New Mexico Foundation for Open Government

New Mexico Foundation for Open Government The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government -- We open the doors to democracy. For everyone.

06/02/2026

Yesterday, the Las Cruces City Council agreed to repeal the ordinance that allowed for the creation of a secret committee.

The decision came after our nonprofit sent a letter to the city regarding its Public Safety Select Committee, which operated from 2020 through 2023. Our investigation found the committee broke open meetings law in multiple ways, including by stopping the city council from discussing law enforcement policy and instead requiring those discussions to take place in the committee, which was closed to the public.

In our letter, we recommended that the city repeal the ordinance that allowed the committee to be created. Known as the Select Committee Ordinance, it has several problems.

First, it allows the mayor to create a private committee for their own purpose. The city council, which is notified afterward, must just accept this.

Second, the public isn’t notified when a select committee is formed. Instead, information about a committee will be "made available" if someone requests it.

Lastly, and most troubling, the ordinance specifically states that select committee members do not have to follow the city's Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct requires officials to act with integrity, reject bribes, and "never knowingly deceive the public." Yet members of select committees were exempt from it. Why? We have no idea.

You can see why the ordinance is a problem.

By agreeing to repeal it, the Las Cruces City Council has taken an important step toward rebuilding public trust and a more transparent government.

We welcome the change and applaud their decision.

06/01/2026

We have a new webpage!

On it you will find:
• An AI-helper that can write a record request for you
• The biggest ways governments in New Mexico break transparency laws and how we stop them
• Summaries of all the lawsuits we’ve filed on behalf of the public for over 40 years
• The most common mistakes people make when writing public record requests and how to fix them

Check it out at https://www.nmfog.org/.

06/01/2026

For three years, a Las Cruces committee met behind closed doors and made decisions the public knew nothing about.

That's the conclusion of our investigation into the city's Public Safety Select Committee, which operated from 2020–2023. Its members included former Mayor Ken Miyagishima, who is now running for governor, and current U.S. Representative Gabriel Vasquez.

Those are serious allegations, and we backed them up in a seven-page letter sent to the city on Friday.

But you don't need to read seven pages.

Just watch the video.

Under New Mexico law, meetings where public policy is discussed or voted on must be open to the public. At an April 3, 2023 City Council meeting, Mayor Miyagishima repeatedly states that the Public Safety Select Committee — whose meetings were not open to the public — had to approve a citizen police review committee before the City Council could even discuss it.

Think about that.

Your elected leaders were being told they couldn't even discuss an issue unless a committee that met in private approved it first.

That sounds a lot like power ruling from the shadows.

BIG WIN FOR TRANSPARENCYToday, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that just because a public record contains someone’s o...
05/28/2026

BIG WIN FOR TRANSPARENCY

Today, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that just because a public record contains someone’s opinion about an employee, it does not mean the entire record can be withheld from the public.

The case began in 2014, when Albuquerque Public Schools launched an investigation into its superintendent, who later resigned and received a $350,000 buyout. When the Albuquerque Journal and KOB-TV requested the investigator’s report, APS refused to release it. The news organizations sued.

Twelve years later, the state Supreme Court ruled not only that APS was wrong to withhold the report, but also reversed decisions by the Second Judicial District Court and the Court of Appeals, writing: “Exempting an entire record because it may contain trace matters of opinion would invite abuse.”

05/07/2026

Admittedly, trying to make sense of our lawsuits against UNM and NMSU can be confusing.

You need a little backstory to understand why we’re demanding the release of information about payments to student-athletes.

So, one social media user asked AI to explain it to him.

What unfolded was perhaps the best summary of the lawsuits that we’ve seen.

: "Explain to me as a 2.0 GPA frat boy who is hungover."

AI: "Yo bro, wake up and chug some water. UNM + NMSU are paying athletes with taxpayer cash for NIL [Name, Image, Likeness] deals. A watchdog group wants the receipts on how much. Schools tried to hide it saying 'student privacy' and 'trade secrets,' bro. Judge said nah — you can’t just slap 'trust us' on it an bounce. Public money means public can know. Schools gotta actually prove why it’s secret or hand it over. Case keeps rolling. Basically, your tuition/beer fund might be funding QB’s Lambo and they don’t wanna show the math."

: "Is it your typical tree hugger and hippies trying to stop UNM sports?"

AI: "NMFOG ain’t tree huggers trying to kill UNM sports — they’re an open government watchdog wanting receipts on public spending. Not stopping the Lobos, just demanding transparency."

: "Who’s this watchdog group anyway? Probably some guys can’t even hit a middle cup in a beer pong game."

AI: "Yo, bro, NMFOG is the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government — a nonpartisan nonprofit founded in 89. Their whole deal is pushing transparency on public records and spending in NM, not killing Lobos or Aggies sport."

Who knew that AI had our back? Thanks, AI!

(The conversation above was used with permission from . It was edited in some places because AI is too chatty)

A judge yesterday ruled that our lawsuits against UNM and NMSU can move forward.We’re suing because the universities ref...
05/06/2026

A judge yesterday ruled that our lawsuits against UNM and NMSU can move forward.

We’re suing because the universities refused to release public records showing how taxpayer money is being used to pay college athletes.

For decades, NCAA rules prohibited schools from directly paying student-athletes. But since last year, after the landmark House v. NCAA settlement, some universities can now share millions of dollars directly with players.

This new era of athlete compensation is not funded solely by private donations or ticket sales. Because UNM and NMSU are public universities, the majority of the money for their athletic departments comes from taxpayers. But the universities won’t explain how much public money is actually being used to pay athletes.

One Lobo basketball player — reportedly receiving offers of $2–3 million from other schools — recently decided to come back to UNM.

So how much is UNM paying him to stay? And how much of that money comes from taxpayers?

If the public is paying, it has the right to see the receipts.

The first meeting of the public records task force is tonight.The goal is to help record custodians who have been facing...
04/30/2026

The first meeting of the public records task force is tonight.
The goal is to help record custodians who have been facing an unprecedented increase in the number of requests they've seen over the last few years.
If you would like to attend in person, it’s happening from 6-8 pm in Albuquerque at the UNM Student Union Building, Room 3008/3012.
If you want to attend virtually, there is a link in our profile to a website the AG’s office made about the event.
For attendance details, look for the blue “Upcoming Events” box and click on “here.”
If you would like to make a comment, either in person or virtually, you have three minutes to do so.
If you are unable to attend but would still like to comment, you can fill out the form at the bottom of that same webpage.
We hope to see you there.

When you see the words “consent agenda” on a meeting notice, it means “rubber stamp.”Items on a consent agenda aren’t di...
04/24/2026

When you see the words “consent agenda” on a meeting notice, it means “rubber stamp.”

Items on a consent agenda aren’t discussed. They’re grouped together and approved in a single vote.

Traditionally, they’re routine things — budget transfers and equipment leases. Simple “to-do list” stuff.

But something unusual happened at a Los Lunas Schools board meeting on April 14.

The consent agenda included a resolution to maintain “the status quo” regarding a parent’s discussion page and the district’s trademark.

There was just one problem: The resolution didn’t exist.

The board was about to approve something that hadn’t even been written.

To its credit, the board caught the mistake during the meeting and removed the item.

This likely happened due to a clerical error, which is to be expected when policies aren’t clearly defined.

And the policies around consent agendas are often nonexistent.

Many public bodies, including the Los Lunas School Board, don’t have any procedures on consent agendas at all.

This has allowed some public bodies in New Mexico to use them as secret agendas. Controversial items get hidden by bundling them together with routine ones. Everything is passed in one fell swoop, and the public never knows.

That’s why consent agendas are a bit scary.

Because it’s so easy for them to go from a tool that streamlines routine business to a rubber stamp without rules.

How do we find out the names of the men using online r**e academies? That's what women want to know.The hard truth: Gett...
04/21/2026

How do we find out the names of the men using online r**e academies?

That's what women want to know.

The hard truth: Getting a full list of names — even usernames — is very unlikely. It's a legal thing.

But there is a path to getting information about them, and it runs through public records.

Here's how it would work:

First, there has to be an investigation.

That could come from federal agencies like the FBI or Homeland Security, or from state and local law enforcement. They would be looking for evidence that the site isn't just hosting speech — that it's actively organizing, encouraging, or facilitating real-world criminal acts through coordinated user activity. (And yes, that bar can easily be met.)

Next, the platform gets charged as a criminal enterprise.

This prosecution could happen at the federal or state level, even if the platform itself is based outside the United States.

Then comes the critical step: seizure.

If authorities can show the site is being used for criminal activity, they can seize servers and domains, gaining access to backend data like usernames, emails, and message logs.

Those records immediately become part of the investigative file.

What gets released from those files depends on which agency is prosecuting the case and what public records laws apply.

Here in New Mexico, our public records law requires that any identifying information — such as a name or username — be redacted from law enforcement records. But that leaves the rest of the information intact.

People could find out:
• How many users were there?
• What did their messages say?
• How many were from my hometown?
• Where was that picture taken?

So yes, legally, it's unlikely any names will be released. But women will have no problem figuring out a whole lot from what is released.

Now, if only a state with strong public records laws would investigate …

"Following the high-speed pursuit of a stolen SUV, a suspect exited the vehicle and was shot after brandishing a weapon ...
04/14/2026

"Following the high-speed pursuit of a stolen SUV, a suspect exited the vehicle and was shot after brandishing a weapon at officers."

For two years, that was the official description of how police in St. Louis, Missouri, killed 17-year-old Emeshyon Wilkins in June 2024.

Yesterday, newly released police body camera footage showed the truth.

There was no high-speed pursuit. The “chase,” such as it was, never exceeded 10 miles per hour. Emeshyon, whose 16th birthday had been just two weeks earlier, did not confront officers. Instead, he was shot in the back of the head as he ran away — without a weapon in his hand.

For two years, Emeshyon’s family didn’t know what actually happened. Despite repeated records requests, the police department refused to release the video.

It took a federal lawsuit, filed by the family’s attorney, for the footage to finally be released through the discovery process.

“They fought that video issue for over a year," attorney Al Watkins told The Associated Press. "We had to file a federal lawsuit to get it. That's not transparent. That's not integrity."

If you compare Missouri’s public records law to New Mexico’s, they look similar at first glance. But in practice, they’re not.

Both states say the public has a right to government records. But Missouri allows agencies to delay and charge more in fees. Here in New Mexico, the law leans more toward disclosure.

It matters.

Because access to public records shouldn’t depend on whether a family can file a federal lawsuit just to learn how their child died.

Address

Albuquerque, NM

Telephone

+15057643750

Website

https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/UVLA6SHGEFSEC

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when New Mexico Foundation for Open Government posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organization

Send a message to New Mexico Foundation for Open Government:

Shortcuts

Featured

Share