Heath Haussamen

The attorney general knows that state employee resignation letters are public documents. The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government knows it too.

That’s because this is pretty basic stuff, as far as the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act goes. Government employee resignation letters are public records in New Mexico. As a journalist, I’ve requested and received copies of such resignation letters before.

So why won’t Secretary of State Mary Herrera’s office release the scathing letter A.J. Salazar provided when he resigned more than a week ago from his job as elections director?

“We consider that to be a personnel issue, and it does not fall under (the public records act), so we are not going to be providing that,” Deputy Secretary of State Don Francisco Trujillo told me Thursday.

Nonsense. Come on. Did he really think that answer was going to stand?

Maybe he did. After all, Gov. Bill Richardson’s administration has gotten away – at least thus far – with ignoring the public records act and refusing to release information about the 59 exempt employees he supposedly laid off in January.

Richardson’s flagrant disregard of the public’s right to know creates the appearance that he has something to hide – like maybe he didn’t really lay that many people off after all. That suspicion was bolstered last week by an investigative journalist’s TV report on the situation.

Creating suspicion

Similarly, there’s an obvious suspicion created when Herrera refuses to release Salazar’s resignation letter. Because the Albuquerque Journal has obtained the letter and quoted from it, we know a lot about it: In the letter, Salazar accuses Herrera of running “a crooked organization” that inappropriately mixes politics and government business, and of soliciting money from firms that do business with the Secretary of State’s Office.

Salazar’s letter is an embarrassment to Herrera, and I’m sure she would rather the public not know about it. But as Sarah Welsh, executive director of the open government foundation, pointed out, the public records act is “not meant to protect the government agency from embarrassment, which is what (the secretary of state’s refusal to release the letter) seems to be.”

Trujillo’s rejection of requests for the letter resulted in a few quotes like Welsh’s making it into news articles late last week. Then late Friday, Herrera’s office began backing off its refusal to release the letter with this statement:

“If the document qualifies for release under IPRA it will be released. Secretary of State Herrera has nothing to hide.”

The statement also claims that the letter “mentions other state employees by name and includes matters of opinion.” Matters of opinion relating to personnel issues is one of the exemptions to the public records act.

There’s a simple answer to that one, folks. If the letter contains confidential personnel information about other employees in the office, Herrera might – might – try to make a case for redacting that information before releasing the letter. But the inclusion of such information in the letter is absolutely not grounds to keep the entire letter secret.

The public has a right to see it

Salazar trashing his bosses – Trujillo and Herrera – does not count as confidential personnel information that can be redacted. Whatever Salazar wrote about them is public, and the public has a right to see it.

It’s highly concerning that, less than three months before the June primary, the secretary of state – New Mexico’s chief elections officer – is dogged by allegations of mixing politics with the business of the office she runs. The allegations are especially concerning because they come from the man who was her elections director.

To avoid making matters worse for herself, Herrera should have immediately released the letter when first asked for it. Instead, she’s created the appearance that she has something to hide, or at least that there’s something she wants to hide to spare herself additional embarrassment.

The Journal has already shown us part of Salazar’s resignation letter. Herrera should immediately show us the rest.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

The GOP guv primary remains wide open, Denish has the advantage in November but isn’t unbeatable, and Pearce/Teague remains one of the hottest House races in the nation. Then there’s the guv. Of course his approval rating has tanked.

Several polls released this week have led to a great deal of debate about where the state’s congressional and gubernatorial races stand.

For the most part, the polling released in the last week makes sense at this early stage in the game. So here are some thoughts on the races, based on the polling and some old-fashioned common sense.

Republican gubernatorial primary

This race is wide open. Pete Domenici Jr. has a current and significant lead in the race but it isn’t because voters know where he stands on the issues or really even because of him – the lead he enjoys is primarily due to the fact that his father, who shares his name, ran the state GOP for some 40 years.

Domenici starts out really high, and he’s going to have a difficult time staying there as voters get to know him and truly understand that he’s not his father.

As for the other four candidates, there’s not currently a significant difference between where each of them stand. In a poll conducted by an NMSU government class with a margin of error of 5 percentage points, The difference between the second-place candidate (Susana Martinez at 11.5 percent) and the last-place candidate (Janice Arnold-Jones at 2.5 percent) isn’t that much.

When Public Policy Polling looked at New Mexico’s gubernatorial race, it found something similar: Domenici trailed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Diane Denish by 5 percentage points, while the other Republican hopefuls all trailed Denish by larger – but similar – margins.

Domenici is currently the guy to beat, but as June approaches, one or two other candidates will emerge from the pack and give Domenici a run for his money. The race remains wide open.

Gubernatorial general election race

It’s also no surprise that a state GOP poll showed 44 percent of likely voters likely to vote for the generic and unnamed Republican gubernatorial candidate, while 40 percent said they were likely to vote for the generic Democratic candidate. Anti-incumbent sentiment is at or near an all-time high, and while for years the anger in New Mexico was spread between Democrats who controlled Santa Fe and Republicans who controlled Washington, right now it’s all focused on Democrats who control everything.

But it’s also no surprise that Denish leads each of the Republican candidates in potential general election matchups, as Publicly Policy Polling found when it inserted names into a poll of the gubernatorial race. Denish is well known in New Mexico and has had eight years to build up and spread a positive image of herself.

The reality is that, regardless of what the state GOP and some Republican gubernatorial candidates want the public to believe, Denish is fairly well liked, as least as much as any politician is liked in the current political climate.

The bottom line is that, while Denish has an advantage in the general election, she’s not unbeatable. Even though this is a state with more Democrats than Republicans, Denish’s lead is due to who she is, not the fact that she’s a Democrat, and the GOP is working hard to take that advantage away from her.

2nd Congressional District race

Two polls released this week showed Republican Steve Pearce leading incumbent Democrat Harry Teague in this race – by two points in one and four points in the other. In both polls, Pearce’s lead was within the margin of error.

This is where most people I’ve spoken with – Democrats and Republicans – thought the race stood before they saw these polls: Pearce has a slight, but not insurmountable, lead. With the climate as bad as it is for Democrats right now – and considering that Teague represents the most conservative congressional district in the state – if anything it’s a surprise that Teague is doing this well.

Teague has shown a willingness to spend his own money on elections in the past, and Pearce has not, though he says he will this year if necessary. Both candidates should also have significant help from the national parties. This race has been, and remains, one of the hottest in the nation.

One interesting question is whether the oil-rich district will be one of the places some massive oil company or other business tests the Supreme Court’s recent decision that corporations can spend unlimited amounts on races. If it is one of those places, such money would probably benefit Pearce. Will that be what makes the difference in this race?

It’s worth noting that Republican Cliff R. Pirtle has filed to run against Pearce in the primary. The poll didn’t consider his candidacy.

1st Congressional District race

There was no surprise in a poll that showed Democratic incumbent Martin Heinrich up 9 percentage points over Republican Jon Barela in this race. Barela hasn’t been very visible or raised a ton of money – yet. Expect this race to become more competitive as November approaches, but Heinrich has a significant and comfortable lead at this point.

The poll also notably left out libertarian Alan Woodruff. Would including him have made a difference?

3rd Congressional District race

It was a little surprising to see Democratic incumbent Ben Ray Luján vulnerable in this race. This is a safely Democratic district, but the Public Policy Polling survey showed Luján up only six points over one of two Republicans vying for the right to take him on in November and eight points over the other.

In addition, it showed that he had the approval of 31 percent of those surveyed, while 40 percent said they disapprove and 29 percent said they were not sure.

The reason? Could be a few different things. First, this was an automated phone survey – not necessarily the most reliable type of polling. That could explain the numbers. Or, assuming the numbers are correct, I’ve heard a couple of possible ideas to help explain them:

• Could there be a significant difference in the popularity of Luján and his father, the notorious Speaker of the House Ben Luján? It’s noteworthy that the poll asked about “Congressman Ben Luján,” not Ben Ray Luján, which is the name the congressman actually goes by.

• One of the Republicans fighting for the right to take on Luján in November, Adam Kokesh, has the backing of the Ron Paul army. The energy and passion of that movement has been aimed at tearing down Luján – and while the poll gives no indication that it’s succeeding in building a significant level of support for Kokesh, at least yet, maybe it is succeeding in tearing down Luján.

Time will tell.

The governor

Bill Richardson complained this week about the poll that showed his approval rating at 28 percent, which makes him one of the least popular governors in the nation. But I wasn’t surprised at all.

Richardson came back to New Mexico in 2002 as a celebrity, and he was elected as one. For a long time, polls reflected that, with his approval rating at times being in the 70s.

Then he got himself slaughtered in the Democratic presidential primary and came back to New Mexico appearing almost bored with the prospect of governing the state again – regardless of what he said every time he appeared on national television about the New Mexico governorship being the best job in the world.

Since Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton shipped Richardson back to New Mexico, he’s found himself bogged down in scandal after scandal, had to withdraw his nomination to be commerce secretary, and narrowly avoided being indicted. He has become increasingly afraid of and combative with the media. And that means he’s getting less media attention than before, and more of it is negative.

Is it any wonder, then, that the public’s opinion of him has tanked? Of course not.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

As legislation expanding webcasting sailed through the state House early in the session, there were signs that a similar expansion in the Senate was much less certain.

My first clue came when Linda Lopez, chair of the Senate Rules Committee, ignored my question about when two of three webcasting bills that needed approval from her committee would be considered.

Public officials ignoring questions from reporters is never a good sign for openness and transparency.

Lopez did allow one resolution through her committee a week ago. It would increase the number of cameras on the Senate floor.

But legislation that would expand webcasting to include Senate committees and interim legislative committee meetings languished. Only yesterday did the memorial to authorize interim committee webcasting make its way through her committee.

The other, a resolution that would authorize committee webcasting, never got a hearing.

So here’s where things stand now:

• Senate Resolution 1, sponsored by Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, is No. 11 on today’s calendar. Sanchez, who controls the calendar, has skipped over No. 11 all day.

• House Joint Memorial 15, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, is No. 66. It also has yet to get a hearing.

• Senate Resolution 4, sponsored by Eric Griego, D-Albuquerque, is the one that never got a hearing from the Rules Committee. Griego plans to propose that his legislation be added to Sanchez’s when it comes up for debate.

But the clock is ticking. There are fewer than 15 hours left in the session, with some of that (probably) spent in recess so lawmakers can get some sleep.

Sanchez briefly called his resolution up for a hearing on Sunday, then delayed because of a situation you can read about here. He said his resolution “could” come up again.

Here’s to hoping Sanchez calls the webcasting bills up for hearings before the clock runs out on Thursday.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

When the House Judiciary Committee gave a do-pass recommendation this weekend to a bill that would create a publicly accessible database of financial information from government agencies in New Mexico, it took two steps forward and one step back.

That’s because the committee, before approving the “Sunshine Portal” bill, stripped a provision that would have included employees’ names in the database.

Let me say at the outset that this legislation is excellent, with or without the provision that would include employees’ names in the database. Imagine being able to go online to find, free of charge, detailed, up-to-date state government financial information including tax revenues, agency budgets and investment reports.

No more cumbersome public records requests and delays in receiving information. No more having to pay as much as $1 per page for copies.

But it’s even better if, when looking at lists of employees and the salaries they make, you can see their names, instead of just their titles.

Why? Sarah Welsh, executive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, has rightly pointed out the appropriate example. The governor has refused to release any information about 59 exempt employees he claims to have laid off in January. Rumors abound that some of these employees were simply transferred to classified positions.

Were names included in such a database, we’d be able to find out whether that’s true.

Transparency is about accessibility and accountability, and the example of the laid-off exempt employees shows how including employee names could discourage funny business.

Public information is public information

But there’s a more basic reason why employee names should be included in the database. State employee names, like the other financial information that would be included in this database, are public information. With the right public records request, you can obtain the name, title and salary of any state employee.

Public information is public information. Period. It’s all equal in New Mexico.

But what the House Judiciary Committee essentially decided to do on Saturday was make a statement that some public information should be more accessible than other public information. That is counter to the spirit of transparency, and it’s a slippery slope.

According to Welsh, who attended Saturday’s hearing, House Majority Leader Ken Martinez, a member of the committee, argued that it would be mean and invasive to include employee names in the database. And committee member Elias Barela said it could lead to agency in-fighting.

Those are bogus arguments. Giving the public easier access to public information isn’t invasive. And because it’s public information, agency employees can already find out how their pay stacks up against others, if they want.

The citizens of New Mexico have a right to know who their tax dollars are paying. That’s why employee names are already public. Including those names in the sunshine portal would make that public information much more accessible.

The bill should be approved – with or without the provision that would include employee names – but I would encourage the House to amend the legislation to add back in the provision that would include employee names in the database.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

I’m betting that most other voters are like me: When they vote for a candidate for state representative, they expect that person to be present for important votes when possible.

Of course, a 30- or 60-day session of the New Mexico Legislature is a long time to be in the Roundhouse and away from home. Our lawmakers arrive at work early, stay late, and often come in on the weekends. And they’re not paid to do it.

So it makes sense that doctors’ appointments would cause lawmakers to miss votes sometimes. That’s life.

And that’s why I don’t find it egregious that two Republican state representatives missed a close vote Friday on whether to raise the gross receipts tax by a half cent. Both had doctors’ appointments and were out of town.

Two Democrats, however, missed the close, contentious vote even though they were in the Roundhouse at the time.

Here’s how it went down

To recap what I wrote previously, House Democrats had been meeting behind closed doors for days to debate the tax-hike proposal from Speaker Ben Lujan. The speaker knew it would be a close vote, and there was a lot of behind-the-scenes wrangling.

On Friday he called his bill up for a floor vote. Democratic Reps. Danice Picraux and Karen Giannini were absent, having been previously – and conveniently – excused.

You’d assume that means they were off taking care of some important personal business, right? They apparently weren’t. A search of the Roundhouse during a call of the House turned them up, and they were brought to the House floor.

An angry-looking Lujan got on the phone, and Giannini and Picraux quickly vanished again. The vote was taken without them and the two Republicans who were at doctors’ appointments, and Lujan’s bill passed 34-32.

The two Democratic representatives magically reappeared on the House floor moments later, after debate on the next bill had begun.

Call me an idealist…

I’m the kind of person who can stomach a vote on an important piece of legislation going either way – regardless of my personal opinion – as long as the bill passes or fails because members are voting based on what they believe to be right or what they believe their constituents want. Call me an idealist, but I believe that’s exactly what the U.S. and state constitutions intend.

In this instance, with two Republican members missing for valid reasons, an important piece of legislation passed by two votes while two Democrats were ostensibly hiding out somewhere in the Roundhouse to avoid voting.

For all we know they would have voted no and, together, had the power to kill Lujan’s bill by making it a tie vote, so the speaker successfully pressured them to take a walk.

I called both women on their cell phones shortly after the vote on Friday. Neither answered or returned my messages. Giannini made two appearances on the New Mexico Independent’s liveblog later that day, and both times I asked her to talk about the situation.

She vanished from the liveblog both times without another word.

For shame

I realize it’s difficult to stand up to the speaker. He’s the second most powerful official in state government and a master of behind-the-scenes politics. And he doesn’t really care if things play out in full view of the public. What happened Friday was so obvious to many who were watching, but he unashamedly made it happen anyway.

Such people remain in power and acting like bullies unless the members who give them those positions of authority refuse to allow it. I’m pretty sure most of Picraux’s and Giannini’s constituents wanted them on the floor for the vote on Lujan’s bill regardless of whether Lujan wanted them to be present.

Instead of standing up for the people they’re elected to serve, Picraux and Giannini apparently bowed to the will of the speaker.

Shame on them.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

The New Mexico House of Representatives took three giant steps forward in the area of government transparency today by approving resolutions that allow the expansion of webcasting and require, for the first time, that floor roll-call votes be posted online.

The House, on voice votes that were unanimous or near-unanimous, approved:

• House Resolution 1, sponsored by Minority Whip Keith Gardner, R-Roswell, which allows the expansion of webcasting from the House floor to include video.

• House Resolution 2, sponsored by Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, which makes permanent a temporary House rule that allows webcasting of committee meetings during legislative sessions.

• House Resolution 3, sponsored by Zachary Cook, R-Ruidoso, which requires that House floor roll-call votes be posted on the Legislature’s Web site within a day of the votes being taken.

All three resolutions began the day still needing the approval of the House Rules and Order of Business Committee, but were quickly moved through the process to final passage. The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government was quick to praise the changes.

“The Legislature has responded to an overwhelming public demand for access to its proceedings,” FOG Executive Director Sarah Welsh said in a news release. “Just a year ago, webcasting was wildly controversial – now it’s a no-brainer.”

“With these new rules, we’re another big step closer to comprehensive, real-time access to our elected officials,” she said. “Imagine sitting in your living room in Silver City or Raton, and watching your representative argue the finer points of a new tax bill before a key committee… now that’s open government.”

The Senate already has video webcasting from its floor and posts its floor roll-call votes online, but it doesn’t have official webcasting of committee meetings.

Don’t expect video webcasting from the House floor to begin immediately. The next step is determining the cost of such a move. All official legislative webcasting can be found here.

The House deserves nothing but praise for approving these three rule changes today. These are huge steps toward making legislative proceedings and action available to the state’s citizens like never before. It’s a good day for open government in New Mexico.

Update, 3 p.m.

Steinborn wrote in an e-mail that his bill not only makes the temporary rule allowing audio webcasting of committee meetings permanent, but it actually mandates audio webcasting of committee meetings this session and mandates audio and video webcasting of committee meetings in future sessions. Even better!

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

After a couple of conversations this morning, I have some follow-up thoughts about a posting I published earlier today about State Rep. Jeff Steinborn’s webcasting legislation.

Specifically, Steinborn’s House Resolution 2 would combine two existing rules – one permanent and one temporary – into a permanent rule that would allow webcasting of House committee meetings during sessions.

I expressed concern earlier today that the language in Steinborn’s resolution doesn’t make explicit that both official webcasting by Legislative Council Service and unofficial webcasting by lawmakers, journalists and others would be allowed.

And that could lead to the possibility that some transparency-hating committee chair might use such a new rule as an excuse to shut down webcasting by a lawmaker, journalist or other person.

That’s easily fixed with a couple of revisions. Here’s the relevant wording in Steinborn’s resolution:

“Photography, video or audio recording or transmission of committee proceedings may, upon request, be allowed with the permission of the chair, provided that the chair of each standing substantive committee shall cooperate with the legislative council service to produce a live audio or audio and video stream of the committee’s proceedings within budget and technological constraints.”

Add the words “by anyone” or “by legislators, journalists and others” or something like that after the words “transmission of committee proceedings” and you’ve make crystal clear that the rule would allow unofficial webcasting by anyone, with permission of the committee chair. In the second part of that long sentence, instead of starting with the words “provided that,” which seem to imply that the chair must cooperate with Legislative Council Services on any type of webcasting, start with the word “and.”

That would set in place a rule that actually requires committee chairs to cooperate with Legislative Council Service on producing official audio or audio and video webcasts of committee meetings.

Putting it all together, it would look something like this:

“Photography, video or audio recording or transmission of committee proceedings by anyone may, upon request, be allowed with the permission of the chair, and the chair of each standing substantive committee shall cooperate with the legislative council service to produce a live audio or audio and video stream of the committee’s proceedings within budget and technological constraints.”

Of course, if I had my druthers, unofficial webcasting wouldn’t technically require permission of the committee chair to begin with.

Thoughts?

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

State Rep. Jeff Steinborn wants to expand official legislative webcasting to interim committee meetings held around the state and make permanent a rule that allows webcasting of House committee meetings during sessions.

But, based on last year’s discussion that resulted in the first House rules governing webcasting, one of two related pieces of legislation Steinborn has introduced may need to be reworked – if its aim is to continue to allow unofficial webcasting of committee meetings by lawmakers, journalists and others.

Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, said in a news release that the goal of House Resolution 2 and House Joint Memorial 15 is to put House committee meetings and joint House/Senate interim meetings “on a path to providing full transparency of the committee process.” He also said webcasting interim committee meetings could cut down on lawmakers’ per diem and mileage reimbursements and save taxpayers money.

Last year, the House approved two rules governing webcasting of committee meetings during sessions. The first, 9-5-7, allows “photography, video or audio recording or transmission of committee proceedings” with permission of the committee’s chair.

The second rule – a temporary rule that expires at the end of this year – authorizes Legislative Council Service, with permission from House leadership, to webcast audio of House committee meetings.

Jeff Steinborn (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Steinborn’s HR2 seeks to make the second rule permanent – but in doing so, it combines the two rules into one.

“Photography, video or audio recording or transmission of committee proceedings may, upon request, be allowed with the permission of the chair, provided that the chair of each standing substantive committee shall cooperate with the legislative council service to produce a live audio or audio and video stream of the committee’s proceedings within budget and technological constraints,” part of Steinborn’s proposed rule states.

House members who crafted the webcasting rules last year intentionally kept them separate, so it would be clear that official webcasting by Legislative Council Service is allowed, but so is unofficial webcasting by lawmakers, journalists and others.

If Steinborn wants a rule that explicitly allows unofficial webcasting, his resolution might need to be amended.

As for HJM 15: If it’s approved by the House and Senate, the memorial would request that Legislative Council Service, “within budgetary and technological constraints,” webcast audio and video of interim committee meetings starting this year. The rule doesn’t deal with unofficial webcasting.

The New Mexico Independent has been allowed to webcast interim committee meetings in the past.

Steinborn provided a video statement about his two pieces of legislation. Here it is:

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

The Roundhouse in Santa Fe (Photo by cjc4454/flickr.com)

The state finance and personnel departments, like the governor’s office, say they have no information about the 59 political appointees who are losing their jobs Friday.

After Gov. Bill Richardson’s office claimed in December that it had no records about the political appointees who are losing their jobs — except e-mails from reporters asking questions about the terminations — I filed the a records request with the State Personnel Office seeking the information from that department. On Dec. 21, I received this response:

“The State Personnel Office and its Rules and Regulations govern all positions in the executive branch of state government which are not exempt by law, known as the classified service,” Board Administrator Sheila Zamora wrote in an e-mail. “Therefore, the State Personnel Office would not have any information regarding exempt positions. I will forward your request to the Department of Finance and Administration.”

The finance department had until the end of Tuesday to respond. It did respond – at 11:19 p.m. Tuesday night.

“At this time DFA has no records responsive to your request. It is our understanding that this request is closed. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me,” Nicole Gillespie, the department’s records custodian, wrote in an e-mail.

Heath Haussamen

If the governor’s office, personnel office and finance department have no information about who is losing their jobs on Friday, who does? I’ve asked that question of all three departments in an e-mail. I’ll let you know if I get a response.

Of course, many journalists (including me) and the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government have expressed skepticism about the claim that the governor’s office has no documentation about who’s being laid off.

“It’s hard to imagine they didn’t write this down somewhere,” FOG’s executive director, Sarah Welsh, told The Santa Fe New Mexican last month. “Did they memorize the 59 names and then call them?”

I asked for “any information available (such as, but not limited to, a list) about which 59 exempt employees are having their positions eliminated on Jan. 8, which departments they work in and what salaries they were being paid before their positions were eliminated.”

The claim by these three offices is that they have no documentation about the layoffs. No lists. No plans drafted by cabinet secretaries who were considering who would lose jobs. No letters, e-mails or faxes to those losing their jobs. No salary information about those losing their jobs.

And they’re claiming that they have not communicated in any way that creates a record (memo, e-mail, voice mail, fax, etc.) with any other state department about the employees who are losing their jobs.

Right…

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Gov. Bill Richardson (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Richardson flip-flops on whether subpoenas are public and ignores requirement that he forward requests about laid-off political appointees to the appropriate agency

Let me get this straight. First, earlier this year, the governor’s office released a subpoena it had received in a federal investigation. Then, three other agencies – the New Mexico Finance Authority, State Investment Council and Educational Retirement Board – refused to release similar subpoenas. But eventually, all three agencies reversed courses and followed the governor’s lead in releasing the subpoenas (The ERB first, then the NMFA, then SIC).

Now, the governor’s office is refusing to even tell the Albuquerque Journal if it has received any subpoenas in the ongoing investigation into the nationwide investment scandal that has taken hold in New Mexico, let alone release such subpoenas if they exist.

Is anyone else confused?

Here’s what the governor’s office told the Journal when the newspaper asked if the office had received such subpoenas and, if so, whether it would release them:

“Any responsive records the Governor’s Office may have received would be exempt from disclosure. Such documents would relate to a matter that is or will be before a federal grand jury. This office will not release records of this nature pursuant to the federal rules governing grand juries.”

Heath Haussamen

Sounds a lot like some of the explanations given by the other agencies before they reversed courses and released the subpoenas.

That confusing flip-flopping comes on the heels of the governor’s office playing fast and loose with public records law over requests for information about the 59 political appointees being laid off next month. The governor’s office did not provide any such information in response to requests from me and others.

And, instead of forwarding our requests to the state agencies that are in possession of the relevant records, as required by the Inspection of Public Records Act, the governor’s office wrote that it considered the matter closed.

The State Personnel Office understands its legal duty, and when I made a request days ago to that office for information about the appointees, it forwarded my request to the Department of Finance and Administration. That’s apparently what the governor’s office should have done too.

The governor’s office knows that. Its response to our requests was a flagrant disregard of the law and the right of the public to public information.

Then this flip-flopping on whether subpoenas from federal grand juries are public records. The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government takes the position that the subpoenas are public. So do I. In fact, I sued NMFA earlier this year to try to force the release of its subpoenas.

With these recent actions, Gov. Bill Richardson and his office are flagrantly disregarding the Inspection of Public Records Act and should be ashamed. It’s nothing short of hypocritical that Richardson has talked about the importance of “open, accessible and accountable government” and then acted in this manner.

If there’s one hint of transparency in all of this, it’s that governor’s hypocrisy is exposed for anyone to see.