Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-guide/new-mexico/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:03:43+00:00

Document:
New Mexico, the "Sunshine State," has historically provided a hospitable climate for open government. In 1993, because of the efforts of the New Mexico Press Association and the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, the Legislature enacted some significant improvements to the Inspection of Public Records Act. The 1993 legislation provides a broad definition of public records to include virtually all documents or information "regardless of physical form or characteristics that are used, created, received, maintained, or held by or on behalf of any public body and relate to public business, whether or not the records are required by law to be created or maintained." NMSA 1978 § 14-2-6(G) (2013).
Recognizing that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, the intent of the legislature in enacting the Inspection of Public Records Act is to ensure, and it is declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees. It is the further intent of the legislature, and it is declared to be the public policy of this state, that to provide persons with such information is an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of public officers and employees.
NMSA 1978 § 14-2-5 (1993). The same legislation created procedures similar (but in many ways superior) to the federal Freedom of Information Act. For example, generally a public official (custodian of the records) must respond to a written request within three (3) business days. NMSA 1978 § 14-2-8(D) (2009).
"The improvements in both the open records and open meetings provisions in New Mexico law can be traced in large part to a private organization called the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, known as NMFOG. This organization, although receiving most of its funding from media organizations, has broad public membership. NMFOG has been aggressive in supporting requests for public records through educational seminars, letters to public officials, and litigation. NMFOG's Executive Director is Melanie Majors. NMFOG's contact information is: New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, Inc., 2333 Wisconsin St. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87110. Phon: 505-764-3750.
The New Mexico Attorney General publishes compliance guides for New Mexico, and copies are available from the Attorney General's office: Civil Division, Office of the Attorney General, State of New Mexico, Bataan Memorial Building, P.O. Drawer 1508, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1508, telephone 505-490-4060 or online at: http://www.nmag.gov/publications.aspx. The guides provide analyses of the statutes with examples and some form letters. The New Mexico Press Association and NMFOG drafted portions of the commentary and the appendices to the guides which contain analyses of the Acts, deadlines applicable to the Acts, and form letters to request public records.
History of New Mexico Open Records Law: Even in the absence of statutory provisions, the common law right of access to inspect at least some public records, has been recognized in New Mexico since at least 1925. See N.M. Op. Att'y Gen. 25-26 (1925) ("House journal and bills are public records and should be open to public inspection at reasonable hours.").
No appellate court decision defined the right of common law access until passage of the state's first Open Records Law in 1947. The law limited access to "citizens," contained a few exceptions, no definition of what constituted a public record; the 1947 Act did provide a penalty, including a possible jail term for violations.
In 1973 additional exceptions to the right of inspection were added. In 1993 the Legislature created a private right of action allowing prevailing citizens to collect court costs, damages, and attorneys' fees but deleted the fines and imprisonment penalties. The 1993 overhaul was significant, establishing procedures similar to those of the Federal Freedom of Information Act, and a presumption that all records are public. The 2011 amendments include a requirement that records custodians respond to a public records request in the same medium in which they receive the request (electronic or paper). § 14-2-7(B). Additionally, if the public record is available in electronic format and is requested in an electronic format, the public body must provide it to the requester in an electronic format. § 14-2-9(B). Public bodies may charge a requester actual costs of downloading copies of public records to a storage device and the actual cost of the storage device. § 14-2-9(C)(3).
Public bodies are required to post a notice informing the public of the right to inspect records and the procedures for copying and inspecting records on the publically accessible website with contact information for the public records custodian. § 14-2-7(E). Finally, in 2011 the legislature included a new section on “protected personal identifier information” § 14-2-1(B). Public bodies may redact “protected personal identifier information” before providing a public record. Id. “Protected personal identifier information” is defined as: (1) a social security number; (2) all but the year of a person’s birth date; (3) all but the last four digits of a taxpayer identification number, financial account number, or driver license number. § 14-2-6(E).
In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them. The formation of public policy or the conduct of business by vote shall not be conducted in closed meeting. All meetings of any public body except the legislature and the courts shall be public meetings and all persons so desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations of proceedings. Reasonable efforts shall be made to accommodate the use of audio and video recording devices.
10-15-1(A). The 1993 changes also require: 1) strict procedures for telephone conference meetings. Notices must include; 2) agendas; and 3) minutes, including a statement that any closed session was limited to the subject announced in the motion or notice of closure. See §§ 10-15-1(C), (F), (G).
In 1997 NMPA and NMFOG successfully pushed an important amendment to provide some teeth for the formerly toothless enforcement provision. The 1997 amendment provided for a mandatory award of costs and reasonable fees to a successful plaintiff in a suit to enforce the Open Meetings Act. § 10-15-3(C).
NMPA and NMFOG efforts to open up the secret legislative conferences were partially successful. An amendment to the Open Meeting Act in 2009 provides that “all meetings of any committee or policy-making body of the legislature held for the purpose of discussing public business or taking any action within the authority…of the body are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times…” § 10-15-2(A).
The New Mexico Attorney General's office has published the Eighth Edition of the Open Meeting Act Compliance Guide. This guide includes all amendments to the Act passed during the 2015 legislative session. Copies are available from the Civil Division of the Office of the Attorney General, State of New Mexico, Post Office Drawer 1508, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1508, or online at: http://www.nmag.gov/publications.aspx.
The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government has been particularly active in pursuing compliance with the Open Meetings Act. Seminars, expert testimony and analysis, and the occasional lawsuit have resulted in a much better environment for open government in New Mexico. For additional information, contact NMFOG's Executive Director, Peter St. Cyr., New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, Inc., P.O. Box 25603, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87125-5603; telephone: 888-843-9121; local telephone: 505-764-3750; email: infor@nmfog.org; online at http://nmfog.org/.
NMSA 1978 § 14-2A-1 (1993) purports to prohibit attorneys, healthcare providers, and their agents from inspecting, copying or using police reports or information obtained from police reports to solicit victims or relatives of victims. Consistent with pronouncements by the Supreme Court (Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995)), the New Mexico State Bar's ban on direct mail advertising by attorneys to accident victims is also unconstitutional. Revo v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Sup. Ct. of N.M., 106 F.3d 929, 936 (10th Cir. 1997).
Although the statute suggests the exemption from disclosure for medical records may concern (only) persons confined to public institutions, the exception has been interpreted by the New Mexico Supreme Court to exempt any medical records. Newsome v. Alarid, 1977-NMSC-076, ¶¶ 9-10, 568 P.2d 1236 (rev’d on other grounds and separate portion of opinion superseded by statute). See also N.M. Op. Att'y Gen. 60-155 (1960) ("[a]ny record which might fairly be called a record of examination of a patient or record of medical treatment of a patient of any institution is not a public record and need not be submitted to public scrutiny.") Cf. 1968 N.M. Op. Att'y Gen. 68-110. Medical records that may otherwise be exempt from disclosure but are introduced into evidence in any public hearing lose their exempt status and may be inspected by the public. N.M. Op. Att'y Gen. 88-16 (1988).
b. Letters of reference concerning employment, licensing or permits.
Under former law, this exception was determined to allow a public body to withhold the names of former state employees terminated for disciplinary reasons. State ex rel., Barber v. McCotter, 1987-NMSC-046, ¶¶ 7-12, 738 P.2d 119. It is not clear that Barber v. McCotter would be decided in the same manner after the 1993 amendments. See City of Las Cruces v. Pub. Emp. Labor Relations Bd., 1996-NMSC-24, ¶11, 917 P.2d 451 (upholding Barber v. McCotter, stating “[a] public employee's privacy interest in his personal position regarding union representation requires protecting representation petitions from public disclosure.”); see also City of Farmington v. Daily Times, 2009-NMCA-57, ¶¶ 19, 22, 146 N.M. 349, 210 P.3d 246 (rev’d on other grounds) (requiring disclosure of applications of the position of city manager).
c. Letters or memoranda that are matters of opinion in personnel files or students' cumulative files.
Prior to the 1993 amendments, which created a presumption of open records, a variety of court decisions suggested a broad reading of this authority to withhold documents, a reading that is no longer warranted. See, e.g., Spadaro v. Univ. of N.M. Bd. Of Regents, 1988-NMSC-064, ¶ 11, 107 N.M. 402, 759 P.2d 189 (1988) (complaints filed in a student job office at the University are not public records); but see Cox v. N.M. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2010-NMCA-096, ¶ 10, 242 P.3d 501 (holding that citizens’ complaints are pubic records and stating “[t]he Court in Spadoro applied a previous version of the IPRA which, unlike the current version, did not contain a definition of public record”).
d. Law enforcement records that reveal confidential sources, methods, information or individuals accused, but not charged with a crime.
Law enforcement records include evidence in any form received or compiled in connection with any criminal investigation or prosecution by any law enforcement or prosecuting agency, including inactive matters or closed investigations to the extent they contain the information listed above. See also Arrest Record Information Act, NMSA 1978 § 29-10-1 to -8 (1975, as amended through 1999). After the 1993 amendments, the Inspection of Public Records Act had been largely reconciled and specifically provides a wide variety of documents are now public: posters, announcements or lists identifying fugitives or wanted persons, police blotters, court records of public judicial proceedings, records of traffic defenses and accident reports, etc. This exception has been the focus of most of the public records battle over the last few years.
e. As provided in the Confidential Materials Act.
This very narrow exemption covers only those documents donated to a museum, university, or other public institution wherein the grantor specifically reserves and requires confidentiality for a certain term of years. See NMSA 1978 § 14-3A-2 (1981).
f. Trade secrets, attorney-client privileged information and strategic business plans of hospitals.
h. Tactical response plans and procedures propounded by the state government to address terrorist threats are exempt from disclosure.
i. Protected personal identifier information.
j. As otherwise provided by law, meaning by regulation or other specific statutory exception.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico has determined that regulations adopted by a public body may have the force of law. City of Las Cruces v. Pub. Emps. Labor Relations Bd., 1996-NMSC-24, ¶¶ 5, 12, 917 P.2d 451. The case before the court concerned a labor board's promulgation of regulations to withhold representation petitions otherwise public. The Supreme Court determined the regulations were necessary to accomplish performance functions and duties which included “protecting representation petitions from public disclosure." Id. ¶¶ 7-11. The Supreme Court resurrected the "balancing test" (State ex rel. Newsome, 1977-NMSC-076, 568 P.2d 1236) and held that public employees' privacy interests related to union representation required the protection of the representation petitions from public disclosure. Id. ¶¶ 8-11. Given the (assumed) possibility of retaliation against employees who support labor activities and the failure of the plaintiff to offer any evidence of the benefit to the public that would outweigh the privacy interest, the court's resurrection of the balancing test, and the balancing test itself, may be more narrowly construed in the future.
The New Mexico statutes contain more than 100 additional references to specific documents that are specifically open or closed to the public. For example, NMSA 1978 § 1-3-1(C) (1995) specifically provides that boundary maps and descriptions maintained by county clerks are public records. NMSA 1978 §61-11A-7 (1987) decrees that the names of pharmacists who enter an impairment program voluntarily are confidential.
The bulk of the specific provisions are very narrow and very specific to the substantive area of law in which they are contained. A complete collection is contained in the New Mexico Open Records Task Force, Source Materials, available through FOG. The vast majority of the separate, specific citations deeming records to be open are redundant in light of the 1993 amendments providing for a broad definition of public records and a presumption of access. See, e.g., NMSA 1978 § 21-1-16 (1889). The records of boards of regents at state colleges are open; NMSA 1978 § 3-9-5(B) (2015), absentee ballot registrations are public records.
Other provisions do provide that certain records are secret, but the bulk of the specific statutes are redundant or non-controversial. NMSA 1978 § 40-13-7.1 (2005), provides that medical or health care related information concerning domestic abuse of a person is confidential.
Governmental bank records in the possession of the state are presumably public. See NMSA 1978 § 14-2-6(G) (2013). Private records in the possession of a bank or financial institution are probably not available.
Regular, special, and emergency meetings are subject to the New Mexico Open Meetings Law. See NMSA 1978 § 10-15-1(B) and (F).
The Legislature has provided for ten specific exemptions to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act.
10) gaming control board meetings dealing with information that is confidential under the Gaming Control Act. NMSA 1978 §§ 60-2E-1, et seq.
The court may address any violation of the Open Meetings Act.
No reported decision, probably a four-year statute of limitations applies. However, particularly with injunctive or other extraordinary relief, immediately filing is always advisable, and laches could be a problem for any lawsuit that is not promptly filed.

References: § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 10
 § 10
 § 14
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 29
 § 14
 v. 
 § 1
 §61
 § 21
 § 3
 § 40
 § 14
 § 10