Whose head will roll?

When public money is spent, records are created;
who spent what, for what, and when.

We, the public, have a right to see those records.
It is our money.

Before public records are surrendered to public knowledge,
our government has a responsibility to redact those records.

We expect our government to keep some things secret, even
from us, because the public best interests are served by the secrecy.

And for that reason only.

Rules have been written that separate the truth into two stacks; the truth that should be made public, and the truth which should remain hidden, according to due process (including, but not limited to, the law).

Redaction according to due process, and by that process only.

Two subpoenas were served on the Educational Retirement Board. They will serve as the examples for this post; they are by no means the only examples which could be cited.

If you read the New Mexico Open Meetings Act, and
especially the Compliance Guide link, that accompanies it,
it is clear that redaction has limits.

One cannot redact an entire document, if drawing a short black
line through a very few agreed upon exceptions, would suffice.
The only agreed upon exceptions are those that are subject to due process.

There are no legitimate exceptions except those that are
subject to due process.

Someone whom we pay well, decided to pay lawyers whom we pay well, to redact the entire subpoena, in violation of the spirit of the law, and against the public interest.

Now that the subpoenas have been surrendered, we find
no need in either for even one short black line, not one.
(link and link, courtesy Heath Haussamen.)

The truth was kept from us by legal weaselry for no good reason.

Public servants used public money to secret public records
from public knowledge against the public interests.


Whose head is going to roll?

If you guessed nobody's, you have guessed correctly.

If you guessed some good ol' boys name instead,
you need to pay closer attention.