Dems accuse Martinez of ‘hiding’ public records
Susana Martinez
Gubernatorial candidate and district attorney says her office has worked hard to provide documents in response to the Democratic Party’s records requests
The Democratic Party of New Mexico is accusing Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez, Doña Ana County’s district attorney, of “hiding” public records.
Martinez, on the other hand, maintains that the district attorney office she runs has worked hard to comply with two massive records requests the party filed in January.
There may not be a violation of the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act, but Martinez’s office should have standard polices for dealing with requests, Sarah Welsh, executive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, said of the situation.
“We want to see a consistent policy and good communication. (In general, that) would solve maybe 80 percent of the problems that arise,” Welsh said. “The burden is on both parties to keep those lines of communication open.”
Since the party has already been allowed to inspect the records, Welsh said it’s difficult to accuse Martinez’s office of hiding documents, even if the party has yet to receive copies.
As things stand now, the party is trying to decide whether it wants copies of some or all of the more than 2,000 pages it flagged when it inspected the records. Once the party decides, Chief Deputy District Attorney Susan Riedel, Martinez’s records custodian, will send an invoice.
Once payment is received, Martinez said, her office will make the copies and mail them.
Dems: ‘Hurdles’ have hampered process
The situation began Jan. 4 when the party filed two records requests (click here and here) with the Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office seeking to inspect tens of thousands of pages of documents including budgets, contracts, invoices, travel and expense reports and information about cases from the time Martinez took office in 1997 to present.
That’s a pretty standard request from the opposing political party when a public official is seeking higher office. It’s commonly called “opposition research.”
Riedel responded in a Jan. 11 letter that the request was “excessively burdensome” and included “documents kept in approximately 48,000 separate files.”
State Democratic Party Executive Director Scott Forrester claims that, during a series of phone calls over the next few weeks, Riedel said she would allow only two hours to inspect the records, then revised the time to four, then six hours, with a “possible extension” if that wasn’t enough time.
In the end the party was provided 6.5 hours to inspect the records on Feb. 17, and another 6.5 hours last Monday. Though that was enough time to inspect all the records the party had requested, Forrester complained about several issues:
• Riedel didn’t allow the party to bring a scanner or camera to make its own copies.
• He claims Riedel hasn’t been courteous. As an example, he said she told the party’s representative who inspected the records the he was “a pain in the ass” because Martinez had Riedel sit with him while he looked through the documents.
• After the party’s representative inspected the first half of the records on Feb. 17 and marked pages for copying, Forrester claims Riedel told the party she would copy and mail the documents to the party along with an invoice – but that hasn’t yet happened. Martinez told this reporter the intent all along has been to invoice the party after all documents were inspected and only make copies after payment was received.
“It’s a totally different story now that you’re asking questions,” Forrester said. “They’re stalling.”
Forrester said he believes the party will eventually obtain the documents, but Martinez’s office is going out of its way to make the process difficult by placing “hurdles” in front of inspection and copying.
“It personally sounds to me like they’re hiding something,” he said.
Martinez says her office is working to comply
Martinez, on the other hand, says her office is working to comply with the request – the second massive records request her office has received during her tenure as district attorney. She said her office had just completed its annual audit when the request came in, and many documents had not yet been replaced in their normal files.
That, coupled with recent budget cuts, meant gathering the documents the party requested took longer than normal.
Martinez said her office didn’t allow the party to bring its own scanner or camera because she wanted to ensure the documents were in their entire and true form when they left her office.
And she says her office didn’t make copies after the first round of inspection on Feb. 17 because the party had, in its records requests, indicated a maximum budget of $200, but had flagged enough pages for the copying fee to go well over that. She said she wanted to be able to provide a full cost to the party and receive full payment before making any copies.
Riedel initially told the Democrats she didn’t know to whom they would have to make out the check. That’s because, Martinez said, her office has never received payment for documents during her tenure. When asked by journalists for copies of public case records, her office generally provides them without charge.
And the only other requests her office has received – other than the one for which payment was never received – involved case information that wasn’t public record at the time, so those requests were denied.
Because of that, Welsh said it is understandable that some issues would come up in this instance – such as Riedel’s not knowing whether the check should be made out to the district attorney’s office or their fiscal agent, the state Department of Finance and Administration in Santa Fe.
“If they don’t get a lot of requests then this is kind of new ground. It sounds like they’re aware of the law and they’re trying to work it out as best as they can,” Welsh said. “If this was a regular practice I’d be more concerned, but it sounds like it’s a special case.”
Riedel initially told the party the cost for documents would be $1 per page – the maximum the law allows – but later chopped the fee in half. Welsh said that’s indicative of the office’s lack of a standardized policy for the inspection and copying process. She said such a policy should be instituted, and it should include a uniform fee for copies of documents.
Martinez said she doesn’t believe a policy is necessary because the office is complying with the requirements in the public records law.
AG says requesters can bring cameras and scanners
Welsh said it sounds like the Democrats have “run into problems with attitude more than legal compliance” from the district attorney’s office, but she does take issue with Martinez’s not allowing the party to bring a scanner or camera to copy records.
Phil Sisneros, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, said scanners and cameras should be allowed. The public records act, he said, “requires the custodian of public records for a public body to ‘provide reasonable facilities to make or furnish copies of public records during usual business hours.’”
“This office’s position is that this provision permits a requester to use his or her own equipment to make copies of public records,” Sisneros said.
Martinez said the AG’s office doesn’t make that clear in literature it provides to government agencies to help them comply with the public records act.
The AG’s opinion is not legally binding. No court has ever ruled on whether the act requires that requesters be allowed to bring their own copying equipment.
13 Comments
Leave a Response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Like always, Susana approaches EVERYTHING in prosecuting attorney mode. She probably has pretty darn good records, given the crappy administrative support funded for the office. There will be minor mistakes, but no substantive violations or controversial expenditures–she has had to meet the demand of too many federal and state funding auditors for over a decade for that. But to allow her office to go defensive and adversarial in something that she should expect and even support as an “open” candidate is foolish, is is one reason why she would NOT make a good governor.
Having worked professionally with her office in the past, I can vouch that she is a decent person. But unfortunately she has spent so much time in her role as DA that she doesn’t have the breadth of world view needed to lead a large organization with such diverse tasks as the Administrative Branch and guide our state forward smoothly. Especially now, New Mexico can’t afford to have a governor with such a steep learning curve to navigate.
Isn’t it ironic that a Santa Fe Observer has the best point … focus on the goal, regardless of what that is. Macquigg seems to be a ‘light of day’ kind of guy – bless him … jeffnm is part of the Martinez campaign … others seem to have issues with DA Martinez. Would appear the Dem Party is doing some oppostion research, getting DA Martinez office to provide the data – pretty clever and legal. The Lt Gov might want to consider that as well- I read where Mr. Weh did similar things to her office … Martinez crew isn’t doing her many favors by being recalcitrant and less than open with the request (not that the DA employees are part of her campagin team). Remember that one of the planks for her campaign is openness,although others seem to have better credibility there. Now that DA Martinez is the lead dog after the convention – her campaign needs to be less sensitive to attack – it is a form of flattery … unless, of course, the smoke reveals fire. The comments in the Sun News provide plenty of fodder to examine, but I’d wager that DA Martinez hasn’t endured the purging fire of well financed opposition before – those things her fellow Rs don’t reveal with certainly be found, or created, by the Lt Gov machine … which is VERY good at what they do. I also have do doubt that the campaign staff for DA Martinez is capable in handling those things. As Mae West said … well, I’ve forgotten exactly what she said, but buckle up for safety!
Again, many folks here are way off base. Let’s focus on getting the IPRA statutes up to date rather than attacking people for their reading of a law that clearly has not kept up with the technological times.
And jeffnm is right on here: Martinez has run in a county heavily dominated by Democrats and corruption for years and has continued to win. There’s been loads of sunshine poured onto her work as a DA and on her campaigns for DA. This serves as nothing more than a smokescreen for the the ethically challenged Democrats and their incompetent running of this state for so many years.
What those of you not familiar with Dona Ana politics don’t understand is that the Democrats have gone after Martinez relentlessly — and always lost. Martinez has had a lot of light shined on her over the years and she is extremely ethical and honest.
It’s the other GOP candidates that have not been tested, or thoroughly examined.
Case in point, I can’t wait to hear Janice Arnold-Jones start defending her vote to repeal the death penalty, her fighting AGAINST the original repeal of the food tax, her multiple votes in favor of the Richardson budgets she now complains about, and her explanation for why she took $25,000 from a payday loan company while the legislature was in session and considering payday loan reforms. Lady Sunshine needs a little sunlight….
I would like to see if there are records accounting for the amount of time Susana Martinez is away from her job as she runs for Governor. It may be that we are paying for a full time D.A. and only getting a part time one. If that is the case and only the records will prove it, then it may not be ethical for her to continue as D.A.
Do you really want a Governor who thinks you’re getting a deal, when you pay 50 cents rather than a buck to make you a copy of a public record that you could make copies of yourself, for free?,
Do you really want a Governor who looks for something besides the opinion of the Attorney General who wrote the NMIPRA, to guide her to so obvious a conclusion? Do you really want a Governor wasting money on litigation and lawyers rather than just letting people scan their own copies?
I don’t get it, that’s what we have now. Why elect more of the same?
I think there is plenty of merit to these requests. Susana’s campaign is solely based on her time as a DA. So, let’s see how she managed the place the past 12 years. Were there criminals that received plea bargains and re-offended? What’s her record on enforcing the law in Dona Ana County? That doesn’t even break the surface of possible cases she never took on for fear of losing the case. The DA has discretion in which cases to take on. Unsafe streets for a safe re-elect prosecutorial resume? Just asking!
Whether the DEMs or the GOPers requested the information does not matter. Let’s shine a little light on Ms. Martinez.
Some folks leaving comments here are off base. The blame does not lie with Susana Martinez – she is doing what she thought was within the bounds of the law. Really we need to look back to Santa Fe and the Roundhouse, where the ethically challenged Democrats reside, and fix the many holes in IPRA there. It is truly laughable that the Dems are trying to pin something on Martinez, that really is a non-issue, when they’ve got the likes of Mary Herrera, and have had years of corruption under Richardson/Denish. Maybe it’s time they look inside their own party, rather than pointing fingers outside the party, for corruption, incompetence, and “hiding” facts from the public.
I’m really excited to see just how well Susana is doing, let the fear mongering begin among New Mexico Democrats. Susana is probably one of the most honest, hard working public servant in New Mexico.
So why are these records being sought now that Susana is running for office? The Democrats are wasting time and resources that should be dedicated to the prosecution of criminals in Dona Ana county. Perhaps the party should set up shop at the Secretary of State’s office or the PRC. I’m sure they can find plenty of damning evidence there.
“nothing substantial” ?
Martinez will not allow “free” copies made by the requester on a scanner, instead insisting upon charging thousands of dollars for copies.
Ignoring an opinion from the NMAG, who wrote the law, and insisting instead upon some yet non-existent “court decision” before allowing scanners and/or cameras.
These are substantial efforts to undermine the NMIPRA, and are not only worthy of reporting, but worthy of our attention.
Martinez must be doing really well. The Democrats are trying to dig up dirt and getting Heath to write a story like this, which says nothing of substance, but allows the Democrats to smear her.
Go Susana!
Regardless of whether a court has ruled or not, there is no good and ethical reason to disallow scanning or photo copying. The reason it is not allowed, is it doesn’t allow the record holder to know which documents are of interest to the requester and, therefore, need cover.
The NMIPRA allows the actual cost of copying to be passed on to the requester, up to one dollar. One dollar per page is an outrageous copying fee, even including the salary of the person who does the copying, in particular if the stack is large. They are not allowed to charge to locate the document and prepare it for copying.
This is exactly the kind of harassment that is used to discourage people from filing requests for public records, and does not reflect well on DA. Martinez.
Let me get this straight. The Democrats, clearly ethically challenged, are trying to dig up dirt on the leading Republican candidate for governor rather than clean up their house. The rest of us get screwed in the deal.