The committee report is quite long and contains much background material. On this page are the charter change recommendations only (with justifications)

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Article II. City Council

 

a.  RECOMMENDATION:  Revise Section 2.06 (a) to correct the reference of the mayor’s residence so that the new section reads:

“(a)        Vacancies. The office of councillor shall become vacant upon the councillor's death, resignation, recall, moving of residence from the district from which elected, or forfeiture of office. The office of mayor shall become vacant upon the mayor's death, resignation, recall, moving of residence to outside the city limits, or forfeiture of office.”

 

 

b.  RECOMMENDATION:  Revise Section 2.09 (c) by adding the “utility board” language so that the new section reads:

“Regulation of the rate charged for its services by a public utility, unless otherwise lawfully delegated to a municipal board of utility commissioners;”

 

JUSTIFICATION:  Per the request of the city’s Director of Utilities.

 

Article IV. Administration

 

 RECOMMENDATION:  Revise Section 4.05 to read:  “The council shall provide a method for receiving, acknowledging, and resolving complaints or grievances concerning the city or its operations.”

 

JUSTIFICATION:  This revision adds the important emphasis that complaints need to be resolved where possible – not just acknowledged and documented.

 

Article VI. Planning

 

a.  RECOMMENDATION:  Revise Section 6.02 to change the last portion of section 6.02 (following the word “implementation” to read, “a complete review and updating of the plan at least every ten (10) years.”

 

                JUSTIFICATION:  Experience has shown that the comprehensive plan becomes outdated in ten years or less.  The desire is to maintain an up to date comprehensive plan.

 

b.  RECOMMENDATION:  To amend the second paragraph of section 6.03 to read, “Before taking any action concerning land use or action the council shall cause findings and a report to be made: (a) concerning the relationship between the proposed action and the comprehensive plan and (b) concerning the capital improvements associated with the proposed action and (c) concerning the increased costs and expenses to the city associated with the action and (d) concerning payment for the capital improvements and increased costs.  This report shall detail how the proposed action complies with or does not comply with the comprehensive plan.”

 

    JUSTIFICATION:  The purpose of this change is to establish visibility into how the comprehensive plan is or is not being used.  That visibility will add a measure of accountability to city government.


 

 

Article VII. City Elections

 

a.  RECOMMENDATION:  Revise Section 7.02(a) Petitions to read “Candidates for election to the council or to the office of mayor shall be nominated by petition. A person may be nominated for election as a councilor within the district in which he or she is a qualified resident voter by a petition signed by not less than one hundred (100) qualified voters residing within the district which the candidate seeks to represent. A person may be nominated for election as mayor by a petition signed by not less than five hundred (500) qualified voters residing in the city limits of the City of Las Cruces. Nominating petitions shall be accompanied by the circulator's affidavit. The council shall prescribe the form and format of the petition and all related documents. The city clerk shall provide petition forms and related forms to those requesting them”

 

    JUSTIFICATION:  This change is needed to discourage non-serious candidates.

 

 

b.  RECOMMENDATION:  Revise Section 7.02(b)  to replace “the forty second (42nd) day” in section 7.02(b) with “the fifty sixth (56th) day,” so that the new Section 7.02(b) reads:

 

“(b)        Filing. All separate papers comprising a nominating petition shall be assembled and filed as one instrument on the fifty sixth (56th) day before the election. If a candidate's representative files the nominating petition, the petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit so certifying. No nominating petition shall be accepted unless accompanied by a signed acceptance of the nomination by the candidate. The candidate or the candidate's authorized representative shall file the candidate's petition with the city clerk, who shall record the exact time at which each petition is filed.”

 

 JUSTIFICATION:  This would give the clerk an additional 14 days to check signatures.  Also proposes to replace “within five (5) working days” in section 7.02(c) to “within fifteen (15) working days," which will give the Clerk two additional working weeks.

 

c.  RECOMMENDATION:  Revise Section 7.02(d) Filing for position of municipal judge to read:

 

“(d)        Filing for position of municipal judge. A person who meets the qualifications for municipal judge may file for that position on the fifty sixth (56th) day before the election in the year the position is to be on the ballot. A candidate shall file for the position by declaring his/her candidacy to the city clerk.”

 

    JUSTIFICATION:  This change is needed to match the requirements for mayor and city council.

 

d.  RECOMMENDATION:  Add the following sentence to the end of section 7.05(a), “In the event that an instant runoff election is implemented, every qualified voter within the district shall be entitled to vote in rank order for multiple candidates for any contested office.” And add “the runoff election may be conducted in the instant runoff manner employing rank-order ballots.” To the end of the first paragraph in section 7.05(c) so that the new 7.05 reads:

 

“            (a)        Who may vote. Whenever the position for councillor of a district is on the ballot, every qualified voter within that district shall be entitled to vote for one (1) candidate for the councillor to represent that district. In addition, every qualified voter within the city limits shall be entitled to vote for municipal court judge or judges and for one (1) candidate for mayor to represent the City of Las Cruces as a whole.  In the event that an instant runoff election is implemented, every qualified voter within the district shall be entitled to vote in rank order for multiple candidates for any contested office.

 

(b)        Plurality: Minimum of forty percent (40%) required for election to office.  The city council shall arrange for the election to be decided by either a runoff election between the two candidates with greatest number of votes or by instant runoff election conducted at the time of the initial election.  If there is a runoff election, it shall be held within forty-five (45) days after certification of the initial election results. 

             (c)        Runoff provisions. In the event two (2) candidates receive at least forty percent (40%) of the votes cast for a particular office and tie, those two (2) candidates only shall automatically become candidates at a runoff election held pursuant to this section. If no candidate receives forty percent (40%) of the votes cast for a particular office, a runoff election shall be held within forty-five (45) days after certification of the results of the election as now provided for by law and as amended and supplemented from time to time. The two (2) candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast for the office in question shall automatically become the candidates at the runoff election and the filing of declarations of candidacy is dispensed with. 

 

            (1)        In the event of a tie in any runoff election, the winner shall be decided by lot in the presence of the candidates concerned and under the direction of the city clerk.

 

            (2)        The council shall, by resolution, fix the date of the runoff election, specify the offices to be filled, and the names of the candidates. The resolution shall be published once, at least seven (7) days before the runoff election date. No other publications are required in connection with runoff elections.

 

            (3)        Eligibility to vote in runoff elections shall be the same as in regular elections for a particular city office. Voting precincts and procedures shall be reactivated for runoff elections as required. If officials are to be voted upon on a city-wide basis, the entire electorate is involved, otherwise, only the council district shall be involved.

 

(4)            The runoff election may be conducted in the instant runoff manner employing rank-order ballots.”         

 

(5)        The runoff elections amendment to the Charter will take effect on the next election after its passage

 

    JUSTIFICATION:  This change enables Las Cruces to use “instant runoff voting” which eliminates the need for separate runoff elections that add costs for candidates and for city government.


 

 

Article VIII. Initiative, Referendum and Recall

 

a.  RECOMMENDATION:  Add the following “Editor’s Note” to the end of Section 8.01(a):

 

In 1996 the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled, in Johnson v. Alamogordo, that only “legislative” ordinances are subject to initiative and referendum.

 

    JUSTIFICATION:  This is needed to clarify what subject matter is excluded from the local initiative rights of the public.  The original language implies that all matters are eligible for local initiative.  And, when the public is told they cannot initiate administrative actions, they feel they have been misled by city government – since the charter does not correctly state the actual situation.

 

b.  RECOMMENDATION:  Add the following “Editor’s Note” to the end of Section 8.01 (b) Referendum:

 

In 1996 the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled, in Johnson v. Alamogordo, that only “legislative” ordinances are subject to initiative and referendum.

 

 

    JUSTIFICATION:  The original language implies that all matters are eligible for local initiative.  And, when the public is told they cannot initiate administrative actions, they feel they have been misled by city government – since the charter does not correctly state the actual situation.

 

c.  RECOMMENDATION:  Delete Section 8.03(a) Petitions,  Number of signatures and add the following new Section 8.03(a) to read:

 

“(a)        Number of signatures.  Initiative and referendum petitions shall be signed by qualified resident voters of the city equal to seven and one-half percent (7.5%) of the number of registered voters on the day the affidavit is filed, and no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the signatures shall come from one council district.  Petitions for recall of a councilor shall be signed by qualified voters of the district which the councilor subject to recall represents. The number of signatures required for recall shall be equal in number to at least seven and one-half percent (7.5%) of the registered voters, on the day the affidavit is filed, in the district which the councilor subject to recall represents.  Recall petitions attempting to recall the mayor shall be signed by at least seven and one-half percent (7.5%) of the registered voters, on the day the affidavit is filed, residing within the city limits of the City of Las Cruces, with no more than twenty-five percent (25%) from any one district.”

 

        JUSTIFICATION:  This change will make the three “petitions” (initiative, referendum, and recall) use “the number of registered voters” as the basis for determining number of signatures.  The change requires validated petition signatures totaling at least 7.5% of registered voters within the city limits at the time of filing the affidavit.  The committee’s rationale for linking the count to the number of registered voters is that the basis for all petition signature requirements should be stable and not fluctuate as currently occurs due to fluctuation in turnout in elections.  The committee’s rational for selecting the 7.5% number is to follow the recommendation found in the “Model City Charter”.  That advice was that “initiative and referendum should not be too easy and also should not be too difficult”.  The general effect of the recommended change is to double the required number of petition signatures.  The idea of no more than 25% from one district affirms that the issue at hand is truly of city-wide importance - not just a neighborhood issue.


 

 

Article IX. Municipal Court

RECOMMENDATION:  Add the “petty misdemeanor” language in Section 9.01(a) to read:

“The municipal court shall have jurisdiction over all “petty misdemeanor” offenses and complaints under ordinances of the City of Las Cruces and may issue subpoenas and warrants and punish for contempt.”

JUSTIFICATION:  The municipal court adjudicates only “petty misdemeanor” offenses.  Offenses subject to penalties greater than those allowed for “petty misdemeanors” are assigned to other courts.  So, the municipal court has jurisdiction over only “petty misdemeanor” offenses.  This section needs to be changed to clarify.