City pushes transparency remedy to next week

This story was expanded and updated at 5:05 p.m.

The city of Las Cruces tabled a resolution on Jan. 6 meant to remedy a violation of a transparency law that restricts what elected officials can discuss in closed session.  

The resolution follows a New Mexico Department of Justice finding that the city council violated the Open Meetings Act when they “engaged in closed deliberations and invalid (final) actions prior to the single, open public meeting held to discuss the hiring of a new city manager on Apr. 1, 2024,” a letter announcing the finding said.  

“These actions deprived the public of any meaningful opportunity to participate in, or even witness the deliberations on, a question of significant public importance,” the NMDOJ said. 

In the same findings, the NMDOJ said the city of Las Cruces could restart the search or pass a resolution declaring what was discussed in closed meetings. The city chose the latter. However, ahead of the meeting’s action items and public comment on Jan. 6, Mayor Eric Enriquez said the discussion would be moved to Jan. 13.  

Brad Douglas, the attorney for the city of Las Cruces, said that the city submitted their proposed remedy to the NMDOJ. Douglas said the Attorney General’s office responded to the city on Friday afternoon, requesting a more detailed remedy.  

“I think it’s important for everyone to know that when we do bring these items to an open meeting, the entire governing body will not only summarize their past actions in closed meetings, but they're going to have an open discussion about every item on the agenda,” Douglas said.  

He added that he expects the new remedy to be spread out over four to six resolutions.  

The issue came to a head following the Las Cruces Bulletin reporting that raised questions as to whether the selection of the current city manager followed the law. The city has argued that no policy vote took place and that, therefore, no violation of the law occurred.  

“I would say I own it,” Enriquez said at an impromptu news conference after the meeting.  

Enriquez also raised concerns about the NMDOJ findings. He said he didn’t feel some of the “evidence was correct” and that some of the findings were more like inferences.  

“We'll move forward. I feel that the compromise to ratify it, to bring it to a resolution and bring it forward, I feel is, is fair,” Enriquez said.  

Despite being removed from the agenda, the OMA violation was more fodder in the always raucous crowd for public comment. At one point, commenters accused the council of violating OMA again because they felt there was not enough information about spending changes in the agenda packet.  

At another point, a member of the conservative activist group Businesses for Safer Las Cruces briefly refused to leave the podium and shouted at the mayor.  

City Manager Ikani Taumoepeau was not present for the meeting. A spokesperson for the city said that Taumoepeau was out of the office on a vacation that was scheduled prior to the AG’s findings. 

Original report:

Las Cruces Mayor Eric Enriquez announced during a meeting on Jan. 6 that an ordinance to remedy a violation of the Open Meetings Act, which had been part of the day’s agenda, will be moved to the next city council meeting on Jan. 16.

A New Mexico Department of Justice report found that the city council violated the transparency law when they selected Ikani Taumoepeau as city manager in early 2024. The office housing the state’s Attorney General also found that that Taumoepeau was never formally appointed to the position in open session, although an employment agreement was approved by the council on April 1, 2024.

“The City Council engaged in closed deliberations and invalid (final) actions prior to the single, open public meeting held to discuss the hiring of a new city manager on Apr. 1, 2024. These actions deprived the public of any meaningful opportunity to participate in, or even witness the deliberations on, a question of significant public importance,” the report found. 

The same report also offered two remedies for the city: restarting the entire selection process or passing a resolution declaring what was discussed and decided behind closed doors. The Jan. 6 agenda item indicated the council intended to do the latter. 

Enriquez indicated that postponing the matter would allow time for city staff to discuss its response further with the DOJ. Meanwhile, during public comments, several residents used their time at the podium to criticize the council for being out of compliance with the law.