The June 26 vote by councilors to pay Magistrate Judge Stephen Salazar’s recent legal bills was invalid, Mayor Alice Lucero said June 28.
Lucero said the vote was invalid because the discussion and subsequent votes were not listed as a meeting agenda item as required by the state Open Meetings Act. One of the Act’s exceptions to go into executive sessions is when a public body is discussing personnel matters.
Councilors voted 5-2 at the June 26 meeting to pay the legal bills accumulated by the judge for defending himself in a Judicial Standards Commission trial.
Minutes later and during a second tally, councilors voted 4-3 to award Salazar $7,700 for his recent defense and pick up the tab for an undetermined amount for legal fees July 18, when the New Mexico Supreme Court considers sentencing. The Commission recommended suspending the judge without pay for 90 days.
Lucero said she expected the issue to be discussed behind closed doors during an executive session, but after councilors heard a recommendation from City Attorney Frank Coppler suggesting the issue be addressed for the record at the meeting, councilors opted to discuss the legal payment publicly.
“Our attorney advised us to do it in public,” said District 3 Councilor Eric Radosevich.
Roger Makim, communications coordinator with the Municipal League, said the New Mexico Open Meetings Act guarantees public transparency. The basis of the Act is notification so the public knows about any discussion prior to a particular public meeting, Makim said.
“You don‘t take action unless you notify the public,” Makim said.
Salazar agreed to serve one year of probation after the judicial standards commission determined he acted improperly in a 2007 domestic violence case, according to commission records.
While serving probation for that offense, the judge illegally issued an ex parte order to release a motorcycle belonging to the son of a fellow church member, according to court documents issued by the Commission.
The city has spent $15,000 since 2008 to defend Salazar in various legal matters, including $10,000 in November 2008 and $5,000 in October 2010, all to Santa Fe attorney Dan Cron, city financial records state. That amount does not include any payments stemming from the most recent court action and the $7,700 agreed upon by the city council, but questioned by the mayor.
Cron is the attorney Salazar wants to pay currently. Cron did not return a call requesting an interview.
After receiving post-meeting advice from Coppler (Coppler attended the June 26 meeting but not the June 18 meeting), Lucero suggested councilors re-examine the payments she said were invalid and vote again at the upcoming July meeting.
“It’s not a personal thing, it’s the principal,” Lucero said. “Tuesday’s action was invalid. We should have listed it as an agenda item.”
Lucero sent a June 29 e-mail to councilors stating she was concerned the vote taken was an invalid action or vote.
“It was expected that the matter would be discussed in executive session and then the council would come out and take action,” Lucero wrote. “Since this did not happen, the council could not take action on an item that did not appear on the agenda. Pursuant to direction and advice from our city attorney, we will have to reconsider this item at the next council meeting.”
The council does not hold a regular council meeting again until July 28, 10 days after Salazar stands before the state Supreme Court.