Af­ter 27 days, UNC Al­der­man Su­san Hold­er has apol­o­gised for mak­ing racial­ly charged com­ments dur­ing a San­gre Grande Re­gion­al Cor­po­ra­tion Statu­to­ry meet­ing last month.

Al­der­man Hold­er this week faced three mo­tions penned by PNM Coun­cil­lor and Al­der­men de­mand­ing a mo­tion of no con­fi­dence, her res­ig­na­tion and re­moval from key com­mit­tees in the cor­po­ra­tion coun­cil.

Dur­ing the mo­tion, Al­der­man Hold­er apol­o­gised.

“Mr Chair­man with all due re­spect, if any mem­ber of coun­cil and any­body on the hold, mis­in­ter­pret or mis­un­der­stood the man­ner in which the lan­guage was used, I am sor­ry for those who un­der­stood and blow it out of pro­por­tion, sad be their por­tion,” Al­der­man Hold­er said.

But Va­len­cia West Coun­cil­lor, Si­mone Gill said she would not be ac­cept­ing Hold­er’s apol­o­gy since she showed no re­morse.

“The Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress has yet to pub­licly dis­tance them­selves from the state­ments made by Al­der­man Su­san Hold­er on Au­gust 30 2022. To­day (Tues­day) makes it 27 days since the state­ment was made and you want to apol­o­gize 27 days lat­er. Why to­day? So if the mo­tion was last week, and the mo­tion was 10 years from now. The Al­der­man is deemed to be un­re­morse­ful and has no con­science. Why wait 27 days to apol­o­gize on­ly be­cause the mo­tion was held to­day oth­er­wise there would have been no apol­o­gy”, she said.

How­ev­er, the mo­tions failed as the votes for and against were tied 5-5 along par­ty lines.

The de­cid­ing vote nev­er came as Chair­man Anil Juter­am ab­stained from vot­ing on the mat­ter.

“My loy­al­ty is to each mem­ber of the coun­cil here PNM or UNC and I have no prob­lem be­ing record­ed, once it is for the right thing and if there is an olive branch to be set for the re­main­ing term then I want to be that olive branch”, Chair­man Juter­am said about his de­ci­sion.

Juter­am said he con­tin­ues to con­demn Hold­er’s com­ments.

“ I ex­pressed the way how I felt and I stand my ground on that, that state­ment is very un­for­tu­nate, I can­not put words in­to a per­son’s mouth but that is an un­for­tu­nate state­ment. It could have been the C-word but un­for­tu­nate­ly, it is the N-word but whichev­er one it is not good for this coun­try and it is not good for chil­dren and it is not good for pol­i­tics, politi­cians and po­lit­i­cal par­ty.”

He added he is pre­pared to put up with what­ev­er comes his way for ab­stain­ing to vote for or against the mo­tions.

“I stand what­ev­er con­vic­tion would be com­ing my way for ab­stain­ing and try­ing to keep this coun­cil to­geth­er, so be it and so be the con­se­quence and I stand ready and able to face what­ev­er con­se­quence. I am not go­ing to sep­a­rate this coun­cil and we have a lot to ac­com­plish in the next cou­ple of months.”

PNM’s coun­cil­lors and Al­der­men are ex­pect­ed to file an­oth­er mo­tion of no con­fi­dence, this time it is against Chair­man Anil Juter­am.