Socorro City ethics commission grants continuance in complaint against former councilmember; hearing reset for Feb. 5

The Socorro City Ethics Commission on Wednesday voted to continue its hearing on an ethics complaint filed Nov. 26, 2024, by complainant Rudy Cruz Jr. against respondent Yvonne Colon Villalobos and set the resumed hearing for Feb. 5 at 6 p.m.

The commission approved the continuance by voice vote (three members present voting yes; two members absent). The commission’s attorney reiterated procedural rules that each side has 30 minutes total for presentation, including a 3-minute opening and a 5-minute closing, and that the commission has up to 30 days after the hearing to issue a decision.

Why it matters: The complaint concerns statements circulated during the complainant’s mayoral campaign and alleges misconduct by a then-elected official. The hearing drew multiple public commenters who urged the commission to follow the city’s procedural rules and to safeguard due process; the respondent denied knowingly making false statements and said the disputed material reflected private conversations and community discussion.

At the start of the agenda item, the chairwoman described the proceeding: “we're into the regular agenda item and that's the discussion hearing and action on the ethics complaint regarding former city, council member, Yvonne ... Colon Villalobos.” The city attorney summarized hearing rules and timing for both sides: “You will also have 5 minutes to close ... it will be a total of 30 minutes per side.”

Complainant’s case: Rudy Cruz Jr. said the dispute arose during his July 2024 mayoral campaign and that text messages circulated about him contained false statements. Cruz said he provided signed sworn affidavits and other material in the hearing packet. He told the commission he filed the complaint to protect the integrity of the city’s public discourse and to challenge what he called false and discriminatory statements distributed during the campaign.

Respondent’s response and witnesses: Yvonne Colon Villalobos repeatedly told the commission, “I did not lie,” and said the contested remarks were part of private conversations with neighbors and long-standing community discussions. She called witnesses during her presentation and argued the complaint should be dismissed because it alleges violations generically (“all of them”) rather than identifying specific ordinance provisions. She and several public commenters also alleged procedural errors in how the complaint was filed and notarized.

Public comment and procedural concerns: Several residents urged the commission to follow city ordinance and the state Open Meetings Act and to protect due process. One commenter, Lorenza Friday, told the commission, “Due process contemplates an exercise of the powers of government as the law permits and sanctifies under recognized safeguards for the protection of individual rights.” Another public speaker, Sammy Karejo, criticized efforts to silence public speakers, saying, “Silencing people, that's a threat to our liberty and to our freedom.”

Evidence and procedural points noted on the record: Commissioners and counsel acknowledged that the complaint packet included signed sworn affidavits and that some speakers questioned the complaint’s specificity and notarization. The city attorney advised that counsel or advisers may be present but cannot speak on a party’s behalf during the hearing. The commission accepted a request by the respondent for a continuance on health grounds and to preserve fairness; commissioners agreed to reconvene with the remaining limited time for rebuttal and closing (the record reflects 5 minutes remaining for the complainant’s rebuttal and 2 minutes remaining for the respondent to finish her presentation when the continuance was approved).

Vote and scheduling: The commission moved to grant the continuance and the motion passed with the three members present voting in favor; two commissioners were recorded absent. The commission set the follow-up hearing for Feb. 5 at 6 p.m. and will have up to 30 days after completion of the hearing to issue its written decision.

The meeting also recorded routine procedural votes earlier in the agenda: commissioners excused two absences before the hearing began and later adjourned at 7:31 p.m.

The Ethics Commission’s resumed session on Feb. 5 will take the remaining closing and rebuttal time and then the panel has up to 30 days from the conclusion of that hearing to issue a determination.