The association's own conduct, on the record

The association argued it was not a “public body” subject to the public records statute at all, despite qualifying as a political subdivision under the Sanitary Projects Act. The court recorded, in summarising the appellant's argument, that the association “was aware of its duties” and had “read, but ignored, various attorney general opinions that other mutual domestic water associations were subject to” the records statute.

The district court's own finding on motive is quoted too: the association “may have had some level of genuine interest in protecting [its] members' privacy in an increasingly intrusive world, [but] it is apparent to the [c]ourt that the animosity between the parties was a significant factor in Defendant's refusal to provide information.”

Also recorded: that the board consisted of “volunteers, [who] are not well-versed in the law,” and that the association “adopted a new policy that was purportedly intended to protect its members' personal information, pursuant to a federal law inapplicable to” it.

Those facts helped the association avoid a bad-faith finding. They did not avoid the violation, the disclosure order or the per-day damages.

Read the jurisdictional line first

A mutual domestic water consumers association organised under the Sanitary Projects Act is not a homeowner association, and this decision does not hold that New Mexico HOAs are subject to the Open Meetings Act or the public records statute. An ordinary association is not a political subdivision and is not in that position.

New Mexico HOA transparency runs through the Homeowner Association Act's own records and meeting provisions, and through the Nonprofit Corporation Act for incorporated associations — not through the public-records statutes.

Why it still deserves a New Mexico homeowner's attention

Because these entities govern the same households. Across much of rural and semi-rural New Mexico a subdivision has both a homeowner association and a mutual domestic water consumers association, frequently with overlapping boards, the same volunteer culture, the same meeting habits and often the same records practices — and only one of them is subject to the public-records regime.

A board member who sits on both needs to know which hat imposes which duty. Treating the water association's obligations as optional is what produced this litigation.

Two practical readings

For a board of any member-governed community entity: “our volunteers are not well-versed in the law” is a mitigating fact, not a defence. Nor is adopting a privacy policy under a statute that does not apply to you. Nor is reading agency guidance addressed to comparable organisations and setting it aside.

For a member: winning the violation is the easy half. This member proved the violations and still obtained no invalidation of past actions and no curative meeting, because the choice of remedy belongs to the district court's discretion. And his challenge to the bad-faith finding failed on procedure — he argued that the evidence could support the opposite result rather than explaining why the unfavourable evidence was not substantial, which New Mexico treats as fatal to the challenge.