The NMSU Board of Regents met on February 12 during a special meeting to discuss action items that needed immediate attention. 

The first of the action items was to report that the Chancellor search criteria and contract needed to be changed, in order to protect the privacy of potential candidates.  This protection will be extended until the Chancellor Search Committee releases its list of top five candidates for the Board of Regents to review. This action was advised by the legal team that is employed by the Board of Regents. 

“What we are trying to do is to maintain for the candidates the opportunity to have the conversation for those folks that may not even be considering the opportunity.  To do that well, these are employed individuals that could not jeopardize their livelihood by entertaining a conversation with us.  That is the backdrop for this objective,” Vice Chair Kari Mitchell said.

This action item was given due pass by the Regents with all voting for it, with no dissent. 

The next action item discussed by the Board of Regents was regarding the Chancellors ability to hire senior level management positions.  The item called for the revocation of that ability during the transitory period, until the new Chancellor has been confirmed. 

“We would like to have this particular policy put in place for a limited period of time.  This is to allow the new Chancellor the opportunity to make new appointments or initiate searches for those positions that have become unfilled at this time.  The intention is to have those new positions filled with an interim the new Chancellor is placed,” Chair Debra Hicks stated. 

This action item was given due pass, with no dissenting votes.

The final action item discussed was in regard to a budget investment evaluation.  The purpose of this action item is to make public the direction that the University is taking with the 6% tuition increase last year.  4% of that increase has been directed to strategic investments. 

The reason for this action item is to clear up confusion as to whether or not this is a Regent based directive or if it is a regent committee based directive.  To clarify, this action item cleared up the confusion, insisting that it was a Committee directive that was operating within Regent approved guidelines.  Thus making it a Regent approved directive. 

“Regents who are appointed, as long as they are operating within the Regent approved scope of those committees, will assign task to the staff serving on those committees as it relates to fulfilling those action items.  And bring specific clarity to the expectation that we seek return on investment information,” Vice Chair Mitchell said.

The regents overwhelmingly approved this action item to clear up any confusion.  There were no dissenting votes.