Off the Record
Bills backing closure of public records under fire

By Kristen Davenport
For The Independent

SANTA FE — Two bills at the state legislature would shut down public access to records kept by public utility companies, a move supported by the Public Regulation Commission but opposed by several news outlets and the Foundation for Open Government.

Right now, any publicly-owned utility must provide copies of all its records such as lists of overdue payments owed by customers.

One proposed law, HB 279, from Rep. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, would make private any "non public" information from a privately-held public utility company that is, a publicly traded but privately owned company such as Public Service Company of New Mexico.

Another bill, House Bill 1027 from Rep. Patty Lundstrom, D-Gallup, would make any addresses private information for all public utilities including the city-owned utility in Gallup.

"(Lundstrom's) bill is much more dangerous," said Bob Trapp, Jr., owner of the Rio Grande Sun, a newspaper based in Espanola which often requests information from public utilities. "This can't move forward. These are clearly public information and necessary."

Letter of opposition
Trapp, who also is president of the New Mexico Press Association, sent a letter to both Steinborn and Lundstrom, opposing the bills.

"Publicly owned utilities should always remain open to the public," he said. "The public has a right to know who is not paying their bill and where that person may live."

The Gallup Independent also has made records requests from the city-owned utility company, said publisher Bob Zollinger.

Several times a year, The Independent runs a list of all customers who are behind on utility payments. Zollinger said these lists sometimes show that public officials are not making payments.

Bob Johnson, director of the Foundation for Open Government, says his group opposes the law and isn't even quite sure what it would mean.

"How do you define 'non-public records'?" Johnson asked. "We're talking about public bodies here. The records of a public body are public information."

Johnson said the bills are "extremely vague."

The text of the bill says it "prohibits public utilities from selling or disclosing non-public personal consumer information unless it is in accordance with standardized credit reporting practices, other reporting requirements imposed."

Steinborn said the bill "helps clear the lines so utilities can protect information when they want to and resist pressure to give up lists."

Steinborn said his intent is to protect consumer privacy, not close public records.

"There was one utility that was alleged to have sold a list of customers," Steinborn said. He also said utilities have felt pressure "by various entities" to give up lists.

Public vs. private
But Trapp said Steinborn apparently does not understand the difference between a privately held company and a public entity.

In a response to Trapp's letter, Steinborn wrote, "Since you find it appropriate to publish outstanding balances for utility services, what services would you find it inappropriate to publish? How about your newspaper subscription, or perhaps a credit card?"

Trapp said Steinborn just doesn't get it.

"His response is typical," Trapp said. "He doesn't understand the difference between a public entity and a privately held one, or is just using the flimsy argument."

Lundstrom's bill is a bit more specific, saying only that addresses of customers of a public utility are private information not names or outstanding unpaid bills.

"This bill was a request from the City of Gallup," she said. The city owns its own utility, and "they have received complaints about physical addresses being published in the paper."

Lundstrom said Gallup city officials and Gallup police are concerned that by publishing the physical addresses of people with late payments, the newspaper is endangering victims of domestic violence who may be in hiding.

"Apparently there were three ladies named in (the newspaper) who were involved in domestic violence," she said.

Covering for councilor?
But Zollinger said he's concerned the city is just trying to protect its own.

"One of the city councilors (Bill Nechero) hadn't paid his bills in two years," Zollinger said.

As for protecting physical addresses, Zollinger said, "You have to have an identifying factor."

"There are lots of the same names over here," he said. "Say you have a listing that says Paul Sanchez owes the city umpteen million dollars. Which Paul Sanchez is it?"

"It's a bad law," Zollinger said.

Johnson agreed that protecting the addresses for the sake of domestic violence victims doesn't make sense.

"The realm of open records is not the business of police," he said. "Concealing public records should not be the business of the police. The police have no business saying we should conceal these records because some day there might be a crime."

Besides which, he said, "Anyone with any sense knows that it's really unlikely your mean ex-husband is going to look you up on your utility bill and come get you."

Steinborn said he is willing to entertain possible amendments from news organizations to keep records open to them, but added, "The Public Regulation Commission supports the bill."

"It's important to protect personal information and create clear legal lines," he said; however, Steinborn could not come up with a specific case when personal information had been used in an inappropriate way, saying that electric utilities had been "pressured to give up membership lists" by unidentified groups.

Steinborn's bill passed the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee. Lundstrom's bill has not had a hearing and is not yet scheduled for one.

Compromise
Lundstrom, though, said it might be possible to find a way to "abbreviate" addresses so news organizations can still identify people, without printing the whole address.

And, she said, the weight of her opinion is not behind the bill.

"I'm actually indifferent to this," she said. "The city asked for it, so I introduced it."

Zollinger said he hopes the legislature takes the public records laws of the state seriously.

"The city here, which is probably typical of most cities in the state, thinks its records are confidential," he said. "But the legislature, even though they are from these communities, knows it is to the public's advantage to protect open records."