近距离内射合集

The time has come for Albuquerque Public Schools to end its fight over releasing public records after the abrupt departure of a superintendent 12 years ago.

It鈥檚 been long enough for lawyers to argue over exemptions, privilege and redactions. Long enough for the case to wind through New Mexico鈥檚 court system.

And certainly long enough for taxpayers to wait for answers about a decision that cost them $350,000 to force former Superintendent Winston Brooks to resign.

The New Mexico Supreme Court has provided APS with a clear path forward: Release the public records, redact the relatively small amount that may legally be withheld and bring this extraordinary battle over public records to an end.

APS should follow that direction rather than search for another way to delay.

The dispute dates to 2014, when Brooks abruptly left New Mexico鈥檚 largest school district. His departure came with a $350,000 taxpayer-funded buyout, but precious little public explanation about why the superintendent was leaving.

The Journal and KOB-TV sought records that could help answer that question, including a 12-page investigative report prepared by outside attorney Agnes Fuentevilla Padilla.

APS refused to release it.

What followed were years of litigation under the state鈥檚 Inspection of Public Records Act, or IPRA. APS argued, among other things, that the Padilla report was protected by attorney-client privilege and by the law鈥檚 exemption for certain matters of opinion in personnel files.

The New Mexico Supreme Court examined those arguments 鈥� and the report itself.

Its May 28 ruling should have changed the trajectory of this case once and for all.

The justices concluded that the report鈥檚 primary purpose was factual investigation, not legal advice. Therefore, APS cannot shield the report under attorney-client privilege simply because an attorney conducted the investigation.

That distinction matters far beyond this case.

If a government agency could make factual information secret simply by hiring a lawyer to gather it and stamping 鈥渁ttorney-client privilege鈥� on the resulting document, New Mexico鈥檚 public-records law could be rendered meaningless whenever an agency wanted it to be.

The Supreme Court wisely rejected that proposition.

The court also rejected the argument that the presence of some protected material allows a public body to withhold an entire document. Instead, exempt information must be separated or redacted and the remaining public information released.

The justices sent the case back to District Court for an in-camera review to determine what, if anything, qualifies as protected opinion.

That is not an unreasonable burden on APS. It is a reasonable solution.

Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that roughly 8陆 pages of the 12-page report are devoted to factual findings. The report contains interviews with Brooks and seven other current or former APS employees or board members. The court concluded that the factual portion 鈥渇ar outweighs鈥� the other material.

Now APS has been given until Sept. 11 to release the information the court has determined is public, while allowing the limited material that legally qualifies for protection to remain redacted.

That should be the end of it.

APS should not look for another legal maneuver, another appeal or another opportunity to kick this can further down the road.

This case stopped being primarily about Brooks a long time ago. It is now about something much larger: whether New Mexicans can know what their government does with their money and in their name.

IPRA begins with a presumption of openness for a reason.

As the Supreme Court emphasized, the law exists so New Mexicans can obtain 鈥渢he greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees.鈥� The court warned that allowing an entire record to be withheld merely because it contains limited matters of opinion would 鈥渋nvite abuse鈥� and frustrate the fundamental right to inspect public records.

Government records do not belong to the officials who happen to possess them. Subject to legitimate and narrowly defined exceptions, they belong to the public.

And access delayed for 12 years begins to look an awful lot like access denied.

APS has had its day in court. Many of them, in fact.

New Mexico鈥檚 highest court has now spoken and provided a sensible way to protect legitimately confidential material while releasing information the public has a right to see.

APS should take it.

Release the records. Make the necessary redactions. End the litigation.

After 12 years, the public has waited long enough.

James Bennett is the managing editor of the Journal. He can be reached at jbennett@abqjournal.com.