Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves statement to New Mexico DOJ saying no November 5 meeting occurred; DOJ closed review of Nov. 8 emergency meeting
Summary
Following an inquiry by the New Mexico Department of Justice, the commission approved a statement confirming the Nov. 8, 2024 emergency meeting did not violate the Open Meetings Act and that no meeting occurred Nov. 5, election day, which closes the DOJ file on the Nov. 8 meeting, county attorney said.
The commission voted to approve a statement addressing an Open Meetings Act (OMA) inquiry from the New Mexico Department of Justice concerning a November 2024 emergency meeting. County legal counsel reported the DOJ reviewed documents and concluded there was no OMA violation for the Nov. 8, 2024 emergency meeting, but had questioned whether a separate Nov. 5 meeting had occurred because an agenda was not posted online.
County counsel and participants reviewed calendars and records and concluded there was no meeting on Nov. 5 — election day — and recommended the board approve a statement that would be returned to the New Mexico Department of Justice so the DOJ could close its file on the matter. "In reviewing the matter ... it appears that, in fact ... there was no meeting that took place on November 5," the county attorney said.
Commissioners who were on the board at the time — including Commissioner Trujillo and Commissioner Kern — confirmed no meeting occurred on Nov. 5. The commission voted to approve the statement and instructed staff to send the documentation to the DOJ. County counsel warned the commission the office is under repeated scrutiny by a private individual who has filed multiple complaints; the attorney said further OMA inquiries could follow but the Nov. 8 matter is resolved as to violations.
The action was limited to approving a factual statement for the DOJ and did not include additional corrective actions for Nov. 8, which the DOJ found did not violate the OMA.
