Texts Prompt Curiosity Of Open Meetings Law

No one has accused Albuquerque city councilors of violating New Mexico’s open-meetings law by using text messages to discuss bills with each other before last week’s meeting.

But the texting does make me wonder: How much private discussion should there be when it comes to public business?

I know it isn’t practical to expect city councilors and other elected officials to avoid speaking to each other outside televised meetings. On the other hand, the public’s business ought to be debated in public.

I asked Gwyneth Doland, executive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, to weigh in.

“Our state sunshine laws are written to provide the public with the greatest amount of information possible about the workings of their government,” she said.

In this case, no evidence has surfaced showing that councilors engaged in an illegal “rolling quorum” – a practice in which a majority of a public body discusses public business or takes action through a series of telephone calls or email conversations.

“But that is really not the point,” Doland said. “The point is, people expect their elected officials to do their business transparently.”

Denials of a deal

I wrote about the text messaging in Wednesday’s paper. Brad Winter released messages that suggested two other councilors – Dan Lewis and Debbie O’Malley – had discussed a deal before last week’s meeting to withdraw two controversial bills from the agenda.

The messages were generally sent from Lewis to Winter.

Lewis and O’Malley adamantly deny any deal. Winter, meanwhile, said “it looks like things were organized behind closed doors” to avoid a public vote on the merits of the bills.

The council did vote to withdraw the two proposals – one to immediately authorize funding for the Paseo del Norte project, the other to put a minimum-wage initiative on the Nov. 6 ballot.

In the case of the wage bill, there was no public discussion of the decision to withdraw. That triggered a rebuke from state District Judge Nan Nash, who ended up having to weigh in on the matter.

The state Supreme Court eventually took up the case and ordered the wage proposal onto the general-election ballot.

The Supremes

I don’t spend much time in courtrooms, but even I can see that Supreme Court justices are no ordinary judges.

In Wednesday’s minimum-wage hearing, the justices abruptly questioned attorneys for all sides. They had absolutely no hesitation about stopping someone mid-argument to demand evidence for this or that.

It was quite a contrast to the handful of District Court judges I’ve seen in action. They seem to wait – almost patiently – as attorneys fill up their allotted time. They ask questions afterward, for the most part.

Let me put it this way: The Supremes are a heck of lot more fun to watch than Judge Judy.
— This article appeared on page C1 of the Albuquerque Journal