Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ruidoso Downs council debates ordinance to restore council input on agendas; no final vote
Summary
At its Dec. 8 meeting the Ruidoso Downs City Council heard hours of debate over Ordinance 31.02(d), which councilors say would return agenda-submission rights to council members from the mayor. A postponement effort failed; councilors left the question unresolved and discussed bringing it back to the January agenda or further edits.
The Ruidoso Downs City Council spent much of its Dec. 8 meeting debating Ordinance 31.02(d), a proposed change to city code that would alter who may place items on the council agenda. Councilor Maxwell read a prepared letter saying a 2023 revision gave the mayor exclusive control over agendas and urged the council to restore councilors’ ability to submit items through a short, pre‑2023 version of the ordinance.
City attorney Nan Winter told the council there are two competing drafts in the packet: one that returns language similar to the pre‑2023 ordinance and another that modernizes procedure by allowing agenda items only when two council members jointly request placement. Winter said the choice is a policy call for the council and that there is no New Mexico statute that directly prescribes who compiles a municipal agenda; that authority rests in the local ordinance and council practice.
Councilors exchanged procedural and policy arguments. Supporters of the short rewrite said allowing any councilor to place items on the agenda protects the legislative role and prevents a single executive from controlling council business. Opponents worried that unfettered submission could overwhelm future agendas and suggested requiring two council members to sponsor an item or delaying action until the incoming administration takes office.
A motion to postpone consideration was raised during debate but, according to the meeting record, the postponement effort lacked a proper second and did not carry. The council did not enact Ordinance 31.02(d) on Dec. 8. Some members said the item would appear on the first council meeting in January for further action; others urged striking the mayor‑exclusive sentence from the existing ordinance and using the simpler language as drafted in one packet version.
What’s next: the council left the ordinance unresolved. Staff and legal counsel said the council may revise the drafts, strike specific phrasing that gives the mayor exclusive agenda control, or bring the item back to a future meeting for a final vote.
