PARTTIME RTH Peer ieL Petr HTT STATE OF NEW MEXICO SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT : COUNTY OF SIERRA STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. DEBORAH TOOMEY, an individual, Plaintiff, No. D-0721-CV2009-98 vs. _ | HON, WILLIAM SANCHEZ, CITY OF TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES, etal. : Defendants. AFFIDAVIT OF DEBORAH TOOMEY COMES NOW Deborah Toomey and states as follows: 1. Lam the plaintiff in the above-captioned Inspection of Public Reconts Act enforcement action. 2. The June 19, 2008, IPRA response from City included as Exhibit 4 to the Response to Complaint is in response to an IPRA request made by Plaintiff on June 13, 2008, for three months of audit logs specifically on the application cards. Exhibit A. : 3. City is well aware that Exhibit 4 is not a “follow up” to the May 28, AFFIDAVIT OF DEBORAH TOOMEY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DAMAGES ‘Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences — 040721-CV2009-98 Page 1PARTTIME RTH Peer ieL Petre 2008, IPRA request contrary to their claim in the Response to Complaint. Response to Complaint, p. 52. City specifically refers to the June 19, 2008, letter as a response to the June 13, 2008, IPRA gequest, an IPRA request not under enforcement. Petition, Ex. K 3. 4. When I requested per IPRA an June 13, 2008, to visually inspect the audit log for the application cards for a three-month period, it was to determine whether my public servants were “honestly, faithfully and competently performing their duties.” Specifically, I suspected the City was not auditing the application cards, and I expected a response no audit lpg for the application cards exist. 5. Instead of a simple “no records exist” response, Ms. Garcia insinuated an application card audit log existed but just “not ... for the months you are requesting.” The response even went so far as to describe what issues would require logging. Response to Complaint, Ex. 4. 6. Inthe November 10, 2011, Garcia Affidavit filed with City’s Reply to Supplement, Ms. Garcia clearly affirms the “City Utility Office has and wtlizes [an] Application Audit Log.” A full description of the many events which are loggod is enumerated in detail Vet, upon request on December 5, 2011, to inspect the application audit log described as utlided by City, “the City is unaware” of its existence. AFFIDAVIT OF DEBORAIL-TOOMEY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DAMAGES Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences — D-0721-CV2099-98. Page 2,PAAR PH RPT IARC Perey Perr 7. Recognizing IPRA is about “fhe greatest possible information on the affairs of government,” and not simply handing over pieces of paper, the information that “no records exist” can offen be “the greatest possible information on the affairs of government.” 8. Ican only surmise the reason Ms. Garcia clearly claimed in November 2011 that an application audit log exists —rhen it does not—is to protect herself, upon resignation from City employ in November 2011, from the potential of federal charges in failing to maintain an audit log on all systems of records which contain SSN, such as the application cards. Since Ms. Garcia clearly affirmed the application audit log exists, and City accepted these documents and utilized them as exhibits in litigation, Ms. Garcia can eapily claim someone must have destroyed them since her employment ended with cay but she definitely followed the law and had an audit log on the application cauds and here’s the document to prove it.! 9. City claiming records do not exist when they do—and claiming records do exist when they don’t—are notjisolated incidents to this action. 10. City requested this Court to oe judicial notice of Sierra County Cause No. CV-2009-159, Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, and that similarly to this action, Petitioner was requesting records that did not exist— } While Ms. Garcia no longer works for City, shejis now employed with the New Mexico State Veterans Home, administered by Mayor Lori Montgomery. AFFIDAVIT OF DEBORAH TOOMEY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DAMAGES “Toomey v. Cy of Truth or Consequences ~ D-0721-CV2009-98 Page 3