"Your right to know" focus of NM FOG banquet

I attended the Dixon Award Banquet FOG fundraiser yesterday.

The words "your right to know" figured prominently in the celebration and discussion.

There really isn't anything to be said about your right to know that you don't already know.  The issue is settled; the ethically redacted truth about the spending of your trust and treasure belongs to you.

The problem is; their opportunity to hide the ethically redacted truth trumps your right to know it.

It makes no difference if that is "right" because it is "legal".
Legal weaselry effectively trumps your rights to everything.

Politicians and public servants can, without consequence, hide the ethically redacted truth about how your resources are being spent and how your power is being wielded, for as long as their money holds out.  It's your money - has it run out? 

The problem is in the premise.

Politicians and public servants act as if the truth is theirs to parcel out as they see fit.  They hire more public servants whose job it is to parcel the truth in the interests of the politician or public servant they work for.

If a politician or public servant sees fit to spend public power and resources to endlessly forestall the production of ethically redacted public records, they can without consequence.

Because they can,
they do.

As an example; Marty Esquivel and APS are spending operational dollars right now, in cost is no object litigation in their effort to hide the ethically redacted truth about the corruption and incompetence in the leadership of APS' publicly funded private police force.

The public record of the public service of politicians and public servants does not belong to them, it belongs to the people.  T The redaction of that record is not within the purview of the people whose records they are.  In creates a manifest conflict of interests.

Public record redaction is the responsibility of someone who is not conflicted except by their duty to the public interests.

When a politician or public servant thinks a record needs redaction; rather than having us prove our right to know, why doesn't the public servant have to prove their right to secret?  to someone who is impartial and powerful enough to deny their claim, even against their will.

Public meetings belong to the people as well.  It is the prerogative of the people; what it is that public servants will discuss and decide about our interests, in secret from us.

It is up to the people to decide what does and does not "disrupt" their meeting.

By the way, recently the NM FOG roundly criticized, link, Marty Esquivel and APS' new Public Participation in School Board Meetings Policy and Procedural Directive.

NM FOG is yet to take decisive action on Esquivel and Modrall's folly and abomination.