ToadBook

Check it out: NM Stat § 3-12-1 (2025)

It is STATE LAW - that the following happens: 1. The Mayor appoints a qualified candidate. 2. The council votes at an open meeting.

The Mayor does NOT have to set up an interviewing committee or anyone to meet this person. He can simply appoint a qualified candidate.

That person serves until the next regular local election or the councilor election whichever comes first.

Straight from state law.

RECAP - the Village has money to build a donut so that we don't end up pooping in buckets! Now the Council wants to spend the money ALLOCATED for the second donut on their new idea and not fix the donut. They are mad that the mayor won't break the law and spend allocated money the way they want to spend it. So they are going to get rid of him by malfeasance? Yeah! Sure! Let's hope not. We need someone who follows the laws.

Maybe a new category needs to be developed - Word or Phrase of the Day.

Allocation of Funds. Let's define this term. There is a legal definition. Here it is in simple terms to you can understand it without dealing with the legal language.

Allocation of Funds. Money is set aside for a specific purpose. In government this usually means you are given some funds for a specific purpose.

If a village, for example, goes to the state and says "give us money for paving roads", and the village is awarded funding for paving roads- this money CAN NOT all of a sudden be spent on salaries.

The money is allocated for a specific purpose. It can't be changed. Even if you want it changed. It can only be changed by going to the original source of the funding and asking for the permission to change it.

That is it. It's that simple.

In the case of our Village budget - there is money $4.+million that was given to us and it was allocated for building the sewer plant second donut.

Something that Councilor Desmet was screaming about by the way - remember we are one day away from pooping in buckets!

Now there is a push by the three to spend this money on other things some of it to benefit an outside agency who is running our sewer plant.

In fact the Council voted to spend the $4Million that was ALLOCATED for a second donut. And now they are mad that the Mayor is not breaking the law changing funding around without the permission from the proper authorities to just let them spend the money the way they want.

This seems to be one of the reasons they want to get rid of the mayor.

So on August 22, 2026 an emergency meeting was called. The meeting was going to be held the next day.

Here is one notification.

So ask yourself - what is an emergency? State law says an emergency meeting is defined as a gathering called on short notice to address unforeseen circumstances that, if not handled immediately, will likely result in injury, property damage, or substantial financial loss

Unforeseen circumstances? Well maybe but I would suggest that this was easily predicted when the treasurer was chased away despite the terrible timing. My mamma taught me that when you make a bed, you suffer the consequences.

There is more to say about this but let's just let it sit here for a moment.

Result in Injury? Well maybe but by the time the meeting was held the problem was addressed so legally - THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE MEETING

What else? 24 hour notice is needed unless fast action is needed. Yet again - There was no reason for the meeting. But hey, let's just say she erred on the side of needing fast action and overlook the 24 hour notice.

BUT WHY? Why was it held in the fire department? Was that a power show? Was that a way to hide the meeting?

So- we keep hearing about Rolling Quorum.

What is that? It's the idea that councilors agree how to vote prior to the official vote.

That is it.

It's against the law.

It is a violation of the Open Meetings Act. It's that simple.

"Fundamental to the Open Meetings Act is your right to witness both the discussions and votes of the Council." (Quoted from article listed below.)

Here is an article about Las Cruces violating the Open Meetings act. However, it explains rolling quorum and the problems associated with them very clearly. Read that article here.

So, when you sit in a meeting and see two Councilors look at one prior to voting as if they are waiting for guidance how to vote - that is a big oops.

When you sit in a meeting and see an obvious scripted performance with the eye rolling, laughing, comments that build on each other - that is a big oops.

When you drive by a house and see their three cars outside - that is a big big big oops.

Note this: They are NOT just breaking the law. They are violating your right to hear the debate, understand their vote, have a say in the government actions (because the decisions has already been agreed to among the three.)