Of what good is the NM FOG?

We are about to find out.

I am trying to find the ethically redacted truth about public corruption in the leadership of the APS; specifically, but not limited to, the APS Police Department.

The leadership of the APS, Future NM FOG Award Winner,
APS Supt Winston Brooks and Former NM FOG Award
Winner, School Board President Marty Esquivel
are trying to keep me, and you of course, from getting to the truth, ever.

Their last response to me was that, the results of an independent investigation into the corruption in the APS Police Department was a "matter of opinion" and therefore, not one word of it is subject to surrender according to the rules of the NMIPRA and Modrall's utterly unmitigated legal weaselry.

I have asked the NM FOG to step up and hold their "award winners" accountable the law. (Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall during that discussion?)

NM FOG Executive Director Sarah Welsh, in a recent conversation, and in response to my suggestion that she was part of a group of people including at least a few of questionable integrity, pointed out correctly, that she should be judged by what she does and not by what they do. As I wrote before, fair enough.

In response to my request for help from the NM FOG, she has emailed the following arguments to the leadership of the APS;

1. Since this denial determination was made, the New Mexico Court of Appeals issued a very instructive ruling in Cox v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety et al, (attached) clarifying the ‘personnel matters of opinion’ exception in IPRA. The Cox ruling narrows the exception in 14-2-1A(3) to only those documents ‘generated by the employer or employee in support of the working relationship between them.’ In this situation, the requested investigative report was generated by an outside entity; therefore, the report does not contain APS opinions (in APS’ capacity as Mr. Lovato’s employer) and is not exempt from disclosure. Presumably, APS commissioned this report (with taxpayer money) in order to gain an objective assessment of the facts so that it could formulate its opinion about Mr. Lovato’s suitability for continued employment. While that official opinion may be exempt from disclosure, the factual reporting that informed it is not. I would also note that the Court anticipated that the release of citizen complaints against police officers could bring negative attention to the officers. But it found that that concern is not a basis for shielding the complaints from public inspection under 14-2-1A(3). In accordance with First Amendment principles, the Court opined that the police agency (or in this case, the district) could balance any false allegations against employees with the truth, by releasing the full results of the internal investigation.

2. Even if we were to accept that some of the information in the report does represent official APS opinions that would be exempt under NMSA 1978 § 14-2-1A(3), it is unlikely that the entire investigative report contains only such matters of opinion. There must be some factual information therein, and under NMSA 1978 § 14-2-9A, the records custodian is required to separate the two types of information and make the nonexempt information available for inspection. I would note that Bernalillo County did exactly this recently when it published the final report (with some redactions) of a commissioned personnel investigation.

3. Finally, information that is exempt from disclosure in 14-2-1A(3) is not confidential; withholding is discretionary. IPRA’s policy of providing the “greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees” directs public agencies to err on the side of openness. While there sometimes needs to be a balance between that mandate and individual rights, this denial strikes no such balance – it errs on the side of full non-disclosure. Given that the investigation in question deals with alleged violations of the public trust, the public has a strong interest in accessing as much information as possible about the final result – for example, to make sure that any missing public funds were recovered, that offending employees were held accountable, and also in order to protect itself from hiring those offending employees in another government capacity.

I have followed up with a reiteration of my Request;

REQUEST TO INSPECT PUBLIC RECORDS

8/18/2010

To: Rigo Chavez, Records Custodian
Albuquerque Public Schools

From: Charles MacQuigg


I have been told that the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government has emailed you their position on your refusal to allow me to inspect and or copy, public records of the various investigations of corruption in the APS Police Department.

Consequently; I am reiterating my request.

I demand an opportunity to inspect and or copy, all (ethically redacted) public records including results of investigations into corruption in the administration of the Albuquerque Public Schools, in particular, but not limited to, the corruption that was revealed in the Journal Article of February 11, 2007, link.



I demand an acknowledgment that you have received this request at your earliest opportunity; in contrast to the maximum delay allowed by law.

I demand that you respond, at least, by email.

I demand the surrender of the (ethically redacted) records in an electronic format, not hard copy.

And, we will see what happens.