A bill that started out with the intention of making it easier to get state records suddenly has been transformed into a fortified castle, thanks to the very state agencies it would affect.

State agencies alerted the sponsor of the legislation, House Majority Leader Ken Martinez, D-Grants, that they thought some exemptions should be added to the bill. Martinez said write a substitute then, and maybe we’ll consider it.

So the agencies did that and presented the substitute to Martinez yesterday.

Martinez said after seeing the substitute that he can’t support the new version.

“We’ll probably go back to the original,” Martinez said.

Why? Because the exemptions would deny access to records that are now public.

Here are a few examples of the proposed exceptions sought by state agencies. The language is taken directly from the bill — I have not paraphrased anything.

“Records of a public body that, by their nature, must be confidential in order for the public body to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function.”

“Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.”

“Records specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or rule.”

“Records related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of a public body.”

Finally, there’s this, again from the bill:

“Nothing in the Inspection of Public Records Act shall be construed to require a public body to provide records pursuant to that act to a party with whom it is in litigation.”

The last exception comes just after the Education Retirement Board and State Investment Council denied records sought by an attorney representing former state investment officer Frank Foy, who has sued the state of New Mexico. The attorney has sued to get the records.

It’s unclear what agency suggested that exemption.

As for making state agencies more responsive to requests for records, the agencies added language to Martinez’s bill that could slow down a response to a records request. The language would allow the state agency to seek an opinion from the state attorney general when it is considering a denial of a request for records.

If an opinion were sought, the proposed exemption would suspend any time limits that would apply to the agency for turning over records. Here’s the language in the proposed exemption:

Any time limits imposed upon the custodian by this section and Sections 14-2-8 and 14-2-10 NMSA 1978 shall be tolled until the public records custodian receives an opinion from the attorney general.

The proposed exemptions also come at a time when several media outlets have had requests for records denied by the New Mexico Finance Authority, which is at the center of a federal inquiry.

Kate Nash of the New Mexican first wrote of the proposed amendments to the legislation on her blog Green Chile Chatter. Thanks, Kate, for catching this.