No Kings protest should be aimed at local government

A nationwide No Kings nonviolent protest on March 28 will hopefully raise awareness that democratic processes at the local-government level are also eroding. 

Truth or Consequences Mayor Rolf Hechler could have been channeling Trump at the March 11 city commission meeting. 

Trump, in a New York Times interview the first week of January said, “I don’t need international law” and the only constraint on his power was “my own morality.” 

Hechler similarly put himself above the law and his moral judgement superior to the law. “It may have been wrong legally,” he said, “but morally it was the right decision, and I would do the same again and I’ll stand on that.” 

The city lost a court case to Ron Fenn, city leaders’ favorite scapegoat for 20 years. The court case was covered in this article: https://sierracountycitizen.org/no-kings-court-rules-against-t-or-c-city-commission-cant-make-uppublic-bid-rules/ 

Background on Fenn’s scapegoating was covered in this article: 

https://sierracountycitizen.org/if-they-can-do-this-to-fenn-they-can-do-it-to-you/ 

Hechler’s claimed fulfilling “a dying man’s wish,” was morally right and thus superior to the law.  Jeff Barbour wanted his sculpture to go to others, not Fenn. 

But Hechler broke the law way before learning of Barbour’s wish. Once the city commission decided to sell Barbour’s sculpture in a public bidding process that dictated it would go to the highest bidder meeting the published requirements, Hechler should have remained at arm’s distance from the bid award process. There were no requirements other than high bidder. The sealed bids were opened, Fenn was high bidder, the sculpture should have been his. 

Instead, Hechler inserted himself illegally into the bid-award process–after the bids were opened. Hechler put on the agenda that bidders were to explain what they intended to do with the sculpture and then he let Barbour express his choice as to whom should be favored. The city commission then voted to award the bid to Barbour’s choice, with no correction or opposition from City Attorney Jay Rubin.  

Fenn didn’t participate in vying post-bid for favor. He wrote Rubin shortly after the meeting that the city could sell him the sculpture or he would take them to court. Rubin, nor the city, responded, and Fenn sued. 

Seventh District Court Judge Shannon Murdock-Poff quickly dismissed Fenn’s case, not considering the merits, and Fenn appealed. The appellate court remanded the case back to Murdock-Poff, and she found in Fenn’s favor–the city had violated the law. She would write the order, Murdock-Poff said, not Rubin, who offered to write and submit a draft order. 

Nevertheless, Rubin submitted a “Notice of Compliance” to the court on Dec. 18, 2025, not  waiting for Murdock-Poff’s order, which can be found at the end of this article. 

It stated Fenn was “required to contact the City Manager Gary Whitehead . . . by no later than March 15, 2026 in order to consummate the sale.” 

Fenn, not heeding Rubin’s authority as superior to the judge’s in deciding the final disposition of the case, waited two months for Murdock-Poff’s order. Nothing from the judge. He contacted the court clerk, who told him the case was closed. Fenn contacted Murdock-Poff’s clerk, who said the court had failed to correct the record when Murdock-Poff wrongly dismissed the case two years ago. The two hearings held by Murdock-Poff after the case was remanded back to her were therefore not properly documented. Evidently Murdock-Poff had forgotten to write the order or deemed Rubin’s Notice of Compliance as a final order. Her clerk, however, told Fenn the case should not have been closed and set another hearing for March 25. 

Fenn, during public comment at the city commission’s March 11 meeting, said he wouldn’t purchase the sculpture without the court order confirming the city’s legal obligation to sell it to him, and then he left. 

During the reports by city commissioners and staff that followed, another chapter in Fenn’s historic scapegoating was added.  

Rubin confirmed that the case was indeed “pending,” but didn’t acknowledge he filed a Notice of Compliance with the court nearly three months ago. He purposely misled the city commission, mischaracterizing the action as merely “a letter suggesting Mr. Fenn get in touch with the city,” implying Fenn was purposely being uncooperative.  

Mayor Pro Tem Amanda Forrister added her disparagement of Fenn for ignoring “the suggestion he meet with the city manager.” 

Then Hechler added his whitewash of violating the neutrality of bid-award processes as “trying to do the right thing,” by “fulfilling a dying man’s wish.” 

The courts are mostly still operating as the sole check and balance on Trump continuing to assert kingly powers such as imposing tariffs and invading countries. But the local district court usually rules in the local government’s favor, usually by seizing city or county attorneys’ technical arguments to dismiss due to lack of standing or failing to state a claim or day-late filings. Local citizens are often forced to proceed pro se, rarely finding attorneys willing to go up against local governments’ deeper pockets and deep-benches of attorneys that come with their self-insurance with the New Mexico Municipal League or the New Mexico Association of Counties. 

The likelihood of no judicial-branch check has fostered law-breaking authoritarianism by local leaders. Hechler is but the latest example, grown brazen in his third term and confident his constituency will back his morally superior decisions over the law. 

Forget the rule of law. City governance is reduced to a morality play, with Hechler cast as the current hero and Fenn as the usual villain. 

But even local authoritarian-leaning voters looking at this case should pause and wonder how many other city bid awards have been steered toward favorites with the willing connivance and participation of the city attorney and city commission–they held six closed-door executive sessions on this case. 

Fenn is among the few citizens willing to spend time, energy and money, in this case for over two years, in an effort to hold the city to account. The local judge has stymied his efforts. Hopefully knowing the appellate court could find her ruling insufficient a second time will make the final disposition of the case fair to the people.