The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled on May 28 that an investigative report prepared for Albuquerque Public Schools about a former superintendent must be disclosed under state law, although some portions of the document may remain confidential.
The court directed the district court in Albuquerque to privately review the report and determine whether any information is protected from disclosure by an exception in the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) for ‘matters of opinion’ in personnel files. The justices stated that this exception does not preclude inspection of purely factual, non-opinion portions of the report. Justice Briana H. Zamora wrote the unanimous opinion.
The ruling concluded that the purpose of the 12-page report was not primarily to provide legal advice and that public access could not be denied under IPRA provisions blocking disclosure of confidential attorney-client communications. The justices emphasized governmental entities cannot withhold entire records simply because they contain some information covered by the ‘matters of opinion’ exception. According to the court, “To hold otherwise would not only be contrary to this purpose, but as this case demonstrates, exempting an entire record because it may contain trace matters of opinion would invite abuse and frustrate both the ‘fundamental right to inspect public records’ and the ‘presumption in favor of access’ under IPRA.”
Under IPRA, governmental entities are required to review requested records, redact or remove exempt information, and then provide nonexempt portions for inspection. The Supreme Court reversed decisions by both a district court and Court of Appeals, which had found that the entire investigative report was exempt from disclosure due to attorney-client privilege or matters-of-opinion exceptions.
The board hired attorney Agnes Fuentevilla Padilla to investigate Superintendent Winston Brooks following his resignation in 2014 after receiving a $350,000 contract buyout. Albuquerque Journal and KOB-TV requested access to Padilla’s report but were denied; subsequent litigation led ultimately to this Supreme Court decision overturning lower courts’ findings after reviewing affidavits from Padilla and then-APS Board President Dr. Analee Maestas asserting confidentiality claims.
In its analysis, the court determined Padilla’s report was predominantly investigative with little legal advice: “At bottom, the Padilla Report’s primary purpose – and indeed its only purpose – appears to be informing Dr. Maestas and the Board of…factual findings regarding allegations against Brooks.” The justices clarified courts must conduct private reviews when deciding if an IPRA exception applies, rather than relying solely on parties’ assertions.
