I want to be clear on some matters regarding the city council meeting on December 17, 2025. My intent in requesting to table the matter of residency for the Councilor elect in question, was to get further consultation with the city attorney. I stated this in my motion. My reasons are regarding my past experience with the charter which I will detail here.
In a recall effort on the Mayor in 2020, I initiated this effort following the steps laid out in the city charter. Halfway through the gathering of petition signatures, I was informed by the City Clerk via the city attorney, that I had to follow the state statutes for recall, instead of the Charter. Indeed, the statutes stated the following: NMSA 1-25-3: Recall; elected officials subject to recall; limitations Paragraph A, (4) a home rule municipality, if the charter of the home rule municipality provides for recall of elective officers and notwithstanding any election provisions or procedures in the laws of the municipality that may conflict with the Recall Act; provided that if the recall procedures of a home rule municipality provide greater due process than the Recall Act, the recall procedures of the home rule municipality shall be utilized in place of the due process procedures of the Recall Act.
The statute further required that I had to file my petition in district court and could not pursue petition signatures unless there was a finding in the court that granted this. Indeed, the court did rule in my favor on one count on the petition. At this point, we were deep in the COVID pandemic and I was unable to secure the number of signatures to proceed with a recall election. It was very frustrating to learn that statute outweighed the charter, but I followed the letter of the law.
Our charter continues to remain out of compliance on the matter of recall; hence, my effort to have it fixed, that we all know failed miserably. Again, I will state that it failed because of bad legal advice. The city attorney told us we had to form a charter commission and have them do a rewrite. We went through a yearlong process for this when in reality, we only needed to present changes to the charter to the council to determine via ordinance, then present those council recommended changes to the electorate, not write a whole new charter. The City Charter has been out of compliance for many years. In 2020, the council removed term limits from the charter via ordinance, without putting it to the voters. Term Limitation.7 (Repealed by City of Grants Ordinance No. 19-1240, January 6, 2020) I know, because I showed up at the next election to vote on this, but to my surprise, it was not on the ballot.
In regards to the matter in question, residency of the Councilwoman elect. The state statute requires that due process be followed. It states: NMSA 1-22-10: Candidate qualifications; challenges; ballots Paragraph B. Any voter may challenge the candidacy of any person seeking election at the regular local election for the reason that the person does not meet the requirements for the office sought by filing a petition in the district court within seven days after the day for filing a declaration of candidacy. The district court shall hear and render a decision on the matter within ten days after the filing of the petition. The decision of the district court may be appealed to the supreme court within five days after the decision is rendered. The supreme court shall hear and render a decision on the appeal forthwith.
The statute does require a higher burden of proof than the charter, with the requirement for due process through the district court. State Statute says: NMSA 1-22-3.2 A. Election provisions or procedures in the laws of a municipality that operate in addition to and do not conflict with the provisions of the Election Code continue in effect as long as such provisions do not conflict with the Election Code or until amended or repealed by the municipality. Election provisions or procedures in an ordinance or charter of a municipality that conflict with the Election Code or other applicable state or federal law are not operable and shall not be enforced. Election provisions or procedures in an ordinance or charter of a municipality that do not conflict with the Election Code shall be administered pursuant to the ordinances or charter of the municipality, unless the municipal clerk and the county clerk have signed a memorandum of understanding for the county clerk to conduct election provisions or procedures on behalf of the municipality.
Because the charter does not require residency challenges to be initiated in district court, the above statute stands for our municipality.
So, with all due respect, our attorney was not following the state statutes and I stand by my comments. It is unfortunate that the comments in the meeting digressed and appeared to be personal attacks on Mr. Gershon. I have never had interactions with him outside of council meetings and I'm going to point something else out that truly disappointed me. In a past meeting the mayor cried foul and charter violation because Councilman Rodarte put an item on the agenda in regards to raises for the council. Mr. Gershon was agreeing erroneously with the mayor in the public meeting. I had to pull up the charter, read the section on this matter out loud, and remind the mayor and point out to Mr. Gershon, that our Open Meetings Act (OMA) dictates the rules of the city council meetings and our OMA clearly stated that items can be added to council meeting agendas by the mayor or a council member. It is a requirement for ALL local governments to publish and vote on the OMA annually. Any municipal attorney, whether or not he/she has actually read our charter, should know this, and not simply be agreeing with what the mayor says.
It is also unfortunate that the council is not privy to the process of selecting a city attorney. We do not get to and have never been invited to review applicants, see backgrounds and resume, and he or she is selected by the city manager and the mayor. The relationship with the past 2 city attorneys seemed to flow only between the lawyer and mayor or manager. The city attorney represents the whole city, including the council, yet we have no say in who is hired for this position. Mayor Garcia has made clear on many occasions that he objects to the council consulting the city attorney, alleging we run up 'billable hours,' and we are discouraged from reaching out. This is wrong and has to change.
Respectfully, Beverly Michael City of Grants Council D-4