Opinion: Roosevelt County manager's contract needed public notice

Roosevelt County Manager Amber Hamilton received a pay raise and a contract extension on Nov. 15.

No problem.

The pay raise was a 15% increase, bumping her to $112,000 per year. The contract extension was for two years.

Neither the raise nor the extension was particularly troublesome. Other county managers make more money; if county commissioners think she’s doing a good job, a two-year contract extension seems like a good way to ensure she stays around for a while.

Here’s the problem:

Commissioners did the entire thing in secret, violating the state’s Open Meetings Act in the process.

Taxpayers learned of the commissioners’ actions after an anonymous tipster – clearly an insider who thinks government needs to operate with more transparency – alerted our newspaper.

To the county’s credit, the information about Hamilton’s new contract was provided on request. And days later, plans were made to discuss and vote on the agreement properly and legally at the commission’s next meeting on Monday.

Shamefully, the explanation for how the county came to correct its unscrupulous decision does not exactly give taxpayers reason to think it won’t happen again, or that it was an accident.

“Though Roosevelt County has handled such contracts in a similar fashion over the years, because of the apparent objections noted in your article, and to put to rest any concerns, this matter will be placed on the Dec. 5, 2022 agenda,” wrote County Attorney Michael Garcia.

In other words, Roosevelt County has been violating the Open Meetings Act for years, but it’s going to follow the law this time since it got caught?

Garcia’s response was to a formal information request from The News asking how the county was authorized to vote on the contract since it wasn’t on the meeting agenda. The attorney general’s compliance guide for following the Open Meetings Act states clearly, “Except for emergency matters, a public body shall take action only on items appearing on the agenda.”

Commissioner Tina Dixon was among those who seemed troubled by what happened in the executive session that followed the open meeting.

“I had no idea we were even going to discuss it [Hamilton’s contract and pay],” Dixon said after voting no on both. “We had not conducted an evaluation on her in well over a year and her contract was not due to expire until June 2023.”

Dixon said she didn’t see the need to “rush into such a contract.”

“I also didn’t feel there was adequate public notice or transparency,” Dixon said.

There wasn’t. No notice is not enough notice or transparency.

Hamilton may well deserve more money and more time to lead the county as its day-to-day manager. And no one disputes whether county commissioners have the authority to make those decisions. But they also have a responsibility to allow public input before making any decision.

The public cannot weigh in on an issue it doesn’t know will be discussed.

— David Stevens

Publisher

Author Bio

Do you have a question?
A comment you'd like to see published?
Or maybe a story idea for a future edition?

— Please email the publisher: [email protected]