Let the games begin; APS vs the NMIPRA

For some context on the act please visit the NM Attorney General's site. or the actual NMIPRA.

On Wednesday last, Rigo Chavez found my request for records on his desk; and a clock began ticking. Within the prescribed limit, more or less, Chavez responded to my requests for public records pertaining to complaints filed against GilLovato; with APS Office of Equal Opportunity Services.

He wrote, "I spoke with Charles Becknell, director of the APS Office of Equal Opportunity Services, and he said that those complaints are confidential and are not public information because they include "letters or memorandums which are matters of opinion" as defined by the NMIPRA. Therefore, your request for information about those complaints is denied by Mr. Becknell."

Let's take a look at language from the Act itself. The following comes from the AG's site; it is especially useful as it presents side by side; the law (which I will bold face) and commentary which allows us non-lawyer types to understand what the law really means. You must allow me some license to cut and paste in what I represent to be your interests; the first source is only a click away.

A. RIGHT TO INSPECT PUBLIC RECORDS
The Law
Every person has a right to inspect any public records of this state except:
Commentary
This section sets forth the fundamental rule that a person may inspect any public records of the state except those that are specifically protected. Most records kept by a public entity should be available for inspection, and unless the records custodian is positive that a recognized exception applies, all legitimate and appropriate requests must be honored.

Because of the presumption in favor of the right to inspect, public bodies acquiring information should keep in mind that the records they keep generally are subject to public inspection. Moreover, merely declaring certain documents to be confidential by regulation or agreement will not exclude them from inspection unless the specific limited exceptions described below are met. Thus, to effectively protect personal privacy, the public body should be sure that the information it gathers is actually
needed.
B. EXCEPTIONS
3. Matters of Opinion
The Law
Letters or memorandums which are matters of opinion in personnel files or students’ cumulative files.
Commentary
This exception is aimed at protecting documents in an agency’s personnel or student
files that contain subjective rather than factual information about particular individuals.

As indicated in Example 6, this exception does not extend to information that is not a matter of opinion. Factual information or other public information is not protected merely because it is kept in employee or student files.

Requested documents that contain significant factual information in addition to opinion should be provided with the opinion information blocked out or otherwise redacted.

It is clear that Becknell and Chavez (who is the actual custodian of public records) would like me to believe that if a complaint "package" includes a "matter of opinion", then the entire package is excepted from the requirements of the law.

Clearly that is not the case. If there is an opinion in the file, it is simply redacted; a line is drawn through it to make it illegible. The line can be no longer than the opinion itself. It does not extend to the rest of the page upon which the opinion is expressed. Reader please note that, there is no provision for Becknell or Chavez to maintain "confidential" public records; there is no such thing.

I cannot prove that Becknell and Chavez know better. There is a public record, a class roster, of those who received specific training on the NMIPRA, from the AG's office. But that roster cannot be inspected or copied because it is a "secret".
There is no publicly available document that ties the custodian of public records to the training It is "confidential" because it is proof of personal accountability.

I will communicate my objection to Rigo Chavez. He will probably inform me that I have the right at this point, to engage APS/Modral in state district court. Assuming that I did that; at some point the judge would tell APS/Modral that they have "misunderstood" the requirements of the NMIPRA. There will be no consequence for Becknell, Chavez, or any other member of APS Leadership. The Modral Law Firm will add to the enormous pile of taxdollars that now belong to them.

I can imagine two possibilities at this point; Becknell and Chavez are incompetent, or they are corrupt. The leadership of the APS hold them accountable for neither. In fact both are quite well compensated for their corruption/incompetence.