Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Union and residents urge Alamogordo commission to halt golf-course outsourcing and demand full cost comparison
Loading...
Summary
Union leaders and residents urged the Alamogordo City Commission to pause the RFP for Desert Lakes Golf Course maintenance, demanding an apples-to-apples cost comparison and clearer oversight guarantees. City counsel advised limited comment while negotiations with the union continue.
Public commenters at the Alamogordo City Commission meeting on April 28 urged the commission to slow or stop plans to outsource maintenance at Desert Lakes Golf Course and to provide a transparent cost comparison and alternatives to outsourcing.
Tamara Hansen, president of AFSCME Local 3818, told the commission the process has not been handled properly and that workers were told their jobs were being outsourced "before the union was given an opportunity to do what the contract requires us to do" — review proposals, evaluate costs, and discuss alternatives. "We still do not have a clear demonstration that outsourcing this work will actually save taxpayers money once all the real costs are counted," Hansen said, and asked the commission to "choose fairness, choose transparency, and choose the workers and community that have served the city faithfully."
Thaddeus "Tad" Gilmore, speaking as a union member, urged the commission not to eliminate public-sector union jobs and suggested the city could retain direct management of the golf course and add city positions instead of contracting out. "Let's just take this bull by the horn and get her done," Gilmore said, urging more city control rather than a private contractor.
When the commission moved to discuss the RFP for the golf course, city legal counsel advised members to limit their remarks to basic status because the city was in communications with the union and needed to preserve its negotiating position. Counsel said, "we are currently in the process of engaging with proper notice requirements, and in communication proceedings with them," and recommended limiting questions to status so as not to compromise future proceedings.
Commissioners asked whether the RFP still included an extra position that had been created in an earlier draft; staff said the position had been removed in the updated RFP and that the standard operating procedures manual would be incorporated when available. The record shows the commission did not take final action on the RFP that evening; item 4 remained a discussion limited by legal constraints while negotiations continue.
