Two Valencia County commissioners have begun talking with top executives from Presbyterian and the University of New Mexico Hospital to find out what the two entities can do to help develop a hospital in the county.

The talks were announced by the two commissioners – Georgia Otero-Kirkham and Pedro Rael — during last night’s commission meeting, with the two saying they had met informally last week with Dr. Paul Roth of UNM Hospital and Jim Hinton of Presbyterian.

“They wanted to know what out impression was of what the mill levy could be used for and what they can do to help us,” Otero-Kirkham said.

Right now Valencia County is collecting a hospital mill levy tax from taxpayers toward the operation and maintenance of a hospital that hasn’t been built. The mill levy was approved by 76 percent of Valencia County voters in 2006.

The two hospital executives want a letter from the county outlining the uses for the mill levy. Otero-Kirkham said that should be easy because the county has a court order saying what it can be used for.

During the private meeting, Otero-Kirkham and Rael also spoke about their goals for healthcare in Valencia County.

“We talked about what we would like to see – a hospital in Valencia County, extended medical services in Valencia County,” she said.

Otero-Kirkham and Rael hoped the talks could continue with two different commissioners meeting with those hospital officials. Commissioner David Medina said he would like to participate in the next meeting.

“I think it was a good meeting. They were very anxious to know where we were, what we’re looking for, what we needed,” Otero-Kirkham said.

Rael said Presbyterian and UNM Hospital expressed an interest in teaming up together to help Valencia County “enhance medical care,” from a small hospital to urgent care centers. They also discussed ambulance service.

“As I understand, they don’t team up a whole lot, but they’re willing to come down here and help us out,” he said.

Once the county explains by letter the uses of the mill levy, Rael said the two hospitals are likely to present a general proposal indicating what they can provide for the county.

According to Otero-Kirkham, UNM said it can staff a hospital, having graduated more than enough doctors last year. UNM also appears willing to help manage it.

The hospital project, which is under a management contract with Valencia Health Commons, a local nonprofit, has been on hold pending the decision on a lawsuit appeal filed with the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

That lawsuit challenges the legality of the county’s contract with Valencia Health Commons, which in addition to project management, also gives the nonprofit exclusive jurisdiction over the mill levy money, estimated to be more than $20 million during the eight years it’s collected.

“We haven’t heard anything from Valencia Health Commons in – I don’t know – it’s been months, and before that we hadn’t heard from them in at least a year. They’re not doing anything,” Rael said.

Since September, the commission has been increasingly skeptical of Valencia Health Commons, at one point considering outright canceling its contract with the health commons, risking a breach of contract lawsuit. Health commons officials have said all progress on constructing a hospital has been held up by the lawsuit appeal.

Commissioner Ron Gentry questioned the secrecy of holding private meetings with executives on such an important public matter.

“I would suggest we send both of those parties a letter and ask them to attend a public workshop here in this commission room to listen to the commissioners and answer questions, and have them ask us questions all at once, so we’re all on the same page,” he said.

He wants all the issues laid out at one time to avoid hearsay. He also wants to involve Valencia Health Commons, since they have the contract. He said any talks need to be “visible and open.”

The commission directed staff to invite Presbyterian and UNM Hospital to a public workshop. A date hasn’t been scheduled.

“Somewhere along the line we’ve got to get the ball rolling,” said Commission Chairman Don Holliday, who appeared to be in favor of both private and public discussions.

According to a letter written by the Office of New Mexico’s Attorney General that was released today, the office won’t issue a determination on an open government complaint filed against the Valencia County Commission a year ago.

The complaint was filed in January 2009 by Valencia County News-Bulletin reporter Julia Dendinger. She questioned whether or not three commissioners violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) when they met behind closed doors concerning mediation of the hospital lawsuit.

The act has 10 exceptions that allow a quorum of elected officials to meet behind closed doors. While potential or ongoing litigation is one of the exceptions, Dendinger argued the purpose of the closed session was not the hospital litigation itself.

“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,” Dendinger wrote in her complaint.

The attorney general’s office dismissed the complaint on a technicality and at the request of county attorney David Pato, who argued Dendinger never expected a determination but simply wrote the complaint to bring the issue to the attention of the attorney general.

The office agreed and closed the case.

“We will continue to monitor any allegations that arise,” Tania Maestas, an assistant attorney general, wrote to Dendinger two weeks ago.

The attorney general’s office has closed cases before.

For example, an Inspection of Public Records Act complaint in another county was closed because the county complied with the records request while a determination was pending. Another time, an OMA complaint was closed because the person filing the complaint died before a determination was issued.

Earlier this month, the attorney general’s office determined those same three Valencia County commissioners in Dendinger’s complaint violated OMA three times last year, a determination under reconsideration, according to Commissioner Pedro Rael.

Valencia County commissioners testified today during an emotional court hearing concerning the county’s attempt to permanently ban a citizen from commission meetings, the second day of legal arguments and testimony in the case.

The court sought to determine if the citizen, Mike Wood, should be allowed to continue attending county commission meetings or if the county’s ban on him should be upheld through the denial of an injunction against the county.

During the first day of the hearing last week, the 13th Judicial District Court heard testimony from two witnesses for the plaintiff, including Wood. The defense presented one witness.

District Court Judge George Eichwald today heard the cross-examination of Wood, as well as fresh testimony from three commissioners — a subpoenaed Ron Gentry, a teary-eyed Georgia Otero-Kirkham and a visibly shaken Pedro Rael. Fabian Padilla, a resident of Tome, also testified.

The Brown Law Firm, representing the county, continued to establish the history of Wood’s allegedly disruptive behavior, honing in on Wood’s specific behavior at meetings going back two years.

The county’s attorneys also concentrated questions on showing Wood had been advised of commission rules and expectations in terms of his behavior, with Wood having been advised repeatedly by various commissioners, including Rael, during those two years.

The defense played a number of audio recordings from commission meetings, including one at which Otero-Kirkham advised Wood of a couple of rules for addressing the commission and Gentry laid out more rules, telling Wood he should try not to be argumentative or aggressive.

“We are showing Wood has been advised of the rules,” intimated Kevin Brown, representing the county.

The defense showed not only how Wood behaved at commission meetings — speaking out of order and making what some refer to as “personal attacks” — but that he had also engaged in questionable actions outside of commission meetings, including while Rael, who’s an attorney, was in court representing a client, at Rael’s law office in Los Lunas and while Otero-Kirkham was hosting a private business meeting for realtors.

“My goal is to make people aware of what’s going on in these county commission meetings,” Wood explained.

Wood said he’s focused his most controversial criticisms of commissioners on issues that were “a matter of public concern.”

The three issues mentioned repeatedly during the hearing were an allegation by Wood that Otero-Kirkham used public funds to purchase a flight for her husband, an allegation that Rael has a conflict of interest in hospital decisions because his former law partner is the attorney for the plaintiffs in the hospital lawsuit, and whether or not people are denied access to the community center in Tome due to racial discrimination.

“Every one of those relates to one thing: the public’s money,” he said.

The plaintiff argued the issues were legitimate and not personal attacks. The defense said they were personal attacks and spotlighted language Wood used when speaking about them, such as calling one commissioner a “thief,” “liar,” and “racist.”

All the attorneys spent time arguing over whether or not Wood at one point went so far as to shout that Rael was “Adolf Hitler” as Wood was leaving a commission meeting. Wood denied saying it but both Rael and Otero-Kirkham testified he did say it.

Brown ended his cross-examination of Wood with a withering barrage of questions, laying out a history of what he referred to as Wood’s disruptive behavior.

He asked Wood about how Wood altered commission agendas without the county’s knowledge, how Wood handed out fliers, how Wood left meetings “loudly,” how Wood spoke up from the public gallery during meetings, and how Wood made “personal attacks.”

“I don’t make personal attacks. I state facts for people to hear,” Wood said.

Brown lectured Wood in questions about how Wood needed to follow the commission’s set time limit on public comments and how Wood needed to use a “proper tone of voice.”

“I have a voice that’s a little louder than others,” Wood said.

Rael breaks down under questioning

During his testimony, while discussing the Hitler remark, Rael choked up, momentarily stopping his testimony to compose himself with a cup of water.

“My job as an attorney is to protect people’s rights, not to kill them,” Rael said, his voice shaking, adding, “It was very unsettling to hear somebody say that.”

He said he depends on his reputation to get clients for his private practice, which he suggested has been harmed by what he said were Wood’s attacks on him.

“After a while you don’t know if people will start to believe that kind of crap,” he said.

Rael said he’s been the victim of a coordinated conspiracy by Wood and members of the Valencia County Action Committee, or VCAC, a pro-hospital citizens group, to attack him. Wood chaired the group.

That sparked a jab from American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Phil Davis, who was representing Wood.

“Do you lock your door at night?” Davis asked Rael during his cross-examination.

Davis’s questioning of Rael was a climatic interplay between two experienced attorneys, with both Davis and Rael weaving through each other’s courtroom tactics.

Davis attempted to show Rael failed in his position as chairman to properly and fairly enforce commission rules and uphold the core tenets of the First Amendment.

“I’m not familiar with the fine points of the First Amendment,” Rael admitted.

Rael said he explained commission rules to Wood on at least 10 separate occasions. He ruled Wood out of order more than 20 times. He said Wood shouted from the public gallery at least half a dozen times.

He said Wood’s attacks gradually increased over a two-year period.

“He was showing a pattern of increased aggressiveness,” Rael said, adding, “He just continued to get more and more vicious. The attacks got more vile.”

After trying all other options to deal with the problem, including offering more than once to work with Wood on a solution, all that remained was a ban.

“I have done the best that I know how to conduct these meetings with decorum,” he said.

Otero-Kirkham cries as Wood speaks

Before taking the stand to testify, as Otero-Kirkham listened to testimony from Wood, the commissioner broke down into tears, lightly patting her cheeks with a tissue and eventually leaving the courtroom to get more tissue.

The intensity of the stress Otero-Kirkham has endured for months culminated to a breaking point as she faced him in court, having served as a commissioner under continuous and burdensome criticism from Wood both during and away from public meetings.

“He’s hurtful. He’s slanderous,” she said when she finally testified.

Otero-Kirkham called Wood “sarcastic, boisterous and intimidating.” She said he’s “hostile towards me.”

“We should take a certain amount of heat — a certain amount,” she said. “I don’t think we should take slanderous, vicious, venomous heat.”

Wood’s primary criticism of Otero-Kirkham involves his allegation that she improperly used county funds when purchasing a nearly $400 flight for her husband so she could travel alongside him to a commission-related conference.

She explained, as she’s said in the past, that she never made the purchase — it was made by the county manager’s office — and she paid the county back. Wood has said it took months to pay back the county and Otero-Kirkham only did so after auditors caught the purchase during a review of county expenses.

“I am literally sick to my stomach,” she said of how she feels when Wood makes accusations about her at commission meetings, where she sometimes has to leave the meetings to recover her composure, “It is so hard to for me to come back. It takes everything I have to come back and focus.”

She said she believes Wood has some good things to say and could be helpful in supporting the construction of a hospital in Valencia County. He, however, didn’t take a cooperative approach, she said.

“Mr. Wood has succeeded in dividing this community,” she said.

The plaintiff’s cross-examination of Otero-Kirkham did little but bolstered her earlier testimony, with an ACLU staff attorney, Brendan Egan, confused and repetitive in his questioning.

Two others testify

Gentry, who had to be subpoenaed by the plaintiff to testify, took the stand briefly during the hearing, offering the only testimony from a commissioner expressing concern about the legitimacy of the county’s ban on Wood.

His testimony mostly revolved around explaining how the commission has run its meeting during the five years he’s served on it, focusing on the purpose of the public comments item on every meeting agenda.

“It’s set up to hear an array of concerns or complaints from constituents,” he said.

He offered two pieces of information directly challenging the defense’s case that Wood was the problem.

First, he said in his 30 years of public service within various government bodies he’s never seen a citizen removed from a meeting until Rael became chairman of the Valencia County Commission.

Second, he reiterated, as he has at commission meetings, that he has concerns about how Rael banned Wood, saying he wasn’t sure the county had followed proper due process and had cautioned the county could be liable for it.

Joe Young, questioning Gentry for the defense, countered by showing Gentry is in the minority on the commission, highlighting that Rael polled commissioners during a commission meeting about whether or not Wood should be removed. At that meeting, Rael, Otero-Kirkham and Holliday agreed Wood should be removed; Gentry was generally opposed to the removal in his comments and Commissioner David Medina offered no opinion.

Padilla, the Tome resident, was put on the stand by the defense to support Rael’s claim that there was a conspiracy planned by VCAC to harm Rael.

Padilla, who attended a Los Chavez Community Association meeting where a VCAC member spoke, said VCAC was “on the fringes of what was moral and legal” in the tactics it used to attack Rael.

“I felt they had this man up against the ropes and they just needed a little bit more to push him over,” he said.

The judge rules against the ban

Upon conclusion of the attorneys’ closing arguments, Eichwald didn’t take but seconds to make his decision.

While the plaintiff asked Eichwald to uphold Wood’s First Amendment rights, the defense requested Eichwald deny Wood’s request for an injunction and order mediation during which Wood and the commissioners could lay out rules for Wood’s attendance of commission meetings.

Eichwald said Wood would be allowed to continue attending commission meetings, saying the county can’t deny him that.

He said he believed Wood would prevail on the merits of the case should the court be asked to consider more than the issuance of an injunction. Wood may suffer irreparable harm if not allowed to attend the meetings, he said.

Wood must refrain from personal attacks and disparaging comments, though he is allowed to make public comments, Eichwald said. Wood must not interrupt meetings from the public gallery.

He said the chairperson of the commission, who will be newly elected at the commission’s first meeting in January, will have the discretion to control behavior that violates the commission’s rules, which could include Wood’s removal from a meeting.

Eichwald rejected the defense’s request for mediation, but said either side could move forward with setting another hearing specifically on the merits of the case.

“A blind man can see what’s going on here,” Eichwald cautioned, without offering specifics, adding, “I see this county being polarized.”

District court began listening to testimony yesterday in a hearing to determine whether or not a Las Maravillas resident who’s been banned from Valencia County Commission meetings will be allowed to continue attending those meetings.

Mike Wood was issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction allowing him to attend meetings, pending a hearing and ruling from a judge.

The court could decide to allow the county’s ban on Wood to stand or allow him to continue attending meetings. A ruling will be made Tuesday morning.

Before opening statements, Steven Chavez, a Los Lunas attorney representing Wood, asked that the hearing focus on discovery — primarily commission meeting tapes, transcripts and minutes. He asked that the court not take testimony because Commissioner Ron Gentry, the only commissioner who has publicly questioned the ban, wasn’t present to testify.

“He would be a key witness. He is not here today,” Chavez said.

With the defense ready to proceed with testimony, Judge George Eichwald said the court would move forward with it. There remains a possibility Gentry could testify on Tuesday when the hearing resumes at the Valencia County 13th Judicial District Courthouse.

Chavez suggested Gentry might not be able to attend on Tuesday but said he would subpoena Gentry, even though the subpoena could be challenged by the defense for not having been issued 10 days prior to the testimony, the normal amount of time required.

Chavez then jumped into his opening statement.

He said he expected the evidence and testimony would show that Wood was banned by the chairman of the commission simply because he didn’t like the things Wood said. He said Wood followed public comment decorum and commission policy on September 16 and subsequent meetings, which is when the ban was put into effect and enforced.

“He has a constitutional right to question,” Chavez said.

Chavez explained the ban on Wood is “a blanket prior restraint,” meaning Wood was banned to halt speech that hadn’t been made.

“He was seized and removed from the meeting room,” Chavez said.

Chavez said Wood’s pamphleting at the October 7 commission meeting, when Wood distributed a letter and flier titled “Who Is the Real Commissioner Kirkham?,” was “lawful activity under the First Amendment.”

Kevin Brown, an Albuquerque attorney representing the board of county commissioners, used his opening statement to lay the groundwork to prove Wood has a history of disruption of meetings, violating decorum and commission policy, and refusing to work out a solution to his alleged disruptive behavior with the commission.

“We wanted to work with Mr. Wood,” Brown said. “We still want to work with Mr. Wood.”

He said the commission is willing to allow Wood to listen to meetings via a speaker in the county administration building’s lobby.

Brown didn’t specifically defend the ban, but made it clear Wood has had the “intent to disrupt meetings for more than two years.”

He said he expects Wood to be held to the same standard of behavior with commissioners at commission meetings that one would expect of a person in a courtroom.

Testimony begins

After opening statements, Chavez called two witnesses: John Moran, an involved citizen and self-described “buddy” of Wood, and Wood himself.

Much of the evidence and testimony concentrated on meetings in September and October, where Wood was repeatedly removed by deputies at the request of Commission Chairman Pedro Rael, with general consensus from other commissioners at least once.

Moran was mostly a character witness, asked questions describing Wood’s actions, general behaviors and character.

Moran was asked if Wood ever yells at commissioners, flails his arms, or pounds his fist when speaking.

“He never does,” Moran said.

Moran was then asked if Wood has ever resisted being removed by Valencia County deputies.

“He never does,” he said.

Under cross-examination, Moran said he would consider calling a commissioner a “liar” or a “thief” a personal attack, words Wood is said to have used in reference to Commissioner Georgia Otero-Kirkham.

Moran also admitted Wood spoke up from the public gallery out of turn on occasion.

Wood takes the stand

Wood took the stand and spent the majority of his time explaining the details, as he recalled them, of each meeting since September 16, the meeting at which Rael declared the days of attacking commissioners was over and began seriously clamping down on Wood and others he thought were violating decorum and commission policy.

Wood, wearing a gray suit and glasses, described himself as “a 69-year-old man on a fixed income who wants a hospital.”

He described Rael’s action as little more than targeting citizens who criticize commissioners.

“Anytime they disagree with Rael, he has them removed,” Wood said, pointing out that other citizens, such as George Moscona, Dick Klapper and Alice Torwirt, have been chastised by the chairman and asked to leave meetings.

Wood said he isn’t disruptive.

“I’ve never disrupted the man,” he said of Rael, adding, “I just want an honest operation.”

He said he has always obeyed deputies’ requests to leave.

“They never needed to escort me out,” he said. “If they show up, I go out.”

Wood, at times, hasn’t immediately left the commission chambers after being asked to leave by the chairman or deputies, because he wanted clarification from the chairman about why he was being asked to leave.

Wood has never been charged with a crime for any of his words or actions at commission meetings.

Because the court hearing had already gone nearly 30 minutes longer than it was scheduled to last, Eichwald allowed the defense to delay Wood’s cross-examination and call a defense witness who would be unable to attend the second day of testimony on Tuesday.

An awkward direct examination

The defense called Lisa Chavez to the stand. Chavez, who lives in Los Chavez, is the vice president of the Los Chavez Community Association.

Chavez testified that Joe Rizzo, a member of the Valencia County Action Committee, or VCAC, to which Wood also belonged, came to an association meeting and spoke negatively about issues.

She said she spoke after Rizzo at the association meeting to say the association didn’t endorse his comments. She said she has never supported VCAC’s tactics in general, which have involved posting signs, passing out fliers and speaking publicly at meetings, all sometimes with heightened and controversial language.

Three times the line of questioning in the direct examination was objected to for being irrelevant, and the defense had trouble showing how its questions had anything to do with Wood and the ban against him. Almost every substantive question posed to Chavez was about Rizzo.

Eichwald eventually halted the questions and the defense gave up trying to do whatever it was trying to do. All Chavez’s testimony appeared to do was connect Wood and Rizzo through VCAC and show that Rizzo spoke negatively at one Los Chavez meeting.

The hearing will resume Tuesday at 9am at the Valencia County 13th Judicial District Courthouse in Los Lunas.

A local family that has actively worked to get a hospital built in Rio Communities could benefit financially from the hospital’s proposed location.

Ralph DeBaca and his father, Dan DeBaca, have advocated for the hospital and its proposed site off the Manzano Expressway in Rio Communities. Both have participated in at least one pro-hospital group — the Valencia County Action Committee, or VCAC.

That committee, made up of concerned citizens, was formed in response to the stalled construction of the hospital, as well as to combat negative public perception of the project caused in part by an ongoing lawsuit challenging the legality of the project.

The hospital project remains in litigation at the New Mexico Court of Appeals. A panel of judges is reviewing the case but it’s unclear how soon a decision will be reached on whether or not the project can move forward as proposed.

In September, the county commissioners took what amounted to a vote of no confidence in the direction of the project, seeking to settle the lawsuit and move the project in a new direction. The county hasn’t yet settled the case.

Throughout much of the legal and political wrangling, VCAC distributed pro-hospital informational material and members spoke in favor of the hospital at county commission meetings. The group also erected signs in favor of the hospital and the site, many of which can still be seen along major thoroughfares.

A pro-hospital sign stands tall in Rio Communities.

Some locals, including county officials, have for months publicly and privately questioned whether or not the DeBacas have a conflict of interest in promoting the hospital project and proposed site.

According to documents obtained by Valencia!, Dan DeBaca owns 10 acres of land at the intersection of the Manzano Expressway and Hillandale Avenue, near the proposed hospital site.

The documents also show DeBaca Enterprises, a family business, commissioned the design of a site master plan for the 10 acres.

The master plan indicates DeBaca Enterprises would like to develop a residential and commercial subdivision on the land, including 57 patio homes, a gas station and convenience store, and a national franchise restaurant.

The master plan also notes that the proposed hospital site is immediately east of the DeBaca property.

“This was going to be developed way before the hospital was even intended to be there,” Ralph DeBaca said, adding, “That site wasn’t picked by Ralph DeBaca or Dan DeBaca.”

DeBaca explained that the hospital site was approved by a vote of the county commission after multiple sites were carefully reviewed by a public committee, which later made site recommendations to the commission.

He said there were clear reasons why the Rio Communities site was selected. Other sites had a slew of inadequacies, he said, including not qualifying for federal funding, not having the needed infrastructure, not being accessible to county residents, and not having political support among influential local elected officials.

“The decision had to do with the criteria for a hospital of that magnitude — what it would take,” he said.

DeBaca stressed that the Rio Communities site is still the only site suited for the hospital, saying, for example, that the land on which the hospital would be constructed is being donated by the Valley Improvement Association. He said he doesn’t know of another site that fits the criteria and comes with free land.

Since their September vote, commissioners have considered other locations for the hospital, including sites west of Belen and Los Chavez. The land at one of those sites would be free.

While DeBaca acknowledged his family will benefit from the Rio Communities site, he said all county residents stand to benefit.

“Saving lives is the number one reason for having a hospital,” DeBaca said. “We’re one of the largest counties in New Mexico and we don’t have a hospital.”

Related documents:

(Valencia! redacted two addresses, six phone and fax numbers and 11 signatures.)

The Valencia County Sheriff’s Department is investigating what it’s calling a clear case of vandalism at the law office of James L. Sanchez, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the Valencia County hospital lawsuit.

“It’s clearly an act of vandalism and criminal damage to property,” said Valencia County Deputy Chris Trujillo, the department’s public information officer.

It remains unclear what may have motivated the vandal or vandals and whether or not this is connected to a specific client or case.

Sometime before 7:00am Tuesday morning, approximately 30 gallons of oil were dumped in the driveway of Sanchez’s law office.

Deputies responded after receiving a call from Sanchez, according to Trujillo.

“He arrived at his place of business to find some buckets in the driveway of his business,” Trujillo said. “When he got down from his vehicle, he noticed that in those buckets was oil, and all over his driveway and partially on his business that oil was thrown.”

The sheriff’s department has obtained surveillance video showing a vehicle entering the driveway.

“We’re in the process of trying to identify that vehicle, see if we can locate the suspects and have them charged,” he said.

The New Mexico Department of Transportation (DOT) was called out to help with the cleanup because some of the oil had been spilled on the right of way of a nearby highway.

“DOT did respond out there, remove the contaminated soil and replaced it with fresh dirt,” he said.

If the vandalism turns out to be related to the hospital issue, it wouldn’t be the first time the issue has motivated criminal behavior.

In April, signs expressing opposition to building a hospital and showing support for agriculture in Tome were sprayed with paint.

Valencia Health Commons, the local nonprofit under contract with the county to manage the hospital project, has told Valencia County it wants no role in ongoing lawsuit settlement discussions.

In September, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which challenges the legality of the contract, sent a settlement offer to county commissioners.

The commission voted 4-1 that month agreeing “in principle” to the requests in the offer. Acceptance of the settlement, however, was contingent in part upon trying to work with Valencia Health Commons to reach agreement on moving the project forward under the terms of the settlement.

The attorney for the health commons last week called the county’s attorney in the hospital matter to say the group wouldn’t be contributing further to settlement discussions, having “no comments with regards to the settlement proposal.”

The health commons attorney told the county the group “plans to proceed in the direction they have been working toward: building a hospital for Valencia County.”

Last month, Valencia Health Commons, Commission Chairman Pedro Rael and Commissioner Ron Gentry met behind closed doors and agreed to hold another similar meeting to discuss the settlement. Another meeting seems unlikely.

This month, the hospital lawsuit, which is at the New Mexico Court of Appeals, was assigned to a panel of judges, with varying estimates on how long it could take to get a decision, ranging from one month to a year. The court itself won’t give a time frame, saying it could be weeks or months.

Valencia! sought comments from Bob Davey, the board chairman of Valencia Health Commons, but he was unavailable.

Related Documents:

(Valencia! redacted one address, one telephone number, one fax number, one email address and one signature.)

The hospital lawsuit that’s been pending in the New Mexico Court of Appeals for months has finally been assigned to a panel of judges.

The case — R. Cordova v. Valencia County — was assigned to three judges on Nov. 2, according to a court of appeals official.

The judges will review the case, taking between weeks and months to reach a decision, the official said.

At a Valencia County Commission meeting in August, an attorney representing the county in the case said after its assignment to judges a decision could take between three months and a year.

Commissioners will get an update on the case during a closed session tonight.

While commissioners voted in September to work to settle the lawsuit, there’s been little activity on the part of commissioners in recent weeks toward that end.

Commissioner Georgia Otero-Kirkham recently said the county hasn’t moved forward with the settlement because it’s waiting for information from Valencia Health Commons, the local nonprofit managing the hospital project.

Since the Valencia County Commission voted last month to begin the process for settling the hospital lawsuit pending in the New Mexico Court of Appeals, the negotiations on the terms of the settlement with all of the involved parties has been slow going.

When the county voted 4-1 to work “in principle” to settle the lawsuit it was contingent upon discussions with Valencia Health Commons, the local nonprofit contracted to manage the project for the county.

The county and the commons met two weeks ago today to discuss what position the commons holds on a proposal to terminate the contract as part of the lawsuit’s possible settlement. The legality of the contract is the primary point of contention in the lawsuit.

At the meeting two weeks ago, the commons agreed to have its board discuss the issue and get back to the county within 10 days. The commons board has met and discussed the issue.

According to Commissioner Georgia Otero-Kirkham, to her knowledge the county hasn’t been contacted by Valencia Health Commons to either express a position or set up another meeting to discuss it.

She said it’s possible the commons’ attorney contacted the county’s attorney, who might not have yet reported it to county officials.

In the meantime, she said, county officials have begun to engage prospective healthcare providers in informal conversations to let them know commissioners continue to be interested in improving local healthcare and might call on them to help.

Mike Wood gestures at deputies about to remove him.

The citizen who was removed from a Valencia County Commission meeting one week ago was again removed from last night’s meeting, an effort by the commission’s chairman to enforce a ban against that citizen.

Mike Wood, who has been an outspoken hospital proponent, attended last night’s commission meeting despite Commission Chairman Pedro Rael requesting Wood not attend any more meetings of the commission.

Prior to calling the meeting to order and before deputies arrived in the commission chambers, Rael walked up to Wood to ask him to leave. Wood refused to do so.

When two deputies walked into the room, with another standing in the doorway, Sheriff Rene Rivera standing outside of the room and KRQE recording everything, Wood spoke up while the commission was listening to concerns from citizens about a proposed anti-rave ordinance.

Sue Moran asked about the rave ordinance, “If I called in and reported one, they would come in and disband it, is that true?”

“I read it. My reading of the ordinance is that if there’s any violation of the specific items of the ordinance, then the,” Rael said, pausing as deputies walked in, “the law enforcement, the sheriff’s office, would respond at the appropriate time. I do not see anything in the ordinance that said the party is going to be disbanded. I don’t see that if it’s in there…”

“Mr. Chairman, a point of order,” Mike Wood said from the public gallery. “The sheriff has asked me to leave and you’ve got two other sheriffs outside. Can you tell me why? Do you have a written order as to why I have to leave here?”

Rael tried to avoid discussing the matter again, but Wood wanted a response.

“I’ve requested of you more than a dozen times at least that you not disrupt the meetings, as you just did,” Rael said.

“Let’s go, sir,” a deputy said.

Wood argued that he hadn’t done anything at the meeting that was disruptive.

“How am I disrupting the meeting, sir?” Wood asked. “I’m asking for my rights as a citizen to be allowed here. This is a very important issue, these raves.”

Wood said it’s very important for him to attend commission meetings as a citizen to observe what the commission is discussing.

“I’m asking that you reconsider what you’re doing, because I’ve done nothing,” he said.

Rael provided a legal argument during the meeting for why he has the authority to have Wood permanently removed from meetings. He said he’s the custodian of the county administration building and, under state law, has the authority to ask anyone to leave who is “committing or threatening to commit any act that would disrupt, impair or interfere with” a meeting.

Commissioner Ron Gentry asked the commission to ensure it’s following the proper procedure to remove someone from a meeting.

“Our own policy says the commission chairman has no other rights than any other member of this commission,” Gentry said.

He pointed out that Wood had done nothing at the meeting to disrupt it but that the commission disrupted it themselves by bringing in the deputies. He asked that the decision to remove or ban Wood be made by the full commission.

Rael then asked each commissioner to comment on what they thought.

Otero-Kirkham said the county received a letter from the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government (NMFOG) which provided several avenues for the commission to legally remove a citizen from a meeting. She believed the commission had followed the guidelines provided by NMFOG at the present and previous meetings.

“In the letter, it does say that the public body, which is the commission, does have a right to maintain public order and to carry out their business without interference or disruption,” she said. “And Mr. Wood is constantly disrupting the meeting. He’s constantly speaking out of turn.”

She welcomed a higher authority to offer a different opinion or a court order allowing him to attend.

Commissioner Don Holliday agreed that Wood needed to be removed because he “has been out of order several times.” He said Wood hasn’t demonstrated self-control or shown any respect for the commission and its proceedings.

Commissioner David Medina asked the county’s attorney, David Pato, if the proper procedure was being followed.

Pato said the commission would need to determine if Wood’s behavior disrupts the meetings, which he thought the commission had demonstrated through its discussion of the matter.

“I think it’s pretty clear by the consensus of the commission that the order stands, Mr. Wood,” Rael said.

Rael offered to sit down with Wood at any point to work out a solution to the problem. He then asked deputies to remove Wood.

Wood spoke up to explain why he’s called Otero-Kirkham a thief and liar, noting this morning during a phone call with Valencia! that Otero-Kirkham brought up the issue when justifying his removal.

Last night Wood alleged, as he has before, that Otero-Kirkham “stole” money from the county. Based on the original ban cited last week and Wood’s continued allegations, Rael again asked Wood to be removed.

As the deputies began to put their hands on Wood, he sat down saying, “I’m not leaving.”

“Come on,” a deputy said.

“Let go,” Wood said. “Let go. I’ll go.”

Rivera said after the meeting that he called the New Mexico State Police to take over the investigation of the matter to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest.

“I’m going to turn it over to the state police and allow the state police to handle the case, being that I’m a county elected official and so are the commissioners,” he said. “I don’t want anyone to think I’m having any sort of favoritism played here.”

Otero-Kirkham said she provided a preliminary statement to the state police, which is why she left the meeting for a short time. After commissioners adjourned the meeting, a state police car drove up and Rivera, Rael and Otero-Kirkham walked into the sheriff’s department to discuss the matter further with the state police.

Rivera said it’s possible Wood could be charged with trespassing or disobeying a police order.

“There’s a possibility, but again that will be up to the state police,” he said.