Mandatory training coming soon for NM university boards of regents
The four new members of the Western New Mexico University board of regents met for the first time on April 9, 2025. (Screenshot of meeting)
Starting next month, regents on New Mexico university boards will have to complete 10 hours of training to prepare them for their roles in guiding academic institutions.
Senate Bill 19, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Steinborn (D-Las Cruces), directs the New Mexico Department of Higher Education to develop those training hours to include topics such as state law, financial management, institutional governance and student success. The HED is tasked with providing the training and ensuring regents comply.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed SB19 on April 8 and the bill goes into effect on June 20. The bill states that current regents must complete the training by Dec. 31 this year.
Higher Education Department Spokesperson Auriella Ortiz told Source NM in a written statement that members of the department have started considering requirements and platforms for the training, which she said is projected to be completed by the end of the year.
'Since the agency has provided a similar type of training for regents in the past, this process is not new to us,' Ortiz wrote.
Steven Neville, a former state senator who represented San Juan County, recently took over as chair of the Western New Mexico University Board of Regents. The entire board consists of four new members after previous members resigned or concluded their tenure in late 2024 and early 2025, following the board's controversial decision to award outgoing university President Joseph Shepard a $1.9 million severance package. Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed a civil suit against Shepard and the board in an effort to recover the state funds. A hearing is scheduled in June to consider Shepard's motion to dismiss the case against him.
Neville told Source NM that he has a lot of knowledge about state law and financial management from his time as a lawmaker and member of the Legislative Finance Committee, which he will use in his new role, but university management is still different.
'There're certain things about the way universities run that are totally different than my county commission experience or my city council experience or even my state senate experience,' Neville said. 'I've been on several boards and commissions through the years, but nothing is exactly the same.'
He added that all four members of the board need some aspect of the future training, despite everyone's background. He said the HED provided all new regents with a short orientation over a couple of hours when they were first appointed, but hopes that future training also involves more explanation of higher education policies and funding 'intricacies that are a little different from one agency to the next.'
Ortiz reiterated to Source that the HED already provides training to newly appointed and reappointed regents covering topics such as governance, ethics, fiscal management and state and federal laws.
'Adding a requirement of 10 hours will enhance a governing boards' understanding of their appointed or elected positions in addition to the tools they need to better champion students, faculty and staff on their campuses,' Ortiz wrote. 'It is important to note that Higher Education Secretary Stephanie M. Rodriguez and our colleagues at the department are always available to assist governing board members at any time beyond the training sessions.'
During the session earlier this year, Steinborn told Senate Education Committee members that he introduced the bill to ensure regents are prepared for their work in hiring university presidents, setting tuition and other actions that fundamentally impact students and faculty. SB19 was one of several bills and resolutions introduced this session that would have addressed the process for how regents are chosen and the preparation they receive for fulfilling their roles.
Steinborn also introduced Senate Joint Resolution 7, which would have required the governor to choose regent nominees from a pool of candidates approved by a nominating committee. House Joint Resolution 12, introduced by Rep. Nathan Small (D-Las Cruces), would have codified regents' fiduciary duties; moved regent removal proceedings to the district courts; and allowed the attorney general or a majority of the board to initiate the removal of a regent. Both resolutions would have required a ballot vote to amend the state constitution, however both died in committee.
'I think we owe it to our universities and our kids and taxpayers that we have the best regents we can get and that they're trained,' Steinborn said during the committee meeting.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
12 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
S.F. activists fought for affordable housing in the Mission. Now they're pumping the brakes
For years, activists in San Francisco's Mission District fiercely fought a plan to build hundreds of market-rate apartments at a high-profile site at 16th and Mission Street, dubbing it 'the Monster in the Mission' and arguing it would further gentrify the neighborhood. They lobbied for affordable housing on the site and won in 2022, when the city of San Francisco designated the land for affordable development. But some of the same community organizations that fought for affordable homes are now pushing back against the very project they advocated for. The city has chosen nonprofits Mission Housing and Mission Economic Development Agency to develop over 380 affordable homes at 1979 Mission St. — a project now called the 'Marvel in the Mission.' Two neighborhood-based organizations — People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights, or PODER, and Homies Organizing the Mission to Empower Youth, or HOMEY — help lead the Plaza 16 Coalition, an advocacy network first formed to oppose the original market-rate project proposed by developer Maximus Real Estate Partners in 2013. But while they continue to say that the Mission District needs affordable housing development, advocates with PODER and HOMEY also argue that the project's developers have disregarded feedback and ignored questions during community engagement meetings. Now, the organizations are backing concerns raised by parents at nearby Marshall Elementary School, who fear that the project will limit parking options, cast shadows onto the school playground and produce noise and air pollution during construction. The conflict underscores how community groups are still trying to influence development in San Francisco, even as state laws severely limit their ability to delay or halt new homes. It comes as the Mission is starting to see an influx of new subsidized units. Cristina Ortiz, a Marshall parent who advocated against the original market-rate development, told the Chronicle she's worried that street conditions and neighborhood safety will get worse when the project's first phase with 136 permanent supportive housing units for homeless people opens. Ortiz said in Spanish that the neighborhood is already struggling with drugs and homelessness, and she's concerned that the first phase for homeless people could include those with addiction problems. Neighborhoods generally do not see an increase in crime or other related challenges after supportive housing for the homeless opens in the area, but 'a lot of it hinges on the implementation,' said Ryan Finnigan, deputy director of research at U.C. Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Finnigan explained that many projects have rapid crisis response systems to help prevent sites from becoming magnets for disturbances. Design features like community spaces allow residents to interact with neighbors, build support networks and reduce conflict, he added. The first phase includes plans for a clinic providing mental health resources to residents, as well as on-site case management, said project spokesperson Chirag Bhakta, the director of community engagement at Mission Housing. 'We believe that housing with support services on-site is one of a myriad of solutions that we need to address the crisis on the streets and our overall housing crisis,' Bhakta said. 'No one likes to see what the current reality is on the streets of San Francisco, particularly on the 16th Street corridor. These are layered and complex issues that one housing development is not going to be able to solve.' Plaza 16 and other community members raised concerns with the developers about the height of the second phase of the project, a 16-story building with 134 units of affordable family housing. They worry it would reduce sunlight, change the landscape of the neighborhood and set a precedent allowing for luxury high-rise development in the Mission, where the tallest building is roughly 10 stories. But housing advocates say that the need for affordable homes is so acute that worries about changes to how a neighborhood looks should be secondary. 'When a 100% affordable housing project comes into the picture, this is the time to say yes,' said Brianna Morales, the community organizer at Housing Action Coalition. Still, these community concerns seem unlikely to stall the progress of the development: The city planning commission has already approved Phase 1 of the project, which is slated to break ground in December. Community meetings are likely not required for the project's three phases to gain approval thanks to changes in state law meant to speed up housing approvals, planning department spokesperson Anne Yalon. Despite that, the developers have held three community meetings on the project so far. Previously projects could get caught up in years of community meetings and fights, dragging out timeliness and raising costs, which are already high. Since 2017, lawmakers have passed a variety of state policies that have streamlined approvals and limited appeals. The most recent legislation comes amid a state mandate requiring San Francisco to approve 82,000 housing units by 2031 — 46,000 of which must be affordable. 'The vast majority of San Francisco's affordable housing projects now pursue permit streamlining and the State Density Bonus Program,' Yalon explained. 'These tools offer faster, more predictable approvals, saving time and providing developers with much-needed certainty. Prior to these reforms, virtually all affordable projects were subject to discretionary review, creating delays and unpredictability.' But this streamlined system often means less community input. In late May, the San Francisco Planning Commission approved the construction of a contentious 181-unit apartment complex at 2588 Mission St., the site of a 2015 fire that killed a tenant, injured six others and displaced 60 tenants and over two dozen businesses. Project opponents, who call the proposal the 'la Muerte de la Misíon,' have argued how the complex — which plans to offer below-market rents for less than 10% of its units — will deepen income disparities and perpetuate gentrification in the neighborhood. Both projects are marks of a changing housing landscape that some advocates say is reliant on developers to voluntarily engage with the community for input. MEDA and Mission Housing organized a focus group in 2024, a general community information meeting in January of this year and two community engagement meetings in May and June, according to Bhakta. At the two latest meetings, attendees overwhelmingly approved in a nonbinding vote maximizing the number of units on site, which meant keeping the 16-story building. HOMEY Executive Director Roberto Alfaro explained that he felt the voting process was 'disingenuous,' claiming that MEDA and Mission Housing primarily invited community members who they knew would support the project as-is. Bhakta said that MEDA and Mission Housing promoted the events to their own lists and community members on the street, alongside other outreach methods. Plaza 16 has raised a dozen demands to the developers, including to reduce the project height and to give Plaza more input at regular meetings — exactly the types of requests that state streamlining laws are trying to get away from. None of these demands have resulted in changes to the developments, said PODER organizer Reina Tello, who added that during community engagement meetings — and in follow-up conversations — developers have left many neighbors' questions unanswered. Several questions asked by community members did not relate to the size of the project, while others are part of ongoing discussions, Bhakta said. He noted that the development team plans to host future community meetings regarding the design of the project's second and third phase, while also continuing to meet with administrators, staff and parents at Marshall. Representatives of the team have also scheduled a meeting with the Plaza 16 coalition for further discussion, Bhakta added. But for Tello, the 'only path forward' and the 'only way to do any repair' is to pause the project, and not to move forward until community organizations can review everything. 'They've already held four community meetings,' Tello said, but 'what is the point of meeting if there is no substance to the meeting? What is the point of meeting if there are no results?' Jane Natoli, the San Francisco organizing director at YIMBY Action, argues that 'there's a difference between the community being able to provide feedback and input, and the community having the final say.' (The executive director of YIMBY Action is married to the executive director of Mission Housing.) For Bhakta, this project is a result of years of advocacy for affordable housing in the Mission. 'The Mission District has led the demands for affordable housing over the past few decades. We have faced the brunt of gentrification and displacement,' Bhakta noted. 'As part of that tradition, MEDA and Mission Housing, the neighborhood's two affordable housing developers, are doing what we can to meet the need.'
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Abilene man gets 195 years for trafficking teen to multiple men
ABILENE, Texas () – An Abilene man has been sentenced to 195 years in prison after being found guilty of trafficking a runaway teenager to multiple men. Six suspects indicted in connection to sex trafficking of runaway teen in Abilene Juan Ortiz was arrested in October 2023 and charged with Trafficking of a Child. According to court documents, Ortiz picked up the teen in August 2023 and took her to a motel on South 1st Street, where he provided her with drugs and alcohol, before soliciting multiple male suspects to pay him to have sex with the teen while he filmed it. Report: Two Abilene men involved in sex trafficking of runaway teen Ortiz stood trial in the 104th District Court, where a jury found him guilty on all counts: Trafficking of a Child, Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child, and two counts of Sexual Assault of a Child. He was sentenced to 80 years for trafficking, 75 years for aggravated sexual assault, and 20 years for each count of sexual assault. These sentences are to be served consecutively, resulting in a total of 195 years behind bars. Ortiz was also fined $20,000. APD Youth Detective Clint Coapland, who helped secure the arrest of Ortiz several months ago, says, 'The jury's decision to impose a 195-year sentence on the defendant sends an unmistakable message: crimes against children will be met with the full force of justice. This sentence is not just a punishment, it is a powerful stand in defense of the most vulnerable members of our society.' UPDATE: Abilene man accused of sex trafficking runaway teen to at least 4 predators Five other men were also arrested in connection with the case: Derrick Bernard Harden Jr., Cristian Gomez, Rony Pineda-Zuniga, Immanuel Dan Brown and Darlin Zuniga. Three of the suspects — Gomez, Pineda-Zuniga, and Zuniga — were found guilty of Solicitation of Prostitution. All sexual assault charges against them were waived, and they were each sentenced to two years in jail. Harden and Brown are the only remaining suspects whose trial is still pending. Harden's court date is currently set for September 2025, and Brown's is set for August 2025. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Exposed: How Texans' Tax Dollars Fund Political Agendas
When state Sen. Mayes Middleton sponsored a bill to ban taxpayer-funded lobbying, he hoped it would end the use of peoples' money against their own interests. 'For too long, taxpayers' and parents' own tax dollars have been used to lobby against them in Austin,' Middleton said in a statement to The Dallas Express. Middleton, a Republican, introduced SB 19 in the state Senate in February, aiming to ban public bodies from hiring lobbyists. 'These taxpayer-funded lobbyists have squandered millions of dollars of your hard-earned dollars to lobby against border security, election integrity, parental choice in education, teacher pay raises, and even fought against property tax relief and reform,' Middleton said in the statement. Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare endorsed Middleton's proposed ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying in February. 'It's time for Texas to put a stop to using our tax dollars for special interest lobbying,' he posted at the time. Close to $100 million in public funds is spent each year on taxpayer-funded lobbying, according to Middleton. Public bodies across Texas spent up to $98.6 million in 2023 – up from $75 million in 2021 – to hire 'contract lobbyists,' according to a report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. James Quintero, policy director of the group's Taxpayer Protection Project, wrote that these numbers fail to 'capture the full weight of taxpayer-funded lobbying.' He added that local governments also use tax dollars to hire 'in-house lobbyists' and pay membership dues to 'politically active groups that represent political subdivisions to the legislature.' Quintero wrote that it is 'more difficult to quantify' these kinds of lobbying due to the large volume of information. 'The practice of T[axpayer] F[unded] L[obbying] is being utilized by local governments to lobby state government for more government – and in a decidedly leftwing direction,' Quintero wrote. 'It is tantamount to the weaponization of public money against the public interest, for the benefit of a select few.' Groups like the Texas Association of School Boards used 'school tax dollars' to protect men going into girls' restrooms and locker rooms, and invited 'transgender advocates' to train school board members on pronouns, Middleton said. In the past, the TASB reportedly helped block school choice. The TASB uses 'taxpayer-funded' lobbying, and it spent up to $1.89 million as of the '2024 election season,' according to Transparency USA. Since 2015, the group has spent up to $6.8 million. Its 'advocacy agenda' is off-limits to the public. The TASB denounced efforts to ban lobbying with public money: 'Prohibiting Local Governments from Lobbying is Community Censorship.' Dallas directed more than $1 million to its 'internal lobbyists,' which support legislation it says 'protect[s] the rights of all vulnerable communities, including LGBTQIA+ individuals, youth, seniors, and refugees.' Fort Worth supports legislation that would 'prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.' Other large cities across Texas also fund lobbyists with public money. Austin uses its 'public-private team of lobbyists' to 'actively support legislation' backed by the city council, like 'pay-equity, education-equity, housing-equity, and health-equity.' Houston supports measures 'strengthening local governments' regulatory authority over energy industry participants.' San Antonio's Government Affairs Department pushes legislation supporting 'health equity and social justice.' Middleton's ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying – backed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick – passed the state Senate in March but ultimately died in the state House. Before it passed the first chamber, Republican state Sen. Robert Nichols introduced an amendment that gutted the bill. This removed the ban on public dollars for nonprofits that hire lobbyists and created carve-outs for nonprofits. TASB is a nonprofit, so this would have exempted the group from the public lobbying ban. 'Time and time again, we have seen taxpayer-funded lobbyists advocate against Texans and against common sense,' Middleton said in a statement. 'We don't need an Austin lobbyist middleman between state and local elected officials. We are elected to represent our constituents directly.'
