sunshine
Julie Ann Grimm has a decent story in the new mex today about the state's sunshine laws, part of a package they ran (it's Sunshine week). There's just a few things about her piece I don't get:
1. She mentions that there are several pending complaints against state agencies for violation of the Inspection of Public Records Act, and that AG King says he'll be acting on them. But she doesn't mention that those complaints are online now, via the AG's office, in case anyone wants to look at them. Which seems strange. I know she knows they are online because Ms. Grimm called me last week, having seen my complaint to ask me about it (I called her back but then didn't hear back from her and assumed I'd missed her deadline). Am I being paranoid for thinking that The New Mex intentionally didn't list the pending complaints with the AG's Office because it would have meant acknowledging our complaint and, thus, having to acknowledge the Wexford story all together. I'm being paranoid, right? I mean, it's not like they are going to do an entire package of stories about the need for transparency and openness in government and then intentionally fail to write about something just because it would mean mentioning a huge story we did that they have yet to mention in any other way. (On the note of competitive journalism, The Times Public Editor tackles the very subject today.
2. The articles don't touch upon the fact that there is no state law compelling the AG to do something about these complaints in a timely manner. I asked both AG Gary King and Gov. Richardson, during the election, if they would support creating a timelimit in which the AG had to act on such things and they said yes. I would have liked to read, in the New Mex package, what kinds of laws other states have regarding the enforcing body in these kinds of things.
But I would definitely recommend reading the New Mex stories today, and you should definitely listen to Mos Def' "Sunshine" while you do it:
1. She mentions that there are several pending complaints against state agencies for violation of the Inspection of Public Records Act, and that AG King says he'll be acting on them. But she doesn't mention that those complaints are online now, via the AG's office, in case anyone wants to look at them. Which seems strange. I know she knows they are online because Ms. Grimm called me last week, having seen my complaint to ask me about it (I called her back but then didn't hear back from her and assumed I'd missed her deadline). Am I being paranoid for thinking that The New Mex intentionally didn't list the pending complaints with the AG's Office because it would have meant acknowledging our complaint and, thus, having to acknowledge the Wexford story all together. I'm being paranoid, right? I mean, it's not like they are going to do an entire package of stories about the need for transparency and openness in government and then intentionally fail to write about something just because it would mean mentioning a huge story we did that they have yet to mention in any other way. (On the note of competitive journalism, The Times Public Editor tackles the very subject today.
2. The articles don't touch upon the fact that there is no state law compelling the AG to do something about these complaints in a timely manner. I asked both AG Gary King and Gov. Richardson, during the election, if they would support creating a timelimit in which the AG had to act on such things and they said yes. I would have liked to read, in the New Mex package, what kinds of laws other states have regarding the enforcing body in these kinds of things.
But I would definitely recommend reading the New Mex stories today, and you should definitely listen to Mos Def' "Sunshine" while you do it:
posted by Julia at 5:33 PM
<< Home