NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION COMMISSION MEMBERS BATAAN MEMORIAL BUILDING, ROOM 101 CALEB CHANDLER, Chairman, Clovis POST OFFICE BOX 25102 TOM BLAINE, P.E. Secretary SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87504-5102 JIM DUNLAP, Farmington (505) 827-6160 BUFORD HARRIS, Mesilla FAX: (505)827-6188 BLANE SANCHEZ, lsIeta MARK SANCHEZ, Albuquerque JAMES WILCOX, Carlsbad TOPPER THORPE, Cliff September 29, 2016 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY Mr. Dylan K. Lange Open Government Division New Mexico Office of the Attorney General PO. Box 1508 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1508 Email: dlanqe@nmaq.qov Re: Response to Inspection of Public Records Act Complaint Dear Mr. Lange: This letter responds to your correspondence dated September 26, 2016, wherein you inform me of a complaint received by the Office of the Attorney General from Ms. Laura Paskus, alleging a violation of the Inspection of Public Records Act, NMSA 1978, Chapter 4, Article 2 In particular, the complaint alleges that the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission provided some, but not all, of the public records responsive to Ms. Paskus? August 3, 2016, IPRA request. Accordingly, you request that the ISC respond to four (4) questions and ?include the requested documents [in its response].? Please see my responses, below to the four questions you raise. I have also attached, in electronic format, all correspondence between the ISO Records Custodian and Ms. Paskus related to her August 3, 2016 IPRA request, as well as all documents responsive to her request, which ISC produced to Ms. Paskus on August 5, 2016. Finally, there are no outstanding documents responsive to Ms. Paskus August 3, 2016 request and, therefore, none are provided here. 1. Did the NMISC provide or allow for the inspection of all documents requested or stemming from Ms. Paskus? August 3, 2016 IPRA request? Yes, all the documents were made available to Ms. Paskus for inspection?. A 1 Note: Ms. Paskus complains that the ISC refused to honor her request to ?receive the documents via email unless the ?les were too large to send electronically." However, the IPRA does not require this. Rather, the IPRA provides, custodian shall provide a copy of a public record in electronic format if the public record is available in electronic format and an electronic copy is speci?cally requested.? The ISC did just that. We provided a computer for Ms. Paskus? inspection of the responsive electronic records and explained to her that, upon letter informing Ms. Paskus that the documents were available for her to inspect was sent to her via e-mail on August 5, 2016, by Ms. Sonia Salazar, ISC Records Custodian, two days after her IPRA Request was received by Ms. Salazar. 2. Did the NMISC comply with the timeframes prescribed by the IPRA under NMSA 1978, in responding to this request? Please provide documentation detailing compliance. The ISC complied with the timeframes outlined in NMSA 1978, The statute requires that a custodian receiving a request permit the inspection immediately or as soon as practicable under the circumstances, but not later than fifteen (15) days after receiving a written request. In this matter, Ms. Sonia Salazar received the request on August 3, 2016, and responded to Ms. Paskus on August 5, 2016, indicating that responsive documents were available for inspection. The inspection occurred on August 16, 2016, thirteen (13) days after the IPRA request was received. Ms. Paskus had a follow-up question on August 24, 2016. Ms. Salazar responded to Ms. Paskus that same day, indicating she was exploring options to get that question answered. On August 25, 2016, Ms. Melissa Dosher, the agency?s PIO, wrote to Ms. Paskus providing the answer to her question. No further questions regarding this request were ever asked of the ISO Records Custodian. Please see the attached documents detailing compliance with the IPRA timeframes. 3. Did the NMISC withhold or redact any of the documents or information therein, responsive to the request? If so, please describe in detail: a. The reason why access to the requested records was denied or withheld. b. Provide the legal authority justifying this action. c. Provide us a copy of the denial letter sent, if applicable. No. The ISC did not withhold or redact any records responsive to this request. There also was no denial of access to records. There are no other records responsive to this request. Mr. Roepke based the presentation (the subject, in part, of the August 3, 2016, request) on verbal conversations he had with various people. The survey used for the acreage figures for non-irrigated or fallow lands was provided to Ms. Paskus. Mr. Roepke obtained the rest of the information through verbal conversations. He has no notes of any those conversations. All responsive records were provided in response to the August 3, 2016 request. 4. Please include any other facts, documentation or legal authority that may be helpful in our inquiry into this complaint. As you can see from the attached e-mail, Ms. Paskus? last follow-up question was directed to the PIO for the Office of the State Engineer/lSC not to the ISO Records Custodian. At that time, both the PIO and Mr. Roepke were out of the office for a number of days. Ms. Paskus never contacted the ISO Records Custodian indicating she had an additional question that had not been answered. It is also instructive that, in her August 3, 2016 e-mail to the ISO Records Custodian, Ms. Paskus acknowledges that she had initially addressed her request to the PIO, but then realized it might be outside her scope of work. inspection, if she wanted copies of the electronic records, Ms. Paskus could either c0py them on a USB key or purchase a USB key from the for that purpose. Thereafter, Ms. Paskus contacted the ISO Records Custodian and made a proper IPRA request. Thus, Ms. Paskus obviously understands that the PIO is not the appropriate person to contact in connection with an IPRA request. Nevertheless, the PIO was the only person to whom Ms. Paskus addressed her follow-up IPRA question on August 30, 2016. As reflected in my responses, above, I believe that the ISO has responded in full to Ms. Paskus? August 3, 2016, IPRA request, in accordance with the requirements of the IPRA. Moreover, I believe that Ms. Paskus has conflated the subject IPRA request with her separate communications with our In the future, I would request Ms. Paskus to direct any and all IPRA requests and related questions to the ISO Records Custodian. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Regards, Jim?rww Amy I. Haas General Counsel New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission