District Names Individuals in Official Agenda, Then Removes Names; Anonymous Website Emerges Attacking Journalists; IPRA Requests Blocked from Multiple Requesters

TIMBERON, N.M. — On July 28, 2026, the Timberon Water and Sanitation District published an official meeting agenda that named two individuals—Aaron Foster and David Hunter—in connection with $62,620 in regulatory violations and fines. Hours later, TWSD removed their names from a revised version.

Both versions now exist in the public record.

Last week, an anonymously attributed social media page emerged attacking Chris Edwards, one of several journalist investigating TWSD’s governance and finances, specifically invoking a white-collar felony conviction from over a decade ago—long resolved—as grounds for questioning his credibility.

Meanwhile, Edwards’ Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) requests remain unfulfilled and out of compliance, and Mark Harding is reported to also be facing similar obstruction on his own records requests.

These actions—agenda naming followed by rapid removal, anonymous character assassination of journalists, and systematic blocking of records requests—paint a picture of a public agency attempting to intimidate critics and silence oversight.

Legal experts say the pattern violates New Mexico’s IPRA retaliation statute, raises defamation concerns, and may constitute tortious interference with press freedom.

THE AGENDA INCIDENT: Official Naming, Then Erasure

On July 28, 2026, TWSD’s official meeting notice read:

“Approve Resolution No. _______ (TBD) the NMED Administrative Compliance Order regarding the fines in the amount of $62,620 for violations occurring in 2023, 2024, 2025 and violations from Aaron Foster and David Hunter.”

Critical Detail:

The agenda header states: Authorized by Otis Price, Chairman of the Board of Directors.” The Board Chairman directly authorized naming these individuals.

Later Tuesday, TWSD issued a revised agenda removing both names entirely:

“Approve Resolution No. _______ (TBD) the NMED Administrative Compliance Order regarding the fines in the amount of $62,620 for violations occurring in 2023, 2024, and 2025.”

Why the Naming and Removal Both Matter

Mark Harding stated: “I don’t have anything to do with their $62k fine. Neither does David Hunter. He has a cease and desist filed against Mr Price.”

Why This Is Damning:

The rapid removal signals TWSD knew the naming was improper or legally vulnerable. If the naming had a legitimate factual basis, why remove it? The removal demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

Moreover, Hunter has an active cease and desist against Otis Price, the Board Chairman who authorized the agenda. Price used his official authority to name someone with whom he has a personal legal conflict—then removed the names when the original became public.

This is textbook abuse of official authority.

WHO ARE FOSTER, HUNTER, AND HARDING?

David Hunter is a Timberton resident and community oversight advocate questioning TWSD’s performance on water outages, infrastructure failures, and regulatory compliance.

Critically, Hunter has filed a cease and desist against Otis Price, the Board Chairman who authorized naming Hunter in the official agenda. This is not a generic resident complaint; it is active legal conflict between Price and Hunter. By naming Hunter in an official district document, Price weaponized his authority against his legal adversary.

Mark Harding has stated he and Hunter have nothing to do with the fines, and has identified Hunter’s legal action against Price as relevant context.

Aaron Foster’s background is less clear, but he too was named without factual basis or explanation.

Then came anonymous attacks via social media

Last week, days after the agenda incident, an anonymously run social media page emerged attacking Chris Edwards, the journalist investigating TWSD’s governance.

The site highlights Edwards’ white-collar felony conviction from over a decade ago—resolved long before his current journalism career—and argues that someone with such a history should not investigate public ethics. This frames Edwards’ historical matter as disqualifying him from reporting on the present. Note other media has covered the issues with TWSD but no attacks on those journalist. 

The site’s strategy is clear: delegitimize the messengers rather than address the reporting. It also attacks multiple Timberton residents and critics, all of whom have raised substantive concerns about TWSD’s infrastructure, incomplete audits, or regulatory violations.

Notably absent from the site is any response to those substantive issues. It does not explain why audits remain incomplete, why water outages continue, why infrastructure leaks persist, or why Foster and Hunter were named in an official agenda without factual basis.

The site provides no author identification, no organization name, no accountability mechanism—anonymity designed to escape consequences for the attacks.

THE IPRA OBSTRUCTION: McCatee’s Weeks of Refusal, Sudden Exit-Date Announcement

Chris Edwards’ Request

On July 9, Chris Edwards filed an IPRA request seeking 10 categories of records related to the golf course lease, boil-water advisories, and infrastructure. The request was filed hours after his newspaper published investigative coverage of TWSD’s finances and the $1-per-month golf course lease awarded without competitive bidding.

Leo McCatee’s Hostile Response (July 13):

Leo McCatee, TWSD’s records custodian, responded by calling the request a “scheme,” telling Edwards: “I have other work to do than play street lawyer with you,” and suggesting Edwards “should have been a responsible adult and filed smaller chunks.”

He refused to provide any completion date.

This violates New Mexico IPRA, which does not require breaking requests into smaller chunks and intentionally allows broad requests to maximize disclosure.

Weeks of Refusal:

For weeks, Edwards asked for a timeline. McCatee refused providing no date, no schedule, nothing.

The Exit-Date Announcement:

A day before McCatee left TWSD employment, he suddenly announced July 23 as a completion date—the first and only date he ever provided.

This timing suggests a cover-your-tracks move designed to create a paper trail showing cooperation as he departed.

Courts have held that deliberate delays followed by rushed exit-date announcements constitute evidence of bad faith obstruction.

The Successor’s Confusion:

After McCatee left, Wendy Case, TWSD’s General Manager, contacted Edwards asking: “We have found 3 IPRAs. Would you please respond and let us know if this is correct?”

This is devastating. If McCatee had truly processed three separate requests, the successor should have known immediately. Instead, Case had to ask for clarification—suggesting McCatee either fabricated the “three requests” claim or deliberately obscured the documentation.

Either way, it violates IPRA’s record-keeping requirements.

Most items requested have not been produced as of publication and nothing since McCatee has left. 

Mark Harding’s  Pending Requests

Harding also has his own IPRA requests with TWSD facing similar obstruction. Two requesters, same tactics, same public body.

THE PATTERN

Phase 1 – Record Blocking (July 9-28):

McCatee characterizes Edwards’ legitimate request as a “scheme,” refuses any timeline despite initial requests, then suddenly announces a completion date only as he’s departing. Successor GM is confused about how many requests exist.

Phase 2 – Official Naming (July 28):

Same day as the office closure announcement to “complete IPRA request,” TWSD publishes agenda naming Foster and Hunter without factual basis or explanation. Hours later, removes the names from revised version.

Phase 3 – Anonymous Character Assassination (Last week):

Anonymous social media attacks Edwards for decade-old felony, attacks other critics, focuses entirely on discrediting messengers rather than addressing substance.

THE LEGAL EXPOSURE

1. IPRA Retaliation (NMSA 1978 § 14-2-12)

TWSD’s conduct—hostile framing of a legitimate request as a “scheme,” weeks of refusal to provide any timeline, office closure framed around “IPRA paperwork burden”—constitutes potential retaliation. The statute requires courts to award damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees.

2. Defamation (Agenda Naming)

By naming Foster and Hunter in an official public document without factual basis and without opportunity for them to respond, TWSD published statements that likely constitute defamation and libel.

3. Abuse of Official Authority

Price used his position as Board Chairman to retaliate against Hunter, with whom he has active legal conflict. This violates administrative law and may constitute conspiracy.

4. Tortious Interference

TWSD’s actions—anonymous attack via social media, agenda naming, records blocking—are designed to interfere with Edwards’ journalism business and his ability to conduct journalism.

5. First Amendment Violations

The pattern of slow balling records requests from journalists, naming associates in official documents, and potentially supporting anonymous character assassination raises serious constitutional concerns.

PRECEDENT

New Mexico courts have consistently rejected this defense:

Santa Fe (2024): City declared a request “excessively burdensome,” then immediately claimed records didn’t exist. The contradiction was damaging evidence.

Harding also has his own IPRA requests pending with TWSD—requests facing similar obstruction as Edwards’.

Las Cruces: Requester sued after city blocked and redacted records without statutory explanation. City paid penalties and released materials, acknowledging documents were “arguably overly redacted.”

Albuquerque (2024):  Southwest Public Policy Institute sued alleging city unfairly used the “burdensome” exception to target certain requesters.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW

New Mexico Attorney General:

– Investigate TWSD’s IPRA handling for retaliation

– Subpoena communications to determine if anonymous website is connected to district staff

– Examine McCatee’s obstruction conduct

– Review agenda incident for defamation and abuse of authority

– Consider conspiracy allegations given Price’s direct authorization

TWSD Board:

– Demand accounting for why Foster and Hunter were named

– Explain why names were removed

– Commit to immediate compliance with all IPRA requests

Law Enforcement:

– Consider whether anonymous social media pages constitutes criminal harassment

The Community:

– File IPRA requests for: all prior requests, anonymous social media communications, agenda naming/removal decisions, audit status, infrastructure repair plans, golf course lease documentation

THE BOTTOM LINE

A public water utility that cannot defend its decisions on the merits—incomplete audits, ongoing outages, failed infrastructure—resorts to blocking records, naming critics in official documents, and supporting anonymous character assassination.

This is not how transparent agencies operate. This is how agencies respond when decisions cannot survive public scrutiny.

New Mexico law, court precedent, and democratic principles all suggest TWSD’s conduct violates the law and undermines public trust.

The district can change course immediately: produce records, remove obstructions, address governance failures, allow critics and journalists to work unimpeded.

Whether TWSD chooses that path, or whether this ends in litigation, will tell the community everything they need to know about the district’s commitment to transparency.

EDITOR’S NOTE

Chris Edwards is editor of 2nd Life Media Alamogordo Town News and the IPRA requester at the center of this story. 

Mark Harding is a Timberton resident, community oversight advocate, and his own IPRA requester facing similar obstruction.

Primary sources:

– TWSD meeting agendas (original and revised) dated July 28, 2026

– IPRA request dated July 9, 2026, and all TWSD correspondence

– TWSD Facebook posts

– Wendy Case email clarifying IPRA requests

– Anonymous website materials (archived)

– Published article: “Timberon Water District Calls an Open Records Request a ‘Scheme’ — Then Won’t Say When It’ll Comply,” 2nd Life Media Alamogordo Town News, July 13, 2026

– NMSA 1978 §§ 14-2-1 through 14-2-12 (IPRA)

– Court cases: *Britton v. Office of the Attorney General*, 2019-NMCA-002; *ACLU of New Mexico v. Duran*, 2016-NMCA-063; *Henry v. New Mexico Livestock Board*, No. A-1-CA-40127 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2024)

– New Mexico Department of Justice IPRA Compliance Guide

TWSD and district officials are invited to explain the basis for naming Foster and Hunter, account for removal, address obstruction allegations, respond to coordination questions regarding the anonymous website, provide completion timeline for IPRA requests, and address substantive governance issues.

Contact: ChrisEdwards@KALHRadio.org 

More News from Alamogordo

• Recall case against Commissioner Burnett goes before a Judge Wednesday and Then Possibly to the Voters . A judge must decide only whether the recall can proceed to the voters for signature gathering.
• Skaggs Must Remain Jailed As Legal Battle Intensifies Over High-Profile Death With ties to Tularosa and Las Cruces this case has shaken Southern New Mexico.