Over $500,000 in Taxpayer Funds Paid Out After Unanimous Vote Was Reversed — Transparency Lawsuit Now Filed in District Court

Alamogordo N.M.- A lawsuit filed Monday in Twelfth Judicial District Court is seeking full public disclosure of a near half a million dollar payment made from general taxpayer funds — not the City's self-insurance pool — following one of the most extensively documented sequences of closed-door governmental maneuvering in Alamogordo's recent history. The payment, confirmed by city financial records obtained by 2nd Life Media, was made in connection with the forced departure of former Acting City Manager Dr. Stephanie J. Hernandez. Not a single dollar of it was disclosed to the public before or at the time the Commission voted to approve it.

The Petition for Enforcement of the New Mexico Open Meetings Act (Case No. D-1215-CV-2026-00514), filed by Chris Edwards on behalf of himself and Concerned Citizens of Alamogordo, alleges that the Alamogordo City Commission violated state law by using serial executive closed sessions to stall, reverse, and ultimately nullify a unanimous public vote — then approved a nearly half-million-dollar payout from public funds with no public debate, no public comment, and no disclosure of any financial terms. An Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order was filed simultaneously, asking the Court to block any city manager appointment before Thursday's scheduled commission session without a full public process.

THE VOTE THEY NEVER HONORED

The story begins not on April 28, when the Commission reversed course, but on March 10, 2026 — the date of the unanimous vote that the lawsuit says was systematically undermined from the moment it was taken.

That evening, following a two-hour executive session, the full Alamogordo City Commission returned to open session and voted 7 to 0 — every single commissioner, including the four who would later reverse it — to direct the City Clerk and City Attorney to begin contract negotiations with Acting City Manager Dr. Stephanie J. Hernandez for the permanent city manager position. The motion was made by Commissioner Mark Tapley and seconded by Commissioner Warren Robinson. It was official. It was binding. It was on the record.

In any normal circumstance, that vote would have produced a contract offer within one to two weeks — the standard timeline for every prior city manager hire in Alamogordo's history. In this case, no contract was ever offered. Not in a week. Not in seven weeks. Not at all.

"A unanimous public vote directing contract negotiations was never honored. Instead, the Commission used more than ten closed sessions over seven weeks to avoid offering a contract, then reversed the vote in secret and approved a  payout of over $500,000 in total  from taxpayer funds with no public debate or disclosure." — Chris Edwards, Petitioner

What happened in the intervening seven weeks — between the 7-0 vote on March 10 and the 4-3 reversal on April 28 — is precisely what the lawsuit is about. Because it happened almost entirely behind closed doors.

TEN-PLUS CLOSED SESSIONS. ZERO PUBLIC OUTPUT.

Public records from the City Commission portal and contemporaneous reporting by 2nd Life Media document a series of special meetings and executive sessions called during this period, each noticed under the 'limited personnel matters (hiring of the City Manager)' exception and, in later sessions, the 'attorney-client privilege pertaining to pending litigation' exception of the New Mexico Open Meetings Act, NMSA 1978, § 10-15-1(H).

April 7: A special meeting executive closed session. The Commission returned to open session and disclosed nothing.

April 21: Another special meeting executive closed session. Again, nothing disclosed upon return.

Additional executive sessions within regular commission meetings during the same period. Same result.

May 18 — thirteen days after the formal OMA notice letter was received and personally acknowledged by Mayor McDonald: yet another special meeting executive closed session. Still nothing disclosed.

In total, more than ten closed sessions were held on the same subject over four months. At not one of them did the Commission return to open session and tell the public what was discussed, what direction was given, or why — seven weeks after a unanimous public directive — no contract had been offered to Dr. Hernandez.

The lawsuit alleges this is not coincidence. It is the violation. Under the New Mexico Open Meetings Act, the formation of public policy cannot occur in a closed meeting. Commissioners are permitted to receive confidential legal advice in executive session — they are not permitted to use executive sessions to make policy decisions that the law requires be made in public. When more than ten closed sessions produce a complete reversal of a unanimous public vote with zero public deliberation, the OMA calls that illegal. The petition asks the Court to call it void.

THE EEOC COMPLAINT — AND WHO FILED IT AGAINST WHOM

In January many weeks before closed sessions, Dr. Hernandez filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the City of Alamogordo, arising from the Commission's conduct toward her during via the interview process. Authorities outside of local government confirmed an EEOC complaint and investigation notice was issued to the City.

The Commission subsequently added the attorney-client 'pending litigation' exception — NMSA 1978, § 10-15-1(H)(7) — to its closed session notices, citing the EEOC complaint as the basis for continued secrecy. The lawsuit argues this was an improper and legally invalid use of that exception for two independent reasons.

First, an EEOC administrative complaint is not 'pending litigation' in the legal sense — it is an administrative proceeding before a federal agency that cannot result in a federal lawsuit until the EEOC exhausts its investigation and issues a right-to-sue letter. As of the April 28 vote, no lawsuit had been filed in any court against the city thus no pending litigation related to the city manager hiring.

Second, and more fundamentally, the EEOC complaint was filed because of what specific commissioners did during those closed sessions in the hiring process for city manager. The lawsuit alleges that Mayor Pro Tem Josh Rardin and others among the four-commissioner bloc are named in or implicated by the EEOC complaint — meaning the very commissioners who caused the threatened litigation were the ones invoking it as justification for continued secrecy. Under established legal principles, including New Mexico Rule of Evidence 11-503, a privilege cannot be used to shield deliberations in which the privileged parties' own conduct is the subject of the dispute. The litigation exception cannot be weaponized by the commissioners who caused it.

APRIL 28: THE VOTE, THE WALKOUT, AND THE BILL

On April 28, 2026, following another executive closed session noticed under both exceptions, the Commission returned to open session. No deliberation occurred. No public comment was taken. No commissioner offered any detailed explanation for what was about to happen. The body immediately moved to vote.

By 4 to 3 — Mayor Pro Tem Josh Rardin, Commissioner Stephen Burnett, Commissioner Alfonso 'Al' Hernandez, and Commissioner Baxter Pattillo voting in favor; Mayor Sharon McDonald, Commissioner Warren Robinson, and Commissioner Mark Tapley in opposition — the Commission voted to accept a financial settlement and approve her departure as Acting City Manager. The unanimous 7-0 public directive of March 10 was reversed in moments, with no public explanation, no public justification, and no disclosed financial terms.

Commissioner Warren Robinson did not merely vote no. He walked out of the executive session before the vote was taken and publicly characterized what was occurring inside as “unethical.” His is not the account of an outside observer or a political opponent. It is the contemporaneous, firsthand account of a sitting commissioner who was in the room and refused to remain.

The financial terms of the settlement were not announced at the meeting nor any meeting. They were not announced afterward. They were not voluntarily disclosed at any point, in fact commissioners have suggest a 60 day “gag order to allow a cooling off period with the public.” City financial records obtained by 2nd Life Media reveal the figure: $485,000, paid directly from general taxpayer funds — not from the self-insurance mechanism the City normally uses for litigation-related payouts. The full settlement agreement, including all conditions, representations, and terms, has not been publicly released and are awaiting release in full per IPRA requests.

Case Number: D-1215-CV-2026-00514 | Twelfth Judicial District Court | Filed June 2, 2026

WHAT THE PAYOUT ACTUALLY COST TAXPAYERS

The $485,000 figure is the immediate and visible cost. But it is not the full cost.

Had the Commission honored its unanimous March 10 vote and offered Dr. Hernandez the permanent city manager contract she was directed to receive, her compensation at market rate would have been approximately $165,000 per year. Over a standard two-year initial contract term, that totals roughly $330,000 — $155,000 less than the settlement payout alone and with other expenses close to a $700,000 additional unneeded expense the taxpayers are funding, instead of road repairs.

Instead, the City now faces the cost of the $485,000 settlement plus the full market-rate cost of recruiting, selecting, and contracting a new permanent city manager — a process that has already consumed more than a year and generated repeated public controversy. It also faces the cost of filling or eliminating the Assistant City Manager position that existed under Dr. Hernandez's tenure. The total cumulative cost of the Commission's decision to reverse the 7-0 vote will almost certainly exceed $880,000 and land closer to $1 Million when all expenses are accounted for inclusive of the new hire and hiring the assistant.

This does not include the legal costs of the lawsuit now pending in Twelfth Judicial District Court, the cost of responding to the IPRA request filed June 2 seeking all settlement records and commissioner communications, or the cost of any future employment litigation that may follow. This nearly $1 Million in expenses could have funded 1.5 miles of new city roads or repaired 5 miles of city roads.

WHO IS ROBERT STOCKWELL — AND WHY IT MATTERS

The lawsuit does not stop at the past. It addresses a threat the filing describes as imminent: the potential appointment of former city manager Robert Stockwell or an unnamed alternative — without any public process, any public notice of his or another’s candidacy, or any public disclosure of proposed contract terms — at Thursday's scheduled executive session.

Stockwell is not a newcomer to this controversy. 2nd Life Media first reported in January 2026 that Commissioners Rardin, Burnett, Pattillo, and Al Hernandez had been quietly championing his candidacy even before the national search concluded. Multiple independent sources with direct knowledge of commissioner communications confirmed the reporting. Commissioner Pattillo is alleged to have family ties to Stockwell. No commissioner denied the reporting in any on the record statements.

Stockwell's history with Alamogordo is documented. He served as city manager from 1992 until July 11, 1997, when the Commission voted 5-1 to terminate him following conflicts over his handling of personnel matters — including an attempt to force the resignation of then-Public Safety Director Steve Lee over alleged traffic enforcement favoritism. His exit cost taxpayers approximately $124,000 in settlement funds.

In 2016, a proposal to rehire Stockwell was brought before the Commission and rejected 4-3 amid public backlash over his prior record. A small secondary settlement for relocation costs was also reportedly paid at that time of around $10,000. He subsequently served in California City, California, where he was placed on paid administrative leave in 2019 before eventually resigning.

As of June 2, 2026 — the date the lawsuit was filed — Stockwell's nor any other replacement for Dr Hernandez name has not appeared on any public agenda. He not anyone else has not been identified to the public as a candidate in any official communication. No financial terms of any proposed contract have been disclosed. The Commission has scheduled a closed executive session for Thursday, June 4, noticed for 'pending legal matters and city manager.'
Multiple credible sources report the four-commissioner bloc intends to emerge from that session and vote to appoint Stockwell or an unnamed alternative in some capacity with no prior public disclosures.

"The same four commissioners who reversed a unanimous vote in secret are now reportedly prepared to appoint — a city manager who was previously fired and paid a settlement by this same city, without the public ever being told his name."

The Emergency TRO motion asks the Court to stop that from happening before Thursday.

WHAT THE LAWSUIT ASKS THE COURT TO DO

The petition asks the Twelfth Judicial District Court to:

1. 1. Declare the April 28, 2026 vote void under NMSA 1978, § 10-15-3(A), as the product of deliberations that violated the Open Meetings Act.
2. 2. Issue an injunction barring any city manager employment contract with anyone other than Dr. Hernandez absent completion of a full public process — specifically barring any appointment of Robert Stockwell or a yet to be named candidate.
3. 3. Order mandatory public disclosure of the full settlement agreement and its financial terms, all commissioner communications regarding the city manager position and any candidate, and all executive session records from February through June 2026.
4. 4. Require a transparent public process before any future appointment — including advance public disclosure of every candidate considered, proposed contract terms disclosed before any vote, a public comment period, and commissioners stating their reasoning on the record.
5. 5. Award mandatory attorney fees under NMSA 1978, § 10-15-3(C), which requires the court to award fees to a prevailing petitioner.

The motion for an Emergency TRO motion separately asks the Court to act before Thursday, June 4, blocking any appointment vote pending a hearing.

THE IPRA REQUEST — WHAT RECORDS WERE DEMANDED

Simultaneously with the lawsuit, a formal Inspection of Public Records Act request was filed with the City of Alamogordo's Records Custodian on June 2, 2026. The request covers six categories of records:

The complete, unredacted settlement agreement with all financial terms, conditions, and provisions. The full text of the EEOC complaint and related City responses. All scoring sheets, candidate evaluations, and comparative assessments for every city manager candidate considered since January 2026. All closed-session statements submitted to consent calendars. All commissioner communications — on any device or platform — regarding the city manager position, Dr. Hernandez, the EEOC complaint, and any prospective candidate including Stockwell or unnamed candidates. And all financial records reflecting any payment made to Dr. Hernandez or her representatives.

The City has fifteen business days to respond to the IPRA requets. Under Board of County Commissioners v. Las Cruces Sun-News, 2003-NMCA-102 — binding New Mexico precedent — the settlement agreement is a public record subject to mandatory disclosure regardless of any confidentiality clause in the agreement or idea that release can be delayed. Any denial based on such a clause will be challenged in court.

If the City denies or does not respond, a denial challenge and AG complaint are prepared and ready to file.

THE OMA TRAINING THEY RECEIVED BEFORE IT ALL HAPPENED

One detail in the lawsuit is particularly damning for any claim that the violations were inadvertent.

On March 24, 2026 — exactly two weeks after the unanimous 7-0 vote, and during the very period when closed sessions were already being used to avoid honoring that vote — the Alamogordo City Commission received a formal presentation on Open Meetings Act compliance from Clinton Nicely, Risk Services Director of the New Mexico Municipal League. The training covered, among other topics, the proper handling of closed sessions and the OMA's requirement that public business be conducted in public.

Fourteen days after receiving that training, the Commission held the April 7 closed session. Twenty-eight days after the training, it held the April 21 closed session. Thirty-five days after the training, it held the April 28 session that produced the 4-3 vote and the undisclosed $500,000 payout.

The lawsuit treats the March 24 training not as background context but as direct evidence of willfulness — the legal standard under NMSA 1978, § 10-15-4, which makes intentional OMA violations a misdemeanor subject to criminal penalties.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK — WHY THE SUIT HAS STRENGTH

The lawsuit rests on two independently powerful bodies of law that operate simultaneously.

On the OMA side, N.M. State Investment Council v. Weinstein, 2016-NMCA-069 — the most important New Mexico case on this question — held that even when a governing body has the authority to deliberate on settlement matters in closed session, failure to comply with OMA notice provisions independently invalidates the settlement action. In Weinstein, there was actual filed federal litigation as the basis for closure. In Alamogordo, the basis was an EEOC administrative complaint — a weaker predicate, not a lawsuit. If the Litigation Committee's actions in Weinstein were still invalid despite real litigation, the Commission's actions here are more vulnerable.

On the IPRA side, Board of County Commissioners v. Las Cruces Sun-News, 2003-NMCA-102 — binding on every New Mexico district court — established that settlement agreements with public entities are public records subject to mandatory disclosure, and that confidentiality clauses in those agreements cannot override the public's statutory inspection rights. The City cannot hide behind whatever confidentiality provision may exist in any settlement.

Together, these cases mean: the vote that approved the settlement may be void, and the settlement agreement must be disclosed. Both outcomes are requested in the petition.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

As of Tuesday morning, the Court had not yet ruled on the Emergency TRO Motion. A decision is expected before Thursday's scheduled June 4 executive session. If a TRO is granted, the Commission will be legally restrained from voting on any city manager appointment — including any Stockwell or an unnamed appointment — until a full hearing is held.

If no TRO is granted and the Commission proceeds to vote Thursday, that vote will immediately become the subject of a supplemental filing adding it as an additional void action under the OMA petition.

The IPRA response deadline runs through June 23, 2026. If the City does not produce the settlement agreement and related records by then, a denial challenge and AG complaint are ready.

A formal OMA complaint was also filed with the New Mexico Department of Justice, Government Counsel and Accountability Division on April 30, 2026. The AG's office has independent authority to intervene or file its own enforcement action.

The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government has been contacted and asked to acknowledge the case and provide support and attorney referrals.

This is an ongoing story. 2nd Life Media will report on all developments as they occur.

CASE DETAILS AT A GLANCE

Case name: Chris Edwards et al. v. Alamogordo City Commission

Case number: D-1215-CV-2026-00514

Court: Twelfth Judicial District Court, Otero County, New Mexico

Date filed: June 2, 2026

Settlement amount: $485,000 — confirmed from general fund financial records

Settlement terms disclosed: None

Closed sessions held on city manager position: 10+

Public deliberation before April 28 vote: Zero

March 10 vote reversed: Yes — 7-0 reversed 4-3, no public explanation

Emergency TRO ruling: Pending — expected before June 4 session

2nd Life Media Alamogordo Town News is branding of the independent community news organization serving Alamogordo and the Tularosa Basin with content controlled by Southwestern Trails Cultural Heritage Association (STCHA). Our media platforms operate as  social-welfare organization, which allows it to engage in unlimited issue advocacy and limited candidate-related speech in service of the civic betterment of Otero County and the Tularosa Basin.

Chris Edwards and Concerned Citizens for Alamogordo is a named Petitioner in Case No. D-1215-CV-2026-00514. Edwards a journalist for this outlet.

More News from Alamogordo

• Commentary: Public Business Belongs to the Public and We're Going to Court to Prove It Accountability journalism is about more than reporting the news...
• Commentary: Civility and Ethics Were the Winners on June 2nd: What Otero County’s Election Results Showed Ethics wins…