Ruidoso Downs council amends personnel-policy language after long debate over hiring authority

The Ruidoso Downs City Council on March 9, 2026, approved a revised personnel-policy resolution after extended debate over whether the language would shift hiring authority from the governing body to the mayor. The council voted to amend the motion so section 4.11 remains as written and the contested sentence in section 4.13 is removed.

The discussion centered on whether the city's personnel rules duplicated or contradicted recent state law changes in House Bill 298 (2025). Legal counsel told the council the city’s proposed language needed cleanup and that HB 298 clarified the mayor’s role: “Subject to the approval of a majority vote of all members of the governing body, the mayor shall appoint all officers and employees,” and the newer language narrowed the grounds for what constitutes malfeasance, the counsel said. “You have the power in the first sentence,” counsel said; the second sentence in the draft was “superfluous,” the adviser added.

Several council members warned that removing the council’s role could make hiring less transparent or create opportunities for patronage. One council member said the governing body should not “give up some of our power” and urged caution about shifting authority away from elected officials. Department managers and supervisors described the practical harm of long hiring delays: the public-works speaker said he had recently lost two candidates because the hiring and start timeline was too slow, noting, “We drug tested them, which cost almost $500 for drug test and physical… I call them back because it’s 2 weeks to hire… they say, man, we couldn’t wait.”

City staff described the change as a policy decision intended to remove duplicated or confusing language and streamline hiring for positions that are difficult to recruit. Staff said the first sentence of the proposed rule already reflected state statute, while the second sentence created an unnecessary extra step. The mayor framed the choice as a policy call about recruitment speed versus retained council oversight.

Faced with those competing arguments, the council amended the motion so 4.11 stayed intact (preserving the council’s presentation step) while removing the specific sentence in 4.13 that would have required an additional approval step prior to an employee’s start date. After the amendment, the motion was put to a roll-call vote and recorded as ayes by Councilor Taylor, Councilor Lacewell, Councilor Proctor and Councilor Gutierrez; the motion carried.

The council discussion included repeated references to state statute and to HB 298’s effect on municipal procedures; the legal adviser cautioned that ordinances are harder to change than resolutions and noted that resolutions can be revisited. The item concluded with the council approving the personnel-policy amendment as amended; no ordinance change was made.

What’s next: The council approved the resolution as amended. Members suggested a workshop could be scheduled in the future for a deeper review of personnel code language and other cleanup items to ensure local policy matches state law and the council’s preferences.