The public hearing on Ordinance 587 that took place on August 2 2011 was unlike other hearings that have occurred during my term as county councilor. The councilor who sponsored the ordinance was not allowed to make a presentation to the council. A legal opinion of the charter amendment proposed by Ordinance 587 was presented by the county attorney that touched upon not only points of law but also policy matters, describing Ordinance 587 as bad policy that is contrary to our chosen form of government. The council voted to table the ordinance after brief remarks by a single councilor without affording any opportunity for the merits of the proposed charter amendment to be discussed by the council. The brevity of the council discussion was in sharp contrast to the length of the public comment period, more than thirty minutes, with the overwhelming majority of public comments being in support of the ordinance. When the council formulates public policy it is necessary for both sides of an issue to be heard and in my opinion the public hearing for Ordinance 587 was conducted in a way that unfairly muted the proponents of the ordinance.
I introduced Ordinance 587 because our citizens never had the chance to vote on the LAGRI charter amendment in 2010. A recent opinion by New Mexico Attorney General Gary Kings states that Los Alamos can legally amend its charter to allow voter approval of capital projects. The proposed charter amendment would take away the discretion of the council to fund certain capital projects that cost more than five million dollars without obtaining voter approval. It doesn’t surprise me that the county attorney feels that this proposed charter amendment is bad public policy. The county attorney is the legal advocate for the council. Who is the legal advocate for the public? It is too easy for the council to use untested legal theories to dismiss Ordinance 587. With regards to complex legal issues like charter amendments an unambiguous legal answer is often not readily apparent. A case involving a home rule municipality enacting a charter amendment of this kind has never been heard in a New Mexico court. The Los Alamos County Council is not a court of law and it should not pretend to be one. The legality of the proposed charter amendment should be decided only through the proper judicial process in court and the merits of the proposed charter amendment should be decided first by the voters of Los Alamos County.
One of our strategic goals as a county is to foster better communications between the council and the public. Allowing the citizens to set spending priorities for capital projects through an election furthers our goal of having better communications with the public. Many citizens question the need for large new county facilities and expansive road construction. In my opinion the divide in trust between the council and the public will only be bridged when the council summons the political courage to put the voices of our citizens ahead of those of special interest groups by adopting a charter amendment such as the one proposed in Ordinance 587. Council should allow a fair debate the merits of the proposed charter amendment first.
