After refusing 11 records requests and reaching no compromise, the Rio Grande SUN filed suit June 9 against Española School District officials alleging they violated the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act in several different ways.
District Court Judge Francis Mathew on Aug. 18 set a trial date that should determine whether school officials broke the law when they refused to fulfill the public records requests, some consisting of several documents, submitted by the SUN. The requests sought information regarding the termination of two District employees, basketball coach Richard Martinez and former finance director Jeanette Trujillo.
Mathew scheduled a Jan. 3 start date to hear the lawsuit the SUN and two reporters, Andrew Martinez and Ariel Carmona, filed against the District after records custodian Crystal Garcia and then interim superintendent Myra Martinez denied several requests for information, regarding Richard Martinez’s and Trujillo’s termination and appeals of their respective terminations.
SUN Editor and Publisher Robert Trapp said the District’s refusal to comply with the Act is another instance of poor leadership and a majority of the Board being more concerned with basketball than education.
“They’re dead wrong on this and they know it,” he said. “Some of the documents sought have either been produced by the state or, four months later, by the District itself. In the case of citing the opinion exception or attorney/client privilege in the Act, there still needs to be proper redaction in a reasonable time frame. The District is simply refusing whole documents, without explanation.”
Board President Pablo Lujan did not return several phone calls seeking comment.
Mathew settled on the Jan. 3 date after reaching a consensus that an earlier date may not give the lawyers enough time to build an adequate case and conduct depositions, if needed.
When reached by telephone, District’s lawyer Eugene Zamora said he could not comment on “pending litigation.”
Zamora, during the Aug. 18 scheduling hearing, shied away from a Dec. 26 start date. He cited difficulties with producing witnesses during winter break.
“It would be a struggle for a school district to produce witnesses during vacation week,” he told Mathew.
However, the SUN’s attorney, Matthew Hoyt, argued the day after Christmas would be perfect, since many District employees would be home during the break.
Zamora also objected to the January date because he said the start of the second semester is a busy time for many District leaders.
“Teachers and staff would be back in town,” Mathew said before settling on the Jan. 3 date. “If I set the docket, the superintendent has to clear his calendar and make himself available.”
The case centers around Andrew Martinez’s and Carmona’s multiple requests for termination letters, appeal letters and documents related to Richard Martinez and Jeanette Trujillo’s firings. In the case of Richard Martinez’s appeal letter, the Public Education Department released the document in early July but the District still refuses to do so.
The District also released on Aug. 18 two of the letters involved in the case. The SUN received the April 6 letter from then superintendent Bobbi Gutierrez effectively firing Jeanette Trujillo and the subsequent May 2 letter by then-interim superintendent Mayra Martinez rescinding Gutierrez’s letter, allowing Trujillo to ride out her contract to June 30. The letter informs Trujillo her contract will not be renewed at that time.
Mathew set aside four days for the bench trial, which means he, alone, will render a verdict based on the evidence, as opposed to the case being decided by a jury.
Before the proceedings ended, Hoyt sought clarification and direction from the court. He wanted to know how the judge would go about handling the motions he planned to present in an effort to eliminate “extraneous” material from the record.
The defense entered into the record, supplemental answers that failed to provide details as to why he believes the documents Andrew Martinez and Carmona requested, were exempt under the Inspection of Public Records Act.
Several of Zamora’s responses cited other laws, which don’t pertain to open records requests, but he kept the answers vague and didn’t provide legal citations to support the conclusions he reached. Hoyt had to request clarification.
“Please explain in detail, the basis for your refusal to produce any records responsive to the requests attached as Exhibits A through J to the complaint,” Hoyt wrote in his Aug. 22 Motion to Compel. “If you rely on any provisions of the Inspection of Public Records Act as the basis, in whole or part, for your refusal to comply with the records, please identify the specific section or sections of the Act on which you rely.”
Zamora objected to eight of Hoyt’s written questions because he concluded they would violate one of the attorney’s most sacred oaths.
“This interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion and seeks information subject to the attorney client privilege and/or seek attorney work product,” Zamora wrote in the supplemental answer he supplied to the court. “Without waiving objection, under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act 1978, certain records that are letters or memorandums, which are matters of opinion in personnel files, and that are otherwise protected by law, are protected from disclosure.”
Allegations
The first count of the three-count suit alleges that the District broke the law when it failed to provide the documents requested, failed to answer the request in the time line dictated by the Act and did not supply a valid argument to support each denial.
The second count seeks intervention from the courts that would once and for all end the disagreement of whether the documents requested are public record. Count three is asking the court to order District officials to meet their statutory obligations and hand over the requested documents.
Zamora admitted in responses to interrogatories the indisputable facts, but denied the majority of the allegations the SUN levied against his clients. He determined that he didn’t have enough information to deny or admit the specific accusation on the facts.
If the SUN wins the case, it can seek damages up to $100 per day and recover its legal fees and court costs from the District. If the case goes through trial, combined legal costs for both sides could top $200,000. Damages are always determined by the judge.
District Superintendent Eric Martinez didn’t return several calls to his cell phone seeking comment and the number listed on the District’s website for the superintendent is out of service.
Trapp said he didn’t savor the possibility of the District paying the SUN’s legal costs.
“It’s not right that taxpayers could pick up the tab on this,” he said. “But we can’t let slide flagrant violations of the law. Someone has to hold these characters responsible and that job more often than not, seems to fall to us. Unfortunately the state legislature refuses to change the Act so that individual politicians are responsible for their bad behavior. It’s always we, the taxpayers, who pay for their incompetence and immaturity.”