Bernalillo County commissioners convene closed session, authorize county attorney to proceed

Madam Chair Barbara Baca called the Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners into a special administrative meeting on Jan. 9, 2025, and moved that the board enter a closed session citing a New Mexico Open Meetings Act exception for attorney‑client privileged communications related to threatened or pending litigation. The motion was seconded and approved by roll call.

The closed meeting notice and agenda described “Article 3, Division 4, Section 2137, restrictions on employment and appointment after leaving office of the county code,” and the chair cited the New Mexico statute referenced on the record as NMSA 1978 section 10‑15‑1(h) (as cited) as the legal basis for closing the meeting. Commissioners then reconvened in public, approved a statement that only the items on the published closed‑meeting notice were discussed, and authorized the Bernalillo County Attorney to proceed with the matters discussed within the parameters set by the commission.

The meeting began with a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. The clerk reported there were no requests for public comment. Vice Chair Olivas and Commissioner Barboa participated via Zoom; the board recorded a quorum. During the reconvened public session, the board read into the record a statement that the closed meeting had taken place on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2025, at 3:30 p.m., and that the discussion was limited to the items on the published closed meeting agenda. The board then voted to approve that statement and to authorize the county attorney to proceed on the matters discussed, with each vote recorded as affirmative.

Formal actions recorded in the meeting minutes included: entering the closed session under the cited Open Meetings Act exception; reopening the meeting to read closed‑meeting statements into the public record and approving that statement; and authorizing the Bernalillo County Attorney to act on the matters discussed in the closed meeting within the parameters published on the closed meeting agenda. The meeting concluded with the chair adjourning the session.

No specifics of the discussion inside the closed session were disclosed in the public record at the meeting. The agenda item cited the county code provision on post‑employment restrictions; the public record identifies the legal basis for closure as the Open Meetings Act provision for attorney‑client privileged communications pertaining to threatened or pending litigation but does not enumerate the litigation or other confidential matters discussed.