This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A recall petition was filed against a Rio Arriba County Commissioner for allegedly violating the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by making a public policy decision outside of a public meeting. The decision in question involved the installation of a statue of Don Juan de Oñate at the Rio Arriba County Office Complex. The controversy surrounding the statue stems from differing views on Oñate's historical impact, with some viewing him as an important historical figure and others seeing the statue as offensive due to his treatment of indigenous people (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, May 2, 2024: The district court found probable cause to circulate a recall petition against the Commissioner for alleged malfeasance or misfeasance by making a decision outside a public meeting (paras 2, 8).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that the OMA does not apply to the decision to install the statue, that the decision was not made by the Commissioner, and that even if it was, there was no improper motive to qualify as malfeasance or misfeasance (para 10).
- Appellee: Alleged that the Commissioner committed malfeasance by making a public policy decision outside of a public meeting, violating the OMA (para 1).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in finding probable cause for a recall petition based on an alleged OMA violation without establishing that a quorum of the County Commission made the decision? (para 1)
Disposition
- The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the recall petition against the Commissioner (para 19).
Reasons
Per Thomson, Chief Justice (Bacon, Vargas, Zamora JJ., and Aragon J. concurring):
The Court found that the district court erred by not requiring a finding that a quorum of the County Commission made the decision to reinstall the statue, which is necessary to establish a violation of the OMA. The OMA applies only when a quorum of a policymaking body acts, and since the district court did not establish that a quorum was involved, there was no probable cause for an OMA violation. The Court relied on the precedent set in Paragon Foundation, which requires action by a quorum for the OMA to apply (paras 2, 10-18).