
This story is republished from Source NM as a part of our commitment to bringing you the best in independent news coverage that matters to Albuquerque.
By PATRICK LOHMANN and DANIELLE PROKOP
A significant and growing number of government officials in New Mexico are failing to submit paperwork disclosing their personal finances, despite a state law that opens them up to removal or lawsuits and a recent partnering of two state agencies that aimed to improve the lawโs enforcement.
According to a Source New Mexico review, one or more members of 18 statewide boards and commissions did not submit annual financial disclosure information every year for the last four years. That inaction violated state requirements and prompted referrals for potential fines or lawsuits.
In total, 25 state agencies or boards had top staff or board members who consistently did not file in that four-year period.
Combined, the boards oversee billions in New Mexico taxpayer dollars, manage universities, oversee law enforcement training, and regulate hospitals, museums, gambling and near-space travel, among other important functions.
A spokesperson for the State Ethics Commission said sheโs seen no evidence that non-compliant officials or board members are hiding something or deliberately trying not to disclose conflicts of interest.
The increasing lack of transparency occurs as the New Mexico budget has increased 30% over the last four years, a roughly $3 billion increase since 2019 that coincides with new state agencies and boards created to manage it. Increasingly, state lawmakers are investing budget surpluses into investments or endowments overseen by boards and commissions whose members fall under the Financial Disclosure Act.
Each spring since 2021, the New Mexico Secretary of State has submitted lists of hundreds of statewide government leaders and appointees to prominent boards who did not voluntarily comply with the Financial Disclosure Act. The number of individuals on that list has increased over time.
In 2021, the Secretary of Stateโs Office and the newly created State Ethics Commission joined forces by striking an agreement they hoped would lead to better enforcement of the Financial Disclosure Act.
A 2019 amendment to the law requires legislative candidates and some public officials to publicly file personal financial information about themselves and their spouses, along with real estate holdings and other potential conflicts of interest. Those who fail to file the forms could face disqualification as a candidate or removal from their position, according to the act.
Growing lack of disclosure
# of officials referred by the Secretary of State to the Ethics Commission for the past 4 years:
2021: 85
2022: 154
2023: 118
2024: 176
The agreement requires the Secretary of State to send a notice to a board member or public official who did not file their form by a January deadline, and allow for 10 days for a response. If thereโs no response, the Secretary of Stateโs Office sends the Ethics Commission a list of all non-compliant officials, which is then tasked with seeking compliance or even filing a lawsuit against anyone that continues to flout the law.
Disclosure by the numbers
Since 2021, the Secretary of State failed to get voluntary compliance from 533 officials, according to records the office provided to Source New Mexico. In that time, the office has submitted four lists each containing between 85 and 176 names.
The four lists contained at least 345 names that appeared 533 times. Of them, 16 officials have failed to file every year for the last four years, and 20 officials failed to file three of the last four years, according to a Source New Mexico review.
On the lists are high-ranking officials at state agencies and boards, plus leaders of lesser-known statewide entities like the Miners Colfax Medical Center, the Intertribal Ceremonial Office in Gallup and the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad Commission.
The 18 New Mexico boards where at least one member didnโt file a disclosure every year since 2021*:
- โโBioscience Authority
- Border Authority
- Childrenโs Trust Fund
- Colonias Infrastructure Board
- Employers Mutual Company
- Institute of Mining and Technology
- Law Enforcement Academy Board
- Lottery Authority
- Miners Colfax Medical Center
- Museum of Natural History and Science
- Northern New Mexico College
- Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission
- Parole Board
- Personnel Board
- Spaceport Authority
- State Land Trusts Advisory Board
- Tourism Commission
- Water Trust Board
*according to Source New Mexico review of Secretary of State records
โMaybe people arenโt taking this seriouslyโ
Jane Kirkpatrick, spokesperson for the State Ethics Commission, said Friday the commission, created in 2019 with nine full-time employees, is too short-staffed to go after everyone on the lists. So it prioritizes its enforcement efforts on state agency leaders and board members who oversee โsignificant amounts of state funds.โ
Kirkpatrick said the commission has successfully brought officials into compliance without the need for a lawsuit, though she said the commission has only gone after a small minority of the hundreds of names itโs received for the last four years.
She did not know offhand the exact number of officials it deemed โtargetsโ for enforcement, but she provided an October 2023 commission news release touting its success obtaining disclosures from unnamed officials at the Office of the State Engineer, the State Board of Finance, the State Investment Council and elsewhere.
Still, the number of officials referred by the Secretary of State has increased since 2021, as has the number of boards and commissions with members in violation.
In mid-April of this year, the office sent over a list that contained 176 names, the highest such total since the new process began four years ago.
The commission estimated in October 2023 that 675 officials and candidates statewide are required to file the disclosure forms, meaning at least a quarter of officials statewide failed to disclose in 2024.
State law requires financial disclosures every January from state agency heads and members of boards whose appointments are contingent on state Senate approval.
Statewide legislative candidates are required to file their forms when they file to run for office, typically in March of an election year.
So far, none of the names on the lists provided by the Secretary of State has belonged to a candidate or elected lawmaker. It is unclear based on a review of the Secretary of Stateโs website if thatโs because they all complied with the law or because they somehow evaded the attention of the Secretary of State in its compliance review.
Kirkpatrick said, in her view, none of the officials the Ethics Commission has pursued for violations seemed to be hiding something or deliberately sought to avoid disclosure.
Instead, those the commission has reached out incorrectly thought theyโd filed the disclosure form as required, or they thought they werenโt obligated to file a disclosure.
The Secretary of Stateโs Campaign Finance Information System (CFIS), the online portal where candidates and officials file, can be wonky or hard for filers, she said.
โCFIS has some issues, where people think theyโre filing, and itโs not going through,โ she said. โWeโre calling these people up to get in compliance, and they completely think that theyโre compliant.โ
Kirkpatrick also said the commission regularly encounters officials who donโt seem to take the Financial Disclosure Act seriously, treating more as a โpaperwork processโ than a meaningful effort to provide the public with relevant information about the people who run the government.
โMaybe people arenโt taking this seriously, because we havenโt made them take it seriously, or we havenโt done something more stringent,โ she said.
The commission has endorsed two similar bills in the 2022 and 2023 legislative session that would beef up the requirements for filers, to include additional requirements like disclosure of assets, stock holdings, outstanding debt and gifts received. It would also create criminal penalties and hefty fines.
Both bills failed.
In January of 2023, the city of Albuquerque adopted its own version of the Financial Disclosure Act, drawing heavily from the failed legislation, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
In many ways, Albuquerque adopting those principles made it a โa model in the area of financial disclosure law,โ Jeremy Farris, the executive director of the state Ethics Commission, told city councilors at the time.
The current state law, while somewhat easy to ignore, is also ambiguous in some respects.
For example, candidates for district attorney are not required to file disclosures, even though their incumbent opponents are required. Also, itโs not clear who enforces disclosure rules when it comes to some state boards and commissions, including the Water Quality Control Commission, when they have additional requirements to disclose under the law.
โA lot of people are realizing that some of our statutes are not as clear as we would like them to be,โ Kirkpatrick said. โAnd theyโre not as stringent as they could be.โ


