Edgewood NMIPRA Violation? Event Doublespeak?
by John Weckerle
On June 24, 2008 I submitted a New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act request to the Town of Edgewood. Included in the request were copies of all correspondence among the Mayor and Council members, including e-mail messages. By the time the statutory deadline for providing the information (July 9) had passed, I had received only 1) a copy of the MOUs between the Town and other entities including Wildlife West Nature Park and the Edgewood Chamber of Commerce; 2) a copy of the Town Attorney’s opinion regarding the anti-donation clause; and 3) instructions on how to find the budget on the web site. On July 10, I contacted Town Clerk Estefanie Muller both by e-mail and by phone. I explained that the deadline had passed, and that I had not received any additional information, including correspondence. Ms. Muller stated that coordination on the budget had been done verbally and explained that she had checked the Mayor’s computer and had not found any associated correspondence. I informed her that I had, in fact, received copies of relevant e-mail messages from other sources, and advised her to discuss the situation with the Mayor. I received this response.
I have removed one e-mail message from Councilor Glenn Felton to Mayor Stearley, which appears to deal in part with a personnel issue; however, this e-mail references a document that was not provided in the response to the request. Similarly, an e-mail message from Mr. Felton references a spreadsheet that was not provided, although it is not clear as to whether it was ever transmitted. A May 07 message from Mr. Felton to Mayor Stearley and Janelle Turner included an attachment titled “antidonation.doc” – also not provided in the Town’s response. A March 13 message from Councilor Abrams titled “Fwd: new legislation” contains only the words “try this,” suggesting that previous correspondence may exist, and an attachment (“new legislation (114 KB)”) that was also not included in the Town’s response. I have also received (from another source) two e-mail messages regarding the issues at hand that were not included in the Town’s response. Ms. Muller was copied on both.
It is probably not worth speculating on whether the lateness and incompleteness of the Town’s response represents some attempt at subterfuge or arises from some problem with the administration’s ability to coordinate NMIPRA requests. That judgment lies within the purview of Attorney General Gary King’s office. We will provide updates on the progress of any such determinations.
One very interesting exchange occurred on April 6 & 7 between Mayor Stearley and Mr. Felton. Mr. Felton states that he had heard from Councilor Brad Hill on the issue of the music festival, and raises issues associated with the festival and Run, Rally & Rock. In his reply, Mr. Stearley states: “I don’t think the MOU’s are really a legal issue, so much as just policy issues, so I doubt that Marcus is necessary.” The message goes on to explain what amounts to a philosophy against funding the events. The correspondence provided in the Town’s response contains no prior reference to the anti-donation clause. In short, the Town’s problems with funding the festival do not appear to have originated with a concern for the law; rather, they seem to have arisen as a philosophical stance on policy. Of note is Councilor Brad Hill’s attempt to bring some perspective and honesty into the discussion in a May 7 message:
“The Town may assist the non profit in generating revenue to further the mission of the non-profit in order to support that mission. The question becomes an issue if the Town desires to support a community need as identified in that organizations mission. I believe that is the issue that needs to be addressed, the Town may support the activities undertaken that will further a non profits approved mission. Why can’t we have this discussion? Instead of taling about personalities and events we should determine clearly that we are (or are not) willing to utilize Town resources to support the mission of Wildlife West and/or the Chamber. Whether they make money or not from an event is irrelevant to the basic issue. I have made this statement on a couple of occasions and can’t get anyone else to address. If the Town should not support financially the public benefit mission of these entities you should state that clearly instead of making references to retaining revenue or getting income as that is not the appropriate concern.”
We couldn’t agree more. It is perhaps telling that Mr. Felton’s message to Mayor Stearley and Ms. Turner on the anti-donation clause (referenced above) was sent just a few hours later.
The issue of whether the Town is violating the Open Meetings Act is under investigation by the Attorney General, but it appears quite possible that the nature and extent of at least some of the correspondence raises serious questions regarding the use of e-mails to establish a “rolling quorum.” The latest information will be provided to the Assistant Attorney General handling the case. Another issue on which we strongly criticize the Town: government officials should not be using their private e-mail addresses to conduct official business. It is neither expensive nor difficult to set up an appropriate e-mail system that officials can use for Town business, nor is there any impediment to setting them up to access it from any location from which they require access.