As Independence Day nears, Grants councilor reflects on home rule, public trust and why voters must decide the city’s future
GRANTS, N.M. – As Grants prepares to celebrate Independence Day, the city is also facing a local test of self-government: what its Charter means, who has the authority to change it and whether residents still recognize it as their own.
For City Councilor Beverly Michael, the answer begins with a simple idea.
“It’s not mine as a city councilwoman. It’s not city government’s. It’s the citizens,” Michael said. “It’s our home rule document.”
Michael sat down with the Cibola Citizen ahead of the Fourth of July to discuss the Grants City Charter, its origins, the current Charter crisis, the city’s disputed election schedule, the removal of former District 1 Councilor Dolores Vallejos, the continuing vacancy in District 1 and possible Charter amendment questions that may be sent to voters this year.
The interview comes after months of uncertainty inside city government. Grants did not hold a municipal election on March 3, despite Charter language setting regular municipal elections in March of evennumbered years. The city has instead operated under ordinances moving municipal officer elections to the November regular local election schedule. Former Mayor Martin Hicks has filed lawsuits challenging the city’s handling of the Charter and election schedule.
For Michael, the current conflict is not only about one election, one vacancy or one council decision. It is about whether Grants will return major questions of local power to voters.
“I think that it’s important that we maintain home rule for the city,” Michael said. “To at least have those options empowers the public.”
A Local Constitution Born from Frustration
The Grants City Charter is more than an internal city document. The preamble says the citizens of Grants enacted the Charter “in order to secure the advantages of local self-government.”
The Charter also states its purpose is to provide for “maximum selfgovernment” and the
“greatest possible exercise of home rule powers.”
Michael said the Charter grew out of a time when Grants residents felt City Hall was not listening.
She traced the early push for a home-rule charter back to controversy over wastewater treatment, rising utility rates, and a proposed golf course tied to how the city would handle effluent wastewater discharge. Michael said tribes east of Grants sued after untreated wastewater was discharged into the Rio San Jose, forcing the city to build a new wastewater treatment plant and find another way to handle effluent.
Michael said the city missed an opportunity to act earlier when funding was available to help pay for the wastewater project, and residents later faced large rate increases. At the time, she and her husband owned a laundromat, meaning water and sewer rates had a direct effect on their business.
She recalled how residents organized under the name Citizens in Action and pushed for a referendum, hoping voters could decide the direction of the project. Michael said one councilor made a motion to send the issue to referendum, but the motion died for lack of a second.
The group then pursued a Charter as a way to secure home-rule powers and give residents stronger tools, including initiative, referendum and recall.
Michael explained the Charter was not created to be even more paperwork for officials. It was created because citizens wanted power over their own city government.
“We know how disempowered we felt back 30plus years ago over that issue and event,” Michael said. “So I hope citizens see it that way, that this is their document.”
State legislative records list Grants as adopting its home-rule Charter in 1994. Since then, the document has governed the city’s structure, powers, elections, ethics rules, financial procedures and citizen compliance process.
What the Charter Does
In plain terms, the Charter functions like a local constitution.
It establishes the city’s governing body, the offices of mayor and council, the role of the city manager, the municipal court, financial procedures, elections, ethics rules and Charter compliance procedures. It also explains how the city’s home-rule powers should be understood.
The Charter gives Grants broad home-rule authority under the New Mexico Constitution Article X Section 6. The Charter is not simply a list of what the city may do. It also tells city government what it may not do, and where the public retains authority.
Michael said that is why the document still matters, even when parts of it are outdated, disputed or difficult to understand.
“It will be guidance for us and empowerment again for the citizens,” Michael said.
The Charter also makes elected officials responsible for monitoring compliance. It says the mayor and councilors are charged with implementing the Charter, monitoring compliance and remaining alert for actions that may be inconsistent with it. Similar duties are assigned to the city manager, city attorney and municipal judge.
The Charter even reserves space for the public to raise compliance concerns. Regular council meetings include a forum for citizens to address possible Charter violations, and the Charter directs the council to determine whether a violation occurred and, if necessary, reconsider, nullify or correct the action.
Amending the Charter
One of the central issues in Grants today is how the Charter can be changed.
Section 1.07 of the Grants City Charter states that the Charter shall be amended according to the process and requirements established in the Municipal Charter Act. That means any amendment to the Charter must go to voters.
That point has become important because several major changes or attempted changes in Grants have been handled through ordinances or administrative action rather than direct voter approval.
A major example is term limits. The Charter’s termlimit language was repealed by City of Grants Ordinance No. 19-1240 on Jan. 6, 2020. The current Charter includes a note showing the term-limit section was repealed by ordinance. Michael said that issue should go to voters because the public never directly approved removing term limits from the Charter.
“They never put that to a vote for the electorate,” Michael said.
The city’s election schedule has become an even larger issue.
The Charter says the New Mexico Municipal Election Code governs Grants elections, except where it conflicts with the Charter, in which case “the Charter shall govern.” The same section says the regular municipal election shall be held on the first Tuesday in March of each even-numbered year.
But in 2023, the Grants City Council approved ordinances opting into the state’s November regular local election schedule.
Those ordinances shifted city elections to November and adjusted terms so offices that otherwise would have come up under the old March schedule would instead appear on the November regular local election calendar.
The Charter still contains March election language, while city ordinances and city practice now point to November elections.
Michael: Election-cycle change caused confusion
Michael said she understood the move to November elections as part of a broader effort among municipalities and the State of New Mexico to align with the regular local election schedule and reduce the cost and burden of running separate municipal elections across the state.
She said the change was presented to council through legal guidance at the time, and she does not remember anyone saying clearly that the change needed to go to voters immediately.
But she also acknowledged the transition extended the terms of herself, Mayor Erik Garcia and Mayor Pro Tem George Garcia beyond what would have happened under the old March election cycle.
Michael said she originally believed she would be running for reelection in November 2026. Later, she learned the election for those seats would be in 2027.
“It did give quite an extension,” Michael said. “That wasn’t what I was looking for at all in the change.”
Her answer to the election problem is to put the issues before voters.
“It’s important that we get these matters onto a ballot and that we listen to what the voters say,” Michael said. “And then we need to follow what the voters are saying.”
Failed Charter Review Left Questions Unresolved
Michael said she pushed for a Charter Review Committee early in her time on council because she believed parts of the document needed modernization and clarification.
City records show the Grants City Charter Committee met repeatedly in 2023 and 2024. Michael said the committee looked at several issues, including referendum procedures, term limits and possible broader election reforms.
But the effort did not result in a completed Charter update.
Michael said she repeatedly asked for draft changes to be brought back to council. She later learned that work produced by the committee had been lost from an individual’s computer.
The version eventually submitted did not include the committee’s proposed changes, she said.
“It turned into basically an epic failure,” Michael said.
She said the city might have avoided some of the present confusion if that work had been completed and sent to voters.
“We wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now,” Michael said. “We’d have more clarification. We would have what the voters want in the Charter.”
Dual-Office Rule Shaped Vallejos Decision
The Charter’s dual-office provision became one of the most visible parts of the current crisis after Dolores Vallejos won the District 1 council seat in the November 2025 election while also serving as Cibola County Assessor.
Section 8.02 of the Charter states, “Except as authorized by state law, no elected officer of the City shall hold any other elected public office during the term for which the official was elected.”
Questions also emerged over whether Vallejos met the residency requirement for District 1. The Charter requires a city councilor candidate to reside in the district on and after the date the declaration of candidacy is filed, and councilors must continue living in their district throughout their terms.
At a March 11 special meeting, the Grants City Council found that Vallejos met the residency requirement when she filed and continued to meet it. But the council also found that she violated the dual-office provision because she continued to hold the elected office of county assessor.
The vote was 2–0 among voting members, with Vallejos abstaining because the matter concerned her eligibility and Councilor Fred Rodarte was absent. Vallejos was asked to step down from the dais immediately after the vote.
Michael said that decision was not easy, but she believed the council had to enforce the Charter.
“It still held in our review that happened this year over Assessor Vallejos’ dualoffice holding,” Michael said. “And we had to uphold it. It wasn’t easy.”
Michael said she researched an earlier dual-office controversy involving former city official Walter Jaramillo because she had heard there may have been a court ruling allowing a city official to hold two offices.
She said her review found there was no such ruling.
Instead, she said, the city did not continue pursuing the case and it was dismissed without deciding the underlying issue.
“There was nothing legal done regarding that,” Michael said.
Because voters had approved the dual-office rule, Michael said she believed the provision remained enforceable.
District 1 Vacancy Continues
The Vallejos decision created another Charter question: how to fill the District 1 vacancy?
The Charter says that within 45 days of a city council vacancy, the mayor shall appoint a qualified successor, subject to confirmation by the governing body. The appointee then serves until the next regular municipal election for that position.
Mayor Erik Garcia nominated Tannin Cash to fill the seat, but the appointment did not move forward after no councilor made a motion to approve it.
Michael said she had heard from several constituents who opposed that appointment, and she believed it was her responsibility to listen.
“I know I listen to what my constituents are saying,” Michael said. “It may not always make me popular or make me well-liked in the decisions that I make, but I try not to just, ‘Oh, I know what’s best.’” Michael said Bob Tenequer, who also ran in the District 1 race with Vallejos and former Councilor Zachary Gutierrez, has expressed willingness to serve and lives in the district. She said she would be open to considering him because he put his name on the ballot and sought the office.
“There is a willing person to fill that position that lives in District 1, has resided in District 1 for a very long time,” Michael said.
Until an appointment is made and approved by council, District 1 residents will be left waiting for full representation on the council.
Putting the Charter on the November 2026 Ballot
The next major step may come through voters.
The city has been considering Charter amendment questions that could appear on the November 2026 general election ballot. The proposed questions have included removing term limits, expanding the municipal judge’s authority, and allowing city elected officials to hold another public office while serving.
Those questions would go directly to the issues Grants has been debating for months. But until then, Grants City Council must finalize the exact wording of those questions.
If voters approve removing term limits, the Charter would be changed to match what the city has already treated as effective since Ordinance 19-1240.
If voters approve allowing dual-office holding, the Charter would change the rule that led to Vallejos’ removal from the District 1 seat.
If voters approve the election-cycle change, the Charter could be brought into alignment with the city’s current November election practice.
Michael said the ballot is the proper place for those decisions, “It’s important,” she said. “We will find out what the citizens want to see. What do they want?”
A Fourth of July Lesson in Local Government The timing of this discussion is fitting.
Independence Day is often celebrated through flags, parades, fireworks and patriotic music. But beneath the celebration is a harder civic idea: self-government only works when the people understand the rules and retain the power to change them.
In Grants, perhaps more than anywhere in America, the question of self-rule is playing out through elections, lawsuits, council votes, vacancies and proposed Charter amendments.
Michael said Grants residents, candidates and officials all need to read the Charter and understand what it says.
“If you’re going to be running for office or being a part of city government, read the Charter,” Michael said. “Try to read it. Try to understand what it says so that you know what we should and shouldn’t be doing.”
Michael said she still has to re-read the document herself. During budget season, she reviewed the Charter’s finance section and said she found language showing the council has significant authority over the budget, including the ability to change it.
“I didn’t know we had that level of authority within the Charter until I re-read it,” Michael said.
That, she said, is the point. The Charter is not symbolic. Holding real power, it determines what city officials can do, what citizens can demand and how local government is supposed to operate.
“It’s not mine as a city councilwoman,” Michael said. “The Charter belongs to the people.”