Ad
Featured
Dispatch Dispute: Documents show disagreements between city, county go back years
Published
Modified
Editor’s note: This is the first part in a series on the separation of dispatch resources between the city of Rio Rancho and Sandoval County.
It’s been a war of words between local governments over an important community issue: dispatch.
Sandoval County administration announced in October that the new Public Safety Emergency Communications Center of Sandoval County was taking all 911 calls. Prior to that, the city of Rio Rancho was taking those calls despite the county stating it was ready July 1. The delay prompted an argument between the two government agencies and also begged an investigation into the separation of dispatch operations.
The background of the county opening a separate public safety access point is telling of how the city of Rio Rancho and the county got to this contentious point.
The county drafted a letter exploring potential options to the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration in January 2023 inquiring about the possibility of opening a second primary public safety answering point or dispatch center. The letter, written by County Manager Wayne Johnson, claimed that the second PSAP would improve emergency services for the community by enhancing call processing times, improving response times, improving public safety responder’s safety, and providing improved contingencies for 911 services in the county.
At the time, Sandoval County was a participant in the Sandoval County Regional Emergency Communications Center joint powers agreement (established in 2005 and updated in 2015) with the city of Rio Rancho as fiscal agent with Corrales, Bernalillo, Santa Ana Pueblo and several smaller municipalities and tribal entities also participating.
For the county, differences in PSAP and dispatch methods between the city and county were too different for the model at the time. The letter stated the other communities needed the second PSAP, adding that a dispatcher would receive calls from as many as 31 different communities within the county, including Rio Rancho.
Johnson invited the other agencies from the old PSAP JPA to be included in the new agreement. The city disputed the letter, and the county attempted mediation and resolution with the city Aug. 18, 2023, with another letter, but not before pointing out some alleged JPA violations by the city:
- Center manager requirement to provide quarterly reports to the JPA member governing bodies.
- Manager requirement to prepare an annual budget for the governing bodies to approve.
- Failure to convene an annual budget meeting “attended by the top official (i.e. city manager/county manager) or designee from each entity represented on the SCRECC Board of Directors.”
- Failure to present timely budgets to “members’ governing bodies prior to Dec. 1 of each year.”
- Failure to add additional members to the board after one year of representation by Sandoval County.
The letter further states that the city violated the Open Meetings Act until May 2021 and “continues to be in material violation of the Inspection of Public Records Act.” Additionally, SCRECC is identified as a separate legal entity, according to the county’s letter. It alleged that the city didn’t recognize the SCRECC JPA’s legal status, which is “at the heart of the county’s disagreement with the (city).”
Ad
Despite the county’s issues, they requested mediation with the city. The letter added that the county worked informally in public and in private with the city to resolve the issues “in good faith,” noting that those efforts were unsuccessful.
A letter signed by city staff, including City Manager Matt Geisel, was sent to the county Aug. 21, 2023, alleging that the county was the one who violated the JPA. “Your claims and actions are once again very disappointing and your demand for mediation is premature; however, it is not surprising and very indicative of your maneuvers and those of your direct report, Sandoval County Fire Chief Eric Masterson, acting as JPA Board Chairman for the past three years,” the letter reads.
It accused the county of trying to “usurp control” of the existing dispatch center and/or trying to establish a new center. It also alleged that the county left the city out of the invitation for a new center on purpose.
The letter goes on to accuse the county of the following:
- “Self-appointing” itself manager of funds and handling of a capital outlay project for upgrades and radio acquisition, adding that city never received full allotment radios.
- Board approving legal services despite the city voting against it. It also alleged that there were “rolling quorum concerns” and violations of the Open Meetings Act.
- Stating the standard operating procedures for the inspection of public records act were illegal.
- Alleged Masterson didn’t hold an election for the chair and vice chair positions on the JPA board.
- Raised quorum concerns because Masterson allegedly encouraged respective chiefs to share concerns with Johnson, not their own elected officials.
- Alleged Masterson held a “secret ballot vote” for the chair of the board, causing concern for a rolling quorum. It alleges Masterson stated, “For the record, there was no rolling quorum.”
Additionally, the city alleged the county is responsible for a March 2021 IPRA violation lawsuit. The city states a Sandoval County employee “inappropriately denied an IPRA request” and forwarded it to the SCRECC. The city added that the county was the custodian in that scenario and bared no cost burden from the settlement, as the city had. The city also denied county allegations and stated that the JPA was flawed. At the time, the potential new center the county was proposing did not outline specific benefits to the city, the letter states.
The city made its own invitation for other entities to join its proposed JPA but after “lack of input or alternatives to the proposals,” the city stated it would separate from the JPA, proposing mediation under specific terms like restatement of the 2015 JPA. Those intentions were restated in a few letters in October and November 2023. Then, ultimately, the city sent notice of termination of its participation in the SCRECC JPA Nov. 17, 2023.
