Court Keeps Open Meetings Case Alive: Judge Rejects City’s Bid to Dismiss, Denies Emergency Order Halting Stockwell Hiring

ALAMOGORDO — A district court judge on Tuesday refused to throw out a citizen’s Open Meetings Act lawsuit against the Alamogordo City Commission, rejecting the city’s arguments that the case was moot and that the petitioner lacked standing to bring it — while declining to issue an emergency order undoing the hiring of City Manager Robert Stockwell.

The core case survives. The central question — whether the commission’s path to hiring Stockwell complied with New Mexico’s Open Meetings Act — will move forward to a full hearing on the merits, to be scheduled after additional motions are filed.

The hearing, presided over by District Judge Lori L. Gibson Willard, ran longer than many had anticipated.

Some court observers had expected the case to be dismissed within roughly 15 minutes on the city’s standing and mootness arguments. Instead, the proceeding stretched past its allotted one hour — a sign the court treated the citizen’s Open Meetings Act claims as substantial questions warranting a full airing rather than a quick disposal.

What the court decided

The hearing in Edwards v. Alamogordo City Commission, Case No. D-1215-CV-2026-00514, turned on three questions.

On standing, the court ruled for petitioner Chris Edwards, who is representing himself. The city had argued that Edwards raised only a generalized grievance shared with the public at large and therefore could not sue. The court disagreed, allowing the case to proceed.

On mootness, the court again ruled for Edwards. The city had argued that because the commission already voted to hire Stockwell, there was nothing left for the court to decide. The court rejected that argument, preserving Edwards’s claim that the appointment can still be reviewed — and, if found unlawful, declared void.

On the temporary restraining order, the court ruled for the city. The judge declined to issue an emergency order halting or unwinding the appointment, reasoning that leaving the city without a city manager would cause significant harm to city operations. The appointment and contract remain in effect while the case continues.

The Robinson statement takes center stage

During the hearing, the court questioned and touched on the sworn statement of Commissioner Warren Robinson, who was present in the commission’s closed sessions. Robinson has attested under oath that the outcome of the personnel process was decided before the public portion of the meeting — describing what he called “underhanded maneuverings.”

The city attorney sought to discredit the Robinson statement and argued it should not be considered. The court indicated that more will come out regarding Robinson’s account at a future hearing, signaling that the substance of his sworn testimony remains live and will be examined further as the case develops.

Mayor McDonald cross-examined under oath

In one of the hearing’s most significant exchanges, Mayor Sharon McDonald was cross-examined by both the city and its attorney, and questioned by Edwards.

Under oath, the mayor was asked whether the resumes of all other applicants for the city manager position had been released to the public prior to interviews. She answered yes.

She was then asked when Stockwell’s application arrived. According to her testimony, Stockwell came into the process through Commissioner Baxter Pattillo — not through the standard application process that produced the other candidates’ resumes.

Asked whether Stockwell’s resume had been released to the public prior to the closed-door session, as the other applicants’ had been, the mayor confirmed it had not.

And asked whether the commission as a whole — acting as a body — had directed Pattillo to seek out Stockwell, the mayor testified that it had not.

The question at the center of the case

The mayor’s testimony, as elicited at the hearing, sharpens the question now driving the litigation: if the commission as a body never directed anyone to recruit Stockwell, and if he did not come through the same public application process as every other candidate, then how did he enter the running — and why was that pathway never disclosed to the public?

That is the heart of Edwards’s Open Meetings Act claim. The Act exists to protect the public’s right to know how, when, where, why, and at what expense public business is conducted. Edwards contends that a hiring routed outside the standard process, through a single commissioner rather than the body, and never disclosed to the public the way other applicants were, strikes at that core right.

The city’s position, in essence, is that the public does not need to be informed of the internal details of a personnel hiring decision of the city manager — that discussion of such matters may occur in closed session and that the commission retains authority to appoint a city manager under the city charter and the public does not need to know the details as to why. 

Edwards’s response is that the charter governs who appoints a city manager, while the Open Meetings Act governs how — and that no charter provision can override a state transparency statute.

Tonight’s meeting: the consent agenda test

The next test comes quickly. The Alamogordo City Commission meets tonight at 6:30 p.m., and the Stockwell hire is listed on the consent agenda — the portion of the agenda typically reserved for routine, non-controversial items that are approved together in a single vote, without individual discussion or debate.

For Edwards and the citizens who have backed his case, the placement itself raises the central issue: transparency. A consent-agenda vote, by design, does not invite the public explanation and commissioner-by-commissioner debate that a decision of this magnitude — the hiring of the city’s chief administrative officer — would ordinarily draw.

Edwards frames tonight’s meeting as offering the commission a clear choice, with three possible paths:

If the commission pulls the item from the consent agenda and into open debate — with commissioners explaining, in detail, how Stockwell became a candidate and why he was chosen — it would, in Edwards’s view, dull his legal case. But he characterizes that outcome as the win he was actually seeking: real, transparent public debate and genuine accountability to the residents of Alamogordo.

If the item is pulled but met only with half-hearted discussion and little real debate among commissioners, Edwards contends it would further solidify his case in court — reinforcing his argument that the hiring was predetermined, and supporting his contention that the earlier 7-0 vote to hire Dr. Stephanie Hernandez was, in his words, a vote never genuinely intended to be finalized.

If the commission leaves the item on the consent agenda entirely, Edwards argues it represents a loss for the public but a gain for his narrative — bolstering the Open Meetings Act claim before the court by suggesting an attempt to conceal rather than to invite public dialogue on the decision.

In Edwards’s framing, the through-line is the same regardless of which path the commission takes: the case is ultimately about whether the public’s right to transparency is honored. Win or lose on the specific legal claims, he argues, a public increasingly demanding open government is the larger victory — whether that vindication comes in court or in the court of public opinion.

What happens next

With the threshold arguments resolved in Edwards’s favor, the case shifts from emergency footing to the regular litigation track. The court will set a hearing on the underlying Open Meetings Act complaint after additional motions are filed.

The denial of the temporary restraining order means Stockwell remains in the city manager’s office for now. But the rulings on standing and mootness keep intact Edwards’s central request: a determination of whether the appointment violated the Open Meetings Act and, if so, whether it should be declared void under NMSA 1978, Section 10-15-3(A).

Residents are encouraged to attend tonight’s commission meeting. Those wishing to speak should arrive before 6:30 p.m. and sign up for public comment.

The case will proceed, and 2nd Life Media / Alamogordo Town News will continue to follow it — and to push for transparency in government action.

More News from Alamogordo

• URGENT CALL TO ACTION: Pack Alamogordo City Hall Tonight – Demand Full Public Debate on Robert Stockwell Hiring Public comments needed tonight
• IPRA Task Force Holds Listening Session in Alamogordo; Locals Strongly Defend Transparency Amid Government Concerns Over Request Volume Public very vocal in support of IPRA while public officials less supportive…