Brooks secret evaluation.

School board member Marty Esquivel is an "open government"
lawyer, an expert on the law. I asked him straight out if he was satisfied that the scheduled closed meetings related to Superintendent Winston Brooks evaluation, where consistent with the requirements of the NM State Open Meetings Act.

He is satisfied that they are.

He is satisfied in part due to a weaving of the Open Meetings Act and the Inspection of Public Records Act; the two wings of the Open Government bird.

He said that the Inspection of Public Records Act SS 14-2-1-A-3, provides an exemption for

... letters or memorandums that are matters of opinion
in personnel files ...

He argued that at least part of these meetings was the equivalent of "matters of opinion".

Lawyer Esquivel must know that the NMAGO has repeatedly written that those who are asked for public records are required to;

Separate records containing exempt and nonexempt information (including redacting exempt information contained in an otherwise public record), if the records or parts of the records are exempt (§ 14-2-9).

Some parts of public records and open meetings are exempt, but you can't withhold an entire public record, or close an entire meeting, based on some part of either being exempt.

Are there no objective, concrete examples of goals and accomplishment that are more substantial than opinions?

Five years ago, the Council of the Great City Schools auditors
wrote that in the leadership of the APS

... evaluations are subjective and unrelated to promotions
or step placements ...

Years later I filed a request for any public record that showed a policy change in response to the audit.

There wasn't that record then, and there isn't that record now.
Or they would be evaluating Winston Brooks according to
objective measures now.

And they could produce examples of those objective measures
for stakeholder scrutiny.

They wouldn't have to do the whole thing in secret.

The worst thing that any public servant can do
is anything they do in indefensible secret.

Public records custodians are required to redact public records as required by the law, and then surrender the rest to public knowledge.

Those who hold open meetings are required to redact part of the meeting as required by law, and then surrender the rest to public knowledge.

No part of these meetings is open to the public,
including any discussion of items which are
not reasonably lumped with "matters of opinion".


From the Open Meetings Act, emphasis added;

A. In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them. The formation of public policy or the conduct of business by vote shall not be conducted in closed meeting. All meetings of any public body except the legislature and the courts shall be public meetings, and all persons so desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings. Reasonable efforts shall be made to accommodate the use of audio and video recording devices.

(2) limited personnel matters; provided that for purposes of the Open Meetings Act [10-15-1.1 NMSA 1978], "limited personnel matters" means the discussion of hiring, promotion, demotion, dismissal, assignment or resignation of or the investigation or consideration of complaints or charges against any individual public employee; provided further that this subsection is not to be construed as to exempt final actions on personnel from being taken at open public meetings, nor does it preclude an aggrieved public employee from demanding a public hearing ...

It appears to me, albeit, unskilled in Juris Mustalidae,

that at least some meaningful part of this,
must be subject to the Open Meetings Act.


cc Marty Esquivel upon posting