Council Challenges AG's Ruling

Resolution Disputes Opinion on Open Meetings Act Violation

By Eric Maddy
The SCORE

The Rio Rancho Governing Body formally challenged a ruling by the state attorney general that it violated the state’s open meetings act by unanimously approving a three-page resolution Wednesday night disputing the AG’s findings.

While the preamble to Resolution 99 describes the document as “a resolution to accept, subject to certain qualifications, and to comply with the opinion of the office of the Attorney General regarding a rolling quorum affecting (former) Mayor (Kevin) Jackson’s intent to request the resignation of former city manager James M. Palenick,” and it later states the Governing Body “understands that reasonable people can disagree in their opinions,” the resolution clearly goes on to disregard the opinion issued on Sept. 24. The document itself states that “the Governing Body conceptually and, in certain areas specifically, disagrees with the opinion.”

The document highlights five specific areas of contention and includes the “best recollection of comments that were made during meetings with Mayor Jackson relating to his request for Mr. Palenick to resign” from four councilors identified as participating: Howard Balmer, Mike Williams, Larry Naranjo and Patty Thomas.

 
Williams was later selected as mayor when Jackson resigned, a process that is the subject of a separate open meetings complaint filed by former city councilor Lonnie Clayton.

Former Mayor Jim Owen, who filed the complaint with the attorney general’s office that prompted the investigation and subsequent ruling regarding Jackson and the open quorum as defined by the attorney general, questioned why the resolution was added to the agenda Tuesday afternoon less than three hours before a 24-hour advance notice requirement.

In the public comment discussion on the issue, which limits speakers to three minutes,  Owen read a letter from Palenick’s attorney also questioning the last-minute scheduling and voicing opposition to the resolution. Owen then went on to offer his personal thoughts.:

“On the other hand, this isn’t about Mr. Palenick at all. What this is about is a governing body out of control,” he said. “The AG did an exhaustive investigation over a 10-month period. The city legal staff believes it’s superior to the attorney general’s staff and (attorney general) Gary King in particular, one of the authors of the state’s open meetings act. The unanimous vote on this resolution tonight will be just another example of how our representatives do business in Rio Rancho.

“One has to ask this question: What was the urgency to get this on tonight’s agenda? At the 11th hour, precisely at 3:18, it was placed on tonight’s schedule. Why couldn’t it have waited until the next meeting when all of those who have a vested interest could attend, such as Mr. Palenick or his lawyer? Or Lonnie Clayton, who has just lodged the latest complaint about three violations?

“I wonder if this council has a real appreciation of the intelligence of the people of Rio Rancho.”

Noting that the next city election is March 4,  Owen said, “This issue is not going to go away, even if you pass this meaningless resolution. But your vote tonight will definitely identify you and where you stand.”

Palenick, who is now the city manager in Gastonia, N.C., has threatened to sue the city for additional compensation after the attorney general’s ruling. After the meeting Williams said he is not concerned by that threat and he was not aware if any confidentiality clause including in Palenick’s termination package would prevent him from taking legal action.

“I don’t even know what his contract looks like,” Williams said. “I do know personnel law. He was a contract employee, at-will. I don’t know where he thinks he’s got the right to sue us, but you don’t need to have a legal right to sue somebody.”

As to the charges that the last-minute addition of the resolution was meant to prevent Palenick or others from addressing the issue, Williams said, “We were making sure the city attorney had all the T’s crossed and I’s dotted, because we didn’t want to have to bring this back again and do it over again. So be it that it was done at 3:18 as Mr. Owen stated. So be it. We want to get it behind us, get it over with and move on.

“That’s the problem. As you heard Mr. Owen tonight, he doesn’t want to get over anything. He wants to continue to ‘stir the pot,’ I think was one of his quotes in the newspaper. He can be a disgruntled citizen all he wants and use the press all he wants. And if they want to cater to him, that’s fine. The city will move on.”