Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter raises legal concerns about quorum and voting language during meeting
Summary
A member of the public argued the board’s reading of its voting rule improperly adds the word "voting" to a resolution and cited New Mexico case law; the board noted time limits for public comment and referred follow-up legal questions to staff and the City Attorney's Office.
During the public‑comment period, speaker Stephanie Benonato challenged how the board had been applying a portion of its rules that the city had relied on when interpreting voting requirements in meetings.
Benonato told the Historic Districts Review Board she had researched cases and statutory-interpretation principles and said it was improper to insert the word "voting" into the board's resolution when counting votes. She cited New Mexico cases, including State v. Maestas and State v. Lopez, arguing courts apply the plain-meaning rule when interpreting statutes.
"When a statute is complete and makes sense as written, we do not read into the statute any words that are not there," Benonato said, urging the board to revisit the policy language and its recent practice.
Chair John Bienvenu reminded Benonato of the board's two-minute public-comment time limit and directed her to provide written materials. Board members and staff noted the City Attorney's Office handles formal legal interpretation; staff said they would refer legal questions to counsel for clarification as needed.
The board did not take formal action on the public remarks; the exchange is recorded for follow-up by staff and the City Attorney's Office if the board requests a legal opinion.
