1. A. The department secretary, upon recommendation of the commission, may lease real property on the grounds of any facility and may provide for reasonable access to and egress from the leased property to a private commercial industry for the purpose of establishing and operating a factory for the manufacture and processing of products or to any other commercial industry deemed by the commission to be consistent with the purposes of the Corrections Industries Act.

2. B. Any agreement entered into pursuant to this section shall provide that:

   1. (1) all persons employed in the enterprise, except administrative, supervisory and training personnel, shall be inmates of the facility where the leased property is located who volunteer for employment and who are approved for such employment by the superintendent of that facility;
   2. (2) the enterprise shall at all times observe practices and procedures regarding security as the lease may specify or as the facility superintendent may temporarily stipulate during periods of emergency; and
   3. (3) the enterprise shall be deemed a private enterprise and subject to all laws governing the operation of similar private business enterprises; provided that the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law [Chapter 51 NMSA 1978] shall not apply to inmate employees.

History: Laws 1981, ch. 127, § 13.

ANNOTATIONS

Records arising out of a private entity's performance of a public function and on behalf of a public entity are subject to IPRA. — Where plaintiff, a state inmate, requested records regarding commissary prices for state prisoners, pursuant to the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), 14-2-1 to 14-2-12 NMSA 1978, from defendant, a private corporation contracting with the New Mexico corrections department (NMCD) to operate an inmate commissary program at New Mexico state facilities, based on plaintiff's belief that prices were not set at fair market value, and where, upon receiving no response from defendant, plaintiff filed a complaint to enforce IPRA, and where defendant filed a pretrial motion to dismiss, arguing that defendant was not subject to IPRA because it is a private entity, the district court erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss, because the records sought were public records arising out of defendant's performance of a public function and on behalf of a public entity. Plaintiff established under the facts of the complaint that defendant may be subject to IPRA. Franklin v. Keefe Commissary Network, 2024-NMCA-070.