APS policy committee delays new "Request for Information" rule after debate over timelines and transparency

The Albuquerque Public Schools Policy Committee on Jan. 13 postponed final action on a proposed addition to the APS Board of Education Governance Manual titled Section 4R, “Request for Information Policy and Process,” after extended discussion about language, timelines and how requests from board members would be reviewed.

The proposed policy would set a 20-business-day target for providing requested materials that are "not readily accessible," allow a 30-business-day extension for certain burdensome requests, and add a review step in which the superintendent would share difficult requests with the board executive committee for a determination of appropriateness. Committee members agreed to change inconsistent wording from "readily available" to "readily accessible" and to revisit other language before the policy returns to committee.

Board Member Courtney Jackson, who moved to add Section 4R and led several suggested edits, asked that the draft use a single phrase throughout the document: "I would like to request that up in 4 r 4, where it says readily available, that that terminology be changed to readily accessible so that the phrase the phrasing is consistent throughout the document," Jackson said during the meeting.

Staff raised concerns about how the executive-committee review step would affect response time. Gordon Hawkins, district operations staff, used a hypothetical to illustrate the workload question: "If the question was, like, how many gates have we painted red at the district since 1950? That may not be information that's readily available for us," Hawkins said, arguing that some requests require analysis and may not be suitable for immediate production.

Several board members warned that routing difficult requests to the executive committee could delay responses because the executive committee meets monthly. Board Member Heather Benavides and others also pressed for clear language on how a denied request could be escalated and how the broader board would be notified when a request is brought up for a full-board decision.

Under the draft language discussed, if the superintendent denies or cannot meet the 20-business-day timeline for a request, the requesting board member may email the board president and superintendent to ask that the item be placed on a future board meeting agenda. Committee members debated how the board would determine whether a majority supported placing the item on a board agenda; several members clarified that a majority would be established by a public discussion and vote at a full board meeting when the request appears on the agenda.

Committee members also discussed moving parts of the draft that address requests from constituents, elected officials and the media into Section 4P (community engagement) rather than leaving that language in the RFI policy. The committee noted that language on media inquiries also appears elsewhere in the governance manual and that duplicate text might be redundant, but several members said it would be helpful for journalists and constituents to find media-contact guidance within the RFI section as well.

Procedural actions: Committee members postponed final approval of Section 4R. Board Member Courtney Jackson amended her earlier motion and moved to postpone discussion of 4.1 to the next policy committee meeting; Janelle Astorga seconded the amendment and the committee voted unanimously to postpone. Members then voted 4–1 to postpone action items 4.2 through 4.8 to the February policy committee meeting; Jackson cast the lone no vote on that second postponement.

The policy analyst summarized agreed next steps at the meeting close: update wording from "readily available" to "readily accessible," retain and refine the media-inquiry language (with consideration of moving some text to 4P), and continue drafting for a third read in February. The committee set its next meeting for Feb. 3 at 5:15 p.m. (virtual, APS Board of Education YouTube channel).

The discussion produced detailed clarifying points that the committee directed staff and the ad hoc members to resolve before the next reading, including consistent terminology, transparent escalation and notice procedures for denied requests, and clear timelines for staff responses.