By MILAN SIMONICH
The Santa Fe New Mexican
Never should rich and powerful public employees get to select their own bosses. It happens all the time at New Mexico’s universities.
Presidents of universities handpick the people who serve as student regents. The governor technically makes the appointment, but presidents supply the names of the students they want as regents.
With all that leverage, presidents can lock up the loyalty of regents who are supposed to be looking out for fellow students. The results can be awful for the student body, faculty members and the public.
At Western New Mexico University in Silver City, the five regents called a special meeting during winter break of 2024. They voted to pay then-President Joseph Shepard $1.9 million in exchange for his resignation.
Neither the student regent, Trent Jones, nor the other members of the governing board mentioned the amount of Shepard’s payout during their public meeting. They also were cryptic in announcing the business at hand, listing the only item on the agenda as “President’s Contract”. It should have read: “Golden Parachute for Shepard; no voice for students.”
After 13 years of failed attempts to improve university governing boards, state Sen. Jeff Steinborn has his best chance to stop school presidents from selecting their own student regents.
Steinborn and Rep. Christine Chandler have momentum for their proposed constitutional amendment eliminating that piece of presidential power. Elected student governing bodies would choose candidates for student regents and send their lists to the governor. With the change, presidents might face student regents with a streak of independence.
No qualifications exist to be a university regent in New Mexico, regardless of whether the position is for a student or a member of the public at large. The proposal by Steinborn and Chandler, House Joint Resolution 1, also would strip governors of the power to pick anyone they want to be a regent.
Governors for decades have rewarded donors and cronies with seats on university governing boards. Steinborn’s constitutional amendment would create nominating committees to screen people who want to serve as regents.
These panels would be responsible for finding the best available talent and forwarding a list of finalists to the governor. At that point, the governor would be bound to choose from the names provided.
State senators would retain their power to confirm or reject the governor’s nominees. This is almost always a formality in New Mexico. Few senators delve into the background of nominees or ask them any hard questions.
Steinborn says the system he and Chandler propose is similar to the way district and appellate court judges are selected in New Mexico. His is a poor comparison. The baseline for those judgeships is a law degree and experience in the legal profession. There is no common starting point to qualify to be a regent.
But creating committees to look for people with the interest and talent to improve New Mexico’s universities is better than the existing system.
Mary Hotvedt, once leader of the Democratic Party in Grant County, was one of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s appointees to the Western New Mexico University Board of Regents. Hotvedt moved in the right political circles to gain the appointment. None of this made her a capable or conscientious regent.
In voting for Shepard’s $1.9 million payout, Hotvedt said: “He is selflessly stepping down for the good of the university in the face of ongoing issues.” Her definition of selflessness doesn’t match mine.
Malpractice by Hotvedt and the other former regents at Western is one reason the proposed constitutional amendment by Chandler and Steinborn has momentum.
It cleared the House of Representatives last week on a vote of 67-0. The proposal is now before the Senate. Because of a change in committee assignments, the measure has a decent chance to at last pass the Senate and advance to a vote of the people in November.
For two years running, Sen. Joe Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, refused to give the proposal for regent nominating committees a hearing in the Judiciary Committee he chairs. This session is different.
Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, has assigned the proposal to the Rules Committee and the Education Committee. Cervantes no longer is positioned to singlehandedly strangle the proposed constitutional amendment.
Wirth did not respond to a request for comment on the change in committee assignments, but his decision was sound. A proposal that clears the House without a single negative vote deserves fair hearings in the Senate.
Cervantes opposed the reform measure because he said it created bureaucracy without a promise of better regents. He is entitled to his view. But his refusal to allow other senators to vote on the proposal amounted to a legislative veto — something that should be an oxymoron.
Progress comes in baby steps at the Capitol. This time one-man rule can’t bottle up a needed reform.
Ringside Seat is an opinion column about people, politics and news. Contact Milan Simonich at msimonich@sfnewmexican.com or 505.986.3080.