Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates ordinance change over who can place items on Ruidoso Downs agendas
Summary
During a public hearing on proposed amendments to agenda procedures, councilors disagreed over whether the mayor should hold sole agenda authority and whether items listed as 'possible action' are appropriate; the body instructed the clerk to clean up language and return a finalized ordinance text.
The Ruidoso Downs City Council spent a large portion of its organizational meeting on a public hearing about proposed changes to city code governing agendas and public hearings. Councilors compared three draft versions of the ordinance and debated whether agenda placement should be limited to the mayor or allow any council member to submit items.
Why it matters: The ordinance controls how citizens learn about items that will come before the council and whether an item listed on an agenda allows immediate action the same night. Councilors said clear language is important to comply with the Open Meetings Act and to avoid procedural confusion.
City staff distributed three drafts: an older 2001 version, a draft prepared by the city attorney (draft 1) and a cleanup draft (draft 2). A staff summary noted the primary textual difference is where the language says "items for placement on the agenda may be submitted by the mayor or any member of the governing body." Several councilors argued the 2001 language and cleanups were substantially similar; others said the "yellow box" phrasing in draft 1 included a last sentence that might conflict with state open-meetings law and should be removed.
"Items for placement on the agenda may be submitted by the mayor or any member of the governing body," a staff summarizing speaker (speaker 5) read aloud while explaining the drafts. Several councilors expressed a preference to keep a conservative posting practice (physical postings plus city social media) and to retain clear language that prevents adding items at the meeting in violation of posting requirements.
Council members proposed combining elements from the clean-up draft (page 46), the attorney draft (page 42) for letter d, and draft 2's letter h (page 50). A motion reflecting that combination was made; a roll call contained at least one recorded "No" vote and the clerk was directed to prepare a cleaned, consolidated ordinance for final review and formal adoption. Council members stressed that the final text should be reviewed to remove any language that could contravene open-meetings requirements.
Next steps: The city clerk will edit and republish the consolidated ordinance language and return it to the council for final adoption. Councilors asked that the clerk ensure postings and statutory notice requirements are met while the language is finalized.
