News-Bulletin files complaint against county
April 03, 2009
The Valencia County News-Bulletin filed a three-page Open Meeting Act complaint against Valencia County in January, arguing that three county commissioners willfully violated state law.
Valencia! just learned about it and thinks it’s important to bring you the News-Bulletin’s complaint letter in full:
January 19, 2009
Julia M. Dendinger
Valencia County News-Bulletin
PO Box 25
Belen, NM 87002Office of the New Mexico Attorney General Gary King
Civil Division
PO Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508Dear Mr. King,
I have been the county reporter for the Valencia County News-Bulletin since October of 2006 and as such have covered the county commission meetings at least three time a month.
At the most recent meeting of the commission, on Wednesday, January 7, 2009, I believe three of the commissioners violated the state’s Open Meetings Act.
The agenda item to be considered in closed session “hospital mediation of appeal through court of appeals” is the one that concerns me. This matter has been in litigation since June of 2007.
While I do concede that the commission and any public body has the right to meet behind closed doors with an attorney to discuss ongoing litigation, I believe in this case the question the commission ultimately posed to its attorney in the closed session was not appropriate for an executive session under the exemptions in the Open Meetings Act.
During the commission’s discussion of whether or not the item met the threshold as to be one of the 10 exemptions under which an open meeting of a public body can be closed, the chairman noted that if, once the commissioners went into the closed session and it became apparent that the questions they needed answered should not be addressed in closed session, they would then come back into open session to discuss the matter.
The two county attorneys present at the meeting also expressed their concern that the discussion might not be appropriate for a closed session and recommended the commissioners meet with the attorney who was handling the litigation.
Basically, the chairman and two commissioners held a closed session to confer with the county attorneys to see if the commission could meet in closed session. The two remaining commissioners chose not to participate in the closed meeting.
When the three commissioners who participated in the executive session returned to open session, the county attorney reported that he had been asked whether the commission had the authority to ask the contract attorney who was handling the aforementioned litigation before the court of appeals to suspend the appeal and enter into mediation.
This action causes me a great deal of concern. The chairman of the commission is a practicing attorney in good standing in the state of New Mexico and as such should be fully aware that the commission, as the client, could direct its attorney in any legal matter the county is involved in.
In the past the chairman has publicly said that he would continue to rely on his legal background and expertise to serve his constituents and the people of the county in his position as county commissioner.
Why he did not avail himself to his own knowledge in this matter and felt it necessary to violate the Open Meetings Act by holding this closed session is unknown to me.
At this time I feel it is necessary to remind your office that since March of 2007, there have been seven separate Open Meetings Act complaints pertaining to 5 distinct occasions filed against this commission.
Your office has issued determinations on four of those instances, twice determining the commission violated the act and twice determining it did not. However, I cannot help but wonder if a 50 percent “success” rate is really a record to be proud of?
When elected officials take office, they are charged with conducting the public’s business under the eyes of the public. Due to the number of complaints filed in such a short time, it is my belief that the commission is either unaware of the need to or unwilling to comply with the Open Meetings Act.
While there are two determinations on record saying the commission did not violate the act, I feel that their continued disregard for the need to conduct their actions in the open should warrant some reaction from your office.
The act clearly states that any person violating the provisions of the act is guilty of a misdemeanor. It goes on to say that violations will be punished through a fine of up to $500 upon conviction.
I ask that the attorney general’s office initiate a criminal prosecution of this matter and fine each individual commissioner to the fullest extent of the law. This repeated bad behavior will only be stopped when the commissioners feel the full repercussions of violating our Open Meetings Act.
To continue to act as they have in the past, with what can only be described as contempt for the Open Meetings Act, the commission can only harm itself with its repeated betrayal of public trust and good will.
I have included the county’s own audio recording of the meeting for your review as well. It is clear the chairman acknowledges the closed session being discussed could very well violate the Open Meetings Act, yet makes the determination that breaking the law is acceptable because by following the closed meeting with public discussion will instantly “cure” the matter.
Since he is correct in his assessment of the law, I do not expect your office to determine that the commission violated the act. However, I feel that as a member of the press and a member of the public I must speak up about the action the commission took.
To stand by and say nothing let those who serve the public believe they are exempt from the consequences of their actions. Please ask them to serve honorably and openly.
Sincerely,
Julia M. Dendinger
Valencia County News-Bulletin
County reporter
Valencia! covered that meeting in January.
Posted in: Archive