{"id":16133,"date":"2010-04-18T23:14:51","date_gmt":"2010-04-19T05:14:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=16133"},"modified":"2010-04-19T11:20:46","modified_gmt":"2010-04-19T17:20:46","slug":"ag-calls-out-richardson-over-public-records-violation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2010\/04\/ag-calls-out-richardson-over-public-records-violation\/","title":{"rendered":"AG calls out guv over public records violation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Heath Haussamen<\/p><\/div>\n

It\u2019s \u2018implausible\u2019 that guv has no records about layoffs and \u2018unlikely\u2019 that he doesn\u2019t know what other agencies possess such records, AG says<\/h4>\n

The attorney general doubts that Gov. Bill Richardson\u2019s<\/a> office is telling the truth when it claims it possesses no records related to the 59 exempt employees laid off in January and doesn\u2019t know which state agency has such records.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s the bottom line from last week\u2019s letter<\/a> to Richardson\u2019s office, which is signed by Chief Deputy Attorney General Albert J. Lama and Assistant AG Zachary Shandler. The letter came months later than many had hoped for but is still a welcome response.<\/p>\n

The facts in this case have been clear for some time: Richardson\u2019s office announced in December<\/a> that it had notified 59 political appointees their jobs would end on Jan. 8. Later in December, his office said it would not be \u201cappropriate or dignified\u201d<\/a> to release the names of those employees.<\/p>\n

Then Richardson\u2019s office made the outrageous claim, in response to records requests, that the only documents it had related to the layoffs were e-mails from reporters<\/a> asking for information about the layoffs.<\/p>\n

Even in cases in which such claims are true \u2013 and I want to make clear that I believe this claim from Richardson\u2019s office is a lie \u2013 the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act<\/a> (IPRA) requires agencies to forward such requests to the state agency that does possess such records.<\/p>\n

In violation of IPRA, Richardson\u2019s office failed to do that.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s \u2018implausible\u2019 that guv has no records about layoffs<\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

I have already slammed the governor<\/a> for what I believe is an egregious violation of the public records act. The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government<\/a> jumped into the fight by filing a complaint with the AG on Jan. 21 after the Governor\u2019s Office provided Sarah Welsh, the sunshine group\u2019s executive director, with only the reporters\u2019 e-mails in response to her request for all records about the layoffs.<\/p>\n

The AG\u2019s letter to Richardson\u2019s office, which came in response to Welsh\u2019s complaint, states in the opening paragraph that the AG is \u201cconcerned that your office violated the IPRA.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lama and Shandler wrote that it seems \u201cimplausible\u201d that the Governor\u2019s Office could issue a news release stating that 59 exempt employees were notified that they were being laid off \u201cwhen it had no set of records to support this numerical assertion.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt creates the appearance that some staff member in Governor\u2019s Office possesses, contrary to your letter\u2019s assertions, records pertaining to the 59 exempt employees,\u201d the letter states.<\/p>\n

As for the governor\u2019s failure to forward the request to other agencies that do possess such records, the AG\u2019s letter states that it \u201cseems unlikely that the Governor\u2019s Office did not know which agency had records,\u201d and \u201ceven if it did not, the Governor\u2019s Office had more than enough time between the date it received the request (from FOG) and the date of its final response to make a reasonable effort to ascertain the state agency that maintained the public records.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lies that could cost taxpayers<\/h3>\n

The public records act provides for monetary fines for the most egregious violations. The letter warns the Governor\u2019s Office that Richardson is flirting with such a fine.<\/p>\n

\u201cYour cooperation in this matter is particularly important given the enforcement provisions of the Act,\u201d the letter states. \u201cA person whose request has been improperly handled may bring an enforcement action in district court and, if he or she prevails, is entitled to damages, costs and reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees that may be calculated per day from the date of the violation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The apparent violation by the governor\u2019s office came months ago. This could get costly. The AG\u2019s letter asks the Governor\u2019s Office to release whatever records it has to Welsh and also \u201cimmediately make a reasonable inquiry\u201d to other state agencies so it can either obtain and release those documents to Welsh or forward her request to those agencies. The letter asks the Governor\u2019s Office to provide copies of its communications with Welsh within 20 days.<\/p>\n

In spite of the AG\u2019s letter, the Governor\u2019s Office is continuing to show total disregard for the public records act, transparency and accountability.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe respectfully but strongly disagree with the opinion,\u201d Gilbert Gallegos, the governor\u2019s deputy chief of staff, said in a statement released Friday. \u201cThe Governor\u2019s Office complied with the law and the Attorney General\u2019s Compliance Guide when it turned over 98 pages of responsive records. The fact that the requestor was not satisfied with those records doesn\u2019t mean the Governor\u2019s Office must create new records or act as a clearinghouse for all of state government.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lies. Lies that could end up costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars or more. As his time in office comes to a close, is this really the legacy Richardson wants to leave?<\/p>\n

Haussamen bio<\/a> \u2502 Commentary archives<\/a> \u2502 Feed<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The governor says he has no records about the layoffs of 59 exempt employees and doesn\u2019t know which state agency does. The attorney general correctly says that\u2019s \u201cimplausible\u201d and \u201cunlikely.\u201d As his time in office comes to a close, is such disregard for the law the legacy Bill Richardson wants to leave?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1192,10],"tags":[112,111,107],"class_list":["post-16133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-haussamen-columns","tag-bill-richardson","tag-open-government","tag-roundhouse"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16133","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16133\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}