Court of Appeals upholds lower-court ruling in APS suit

The state Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court’s six-figure judgement against Albuquerque Public Schools stemming from a lawsuit filed by two news organizations.

The lawsuit, filed by the Albuquerque Journal and KOB-TV, challenged APS’ handling of public records related to the abrupt resignation of former superintendent Winston Brooks in 2014.

A 2nd Judicial District judge in 2021 ordered APS to pay $214,000 in attorney fees in addition to an earlier $411,000 judgment against the district.

Judge Nancy Franchini ordered APS to pay the Albuquerque Journal $293,625 after finding the district violated the state Inspection of Public Records Act. KOB-TV, which made similar records requests, was awarded $118,000.

APS appealed the lower-court decision. The news organizations also appealed, seeking access to a report written by an attorney hired by the APS board. The appellate court upheld the full award of of damages awarded to the Journal and KOB-TV.

Brooks, who headed APS from 2008 to 2014, received a $350,000 buyout and a settlement agreement at the time of his resignation.

Judge J. Miles Hanisee, writing on behalf of a three-judge panel, affirmed the lower court on all issues. Retired New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Bosson wrote a separate opinion that dissented, in part, from the majority opinion.

Each side has 30 days to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which is not required to consider the appeal.

The opinion also found that APS violated the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act when it withheld certain records, including attorney billing records and hotline complaints about former-superintendent Brooks.

The Journal requested APS billing records with APS’ attorney Agnes Padilla, APS board records pertaining to Brooks’ termination, and allegations of misconduct against Brooks and his wife.

KOB-TV requested communications between APS and Padilla, records regarding the attorney’s report, and communications between Brooks and an APS spokeswoman.

However, the opinion also found that APS was not required to provide the news organizations with an investigative report written by Padilla at the behest of the APS board. The majority opinion found that the report was protected under attorney-client privilege.

Bosson, in his dissenting opinion, wrote that the lower court erred when it ruled that APS could withhold the Padilla report from public inspection.

“Here, the Padilla Report ultimately led APS, a public entity, to utilize hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to sweep the issues raised by the report,” Bosson wrote. “The reasons why APS entered the settlement agreement, and the contents of the Report, have never been released to the public.”