Home rule commission issue highlights mayor’s lack of transparency

It’s one thing to be criticized by someone you don’t know, but you know you’ve really stepped in it when an ally starts calling you out. Or at least you ought to.

Our editorial board expressed concerns months ago that our relatively new mayor — who has neither an abundance of professional nor political experience for the position he holds — wasn’t shaping up to be the politician he had promised voters he would be when he ran for office. In particular, we noted that his office has shown a consistent lack of transparency thus far, picking and choosing the information it releases and opting, as a policy, it would seem, to not comment on stories meant to keep constituents informed.

But even we have been shocked to see how Mayor Maestas has approached the matter of appointing members to a home rule commission, which will have the critical charge of drafting a municipal charter that could significantly influence how town government is structured and operates.

Twice now, Mayor Maestas has attempted to railroad his own list of candidates through to a vote using procedural maneuvers. And twice now, councilors have tabled the vote. Maestas’ second attempt at Tuesday night’s (Jan. 24) town meeting was paused by Councilor Corilia Ortega, who agreed with fellow Councilor Nathaniel Evans that the mayor wasn’t being transparent with the public regarding the candidates he wished to present. Maestas named at least six candidates at a Nov. 22 meeting, but no one knew Tuesday night that they might be voting for those same six — or a different set the mayor had handpicked.

We applaud Councilor Ortega for having the courage to call out Maestas’ display of poor leadership, especially in light of how often their views have aligned in the past.

Equally troubling is the fact that Mayor Maestas has failed to respond to an official, legally-binding public information request for the list of candidates he has publicly stated exists.

Reporter Geoffrey Plant filed requests with the town’s records custodian on Jan. 11 for not only the list of candidates but any records pertaining to the matter of appointing them.

He filed a second on Jan. 24, the day of the contentious town meeting, but that had also not received a response as of press time Wednesday (Jan. 25). For our readers who may not be aware, the New Mexico Public Records Act defines public records as “all documents, papers, letters, books, maps, tapes, photographs, recordings and other materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics … held by or on behalf of any public body …”

We are disappointed to see our highest-ranking town public official continue to so brazenly fail at providing the transparency voters and his fellow elected officials deserve — and now failing to comply with established public records regulations.