May 28, 2026

 

Deputy Director Rebecca M. Guay

New Mexico Attorney General's Office

408 Galisteo St.

Santa Fe, NM 87501

 

RE: Violations of the Open Meetings Act by the city of Las Cruces

 

Dear Deputy Director Rebecca M. Guay,

     We respectfully request that your office reopen its investigation into the Public Safety Select Committee (“PSSC”), created by the Las Cruces City Council in 2020 and reportedly dissolved following its final meeting in November 2023.

     According to the New Mexico Department of Justice’s Compliance Guide, a committee consisting of less than a quorum of a public body may be exempt from the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) only if it:

1. engages solely in fact-finding;

2. simply executes the policy decisions or final actions of the public body; and

3. does not otherwise act as a policymaking body. [The Inspection of Public Records Act: A Compliance Guide on Government Transparency for New Mexicans and Their Public Officials, N.M. Department of Justice 2024, p. 8.]

     The PSSC did not meet these requirements.

     In its October 20, 2025 letter to Michael Hays regarding his complaint about the PSSC, your office — citing information provided by Las Cruces City Attorney Brad Douglas — stated: “The City Council affirmed that the PSSC did not make any decisions, take final action, or establish policy on behalf of the City Council. Further, the City Council affirmed that the PSSC did not make any presentations to the City Council, and as such, the City Council did not provide recommendations.”

     I independently reviewed agendas and minutes from 252 Las Cruces City Council meetings between 2019 and 2025. The PSSC was mentioned only three times, and never in connection with providing facts, information, or recommendations to the City Council. I also reviewed council transcripts and communications between city officials and found no evidence that the committee submitted formal or informal recommendations or factual findings to the Council. The available records likewise show the committee did not execute decisions made by the City Council.

     What the PSSC did do was deliberate and formulate public policy outside the scope of an OMA-exempt committee.

Available records demonstrate that the PSSC discussed and considered substantive policy matters, including but not limited to:

• rewriting ordinances concerning domestic violence and civilian police oversight;

• drafting RFPs for police auditing services and crisis response units;

• discussing police policies, including use-of-force standards, officer mental health evaluations, and crisis intervention procedures; and

• deliberating matters relating to homelessness, speed enforcement, fentanyl, gun safety, police case closures, and pending litigation. [See file: AGENDA, NOTES PSSC Jan-Aug 2023.pdf]

     The PSSC did not engage solely in fact-finding, nor did it execute decisions of the City Council.

     Instead, it formulated and controlled public policy.

     Section 10-15-1(A) of the OMA provides: “The formation of public policy or the conduct of business by vote shall not be conducted in closed meetings.”

     Nevertheless, the PSSC made substantive policy determinations in closed meetings and, in at least one instance, prevented rejected policy proposals from reaching the full City Council for public consideration.

     At a November 10, 2022 PSSC meeting, Mayor Ken Miyagishima and Councilors Kasandra Gandara and Tessa Abeyta considered a proposal concerning a citizen police review committee. Each expressed opposition to the proposal, and the matter was not forwarded to the City Council. [See file: NOTES PSSC meeting 11.10.22.pdf]

     At the subsequent December 5, 2022 City Council meeting, another councilor attempted to place the matter on the agenda. Mayor Miyagishima refused to allow the issue to proceed, and PSSC members discouraged further discussion. [See file: MINUTES Las Cruces City Council 12.05.22, p. 35.]

     Additionally, meeting notes from an August 23, 2023 PSSC meeting state that the committee determined “that no random reviews of Use of Force (or any kind) will be added to the [police auditor] OIR Contract.” [See file: EMAIL PSSC meeting notes 8.23.23.pdf.]

The available records demonstrate that the PSSC functioned as a policymaking and gatekeeping body that controlled which public safety matters could be publicly discussed by the full City Council.

     For example, during a November 23, 2020 City Council work session concerning police accountability, City Attorney Jennifer Vega-Brown stated that proposed policy changes “would be vetted through … the Public Safety Select Committee.” Mayor Miyagishima repeatedly instructed councilors seeking to discuss policy matters to “follow procedure” and route those matters through the PSSC first. [See file: TRANSCRIPT Las Cruces City Council 11.23.20.pdf.]

     A similar pattern occurred during City Council meetings on April 3 and April 17, 2023, when four councilors requested a special public safety work session. Despite having sufficient votes to call such a session, Mayor Miyagishima stated that any proposal for a work session first required approval from the PSSC before reaching the City Council. [See files: TRANSCRIPT Las Cruces City Council 4.3.23.pdf and TRANSCRIPT Las Cruces City Council 4.17.23.pdf.]

     The committee’s policymaking role was expressly acknowledged by city staff. In a November 13, 2023 email, Sergio Ruiz, policy analyst for the city manager’s office, described the Public Safety Select Committees as “an integral part of the policy-making process.” [See file: EMAIL Las Cruces staff, councilor 11.13.23.]

     Section 10-15-1(B) of the OMA further provides: “No public meeting … shall be closed or dissolved into small groups or committees for the purpose of permitting the closing of the meeting.”

     Additionally, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has held that “[i]t is patently contrary to the OMA’s purpose to permit a public body to avoid the OMA’s requirements simply by delegating its responsibilities to a [committee].” [N.M. State Inv. Council v. Weinstein, 2016-NMCA-069, ¶ 75, 382 P.3d 923.]

     The legislative history surrounding the amendment of the Select Committee Ordinance strongly suggests that avoiding public scrutiny was a motivating factor behind creation of the PSSC.

     During the January 6, 2020 City Council meeting approving changes to the select committee ordinance, City Attorney Vega-Brown stated that select committees were needed because “there are instances in which we have to discuss potential litigation … that would be better kept in a more confidential setting.” [See file: MINUTES Las Cruces City Council 1.6.20.pdf, p. 98.]

     The available evidence also demonstrates that the City resisted public disclosure concerning the PSSC’s existence and activities.

In response to a June 25, 2023 Inspection of Public Records Act request submitted by Michael Hays seeking records related to the PSSC, the City initially produced only thirteen documents, declared the request excessively burdensome, and later released heavily redacted records. Following litigation, the City ultimately produced the requested records — more than 500 emails and other documents — after incurring approximately $95,000 in legal costs. [See Hays v. City of Las Cruces, D-307-CV-2023-02167 (N.M. Dist. Ct. 2023).]

     Members of the public repeatedly requested transparency regarding the PSSC during City Council meetings, including requests for agendas, minutes, and public access to meetings. Those requests were consistently denied or ignored.

     Even City Council members who did not serve on the committee were denied access to meeting notices, agendas, and minutes, prompting repeated complaints regarding the committee’s secrecy and lack of accountability.

     For example, on February 27, 2023, Councilor Yvonne Flores stated: “I just want to share with everybody in this room that … I know as much about [the public safety committee] as you do. … nothing gets reported to us, so I want the public to know that.”

     For these reasons, we respectfully request that your office reopen its investigation into whether the Public Safety Select Committee violated the Open Meetings Act.

     Thank you for your consideration.

 

Sincerely,

Christine Barber Executive director

New Mexico Foundation for Open Government