NMSU regents need formal policy on public comments

The members of the New Mexico State University Board of Regents have undoubtedly taken some positive steps toward increasing transparency and openness since Common Cause complained last year about the school’s archaic policies.

At the time of that complaint in October 2007, the regents allowed public input only after a request was submitted, along with all documentation that would be presented, two weeks before a meeting, and then only if the regents president, after conferring with other members, OK’d it.

That policy flew in the face of openness, transparency and accountability. But the fact that the regents allowed Common Cause to stand before them and say that was a huge step in the right direction, and I wrote afterward that it was reason to hope.

The regents later decided to begin asking at meetings whether anyone wanted to speak. It was an informal way of allowing more public input, and it was another positive step.

But it wasn’t enough. An informal decision to allow public comment might last as long as the current regents are in office, but only a formal policy would ensure the continuation of public comment and help foster a culture of openness at the university.

The regents apparently knew it wasn’t enough. Now they have taken another step toward openness by including a section for public comment on their meeting agendas. That semi-formal decision to allow public comment is certainly a step in the right direction.

The regents now need to show the vision to take the final step. They need, as part of their annual resolution on public meetings and compliance with the state’s Open Meetings Act, to formalize a policy of allowing public comment at meetings.

That’s to ensure the policy continues despite inevitable controversies and lasts beyond the tenure of the current regents. Without a formal policy that requires the allowing of public comments, new regents can simply stop allowing public comments without a formal vote. Even the current regents could leave public comment off an agenda or two if they were dealing with a major controversy and didn’t want to face the public.

Regents are less likely to cut off public input if they have to first take a formal vote to amend or rescind their open meetings resolution, because that would subject them to additional public scrutiny and criticism.

The regents are to be commended for recent steps to increase openness, but they also need to be pushed until they take the final, critical step.