IPRAS AND THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT
An IPRA (NM version of a Freedom of Information Act – FOIA) is a method of maintaining an open, transparent government. New Mexico also has the Open Meetings Act that enlarges accountability of government operations of elected and non-elected government people in all city, county, state, and federal agencies. They are accountable to us and needed otherwise these laws would never have been passed for people to enquire about our government. Some aspects of these laws try to be circumvented illegally or ignorantly. It has been turned into a “cat and mouse” game by government officials and bureaucrats. The Inspection of Public Records Act NMSA 1978, Chapter 14, Article 2 and the Open Meetings Act NMSA 1978, Chapter 10-15.
Any person in or out of state may request existing documents identified specifically or by category ie. Emails, calendar entries, accounting, policies, contracts, bids, etc. for a specific time frame. It does not have to be a formal letter. It can be written on a piece of paper, requested in person, or in an email. No record is supposed to be deleted so it can be made available when an IPRA request is received by the IPRA official as identified at each agency. There are a few items that must be redacted prior to sending the response such as personally identifiable information and social security numbers to name a few. There is a time frame required for a response to be received as well. Three days for easy documents which can be extended to 15 days. The agency can also respond with “there are no documents responsive to your request” or “the request is burdensome.” Sometimes it depends on whether they are swamped and tired from fulfilling requests or they really don’t want you to have the information so they can say it’s burdensome. From experience, their idea of burdensome makes no sense; however, it achieves their goal of putting the request in the “Done” pile. At this point, if a response is not received in a timely manner a complaint to the Attorney General can be filed or a private attorney may file on your behalf. Also, if the request is ignored and no response is given, a complaint can be filed as well.
If you have worked for the government, you know the drill. Everything is worded appropriately in the event of a request for records and all personal identifying information is only passed from person to person or with encrypted email. Anything less is not acceptable.
Government entities have no right, except as delineated in the law, to withhold information from anyone. They are paid with tax dollars therefore They work for us. It is a “big finger in the eye” when they ignore or make some excuse for not supplying the information. That is a sign they just don’t care about lowly citizens – peons. That is a very bad attitude and can be costly to them as exemplified in the many cases and complaints.
There are already lawsuits filed against the Alamogordo Public Schools for not responding to simple IPRAs that so far potentially total $2.7 MILLION dollars. The Attorney General has many complaints filed with them in conjunction with the refusals of APS as well. Some people just accept the word of APS and don’t bother to fight back. This too must stop! Why would APS be willing to face that huge amount of fines? Is it more important for them to hide the information from the public? Evidently so.
WHAT MONEY WAS WASTED THIS TIME AND FOR WHAT REASON?
Legal fees for attorney services from Cuddy & McCarthy for June 2021 through August 2023 came to a total of $515,280.87. Are you kidding? Unfortunately not. This is the total involving IPRA reviews, actions, redactions, consultations, and services by the attorneys:
$266,264.71 was to examine, redact, or consult on IPRA requests prior to responding. That is 52% of the total.
OTHER HIGHLIGHTS INCLUDE:
$ 11,758.55 for Special Education 504 complaint;
$ 10,802.78 for EEOC complaints;
$ 23,252.53 PED complaints (redacted subject);
$ 1,304.08 for State complaint;
$ 3,569.49 for State (redacted);
$ 10,016.54 for totally redacted reasons plus more. Click the link to review.
Why are they so willing to pay that much to hide information that is supposed to be available to everyone? Hmmm?
Be aware that Colleen Tagle is directly over the Legal Liaison who responds to IPRA requests. Who thought up the process of sending so many IPRAs to the attorneys for action (protection)? Who authorized it? Who questioned it? The School Board? The Superintendent at the time?
Below, there is a “General” charge dated 8/31/21 for $4,377.19. Was that for legal services for the attorney’s involvement for consultation and on the phone at the School Board meeting when a planned “coup” to remove Angie Cadwallader from the position as President at the time to put Judy Rabon to fill her position occurred? That definitely smacked of being preplanned.
The information below was in response to IPRA requests. Here is the itemized list by action categories in the attorneys’ bills:
Clear here for the link to the entire list of legal charges from June 2021 through August 2023.
Getting information from an IPRA request is beneficial to see and understand what is actually going on and understand. We have given up asking for a response from Judy Rabon, School Board President since she apparently has no respect for the residents of this community. Mrs. Rabon, you are not a public servant!
Like, Share, and Follow us on Newsbreak, Telegram and Facebook.