seeking an emergency meeting and petitioning the court for a writ of mandamus against DPS. His email contained embellishments, false statements, and outright lies intended to discredit DPS leadership.
Calder falsely claimed that DPS had taken away his work computer and cell phone, leaving him unable to perform his duties. These claims are categorically untrue. His cell phone and computer were never even discussed much less taken from him.
Additionally, Calder’s email completely misrepresents a meeting regarding Chief Medina. This section of his email serves no purpose other than to discredit me and create the false appearance of unethical interference. Since this matter involves another law enforcement officer, I will exercise discretion in my remarks. However, if necessary, I am prepared to elaborate to address the board’s concerns.
On January 13, 2025, at the request of a board member, I was invited to the emergency meeting to explain DPS’ position. That same afternoon, Calder’s email was leaked to the media. The meeting was set for January 22 but was abruptly canceled the day prior. A board member informed me of concern for airing “its dirty laundry” and therefore a discussion publicly was not appropriate. However, given that Calder’s false claims had already been made public, I urged for the meeting to be rescheduled. It never was.
In the same conversation, this board member explained that he had confronted Calder, who admitted that his statements about losing access to DPS equipment were false. Yet, despite knowing Calder lied, the board took no action to hold him accountable. That board member has since resigned.
Instead of rescheduling the meeting, my name has now appeared on today’s (Feb. 21, 2025) agenda under allegations of misconduct based on, and what I understand to be, a citizen complaint. The complaint drawing its foundation for misconduct allegations from Calder, his email, or media reports.
Violations of Due Process and Open Meetings Act
To date, I have received no formal notification from the LECB regarding this matter—no complaint details, no official notice of allegations, and no due process protections. Proceeding under these conditions would be a clear violation of my rights as a certified and commissioned law enforcement officer and an additional breach of the Open Meetings Act.
This issue is much greater than me as an individual, acceptance of a citizen complaint constituting an LEA-90 will have far reaching implications for police officers across the state of New Mexico. The statute and rule governing misconduct reporting (LEA-90) is clear: only the employing law enforcement agency may submit complaints against its officers. A citizen complaint alone does not trigger this process. If the board accepts this complaint as an official LEA-90 filing, it will set a dangerous precedent, one that I predict will face legal challenges from the New Mexico Association of Chiefs of Police, the New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association, and the New Mexico Municipal League.
Furthermore, Calder’s involvement in presenting this matter to the board is an undeniable conflict of interest. He has demonstrated a willingness to be dishonest, which calls into question his ability to fairly evaluate misconduct cases against any New Mexico law enforcement officer.
Calder, through communication to this board, has himself demonstrated his willingness to be untruthful and therefore demonstrating a lack of moral character. This compromised the integrity and credibility of not only this board, but for every case that he will bring before this board from here on forward.
Accountability and Next Steps
As outlined in the job description, the LECB CEO position requires the highest integrity, professionalism, and confidentiality. Calder has failed in this regard. His handling of what should have been a straightforward administrative matter has caused unnecessary turmoil, damaged relationships, and harmed the credibility of both this board and DPS.
Calder serves at the pleasure of the board, and given his clear dishonesty, this board has the authority to dismiss him today.
A CEO responsible for investigating and presenting misconduct cases should be beyond reproach. Any individual in this position must not fabricate claims, mislead the board, or manipulate internal processes for personal or political gain.
Final Remarks
I intended to conclude here, but let me underscore the absurdity of this situation: two nights ago, I received a text from Calder—sent from the very phone he falsely claimed I had taken—requesting an “amenable solution.” Mind you that same day, he sat down with The Santa Fe New Mexican to further slander me, my reputation, and DPS. Not once has he attempted to correct the record or take responsibility for his false statements. Instead, he has chosen the most destructive path possible.
Madam Chair, this situation is deeply disappointing. However, if the right decision is made today, I remain committed to rebuilding the relationship between DPS and the LECB, assisting in the board’s mission, and ensuring its legislative intent is upheld.
I appreciate your time and consideration.
JRB/jrb