A. No resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance or action of any board, commission, committee or other policymaking body shall be valid unless taken or made at a meeting held in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-15-1 NMSA 1978. Every resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance or action of any board, commission, committee or other policymaking body shall be presumed to have been taken or made at a meeting held in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-15-1 NMSA 1978.
B. All provisions of the Open Meetings Act [10-15-1.1 NMSA 1978] shall be enforced by the attorney general or by the district attorney in the county of jurisdiction. However, nothing in that act shall prevent an individual from independently applying for enforcement through the district courts, provided that the individual first provides written notice of the claimed violation to the public body and that the public body has denied or not acted on the claim within fifteen days of receiving it. A public meeting held to address a claimed violation of the Open Meetings Act shall include a summary of comments made at the meeting at which the claimed violation occurred.
C. The district courts of this state shall have jurisdiction, upon the application of any person to enforce the purpose of the Open Meetings Act [10-15-1.1 NMSA 1978], by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate order. The court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person who is successful in bringing a court action to enforce the provisions of the Open Meetings Act. If the prevailing party in a legal action brought under this section is a public body defendant, it shall be awarded court costs. A public body defendant that prevails in a court action brought under this section shall be awarded its reasonable attorney fees from the plaintiff if the plaintiff brought the action without sufficient information and belief that good grounds supported it.
D. No section of the Open Meetings Act [10-15-1.1 NMSA 1978] shall be construed to preclude other remedies or rights not relating to the question of open meetings.
HISTORY:
1953 5-6-25, enacted by Laws 1974, ch. 91, § 3; 1989, ch. 299, § 3; 1993, ch. 262, § 2; 1997, ch. 148, § 1.
Notes to Decisions
Generally.
Substantial evidence supported the finding that the city manager waived his right to pursue a breach of contract claim against the city based on an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) where he failed to alert the city council of the alleged OMA violation; the employee’s failure to notify the city of the potential OMA violation, his failure to object to his termination, and his demand and acceptance of his severance package amounted to waiver by estoppel. Palenick v. City of Rio Rancho, 2013-NMSC-029, 306 P.3d 447, 2013 N.M. LEXIS 190 (N.M. 2013).
Foundation and livestock owner, who alleged violations of New Mexico’s open meeting laws, claimed that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the New Mexico livestock board because the trial court failed to wait until transcripts of the board’s executive director’s deposition were prepared; however, this argument was meritless because answers to interrogatories supported the finding that the executive director acted without the board’s approval. Paragon Found., Inc. v. State Livestock Bd., 2006-NMCA-004, 138 N.M. 761, 126 P.3d 577, 2005 N.M. App. LEXIS 144 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005), cert. denied, 139 N.M. 272, 131 P.3d 659, 2006 N.M. LEXIS 11 (N.M. 2006).
This section provides that no action of any commission or other policy-making body shall be valid unless it is taken or made at a meeting held in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. Trujillo v. Gonzales, 1987-NMSC-119, 106 N.M. 620, 747 P.2d 915, 1987 N.M. LEXIS 3824 (N.M. 1987).
Jurisdiction.
In an employee’s action against a city under the Open Meetings Act arising from the employee’s termination, summary judgment in favor of the city based on the preclusive effect of the employee’s administrative grievance proceeding was improper; Subsection B of this section vested exclusive jurisdiction in the district court over OMA enforcement actions, and the city’s personnel board did not have jurisdiction to grant affirmative relief over the employee’s OMA claim. Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMCA-004, 124 N.M. 479, 952 P.2d 474, 1997 N.M. App. LEXIS 121 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997).
Requirements.
Decision that a city council meeting on a corporation’s application to sell alcohol beverages complied with 10-15-1A NMSA 1978 of New Mexico’s Open Meetings Act was upheld because it occurred in a large hall and sufficient efforts to enable an overflow crowd to listen had been made, including installation of loudspeakers; this section, which provides that every action taken by a governmental entity is presumed to have been taken in accordance with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, and the exceptions to the open meetings requirement found in 10-15-1E NMSA 1978 (now 10-15-1H NMSA 1978) made it clear that the legislature did not intent to unduly burden the appropriate exercise of governmental decisionmaking and ability to act. Gutierrez v. Albuquerque, 1981-NMSC-061, 96 N.M. 398, 631 P.2d 304, 1981 N.M. LEXIS 2362 (N.M. 1981).