Mayor wants public to know what council discusses
By Scott Ford
GRANTS, N.M. – City of Grants Mayor Martin “Modey” Hicks wanted to have the closed session item removed from the Jan. 4 council meeting agenda. The closed session item was for “Threatened litigation pursuant to section 10-15-1 (H)(7) NMSA 1978, which reads: (7) meetings subject to the attorney-client privilege pertaining to threatened or pending litigation in which the public body is or may become a participant.”
“I want to table the closed session on the agenda until we can find new [legal] counsel that advises correctly and does not advise to break the law as a city council,” Hick said. “The council was directed by our attorneys. I was going to direct these questions to [Councilor] Fred [Rodarte] since he is the one that has been talking to the attorneys, but he is not here. What kind of attorney advises its client to violate the charter, to break its own ordinances, and to violate state statue?”
Hicks went on to add, “We [the city] should not be threatening anyone with the attorneys the city has.” They [the attorneys] are unethical and corrupt and greedy, according to Hicks.
The mayor commented that these same attorneys, who represent the City of Grants, would not represent him when the state filed a lawsuit against the mayor pertaining to the protest parade held on the July 4, 2020. The attorneys told him they could not represent him because the same firm also represents the state highway department and that would create a conflict of interest. Hicks added that the attorneys who represent the City of Grants again refused to represent him during the litigation to have him recalled which was led by Beverly Michael.
“They would not even give me a reason as to why they wouldn’t represent me,” recalled Hicks.
“But then they advised you guys [the city council and city manager] to violate the charter, advised you guys to violate city ordinances, and advised you guys to violate state statues.”
Hicks asked the council to table the closed session concerning the threatened litigation.
City Manager Laura Jaramillo explained that she and Mark Teshima, public works director, put the closed session item on the agenda concerning Jacobs and the well No. 3.
“We put it on there to advise you. Nobody is threatening litigation at this time,” Jaramillo said.
However, the published agenda for the meeting states in item number seven under hearing items - closed session: Threatened Litigation pursuant to Section 10-15-1(H)(7) NMSA 1978.
“It’s on the agenda that the closed session is for threatening litigation. So, we are lying on the agenda now?” Hicks said. “If we’re not threatening litigation, then why don’t we discuss this in the public meeting and stop hiding behind closed doors? If there is not any threatening litigation, then we don’t need to go behind closed doors.”
Jaramillo said, “I think it is important that we don’t beat up people in public.”
“That’s hiding from the public. That’s going into closed session illegally. We are not threatening litigation; so, we need to talk about this right here, right now, in front of Jacobs and the citizens.”
Councilor Rick Lucero asked, “What exactly are we discussing?”
The mayor answered they were talking about Jacobs and the alleged neglect to well number three.
Councilor Erik Garcia said they should discuss this in closed session because they don’t know what the contract with Jacobs says and that there could be names involved.
“I know what the contract with Jacobs says and if there are names then we refer to them as Jacobs’ employees.” Hicks said.
“What’s the big deal?” asked Councilor Garcia.
“The big deal is if there is not going to be any litigation then it’s a lie on our agenda,” Hicks said. “And we’re hiding from the public. That’s the big deal Erik.”
Jaramillo responded saying the closed session was a potential litigation, when earlier in the meeting she stated it was a discussion to inform the council.
“I didn’t say it was not litigation,” Jaramillo said.
Hicks responded to Jaramillo’s comment and said, “Not even five minutes ago you said it was not a litigation.”
“Why can’t we go into closed session so we can learn more about what is going on with this?” asked Councilor Lucero.
“Why can’t the public learn about it as well?” Hicks answered and again asked for a motion to table the closed session or to discuss it in open session.
The three councilors present refused to make a motion to table the closed session or to address the item in open session.
New Mexico’s Sunshine Law, so named because it keeps the public’s business in the public, only allows for entities to go into closed session for specific purposes. NMSA 10-15-1 (H) calls for the provisions in which a public body may close to the public. Pending litigation does count, but only if its actual litigation; bodies cannot close just because they do not want to discuss business in public.
The council did go into closed session following their regular business, which included approval of minutes from the Dec. 7 meeting; they approved the appointment of Joan Boyden to the Grants Public Library Advisory Board; approved refinancing a 25-year loan the city has at a zero-percent interest rate at the cost of $48,036.38; and they approved payment on interest accrued, $21,196.29, during the Jefferson/Washington Drainage Project.
When the council returned from closed session, Hicks informed the public that no decisions were made in the closed session, with one exception: once the city gets the final numbers on a pump that ran out of oil, then the city will issue a notice that puts Jacobs under “breach of contract.”
The entire city council meeting can be seen on the City of Grants Facebook page.