Do tribal libraries and nonprofit libraries in New Mexico have to hold open meetings under the Open Meetings Act?

Plain-English summary

New Mexico's Open Meetings Act (OMA), NMSA 1978, § 10-15-1, requires "any state agency or any agency or authority of any county, municipality, district or political subdivision" to hold open meetings, give notice, and let the public attend when policymakers meet to do public business. The question put to the AG: does that include tribal libraries and nonprofit libraries operating in New Mexico?

Attorney General Raúl Torrez says no, with one important qualification.

Tribal libraries. Indian tribes are "domestic dependent nations" with sovereign authority that the U.S. Supreme Court and the New Mexico Supreme Court have repeatedly recognized. A tribal library run by a tribal government is part of that sovereign, not part of New Mexico's government. The fact that the State sometimes appropriates money to tribal libraries (through the Tribal Libraries Endowment Fund) does not convert them into state agencies.

Nonprofit libraries. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit is a private charitable organization. While New Mexico requires charities to register with the AG under § 57-22-6, that is a regulatory check, not a transformation into a public body. Neither the OMA nor any other statute specifically subjects nonprofits to OMA compliance.

The qualifier. New Mexico courts have held that the OMA can reach a non-statutory organization if it "makes any decisions on behalf of, formulates recommendations that are binding in any legal or practical way on, or otherwise establishes policy for [a] public body." If a nonprofit library is actually setting policy for a city, county, or district, it can fall within OMA. The opinion does not analyze any particular library; it just sketches the legal framework.

What this means for you

If you sit on a tribal library board

The Open Meetings Act does not apply to your meetings. Your library is part of a sovereign tribal government, and the State of New Mexico does not have jurisdiction to require you to hold open meetings under the OMA. Your tribal government may have its own open-meetings or transparency rules; those govern.

If you sit on a nonprofit library board

You are not automatically subject to the OMA. Honest answer though: think about what your board actually does. If you are advising a public body on funding decisions, setting policy that the city or county will simply rubber-stamp, or controlling a public-library function under contract, you may be functionally a public body. The N.M. Court of Appeals decision in State Investment Council v. Weinstein and the Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences line of cases are how courts decide that question. When in doubt, structure your meetings as if OMA applied. Open meetings build trust with donors and the public, and the cost of compliance is low.

If you are a journalist or member of the public

Do not assume tribal or nonprofit libraries are required to give you OMA-style access. They generally are not. If a nonprofit library is contracting with a municipality to run public-library services, ask whether the municipality's library board (which is a public body) is the actual decisionmaker; that body's meetings are subject to the OMA.

If you are a city or county attorney

The opinion's qualifier is the part that matters for you. If your jurisdiction has set up a nonprofit "Friends of the Library" or similar entity that effectively makes hiring, budget, or programming decisions on behalf of the public library, you have OMA exposure. Look at the formal authority structure. If the nonprofit's recommendations are routinely adopted without independent deliberation by the public board, you are at risk. Either the public board needs to actually deliberate, or the nonprofit needs to comply with OMA.

If you are tribal counsel

This opinion is good news. The AG affirms the federal and state caselaw that tribal libraries operating under tribal authority are outside OMA jurisdiction. If a county or state agency tries to impose OMA-style requirements on a tribal library as a condition of a grant or partnership, this opinion is useful pushback.

Common questions

Q: What is the Open Meetings Act?
A: It is New Mexico's transparency statute, NMSA 1978, § 10-15-1, requiring meetings of public bodies to be open and noticed. The legislative declaration says "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."

Q: Why are tribal libraries exempt?
A: Because tribes are sovereign governments. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that "Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise inherent sovereign authority that is subject to plenary control by Congress." Michigan v. Bay Mills, 572 U.S. 782 (2014). State law does not reach into tribal governance unless Congress says so, and Congress has not extended state open-meetings law to tribes.

Q: What if a tribal library gets state funding?
A: That alone does not make it a state agency. The opinion notes that the Tribal Libraries Endowment Fund (§ 18-2-23) provides state appropriations to tribal libraries, but absent other indicia of state control (state-statute creation, state-appointed officers), the funding does not convert the library into a state agency.

Q: When could a nonprofit library actually be subject to OMA?
A: When it is functionally acting as a public body. The leading case is N.M. State Inv. Council v. Weinstein, 2016-NMCA-069, ¶ 75, holding that OMA can apply to a non-statutory organization that "makes any decisions on behalf of, formulates recommendations that are binding in any legal or practical way on, or otherwise establishes policy for [a] public body." A nonprofit that the city defers to on hiring or budget decisions can cross that line.

Q: Does the OMA apply to a "Friends of the Library" group?
A: Probably not, as long as the group is just doing fundraising, programming, and advocacy. It can become subject to OMA if it is making binding policy or budget decisions for the public library system. Organizational structure and actual practice both matter.

Q: Does this opinion change anything about the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA)?
A: The opinion does not directly analyze IPRA, but it cites State ex rel. Toomey (which applied the same factor analysis to IPRA's "political subdivision" question). The general principle, that nonprofits performing functions on behalf of public bodies can be subject to public-records and open-meetings laws, applies to both statutes.

Q: Is this opinion binding on the courts?
A: No. AG opinions are persuasive authority. A district court or the N.M. Supreme Court could disagree. The opinion is consistent with the existing federal and state caselaw on tribal sovereignty and on OMA's reach.

Background and statutory framework

New Mexico's Open Meetings Act applies to "[a]ll 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." NMSA 1978, § 10-15-1. The threshold question for any entity is whether it falls within that definition.

The AG's analysis pulls from N.M. Att'y Gen. Op. 06-02 (2006), which set out the factors used to determine state-agency status: control by the State, creation by statute, management by officers appointed by the government, and performance of functions beneficial to the public combined with regulated state appropriations.

Tribal sovereignty is the dispositive consideration for tribal libraries. Michigan v. Bay Mills and Hamaatsa, Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe, 2017-NMSC-007, both establish that absent congressional action, tribes are not subject to state regulatory frameworks.

For nonprofits, the analysis turns on whether the nonprofit is functionally a public body. N.M. State Inv. Council v. Weinstein, 2016-NMCA-069, supplies the test, and State ex rel. Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104, applies a parallel analysis under IPRA.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- NMSA 1978, § 10-15-1 (Open Meetings Act)
- NMSA 1978, § 8-5-2(D) (AG opinion authority)
- NMSA 1978, § 18-2-23 (Tribal Libraries Endowment Fund)
- NMSA 1978, § 57-22-6 (charitable registration)

Cases:
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (tribal sovereignty)
- Hamaatsa, Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe, 2017-NMSC-007 (tribal sovereign authority)
- N.M. State Inv. Council v. Weinstein, 2016-NMCA-069 (OMA reach to non-statutory bodies)
- State ex rel. Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104 (IPRA analysis of nonprofit status)
- Rayellen Res., Inc. v. N.M. Cultural Props. Rev. Comm., 2014-NMSC-006 (statutory construction)
- N.M. Att'y Gen. Op. 06-02 (2006) (state-agency factor test)

Source

• Landing page: https://nmdoj.gov/publication/opinion/2025-06-opinion-the-open-meetings-act-and-tribal-and-nonprofit-libraries/
• Original PDF: https://nmdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/AG-Opinion-2025-06.pdf

Original opinion text

February 18, 2025

OPINION
OF
RAÚL TORREZ
Attorney General

Opinion No. 2025-06

To: The Honorable Susan Herrera, New Mexico State Representative

Re: Attorney General Opinion – The Open Meetings Act and Tribal and Nonprofit Libraries

Question

Are tribal libraries or nonprofit libraries subject to the Open Meetings Act?

Answer

No. Tribal libraries and nonprofit libraries are generally not subject to the Open Meetings Act.

Background

Our Office has been asked to opine on the discrete question of law posed above. See NMSA 1978, § 8-5-2(D) (1975) (providing that the Attorney General shall answer any "question of law" submitted by particular individuals or entities listed therein). Our analysis follows below.

Analysis

In interpreting the Open Meetings Act, we first must try and determine and give effect to the Legislature's intent. See Rayellen Res., Inc. v. N.M. Cultural Props. Rev. Comm., 2014-NMSC-006, ¶ 38 ("The first step in any statutory construction is to try to determine and give effect to the Legislature's intent." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Generally, New Mexico has expressed a strong favor for government transparency and accountability and so declared in implementing the Open Meetings Act 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." NMSA 1978, § 10-15-1 (2013).

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, 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.

Id. (emphasis added).

This office has previously analyzed what constitutes a "state agency" under the Open Meetings Act. Our analysis turns on whether the entity is under the control of the State, considering factors such as if the entity is operated and managed by officers appointed by the government and whether the entity was created by statute. N.M. Att'y Gen. Op. 06-02 (2006) (citing Harrington v. Atterberry, 1915-NMSC-058, 21 N.M. 50). This could also include an entity that performs functions beneficial to the public or receives some appropriations regulated by the government if there is no other government control of the entity. Id. In this case, the issue is whether tribal and nonprofit rural libraries are state agencies or a political subdivision of the State and, thus, would be subject to the Open Meetings Act.

With regard to tribal libraries, the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized Indian tribes as "domestic dependent nations" that "exercise inherent sovereign authority that is subject to plenary control by Congress." Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 782 (2014) (citing Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991)). The New Mexico Supreme Court has similarly recognized tribal sovereignty in New Mexico, finding that "Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise inherent sovereign authority." Hamaatsa, Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe, 2017-NMSC-007, ¶ 19 (citing Michigan, 572 U.S. at 782). Additionally, while the State and tribal governments may enter into agreements and compacts with one another, such compacts do not diminish tribal sovereignty and do not subject the tribal entity to state control. See Doe v. Santa Clara Pueblo, 2005-NMCA-110, ¶ 16, 138 N.M. 198 (finding that when a tribe and the State negotiate a compact, they do so "as equal sovereigns.").

In this case, where tribal libraries are purely under the control and management of the tribal government, they are clearly not state agencies or political subdivisions of the State or of a county, municipality, or district, and thus, the Open Meetings Act would not apply. There has not been an act of Congress otherwise subjecting tribal governments and their libraries to state open meetings acts. See Hamaatsa, 2017-NMSC-007, ¶ 19 ("[U]nless and until Congress acts, the tribes retain their historic sovereign authority." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Additionally, beyond the long recognition of tribal sovereignty, while the State may provide some appropriation to tribal libraries, see NMSA 1978, § 18-2-23 (2001) (establishing the Tribal Libraries Endowment Fund), there are no other indicia of state control over tribal libraries: they are not established by state statute, nor are they managed or directed by officers appointed by the State. See N.M. Att'y Gen. Op. 06-02.

Turning to nonprofit libraries, nonprofits are generally charitable organizations described under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and are exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(a). I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) (1986) (providing for federal income tax exemption for charitable organizations). Nonprofits and charitable organizations are subject to state law, which prescribes certain procedural requirements for those organizations in New Mexico. See NMSA 1978, § 57-22-6 (2024) (requiring charitable organizations operating in the State to register with the Attorney General). However, no other state law or the Open Meetings Act itself explicitly requires nonprofits to comply with the Open Meetings Act. See § 10-15-1 (requiring any state agency or any agency or authority of any county, municipality, district, or political subdivision to comply with the Open Meetings Act). In the absence of any clear authority mandating nonprofit library compliance with the Open Meetings Act, we decline to opine otherwise.

That said, our courts have recognized that the Open Meetings Act may apply to a non-statutory organization that "makes any decisions on behalf of, formulates recommendations that are binding in any legal or practical way on, or otherwise establishes policy for [a] public body." N.M. State Inv. Council v. Weinstein, 2016-NMCA-069, ¶ 75. As such, where a nonprofit library is generally making any decisions or formulating any policy recommendations for a public body or is otherwise subject to state control, a nonprofit library could be considered a state agency and thus subject to the Open Meetings Act. See State ex rel. Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104, ¶¶ 21-22 (applying a similar analysis of factors on whether a nonprofit entity meets the definition of a political subdivision and would be subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act).

Conclusion

In conclusion, tribal libraries and nonprofit libraries generally are not state agencies or public bodies and, therefore, are not generally subject to the Open Meetings Act.

However, please note that this opinion does not provide any factual analysis of any particular tribal or nonprofit library. This opinion merely provides a framework of the controlling law and is not intended to resolve or comment upon any particular tribal or nonprofit library. Our analysis is limited to the question of law submitted by the state representative. See § 8-5-2(D).

Please note that this opinion is a public document and is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. It will be published on our website and made available to the general public.

RAÚL TORREZ
ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Taylor V. Bui
Taylor V. Bui
Assistant Solicitor General
New Mexico Department of Justice