Ortiz y Pino is obfuscating the issue

Rob Mikolewski reports, link, State Senator Ortiz y Pino voted in favor of HCR1.  He reports that Ortiz y Pino offered justification for the apparent hypocrisy of legislators expecting more transparency from the Governor, than the people can expect from legislators.

His justification; legislators have no individual "authority" and therefore individual emails aren't public records.  His exact words, in response to Mikolewski's question;

Isn’t it hypocritical then for the Legislature to grant itself an exemption?

was;

“Yeah, it’s true” “(But) we believe the governor is in a different position than citizen legislators who have no authority on their own.”

Mikolewski followed up;

So the difference is that the governor has a full-time job and legislators work part-time at the Roundhouse?

To which  Ortiz y Pino responded;

"That’s right, exactly.”  “We have no authority individually, where hers is. It’s the Legislature as a group of 112 people (70 members in the House and 42 in the Senate) who make rules and set policy … but the governor, who is all by herself, I mean, she is the authority.”

Ortiz y Pino's justification bears some scrutiny; he is playing with words.  He would have you believe, that in all of their conversations in the backs of Santa Fe bars and restaurants, no promises are being made, about spending our power and resources.

Why didn't he say, legislators have "no power" as individuals?  Because obviously they do.

Anywhere a legislator is introduced as Representative or Senator, they are wielding power.  They are wielding the people's power.  For that reason, they should be creating a record; a public record.

They can't have it both ways; they can't say

• they need to work off the record to get things done, and 
• argue that nothing (important) is being done off the record.

It has been argued, those who control the language, control the argument.  Are we talking about spending our power, or are we talking about what the word authority means?

The argument should be;

whether the spending of public power and resources should be conducted on the record; in full sight of those whose power and resources are being spent.

Senator Ortiz y Pino would argue instead, about the "legal" meaning of the word "authority".  And then about the "legal" meaning of another, and another.   He could never say straight out;

I stand in favor of limiting the people's access to government.

The decision about what public servants can and cannot do off the record, is the people's decision to make, not the public servant's.  The terms of public in-servitude are the prerogative of the people; not of politicians and public servants.

When the question is;

Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the ethically redacted truth, about
the public interests and about your public service?

Any answer except yes, means no.

Fundamentally, this about telling stakeholders the truth, and where is the line between the truth that is legitimately secreted, and the truth that is not.


Mikolewski also reports that NM Attorney General Gary King is taking a stand; maybe.  He won't do anything on his own, but if someone else wants to do all the heavy lifting, he's indicated his willingness to stand behind them while they do.

King offered;

“I don’t think the Legislature can exempt themselves from making public documents that they prepare and such from the Inspection of Public Records Act.

And yet, they just did, right in front of his eyes.




 photos Mark Bralley