{"id":2594,"date":"2007-12-04T12:54:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-04T18:54:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/12\/nmsu-gets-away-for-now-with-stonewalling-public\/"},"modified":"2007-12-04T12:54:00","modified_gmt":"2007-12-04T18:54:00","slug":"nmsu-gets-away-for-now-with-stonewalling-public","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/12\/nmsu-gets-away-for-now-with-stonewalling-public\/","title":{"rendered":"NMSU gets away, for now, with stonewalling public"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>It is perfectly reasonable for New Mexico<\/st1:placename> State<\/st1:placetype> University<\/st1:placetype><\/st1:place>\u2019s Board of Regents<\/a> and President Michael Martin<\/a> to take the position that information about donors shouldn\u2019t be public. I hold the opposite opinion, but have said since the regents began using money from secret donors to compensate Martin in May that there are good arguments on both sides and the issue is, at least in some states, a legal gray area. <\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Apparently, there\u2019s a New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> statute that, at least in the opinion of the Attorney General\u2019s Office, backs up NMSU\u2019s assertion.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

What has been entirely unreasonable and disgraceful is the fact that the university responded to the public debate over whether its position was correct by attempting to keep other, undoubtedly public records secret in an apparent attempt to make it difficult for reporters to inform the public about the situation. For that, the regents and administration should be ashamed.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The Attorney General\u2019s Office issued its formal opinion<\/a> last week that NMSU didn\u2019t violate the Inspection of Public Records Act<\/a> in its dealings with me and the Las Cruces Sun-News on a number of requests for documents related to the NMSU Foundation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Though I and others disagree with the attorney general on some points, there\u2019s a deeper issue to be considered: Regardless of whether NMSU violated the law, there\u2019s no doubt that the university has engaged in repeated attempts to stonewall the public. What the attorney general\u2019s opinion means is that, at least at this point, NMSU gets away with it.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Examples of stonewalling<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Consider these points:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 The university made the ridiculous assertion, after a new agreement with the foundation was approved by the regents on July 23, that the document wasn\u2019t public because it hadn\u2019t yet been signed by all parties. Anything that appears on an agenda of a regents meeting is public record. In fact, most documents are public long before that.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The university backed down and provided me with the document only after I publicly asked the attorney general to intervene, so NMSU avoided a violation, but it still made the initial attempt to chase me away by denying the records request.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 In May, I requested via e-mail a copy of the university\u2019s agreement with the foundation that was in effect at the time. The university faxed it to me the same day \u2013 a pleasantly surprising response to my request considering that, by law, the university is allowed 15 days to comply with requests for public records.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Then came the controversy over whether donor information should be public. And the university decided to make it difficult for me to obtain records. In July, I was told that my records requests that were sent via e-mail weren\u2019t valid.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

By law, the university and other public bodies are required to respond to written and verbal requests for records, but there are only penalties for failing to comply with a written request \u2013 and state law isn\u2019t clear on whether e-mails meet the definition of \u201cwriting.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

It\u2019s ironic that university Attorney Bruce Kite responded via e-mail to my e-mail requests to tell me they weren\u2019t valid. He could have responded via the fax or phone numbers I provided on my records requests. Frankly, I preferred his response via e-mail, just like I would have preferred making the requests via e-mail instead of hand-delivering them.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

E-mails are considered \u201cwriting\u201d in many instances in federal law. E-mail is a valid form of writing and communication in the legal world in which Kite works. Most state agencies and local governments in New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> accept e-mail records requests, and the Attorney General\u2019s Office accepted my complaint against NMSU via e-mail.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Kite told the Attorney General\u2019s Office that NMSU generally treats e-mail requests as valid written requests. Generally? As in, the university wants to leave the door open to have the ability, from time to time, to stonewall a reporter or someone else making a request?<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

An effort to push for change is needed<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

That archaic lack of a policy has led the Albuquerque Journal<\/a> to slam NMSU and the Las Cruces Sun-News<\/a> to call for it to develop a formal policy that it will treat e-mail requests as valid.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

But I\u2019m not optimistic. The regents and Martin aren\u2019t exactly champions of open government. This is the same board that currently makes it difficult for anyone to provide public input at its meetings, indicating that the board doesn\u2019t want to hear from the public. That, combined with the stonewalling on public records requests, suggests that those in charge of NMSU aren\u2019t interested in engaging or involving the public in their decisions, as if they believe they know what\u2019s best and don\u2019t need the involvement of anyone else.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\n

The recent Las Cruces<\/st1:City><\/st1:place> city election proved that a large number of people in this community are fed up with public officials who don\u2019t engage the public in the decision-making process. Perhaps it\u2019s time they turn their attention to NMSU.<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It is perfectly reasonable for New Mexico State University\u2019s Board of Regents and President Michael Martin to take the position that information about donors shouldn\u2019t be public. I hold the opposite opinion, but have said since the regents began using money from secret donors to compensate Martin in May that there are good arguments on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2594","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=2594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}