There are a number of problems with the manner in which public records have been handled in Locksleygate Part Deux.
The public record in question is a video recording of an encounter between UNM Head Football Coach Michael Locksley and a local sportswriter. There are allegations of misconduct.
The only remaining incontrovertible evidence of the encounter, apparently, is a recording taken from a security camera in the bar where the exchange took place.
The DVD became a public record when it was placed in the hands of public servants within their public service.
It came, at that point, public property. Subject to ethical redaction of course, but a public record (public property) at that instant. *(exception has been taken with my take; see comment.)
The leadership of the UNM gave a Journal reporter access to the recording that was denied to all other journalists. The Journal reporter accepted the differential treatment, link;
"... UNM showed the video to a Journal reporter,The government doesn't get to decide who gets the scoop;
he was told it would not be available to any other media ..."
much less who gets exclusive access to public records.
UNM Athletics Director Paul Krebs took it upon himself to dispose of the evidence by giving it back to the bar.
Krebs story is that he
"... has not denied any media outlets the video ...".By which he means, he has not said; "I deny your request to see the video;" a true but wholly dishonest representation.
In truth, they were absolutely denied the video when
he placed it outside their reach. He absolutely has denied
media outlets the video.
The Journal quotes Krebs;
"... the reason the school chose to show it to Archuleta,So what, I don't care if he is their beat writer; the government does not decide among reporters. All members of the press share equal protection under the Constitution to exercise their human right to be the press. If there are too many reporters and too little room, it is the press who decides who will participate directly and on the behalf of the others.
and no one else, was "because Greg was our beat writer.
The leadership of the APS does not have the authority to selectively credential the press, and neither does the leadership of the UNM.
Krebs continues;
We thought this might be a potential story that mightSo, if I am understanding Krebs correctly; if the story is a "big one", their right to selectively credential the press is all the more justifiable.
get blown out of hand, like it appears to be.
No Krebs, it is not.
Finally from Krebs a statement that is false on its face;
We gave the "potential story" to the Journal "... in the interest of full transparency, to take a look at it, and you guys have."Except that now we know the story was not given to the Journal at all, it was given to one reporter with the understanding that no one, even from the Journal, would get to see it.
It was given to the one person, perhaps in the whole city, most beholden to the UNM for future "access", and therefore under the most pressure to write with a pro-UNM bias.
What do you call a sports beat reporter with no access,
... an obituary writer.
"Full transparency" my aching ass.
All of this begs a fundamental question; if the recording of Locksley is in fact, exculpating, why is everyone trying to hide it? Why won't the bar owner protect Locksley by surrendering the DVD? Why didn't UNM put it up on YouTube when they had the chance?
And a few other questions beside;
Where are the consequences?
Where is the accountability?
Where is the justice?
Where is the independent audit of executive and administrative
standards and accountability at the UNM, that UNM President
Schmidly and Regent Ray Sanchez want some much to avoid?
Where is the independent audit of executive and administrative
standards and accountability in the APS that Supt Winston
Brooks and School Board President Marty Esquivel
want so much to avoid?
2 comments:
"The DVD became a public record when it was placed in the hands of public servants within their public service."
The government does not take over a copyright (production of any work) it still belongs to the owner.
The government may file a subpoena or seize by use of a warrant or the owner may deliver it upon request or on their own recognition the value of what is contained could or would be useful to the administration of justice.
All of that can happen without violating a copyright.
On the other side the owner may allow his work to be distributed and the government might choose to do so, think bank robber.
A government produced tape is probably not subject to copyright.
"It came, at that point, public property. Subject to ethical redaction of course, but a public record (public property) at that instant."
It is NOT public property, it is under governmental control for safe keeping and the possible use as evidence in judicial proceedings.
It does not become subject to public inspection by law, as stated above. The owner might be willing to allow it to be seen while their may be a sound governmental reason not to show it (think identifiable witnesses in the bar).
The defense, if there are any charges brought would be allowed view the then evidence in preparation of their case.
They would be under the same constraints as would the government to the whim of the owner.
When I testified in the Tijernia cases my photographs were not shared with the press at my request. If they wanted them they could buy them.
Now to the second part.
I don't understand if the Journal report was the victim in this case, whereby his being shown the tape might have been a part of the investigation for him to describe words and action placing them into context of the video.
If the Journal report is just the sports beat guy and was shown the tape or worse given a copy to publish to the exclusion of other media, there is as you point out a problem.
If the Journal reporter was allowed to view the tape but not copy it, then the same standard should apply to the rest of the media. Maybe even as an inspection of public records without being able to copy it based on the copyright.
The government shouldn't get to decide who gets the scoop, but they will. The next question is when do the rest of the media get it?
I stand corrected
Post a Comment