The curious case of the missing motion…

… The missing motion is neither a straightforward affirmative nor a negative motion, but a little known variant of an affirmative motion known as a converse motion. Every few years, someone comes forward to insist that the Edgewood town government must always, and without exception, offer its motions “to approve” an application because they are operating from a mistaken impression that motions “to deny” are negative motions.  The advice sounds good in theory, but in practice it sometimes turns what should have been a routine public hearing into a circus. This is yet another instance in which Edgewood’s political instability and its recurring losses of institutional memory have resulted in confusion. 

NB: What follows has been revised and edited for clarity: 

• The issue has been raised again on July 30, 2026 during the PZC’s special meeting. 
• The authority cited for this practice of “always and only” affirmative motions is Roberts Rules of Order which is a frequently used guide for discussing legislative proposals during public meetings.  The concept gets its fuel from a valid and often-cited reference to the unsuitability of offering negative motions which are awkward and typically worded to “not approve” some proposed action. A true negative motion implies an intent to take no action. [1]
• While this admonition to make only affirmative motions “to approve” makes sense when an agenda item is legislative in nature, the deliberations and motions sometimes get mired in absurdity when the matter under consideration is not legislative, but quasi-judicial. In theory, under the “affirmative motions only-and-always” rule, an unsuitable proposal may properly be allowed to die for lack of a motion and/or second. 
• However, even before a land use application is brought forward for a public hearing, considerable resources have already been expended by both the town and the applicant in order to reach that point. The general legal advice given to local governments is that once the testimony and exhibits have been presented, the deliberation phase of the public hearing should begin with a motion and second. Understandably, following all that effort neither the applicant nor the general public will find it acceptable for the proposal to simply be allowed to die without discussion.  
• Indeed, only a few people would consider this an acceptable way to conclude a quasi-judicial hearing, but by following such ill-informed advice, we have seen both Edgewood’s governing body and its planning commission fall into an abyss worthy of Charles Dickens’ fictitious character Mr. Thomas Gradgrind. 
• The most common (and ultimately ill-advised) attempt to resolve the situation of a clearly unsuitable application is to have preliminary discussion before the motion, and then for two members to offer a motion followed by a second “to approve” the application. This is often followed by further discussion and a vote. 
• Possible less than desirable outcomes may vary: One or both persons who offered the motion and second may end up voting against approval. In some instances a majority votes against the motion, and occasionally every member votes against the motion which was offered “to approve” the application.
• In its well-intentioned attempt to avoid falling into the ditch of making a “negative” motion, the public body then risks falling into the other ditch by violating the Roberts Rules injunction against offering a motion or second for which one does not intend to vote.  
• Furthermore, these convoluted discussions give the impression that members of the board are not acting in good faith. 
• Eli Mina’s practical tools for managing minutes and meetings addresses the fact that while useful, Roberts Rules was primarily intended for and is most suitable for legislative deliberations. He believes that more specialized public hearings may benefit from following different procedures. [2]
• With Mina’s commentary having raised the question of special situations, David J. Allor attempts to find middle ground by introducing a third type of motion which he calls a converse motion. By using his process, the public body can avoid falling into either ditch by allowing for a motion “to deny” the application based on legally defensible reasons which pertain to the particular application under consideration. [3]
• There is no hard and fast rule of how to handle the special situations generated by quasi-judicial hearings and their unique requirements. Each public body has to examine the options, consult with its legal advisors, and craft a policy that best fits its needs.  
• One example of how this question has been dealt with in the past can be found in Edgewood’s PZC minutes of October 24, 2011. 
• One reason that a converse motion may legitimately be described as a variant of an affirmative motion is that, unlike a negative motion which is stated in a way which signals that the deliberative body is proposing to refrain from taking action, a converse motion “to deny” implies that a deliberative body has weighed evidence and intends to take action, but that such action may be either to approve or to deny an application. Not everyone agrees with Allor’s reasoning, but his method is often found to be more straightforward than dictating that only motions “to approve” are to be used for quasi-judicial hearings. 
• In order to better understand the operational uses of terms such as affirmative, negative, and converse some basic knowledge of formal logic is helpful; specifically definitions of relevant terms and the means for converting statements from one form to another while retaining logical equivalence. It is subject which may not be of interest to general audiences, but Martin Cothran’s textbooks on Traditional Formal Logic (Volumes I and II) are resources which I have used in the past and found helpful for exploring this topic. 

[The sources which are shown below were current when a previous PZC dealt with the issue in 2010-11] 

Note 1: Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed. (Cambridge, Mass. Perseus Publishing, 2000).

Note 2: Mina’s Guide to Minute Taking: Principles, Standards & Practical Tools. Eli Mina; Published by Eli Mina Consulting in 2004. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Note 3: David J. Allor Planning Commissioners Journal Reprints: A Planning Commissioner Journal Special Collection. Champlain Planning Press 2010.]

36 Days and Counting… (revised and updated)

 …Because last week’s budget workshop highlighted some major deficits in understanding on the part of both the town staff and governing body which are inextricably tied up with the implosion of the Fire/EMS JPA. 

If you were under the impression that the new JPA is a “done deal” think again, because time is running out and we need an ordinance that can withstand any challenges now or in the future. 

I asked former Interim Mayor and Town Councilor, John Abrams, to expand on his remarks made during a recent Town Commission meeting because my experience has been primarily concerned with quasi-judicial hearings. What follows is his initial reply followed by a paraphrase of what turned into a long and detailed conversation. [ETA: There exists no single document in which all the requirements can be specifically listed. The items which follow are drawn from the Municipal Code, The Open Meetings Act, and the New Mexico Municipal League guidelines for how local governments should conduct public hearings. This situation is one of many reasons why Edgewood has suffered due to the loss of institutional memory during the changeover in its form of government.]

In response to my questions about requirements for legislative public hearings as opposed to quasi-judicial hearings Abrams replied: 

“Not quite the same as in land use but still very close. The rules for testimony are similar as well.” 

1. At a minimum, two public meetings are required for approval of an ordinance.
2. The process for approving any ordinance begins with an agenda item during a regular meeting which specifies that there be “discussion and possible action” on a call for a public hearing.
3. Such agenda items are subject to the 72 hours requirement for regular meetings. 
4. The draft text of the proposed ordinance should be included in the meeting packet for that first meeting and/or a notice that the draft proposed document is available for inspection at town hall. 
5. If the call for a public hearing is approved, the motion should direct staff to formally publish notice of the proposed adoption of an ordinance (in a news outlet where the town usually posts public notices) at least 14 days in advance of the the dates of at least one, but ideally two scheduled public sessions to discuss and then vote on the ordinance.*
6. The final text of the proposed ordinance should also be made available at least 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing(s).** 
7. Ideally, there should be two public sessions taking place within two successive regular meetings in order to insure reasonable notice, and to avoid giving the appearance of scheduling shenanigans.***
8. Therefore, the public is made aware of impending passage of an ordinance by the following means, and while two sessions are not mandatory, that is true only so long as there have been no substantive changes to the proposed ordinance as it was originally noticed and published.

• A call for a public hearing is published along with a draft version of the ordinance and,

• If the call for a public hearing is approved, notice is published giving the dates of at least two date of at least one but often two public hearing sessions which have been advertised at least 14 days in advance and,

• The text of the proposed ordinance having been made available to the public at least 14 days in advance of the hearings and,

• The public hearings ideally take place in two sessions before the board and public and during consecutive regularly scheduled meetings and, 

• The vote may take place during the first session, but no earlier than a second hearing session in cases where there have been substantive changes proposed to the originally published version.  

• In addition, even the 14 Day rule may be suspended in such cases where an Emergency affecting Public Safety is formally declared by the governing body. However, Emergency Declarations in such cases may be subject to review by state government agencies.   

*Scheduling of legislative public hearings requires combining three elements: 14 days notice for legislative public hearings, 72 hours notice for the regular meeting(s) within which the hearings will be included on the agenda, and reasonable expectation that a quorum will be available to hear and then then vote on the matter.  

**This assumes that work on the proposed ordinance is substantively complete with only minor corrections needed such as dates, who is to sign the ordinance, or unclear terminology.

***For example, annexations are done by passing an ordinance: The November 17, 2001 public hearing and the December 3, 2001 vote to annex Campbell Ranch had numerous irregularities: they were both done as special meetings with the second session being a continuance of the first. The first hearing session was held at a different location than the usual meeting place in the Community Center (Edgewood Elementary School), and the continuation of that hearing was scheduled in the usual location but on a Saturday morning. There were substantive reasons for challenging the vote in court, but had a judge ordered a “do-over” the results would likely have been the same. 

48 Days and Counting…

 …Because the job isn’t finished yet, and the bit dogs always bark loudest. In this situation it is important to filter the noise so as to hear the signal. 

The Town Commission and Staff should listen very, very carefully to what John Abrams told them at the May 12, 2026 meeting (Starting just after 42m:10s). 

Agenda for the May 12 Meeting Has Been Published

The agenda for next Tuesday’s meeting has been posted at the Town website. The packet for this meeting will likely be larger than usual, so it may not be posted on the upcoming meetings page until later today or over the weekend. 

[UPDATE: the meeting packet has now been posted along with the text of the call for a pubic hearing (see p. 19) which informs the public that the complete ordinance will be available for inspection in the town offices during normal business hours prior to the public hearing. However, the timing raises the question of whether or not this arrangement is compliant with the Open Meetings Act?

• The first critical agenda item (G.1.) is the formal call for a public hearing on an ordinance required for ratification of the proposed replacement for the Fire/EMS JPA. This is the first step needed in order to ratify the preliminary vote taken during the May 1, 2026 meeting. 
• The second critical item (I.1.) will be discussion and possible action regarding the timing of Commissioner Rariden’s resignation. 
• Considering the reservations expressed by Commissioners Murillo and Brennan coupled with the imminent departure of Commissioner Rariden, it will be important for as many people as possible to attend Tuesday’s meeting in person to help ensure that the vote to call for the public hearing(s) required in order to ratify the JPA will take place with no stipulations. 
• If you cannot attend in person, it is important to contact all the Commissioners prior to the meeting. 
• The call for a public hearing to create an ordinance is legislative in nature: Therefore, “ex parte” constraints do not apply and you should reject any attempts to avoid discussion of the matter on those grounds.  

Two agendas and the packet for 12/23/2025 Updated

It appears that this event has been cancelled and tentatively rescheduled to Dec. 30, 2025. The first agenda is for the 5:00 pm swearing-in ceremony of newly elected/re-elected town officials. For those who have asked why this takes place before 1 January 2026: State law calls for newly elected officials to be sworn in within a certain number of days following the town’s receipt of the official certifications of election results.  

The second agenda and packet is for the regular 6:00 pm meeting. The items of interest following the consent agenda and departmental reports include:

Item G: which consists of a series of 8 public hearings required to complete several zone changes previously approved by the Town Commission, but for which the Planning Office failed to include the important follow-up of also amending the Town’s official Zone Map. The situation resulted in a situation for property owners akin to a clouded title for a vehicle or real estate. 

Kudos to the town employee who discovered the problem in October of this year and took prompt steps to correct the oversights. Unfortunately, the town incurred more legal fees required for researching the extent of the problem and giving advice on the proper way to correct the situation.  The omission highlights the need for the town to hire qualified employees in all departments. As has been the case for much of the last four years, the new Commission Manager government tried to blame the omission as having been begun during the “The Preeeevioussss Administrashun.” That dog won’t hunt: The blunders first manifested after the change in government.  

Item H: New Business which includes the proposed purchase of new cassettes for the wastewater plant, a change order for the West Venus paving project, and recognition of service for departing Town Commissioner Filandro Anaya. There will also be a discussion and possible action regarding the town’s ongoing problems with meeting IPRA requirements.

Item I: Various legal matters to be discussed during closed session featuring two personnel matters and three of the current suite of lawsuits in which the town is currently involved (Santa Fe County, Campbell Farming Corporation, and Berg et al).  

For those who are concerned about the town’s continuing high legal bills, there are several ways the town can correct the problem by (1) avoiding cronyism and hiring qualified employees, (2) hiring a Town Manager capable of effectively overseeing the activities of each department, (3) electing at least three Town Commissioners who won’t involve the courts in their political differences of opinion, and (4) hiring a legal firm specializing in advising local governments. 

The firm of Robles, Rael, and Anaya served the town well for many years during the tenures of Mayors Calkins, Stearley, Hill, and Bassett. Unfortunately, the first iteration of the Edgewood Town Commission did not appreciate their custom of dispensing prudent legal advice, and so that bridge may have been burned.  

Upcoming Activities: Tuesday January 6, 2026 at 5:00 pm will be an opportunity for the public to meet with Town Commissioners in the meeting chambers at Town Hall.  

Subdivision Appeal Hearing July 24, 2025 at 3:00 pm

A letter dated July 2, 2025 has been posted at the Town of Edgewood website. It lays out the procedure for the Campbell Ranch subdivision appeal hearing which is advertised as a quasi-judicial public hearing. At the time of this post, the meeting is scheduled for Thursday July 24, 2025 at 3:00 pm in the meeting chambers at Edgewood Town Hall.  

For more information on public hearings, see the Public Hearing FAQ page listed in the header under the blog title. 

Page Update: Public Hearing FAQ’s

 The FAQ page has been updated to include the following information about the options for making decisions and the role played by questions during a public hearing. 

Q:  What options does a land use commission or board have with regard to its decisions?

A:  Many parties may try to assert that their facts as presented compel a particular decision. That is not true. Public bodies always have options, but for any given case, the options vary with respect to whether or not or the degree to which a decision is legally defensible. It is to be expected that interested persons offering testimony may try to assert otherwise, but for staff or legal counsel to do so should be regarded as an indication of undue influence and such raises the possibility of a legal challenge.  

Most land use decisions fall under four general categories: (1) to approve as presented with no conditions attached, (2) approve with conditions so long as any conditions are consistent with applicable ordinances, resolutions, or court decisions, or (3) to deny if approval of the application is not consistent with the aforementioned legal instruments. (4) In addition, a land use board may table a matter to a date certain or table a matter indefinitely. The former is preferable as indefinitely tabled items must be taken up again in the same form; after a long interval, doing so may be difficult if circumstances have changed.

*****

Q:  What role do questions from a land use commission or board play in public hearings?

A.  Questions may be asked of those offering testimony, staff, or legal counsel in order to clarify testimony, ask questions about staff contributions such as meeting packets or reports, and of counsel to evaluate available options with regard to the legal defensibility of potential decisions.  

*****

Q:  Why do members of land use commissions or boards sometimes ask questions for things they should be expected to know?

A.  The ordinary reasons for such questions are fairly simple: (1) New members may need to ask for clarification if they are unsure about something under discussion. (2) During long hearings, it is wise to ask for clarification especially if the topic is unusually complex and/or the hour is late. (3) The least understood reason by both public officials and the general public is that the proper role for members of a public body is to hear, clarify, and evaluate testimony and exhibits. They should not offer testimony as doing so is confusing in that it blurs the line between providing testimony and evaluating it. However, if a board member has reason to believe that something relevant is being left out or ignored they may ask questions designed to elicit further testimony. The distinction is obvious, but in during long or contentious hearings it is difficult to maintain. 

Muncipal Boundary Commission hearing April 22, 2016

The audio of the meeting is available at the Town of Edgewood website's Agenda Center. The hearing was conducted by the Municipal Boundary Commission, and town officials gave testimony during the hearing. The Commission's decision to approve Edgewood's request for an infill annexation has been appealed. 

Infill Annexation hearing:

The Municipal Boundary Commission will hold a hearing on Friday, April 22, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the Edgewood Community Center to consider the Town's request to bring more land inside its boundaries.  A copy of the map showing proposed infill is available at the Town's website. 

P&Z agenda for January 19, 2016

The agenda for the meeting can be viewed/downloaded at the town website. Note the upcoming public hearing on February 2, 2016 for amending the Hillcrest Master Plan.  Details of the proposed amendment can be found in this week's edition of The Independent. 

Council agenda for September 9, 2015

A preliminary agenda has been posted at the town website.  A copy is also available on Drive.

Materials to watch for with regard to future public hearings include the proposed changes to the wireless telecommunications siting Ordinance 2003-11 (Agenda Item 7) and proposed Ordinance 2015-07 which pertains to the subject matter discussed at the recent special council meeting (Agenda Item 5).

[Beginning in September, 2012 the town ceased the routine posting of public hearing materials 10 days prior to public hearings and, instead, posts such materials with meeting packets.] 

Public Hearing Notice:

The Edgewood Planning & Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for a Minor Subdivision request on January 20, 2015.  The notice can be viewed/downloaded at the town website, and a copy is available on Drive. 

Public Hearings scheduled for 12/03/2014

The Town of Edgewood has advertised two public hearings which will take place during the regular Council meeting of Dec. 3, 2014.  The purpose for conducting the hearings is to amend the new Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances which were approved in August. 

Vineyard Church conditional use permit application moved to the town council.

Because the commission was unable to assemble a quorum on July 15 and has determined that it will be unable to do so on August 5, the application for a conditional use permit by the Vineyard Church is scheduled to be heard by the town council on August 20, 2014. 

Notice of the July 15, 2014 public hearing:

The Planning Commission will hear a request for a conditional use permit during the meeting. The notice is posted at the town website, and a copy is also available on Drive. 

Public input for the ICIP has been rescheduled:

According to the Council agenda for June 18, 2014 the discussion of the Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan (legislative appropriations wish list) which was originally scheduled for the July 2 meeting will be held on July 16. 

Public Hearing scheduled by Edgewood P&Z

PUBLIC NOTICE

THE TOWN OF EDGEWOOD Planning & Zoning Commission will consider the following during a PUBLIC HEARING on July 1,2014 starting at 6:00  pm at the Edgewood Community Center, 27 E. Frontage Road:

    

REQUEST FORLOT LINE VACATION/REPLATFOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT #5 PLAZA COURT AND 1887 OLD US 66, TRACTS 1-D, 1-E OF THE EDGEWOOD PLAZA SUBDIVISION, SECTION 28, T 10 N, R 7 E, N.M.P.M. EDGEWOOD, NM. 7.266 ACRES ZONED C-2 COMMERCIAL. THE LOT LINE SEPARATING TRACTS 1-D AND 1-E WILL BE VACATED AND REPLATED TO CREATE A 1.459 ACRE LOT FOR TRACT 1-D, AND A 2.576 ACRE LOT FOR TRACT 1-E.

    

During the PUBLIC HEARING, citizens will be given the opportunity to comment on the above items. The commission will also accept written comments if received before the hearing, written comments may be sent to the Town of Edgewood, P.O. Box 3610, Edgewood, NM 87015. If you have any questions, you may call 505-286-4518.

P&Z schedules a public hearing for a conditional use permit:

April 1, 2014: The P&Z Commission will consider the following during a public hearing: a request for a conditional use permit for a veterinary animal hospital on property located at #4 Linnie Court; NW 1/4 section of Section 28 T 10N, R7 E, Edgewood, NM 87015

During the public hearing, citizens will be given the opportunity to comment on the above items.  The commission will also accept written comments if received before the hearing.  Written comments may be sent to the Town of Edgewood PO Box 3610, Edgewood, NM 87015.  If you have any questions, you may call 505-286-4518.

Media Advisory from the State Land Office

The State Land Office has released this information about next week's public hearing on the Section 16 Master Plan to be held during the regular Edgewood Town Council meeting. 

P&Z agenda and packet information for next Tuesday's public hearing are now available:

The agenda for the meeting has been published.  The Minor Subdivision application for 251 Hawkeye Road along with other documents pertaining to the public hearing are also available.