Some governments provide easy access to public records. Others appear to look for ways to keep the public in the dark. Lately I’ve come across both.
Because of allegations that city employees were inappropriately involved in council races in Albuquerque, I recently requested months of e-mails, cell phone records and time sheets for four city officials.
The city responded in a timely manner, is offering to mail the records to me in
New Mexico State University, meanwhile, is placing hurdles in front of public records.
The university stepped into controversy in May by announcing that it was using private contributions to boost the compensation of its president and men’s basketball coach. It funnels donations through a non-profit foundation that keeps them secret, a practice that has been deemed illegal in some states. Many – including me – believe letting secret donors help pay public employees creates the potential for impropriety.
The university denied my request for information about the donors in May but did provide, without charge and in response to a request sent via e-mail, a copy of its agreement with the foundation.
In July, the Board of Regents approved a new agreement with the foundation. Soon thereafter, I requested a copy, but was told my request wasn’t valid because it was sent via e-mail. Regardless, NMSU said, the document wasn’t public because it hadn’t been signed by all parties.
The latter is ridiculous. Government records become public long before they’re formally approved or signed. And NMSU had not only treated e-mail requests as valid in the past, but also responded via e-mail to two subsequent, hand-delivered records requests.
I asked the attorney general whether the university’s actions violated public records law. His office is investigating. The university eventually provided the new agreement – and charged $1 per page – but still asserts that e-mail requests aren’t valid. On a related request, the university charged more – $40 for 40 pages – than
I also requested the e-mails of the foundation’s director, a university vice president who uses a government account. Even the White House understands that government e-mails are generally public, so it had the RNC set up a separate system for secret communications.
But on Friday, NMSU said the e-mails may not be public because the foundation agreement requires confidentiality. It forwarded my request to the foundation, which said Monday the e-mails aren’t public but if I request something specific it may be voluntarily released. If I pursue this, NMSU says I’ll be charged for “locating, reviewing and producing” the e-mails in addition to copying costs allowed by public records law.
“Understand that NMSU takes its obligations under the Inspection of Public Records Act very seriously,” university attorney Bruce Kite informed me (via e-mail). “NMSU cannot ignore other important goals or public policies and it cannot ignore contractual obligations.”
Saying you take public records law seriously doesn’t make it true. Goals, policies and contracts don’t trump state law.
A version of this article was published today in the Albuquerque Tribune. I write a column for the newspaper that runs on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month. A prior version of this posting should not have implied that the university had never before used private donations to boost the compensation of high-ranking employees.