Saturday, March 18, 2006

Board can't tailor minutes

our view

Over the years, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and its board of directors have had a tendency to forget that the district is a public entity subject to the same rules local, county and state governments must follow.

Part of that is the result of not enough people paying attention to the district and the actions of its board. Part of it is that the district deals with complex issues that in some cases require the blending of centuries-old rights and traditions with modern demands and ever-evolving law. Some of those issues are nearly incomprehensible to the layman — even to the media — without an extensive understanding of these disparate factors.

The vast majority of people who pay for the operation of the district but are not directly involved in irrigation or water rights don't even know exactly what the district does or how it operates. Few vote in district elections, and many aren't aware that the conservancy district is a public entity — or that they're taxed for it.

All this creates an atmosphere in which board members come to feel that they can do whatever they want because 1) nobody appears to be paying attention, and 2) nobody seems to care except for a few farmers focused only on issues that directly affect them.

Thus, the agency sometimes gets itself in trouble, as it appears to have done Monday when it passed a resolution that directs that any allegation of wrongdoing by board members or employees raised in a public meeting be excluded from the meeting minutes unless the person making the allegation has firsthand knowledge of its truth.

This resolution means, for example, that the comments of a board member repeating an allegation raised by a water user, ratepayer or other constituent would not be reflected in the meeting minutes.

This resolution is almost certainly contrary to the state Open Meetings Act, which the Attorney General's Office, in a guide for public officials, has said means that the minutes of a meeting must reflect all discussions during that meeting, not just some of them, and certainly not just the ones the governing body wants included.

The resolution is probably aimed at commissioner Bill Turner, who in his short time on the board has been a frequent critic of the board, district management and district operations.

Whether Turner's criticism is valid, constructive or off base doesn't really matter — the board cannot by resolution treat the issues he raises as if they don't exist. He's an elected official and his remarks must be reflected in the minutes just like any other commissioner.

The board would do well to rescind this resolution at its next meeting, rather than facing the expense and discomfort of a certain legal challenge.

E-mail this story Printer-friendly version