By Lynn Janes

The Cobre Consolidated Schools held a special board meeting August 12, 2022. President Gilbert Guadiana called the meeting to order. Other board members in attendance included David Terrazas, Elizabeth Dean (phone), Serina Murillo and Gabriella Begay. The pledge of allegiance and salute to the New Mexico flag took place. Superintendent Jeff Spaletta also attended.

Reading of the board norms took place with each board member reading a norm. The norms consist of five rules the board strives to adhere to during the meeting. They are listed as actively listen to all perspectives, respond to concerns and questions as a unified board, professionalism expected, assume positive intent, and be positive and responsive.

Public input on agenda items none currently.

The board approved the agenda with a change. The item pertaining to closed session would be tabled until next board meeting. Spaletta said he needed to obtain more information and get it sent to the board for their review before the next meeting.

The next item on the agenda had to do with proposals for attorney counsel. Guadiana said the goal had been to obtain proposals and have them to discuss. He said he had been informed that would not be possible in such a short time.

Guadiana said they did have a firm already under contract to take care of the current three things that needed immediate attention. The firm Walsh and Gallegos had agreed to take on for now these three items. Although they primarily deal with special education issues, they didn't see any problem taking this on. They had provided a package to everyone on the board with each issue, time estimates and fees for each.
The first one had to do with the complaint by Guadiana concerning nepotism and misuse of funds. The new firm would be taking over the case and estimates 10-25 hours to revise responses already made. The second one had to do with the complaint made by Murillo concerning the Open Meetings Act. The firm estimates 25-60 hours to complete the investigation and respond to the attorney general. The third one has to do with a complaint made by a student to the attorney general and they estimate a charge of $2,150 to respond.

Spaletta said an approval would not be needed since the firm had been contracted.

Guadiana said policy number 198 requires that it be reviewed by the board.

Murillo had an objection to the estimate. She said: "We can do this on our own, referring to the complaint she put in about the Open Meetings Act. Spaletta said the law firm would be in town on Monday to do the investigation. Murillo said she had made the complaint and they already had the two documents explaining what had been discussed in closed session and should have been in open session. She said she felt the attorney general could make a decision from that and they didn't need to pay the $12,000 estimated cost for that issue.

Guadiana said that there would be an advantage to having counsel for the three issues being discussed. He explained all of it in detail.

Murillo said she still didn't see a reason to hire lawyers for these issues. "The documents we already have speak for themselves." Guadiana said many things had not been in the documents.

Begay asked Spaletta if all this has been set in motion already and will it happen either way? Spaletta said it could be stopped.

Guadiana said the whole mater needed to be reviewed by the board. He said if they had a consensus they could move forward. If the board had an objection, it would put them at risk because of the deadlines given by the attorney general.

The budget for legal counsel had been $20,000 last year and they spent $100,000. Guadiana said this needs to be done to prevent this kind of expenditure or spending when not needed.

The board approved the estimate and contract for the three issues.

Public input

Guadiana wanted to address a concern from a resident. They had noticed that they could not chat or respond on YouTube. He said they had done that because of fear that someone might put something in the comments that would cause YouTube to delete the video. Also, it had been done because of the possibility of someone posting a comment after the fact and having the expectation of someone responding.

Meeting adjourned.