City withdraws motion to dismiss Open Meetings Act lawsuit over city manager hiring, will answer by Aug. 14

ALAMOGORDO, N.M. — The Alamogordo City Commission has withdrawn its motion to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of violating the state's Open Meetings Act during the process that led to the hiring of City Manager Robert Stockwell, according to a notice filed in the Twelfth Judicial District Court.

The notice, filed July 31 by the city's outside counsel, Dixon•Scholl•Carrillo P.A., withdraws the Commission's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement "in its entirety" and states the city will file a formal Answer to the underlying petition by Friday, Aug. 14.

The case, Chris Edwards v. The Alamogordo City Commission, No. D-1215-CV-2026-00514, was filed June 2 in Otero County district court and assigned to Judge Lori L. Gibson Willard. The petition alleges the Commission violated the Open Meetings Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 10-15-1 to -4, and the Inspection of Public Records Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12, in connection with a series of closed executive sessions concerning the city manager position between March and June of this year.

Background: a reversed vote and a contested hiring

According to the petition, the Commission voted unanimously, 7-0, on March 10 to direct staff to negotiate a city manager contract with then-Acting City Manager Dr. Stephanie Hernandez. Weeks of closed executive sessions followed. On April 28, within minutes of reconvening from one such session, the Commission voted 4-3 to accept a separation settlement with Hernandez rather than finalize her contract — without public debate nor terms disclosure, the petition alleges a failure to disclose any settlement terms or explaining the reversal in open session.

The city manager position was ultimately filled on June 15, when the Commission voted 5-2 to hire Robert Stockwell following another closed session. The petition contends the actual selection process took place behind closed doors and that the public votes served only to ratify decisions already made in private.

The city has disputed that characterization. In its now-withdrawn motion to dismiss the Commission argued that its charter authority to appoint a city manager permitted it to discuss hiring, departure negotiations, and related settlement matters in closed session under the Open Meetings Act's "limited personnel matters" and "pending litigation" exceptions, and that nothing in the statute required the Commission to disclose candidate names, contract terms, or its reasoning as a part of a public vote.

What the withdrawal means

A motion to dismiss, if granted, can end some or all of a lawsuit's claims before the case proceeds further. By withdrawing its motion, the Commission avoids a ruling on whether the petition's allegations were legally sufficient to proceed — but it also leaves those allegations unresolved, rather than adjudicated in the city's favor.

The withdrawal came 10 days after the court entered a stipulated order granting the city leave to file a sur-reply — a further round of briefing — in support of its motions related to an IPRA. Instead, it withdrew the motion outright for dismissal and the case will now proceed.

The case had been set for a hearing on the motion Aug. 12, 2026. With no motion left pending, Edwards is filing a notice asking the court to vacate that August 12th hearing as moot, or to clarify its purpose if the court intends to use the time for another matter.

What's next

Under the city's own notice, an Answer to the petition — the city's formal, paragraph-by-paragraph response admitting or denying each allegation — is due Aug. 14. 

That filing will mark the first point in the case where the city responds to the specific factual allegations in the petition rather than arguing for dismissal on legal grounds.

Separately, a motion asking the court to compel the city's compliance with a pending public-records request — covering city manager candidate scoring materials and other records — has been fully briefed since early July and remains awaiting a ruling.

Alamogordo Town News will continue to report on developments in the case as they occur.

This article is based on filings of public record in the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Otero County. Copies of the referenced filings are available through the Otero County Clerk's office.

More News from Alamogordo

• Holloman's Big Give Closes with Celebration at Casa Motors: 19 Teams, Thousands of Volunteer Hours, and a Community That Won Big 29th Attack Squadron takes the Community Choice Award; 314th Fighter Squadron and 49th Equipment Maintenance Squadron honored as top small and large teams
• Voices of Alamogordo Forum Tuesday 6 pm to Highlight Unhoused Community Support: Dream Center, Runner’s Refuge, and 100% Otero Join Forces in Dialogue Free Community Dialog Set for Tuesday, August 4 at 6 PM Otero Arts