Georgia O'Keeffe Museum v. County of Santa Fe

OPINION

{1} The opinion filed in this case on September 30, 2002, is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted therefor.

{2} The Georgia O’Keeffe Museum, a private corporation (O’Keeffe), protested the assessment of property tax by the County of Santa Fe (the County), claiming an exemption for its museum property under New Mexico Constitution Article VIII, Section 3. The County Valuation Protests Board (the Board) upheld the assessment on the ground that O’Keeffe “failed to produce sufficient competent evidence” that “a substantial use, and the primary use, of the ... property is charitable or educational.” O’Keeffe appealed the denial, paid the assessment under protest, and filed a complaint for refund of the taxes it paid. After consolidation of the refund action with the appeal, the district court affirmed the Board on the exemption denial and dismissed the refund action upon the County’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on the exemption issue. We affirm the dismissal of the refund action.

BACKGROUND

{3} O’Keeffe is a New Mexico non-profit corporation and a tax exempt organization under the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). One of O’Keeffe’s stated purposes is to “maintain property, including a building and museum collections, for the operation of a museum devoted primarily to the exhibition of the works of Georgia O’Keeffe.” Another is to “promote and encourage public awareness of, interest in and appreciation of its collections and ... engage in such educational programs as are consistent with the operation of a museum.” O’Keeffe’s museum is situated on Johnson Street in Santa Fe, New Mexico (the museum property). O’Keeffe has allocated about sixty percent of its annual budget for what it deems educational purposes.

{4} O’Keeffe applied for an exemption from taxation of the museum property for the year 1999 under the “educational or charitable purposes” exemption contained in Article VIII, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution, which reads in pertinent part:

The property of the United States, the state and all counties, towns, cities and school districts and other municipal corporations, public libraries, community ditches and all laterals thereof, all church property not used for commercial purposes, all property used for educational or charitable purposes, all cemeteries not used or held for private or corporate profit and all bonds of the state of New Mexico, and of the counties, municipalities and districts thereof shall be exempt from taxation.

The County Assessor denied the exemption application and O’Keeffe filed a protest with the Board. After a hearing, the Board entered a Decision and Order upholding the Assessor’s denial of the exemptions for educational and charitable use.

O’Keeffe’s Evidence at the Board Hearing

{5} O’Keeffe’s director of education testified regarding its programs and activities, several of which are also illustrated in documents. We summarize this evidence which relates to the operation of the museum only during the period 1997 to 1999.

{6} On-Site: The museum opened in 1997 and is open six days per week. O’Keeffe collects, houses, and publically displays artworks by Georgia O’Keeffe, and operates a retail gift shop. Over 665,000 persons visited the museum in the two years following its opening, the majority of whom paid an entrance fee.

{7} In the museum, visitors receive a brochure that discusses significant events in Georgia O’Keeffe’s life. Orientation tours for the general public are available thirty hours a week. Educational tours for school children are regularly conducted on Mondays when the museum is closed to the public. Student tours are given to about three thousand students each year. Less regularly, lectures are held, students from an elementary school visit the museum (three times per year) in conjunction with a primarily off-site art education program, tours are given for persons with disabilities, and teacher workshops are held for Santa Fe area teachers. O’Keeffe funds visits by students and teachers as exhibitions change at the museum.

{8} O’Keeffe also provides pre- and post-museum visit educational material to give students “a richer and deeper experience.” Further, O’Keeffe provides “hands on lessons in the galleries with teachers and students,” and conducts a Saturday family program (once a month during the school year and twice a month during the summer) to encourage children to become lifelong museum visitors. The family program begins at the museum, teaching the children to develop critical thinking skills and to articulate what they have experienced, and continues at another location for practical lessons.

{9} Off-Site: O’Keeffe conducts or participates in a substantial number of educational programs and activities that occur away from the museum property. For example, O’Keeffe, as part of its professional development program in art education: produces teacher lesson plans; conducts workshops and teaching programs for instructors in art education; offers professional development and art leadership experience programs for girls and young women; works with a city summer therapeutic recreation program for kids with disabilities; and conducts or is involved in various other educational and mentor programs. O’Keeffe also has office space on Grant Avenue in Santa Fe, where it often conducts educational programs.

{10} Through several of its programs and activities, O’Keeffe reaches out to local communities around the state, conducting courses and workshops in conjunction with universities and schools. O’Keeffe also sponsors lectures; operates senior citizen programs; donates materials and supplies to schools, teachers, and libraries; and carries on a year-round university intern program, as well as a docent program that trains adults. For its plentiful programs and activities, O’Keeffe produces several types of resource materials and supplies for study in conjunction with artwork at the museum, for career development in the arts (e.g., art conservation, art criticism, art education, art therapy), for instruction on how museums operate to use Georgia O’Keeffe’s life as an educational tool (e.g., as part of New Mexico history), and for use in art education generally.

{11} Further, O’Keeffe has a resource library containing books about Georgia O’Keeffe and other contemporary artists, and donates books to repositories such as college and public libraries. In addition, O’Keeffe donates seventy-five percent of its one-day pass revenue to the Museum of Fine Arts and the Museum of New Mexico, and eighty percent of its four-day pass revenue to the Museum of New Mexico. Both of these museums are state owned and operated.

What Is “Use for Educational Purposes”?

{12} Both parties rely on NRA Special Contribution Fund v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 92 N.M. 541, 591 P.2d 672 (Ct.App.1978), for the standard for determining whether the museum property is used for educational purposes:

[W]e hold the phrase “used for educational purposes” to mean “the direct, immediate, primary and substantial use of property that embraces systematic instruction in any and all branches of learning from which a substantial public benefit is derived.”

Id. at 548, 591 P.2d at 679. “[I]t is the direct and immediate use of the property ... and not the remote and consequential benefit derived from its use” that governs. Id. at 546, 591 P.2d at 677. “Substantial public benefit” means “[a] benefit of real worth and importance to an indefinite class of persons who are a part of the public, which benefit comes to these persons from the use of property.” Id. at 549, 591 P.2d at 680.

{13} O’Keeffe asks this Court to apply the NRA standard broadly, eschewing requirements of a regular, structured, and active, on-site direct teaching and learning environment. The County asks this Court to adhere to the narrowly tailored results reached by the Board and the district court from measuring the evidence strictly against the language of the NRA standard, to reject any off-site activity and any notion of inherent educational value.

{14} The trial court in NRA granted the Special Contribution Fund (the Fund) an educational-purposes exemption. The Fund was a non-profit trust that qualified for a § 501(c)(3) exemption. Its property was used for the following:

(a) Teaching of survival and conservation schools, camps and training, to the general public, with instruction provided by Wilderness Institutes, universities, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, State Game and Fish Departments, National Park Services, and other professional instructors.

(b) Outdoor education leadership workshops under sponsorship of universities, for credit hours, open to college level teachers of the general public.

(c) Training of national guard units within the State of New Mexico for firearms training, and maneuver areas.

(d) Archeological and historic tours, reenactments, and participation, with special emphasis on history of the Santa Fe Trail, and primitive skills.

(e) Law enforcement training by colleges, and other professional organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(f) Group training sessions for law enforcement organizations, including the New Mexico State Police, area police, and the New Mexico State Game and Fish Department.

(g) Approved metallic silhouette shoots and trainings, and competition training for black powder shoots, all open to the public.

(h) Miscellaneous other educational purposes.

NRA, 92 N.M. at 543-44, 591 P.2d at 674-75. The NRA trial court determined that these uses were substantial and primary, and it granted the Fund an exemption. Id. at 543, 591 P.2d at 674.

{15} Our opinion in NRA did not analyze the particular uses of the property. We were primarily concerned with the Fund’s lobbying activities and the fact that a large portion of acreage was mostly idle. Id. at 549-51, 591 P.2d at 680-82. We held that “ ‘promotion, propaganda and lobbying activities [to influence legislation were] definitely not educational.’ ” Id. at 550, 591 P.2d at 681 (quoting Hazen v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am., 101 F.2d 432, 436 (D.C.Cir.1938)). We then said that proof of even casual engagement in such activities would taint the Fund’s educational activities to such an extent the Fund would “lose[] its standing as an educational organization whose property is ‘used for educational purposes.’ ” Id. at 550, 591 P.2d at 681.

{16} In regard to the land for which the Fund sought an exemption, we stated that the Fund’s stated purposes were not determinative, and its “claim that the land was acquired for educational use in the future [did] not assist [the Fund] in establishing an exemption.” Id. at 549, 591 P.2d at 680. That “a large portion of [the] land [was] idle, unimproved, and unused for any immediate or future purpose” presented a “special problem” which the Court addressed by declaring that a pro tanto or partial exemption might be available with respect to that portion of the land used for educational purposes. Id. at 550, 591 P.2d at 681.

{17} We remanded NRA to the trial court to take further evidence and reconsider the issue of entitlement to an exemption. Id. at 551, 591 P.2d at 682. We broadly held “that under the definition stated in this opinion, [the Fund] has not met its burden in proving that the property [it] seek[s] to have exempt from taxation is property that is ‘used for educational purposes.’ ” Id. at 550, 591 P.2d at 681. The basis for the remand related primarily to the issues of lobbying and the amount of land not immediately and directly used for educational activities, together with a concern that the trial court may have erroneously considered the Fund’s § 501(c)(3) status and relied on the Fund’s stated purposes. Id. at 549, 591 P.2d at 680.

The Board’s Decision

{18} In the present case, the Board framed the issue before it as “whether a substantial use, and the primary use, of the subject property is charitable or educational, or a combination of charitable and educational.” Using NRA as its guide, the Board found and concluded that the direct, immediate, and primary use of the museum property was the operation of a museum for which an entry fee is usually charged and the operation of a retail gift shop. Considering the whole record, the Board concluded that the educational uses of the museum property were not substantial and primary, as required by the NRA standard.

{19} In support of its determination, the Board found that only a minority of the educational programs sponsored and operated by O’Keeffe occurred on the museum property, and that, while educational functions occurred there, they were “not the primary use of the subject property.” The Board also determined that since educational programs often took place at O’Keeffe’s Grant Avenue offices, as well as schools and other locations throughout the state, the museum property was not the primary site for these educational activities.

{20} In the same vein, the Board determined that although the majority of over 600,000 museum visitors since 1997 paid an entrance fee, the persons who benefitted from educational programs and activities of O’Keeffe, “wherever they may have occurred, numbered in the thousands.” In the context of the use of admission fees for educational activities, the Board reiterated that “[a] substantial percentage of these educational activities take place either at the Grant [Avenue] offices ... or at other locations,” and that “[o]f the money [O’Keeffe] donates to other institutions, the Board has no way to determine whether these institutions themselves qualify for exemption under Article VIII, [Section] 3, or whether the donations can be traced to insure their use in qualifying ways.”

{21} The Board set out several questions it had without answer in the record. Further, the Board was unable from the evidence before it to find substantial evidence or even “any reasonable process from which it might formulate some pro tanto exemption with respect to the subject property, were it inclined to do so,” because it was shown no allocation of uses of the museum property “between charitable and non-charitable, [or] educational and non-educational.” The Board determined that O’Keeffe’s § 501(c)(3) status was “immaterial as a matter of law.” Nowhere in its decision did the Board mention the NRA requirement that the use of the property “embrace[ ] systematic instruction in any and all branches of learning.” Id. at 548, 591 P.2d at 679. Nor did the Board make any finding with respect to the NRA requirement that a substantial public benefit be derived from that instruction.

{22} In sum, the Board determined that O’Keeffe failed to produce sufficient, competent evidence that the primary and substantial use of the property was for educational purposes. In doing so, it either ignored the issue of a museum’s intrinsic value, or else in essence attributed negligible intrinsic educational value to the museum itself, and it determined that the active teaching-learning activities at the museum property were insufficient to qualify under the NRA primary and substantial test. In the Board’s view, the primary and substantial uses were not “educational,” but were the collection of fees and retail sales to fund the mostly non-educational on-site uses and irrelevant off-site educational programs and activities.

O’Keeffe’s Protest Appeal and Refund Action

{23} O’Keeffe appealed to the district court pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 39-3-1.1 (1999), asserting the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise not supported by law. Almost simultaneously with its appeal to the district court, O’Keeffe filed an action in the district court pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 7-38^40(A) (1982) for a refund of the taxes O’Keeffe felt compelled to pay in order to prevent the accrual of interest and penalties it would have to pay if it were unsuccessful in its protest appeal. The protest appeal and the refund action were then consolidated.

{24} The district court first resolved the protest appeal. Using NRA for guidance, the district court held that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, and was not fraudulent, arbitrary, or capricious. The court affirmed the Board’s decision denying the exemption. The court then entertained cross-motions for summary judgment in the refund action and dismissed that action because O’Keeffe’s election of the protest remedy precluded it from pursuing the refund action under NMSA 1978, § 7-38-21(B) (2001).

O’Keeffe’s Appeals to This Court

{25} O’Keeffe appealed the refund action dismissal pursuant to Section 7-38-40(C). With regard to its appeal from the district court’s affirmance in the protest appeal, because review of the district court’s decision is by writ of certiorari, see § 39-3-1.1(E) and Rule 1-074 NMRA 2002, O’Keeffe asks this Court to treat its docketing statement also as a petition for writ of certiorari and to enlarge the time for filing so the petition is deemed timely filed. The County does not object. We treat O’Keeffe’s docketing statement as a petition for writ of certiorari, and we accept the petition as timely. 1

{26} The County asserts in regard to the Board’s decision in the protest that this Court’s review of the administrative decision, appealed to the district court, is limited under Rule 12-505(D)(5) NMRA 2002. See C.F.T. Dev., LLC v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 2001-NMCA-069, ¶¶ 8-11, 130 N.M. 775, 32 P.3d 784. The County, therefore, asks this Court to deny or quash O’Keeffe’s petition for writ of certiorari on the ground no issue exists under Rule 12-505(D)(5) to invoke review. O’Keeffe asserts that the district court misconstrued the law.

{27} We agree with O’Keeffe that the issue is both significant under the New Mexico Constitution and of substantial public interest, thus bringing this case within our certiorari jurisdiction. The issues require us to analyze the NRA standard and its application to the facts in this case and to consider whether to further refine the standard or develop an exception to it. We proceed with certiorari review for these reasons. See C.F.T., 2001-NMCA-069, ¶ 8, 130 N.M. 775, 32 P.3d 784. We interpret the Constitution and determine whether the law was properly applied to the facts through de novo review. See State ex rel. Pub. Employees Ret. Ass’n v. Longacre, 2001-NMCA-076, ¶ 9, 131 N.M. 156, 33 P.3d 906.

{28} In this Court, O’Keeffe argues Board error because it ignored the fact that the Assessor’s determination that O’Keeffe was not entitled to an exemption was legally deficient, arbitrary, and capricious; ignored the overwhelming evidence of O’Keeffe’s educational mission and pursuits; failed to consider O’Keeffe’s donations of fees to state museums to be for charitable or educational purposes; was institutionally incapable of evaluating and failed to consider the intrinsically and inherently educational nature of a museum; and based its denial of the exemption on the grounds that O’Keeffe’s charging of admission fees and generating sales in its gift shop constituted the direct, primary, and substantial use of the museum property.

{29} O’Keeffe contends the district court’s errors “essentially paralleled the Board’s errors.” In addition, O’Keeffe asserts that the court failed to interpret the evidence in light of the standards of review in Section 39-3-1.1(D). O’Keeffe also contends that the district court erroneously dismissed its refund action. We address these contentions below in three points: (1) the Assessor’s denial of the exemption, (2) the application of NRA and the purpose of the exemption, and (3) O’Keeffe’s procedural protest-refund action dilemma.

DISCUSSION

I. The Assessor’s Denial of the Exemption

{30} O’Keeffe contends the Assessor arbitrarily denied the application because he relied solely on an outside view of the property, without visiting the interior of the museum and talking to museum personnel about its educational programs. Thus, O’Keeffe argues, because the Assessor’s denial of the exemption was based on a deficient, superficial, perfunctory, and result-oriented investigation, it was arbitrary and capricious and the exemption denial by the Assessor and the Board should therefore be set aside.

{31} We review this issue because it raises a significant question as to whether a valuation protests board can deny an exemption in a protest proceeding if an assessor’s exemption denial is not rationally based. Our review is de novo because the question is one of law. See, e.g., Cooper v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2002-NMSC-020, ¶ 5, 132 N.M. 382, 49 P.3d 61.

{32} Property is presumed to be subject to taxation. See 3.6.7.16.A NMAC (2002). It is the taxpayer’s burden to claim, apply for, and prove an exemption based on an educational or charitable use. See NMSA1978, §§ 7-38-8.1 (1982), 7-38-17(B), (E) (2000); 3.6.7.16.C NMAC (2002); United Veterans Org. v. N.M. Prop. Appraisal Dep't, 84 N.M. 114, 118, 500 P.2d 199, 203 (Ct.App.1972). The statutes do not require any specific investigation by an assessor when considering tax application for an exemption.

{33} The record is unclear as to what O’Keeffe presented to the Assessor, though at a minimum its application for an exemption contained a one-page claim form on which O’Keeffe referred to an exhibit for the educational and charitable activities that O’Keeffe claimed were the primary use of the property. The record does not reflect of what the exhibit consisted. O’Keeffe fails to show how it carried its burden at the initial evaluation stage.

{34} More importantly, O’Keeffe fails to point out how the failure of the Assessor to conduct an on-site inspection with interviews invalidates the Board’s decision which followed a full evidentiary protest hearing. The place to overcome an assessor’s arbitrary denial is in an administrative protest proceeding or refund action. O’Keeffe filed a protest and was permitted to present evidence to prove the Assessor wrong. The Board considered all of the evidence presented by O’Keeffe. See In re Miller, 88 N.M. 492, 497, 542 P.2d 1182, 1187 (Ct.App.1975), rev’d on other grounds, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142 (1976). While it might be good practice for an assessor to perform a field investigation involving a tour of the property and to visit with related personnel about education and charitable programs conducted at the property, the failure of an assessor to do so does not invalidate the decision of a valuation protests board after a protest hearing.

II. The Applicability of NRA and the Purpose of the Exemption

{35} The Board limited its examination of the requirements for an exemption to those of direct, primary, and substantial use of the property, for it was solely on these requirements that the Board denied the exemption. Central to O’Keeffe’s contention that the Board erred are its assertions that the Board failed to address the “fundamental question of whether a museum is intrinsically or inherently ‘educational’ by virtue of providing citizens with a profound means for encountering, and being moved by, artistic expression at its highest level of achievement,” and failed to recognize the museum as the focal point for its extensive off-site educational programs and activities. O’Keeffe accuses the Board of improperly combining randomly selected language from NRA and construing NRA too narrowly.

{36} The Board nowhere discusses any aspect of the NRA requirement that the use embrace “systematic instruction in any and all branches of learning from which a substantial public benefit is derived.” Id. at 548, 591 P.2d at 679. Recognizing that “there are several points not fully explored by the Board or District Court,” the County argues that the lack of “ ‘systematic instruction’ in any and all branches of learning from which substantial public benefit is derived” also warrants denial of the exemption. The essence of this argument is that O’Keeffe did not show its programs were “ ‘systematic’ or developed pursuant to some sort of organized, comprehensive method, as opposed to their being independent programs developed according to isolated perceived needs.”

{37} We preface our discussion of the issue before us with a brief discussion of policies we must consider alongside the requirements for an exemption. The exemption O’Keeffe seeks is of constitutional origin. As such, it is a privilege that this Court is obliged to carefully protect. Because the exemption is so broadly stated and must be limited by court interpretation, we have the daunting tasks of attempting to construe the exemption provision, of balancing its purpose with the importance of property taxation, and of considering a practical and common sense approach to application of the exemption to the circumstances before us.

A. Policies to Consider

{38} Subject to specific exceptions, all property with a taxable situs in New Mexico is subject to valuation for property tax purposes. NMSA 1978, § 7-36-7(A) (1973, as amended through 2001). One class of exceptions is property that is exempt from taxation under the New Mexico Constitution. See § 7-36-7(B)(l). Property exempt from taxation under Article VIII, Section 3, is not subject to valuation for property taxation purposes. See id.

1.Taxation and Exemption

{39} We must bear in mind the importance of property taxation to our local governments.

We note also that the necessary expenses of government are becoming greater and the necessity for better utilization of the existent property tax is urgent. Tax exemption has a direct effect on the size of the tax base. The scope of tax exemption has broadened so that exempt organizations tend to grow wealthier and often increase the percentage of exempt property within the state first granting the exemption. Such increased exemptions may create a serious problem because a diminished tax base lessens the amount available to meet governmental costs. This factor also requires an organization that seeks a tax exemption to give the public a “substantial public benefit.”

NRA 92 N.M. at 548, 591 P.2d at 679. Further, as NRA states, the rationale for the constitutional mandate that:

“taxes shall be equal and uniform upon subjects of taxation of the same class[,]” ... is that all property should bear its share of the cost of government. Property which is exempt from taxation does not share in the burden. Therefore, in exchange for its exempt status, such property must confer a substitute substantial benefit on the public.

Id. (quoting N.M. Const, art. VIII, § 1).

2. Property

{40} We must also bear in mind that it is the taxation of real property, not the taxation of income or receipts or other subjects of taxation, with which we are concerned. It is therefore the use of the property, not the ownership, that is the determinative factor in property taxation. Mountain View Homes, Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 77 N.M. 649, 652, 427 P.2d 13, 15 (1967). The declared objects and purposes of the owner are not determinative. United Veterans Org., 84 N.M. at 115, 500 P.2d at 200. Furthermore, in the context of the educational and charitable purpose exemptions, Article VIII, Section 3 appears to make no distinction between private nonprofit and for-profit entities. In Section 3, the phrase “all property used for educational or charitable purposes” is not limited, as are other phrases, by the words “not used for commercial purposes” or by the words “not used or held for private or corporate profit.” Also, at least until 2001, 2 a § 501(c)(3) status under the Internal Revenue Code was immaterial. See NRA 92 N.M. at 549, 591 P.2d at 680. The determination whether to grant an exemption is not to be made on “the remote and consequential benefit derived from [the property’s] use.” Id. at 546, 591 P.2d at 677.

3. Interpretation

{41} The words “used for educational purposes” are very broad and are not defined in our state Constitution. As the County reminds us, virtually any aspect of the human experience can be considered educational.

The broad expression “used for educational or charitable purposes” necessarily imposes upon the courts a severe task of interpretation. It is easy to instance purposes clearly within it. It is not difficult to suggest instances which would reduce to absurdity a rule too liberal. Appellees point out that the ordinary home is customarily used for educational purposes and often for charitable purposes. In a broad sense, a golf professional, a riding master, or a boxing instructor, is engaged in education. Charity may “cover a multitude of sins.” The line of demarcation cannot be projected. It can take shape only by the gradual process of adjudicating this or that purpose or use on the one side of it or on the other, or by change in the constitutional criteria.

Temple Lodge No. 6, A.F. & A.M. v. Tierney, 37 N.M. 178, 187, 20 P.2d 280, 284-85 (1933).

{42} The New Mexico Constitution drafters’ use of the words “educational or charitable purposes” left for the courts the duty to interpret with no “line of demarcation.” Mountain View Homes, 77 N.M. at 651-52, 427 P.2d at 15. “[N]o case can be said to constitute a controlling precedent for another case” except where the facts regarding use “are so nearly alike as to logically compel like results.” Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 461 v. N.M. Prop. Appraisal Dep’t, 83 N.M. 445, 446, 493 P.2d 411, 412 (1972).

{43} In Mountain View Homes, the Court required for interpretation of “charity” and “charitable use” a determination of how those “terms were understood by the membership of our constitutional convention, and by the ordinary voter who participated in adoption of the constitution containing this language!}]” Id. at 653, 427 P.2d at 16 (holding that property used to operate a quasi-public low-rent housing project would not have been considered charitable when the Constitution was adopted). That said, there exist instances in which the broad language of the state Constitution may be adapted to changed times and conditions. See In re Generic Investigation into Cable Television Servs., 103 N.M. 345, 348, 707 P.2d 1155, 1158 (1985) (stating that words in the state Constitution “are not necessarily fixed in meaning, but over the years may change and grow to reflect changes in the conditions and knowledge of modern society”); Humana of N.M., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 92 N.M. 34, 36, 582 P.2d 806, 808 (1978) (same); cf. Tierney, 37 N.M. at 187, 20 P.2d at 284 (contrasting the circumstances with “a case where the broad language of a Constitution may be adapted to changed times and conditions”). “Our problem is to ascertain the reasonable and probable intent [of