ToadBook

So why start a blog that is so specific that it won't grow much beyond the 5,000 residents and some former residents of Bosque Farms?

Reason One: Education.

It is hoped that you can read this and see for yourself the laws, ordinances, Constitutional and ethical considerations that are so casually overlooked in Council meetings and outside of Council meetings.

It is hoped that this reaches at least one Councilor who will then be more of an individual than an adherent or devotee to the lies they currently believe.

It is hoped that at least one Councilor has some strength to act independently and stand up and say 'stop swearing, stop yelling, stop chasing away employees'.

Some of us are tired of watching the revolving door in the personnel office as employees come in, do the best they can and are chased off. We want you to know the truth. We speak to the employees and we know what they have said.

Some of us are tired of hearing the yelling, interrupting, blaming, and lies. We attend council meetings and we are embarrassed by the council. The Councilor who yells, the Councilors who sit and let her. We keep hoping for decorum and manners and we are hoping for better.

February 22, 2024.

There are a lot of wonderful employees here at Village of Bosque Farms and also Town of Peralta! I think a lot of them are behind the scenes and you may not know what they do or how they can help! Once a week I’ll be posting a “get to know” an employee/department for both Bosque Farms and Peralta!! Enjoy our first “get to know” post!

Councilor Desmet posted this whole thing about an employee on this date. (You can go look it up if you want, that employee is gone and so the name doesn't matter).

Since then how many once a week positive posts have you seen? Two? Three? Promises not kept.

Maybe that's because someone (like the clerk at the time? or an attorney? or her training?) pointed out that employee management is not her lane to be in?

Even so, something nice and positive posted would be nice rather than the constant yelling and complaining.

Interesting words. Go look them up.

Did anyone notice these things?

The agenda was written differently than normal. It didn't follow the normal agenda that is required in the ordinances. (2-2-2C).

When the Village office was asked about this the answer was that it was put out by a Councilor.

Executive Session - There are several things wrong here.

Executive session is closed and only certain things can be addressed in executive session. Elected public officials are not personnel and so any discussion regarding the Mayor should be in public.

Legal Council - what legal council? There is no attorney. No contract was awarded for an attorney. There is no legal council. This should be done prior to having meetings with a legal council. (More on this process in a bit)

So - what discussion is there to be held in executive session? There is all kind of wrong about this.

Did anyone notice the laws listed? NMSA 1978 10-15-1 (H)(7). Go look at NMSA 2025 10-15-1 (H)(2).

Item 6. District Court Complaint Regarding Removal from Office -

Once again - what legal council?

RECAP - if you are going to do something legally - at least do it correctly legally. Is it even possible to break the law to use the law against someone?

One Doesn't have to Operate with Great Malice to do Great Harm. The absence of Empathy and Understanding are Sufficient.

Charles M. Blow

Yet another meeting??? And at a different time and day than normal?

Wait? Weren't the meetings were changed to WEDNESDAY because some of the Councilors just COULD NOT do a meeting on Thursday? Yet here we are on a Thursday having a meeting at yet a different time.

Our ordinance say this: 2-2-2 A. 1. Regular meetings. The governing body shall hold its regular meetings at such time and public places as it designates and deems necessary to conduct the business of the Village. These meetings shall follow a regular schedule whenever possible.

It might not be illegal but it sure isn't good practice to continue to hold so many meetings and at different places and times and dates.

Just do the business of the Village in one meeting. That has worked for years and years and years. Why can't it work that way now?

Our Ordinance

§ 2-2-9 Removal from office. Any person elected or appointed to an elective office of the municipality may be removed for malfeasance in office by the District Court upon complaint of the Mayor or Council of the municipality. Any such officer shall be entitled to a hearing at a time fixed by the Court after not less than 10 days' notice of such proceedings by service, as in the case of summons in civil actions, with a copy of the complaint filed in the proceedings.

So if the Mayor has complained (has he?) then it's time for the hearing ten days later for the Councilor who has demonstrated malfeasance. Each one of the Three who have demonstrated malfeasance.

I read this to say once a complaint has been made the District Court can remove this person until the hearing.

2-2-2 d) Enforcement. The Chief of Police... shall carry out all orders of the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining the order and decorum of the session. Upon orders from the presiding officer, it shall be the duty of the sergeant-at-arms to place any person who violates the provisions of this section under arrest and cause him to be prosecuted upon the complaint of the presiding officer in the Municipal Court, subject to punishment by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment in jail not exceeding 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

It's time Mayor. Past Time. The Councilor who yells at you, swears at you, blames you and interrupts you. The Councilor who won't let business be conducted.... It's time.

She's not following our ordinances! It's clear you can have her arrested. Do it.

You have the right to do it.

If you don't want to do that - have her removed for ten minutes and see if that doesn't calm her down and then try again. But this is enough.

2-1-2 B. 2. Exercise, within the municipality, powers conferred upon sheriffs of counties to suppress disorders and keep the peace; and

2-2-2 4) Decorum. (a) Mayor. The Mayor ****shall preserve the order and decorum, decide all questions of order and conduct the proceedings of the meetings in accordance with the parliamentary rules contained in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised unless otherwise provided by ordinance.

(b) Councilors. While the governing body is in session, the members shall observe order and decorum and neither delay nor interrupt the proceedings of the Council nor disturb any member while speaking nor refuse to obey the orders of the Council or its presiding officer.

Well well. Look at this. The Councilors are NOT following the ordinances. Note - Ordinances = Law. Shall = You MUST do this.

You have tolerated this behavior long enough. The public has tolerated her behavior long enough. It's time to just put a stop to it.

7-1-7 Disorderly Conduct Harassment Chapter 30, Article 3A, § 30-3A-1

The police have sat in these meetings repeatedly. They see this behavior repeatedly.

Over and over again we see one Councilor cause havoc in meetings. Over and over again we see one Councilor yell, interrupt, swear, blame and generally not allow for a smoothly run meeting.

Say your bit, participate in reasonable discussion, vote and move on.

Over and over again we see supporters of her yelling, screaming obscenities, and shouting people down.

IF this isn't harassment and if this isn't disorderly conduct then I stand corrected.

IF THIS meets those standards of harassment and disorderly conduct - then I beg the PD to stand up and issue citations, escort people out, and lets get these meetings under control.

This doesn't violate right to speech I believe. In fact, I would say that right to speech is violated for those who are shouted down, yelled at and told to sit down and shut up.

Look at the re: on this email. Writ of Mandamus.

What is this? What is a Writ of Mandamus?

Here is a legal definition: court order that commands a government official, agency, or lower court to perform a mandatory duty required by law.

What is this typically used for? - for a higher court to force a lower court to rule in accordance with the law. - to force the governmental agency to give paperwork requested through open meetings requests - Immigration status so time lines don't run out.

It is typically not used to addressed contrived eme -- as a way to force a Mayor or a Clerk Administrator or treasurer to do something illegal. (Spend funds that are earmarked and budgeted for a different item for example) -- to demand money is spent when there is no treasurer that can spend that money. (ARPA funds for example). This is particularly true when the treasurer has been forced out less than a month before this demand. -- To adopt procedures that go against ordinances (rules of procedure).