The ongoing saga of Palenick vs. Rio Rancho is over … at least for now.

A ruling last Wednesday by 13th District Court Judge George Eichwald said the city doesn’t owe former city manager Jim Palenick any back pay.

Palenick’s attorney said the suit is not dead. Daniel Faber said his client is owed more than $100,000 in back pay because he was fired illegally and was still the city manager for an additional 10 months.

The state attorney general’s office issued an opinion in September of 2007 stating that the city council held a rolling quorum, a violation of the Open Meetings Act, when it fired Palenick. That opinion has been one of the prime arguments in Faber’s case.

But last Wednesday, Judge Eichwald ruled that steps the city council took to correct an Open Meetings Act violation also ratified the firing of Palenick.

Faber, however, said that shouldn’t have been the issue at this hearing.

“I was surprised, because back in August, at a hearing in 2008, the judge narrowed the issue and determined that the violation of the Open Meetings Act would not be an issue,” Faber said. “And then he proceeded to rule against Mr. Palenick because he didn’t have evidence to prove that a violation existed. The only issue in the opinion should have been if the firing date was retroactive.”

Randy Bartell, the attorney representing the city, said the prior hearings did not relieve Palenick and his attorney from having to prove there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

“It’s always been their burden to prove the Open Meetings violation,” Bartell said. “The city’s position was that he knew about the Open Meetings violation and yet, he chose to go forward with demanding his severance, which could only be given to him if he were terminated.”

The ruling saved the city more than $100,000 and for that reason especially, Mayor Tom Swisstack was pleased with the verdict.

“I was pleased, first of all, on the judge’s decision which I think was a long time coming. I thought, obviously because I’m on the winning side, that he made the right decision,” Swisstack said. “It’s exciting not to think that I have to go back to the general fund for money that doesn’t exist, or if it does exist, money that would have come from another program.”

Faber contends the firing was illegal because it was decided in a rolling quorum between then-Mayor Kevin Jackson and city councilors in December of 2006.

At a hearing in March, Judge George Eichwald didn’t issue a summary judgment for either the city or Palenick. Last August, Eichwald ruled the city corrected any violations of the state’s Open Meetings Act in November of 2007 when it fired Palenick in an open meeting.

It’s that August ruling that Faber now says conflicts with what happened last week and why he filed for a new trial on Thursday.

“I’m filing the motion for a new trial. Because the judge narrowed the issues and open meetings was not the issue,” Faber said. “We were under the understanding that we weren’t to present evidence to prove a violation of the Open Meetings Act, and when a judge makes a ruling, you have an obligation to follow it.”

The motion for a new trial was filed with the 13th District Court and Faber said if that is denied, an appeal will certainly follow.

Swisstack is confident that last Wednesday’s ruling will be upheld.

“I think the attorneys involved have demonstrated the basics and shown that Palenick did receive due process,” he said. “I think that will hold up as Mr. Palenick goes through the appeals process, which, of course, everybody has a right to.”

The city initially hired Palenick on July 25, 2003, and on Nov. 8, 2006, Palenick signed an agreement for an indefinite term to serve as city manager for $120,000 a year, plus benefits. Palenick is currently the city manager for Gastonia, N.C.

Judge Eichwald also dismissed a counterclaim by the city saying Palenick should return his severance package.

Jimmy Currier contributed reporting to this article.