Campus Comments
Pertaining to Inspection of Public Records and Proposed Policy Changes
A FAQ page provides answers to commonly asked questions.    Click here to view the proposed policy changes.

ATTN:  Thank you to everyone who took the time to comment and share your concerns.  The comment period has ended, and your concerns and suggestions are being carefully reviewed.  Any recommended changes to the policies will be made available for a subsequent campus review period of approximately one week ending July 15.  Final review and approval of the policies will take place at the August Regents' meeting.

Listing of comments last updated 7/3/08 10:45 am--2 new postings (see C38 and C21) since 7/2/08.  Names will not be posted.

6/27/08 C131  Are all New Mexican public employees (e.g., state & city government offices and departments, judiciary and court personnel, police forces, other public educational institutions, hospitals, etc.) subject to regulations such as these, and to the same extent? If so, then it does seem reasonable that consistency (albeit potentially dangerous) reigns for EVERYONE state-wide. If not, why is UNM being singled out in this manner? It also seems quite reasonable that each individual have control over the public accessibility of his or her own personal information (such as telephone numbers, physical home addresses, and e-mail accounts).

6/26/08  C130  I am distressed by the proposed changes that would make public matters of my HR records that have to do with my personal life. The only parts of my record that should be available to the public are those having to do with my work for UNM: my office location, my work telephone number, and so forth. Where I live, my personal telephone number, and other such information must not be made public. Our employer, UNM, must care for our personal safety and well-being.

6/26/08 C129  I would like to add my comments requesting that personal information not be made public. As an instructor, I have had occasion to report a student for cheating. I frankly, would be rather concerned if I had felt that the student could have readily gained personal information about me. In an apparent contrast to the policy for staff and faculty, the Regents Policy 1.4 for the hiring presidents commits to confidentiality during the search until publication of the names of the finalists. At that time, the CV will be made public, but apparently not personal information such as appears on a job application form.

6/26/08  C128  I am concerned about the release of private information as are many others who have commented. My concerns include identity theft, but also the potentially negative effect the changes will have on our applicant pools for open positions. We may lose many applicants who prefer to eliminate from their search a job where their personal information may become public. Also, I am concerned about the additional work involved in providing access to records. Many faculty and staff are already working at a burn-out pace, especially with the current de facto hiring freezes that are leaving positions unfilled. Will we now become responsible for yet another time-consuming obligation to locate, copy, and send materials on a frequent basis to whomever is interested in obtaining them? Which of our current obligations should we drop in order to fulfill this new one?

6/25/08 C126  I agree with the majority. I do not like the idea of my personal and confidential information to be public.

6/24/08  C124  To Whom It May Concern, I would like to add my concerns to those of others voicing disapproval and unease about the revelation of private information, such as email address, home telephone number, home address and other information from our resumes. The administration has failed to provide compelling reasons why such information should become public, and it is all too easy to see why it should not: stalking, identity theft, endangerment of UNM employees' security, health and welfare. I am alarmed at the conflict between IPRA and common sense at UNM. Employees will be put at risk by this policy conflict, not to mention the actual danger of stalking and harassment of employees. I hope that the changes proposed to the policies dealing with public vs. private information (2300, 3210, and 3710) will not go forward as proposed. I consider FERPA whenever I am asked for information about a student, and I hope for a similar level of protection for my own private records. When I applied for work at UNM, I was told that my contact information was private, and I do not give permission to share my private information. This is part of a larger battle in this nation between need-to-know and public information, and I believe UNM's policies have protected us far better than they will if these changes go through.

6/24/08  C123 Greetings: I am alarmed at the conflict between IPRA and common sense at UNM. Reading the comments already posted leads me to believe there is a serious danger of lawsuits from employees put at risk by this policy conflict, not to mention the actual danger of stalking and harassment of employees. I hope that the changes proposed to the policies dealing with public vs. private information (2300, 3210, and 3710) will not go forward as proposed.  The provisions to safeguard our Social Security numbers on all relevant public documents (2030) is heartening, and can perhaps be adapted to provide similar protections for other non-public elements of our documents. In the FAQ page provided to help us understand these changes, the Question, Why are policies pertaining to the IPRA being changed? seems to provide hope of perhaps allowing for protecting some information, in the final phrase of the first sentence, "all public records of a public body are available for inspection, subject to certain objections." We have here some significant body of objection. The current  revision of UNM Policies is not viable.  I join my fellow-employees in not minding the necessary disclosure of the records that are of a public nature, such as my name, salary (other employers respect this semi-private item better than UNM), job title, organization, and even dates of employment (although this could be troublesome in some circumstances). The UNM Directory allows for privacy, but commonly provides all this information, necessary for the smooth performance of our jobs in an interactive group of departments.  On the other hand, I join the increasing swell of protest at the declaration as public of private contact information, including address,  phone number, personal email address, and other information from my resume which could be used against me in identity theft or other mischief, such as date of birth, place of birth, schools attended, pay rate at previous jobs or names and contact information of personal references.   I consider FERPA whenever I am asked for information about a student, and I hope for a similar level of protection for my own private records. When I applied for work at UNM, I was told that my contact information was private, and I do not give permission to share my private information. This is part of a larger battle in this nation between need-to-know and public information, and I believe UNM's policies have protected us far better than they will if these changes go through. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

C122  Greetings as a member of staff council I have requested input from my constituents and the response has been overwhelming asking that we stand up on their behalf in voicing opposition to allowing access to personal information. Some suggestions include notification of staff if access to their information is requested, have the requester provide the same information as they are requesting, to just don't do it. Staffers are concerned that this info can lead to identity theft, providing info to stalkers or others with intent to violate restraining orders to campus police officers fearing retaliation for the performance of their duties. Response has been 100% AGAINST releasing this information. Please consider the safety of the employees who work here.

6/26/08  C127   I am an adjunct. I am making less money than I have ever made in my life, however, I am not in it for the money. I led a privileged life and simply want to put back - to give to students who are less well off than I was... the benefit of my small area of interest with as little bureaucratic distraction as possible. I want to believe in the public education system.  If I were to teach at a private school, would my personal info. be made public BY LAW? If I were to quit teaching, would I face the same scrutiny by "the public"? Just leave me alone and let me teach.  We are all here to put the students first.

6/25/08  C125  I am absolutely opposed and appalled by the proposed revisions to University Business  Policies 2300, 3210, and 3710 related to the Inspection of Public Records Act. These revisions not only expose people to risk but they are also invasive on their fourth constitutional amendment; the "right to be left alone" as Justice Louis Brandeis said.  As a person who has experience domestic violence and who is still concerned about retaliation these policy changes are a nightmare. Additionally, the broad inclusion of our records in such a detailed fashion for all the public to view is an erosion of our autonomy and functionality as a higher institution of learning. If these acts are left to pass without stipulations and limitations on the information being disseminated the mission of education and opportunity will be undermined by trying to protect our image from the public slaughter that media is proficient in hosting.  I am against the policies for personal reasons of protecting myself and my family but also because it tears at the very fabric our country was founded on, the Constitution of the United States and the rights it entitles to us.

6/24/08 C121 Under NO circumstance should our personal information be released to the public! Can only imagine the legitimate law suits that could be filed against UNM due to changing the policy and procedures on this if something drastic should happen to any employee. Imagine any irate customer going to an employees home and gunning down the employee because they were denied Financial Aid.

6/24/08  C120  As a social worker, I'm extremely concerned regarding public access to employee records for safety and identity theft reasons. I work in a clinic/hospital setting and have had to make CYFD referrals for medical neglect and would be concerned that my safety could potentially be jeopardized. Living in an era of rampant identity theft, it is imperative that UNM limit personal information. Would UNM be held legally liable if an employee was harmed in some way as a result of public access to personal information? Thank you for allowing UNM employees to voice their opinions/concerns and for supporting the best interest of employees.

6/24/08 C119  WELL! I have to admit I have not read the proposed changes to policy mentioned, I am at work and it would not seem prudent or professional to spend my paid work hours reading those items. They also put me to sleep with their mind-numbing repetitive legalese meant for lawyers and those who don't necessarily work but have a great deal of power and influence. If all is as I hear then the release of ANY of my personal and professional information is absolutely prohibited as is simply making the information available for review. I hold a position where I deal with the public in what sometimes is an intimate way and is not always on the best of terms for them. Why would these powers that be-or anyone else-allow my privacy or security to be jeopardized? Will their information be placed open to scrutiny by anyone for any reason? I sincerely doubt that, the process is that the masses can always be sacrificed while they in their ivory (or ivy-covered) towers will be kept secure and distant. I have a two-year old grandson, along with a large family, if I thought my grandson was being placed in any sort of risk or danger I WOULD SUE. I would also seek a very personal retribution for any political compromise that puts my family and I at said risk because the peace and security of my family has the utmost priority. Do not put us at risk, identity theft is easy enough to accomplish without my employers assisting the miscreants, much less putting my home within someone's sights. Remember, do not do this thing.

6/24/08 C118  I also pay extra to have my home phone number and address from being published. Yes, I work for the University (the state), and any information that has to do with my job should be public. Anything that has to do with my private life, home, family, religion, or whether I prefer "red or green" is NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT MY OWN!!! If UNM is trying to comply to a 35 year old law that does not reflect what the situation is in the world now, then I worry about who is doing the decision making at UNM. What UNM needs to do is enlighten the law makers and get this law updated - not put all their faculty & staff in harm's way. If this policy goes into effect as is, UNM should hire some more lawyers because I see a huge amount of lawsuits coming their way.

6/24/08  C117 Ladies and gentlemen, I am against the proposed policy changes to the UNM Public Records Act. This change to policy is un-conceivable at a time when identity theft is on the rise especially in New Mexico. As an employee, I do not want my personal information siphoned through by those at the University and provided to the "media" without my permission.  Sincerely,

6/24/08  C116  I am concerned about the changes to item 3, Disclosure Confidentiality of Employment Applications, in policy:3210, RECRUITMENT AND HIRING. I feel, for the protection of our staff: The identity, the job application and the resume or curriculum vitae [should be], by All employees involved in the personnel recruitment process at the University, kept confidential the identity of candidates for employment. I do not agree with the decision to make names, private residence addresses, phone numbers, etc, available to the public-let's not make life easier for stalkers or identity thieves. Staff are individuals who had to present their qualifications to a hiring committee, compete with other candidates for the position, and were NOT appointed to a position nor elected. From what I understand, Elected or appointed officials are the NMIPRA's intended covered group. As you must be aware of by now, there is a large number of staff who have voiced their concern to the policy changes. With so many staff members opposed to the changes, there may be cause to revisit the changes to address the concerns or YOUR UNM STAFF. Thank you for your time,

6/24/08  C115  I am strongly opposed to the changes being proposed to these policies. I understand the need for compliance with law, but there must also be a balance to allow for the protection of privacy and very personal information. One of the proposed changes that has me particularly concerned is in Section 3 of Policy 2300. It specifically states "No person requesting records shall be required to state the reason for the request." This is in direct opposition to what we, as staff, are required to do when looking at student information. I have access to all types of information through Banner, LoboWeb, etc., but I have been told over and over in training that I need to have a particular business reason for looking at that information before I do it. Why is this not the case for someone looking to receive my personal information? After looking through just a few of the other comments posted, I think others have eloquently related concerns regarding identity theft and personal safety, but I will say that I agree with them completely. We live in a world where criminals are becoming more sophisticated in their abilities with cyber crimes - identity theft, stalking, etc. I believe we should be working to put up as many roadblocks as possible to these types of activities, not making things that much easier. Finally, I have to ask why the "the identity of applicants for public university or college president" would not be considered public information (FAQ #3) while the employment applications, resumes and CVs of the rank-in-file will be fair game. Just something to consider.

6/24/08  C114  I believe that staff addresses and phones, should be categorized as "non-public" information. I should have the right to control who has access to my address, and the home of my children. Our office location and phone should be public, but not our private lives. With this policy, even if we separate from the University, our private information is still out there. We would essentially have to move from our homes to keep our info private for us and our children.   In this day and age of identity theft, all of our demographic info should be protected. With your birth date and mother's name, I could access much of your life. That should not be up for the asking.

6/24/08  C113  I understand the need for transparency for public employees. There should be transparency with common sense. Salary and education are things the public might need to know to make sure the public is getting it's money's worth. But home phone numbers and addresses? I don't think that is appropriate for public viewing. Who will be responsible to make sure the items described as exempt from this policy don't get passed along with the items UNM holds as fit for public view? UNM has a responsibility to the public but it also has a responsibility to it's employees. The regents and President Schmidly have a responsibility to protect and promote employee welfare and safety. The way this policy reads does not make me feel valued or safe.

6/24/08  C112  I would like to comment about revisions to University Business Policies 2300, 3210, and 3710 proposed by the Board of Regents. Many researchers of this University is subject to potential forms of harassment by the public. Researchers that work under Dept of Defense funding are being harassed by peace protesters, scientists studying nuclear materials in space are harassed by antinuclear activists, and medical researchers who deal with animals in their experiments are being harassed by animal rights activists. It completely staggers my imagination that the Regents want to make it easier for people to get the personal information to make this harassment worse. This decision runs completely counter to the mission of this University. However, it is quite clear from the actions of the Regents to pass this policy more or less in secrete that they don't care about the mission of the university or about the employees of UNM. They are more worried about being sued by the Albuquerque Journal than about the wellbeing of the staff and faculty. As a matter of fairness to the University employees, I suggest that we insert the following into the UNM Regents' Policy 2.17 "Public Access to University Records: "The Regents and the University of New Mexico will accept all personal and financial responsibility for any losses to employees for identity theft or other damages as result of the disclosure of personal identity information under this policy."

6/23/08  C111 I strongly oppose this. I certainly did not sign up with UNM so my personal information could become public record. This is insane! You would be putting me, my family and my fellow co-workers at risk by doing this especially because of the line of work that we do for the University. My question to you is, if we are stalked, harassed or have our identity stolen are you liable for publicizing my information with out my consent? Let me put it to you this way I will sue you!

6/23/08  C110  Hello, I fully support the resolution of the Staff Council here at UNM regarding the public records act, and I sincerely hope that the concerns laid out in the resolution are addressed by administration and the Board of Regents. I am still disturbed at the content and process of the Regents' revised policies, and I hope they listen to the campus community from this point forward. Thank you for giving us a voice in this process,

6/23/08 C109  I would like to express a concern regarding the proposed policy changes. I assume that moving forward applicants will be required to acknowledge and agree that their application, CV, resume, etc. are public documents prior to application. However, when I applied to the University, University policy stated that this information would not be released. I would be willing, although not excited, to accept this change if it were effective only for any new applications I submit to the University. I do not agree with information that I provided to the University when I believed it would be kept confidential being released without my consent. If the terms and conditions of a contract are changed, those changes are only effective moving forward. They are not effective retroactively unless both parties agree. I view this change in the same way. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Regards,

6/23/08  C108  To whom it may concern; I do not wish for my telephone number, address and place of work to be given out to the public. I find that is policy does not help me in any way and does open my life up a little more, to would be unscrupulous characters.

6/20/08  C107  Thank you for your email and request for comments. Below is my input re policy 3710:  I strongly oppose any policy which makes my private information public. The University requires that applicants provide references' names and contact information. I can assure you that my references (and perhaps other employees' references) would be unpleasantly surprised, particularly as they are not UNM employees and therefore the University has neither the right nor their consent to such a release. If this policy were implemented as written it would be very difficult to obtain outside references again, not to mention it could deter outside applicants in the future. After I was employed, I was informed I needed to turn in a copy of my birth certificate to prove I was a US citizen because of the work I perform, although this was not listed in the job posting. I chose to provide a copy of my passport instead, but others in my group do not have passports and now their birth certificates on file, thus also potentially be subject to public release. This is simply wrong, not to mention a violation of privacy laws. The University should be able to guarantee the information will not be misused if released. The person in question should be notified and their concurrence obtained. The University needs to address how it would restrict the release of information on anyone who might be in a witness protection program, have restraining orders to protect themselves, be at risk for domestic violence or stalking or simply have unlisted information outside the university. Regarding the release of faculty notes and/or ongoing research, the Regents must have simply overlooked the fact that there are numerous confidentiality agreements in place prohibiting the release of exactly such information. The reaction from other universities' collaborators and/or corporate research sponsors to violating the agreements would be swift, immediate, and have negative financial consequences for the university both now and well into the future. There is no process in place for whomever would release the information to verify whether the specific information falls under an existing restriction, much less ensure it does not violate the terms of a signed agreement. I do not oppose the Regents' desire to adapt a more open approach and comply with state law. However, a broad "give them anything and more" policy is simply irresponsible. Without having first put a solid framework in place to mitigate the scope and consequences, protect employees, and maintain the University's reputation, adopting this policy could well result in real - not threatened - lawsuits from employees as well as research sponsors. Kind regards

6/20/08 C106  I am against the University posting information such as addresses, social security numbers, resumes, telephone numbers, etc. as public information. I think that the action and decision to even consider this information as being public information by the University has not been thoroughly visited and should not be allowed!

6/19/08  C105  As an employee of the University of New Mexico, I am completely disappointed in the actions of the University regarding this issue. It is absolutely absurd that in this day and age anyone would even think about publishing personal addresses, phone numbers and references. Not only does this place the employee in harms way, but also our spouses and children. I work with the public on a daily basis. Our office deals with one of the most difficult aspects of life, and that is death. During this time, when someone has lost a loved one-whether by natural causes, homicide, drug overdose, accident or suicide-people can behave irrationally. I certainly do not want my personal information available to anyone! My name and office number are available on my business card. To have my personal address released, or any employees for that matter, is a violation of our privacy and is endangering the very people whom you should be protecting. Would it be okay to walk into your physician's office, grocery store, spa, etc. and ask for this information? I would think that this would be considered highly inappropriate. With regards to the Journal's pressure to release this information, why don't they publish their employees personal addresses, maiden names, references and phone numbers on the front page of the newspaper and see how that flies!

6/19/08  C104  With identity theft as pervasive as it is, I find it hard to believe that an institution of higher learning (implying well educated people) would allow so much information about their employees to become public record. For those people who want to cause harm, publishing an employee's resume provides too much opportunity. It provides someone with a history on where to gather information on an individual.

6/19/08 C103  I would like to go on record as being strongly opposed to the release of personal employee information. There is absolutely no reason why potentially everyone should have access to my address, phone number, schools attended, pay rate at previous jobs or names and contact information of personal references. None of this information has any bearing on any employee's job performance. To the contrary, release of such information poses a real and significant danger to all employees. If enacted, UNM and the State of New Mexico are likely to be held legally accountable for damages resulting from a policy which is shortsighted and perhaps even illegal.

6/19/08  C102  First I would Like to thank our grade 9 representative Christina Maris for representing the grade 9's. Her work is to be commended. Not only am I a staff member, but I am also a proud mother of UNM student. Second, I am completely opposed to allowing public use of private information. One of my own cousin had their identity stolen while serving as a deputy with the Sheriff's Department in another state. The individual who stole the information was pulled over for a DWI traffic violation and the newspaper ran the story thinking this individual really was a deputy. My cousin was placed on administrative leave because of the identity theft DWI and it wasn't until the FBI and Attorney General got involved and compared fingerprints and DNA that my cousins name was cleared. It took 14 months to clear his name. But the damage to his stellar reputation and his credit score still remains. Please call your legislators and let the Regents know that you do not give them permission to share your private information.

6/19/08 C101  I strongly oppose release of any personal information. I consider the release of such information without individual consent to each and very request to be an invasion of personal privacy.

6/19/08 C100  With the possibility of identity theft or personal harm, I am shocked that my resume and personal information could be made so readily available. My place of employment should not mean a lack of privacy. Thank you.

6/19/08  C99  As a critical component of risk management, I expect UNM to ensure that the personal information of faculty and staff, including job applications and all supporting documents, are not made public in any shape or form. Best Regards,

6/19/08  C98  I don't want my personal information released and want to be notified.  Thank you for advocating on this issue.

6/19/08 C30 (2nd comment)  I write as a UNM employee concerned about the UNM privacy policy. When I applied for my position at KUNM, I was told that the application process was completely confidential. This means I expected the information in my job application to remain... private, as suggested by the claim of confidentiality. Job applications could include information such as date of birth, place of birth, social security number, phone number, physical address, mother's maiden name, etc., all information that can be used maliciously if accessed by just anyone at all. I was a victim of identity theft in 1997, and I can speak from experience. The number of hours I spent on the phone, signing and certifying documents, discussing the situation with law enforcement and various fraud departments of department stores and electronics stores where my identity was used to secure credit was a severe drain on my economics and physical and mental energy. I do not believe that UNM should support making these sorts of documents available to the public. There are reasons why the job application process was described as completely confidential... to protect the identities of those applying for jobs and their related documents. I do believe that it is important for some records to be available to the public, to ensure that University policies are being followed, that laws are not being broken, and that people are truthful in their submissions. But to allow all documents to become public is a violation of my privacy and of the agreement that I was party to when I applied for my current position. In addition, I work in the media. I am a public figure. Tens of thousands of people know my name... and in this line of work, there are often people who behave inappropriately, from calling me during my on-air shifts at KUNM to submitting harassing emails. I am deeply concerned about the possibility of people having access to my physical address, my home telephone number, and other sensitive personal information about myself that I have not chosen to make public. Again, I understand that as a public figure, there is information that people should have access to. But UNM is not the organization that should have the power to decide what information anyone should have access to and when and how. This is not just an issue of preventing identity theft or stalking, this is an issue that cuts to the heart of the issue of privacy. For people who do not have the means or access to protect themselves because of their affiliation with large organizations, the responsibility falls to the organization to protect the employees who give so much of their competency, commitment, time, and energy to making that organization what it is today. I hope you take my comments, and those of people who feel strongly on this issue, to heart as you negotiate the UNM Privacy Policy. Please take the time to make sure that the policy protects UNM employees instead of leaving them vulnerable to the possible malicious intent of those who would do us harm. This is the responsibility of the University, to behave in an ethical and legal manner with respect to private information .

6/19/08  C96  I am extremely concerned with this new policy. UNM had better be prepared for serious lawsuits if this actually goes into effect. If my identity gets stolen or someone not in their right mind gets my address and goes there, I will be the first to take action! This is a very serious issue and I feel that an employee must grant their permission to take part in something such as this. Many people, including myself, are in difficult situations with individuals that have NO business knowing the information that this policy is proposing. It's already concerning that our pay information is accessible my all as it is no one's business but our own! I truly hope that our voices will be heard and serious thought given to what you are proposing!

6/19/08  C95  This is plain ridiculous. My information is no one's business and should be accessed by no one other than whoever in HR needs to know.

6/19/08  C94  I am amazed that the release of our personal information is even being considered! Shame on those Regents, some of whom are attorneys and should know the legal consequences of doing such destruction to an individual and/or his or her civil rights. There is another way I think we as Staff at UNM should approach this issue: Lead an effort to get rid of these Regents and if so, the President, as well. Thank you for all your efforts in leading our causes, Loyola, Vanessa, and all other members of the Staff Council!

6/19/08  C93  If I quit now will I avoid the possibility of disclosure? I absolutely would not have applied for a position with UNM, or any public institution, had I known of the possible disclosure of private information. The university may want to consider whether they'd limit the future pool of applicants by instituting the policy as proposed.

6/19/08  C92  I wanted to send a comment regarding my feelings about the public records policy issue. I am seriously against my private information becoming public. I have been the victim of a stalker in the past, and I have made a conscientious effort to avoid having my information available for this person to find me begin terrorizing me again. I never thought that my place of work would not protect my information from reaching the wrong individuals. If UNM were to make my private information public, I would no longer feel that my workplace was a safe environment. Thank you for your consideration in this matter

6/19/08 C91  Personally, I think it is stupid to let anyone's private information be public. Sometimes you have to do what is morally right as opposed to trying to avoid spending money on a potential lawsuit from a public records request. It makes me wonder if anyone has seriously considered the amount of money the university will have to spend defending itself from a lawsuit filed by employees who had their private information made public just because of the fear of a public records request lawsuit.  Don't be naïve. The posting of private information will bring about trouble for the university. Do the right thing and protect your employees.

6/18/08 C89  As a single woman, I am very concerned about safety and identify theft. Public employees should be able to have the same security as those in the private sector.   If this must take place, please add a provision to the policies whereby employees are notified each time their records are released and to whom the records were released. This would possibly cut down on records being accessed by angry ex-spouses/ex-significant others, nosy co-workers, etc.

6/18/08  C88 I am concerned about my private information as others have mentioned. I pay for an unlisted and no solicitation phone number. If the media or other entities have access to my information and something happens to me or my family who is going to take the responsibility of these actions, is the state or the University? Is the University going to have insurance that if my identity is stolen, are they going to pay for it to be restored? We have HIPAA for patient's information not to be released and for our students information not to be released but shouldn't that go for our employees. I do not think our Regents, President, or Governor would like all their personal information out there for the whole world to read. I think our Regents need to reconsider policy changes of the magnitude that this has become.

6/18/08  C87  Please do not feed our personal information into the feeding frenzy that exists. We are already very susceptible to Identity Fraud with giving the world more personal information that most companies use to verify our legitimacy. This public right to know has gone too far. Don't we have rights as individual citizens? thanks for facilitating this opportunity to comment!

6/18/08  C86  I am completely against the release of personal employee information for public viewing. I have been a victim of identity theft THREE times and that's with me shredding everything that comes to my house. In addition, I have been stalked TWICE - once by someone off campus and a second time, by a UNM employee, who got all of my information from a lackadaisical employee who provided him everything. The disclosure of this information endangers every employee at UNM. Like many others I have unlisted information for a reason and I'm incredibly angry that the University seems to have little concern about my safety or the safety of my family. Thank you for listening.

6/18/08  C85  I find it disturbing that my home address and other personal contact information or identifying information will be made available to the public. In the case of my personal home address, this not only impacts me, but my family as well. I'm very concerned about this. I do not have any concerns about my resume being on file, as long as my home address and contact/identifying info is removed. All this personal identifying info should not be considered for "business use" as it is no one's concern where my family lives, or what my social security number is etc.

6/18/08 C84   My personal information is just that - personal, and not connected to my position at UNM.  Go ahead and publish my work address and telephone number, but not my home information.

6/18/08 C83  I positively support passing the Staff Council resolution. I am absolutely opposed to having my personal information becoming public knowledge. I have worked very hard to protect my personal information as I'm sure have many others. I believe the University might find it's self opening the door to huge liability should they start releasing staff/faculty personal information.

6/18/08 C82  I am absolutely in favor of the resolution to categorize staff and faculty home addresses, home and cell phone numbers, and personal email addresses as 'personal demographic information' not related to 'public business' as the Attorney General advises. Thanks for letting us know about this possibility.

6/18/08 C81   I would like my personal information, as you state, to be considered private. Why the UNM Board of Regents should consider releasing this information to the public is beyond comprehension. Our work-related websites, UNM Directory, etc. give the public all the information they need to know to contact us AT WORK. My personal info is not in the phone book, and I pay extra not to have my information out in the open. Thanks again for passing along this important information!

6/18/08  C80  I believe that this means that our address, phone, nor email will not be released.  I, for one, would not want that information released and would see no reason the public should have this. If I have misread or understood the policy, please set me straight. Thanks. I will expand on the reasoning of why I do not want personal information about employees available to just anyone. Sadly, the times in which we live can be very hazardous. Anyone I know has my email address, home address, or phone number. I would hate to wake up one morning and see on the news where an employee was harmed because this information was available and someone took advantage of it, in the wrong way.

6/18/08  C79  Just wanted to let you know I appreciate Staff Council taking this on.  My family and I have an unlisted phone number and I do not want either  my phone number or address made public. I am sure that there are a  great number of people at UNM who have unlisted numbers. What is the point of having and paying for unlisted numbers if UNM undermines it by making the information public. I am also glad that people will be given notice if information is requested by the "public" however, does this mean the employee will be informed who exactly is requesting the information and for what purpose? Again, glad you are there for us.

6/18/08  C78  I would not want my information released. I get enough junk mail as is. Plus, our office often makes unpopular decisions with individual students, and I'd hate to think that one could track me down at home.

6/17/08  C77  I understand as a public servant, information such as salary and title, etc is I believe within reason. However, with Identify Theft a fact of life for all, I take exception to the disclosure of home address and phone numbers. If a resume or CV is accessible to the public and home address/phone number is on the letter, will there be a process to delete this information??

6/16/08  C76   I support UNM being in compliance of all laws. However, I do not support the release of my personal demographic information such as home address, phone/cell, personal email address.  Thank you,

6/16/08  C75  I have a couple of comments with regard to section 7. I can see where that would be fairly difficult in a situation where there is a public records request for say a grant, the request includes accounting information, there may be a number of people who worked/are working on the grant, to notify them in a timely matter could take some time. Perhaps including something about a mechanism to notify people. And what of people who are no longer working on that project and have moved to another position, retired, no longer with the university how are they to be notified. Also, I don't see how the current changes in the policies would allow for the inclusion of any demographic information or contact information.

6/16/08  C74   My two cents on this is that by allowing anyone (Alb. Journal, etc.) to view candidates applications for positions, we will be opening the door to having the Alb. Journal and their readership determining whether or not we had chosen the "right" candidate for a position. As anyone who has participated in a hire search can affirm, the resume (c.v., application) only tell a part of the story. The actual job requirements, the interview process itself and checking references need to be considered with the resume. If we allow these changes to go through we'll then have to open up the rest of the recruiting process to public scrutiny. I think this is a bad move. Not having read the IPRA, I have a hard time understanding the level the university seems willing to go regarding this. Surely the IPRA does not specify the items that these proposed policies have suggested? From my personal standpoint, being a current staff member and former student, I would not want my resume or my grades out for anyone to see. Doesn't FERPA cover the grades? Thanks for seeking our input on this. I'm confident in your ability to represent the staff perspective on this.

6/16/08  C73  Hello,  I think I am with the majority of staff when I say I don't like the idea of lots of personal information being shared with anybody who asks, and I appreciate the Staff Council's attempts to limit to the absolute minimum the amount of data that is given. I will closely follow the outcome of those efforts.  In any case, policy stipulating that all requests are logged is absolutely essential no matter how much data is shared so I'm very glad to see that language being added. I assume that implies positive verification (e.g. photo ID) of the requester?

6/16/08  C72  Greetings, Concerning Policy 3710 Personnel Information Disclosure Policy stating that my application and resume are public record. I strongly disagree, because my application for employment with UNM has personal information that does not belong to the public. Plus I need to be notified when someone has requested "Inspection of Public Records" that relates to my information providing me with the requestor's name (including the name of the organization that they are representing,) address and phone.  Thank you,

6/16/08  C71  What provision will be taken to protect the identity of researchers who work on animals? Given the escalating action taken by animal rights groups, this is alarming as personal and confidential information of researchers will now be available to such action groups. How does the University propose to act as gatekeeper of the records to insure that access to records is strictly for valid legitimate reasons and not fraudulent ones? The person seeking the information and the rationale for why the information is being requested must be made known to the individual whose record is being examined. Why are there special confidentiality requirements for the hiring of a University President? Should not we all be treated equally?

6/12/08  C70  I am very concerned about UNM sharing my application information. It contains much of my personal information such as home address, phone numbers and employment history. I have been stalked in the past and I do not want this information made public. My personal safety depends on it. Also, in light of identity theft, anyone could obtain your past work history, which includes dates and salary information, and really damage your identity and credit. I strongly oppose UNM making this information public and request that as with student information, we make every effort to protect personal information for employees. Thank you for your consideration.

6/3/08  C68  My concern is the availability of employee transcripts as a public record. The policy as written does not address if this is considered public or protected internal information. As I have previously stated, if UNM respects the privacy of its own student's transcripts, as an educational institution, it should extend the same protection to its staff. They are setting themselves up for lawsuits from staff, as we did not give individual authorization for their release to the public. Nor should a blanket statement authorizing public release of these records be a condition of employment. I suggest that, instead of complete transcripts, UNM require that applicants for employment submit a notarized letter from the college registrar's office confirming their major and the successful awarding of a degree. In that way, UNM is assured that any stated degrees are authentic, but the student's course record and grades are protected from public view. This should apply not only to new applicants, but to current employees to protect our privacy. Please also note that transcripts from "older" employees used our social security number as a student ID and that this falls under previously established protections. An additional concern in making employee records available to the public is identity theft. Regardless of the appropriateness of the request, UNM has no control over the information after it is released. Personal information contained in our curriculum vitae could easily end up in the hands of unscrupulous individuals bent on identity theft. In the quest for greater transparency, the regents should not tread on traditional and established policies of personal privacy and seek guidance from the other public universities in the United States. The regents have not performed due diligence on this issue. Thank you.

6/16/08  C67   To Whom It May Concern~ First of all, I appreciate this opportunity to air my comments about the proposed changes to UNM's interpretation of the IPRA. The Attorney General of NM has changed or updated the state IPRA from 2007 (4th Ed.) to 2008 (5th Ed.) version. The 4th edition, the wording is clear that  "... [this] Act is intended to provide the public with access to information about governmental actions -- [and] is a crucial aspect of a functioning democracy." (p. 2, para 1). In his 2007 IPRA Checklist, the Attorney General of NM quotes Presidents Harry Truman and Abraham Lincoln -- "Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix". ~ Truman, & "to help ensure that we maintain...'government of the people, by the people, for the people' ".~ Lincoln (IPRA Compliance Checklist, p. 3) The 5th Ed. of the IPRA of NM begins with this paragraph of explanation (bold print highlighted by me): Access to public records is one of the fundamental rights afforded people in a democracy. Even where there is no statute, a common law right to inspect and copy public records affords members of the public the opportunity to keep a watchful eye on government. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978). As acknowledged by the New Mexico Supreme Court, ?[w]ritings coming into the hands of public officers in connection with their official functions should generally be accessible to members of the public so that there will be an opportunity to determine whether those who have been entrusted with the affairs of government are honestly, faithfully and competently performing their function as public servants.? State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid, 90 N.M. 790, 795, 568 P.2d 1236 (1977) (quoting with approval MacEwan v. Holm, 359 P.2d 413, 420-21 (Or. 1961)). I am neither an appointed or an elected official nor am I an appointed or elected public officer who has official functions entrusted with the affairs of government. I am a hired staff person. None of this wording has to do with me or other hired staff, since the Supreme Court of the State of NM differentiates "public officers" and "official duties" as those on which to "keep a watchful eye".  Hired staff have other criteria by which we must comply. I am insulted that the Regents equate my staff position as equal to theirs (as elected or appointed public officers). I applied for and obtained my position like all other staff at UNM --- NOT by the appointment of a public officer or an elected official as they have.

6/17/08  C66  I understand that the University is seeking to make operations as transparent as possible to the public.  I do not agree, however, that this policy change means the general public needs to know where staff and faculty members and their families live, and what their personal phone numbers are.  I support any staff council proposal which LIMITS public access to staff and faculty information, specifically including personal phone numbers, SSNs and home addresses. I know I am not in the minority when I say that I dislike giving my personal information to anyone, and only gave it to UNM so that I could obtain employment.  I would expect UNM to keep that information private and hold the university accountable to do so.  I beleive it is not solely ourselves the staff and faculty are worried about, but our families as well.  Many of us have spouses or other family members in sensitive positions and would not want malicious individuals to gain information they could use to find our family members.  Many healthcare professionals do not even have their last names shown on their ID tags. Thanks for taking the time to consider these thoughts.

6/17/08  C65  I think disclosure of a UNM employee's personal information is a bad idea. Anything other than my name and salary should be confidential. Employees of UNM should have the same rights to protection of personal information that our students have. We should be able to keep our information confidential if we wish. What ever penalties apply to the staff for revealing confidential student information should apply to the University and Board of Regents for revealing our information.

6/17/08  C64   Dear Policy Folks:  It is admirable that UNM is attempting to comply with the requirement that public institutions have transparent data and systems available for public scrutiny.  However, the intent of this public scrutiny guarantee is to provide a watchdog function over the finances, management systems and actions of public institutions funded by taxpayer dollars - not to provide garden-variety wackos and potential identity thieves with the means to carry out nefarious intent toward individual employees of public institutions.  It seems somewhat ironic that the university would be both passing policies designed to ever-more-thoroughly protect any remote semblance of personal information pertaining to students, and simultaneously passing policies that would severely compromise the security of the personal information of university employees.  Surely these two intentions cannot co-exist without causing some cognitive dissonance.  Please accept the attached Staff Council resolution on this subject as my request a) that this Staff Council policy resolution be passed; b) that the staff comments to be found at: http://www.unm.edu/~ubppm/comments.htm be forwarded to the UNM president and regents; and c) that the UNM president and regents act as quickly as possible to protect the personal information of UNM employees. Thank you very much for your assistance with this matter.

6/17/08  C63 Greetings:  I consider it extremely important that home phone numbers and especially home addresses not be given out. Let's look at this way--if a stalker got the information this way, through UNM, and used that information to perform an illegal action, UNM would be leaving itself open to legal action. 

6/17/08 C62   Hello, I just wanted to share my concerns with regards to this issue of allowing my private information to be released at the drop of a hat. I am greatly astonished that this would even be considered by this University.  And feel that this is something being done without regard for the faculty and staff that work here.  I am definitely against releasing of any personal information. And do not and have not authorized anyone to release my private information.  My family lives in a rural area and have had constant struggles keeping our road side mailbox from unscrupulous people who keep trying to get to our mail.  After 2 years of  having our mailbox cut up, shot up, locks cut off, and our boxes just disappear, we were finally able to get the US Postal Department to install cluster boxes to help keep our mail safe.  This goes to show you the extreme measures these people will take to get to your information.  So why would an honest, upstanding, citizen in our community want to know all my private or anyone's private information?  Only criminals or people with bad intentions would want to know this information.  Don't we have enough identity theft in this  country creating havoc without this University adding to it.  We will no doubt be at the mercy of any criminals.  Because the are allowed internet access while in prison.  Don't we have enough criminals already getting ahead at the expense of honest citizens, without this making it easier for them.  The Police are already over burden  with daily crimes.  Our identity thefts will be  on the back burner.  I have no problem in releasing information, when it requested as with medical records.  Why would anyone need to know my personal information? It is not relevant to the daily operations of this University. But to just make it available to anyone, because someone said to, is an unreasonable and an unjustified demand. This is a time bomb just waiting to explode! Thank you. 

6/17/08  C61 I feel that these policies harm our privacy and it can potentially be used to physically harm us as well.  What if I were a survivor of domestic violence and I was stalked by my abuser?  If they get a hold of my private information I could be found by the abuser and could possibly be killed.  Please take this into consideration. Thank You,

6/17/08 C60    To The Regents:   I am a staff member and I do not under any circumstances, want any of my personal or confidential information published to the public.  This proposal is the worse violation of my Privacy Rights.  In the world of "Identify Theft"  this published personal information would be a complete disaster! When I started with the University, I was told, my personal information would not be disclosed to the public.  I don't understand, why do these people think our personal information is okay to be disclosed to the public? Thank you for allowing us to respond.

6/17/08  C59  I agree with the councils recommendations however  if a request is made for information what is considered a timely manner in notifying the employee If a request is made for this information will the information be given to the requestor-  if that is the case - timely manner becomes that much more important. Will the employee be told who the requestor was or just that a request was made. Thanks for allowing us time to give feedback 

6/17/08  C58   As another comment pointed out, many families in Northern New Mexico have ties to the National Labs (LANL and Sandia).  Several members of my immediate family hold high security jobs, and as such we closely guard our personal information so that we can't be easily found - for a variety of reasons related to these positions.  And on a personal level, I enjoy the privacy that having my phone number unlisted and personally regulating who knows my home address has afforded me.  The thought that anybody could find me on a whim is disconcerting at best.

6/16/08  C57  I do not like the idea that all of the information about me would become a public record, especially SS numbers etc..    Also I do not like the idea that one's job application would become a public record. I am against the change in the policy.  

6/16/08  C56  To Whom It May Concern: I don't like the idea of my information (private or not) being available to anyone and everyone.  I don't think just anyone should have access to my information for no justifiable reason.  If there is a reason for someone to have information then that can be accessible to them by me, and, not to sound too paranoid, there are way too many mentally deficient people in the world to give everyone access to personal, if not private, information. 

6/16/08 C55  There are companies whose sole purpose is to "mine" records which then can be repackaged and sold to both legitimate and unscrupulous companies. Releasing too much information could lead to disastrous consequences, unforseen by even the most careful of employers. I don't want to see my personal information available to anyone at any time. But as you well know, this is a problem that can only get worse, not better. Once Pandora's box is opened, we'd better be prepared for the consequences.  Best regards and thanks for fighting for our privacy.

6/13/08  C54   Hi, this line "request for public records has been issued on their behalf," implies that a public issue request has been made by the University for the affected person's benefit. I think that based on the rest of the email, the message being conveyed is that a request for public records about the staff member has been made by an outside agent. Also I would like to know who made that request as well as what specific request was made.

6/16/08  C53   I would like to voice my strong dissent to the proposed revision to the above referenced policy that would make personnel resumes or curricula vitae public information.  Speaking for myself, when I put forth my resume for my employment here, I was not informed at that time that all of the information contained in my resume could be deemed "Public Information".  Any outside need to verify this level of an individual's personnel information (essentially their life history) without that individual's permission should be subject to due process. 

6/13/08  C52  I am against allowing the "press" access to my personal information by accessing it through my application and resume.  Like many of the council members expressed, this is a violation of the privacy act and allows anyone access to my SS#, my maiden name, etc.  things that will make identity theft a possibility.  Who will stop this information from being taken from this institution and being published on the internet?  What happens if by doing this the University endangers the lives of even 1 employee from an act of violence by an estranged spouse/partner/co-worker?  Once the information is public - there is no way of controlling what happens. Thanks for letting me sound off - someone really needs to think aboutthis before it becomes policy. Maybe the other employees in the department should be required to listen to this - we do all need to ban together to let the Board of Regents know that we are not going to support this abuse of our trust – to protect our identity while we serve this institution.

6/13/08 C51  My privacy concern involves the consent each staff member signed when applying for a job at UNM. The consent form gave the employer the right to call references and perform any background checks. The form did not give the employer the right to publish the application, resume, etc. Although, I have no reason to believe my little resume is of interest to anyone in the public, my privacy is an eroding civil right. I don't think I should be subject to information fishing by would be marketers or other who might take a notion to use my private information and history.

6/9/08 C23  Some comments concerning the Regents' actions regarding the Inspection of Public Records Act and "Transparency": The many fine comments and concerns about the SUBSTANCE of the proposed policies reveals many flaws in the PROCESS that got us to this point. I hope that the "...task force composed of representatives from key UNM constituencies and outside counsel ..." will remind the BOR that the consultative and collaborative information gathering process is a necessary FIRST step in policy formation, not an optional LAST step.  The PROCESS pushed forward by Regent Koch in this instance and many others is antithetical to "transparency" and open government. It is the opposite of informed decision making. What looked at first like a "Railroad" became instead a "trainwreck". Why? Because of poor leadership from the BOR. It is an example of what is wrong with the BOR and why the faculty and staff are increasingly distrusting and contemptuous of the BOR, and particularly of Regent Koch.  In this instance, and many others, important policies are quickly formulated without meaningful input from informed and concerned parties. Regent Koch expresses impatience and contempt for the time it takes for change to happen at UNM. At the 5/28/08 BOR meeting, after the "delay" in approving UBPPM changes to gather input, Regent Koch said something like: "O.K., we'll wait the required time, then we will pass this policy." That arrogance is not useful and is unwelcome. At BOR meetings, drafts of policies are not distributed to others than the Regents. Sometimes the Regents' Book has several empty sections with the note "Will be distributed at meeting". In the case of "Reports", nothing written is ever distributed, and the minutes reflect just that "Vice-President X presented a report about Y". If the Faculty Senate can publish it's agenda with hyperlinks to pertinent materials, why can't the Regents? Why can't the public have time to read and digest the proposals? We are told that handing out copies of everything to everyone who attends is "wasteful", so, if you want a copy, just go to the BOR staff table and ask for it. But, you have to know that it EXISTS; this doesn't give time to READ it; you have to be assertive/rude enough to go to the front of the room to ask for it; this doesn't give a copy to everyone who wants or needs one; and this creates an impression that the BOR does not WANT us to be informed or included. The most notable example of this was when President Schmidly presented the budget to the BOR. No one in that room, except the Regents, had a copy of his 4 alternate scenarios. Those 4 alternate scenarios were not available for people to peruse before the meeting. There was no opportunity for public comment on the budget at the BOR meeting. Yes, President Schmidly consulted widely about the budget, but there were several provisions in the alternate scenarios that were never publicly discussed at any of those forums. Where was our opportunity for public comment? When President Schmidly's "Goals" were adopted by the BOR last year, they were discussed in Executive Session, but voted on in Public Session. Aren't all other Executive Session topics discussed AND voted on in Executive Session? There was no opportunity for public comment. Shouldn't the public have had a draft of the Goals to review and comment on BEFORE that meeting? Remember, President Schmidly's Goals become OUR goals, too. Further, the BOR does not incorporate full text of written documents that are presented at the meeting into the minutes of that meeting. So, there is no public record of what was presented and what was considered. How transparent is THAT? Until recently, there was no significant accommodation for public comment on BOR actions BEFORE a vote is taken (which is required by the BOR Policy Manual). Now, there is an official nod towards public comment, but the verbal and non-verbal behavior of the BOR President clearly indicates that it is required but not welcome. Regent Koch, wait more than one-half second after asking "Are there any comments from the public?" before moving on. Time is necessary for INFORMED decision making, that gains support because people are INCLUDED in the information gathering. The comments that have come in to the web site reveal several facts: 1. There are NUANCES that no single person, consultant, or even committee can be aware of. Therefore, it is important to have a period of open PUBLIC COMMENT when policy is crafted. 2. There is EXPERTISE among UNM faculty, staff, and students that can and should be incorporated into the process of formulation of policy. We learn things from listening to each other. We may have the smartest consultants and Regents in the nation, but none of them is smarter than all of us. 3. When people are INCLUDED in the information gathering process, they are more likely to support the outcome. No one challenges the authority of the Regents and the President to make and implement policy. But when that decision making is un-impeded by inclusion and information gathering, then the authority loses its credibility. Policy then becomes mere rhetoric, "leaders" become angry that no one is following, and followers become suspicious of authority. In relationships and organizations, and particularly in New Mexico, people will resort to passive-aggressive behavior, and even to sabotaging leadership, when they are dis-empowered or discounted. 4. It is surely a worthwhile goal for UNM to be run like a business, if by that is meant that organization, policy, structure, resources, leadership and decisions are SUPPORTIVE of the people who are central to achieving the mission and goals of the organization. But, if the model of business is like a sole proprietor, (for example, and insurance agency) where the boss says "It's my business, it's my money, I am the only one who stands to gain or lose, so I get to make the rules", then, no, UNM is NOT a "business" in that sense. 5. Why is it that meeting after meeting of the BOR shows NO reports from the various committees of the BOR? Why are not the committees given the responsibility to review and recommend policy initiatives? Why does it go directly from a consultant to the BOR? 6. It is laudable that the BOR invites alumni, staff, faculty, parents' , etc. representatives to sit at a table and give their reports, but it would be more meaningful if they were called upon for comment and questions during each substantive policy discussion. Why are they there? Surely to represent their organizations and constituents regarding substantive issues?

5/30/08 C19  I'm emailing because I am rather concerned about the implications of opening faculty records to the public. Beyond the obvious concerns related to personal information, there are at least two potential points of concern (but probably more) from our perspective that would seem to me to put faculty at risk unnecessarily. The first is that, we have faculty who conduct animal research who are subject to targeting by animal rights activists. Second, and one that affects many of our faculty and graduate students, is related to the need for confidentiality for individuals who provide clinical treatment to clients under the auspices of the university. Although I am not a clinician, I understand that clients may seek to gain information about the therapist or even come to their home in some circumstances. For example individuals who are in prison or in the court system, could gain access to information regarding the therapist (who may also be involved in providing testimony) and then use that information to manipulate or otherwise intimidate the therapist. . In short, I think there are obvious concerns that overlap with those expressed by the faculty in general, as well as some issues that may be more unique to specific departments.

6/3 C15  Will there be a filter for home address and phone numbers? Many physicians (especially psychiatrists, but not exclusively) have had negative experiences from disclosure of such personal information.

6/3/08 C14  I don't have any specific comments regarding your changes to the policies other than the appointment of a Custodian of Public Records. If the job is already being done by someone then there is no need for the President to appoint another overpaid administrator. I would strongly object to another person being hired into the upper levels of management especially when staff are getting a 2% raise.

6/3/08  C13  I would like to insure that the President and the Regents have an opportunity to review Legal Counsel's assessment and, if possible, allow extra time to review th