Drivers: By Law You Must Pay Attention! ............................... City Councilors? Well Maybe Sometimes

Jim Harbison

Guest Column by Jim Harbison - At the most recent City Council meeting Councilor Dolores Connor proposed a simple straight forward resolution that would have the Council members pledge not to use cellphones, send or receive emails, text, do internet searches, or play any electronic games during the conduct of the City Council meetings. She wanted to insure that the conduct of the Council would not violate the provisions of the “Open Meeting Act” or give the perceptions that the Council was not in compliance with it. Furthermore she believes that the Council should be focused on conducting the public business and not be distracted by electronic devices or conducting internet research during Council sessions.

This resolution which was drafted by one of the leading attorneys’ from the New Mexico Municipal League and is used by other cities was immediately met with opposition from the other members of the City Council. Acting City Attorney Pete Connolly explained some of the constraints of the Open Meeting act and believed the resolution was in support of the act. He gave several judicial examples supporting it.
Objections from other Council members centered on several issues.
· It was a poorly written, not well thought out, and unnecessary resolution (Pedroza, Silva, Thomas, Sorg). They wanted the NM Adjutant General to conduct a work session on the need for this resolution (Silva, Sorg, Thomas, Pedroza). Councilor Connor explained that the AG has conducted four training sessions on this over the last three years and that each Councilor has had the opportunity to attend if they had desired.

· It restricted their ability to make decisions because they apparently cannot do so with the (inadequate) information provided by the staff or poorly informed presenters. It is necessary for them to have access to additional internet provided data (Sorg, Thomas, Small). The Council receives their packet of information five days in advance of the Council meeting which should be sufficient time to do any necessary research before the Council meeting. It they didn’t have sufficient time prior they certainly do not have adequate time to do comprehensive research during the Council meeting when they should be attentive to the issues being presented.

· That the judicial examples cited by City Attorney Connolly were claimed by Council members to blur the distinction between judicial and legislative bodies and that they were not judges so judicial rules of the court should not apply to the Council. Furthermore, that the Council was not a jury so judicial standards should not apply (Sorg, Pedroza, Small).

· It would be difficult to enforce and did not know how this could be accomplished (Pedroza). The public in the gallery certainly knew how to enforce it and vocally expressed it. Simply by the individual INTEGRITY of each Council member

· It restricted contact with constituents and others not physically present during the conduct of the meeting (Silva, Pedroza and implied by others). Isn’t that the intent of the Open Meeting Act? Unfortunately, those citizens who are physically attending the meeting are not currently allowed that same access to members of the Council nor can they call them on the phone during the sessions to get their questions asked.

Ultimately the resolution was modified to allow internet research during Council sessions and it was passed by a vote of 4/3 with Pedroza, Sorg and Thomas opposing it. The issue was about ethical conduct and INTEGRITY and it was quite obvious that Council members simply did not get it. Perception is reality until you change that perception. It is time for the Council to change its perception

Drivers: By Law You Must Pay Attention! ............................... City Councilors? Well Maybe Sometimes