Commission discusses future of Clovis' city charter

CLOVIS — The Clovis city charter is somewhat of a nebulous area in New Mexico law. Its term limits for city commissioners are unenforceable because of state standards, but its recall procedures remain in place despite different state standards.

Charter review commission members discovered just why that is during their Tuesday meeting to help determine the future makeup of the city’s governing document.

The charter, first adopted in 1971, requires a citizen vote for changes. Such elections can be scheduled at any time by the Clovis city commission, but most ballot questions emerge from the charter review commission the charter requires be formed every 10 years.

The commission, made up of Clovis Mayor Mike Morris, City Commissioners Megan Palla and Lauren Rowley and two citizens from each of the four commission districts, is tasked with recommending any or no changes based off of public input and their own research and discussions.

Commission members decided after about 40 minutes they weren’t at the point to make that decision, and scheduled an additional meeting for 5:15 p.m. June 29 at the North Annex of the Clovis-Carver Public Library.

The charter review commission did perform its required function of a public hearing. Neither of the two citizens in attendance spoke, and the hearing was closed after one minute.

Much of the discussion centered on the unenforceable two-term limit for elected offices and the recall procedure for elected officials that differs from the state’s 2019 Recall Act.

District 2 representative Tom Martin, a former city commissioner, said the matter of term limits always confused him because county offices are term-limited.

“I’m not trying to be argumentative,” Martin said. “I just want to clear it up.”

City Attorney Jared Morris said the city adopted term limits in 1994. The following year, a similar initiative in Albuquerque was challenged in court and it was ruled term limits not addressed in the state constitution were an invalid qualification for office. County offices and the governor have term limits, Morris said, because those positions are specifically addressed in the state constitution.

City Manager Justin Howalt said following the court ruling that made the city’s term limit provision unenforceable, the commission put a question on the municipal ballot to strike that portion from the charter. The question failed.

Regarding recalls, a petition of registered Clovis voters can force a recall election, provided signatures meet or exceed 20% of voter turnout in the previous municipal election for that office. A vacancy created through a successful recall is filled like any other vacancy in the commission, and an elected official who survives a recall election receives six months of immunity against future recall efforts.

No city elected official has been successfully recalled, and despite public threats no recall elections have happened since John Schuller survived the effort in 1999.

The state recall act requires a petition from 33.3% of the turnout for the office’s prior election and requires the elected official be guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance while in office. Attorney Morris said Clovis can still use its recall procedures because it has adequate due process in place, but could also add an amendment requiring a reason for seeking the recall.

Commission members went back and forth over the required signature numbers. Robert Sandoval recalled his time as a city commissioner when he was threatened with a recall, and that he didn’t want the city to spend money on a recall election when just eight or nine people were mad at him. A petition seeking Sandoval’s recall was submitted in 2014, but a recall election never took place because only a handful of the 90 registered voters who signed it lived in District 3.

Citizen representatives George Jones and Vincent Soule said they would like a recall effort to require a stated reason, with Jones noting he didn’t want a recall election to happen because a few golfing buddies got mad.

The current 20% requirement means a petition for a recall of Mayor Morris or Municipal Judge Vicki Kelley would require 900 signatures, with district-specific signatures for each commission district — 345 in District 1, 156 in District 2, 115 in District 3 and 285 in District 4. The numbers tend to drop by about 50% following non-mayoral municipal elections, when turnout is lower.

Attorney Morris said a potential amendment requiring a reason didn’t have to align with the state standards, calling it “pretty restrictive” to only allow recall for criminal offenses related to the office.

Palla admitted trepidation on changing existing recall provisions, citing the need for elected officials to be accountable to voters.

In other matters discussed at the meeting:

• Jones said in a section requiring a commissioner to disclose financial interest in matters before the commission, the commissioner was referred to as “himself” and Jones felt a gender-neutral edit was needed. Howalt said staff had found similar instances elsewhere in the charter and would look at legal options to clean those up; “I can’t imagine the need to go to the electorate.”

• Soule said he noticed in the definitions section of 9-1, “elected official” referred to city commissioners or the mayor and asked if the municipal judge should be added. Howalt said the charter’s references to elected officials are generally related to policy the municipal judge has no role in shaping.