1.10 – Procedures to Revise NMSU Policies and Rules

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Details

Scope: NMSU System

Source: ARP Chapter 1 | Institutional Governance

Rule Administrator:

Last Updated: 05/08/2018

Related

Cross-Reference:

RPM 1.10 - NMSU System Policies and Procedures

RPM 1.70 - Shared Governance and the Role of the Faculty Senate



Revision History:

05/08/2018 Amendment approved by Chancellor
2017 Recompilation
12/07/2015 Rule adopted by Chancellor
10/21/2015 Former Policy 1.10 replicated by Board of Regents as initial Rule 1.10

PART 1:  INTRODUCTION


The Administrative Rules and Procedures of NMSU (ARP) are adopted pursuant to the authority granted in Regents Policy Manual (RPM) 1.10. This rule provides procedures by which policies, rules and procedures which govern the operation of the NMSU system will be developed, reviewed and officially adopted. As used in the ARP, the term “rule” also refers to and includes procedures. The RPM and the ARP may be viewed or downloaded from the web at rpm.nmsu.edu and arp.nmsu.edu respectively.

The regulatory activities of the NMDA, undertaken in accordance with the State Rules Act, NMSA 1978, § 14-4-1 et seq., are outside the scope of this rule.

Departmental or unit directives which relate only to internal unit operations are not subject to the development, review and approval requirements of ARP 1.10, and do not govern the activities of any individual, department or unit external to that unit.  Internal unit rules and procedures must not violate nor be inconsistent with any provision of the RPM or the ARP.

 

PART 2:  AUTHORITY TO INITIATE POLICY OR RULE PROPOSALS


Any individual or NMSU entity may propose a new or revised policy or rule for consideration. This “Proposal Sponsor” is responsible for shepherding the proposal through the procedural steps as described in this rule.

 

PART 3:  POLICY OR RULE ADMINISTRATOR


Policy and rule proposals must specify one individual by position to serve as the policy or rule administrator. Typically, the policy or rule administrator is the person most involved in implementation of the policy or rule, has the greatest subject matter expertise, or supervises multiple departments that each have a role in administering the policy or rule.

 

PART 4: SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF POLICY OR RULE


Each policy and rule must specify the scope of its application, in the details section of the online RPM or ARP. While most policies and rules will apply NMSU system-wide, some may have a more limited scope (e.g. community colleges only, NMSU-Las Cruces campus only). If a proposal does not specify its scope, that determination will be made by UGC.   

 

PART 5:  ROLE OF OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY GENERAL COUNSEL (UGC)


UGC will advise and assist proposal sponsors with initial proposal development and the approval process. UGC is responsible for updating and maintaining the official RPM and the ARP, including making these records available on the NMSU website and documenting the revision history for each policy and rule. UGC will make the forms and templates referenced by this rule available on its website. UGC may provide comment on any proposal at any stage in the policy development and formal approval process.

 

PART 6:  DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS


Proposals for new or amended polices or rules are subject to the following:

A. Preliminary Review by Policy Administrator and UGC

To initiate a proposal for a new or amended policy or rule, the proposal sponsor will send the proposal with a review track form (RTF), summarizing the proposal and rationale, to UGC and to the policy or rule administrator for initial review. Both the policy or rule administrator and UGC will provide preliminary advice and feedback to the proposal sponsor.  UGC and/or the policy/rule administrator may elect to attach a comment memo to the RTF in support of or in opposition to the proposal. Throughout the review and approval process, the RTF together with the proposal and any and all comments by reviewers constitute the “proposal packet”.

 

B. Review Assignments

Following the preliminary review, upon approval from the proposal sponsor, UGC will transmit the proposal packet to members of the Assignment Advisory Group (AAG) for consideration at its next meeting.  The AAG is comprised of the executive vice president and provost, the chair and vice chair of the Faculty Senate, and the chancellor. Decisions of the AAG will be made by majority vote; with the chancellor’s vote controlling in the event of a tie.  A representative from UGC attends all AAG meetings to record its assignments on the RTF.  At the meeting, the AAG will make review assignments as follows:

  1. The AAG assigns the proposal to either the academic track or the administrative track for review and comment as outlined in Sections D, E and F below. Proposals within the legislative jurisdiction of the Faculty Senate under RPM 1.70, as well as other proposals where the AAG may determine that the Faculty Senate legislative process is appropriate, are assigned to the academic track for review.  All other proposals are assigned to the administrative track. The assigned review track is noted on the RTF.  Nothing in this rule regulates or alters the Faculty Senate process for review and adoption of Faculty Senate propositions.
  2. The AAG also determines which NMSU entities will be notified of the proposal and the opportunity to review and make recommendations. The UGC representative notes the review assignments on the RTF.
  3. Following the AAG meeting, UGC will post the proposals and RTF forms on a document sharing website (UGC SharePoint) open to all NMSU constituents.
  4. Proposals for minor changes with minimal impact on NMSU operations and those which require urgent adoption may be immediately approved by the Chancellor on a provisional basis and assigned for subsequent direct review by only the UAC.

 

C. Academic Track Proposals

In addition to the other approval procedures described in this rule, proposals assigned to the academic track are subject to the following rules:

  1. The proposal sponsor is responsible for identifying at least one willing faculty senator sponsor (FS Sponsor) who will be responsible for coordinating the review and comment process described in Section F. below, and for communicating to UGC the actions taken by the Faculty Senate’s committees and Faculty Senate at large. The Faculty Senate Chair and Vice-Chair will assist in this process as needed.
  2. Faculty Senate propositions affecting NMSU System policies may be brought into the ARP 1.10 approval process before, during or after enactment in the Faculty Senate. For proposals initiated under this rule, the Faculty Senate may postpone its review until after the assigned review groups have had an opportunity to comment and the proposal sponsor has incorporated changes as deemed appropriate.
  3. Unless the chancellor otherwise authorizes, an academic track proposal may not be submitted to the UAC for a second read or vote until approved by the Faculty Senate.
  4. Academic track proposals will be submitted to UAC for second read in the form approved by Faculty Senate. If the UAC recommends veto or recommends amendment to a Faculty Senate approved proposal, then the Faculty Senate chair and vice chair will decide whether to forward the proposition to the Chancellor for a decision as recommended by the UAC, or to withdraw the proposal for reconsideration by the Faculty Senate.

 

D. Administrative Track Proposals

Policy and rule proposals assigned to the administrative track do not require formal faculty senate legislation, but may be referred by the AAG to the Faculty Senate for review and comment.

 

E. Review and Comment Period

Both academic track and administrative track policy and rule proposals will be subject to a review and comment period, which will be conducted as follows:

  1. Following the AAG meeting, UGC will submit the proposals to the UAC for first read, usually at the UAC’s next meeting.  The review and comment period commences from the date of the first read.  If no review groups were assigned at by the AAG, then UAC may vote to shorten or waive the review and comment period and/or may vote to waive second read.
  2. UGC notifies the leadership of the assigned review groups (as identified on the RTF) of the assignment and the availability of the proposal packet for review through the UGC SharePoint. The proposal sponsor or designee may arrange to present the proposal to any of the review groups, and review groups may request a presentation.  The reviews may be conducted in any order. Each assigned review group with comments or recommended edits uploads the group’s collective comments through the UGC SharePoint for consideration by the proposal sponsor and UGC. Any NMSU constituent may also upload comments to the UGC SharePoint.
  3. The review period deadline will be calculated by UGC and noted on the RTF. The period will typically be approximately 6 six weeks in duration, unless a shorter review period is authorized at first read by UAC. Upon request and justification from any interested constituent, the review and comment period may be extended by the chancellor or by vote of the UAC.
  4. At the conclusion of the review and comment period, the proposal sponsor and UGC will confer regarding suggested edits and changes to the proposal and will prepare a final version of the proposal. In the event the proposal is modified during or following the review and comment process, the revised version will be uploaded to the UGC SharePoint prior to release of the UAC agenda for the meeting in which the proposal will receive second read.   Where an administrative track proposal is modified significantly, the UGC and Proposal Sponsor may agree to extend the review period and submit the proposal to the assigned review groups for a second review.  UAC may also vote to direct the sponsor to submit the revised proposal for a second review period.   If re-review is required, UGC will notify the leaders of the assigned review groups.
  5. Once the review period has concluded, for administrative track proposals, UGC will submit the proposal for inclusion on the agenda of the next UAC meeting for second read. When appropriate, the UAC agenda will indicate that substantive revisions were made to the proposal.  For academic track proposals, UGC will notify the Faculty Senate chair and confer on the timing for Faculty Senate consideration.

 

F. UAC Recommendation

All policy and rule proposals will be submitted for review and recommendation by the UAC. Absent a vote waiving the first or second read, the proposal will receive two readings at UAC following assignment by the AAG.  After the review and comment period, the proposal will be placed on the UAC agenda for second read and a vote on whether to recommend approval to the chancellor, unless processed otherwise, in accordance with the procedures set forth above.

 

G. Chancellor Approval or Veto; RPM and ARP Maintenance

  1. Upon consideration of the recommendations of the UAC and other reviewing entities, the chancellor may approve or veto the proposal.  The chancellor will indicate that decision in writing for record retention purposes. RPM 1.70 will govern in any situation in which an academic track rule or policy proposal, formally approved as a faculty senate proposition, is vetoed or otherwise not acted upon by the chancellor.
  2. The final proposal and the record of the Chancellor’s decision to approve or veto will be maintained by UGC, or the library archives, for record retention purposes.
  3. In the case of rule proposals, after approval by the chancellor, UGC will revise the ARP. UGC will also submit a summary of ARP revisions as an informational item for placement on the agenda for a regular meeting of the Board of Regents.
  4. In the case of policy proposals, after approval by the chancellor, UGC will submit the proposal for placement on the meeting agenda for the Board of Regents. Upon approval by the Board of Regents, UGC will make the approved changes and additions to the RPM.