The City Commission’s comfort level in waiting for legal cover shows it has blind faith in City Manager Morris Madrid. It has faithfully followed his advice, without question or documentation, since mid-November, when the people delivered the ordinance that seeks to ban smart meters for 10 years.
A recent fulfillment of an Inspection-of-Public-Records-Act request shows Jay Rubin did not deliver a legal argument for blowing past two legal deadlines on the ordinance until Jan. 16.
State law required the City Commission to vote the initiative ordinance up or down by Jan. 2. If it was voted down, then the City Commission was to pass a resolution by Jan. 12, setting a special election to put the question of a 10-year smart-meter ban on the ballot, letting City voters decide.
The City Commission dawdled until City Manager Morris Madrid wanted something done. He called a special meeting Jan. 29, and then, the City Commission literally could not bring itself to act on the initiative ordinance, letting it die on the floor for lack of a motion. State law says “failure to act” is the same as a down vote.
Following the non-vote, Madrid advised the City Commission to vote down the election resolution and it did.
Since Rubin didn’t provide the City Commission with a reason for violating State law on initiative ordinances until Jan. 16, it demonstrates it blindly believed what City Manager Morris Madrid told them in the preceding months.
Madrid said the City Commission had to put the initiative ordinance to “publication” before voting on it, effectively delaying the decision past the legal deadline.
The City Commission and Madrid did not respond to The Sierra County Sun’s request for legal citations on the publication requirement, sent Jan. 6. They also did not respond to the Sun’s request for why they had not voted the initiative ordinance up or down by Jan. 2.
Evidently one of the commissioners sent the Sun’s email to Rubin, who responded Jan. 16, according to IPRA documents.
Rubin provided no legal citation that publication was required, proving Madrid made the requirement up, successfully duping the City Commission and delaying the vote.
Madrid wanted the people to pay the $1 million for smart meters, making the initiative ordinance moot. He had to spin out the time. The easy-out contract with Landis + Gyr had one requirement. Once “deliverables” were within 12 weeks, the City had to pay for them. Madrid’s publication ruse ensured the City Commission didn’t act until the $1 million was payable.
The City Commission believed Madrid’s second ruse. It only had “to act” on the initiative ordinance, he said, not vote it up or down. Their voting to put it to publication on Dec. 11 satisfied state law, he said.
Rubin didn’t supply any legal evidence Madrid was correct. Madrid duped them again, spinning out the time.
The City Commission has been passive since the initiative ordinance was “certified” mid-November. It has said nothing and asked nothing about the smart-meter contract. The natural question would be, “Has the contract been cancelled or delivery delayed until the initiative ordinance is voted on? If not, why not?”
Instead, the City Commission has remained unmoved after hearing dozens of impassioned requests from their constituents that smart meters be banned, primarily for health reasons.
For two months they let Madrid delay action, not questioning his specious arguments.
Two weeks before the Jan. 29 special meeting, Rubin gave the City Commission a copy of Johnson vs. City of Alamogordo, a 1996 New Mexico Supreme Court case, which he claimed may or may not carve out an exception for blocking an initiative ordinance and special election.
The lateness of Rubin’s legal evidence demonstrates the City Commission has abdicated its authority and responsibility to Madrid, leaving constituents at his mercy in the process.
For more information on the City Commission’s Jan. 29 meeting, read:
www.sierracountysun.com/truth-or-consequences-city-commission-chooses-smart-meter-contractor-over-residentsrsquo-wish-to-ban-them
For information on a court case filed the day after the Jan. 29 meeting, read:
www.sierracountysun.com/fenn-files-court-case-against-city-for-violating-law-requiring-they-hold-a-special-election-on-smart-meter-ban