City councilors responded to the state Attorney General’s opinion that the city violated the Open Meetings Act in September when then-City Manager Jim Palenick was fired.

During Wednesday’s city council meeting, Mayor Mike Williams read the resolution verbatim. The resolution is on the city’s Web site at ci.rio-Rancho.nm.us

The item was added for discussion at the last minute, with the city placing it on the agenda Tuesday. The council unanimously approved the resolution, saying the council and mayor disagrees with the AG’s opinion, but “understands that reasonable people can disagree in their opinions and wishes to conclude the matter in an expeditious manner.”

Former mayor Jim Owen, who filed the open meeting complaint, addressed the city council, expressing his dismay at them.

“This is not about Mr. Palenick, this is about a governing body that is out of control,” he said. The city’s legal staff believes it’s superior to the attorney general’s staff and (attorney general) Gary King in particular, who is one of the authors of the state’s Open Meetings Act. The unanimous vote on the resolution tonight will be just another example of how our representatives do business in Rio Rancho.”

Owen went on to say: “One has to ask this question: What was the urgency to get this on tonight’s agenda? At the 11th hour, precisely at 3:18 p.m. yesterday (Tuesday), it was placed on tonight’s schedule. Why couldn’t it have waited until the next meeting when all of those who have a vested interest could attend, such as Jim Palenick or his lawyer? Or Lonnie Clayton, who has just lodged the latest complaint about the last three violations of the Open Meetings Act? I wonder if this council has a real appreciation of the intelligence of the people of Rio Rancho.”

The next city election is March 4 and Owen sent out a warning to the councilors for their vote.

“This issue is not going to go away, even if you pass this meaningless resolution,” he said. “But your vote tonight will definitely identify you and where you stand, whether you serve yourself or the interests of this city.”

Councilor Delma Petrullo believes the resolution is explanatory.

“I think the resolution speaks for itself,” she said. “We are unanimous in the way we felt about it. We felt there was some misinterpretation and it’s very unfortunate that the former mayor wants to keep stirring the pot and there’s nothing to stir.”

The issue stems from the attorney general’s opinion in September that discussions between then-Mayor Kevin Jackson, councilors Howard Balmer, Patty Thomas, Larry Naranjo and then-Councilor Michael Williams, prior to firing then-City Manager Jim Palenick, constituted a rolling quorum and were in violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act.

The attorney general’s opinion said the violations rendered Palenick’s firing in December “null and void.”

Palenick has claimed the city owes him more than $100,000 in back pay to December. He has said he is prepared to sue the city for the money.

The resolution says the discussions did not qualify as a public discussion under the terms of the act and that notifying the public of the mayor’s firing of Palenick was not necessary.

The resolution further states that the mayor simply wished to inform the councilors of his unilateral intention.

The city also argues that a discussion between Jackson and Thomas was not illegal and she did not participate in a quorum” because Jackson had already requested Palenick to resign.

The resolution also points out that when the mayor and three other councilors form a quorum, no final action on public business or policy can be done.

In the resolution, the councilors summarized their best recollections of comments that were made during meetings with Mayor Jackson relating to his request for Palenick to resign.

Said Balmer: Prior to the date on which Mayor Jackson asked Jim Palenick to resign, the Mayor discussed his dissatisfaction with Jim’s performance. Mayor Jackson afterward requested that Mike Williams and I be present at the meeting in which he intended to ask for Mr. Palenick’s resignation. I attended that meeting, as requested.

Said Williams: “In discussions with Mayor Jackson, he raised concerns about Palenick’s management style and decisions and ultimately requested that I, as deputy mayor, be in his office when he asked for Mr. Palenick’s resignation.”

Said Naranjo: After discussing management issues relating to Jim Palenick, Mayor Jackson told me of his intention to ask for, and hopefully receive, the city manager’s resignation.

Said Thomas: “I was at City Hall that morning, doing something that I have done every year since elected (delivering my homemade peanut butter fudge). Since I was there and I saw Mayor Jackson, he told me he wanted to let me know that he had asked Jim Palenick for his resignation and had given him 48 hours to respond. He said he did not want to know how I felt about this and he did not want to discuss his feelings because of the Open Meetings Act. He just wanted to let me know that he had asked for Jim’s resignation. That was the end of our conversation."