There may be reason to hope that the Board of Regents of
The board gave Common Cause of Southwestern New Mexico a chance today to argue for increased public input at meetings, earlier release of meeting agendas and more information about what happens in closed sessions, and at least one regent said he was open to making some changes.
The board gave no timeline for deciding whether to make changes, but Regents President Laura Conniff said the board would discuss the issue with its attorney. (This seems like a good time to remind the regents that such discussion must take place in a properly-noticed, public meeting of the board.)
At issue are three points:
• The regents, for years, have only notified the public that upcoming closed sessions would include discussion of “personnel, real estate and legal matters,” and sometimes “water-rights matters,” even though the state Open Meetings Act requires that notice of meetings state “with reasonable specificity the subject to be discussed.”
• The regents only allow public input after a request is submitted, along with all documentation that will be presented, two weeks before a meeting, and then only if the regents president, after conferring with the other members, OKs it.
• Agendas are made available to the public only 24 hours before meetings.
The bottom line about the regents’ current policies is this: They either barely meet or skirt the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. Even if they’re legal, they are ridiculously far behind just about every other government around, including the state’s other major institute of higher education, the University of New Mexico.
A few examples:
• The Doña Ana County Board of Commissioners releases agendas to the public about a week before meetings are held.
• The Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education gets specific enough about the reasons for closed sessions that it stated in announcing an Oct. 10 closed session that its members were meeting to evaluate the superintendent.
• The UNM regents allow public comment, without prior approval and at all public meetings, on any item on their agenda during discussion of that item and on topics not on the agenda before they adjourn.
Lynn Ellins, Common Cause member and former president of the local chapter, made the case for change to the regents today, saying they are doing a good job at running the university – as evidenced by increasing enrollment numbers – but their policies are lacking in some of the areas of public notice and involvement. He said a few changes would build credibility.
A pledge to consider the request
Conniff pledged that the regents would consider the request, which was allowed to be presented only after Common Cause went through the two-week procedure. The group has been asking the regents for changes for years.
“We all believe in not only adhering to the letter of the law but we also believe in the concept of the Open Meetings Act,” Conniff said.
Regent Steve Anaya said board members are provided with copies of agendas five days before meetings and questioned why they could not also be released to the public at that time.
“Personally, I think when we get the agenda, everybody else ought to get the agenda,” he said.
Anaya also said he “doesn’t have a problem with” allowing public input at meetings without prior approval. As to the question of whether the regents should be more specific about the reasons for closed meetings, he said, “We could probably argue until the cows come home whether we are following or are not following the letter of the law.”
Conniff then made this pledge:
“We do appreciate your input, and we will take it seriously,” she said.
There was another sign of hope. Today’s closed session of the board was preceded by notice that the regents would discuss “the leasing of property,” which, while not as specific as notices provided by LCPS and the county commission, is much more specific than “real estate.”
Ellins noted that fact, and said he hoped it was setting a new precedent.
The moves apparently being considered by the regents would be big steps in the right direction. The regents will also likely get some guidance on matters related to open government in the coming weeks or months. The attorney general is already considering, after receiving requests from me, the Las Cruces Sun-News and four state legislators, a number of questions related to whether they can legally keep NMSU Foundation records secret and whether the regents violated government transparency laws at a July meeting and in refusing to release an agreement approved at a later meeting. You can click here to read more about those requests.
More to be done
Even if the regents agree to all the requests made by Common Cause, more changes will be needed. For example, consider this: Rolling quorums are illegal and occur when a majority of members of a public body discuss, in person or through other communication, public policy outside of properly noticed meetings. The quorum is called “rolling” because all the members who participate aren’t in one place at one time.
For example, one board member could call each of the other members to discuss an upcoming item on the agenda and seek their pledges to vote the way he wants. If he conducts such discussion with a majority of board members, that’s illegal, because such discussion is supposed to take place at public meetings.
The regents’ current policy on public input actually requires that Conniff confer with the other members before deciding whether to allow public input like Common Cause gave today. Since Common Cause is asking for a public policy change, isn’t the discussion of whether to allow the group to make its case a discussion of the formation of public policy? What was said during those conversations in deciding whether to allow Common Cause’s presentation?
Regent Bob Gallagher told a newspaper reporter during today’s meeting that the increase in freshman enrollment, not Common Cause’s request, should be the big news of the day. His problem is that he thinks, because the regents are doing a good job, they should be allowed to proceed without checks on their power.
He’s wrong. Without public scrutiny, over time, such public bodies become corrupt. Public scrutiny is what will allow the good work currently being done at the university to continue for years to come.