Santa Fe assistant city attorney briefs planning commissioners on ethics, public-records and open-meetings rules

Assistant City Attorney Rebecca Menacarmen briefed the City of Santa Fe Planning Commission on ethics, inspection-of-public-records obligations and the New Mexico Open Meetings Act at the commission's Oct. 16 meeting.

“Public officials and public employees be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people,” Menacarmen said, summarizing the City of Santa Fe code of ethics and the policy purpose behind local rules for conflicts of interest. She reviewed the city code’s standard for disclosing and removing oneself from decision-making when a “specific and identifiable prospect of pecuniary gain or loss” exists and noted a higher, careful standard applies for quasi‑judicial land‑use hearings.

Why it matters: planning commissioners regularly handle quasi‑judicial land‑use matters — rezonings, development plans and variances — where the courts require decisionmakers to avoid prejudgment and appearances of bias. Menacarmen cited a New Mexico appellate case involving a commissioner's public statements as an example of conduct that can require recusal.

She told commissioners that the city code treats many gifts as improper when the gift's fair market value exceeds $50 and that, if a commissioner discovers a gift would create a conflict, the official must either return it or disclose and refrain from participating in the relevant matter. She also warned that private emails or texts about public business are subject to the state's Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) unless they are valid attorney‑client privileged communications with the city attorney’s office.

On the Open Meetings Act, Menacarmen explained the basic requirements: a quorum must meet in public (the city defines quorum as a majority of current members), reasonable public access is required, and ordinary meetings need at least 72 hours' notice unless an emergency applies. She summarized remote‑participation rules, noting the city has an ordinance allowing remote attendance in cases where attending in person is “difficult or impossible,” and told the commission all remote participants must be audible and identifiable to the public.

Commissioners asked practical questions about site visits, rolling quorums and minutes. Planning staff and Menacarmen advised that: (1) site visits arranged for a quorum must be noticed as a meeting and posted in the agenda packet unless held as a reconvened meeting within the 72‑hour window; (2) communications among a series of commissioners that effectively involve a majority can form a “rolling quorum” and violate the Open Meetings Act; and (3) the law requires minutes to record basic elements — date, time, place, members present, proposals considered and votes — and draft minutes must be available for public inspection within 10 working days.

Commissioners sought clarity on practical implementation. Menacarmen said communications with staff are not per se ex parte and that staff may be contacted for information; by contrast, independent research, unsupervised site visits or repeated private discussions with several commissioners can create prejudgment. Planning staff said they are piloting a routine, noticed site‑visit schedule so commissioners can plan attendance while meeting posting requirements.

The session ended with a staff proposal to trial a Wednesday site visit followed by a Thursday study session for upcoming cases and with commissioners saying they would prefer predictable, regularly scheduled site‑visit dates so members can plan in advance.