sa国际传媒官网网页入口

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a report into the resignation of a former sa国际传媒官网网页入口 Public Schools superintendent must be disclosed, although some of the information it contains may remain confidential.

The opinion reverses a New Mexico Court of Appeals ruling that found that APS did not need to disclose an investigative report related to the abrupt resignation of former superintendent Winston Brooks in 2014.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the sa国际传媒官网网页入口 and KOB-TV challenging APS鈥� handling of public records related to Brooks鈥� resignation, during which he received a $350,000 buyout and a settlement agreement.

鈥淭he Journal applauds today鈥檚 decision, as it reaffirms the basic principle that transparency in government is of the utmost importance,鈥� said Jay Newton-Small, executive editor of the sa国际传媒官网网页入口.

鈥淭he Supreme Court properly rejected other court rulings that had limited public access to disciplinary records of public employees, and the court鈥檚 decision will have a positive impact on transparency well beyond the facts of this case,鈥� Newton-Small said. 鈥淭he Journal believes that we have fought a good fight in the name of transparency and freedom of the press that will hopefully yield dividends for all New Mexico press and New Mexicans.鈥�

The Supreme Court directed a district court judge to review the 12-page document, called the Padilla Report, and potentially redact 鈥渕atters of opinion鈥� that potentially could be withheld from public inspection.

That Inspection of Public Records Act exception 鈥渄oes not preclude inspection of the purely factual, nonopinion portions鈥� of the report, the court held in its unanimous opinion written by Justice Briana H. Zamora.

The high court found that the document can鈥檛 be withheld from public inspection on grounds of attorney-client privilege, even though it was prepared by an attorney under contract with APS.

Justices found that 鈥渂ecause the purpose of the Padilla Report was not primarily to provide legal advice, the attorney-client privilege exception does not apply here,鈥� Zamora wrote.

APS spokeswoman Johanna King said the court's ruling could complicate the district鈥檚 efforts to balance public transparency with employee confidentiality.

鈥淎PS believes today鈥檚 court decision may hurt employees and families by permitting the publication of unfounded or unfair allegations that have not been vetted or reviewed,鈥� King said in a written statement.

The ruling also 鈥渃ould make it harder to timely and accurately respond to records requests,鈥� King added.

APS intends to comply with the court's instructions and 鈥渓ooks forward to educating staff and families about what this decision means for them while also asking the Legislature to clarify and simplify the law,鈥� King said.

Brooks鈥� resignation and settlement agreement prompted considerable media and public interest at the time, but APS offered little explanation for its decision to prematurely terminate Brooks鈥� contract.

A 2nd Judicial District Court 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 sa国际传媒官网网页入口 $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.

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

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

APS appealed the lower-court decision. The news organizations also appealed, seeking access to the Padilla Report. 

The New Mexico Court of Appeals in 2024 upheld the district court's financial judgment against APS. The court also found that APS violated the state's Inspection of Public Records Act by withholding certain records, including attorney billing records and hotline complaints about Brooks.

But the Court of Appeals also ruled that APS was not required to provide the news organizations with Padilla's investigative report, finding that the report was protected under attorney-client privilege. The Supreme Court opinion reversed that finding.

Justices wrote that 鈥渢he Padilla Report is predominantly investigative in nature, mostly factual in content, and contains very little advice of any kind, none of which could fairly be considered legal advice.鈥�

READ THE RULING: Here are the court documents

Olivier Uyttebrouck covers the court system. You can reach him at olivier@abqjournal.com.