Email
Late Sunday afternoon, when most New Mexicans were at home enjoying an extra hour of sunlight, the state House of Representatives quickly passed a resolution its sponsors said was intended to make their emails secret.
The Foundation for Open Government and other transparency groups oppose HCR 1 because it would pull a dark curtain of secrecy over important decisions that affect all New Mexicans.
State open records laws apply to public employees and the governor just as they apply to unpaid, part-time public officials such as school board members and acequia commissioners. So why should state lawmakers get special treatment?
State law says any records that deal with public business and are held by or for government should be open to the people. That means letters, reports, memos, faxes and, yes, emails, as long as they have to do with government business. If a state senator uses her official email account to congratulate her son on his engagement – that’s not a public record. If a state representative’s wife sends some medical records to the fax machine in his Roundhouse office – that doesn’t make them public. If a committee analyst keeps his church’s checkbook in his desk drawer – that doesn’t mean someone could file an IPRA request for copies of the check register.
And the argument that the volume of emails lawmakers receive is impossible to archive or search just doesn’t ring true to those of us who manage hundreds of emails every day at work and at home. Furthermore, many of us, from middle-schoolers to private sector employees to stockbrokers, have become accustomed to the fact that our emails may be monitored at any time.
When state legislators wrote the Inspection of Public Records Act in 1994, they crafted a great testimonial to sunshine. “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.”
Now they’re arguing that the state Constitution gives them a special right to privacy that doesn’t apply to public employees or any other elected officials. The state attorney general says the Constitution “does not appear to protect public records created, maintained or held by legislators or legislative aides and employees from disclosure under IPRA.” Our legal experts agree.
That’s why the passage of HCR1 will only confuse the situation and invite a flurry of lawsuits. That would be a waste of time and tax dollars.
Many state lawmakers have worked hard to further government accountability and transparency – eight Democrats and eight Republicans voted against this proposal on the House floor. Thanks to all of them for their courageous pro-transparency votes!
Now the Senate should reject this proposal as it has rejected attempts at secrecy in other parts of government.
In the coming year we look forward to working closely with the Legislature, members of the public and other transparency advocates to strengthen laws that protect the freedom of information, and keep unnecessary secrecy out of state law.
