Personnel Board Votes 4-1 to Reinstate Martinez to County Job

The Los Alamos County Personnel Board voted 4-1 on March 18 to keep Vicente Martinez on the county payroll, rejecting management's proposed termination and substituting an undisclosed lesser discipline in a ruling that tests the limits of supervisory authority over county employees.

County spokesman Dave Krueger confirmed the outcome five days later: "On Wednesday, March 18, 2026, the Personnel Board voted 4 to 1, in open session, on a motion finding cause for disciplinary action against Vincente Martinez but also found that the County's proposed termination of Mr. Martinez 'be modified to lesser discipline…' (County Personnel Board Motion from March 18, 2026 hearing). As of today, March 23, Mr. Vicente Martinez is an employee."

Board Chair David Hampton presided over the special session, joined by Vice Chair James Wernicke and members Jennifer Best, Stephanie Haaser and Sarah Hoover. Before the evidentiary hearing began, all five members attended procedural training conducted by Tony Ortiz, an attorney under contract to the county, on how to conduct an employment appeal hearing. After the training, the meeting was closed and proceedings continued for several hours before the board returned to open session for the final vote.

The board's finding carries a distinction that matters for how county management handles future terminations. By acknowledging cause for discipline while overruling the county's chosen punishment, the Personnel Board signaled that proportionality, not just factual basis, is subject to independent review. What specific discipline the board substituted remains unknown: the county's Human Resources Manager said the full motion text will not be released until the meeting minutes are formally approved on April 28.

Sources told the Reporter that Martinez was expected back at work Monday, March 23, the same day Krueger confirmed his employment status in writing.

The 4-1 vote also leaves an unanswered question about the lone dissent. Whether that board member disagreed with reinstatement itself or with the severity of the substitute discipline is not captured in Krueger's public statement. The financial exposure attached to reinstating a terminated employee, including any back pay and benefits owed for the period between termination and return, also remains unquantified in public county communications.

Those details, along with the specific terms of the lesser discipline and any factual findings from the closed hearing, will be in the approved minutes that become public at the end of April. County employees watching the outcome know the Personnel Board exercised its authority to modify a termination decision; what evidentiary standard drove the 4-1 majority to do so will not be a matter of public record for another month.