Commentary:
While we watch Russia illustrate the dangers of authoritarian governments, let’s not take for granted our open meetings and freedom of information laws, which help make democracy almost a reality.
As New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) states, because “a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, . . . all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information” about their government. IPRA mandates that, for all levels of government, “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.” Read that to officials who act as if your requests for information are interrupting their real work. Answering you IS their real work.
Putin would jail you for suggesting that. Some authoritarians in this country evade these basic principles.
Courts have taken those words seriously. They’ve ordered governments to comply, construed IPRA’s exceptions narrowly, as the law commands, and used IPRA’s penalty provisions to punish government offices for violations. The law requires courts to make those offices pay attorney fees of citizens who win IPRA cases. It authorizes additional damages, which the courts have been less likely to award, partly because many cases involve newspapers and TV stations that want the documents, but aren’t as concerned about compensation for wasted time and effort. For some violations, courts can sock offices up to $100 for each day they’re not in compliance. Yeah, it comes from the public treasury; but the unnecessary expenditure is public information, and might help the public contemplate change.
IPRA’s exceptions are few and limited, though officials try to hide behind them, often with no lawful basis. Confidential attorney-client communications, legitimate trade secrets, and inmates’ physical/mental exams, are exceptions, as they should be. So are court filings that are under a protective order. (You can ask the court to lift such an order.)
Two key exceptions that officials stretch way out of shape to shield information involve law-enforcement records and “matters of opinion in personnel files or students’ cumulative files.” Officials who withhold whole files cost the public money. Officials must produce documents, redacting (or blacking out) opinions. If a police report includes an opinion about some officer’s performance, that exists outside someone’s personnel file and must be produced. So must citizen complaints.
With law-enforcement records, the law exempts only records which reveal “confidential sources, methods or information” or names and personal information about (a) persons suspected of but not charged with a crime or (b) victims of or witnesses to certain sex-related and/or violent crimes, such as violence toward a family-member, stalking, or criminal sexual penetration. (Names of law-enforcement witnesses are public information.) Obviously you can’t shield entire investigative files; but try telling that to some sheriffs.
The law makes it easy to request records. Describe the records, and include your name, address, and phone number. No need to say why you need the records. If you don’t want to use your name, have a lawyer or friend make the request. (If you ask orally, officials should supply records but can’t be punished for failing to.) Government offices can charge copying costs, but not for the time it takes to identify, locate, and collect documents.
These are rights we all share. Don’t let a cop or government clerk tell you otherwise. Hindering your investigation effectively censors whatever you might write about that investigation’s fruits.