The New Mexico Livestock Board has an explanation for why the public cannot read a single line of its investigation into three former employees. The report, it says, contains "matter of opinion."
So on Aug. 18, the board's records custodian, Julie Gauman, released the investigation's findings with every page blacked out.
In May, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that agencies cannot do exactly that.
The request
On Aug. 3, the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government asked under the state Inspection of Public Records Act for the results of a private investigation into former board employees April Riggs, Ray Baca and Priscilla Peña over alleged misconduct.
What they are alleged to have done has not been made public. Neither has what the investigation found. That is the point of the lawsuit.
The excuse
According to the complaint, Gauman cited two parts of the records law: IPRA's "catchall" exemption, which covers records that other state laws make confidential, and the provision that shields "matters of opinion" in personnel files.
NMFOG says neither holds. No other state law makes these records confidential, it argues, so the catchall does not apply. And the opinion exemption no longer lets an agency hide an entire report.
The ruling the board ignored
In late May, after a 12-year fight by the Albuquerque Journal, the state Supreme Court ruled that Albuquerque Public Schools could not withhold its investigation of former Superintendent Winston Brooks in its entirety just because parts of it expressed opinions.
NMFOG's legal director, Amanda Lavin, told Source NM the group is not after these particular records so much as the principle: a landmark ruling says produce them, and a public agency is ignoring it.
NMFOG sued Gauman on Oct. 2 in Second Judicial District Court, asking for an order to release the records, damages and attorney fees. Board officials told Source NM they do not comment on pending litigation. Gauman declined to comment.
A state agency investigated its own people, found something, and decided the public's copy should be black ink.
The questions
For the New Mexico Livestock Board and Julie Gauman: Which state law, besides IPRA itself, makes this report confidential? Who decided to redact all of it, and did the board's lawyers review the Supreme Court's May ruling first? What did the investigation find, and who paid for it?
For April Riggs, Ray Baca and Priscilla Peña: Do you want the report released?
For the Attorney General's Office, which enforces IPRA: Will it weigh in?
Those answers belong in the public record. Right now they are blacked out.
This story is built from public reporting and records through Oct. 20, 2026: Source NM's account of the complaint filed in Second Judicial District Court, and the Albuquerque Journal's reporting on the Supreme Court's ruling in its case against Albuquerque Public Schools. The Inquirer has not yet obtained the complaint or the redacted pages directly. The three former employees are named in the court filing; no allegation against them has been made public or proven. Questions were sent Oct. 20 to the Livestock Board's records office, NMFOG and the New Mexico Department of Justice, which enforces IPRA. The former employees will be contacted where they can be reached. Responses will be added with a dated update. Disclosure: Pesach Lattin also publishes ADOTAT and The Arizona Inquirer and is principal of ANIA, a privately held, independent intelligence firm that is not a government agency. The New Mexico Inquirer is reader-supported. No paid placement in editorial. Tips and corrections: [email protected] or 505-932-9060.