![\"Hadley](\"http:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Hadley-Hall-336x188.jpg\")
Rachel Valerio \/ University Communications<\/p>
Hadley Hall, NMSU’s administrative headquarters, located on the university’s\u00a0main campus in Las Cruces.<\/p><\/div>\n
The N.M. Open Meetings Act<\/a>\u00a0(OMA) only allows NMSU’s five-member Board of Regents and other government policymaking bodies to shut the public out of meetings for a handful of reasons — such as discussing litigation, personnel issues and\u00a0collective bargaining negotiations. Even then, such bodies\u00a0can’t take formal action in what are called executive sessions. After secretly discussing an issue, formal votes\u00a0must be taken in public.<\/p>\n And to meet in private, OMA requires that the public be given\u00a0“reasonable specificity” about what provision in law allows the Regents to shut the doors and what they’re\u00a0going to be discussing.<\/p>\n Many times in\u00a0the last decade NMSU’s governing body hasn’t done that. For example,\u00a0the notice<\/a> for a meeting held Sept. 7, 2007 stated vaguely that the Regents would be discussing “personnel, real estate and legal matters.” The notice<\/a> for a June 22, 2011 closed-door meeting stated that “personnel matters and matters of pending or threatened litigation” would be discussed. And the notice<\/a> for an Oct. 21, 2015 meeting stated that the Regents would discuss “personnel, real estate, water rights and threatened or pending litigation matters.”<\/p>\n “It is my understanding that the OMA is requiring more specificity in regard to executive sessions covered in the act,” Janet Green, the Regents’ chief of staff, told NMPolitics.net late Sunday. Added Debra Hicks, the chair of the Regents: “Yes, we will include more specificity in the agenda items for our executive sessions.”<\/p>\n The issue came to light over the weekend after the university sent out a notice<\/a> that the Regents would meet Monday in executive\u00a0session to discuss “personnel, real estate, water rights and threatened or pending litigation matters.” Hobbs resident Nick Maxwell emailed a complaint<\/a>\u00a0to the Regents early Sunday alleging\u00a0that the notice wasn’t specific enough to comply with OMA. He demanded that the Regents cancel the meeting.<\/p>\n The Regents announced the cancellation of the meeting Sunday evening<\/a>\u00a0and said it will be rescheduled for a later date.<\/p>\n Green said she has been issuing notices of Regents meetings for about two years.\u00a0“This is the first time in my tenure here it had posed a problem for a constituent,” Green\u00a0said. “As requested, we have cancelled the meeting but will schedule in accordance with the request for a more specific agenda for the executive session.”<\/p>\n “Reasonable specificity” means “sufficient information to give the public a general idea about what will be discussed without compromising the confidentiality conferred by the exception,” the OMA compliance guide<\/a> published by the Office of the Attorney General states.<\/p>\n The AG’s guide gives a couple of examples: Telling the public that “possible disciplinary action against an employee” will be discussed is compliant, the AG advises. So is naming a\u00a0specific\u00a0lawsuit to be discussed.\u00a0The goal of the transparency\u00a0law is to ensure 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,” OMA states.<\/p>\n Maxwell said he’s thankful that the Regents are “immediately fixing the Susan Boe, the N.M. Foundation for Open Government’s (FOG) executive director, praised the Regents’ move toward compliance with the law.<\/p>\n “FOG is pleased to hear the Regents will be providing more specific information to the public about its executive sessions — as required by OMA,” Boe said. “Congratulations to Nick Maxwell for shining a light on this problem!”<\/p>\n
\nviolation” related to Monday’s meeting, calling it “one step towards substantial compliance with the New Mexico Open Meetings\u00a0Act.”<\/p>\n