N.M. Stat. § 10-15-1 (2026)

exceptions and procedures for closed meetings.
    A. In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an
informed electorate, it is declared to be 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 those officers and employees who represent them. The formation of
public policy or the conduct of business by vote shall not be conducted in closed
meeting. All meetings of any public body except the legislature and the courts shall be
public meetings, and all persons so desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to
the deliberations and proceedings. Reasonable efforts shall be made to accommodate
the use of audio and video recording devices.

    B. All meetings of a quorum of members of any board, commission, administrative
adjudicatory body or other policymaking body of any state agency or any agency or
authority of any county, municipality, district or political subdivision, held for the purpose
of formulating public policy, including the development of personnel policy, rules,
regulations or ordinances, discussing public business or taking any action within the
authority of or the delegated authority of any board, commission or other policymaking
body are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, except as
otherwise provided in the constitution of New Mexico or the Open Meetings Act. No
public meeting once convened that is otherwise required to be open pursuant to the
Open Meetings Act shall be closed or dissolved into small groups or committees for the
purpose of permitting the closing of the meeting.

   C. If otherwise allowed by law or rule of the public body, a member of a public body
may participate in a meeting of the public body by means of a conference telephone or
other similar communications equipment when it is otherwise difficult or impossible for
the member to attend the meeting in person, provided that each member participating
by conference telephone can be identified when speaking, all participants are able to
hear each other at the same time and members of the public attending the meeting are
able to hear any member of the public body who speaks during the meeting.

    D. Any meetings at which the discussion or adoption of any proposed resolution,
rule, regulation or formal action occurs and at which a majority or quorum of the body is
in attendance, and any closed meetings, shall be held only after reasonable notice to
the public. The affected body shall determine at least annually in a public meeting what
notice for a public meeting is reasonable when applied to that body. That notice shall
include broadcast stations licensed by the federal communications commission and
newspapers of general circulation that have provided a written request for such notice.

    E. A public body may recess and reconvene a meeting to a day subsequent to that
stated in the meeting notice if, prior to recessing, the public body specifies the date,
time and place for continuation of the meeting and, immediately following the recessed
meeting, posts notice of the date, time and place for the reconvened meeting on or near
the door of the place where the original meeting was held and in at least one other
location appropriate to provide public notice of the continuation of the meeting. Only
matters appearing on the agenda of the original meeting may be discussed at the
reconvened meeting.

    F. Meeting notices shall include an agenda containing a list of specific items of
business to be discussed or transacted at the meeting or information on how the public
may obtain a copy of such an agenda. Except in the case of an emergency or in the
case of a public body that ordinarily meets more frequently than once per week, at least
seventy-two hours prior to the meeting, the agenda shall be available to the public and
posted on the public body's web site, if one is maintained. A public body that ordinarily
meets more frequently than once per week shall post a draft agenda at least seventy-
two hours prior to the meeting and a final agenda at least thirty-six hours prior to the
meeting. Except for emergency matters, a public body shall take action only on items
appearing on the agenda. For purposes of this subsection, "emergency" refers to
unforeseen circumstances that, if not addressed immediately by the public body, will
likely result in injury or damage to persons or property or substantial financial loss to the
public body. Within ten days of taking action on an emergency matter, the public body
shall report to the attorney general's office the action taken and the circumstances
creating the emergency; provided that the requirement to report to the attorney general
is waived upon the declaration of a state or national emergency.

     G. The board, commission or other policymaking body shall keep written minutes of
all its meetings. The minutes shall include at a minimum the date, time and place of the
meeting, the names of members in attendance and those absent, the substance of the
proposals considered and a record of any decisions and votes taken that show how
each member voted. All minutes are open to public inspection. Draft minutes shall be
prepared within ten working days after the meeting and shall be approved, amended or
disapproved at the next meeting where a quorum is present. Minutes shall not become
official until approved by the policymaking body.
   H. The provisions of Subsections A, B and G of this section do not apply to:

        (1)    meetings pertaining to issuance, suspension, renewal or revocation of a
license, except that a hearing at which evidence is offered or rebutted shall be open. All
final actions on the issuance, suspension, renewal or revocation of a license shall be
taken at an open meeting;

       (2)    limited personnel matters; provided that for purposes of the Open
Meetings Act, "limited personnel matters" means the discussion of hiring, promotion,
demotion, dismissal, assignment or resignation of or the investigation or consideration
of complaints or charges against any individual public employee; provided further that
this paragraph is not to be construed as to exempt final actions on personnel from being
taken at open public meetings, nor does it preclude an aggrieved public employee from
demanding a public hearing. Judicial candidates interviewed by any commission shall
have the right to demand an open interview;

       (3)     deliberations by a public body in connection with an administrative
adjudicatory proceeding. For purposes of this paragraph, "administrative adjudicatory
proceeding" means a proceeding brought by or against a person before a public body in
which individual legal rights, duties or privileges are required by law to be determined by
the public body after an opportunity for a trial-type hearing. Except as otherwise
provided in this section, the actual administrative adjudicatory proceeding at which
evidence is offered or rebutted and any final action taken as a result of the proceeding
shall occur in an open meeting;

      (4)     the discussion of personally identifiable information about any individual
student, unless the student or the student's parent or guardian requests otherwise;

      (5)     meetings for the discussion of bargaining strategy preliminary to collective
bargaining negotiations between the policymaking body and a bargaining unit
representing the employees of that policymaking body and collective bargaining
sessions at which the policymaking body and the representatives of the collective
bargaining unit are present;

        (6)    that portion of meetings at which a decision concerning purchases in an
amount exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) that can be made only
from one source is discussed and that portion of meetings at which the contents of
competitive sealed proposals solicited pursuant to the Procurement Code are discussed
during the contract negotiation process. The actual approval of purchase of the item or
final action regarding the selection of a contractor shall be made in an open meeting;

      (7)     meetings subject to the attorney-client privilege pertaining to threatened or
pending litigation in which the public body is or may become a participant;

      (8)    meetings for the discussion of the purchase, acquisition or disposal of real
property or water rights by the public body;
      (9)    those portions of meetings of committees or boards of public hospitals
where strategic and long-range business plans or trade secrets are discussed; and

      (10) that portion of a meeting of the gaming control board dealing with
information made confidential pursuant to the provisions of the Gaming Control Act
[Chapter 60, Article 2E NMSA 1978].

    I. If any meeting is closed pursuant to the exclusions contained in Subsection H of
this section:

        (1)   the closure, if made in an open meeting, shall be approved by a majority
vote of a quorum of the policymaking body; the authority for the closure and the subject
to be discussed shall be stated with reasonable specificity in the motion calling for the
vote on a closed meeting; the vote shall be taken in an open meeting; and the vote of
each individual member shall be recorded in the minutes. Only those subjects
announced or voted upon prior to closure by the policymaking body may be discussed
in a closed meeting; or

      (2)     if a closure is called for when the policymaking body is not in an open
meeting, the closed meeting shall not be held until public notice, appropriate under the
circumstances, stating the specific provision of the law authorizing the closed meeting
and stating with reasonable specificity the subject to be discussed is given to the
members and to the general public.

    J. Following completion of any closed meeting, the minutes of the open meeting
that was closed or the minutes of the next open meeting if the closed meeting was
separately scheduled shall state that the matters discussed in the closed meeting were
limited only to those specified in the motion for closure or in the notice of the separate
closed meeting. This statement shall be approved by the public body under Subsection
G of this section as part of the minutes.

History: 1953 Comp., § 5-6-23, enacted by Laws 1974, ch. 91, § 1; 1979, ch. 366, § 1;
1989, ch. 299, § 1; 1993, ch. 262, § 1; 1997, ch. 190, § 65; 1999, ch. 157, § 1; 2013, ch.
42, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 2013 amendment, effective June 14, 2013, required agendas to be available to the
public seventy-two hours prior to a public meeting; required the attorney general to
review a public body’s action on emergency matters; in Subsection F, in the second
sentence, after "emergency", added "or in the case of a public body that ordinarily
meets more frequently than once per week, at least seventy-two hours prior to the
meeting" and after "available to the public", deleted "at least twenty-four hours prior to
the meeting" and added "and posted on the public body’s web site, if one is
maintained", and added the third and fifth sentences; in Paragraph (6) of Subsection H,
after "from one source", added "is discussed"; in Paragraph (1) of Subsection I, at the
beginning of the first sentence, added "the closure"; and in Paragraph (2) of Subsection
I, at the beginning of the sentence, after "if", added "a closure is" and after "in an open
meeting", added "the closed meeting".

The 1999 amendment, effective June 18, 1999, rewrote Paragraph H(9) which read:
"those portions of meetings of committees or boards of public hospitals that receive less
than fifty percent of their operating budget from direct public funds and appropriations
where strategic and long-range business plans are discussed; and".

The 1997 amendment, effective June 20, 1997, in Subsection H, added Paragraph (10)
and made minor stylistic changes at the end of Paragraphs (8) and (9).

The 1993 amendment, effective June 18, 1993, in Subsection B, inserted
"administrative adjudicatory body" near the beginning of the first sentence; added
Subsections C, E, F, and J, redesignating the remaining subsections accordingly and
making a related reference change in present Subsections H and I; added Paragraphs
(3) and (4) to Subsection H, redesignating the remaining paragraphs accordingly; added
the language beginning "and that portion of meetings" to the end of the first sentence of
present Paragraph (6) and substituted "or final action regarding the selection of a
contractor shall" for "is to" in the second sentence of that paragraph; in Subsection I,
inserted "and the subject to be discussed" and "with reasonable specificity" in
Paragraph (1) and deleted "the closed meetings" following "in an open meeting" and
inserted "and stating with reasonable specificity the subject to be discussed" in
Paragraph (2); and made stylistic changes in Subsection B and Subsections D, G, H,
and I.

                          I.     GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Purpose of the Open Meetings Act is to open the meetings of governmental bodies to
public scrutiny by allowing public attendance at such meetings, not to unduly burden the
appropriate exercise of governmental decision-making and ability to act. Gutierrez v.
City of Albuquerque, 1981-NMSC-061, 96 N.M. 398, 631 P.2d 304.

The doctrine of res judicata applies to claimed violations of the Open Meetings Act.
Anaya v. City of Albuquerque, 1996-NMCA-092, 122 N.M. 326, 924 P.2d 735, cert.
denied, 122 N.M. 194, 922 P.2d 576.

Record of meeting. — Duly approved, written minutes of a policy making body can be
sufficient to constitute an official transcript for review and duly approved and executed
resolutions of a policy-making body can appropriately serve as a statement of the legal
and factual basis for the body's decision. Village of Angel Fire v. Wheeler, 2003-NMCA-
041, 133 N.M. 421, 63 P.3d 524, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 413, 63 P.3d 516.

Election of officers did not require a record of how voters voted. — Where
defendants installed a new headgate on the association’s acequia system without
obtaining the approval of the association or the mayordomo; the mayordomo and a
commissioner, on behalf of the association, obtained a temporary restraining order
prohibiting defendants from continuing work on the ditch; defendants claimed that the
association’s meeting to elect officers violated the Open Meeting Act, Chapter 10,
Article 15 NMSA 1978, because the minutes of the meeting did not record how each
member voted as required by 10-15-1(G) NMSA 1978 and that consequently, the
commissioner and the mayordomo were not properly elected as officers and lacked
standing to file the petition for injunction on behalf of the association; in the
association’s practice, each person meeting the voter requirements of 73-2-14 NMSA
1978 was accorded one vote; and the voters did not represent others, they represented
their own interests in the ditch, the election of the commissioner and the mayordomo
was not void because the purpose of recording the "yeas and nay’s" of votes as
required by 10-15-1(G) NMSA 1978 was not relevant where the recording of the votes
would not serve the purpose of greater accountability. Parkview Cmty. Ditch Ass’n v.
Peper, 2014-NMCA-049.

To "attend and listen," as used in Subsection A, means that persons desiring to
attend shall have the opportunity to do so, that no one will be systematically excluded or
arbitrarily refused admittance, and that the meeting will not be "closed" to the public.
Gutierrez v. City of Albuquerque, 1981-NMSC-061, 96 N.M. 398, 631 P.2d 304.

                                II.    APPLICABILITY.

City-owned utility. — A city-owned electric utility corporation is a governmental board
within a statute that requires the governing bodies of municipalities, etc., and all other
governmental boards and commissions of state or its subdivisions that are supported by
public funds to make all final decisions at meetings open to the public. Raton Pub. Serv.
Co. v. Hobbes, 1966-NMSC-150, 76 N.M. 535, 417 P.2d 32 (decided under prior law).

City board of education. — A city board of education is a policymaking body covered
by the public meeting law. State v. Hernandez, 1976-NMSC-081, 89 N.M. 698, 556 P.2d
1174.

Litigation committee of the New Mexico state investment council. — A litigation
committee, acting under the delegated authority of the New Mexico state investment
council (NMSIC) to settle legal matters, was subject to the Open Meetings Act because
the committee was intended to be a policy-making body and its meetings were for the
purpose of taking an action within the authority of the NMSIC. N.M. State Inv. Council v.
Weinstein, 2016-NMCA-069, cert. denied.

Working group authorized to negotiate development agreement not subject to the
Open Meetings Act. — In consolidated appeals arising from petitioners' collective
opposition to the development of the proposed Santolina planned community on
Albuquerque's west side mesa in Bernalillo county, where the Bernalillo county board of
county commissioners (board) approved a master plan for the development of the
Santolina community, a zone map amendment which rezoned the land from rural
agricultural to planned community zoning, and a development agreement between
Bernalillo county and the owners of the land at issue, and where petitioners claimed the
development agreement was negotiated and approved in violation of the Open
Meetings Act, the district court did not err in dismissing petitioners' claim on the grounds
that the development agreement was not subject to the Open Meetings Act, because
the working group that drafted the development agreement had no authority to act in a
way that could bind the board to any action or decision it negotiated or developed;
rather, the working group drafted the development agreement in order for it to be
handed off to the board, and it was subsequently the Board, not the working group, that
heard public comments on the draft prior to its vote to approve the development
agreement. Benavidez v. Bernalillo Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 2021-NMCA-029, cert.
denied.

The New Mexico activities association is subject to the Open Meetings Act. — By
the plain language of the statute, § 22-2-2(L) NMSA 1978, mandates that the public
education department shall require an association or organization attempting to regulate
a public school activity to comply with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, and the
public education department, in its rules, has officially designated the New Mexico
activities association, which establishes rules for the organization, regulation and
enforcement of interscholastic activities for its member schools, as such an association
that is subject to the Open Meetings Act. Committees and subcommittees, acting under
the authority of the New Mexico activities association, are also bound by the Open
Meetings Act. 2025 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 25-12.

Tribal libraries and nonprofit libraries are not state agencies or political
subdivisions of the state and are therefore not subject to the Open Meetings Act.
— The Open Meetings Act applies to all meetings of a quorum of members of any
board, commission, administrative adjudicatory body or other policymaking body of any
state agency or any agency or authority of any county, municipality, district or political
subdivision, and therefore tribal libraries, which are not state agencies or political
subdivisions of the state or of a county, municipality, or district but are strictly under the
control and management of the tribal government, and nonprofit libraries, which are also
not state agencies or public bodies but are generally charitable organizations, are not
subject to the Open Meetings Act. 2025 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 25-06.

The child protective services task force is not a public body subject to the Open
Meetings Act. — The Open Meetings Act applies to any "public body" and this section
provides that the Open Meetings Act applies to all meetings of a quorum of members of
any board, commission, administrative adjudicatory body or other policymaking body of
any state agency or any agency or authority of any county, municipality, district or
political subdivision. The child protective services task force, which was created by a
house joint memorial during the 2019 legislative session for the purpose of making
recommendations to generally improve the safety and well-being of children in the care
of the child protective services system, is not subject to the Open Meetings Act,
because it is not a policymaking entity as it holds a purely advisory role and exists only
to make recommendations to real policymakers. Applicability of Open Meetings Act to
Child Protective Services Task Force (1/30/20), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2020-01.
Applicability of the Open Meetings Act to volunteer nursing board advisory
committees. — The Open Meetings Act, 10-15-1 to 10-15-4 NMSA 1978, applies to a
quorum of members of any board or commission or other policy making body of any
state agency held for the purpose of formulating public policy or taking any action within
the authority of, or the delegated authority of, any board or commission or other
policymaking body, and therefore, meetings of a volunteer advisory committee
appointed by the nursing board to provide advice and recommendations to the nursing
board on various topics would not implicate the Open Meetings Act, unless the advisory
committee includes among its members a quorum of the nursing board, in which case
the committee meeting would need to be noticed as a public meeting and the minutes
would need to be taken, and any minutes that are taken must be open to public access.
Use of Volunteers at the New Mexico State Board of Nursing (11/26/18), Att'y Gen. Adv.
Ltr. 2018-09.

                                  III.   EXCEPTIONS.

Meetings with attorney. — Subsection H(7) does not apply only when a public body
has already become involved in litigation or has been informed it will likely become
involved. Also, it does not require that a decision regarding litigation be made in an
open meeting. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Ogden, 1994-NMCA-010, 117 N.M. 181, 870
P.2d 143, cert. denied, 117 N.M. 215, 870 P.2d 753.

Settlement agreements entered into between parties are outside the attorney-client
privilege, and therefore Paragraph (7) of Subsection H of this section has no bearing on
their disclosure. Board of Comm'rs v. Las Cruces Sun-News, 2003-NMCA-102, 134
N.M. 283, 76 P.3d 36.

Decisions to settle litigation may be made in a closed meeting. — A litigation
committee, acting under the delegated authority of the New Mexico State Investment
Council to settle legal matters, did not violate the Open Meetings Act (OMA) when it
approved settlement agreements under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, 44-9-1 to 44-
9-14 NMSA 1978, in private meetings, but because the litigation committee failed to
comply with the notice provisions of the OMA, the litigation committee’s approval of the
settlement agreements was invalid. N.M. State Inv. Council v. Weinstein, 2016-NMCA-
069, cert. denied.

Communications regarding limited personnel matters. — In an underlying
enforcement action under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act, 14-2-1 to -
12 NMSA 1978, where plaintiffs made a combined seven written requests of the
Albuquerque public schools (APS) to inspect documents referencing complaints or
allegations of misconduct regarding the former superintendent of APS, the district court
did not err in ordering the non-party appellant to answer plaintiffs' deposition questions,
because appellant failed to identify any privilege, either adopted by the New Mexico
supreme court or recognized under the New Mexico constitution, on which to base her
argument that communications regarding “limited personnel matters” that occur during a
closed public meeting are immune from discovery, and failed to meet her burden of
establishing the essential elements necessary to prove the applicability of the attorney-
client privilege, based on a claimed common interest, to her communications with APS
attorneys. Albuquerque Journal v. Board of Educ., 2019-NMCA-012, cert. granted.

County hospital physician's contract. — The Open Meetings Act was not applicable
to a county hospital’s contract with a physician since the board's bylaws gave authority
to the CEO to enter into employment contracts with his subordinates, the contract was
discussed at a closed-door meeting of the board conducted by the hospital's attorney,
which was proper under the personnel exclusion of the Open Meetings Act. Also, since
it did not appear that any "final actions" were taken by the board on the employment
contracts, there was no action taken, and the Open Meetings Act did not apply. The
contract did not have to be adopted by either the hospital's board or the county
commission in order to be valid. Treloar v. County of Chavez, 2001-NMCA-074, 130
N.M. 794, 32 P.3d 803.

Quorum not required. — Where livestock board's executive director's largely unilateral
action in negotiating with the Forest Service and executing a memorandum of
understanding did not involve a meeting of a quorum of the Board members, the Open
Meetings Act did not apply. Paragon Found., Inc. v. N.M. Livestock Bd., 2006-NMCA-
004, 138 N.M. 761, 126 P.3d 577, cert. denied, 2006-NMCERT-001, 139 N.M.272, 131
P.3d 659.

                          IV.    GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

Reasonable public access required. — A governmental entity must allow reasonable
public access for those who wish to attend and listen to its proceedings. Gutierrez v.
City of Albuquerque, 1981-NMSC-061, 96 N.M. 398, 631 P.2d 304.

Meeting with overflow crowd qualifies as open and public. — When the size of a
crowd exceeds the capacity of the meeting place and every effort is made to allow those
who cannot gain entrance to listen to the proceedings, the requirements of this article
are satisfied and the meeting qualifies as both open and public. Gutierrez v. City of
Albuquerque, 1981-NMSC-061, 96 N.M. 398, 631 P.2d 304.

Restrictions on public's right to speak at open meetings. — The Open Meetings Act
does not require a county commission to allow the public to speak at its meetings.
However, the commission in this case had an intentional practice and tradition of
allowing public comment at its meetings, and it failed to identify a significant government
interest justifying the prohibition of plaintiff's speech at a commission meeting.
Therefore, the district courts order of summary judgment in favor of the commissioners
was reversed. Mesa v. White, 197 F.3d 1041 (10th Cir. 1999).

                                     V.     NOTICE.

Notice reasonable. — Where notice of the meeting at which a board adopted
regulations under the Environmental Improvement Act was mailed at least 10 days prior
to the scheduled date to 64 individuals, committees and organizations (including the
appellant who had and exercised the opportunity to appear at two preliminary meetings
at which evidence was taken regarding the proposed regulations), the notice of these
preliminary meetings was published in nine newspapers, a news release was issued on
April 16, 1974, giving the time and place of the April 19 meeting and stating that the
board would take action on proposed regulations for solid waste and New Mexico's
ambient air standard for sulfur dioxide, notice of the meeting, citing a U.P.I. release,
appeared in two other papers on April 18, 1974, and April 17, 1974, respectively, and
moreover, April 19 was the regular monthly meeting date for the board, it was held that
all of these efforts by the board constituted reasonable notice to the public within the
meaning of this subsection. N.M. Mun. League, Inc. v. N.M. Envtl. Imp. Bd., 1975-
NMCA-083, 88 N.M. 201, 539 P.2d 221, cert. denied, 88 N.M. 318, 540 P.2d 248.

The "reasonable specificity" requirement for meeting agendas does not
necessarily require the state ethics commission to name the target of an ethics
investigation when considering the initiation of a civil action. — The State Ethics
Commission Act, 10-16G-1 to 10-16G-16 NMSA 1978, provides that in situations where
the state ethics commission is considering initiating an enforcement action but has not
yet found probable cause, records of the alleged ethics violations shall not be disclosed
and the matter shall remain confidential until the commission makes its decision, and
therefore the "reasonable specificity" requirement for meeting agendas set forth in
Subsection I of this section does not necessarily require the state ethics commission to
name the target of the ethics investigation in an agenda or notice of meeting. 2025 Op.
Att'y Gen. No. 25-01.

                          VI.    CORRECTION OF ERRORS.

Reinstatement of termination proceedings after initial ones defective. — Where
the original termination proceedings against a teacher were reversed based upon a
procedural defect (failure to comply with this article), the school board was entitled to
reinstate terminational proceedings, correct the procedural defect, and rely upon the
same alleged acts of misconduct that had been relied upon in the original proceedings.
Board of Educ. v. Sullivan, 1987-NMSC-062, 106 N.M. 125, 740 P.2d 119.

Correction of procedural error. — A local school board's procedural error in, following
private deliberations, issuing its written decision affirming a teacher's dismissal without
convening an open meeting and without a public announcement of the vote, may be
corrected by holding a prompt public meeting, affording the teacher an opportunity to be
present, and publicly voting on and ratifying its decision. Kleinberg v. Board of Educ.,
1988-NMCA-014, 107 N.M. 38, 751 P.2d 722.

Corrective action taken thirty months after procedural error was valid. — Where
the New Mexico State Investment Council (NMSIC) ratified settlement agreements
approved by a litigation committee, which violated the Open Meetings Act when acting
under the delegated authority of the NMSIC, the NMSIC’s ratification of the settlements
in a properly-noticed public meeting, which included a public agenda, was open to the
public, was publicly voted on by a quorum of the NMSIC, and the minutes of which were
published online, was sufficient to remedy the litigation committee’s improper action,
because the legislature did not intend to unduly burden the appropriate exercise of
governmental decision-making and ability to act. N.M. State Inv. Council v. Weinstein,
2016-NMCA-069.

Moot claim not vacated. — Although the drug-testing policy in issue was replaced,
making the claim under this act moot on appeal, the city is not entitled to vacate the trial
court's judgment on that claim. 19 Solid Waste Dep't Mechanics v. City of Albuquerque,
76 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 1996).

Mutual domestic water association is a public body and must comply with the Open
Meetings Act. 2006 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 06-02.

Dental hygiene committee must comply fully with the Open Meetings Act. 1987 Op.
Att'y Gen. No. 87-82.

Intercommunity water supply association. — An association composed solely of two
incorporated villages for purposes of securing an adequate and economic supply of
water for the residents of the villages was a public body subject to the Open Meetings
Act, particularly in light of the considerable public authority the association had over the
creation, maintenance and distribution of the water to the two villages. 1991 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 91-07.

Denial to citizen of right to address board. — A local school board president has
authority to deny citizens the right to address the local school board during a meeting of
the board, if he is authorized to do so by rules promulgated by the board and he does
not exercise that authority arbitrarily or capriciously. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-26.

All stages to be open. — All stages of the meetings must be open to the public
because if the body were allowed to conduct a closed meeting in the determination of a
matter, and then merely open the meeting to the public and announce its decision, the
clear intent of the legislature would be defeated. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-105
(decided under prior law).

Decisions made by telephone, etc. — Final decisions made by telephone, mail or
telegraph are not made at a meeting open to the public within the meaning of the act. A
clear intention of the words "meeting open to the public" is to provide a situation where
all of the attending members of the board or commission assembled together arrive at
final decisions and determinations in such a manner as to allow the press and the
general public to be present. Any other interpretation would defeat the legislative intent
of the statute. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-105 (decided under prior law).

A county commission may not, consistently with this article, approve purchases by
telephone. When it approves purchases, a county commission is conducting public
business and taking official action. Therefore, to be valid, this action must be taken by
the commissioners acting as a body at a meeting open to the public and according to
the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. 1991 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 91-12.

Recording and broadcasting of meetings. — News reporters may record public
meetings and may later broadcast those recordings, if the recording process does not
effectively interfere with certain legitimate governmental interests such as the need to
provide for order, decorum, etc. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-10 (decided under prior
law).

Notice of meetings. — Notice must be posted in a timely manner prior to the
anticipated meeting. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-29.

The reasonable notice standard contained in the Open Meetings Act involves an
analysis of its substance and procedure, and no hard and fast rule can be applied to
what constitutes "reasonable notice" under the Act. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-29.

Procedurally, it is acceptable to post notice in a prominent location like city hall or in the
county courthouse. However, where notice has been posted in a prominent location but
the public is denied access, such notice is defective and therefore not reasonable. 1990
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-29.

It is recommended that public policy-making bodies post notice at least 10 days prior to
regular meetings, three days prior to special meetings and as practicable for emergency
meetings. However, emergency meetings called with little or no notice must involve
issues which, if not addressed immediately by a policy-making body, will threaten the
health, safety or property of its citizens. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-29.

A violation of the Open Meeting Act's notice provisions must be considered to be
substantial because the act's policy goals and intent cannot be achieved without
sufficient notice. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-29.

Publication in New Mexico register. — A notice of proposed rulemaking in the New
Mexico Register probably would not constitute reasonable notice under the Open
Meetings Act, Sections 10-15-1 to 10-15-4 NMSA 1978, because the register is not
widely circulated and is not readily available to the general public. 1993 Op. Att'y Gen.
No. 93-02.

"Limited personnel matters" exception. — If a public policy-making body desires to
meet in executive session to discuss an individual employee's dismissal, promotion,
resignation, complaint or shortcomings, then such a meeting could properly be closed
pursuant to the "limited personnel matters" exception set forth in Subsection
H(2).Conversely, budgetary discussions and the like, while sometimes tangentially
related to personnel matters, are not to be held behind closed doors. 1990 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 90-28.
Use of proxy votes is not permitted. — The Open Meetings Act does not allow a
member of the New Mexico sentencing commission to use a designee to cast the
member’s vote at a meeting. 2010 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 10-02.

Official acts. — An "official act" for purposes of the Open Meetings Act broadly
encompasses any activity related to an agency’s official business, authority and
responsibilities. 2010 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 10-02.

Sanctions for violations. — Sanctions for violating the Open Meetings Act include
invalidation of agency action, award of attorney fees and costs to plaintiffs who prevail
in a court action to enforce the Open Meetings Act, and criminal penalties. 2010 Op.
Att'y Gen. No. 10-02.

No general right of public sector collective bargaining. — It would be incorrect to
infer that by including a provision allowing closed meetings to discuss strategy
preliminary to collective bargaining negotiations, Paragraph H(5) of this section, the
legislature recognized the general right of public sector collective bargaining. To the
contrary, that provision was enacted only because the legislature specifically had
authorized cities to bargain collectively with transit workers in 3-52-14 to 3-52-16 NMSA
1978. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-41.

The Las Cruces Selection Advisory Committee is a policy-making body for purposes
of the Open Meetings Act. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-27.

Law reviews. — For annual survey of New Mexico law relating to administrative law,
see 13 N.M.L. Rev. 235 (1983).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 101
et seq.

Emergency exception under state law making proceedings by public bodies open to the
public, 33 A.L.R.5th 731.

Attorney-client exception under state law making proceedings by public bodies open to
the public, 34 A.L.R.5th 591.

Pending or prospective litigation exception under state law making proceedings by
public bodies open to the public, 35 A.L.R.5th 113.

Construction and application of exemptions, under 5 USCS § 552b(c), to open meeting
requirement of Sunshine Act, 82 A.L.R. Fed. 465.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies as prerequisite to judicial action to compel
disclosure under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 USC § 552), 112 A.L.R. Fed.
561.
73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 19.