Contact
Subscribe
|
Tweet
| (13) |
SOS refuses to release Salazar’s resignation letter
Secretary of State Mary Herrera
Foundation for Open Government says the letter is public and should be released
The Secretary of State’s Office is refusing to release the scathing letter A.J. Salazar provided when he resigned Friday from his job as elections director, but the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government says the document is a public record that should be released.
“We consider that to be a personnel issue, and it does not fall under (the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act), so we are not going to be providing that,” Deputy Secretary of State Don Francisco Trujillo said this afternoon.
This reporter has received employee resignation letters from government agencies in the past in response to records requests. Asked if he was certain that Salazar’s letter was exempt from the public records act, Trujillo said he was “fairly certain that’s right” but would check with the office’s legal counsel and, if he learns otherwise, will “follow through accordingly.”
Sarah Welsh, executive director of the open government foundation, said the letter is a public record.
“The personnel matters exception in IPRA only applies to matters of opinion and letters of reference, and this is neither,” Welsh said. “Anything that documents factual information or personnel action is a public document.”
Personnel documents that are exempt from release under the public records act are, according to relevant portions in the act, “letters of reference concerning employment, licensing or permits,” and “letters or memorandums which are matters of opinion in personnel files or students’ cumulative files.”
The “matters of opinion” exemption, Welsh said, applies to “things that a supervisor says in particular about an employee, employee’s performance, whether they should be promoted or not, things that could be damaging to the employee.”
“But it’s not meant to protect the government agency from embarrassment, which is what this seems to be,” Welsh said.
Portions of letter already made public
Portions of Salazar’s letter were already revealed publicly today when the Albuquerque Journal, which obtained a copy of the letter, reported on its contents. The Journal did not release a copy of the entire letter or make clear how it obtained it.
In the letter, Salazar accused Secretary of State Mary Herrera of violating the Governmental Conduct Act and election laws and said he has turned over his allegations to the attorney general, according to the Journal.
Salazar accused Herrera of soliciting money from firms that do business with the Secretary of State’s Office and ordering exempt employees to gather petition signatures for her re-election campaign. Salazar was quoted by the Journal as saying he “has never worked in such a crooked organization.”
Herrera was quoted as saying she has “done nothing wrong” and Salazar’s “unfounded allegations” are based on “twisted information.”
Salazar has not returned a call seeking comment.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
13 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
macquigg has written, “Further, the damage is done; people have no faith in the character and courage of their government. … In deciding who to believe, I look first to the person who is trying to put the most truth on the table.”
The prejudice in these remarks is obvious.
There’s another old saying: “Where there’s smoke, there may be a smoke machine.”
I suspect macquigg also believes all the lies of the ’swiftboaters’ about Senator Kerry.
wedum,
It appears that you think you have scored some points with your observation that choosing to believe people who are “telling the truth” over people who are “not telling the truth”, is prejudice. Take whatever points you think that argument affords you.
With regard to swift boaters, I wonder at your need to bring a red herring to this thread; it is not about swift boating or even about lying, it is about whether or not the Secretary of State is accountable to public records law.
It is arrogant of you to assume that you know what I believe about anything, in particular when in contradicts everything I have ever written.
Philosophical arguments can be made and had without mentioning anyone’s name, anyone’s political affiliation, and without ad hominem attacks upon those with whom you disagree.
Even the tea party you so loathe, states among its guidelines; attack the policy (or philosophy), not the person. You would do well to heed their advice, imho.
I knew personally (and for many years) one of the “Swift Boaters” who outed Kerry and his tactics and attitudes during ‘Nam. And I would trust him far more than Kerry to tell the truth.
macquigg has written, “Further, the damage is done; people have no faith in the character and courage of their government. … In deciding who to believe, I look first to the person who is trying to put the most truth on the table.”
The prejudice in these remarks is obvious.
There’s another old saying: “Where there’s smoke, there may be a smoke machine.”
I suspect macquigg also believes all the lies of the ‘swiftboaters’ about Senator Kerry.
No problemo, according to press reports the AG is investigating and is hot on the case. We can all rest easy now that the truth will be told and nothing hidden, given his bang-up jobs on other La Politica operatives.
Further, the argument that the appropriate place to respond is in court, and not in the media, is specious.
In deciding who to believe, I look first to the person who is trying to put the most truth on the table.
My fundamental assumption is that there is only one reason to hide the truth, and that is to escape its consequences.
Instead of trying to hide the letter, by means of an indefensible interpretation of the law, Herrera could have responded to its each and every allegation with an exculpating truth. She did not, because ( I would argue) she cannot.
I’m compelled to respond yet again because I don’t know how cynics can even get out of bed in the morning, seeing demons everywhere. And I want to speak for the majority out there that are not entirely depressed about all these alleged criminals running the world and victimizing everyone. Personally I sleep pretty well at night and am able to enjoy my meals without too much heartburn over “the villains” at every turn.
First, I think in the absence (presently) of any evidence to date, I wouldn’t qualify this as “smoke”.
There is yet another saying, or maxim, known as Occam’s razor and from its native latin it’s roughly translated as “the simplest explanation is usually the right one.” Detectives use it to deduce who’s the likeliest suspect in a murder case — you know, the butler did it. Doctors use it to determine the illness behind a set of symptoms.
A more elaborate translation that more describes the brouhaha at the SOS Office is: “If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along”. And the simplest theory is you have a disgruntled employee (he is disgruntled isn’t he?) knocking over trash cans on his way out.
Mr Canicas,
I will take your bet.
There is another saying, “where there is smoke there is fire”.
To suppose that there is not corruption and incompetence afoot, denies the reality of our state government.
Further, the damage is done; people have no faith in the character and courage of their government.
I would ask, if it turns out everything Salazar alleges is true, would anyone be surprised? The answer is no; the damage is done. People have no faith anymore, in their government.
People can have whatever personal opinions they want about Mary Herrera, but a unilateral gripe resignation letter from a disgruntled employee should be taken with a grain of salt.
1) It’s a drag to be out of a job (especially in this economy) I’m assuming due to interpersonal problems with your boss or supervisor…that’s nothing original and immature people often go out the door lashing out at the incompetence of their boss with accusations of unethical or criminal behavior, and maybe even knock over a trash can for dramatic impact.
2) No one who has ever been to a governmental meeting would think there is anything unusual whatsoever about seeking governmental “sponsorships” for these types of meetings or events. They are openly solicited every day, and governmental service organizations do their best to oblige to cover the cost of meeting space, incidentals, whatever, and in exchange they get to mingle with their governmental counterparts, answer questions, and build a stronger work relationship. To make this extremely common, wait, better yet, completely institutionalized partnership sound unethical is, well, unethical! The accuser knows perfectly well this is everyday, accepted practice and to imply otherwise is completely dishonest. And I’m not talking about everyday unethical behavior, it’s completely normal and appropriate.
To me, the accuser has gotten away with his own obfuscation because he’s managed to get a headline or two in the Journal and also stirred up Heath here to go dig out the facts and start the “they are withholding vital information” game. I agree that it’s wrong to withhold the letter at this point. To date, this is all “he said, she said” and I can’t imagine there being anything worth pursuing on this story.
Also, I just checked the NM Association of Counties Website for a link to their Annual Conference this June and the link doesn’t work, but I guarantee you it is soliciting sponsorships for the numerous meetings, including the County Clerks Caucus, and the Treasurers, and so on…
There’s an old saying that “A Lie can get half way around the world before Truth gets his boots on” and I’m betting this is what has happened here.
Since the letter is already out, the Journal has it, it is stupid to in effect, hide it from a few other people for a few days.
We will get a look a Herrera’s real character when we do read the letter and see what parts if any, are even remotely excepted under the NMIPRA.
This may not be saying much, but that office is being run much better under Herrera than it was under Vigil-Giron.
The letter is Salazar’s opinion, and unless he wants to file a complaint with the AG, I’m not sure that it is, or should be, a part of the public record. If a supervisor expressing an opinion about an employee is not going to be released, seems to me that an employee expressing an opinion about a supervisor is also protected.
One has to wonder what is in the letter, and what the SOS is trying to hide. A letter of resignation is definitely a part of public record and should be released. Hiding things just makes the public more curious about what is in the letter.
This has been the problem with our present administration all along.
Herrera is out of touch and doesn’t really run the SoS – Don Francisco is the defacto jefe, and he is leading her down the path to figurative perdition. This letter is the proverbial ‘horse out of the barn’ and failure to deal with it up front a BIG mistake. If Herrera believes that she has done nothing wrong – release the letter … but that ain’t the case. To paraphrase Salazar- this SoS administration is corrupt, misguided, out of touch, unethical, and incompetant. I’m going to vote for Dianna Duran in November.