Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Cadena
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 3/7/2025
SHORT TITLE Appointive Exec. Position & Data
BILL
NUMBER Houe Bill 429
ANALYST Gaussoin
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Relates to House Bills 139, 283, and 497 and Senate Bills 36, 57, and 171.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
New Mexico Attorney General
Commissioner of Public Records
Workforce Solutions Department
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
New Mexico Counties
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 429
House Bill 429 (HB429) repeals a section of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) that
allows colleges and universities to withhold information on college presidential candidates and
creates a new section of the act that requires state agencies, public colleges and universities, and
political subdivisions of the state to publish online the names and resumes of no fewer than three
finalists for an “appointive executive position” at least 10 days before the final decision on
selection. It defines appointive executive position as a nonelected chief executive officer of the
entity but not cabinet secretaries or other political appointees.
It further requires the organization to collect demographic data from applicants and candidates—
including the candidate’s self-reported sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity,
and primary and other languages spoken—and make that data available in the aggregate when
the finalists are announced. Information on each individual would not be disclosed and is exempt
from inspection.
The effective date of this bill is July 1, 2025. Houe Bill 429 – Page 2
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
HB429 requires state agencies, colleges and universities, local governments, and certain other
government organizations to perform additional administrative duties related to hiring for certain
positions. While the bill represents additional work for these organizations, it is likely the costs
for performing those duties can be absorbed within existing budgets. The Office of Attorney
General (NMAG), which consults with agencies on IPRA issues, contends its attorneys would
have to dedicate “substantial” time to answering questions “each time they are hiring for a
covered position;” however, the agency likely has sufficient staff for the additional workload.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Generally, personnel information is exempted from public disclosure but finalists for high-profile
taxpayer-funded jobs are often considered an exception. The Commission of Public Records
notes making finalists’ names and resumes public is a natural extension of the intent of IPRA and
quotes the purpose statement from the act:
Recognizing that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate,
the intent of the Legislature in enacting the Inspection of Public Records Act is to ensure,
and it is declared to be the public policy of this state, that all persons are entitled to the
greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of
public officers and employees. It is the further intent of the Legislature, and it is declared
to be the public policy of this state, that to provide persons with such information is an
essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties
of public officers and employees.
The agency also points out making the information public would eliminate the need for IPRA
inspection requests and repealing the exemption for college presidents puts higher education
institutions “on par” with all other state agencies. However, the agency contends, collecting
demographic data “touches” on Human Rights Act prohibitions:
Requiring demographic data publicly available may allow the public and, possibly,
unsuccessful applicants/candidates to inquire more deeply into the hiring and selection
decisions based upon those employment classifications deemed illegal under the HRA.
The Workforce Solutions Department, like the Commission of Public Records, also raises
concerns about the collection of demographic data:
The collection of demographic data to include self-reported sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation, race, ethnicity, and primary other languages spoken is voluntary and
purported to be released to the public anonymously, but if the applicant pool is small, the
identity of the applicants would be easily detectable. The challenge presented under this
bill would be the ability to protect the data and ensure that it cannot be connected to any
particular applicant.
The department expresses additional concerns about publishing the names of candidates:
Publication of names of applicants or candidates for appointive executive positions could
limit applicants, subjecting candidates to unnecessary public scrutiny for executive
positions. Application information is already available to interested parties through the
IPRA process.
Houe Bill 429 – Page 3
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
This bill relates to House Bills 139, which would repeal the existing IPRA and replace it with a
new act with greater curtailments on information requests; 283, which would amend IPRA to
restrict the the use of law enforcement records; and 497, which would amend IPRA to broaden
exceptions to public disclosure and make it easier for public entities to reject inspection requests.
It also relates to Senate Bills 36, which would restrict the disclosure of sensitive personal
information, including disability, sexual orientation , immigration status or status as a recipient
of public assistance or as a crime victim; 57, which would create protections in IPRA for certain
medical providers; and 171, which would allow county clerks to redact the date of birth, social
security number, and driver’s license number on information on individuals otherwise considered
public under IPRA.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
NMAG raises a number of concerns with what it deems to be lack of clarity in the bill that could
create implementation issues. It notes “state agency” is not defined in the bill, and the definition
provided under state statute on public finances conflicts with the IPRA definition of “public
body.” Further, because the bill includes “political subdivisions,” it clearly applies to counties,
municipalities, and other public boards, but “it is less clear if it applies to a bord or commission
that part of a political subdivision.”
NMAG also contends the definition for “appointive executive position” is open to interpretation
because it refers to the organization’s chief executive office and not all agencies use that title for
their head administrator.
HG/SL2/hj