ToadBook

Did anyone notice these things?

The agenda was written differently than normal. It didn't follow the normal agenda that is required in the ordinances. (2-2-2C).

When the Village office was asked about this the answer was that it was put out by a Councilor.

Executive Session - There are several things wrong here.

Executive session is closed and only certain things can be addressed in executive session. Elected public officials are not personnel and so any discussion regarding the Mayor should be in public.

Legal Council - what legal council? There is no attorney. No contract was awarded for an attorney. There is no legal council. This should be done prior to having meetings with a legal council. (More on this process in a bit)

So - what discussion is there to be held in executive session? There is all kind of wrong about this.

Did anyone notice the laws listed? NMSA 1978 10-15-1 (H)(7). Go look at NMSA 2025 10-15-1 (H)(2).

Item 6. District Court Complaint Regarding Removal from Office -

Once again - what legal council?

RECAP - if you are going to do something legally - at least do it correctly legally. Is it even possible to break the law to use the law against someone?

Yet another meeting??? And at a different time and day than normal?

Wait? Weren't the meetings were changed to WEDNESDAY because some of the Councilors just COULD NOT do a meeting on Thursday? Yet here we are on a Thursday having a meeting at yet a different time.

Our ordinance say this: 2-2-2 A. 1. Regular meetings. The governing body shall hold its regular meetings at such time and public places as it designates and deems necessary to conduct the business of the Village. These meetings shall follow a regular schedule whenever possible.

It might not be illegal but it sure isn't good practice to continue to hold so many meetings and at different places and times and dates.

Just do the business of the Village in one meeting. That has worked for years and years and years. Why can't it work that way now?

I bet this place is wishing they had not given this award.

NM FOG - New Mexico Foundation for Open Government could be a great help to local citizens wanting information about what their local government is doing.

But can you trust them when they give this person an award? (Follow the link here)

When they realize they've been lied to -

The state has been watching Bosque Farms very closely attending meetings. Why?

When the attorney said "Do not include everyone in your emails - you are in danger of violating the open meeting acts". The Three Councilors fought with the attorney and said 'no we are not'.

You can attend meetings and see those three Councilors (with Desmet in the lead) voting after looking at each other. You can sit in the meetings and tell it's scripted.

Ask yourself why WHY they are having so many meetings at such different hours- 8am? 9am? 2pm? 4 in September alone. Some two days apart.

Why? Of course, because the public is busy and can't easily attend. Because there are so many meetings it's hard to stay on top of when they are and what they cover and what date they are.... How is that OPEN government?

A recent meeting was held in the fire department instead of the regular meeting room (that was available by the way). That is not open government.

Well in spite of the DO NOT REPLY ALL at the top of the email – this email addresses THREE other Councilors.

This is called a rolling quorum. It is in violation of the open meetings act.

In fact, if you have attended meetings with the Village Attorney – The one they hired to represent the Village and advice the Council on how to best run Village business – She said DO NOT INCLUDE ALL THE COUNCILORS on your emails.

(Maybe that is why they got rid of her? They didn't like what she was saying?)

All she got was push back by two new Councilors saying “well it’s ok, we just can’t make decisions” and again the Attorney said – BEST PRACTICE is to not do it.

And this email is an example of why--

First- J. Bruhn is transmitting to other councilors that he’s working to schedule a meeting he deems important. He’s telling them who he has invited and in many ways indicating how he wants them to vote.

In what way you ask? How? - why invite Peralta if they are terminating the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) unless you are interested in exploring options with them. - Why invited Valencia County unless you are interested in exploring options with them.

In other words this email can be read by other Councilors to say ‘Hold Firm, we will have a meeting and the ONLY time to do it is June 18 at 9am.’

This email can be read by other Councilors to say ‘I want to do something with Peralta and even though the vote will be public, I’m telling you how I’m going to vote”.