Some executive offices want to turn bill designed to increase access to public records into one that creates new ways to deny access
Call it a classic win-win situation… just not for the public.
What do you do if you head a state agency and a lawmaker is proposing shortening the length of time you have to respond to requests for public records and other changes to the Inspection of Public Records Act that would make your job a little more inconvenient?
Propose a bunch of changes to the bill that would create a host of new justifications for denying access to records maintained by your office. If the bill passes, you win by getting new ways to deny access to records. If the bill dies because what you’re proposing will be viewed by many as egregious, you win because you killed a bill that would have, in its original version, placed tougher restrictions on your agency.
Is that what’s going on in the case of House Bill 507, sponsored by Majority Leader Ken Martinez, D-Grants? It’s difficult to say. But the responses of state agencies to the bill sure do make me suspicious.
The bill, as Martinez proposed it, would shorten the length of time government agencies have to respond to records requests from 15 days to 10 days. It would also require them to treat electronic requests, including e-mails and faxes, as valid. And it would require state agencies to explain why they’re denying records requests. Current state law does not require any explanation for a denial.
But, as reported by the New Mexico Independent, a number of state agencies asked Martinez to add exemptions to the public records act into his bill. Martinez suggested that they write a substitute bill for him to consider. Here are some of the exemptions they want slipped into the bill:
“Records of a public body that, by their nature, must be confidential in order for the public body to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function.”
“Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.”
“Records specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or rule.”
“Records related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of a public body.”
“Nothing in the Inspection of Public Records Act shall be construed to require a public body to provide records pursuant to that act to a party with whom it is in litigation.”
The first is especially troubling, because it appears that it would allow a state agency to deny a records request simply because letting the public know about what’s in the record would somehow frustrate “a legitimate government function.” I could see that being used to justify all sorts of secrecy.
Martinez isn’t happy with the proposed changes. He told NMI and The Santa Fe New Mexican’s Kate Nash that he won’t support the bill as the state executive agencies want it to read.
“I didn’t want it to be a bill about exemptions,” Nash quoted him as saying. “This bill wasn’t about all that.”
So Martinez is working to restore the bill to its original form. It’s currently awaiting a hearing in the House Health and Government Affairs Committee. Hopefully, he’s successful in getting the bill restored to its original form and passed, so this can be a win for the public instead of for the state agencies that want to operate with more secrecy.
This is a strong bill — as Martinez has introduced it. Shame on those who want to try to turn a bill designed to increase access to public records into something that would make it more difficult for people to access them.