12/07/15 Rule adopted by Chancellor
10/21/15 former Policy 1.10 replicated by Board of Regents as initial Rule 1.10
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
The Administrative Rules and Procedures of NMSU are adopted pursuant to the authority granted in RPM 1.10. This Rule establishes the protocols 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” shall also refer to and include procedures. The Regents Policy Manual (RPM) and the Administrative Rules and Procedures of NMSU (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 shall not govern the activities of any individual, department or unit external to that unit. Internal unit rules and procedures shall 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 Part 6 of this Rule.
PART 3: POLICY OR RULE ADMINISTRATOR
Each policy and each rule proposal must specify one NMSU department or unit to serve as the primary policy or rule administrator. The policy or rule administrator will be the unit most involved in implementation of the policy or rule, and typically will have the greatest subject matter expertise.
PART 4: SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF POLICY OR RULE
Each policy and rule proposal shall specify the scope of its application. 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).
PART 5: ROLE OF OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY GENERAL COUNSEL (UGC)
UGC will advise and assist Proposal Sponsors with initial proposal development and monitoring proposals through review and comment periods 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 shall make the forms and templates referenced by this Rule available on the General Counsel website and linked to this rule. UGC may provide comment on any proposal at any stage in the policy development, review and comment period, and formal approval process.
PART 6: DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
Proposals for new or amended polices or rules shall be subject to the following:
A. Proposal Development
To initiate a proposal for a new or amended policy or rule, the Proposal Sponsor will utilize either the Policy Proposal Template or the Rule Proposal Template, together with the Review Track Form (available on the UGC website). Throughout the approval process, the Review Track Form, together with the proposal and any and all comments by reviewers shall constitute the “Proposal Packet”.
B. Preliminary Review
The Proposal Sponsor shall submit the proposal and the Review Track Form to UGC and to the Policy/Rule Administrator for initial review. Both the Policy or Rule Administrator and UGC shall provide preliminary advice and feedback to the Proposal Sponsor. At such time as this Preliminary Review is complete and the Proposal Sponsor has made any agreed upon modifications to the proposal, these preliminary reviewers shall sign the Review Track Form which shall indicate only that their review is complete. Either the UGC or the Policy/Rule Administrator may attach a comment memo to the Review Track Form either in support of or in opposition to the proposal.
C. Review Assignments
Once the preliminary reviews are complete, UGC shall transmit the Proposal Packet to the Office of the Chancellor and the proposal will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Assignment Advisory Group (AAG). The AAG shall be comprised of the Executive Vice President and Provost, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Faculty Senate, and the Chancellor. Decisions of the AAG shall be made by majority vote; with the chancellor’s vote controlling in the event of a tie. The AAG shall make review assignments as follows:
- The AAG will assign 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, shall be assigned to the Academic Track for review. All other proposals will be assigned to the Administrative Track. The assigned review track will be noted on the Review Track Form. Nothing in this rule regulates or alters the Faculty Senate process for review and adoption of Faculty Senate Propositions.
- The AAG will determine which other NMSU entities must be notified and afforded the opportunity to review and make recommendations concerning the proposal, and will indicate those determination on the Review Track Form. Any NMSU entity may elect to provide comment on any proposal during the review and comment period.
- Proposals for minor changes with minimal impact on NMSU operations and those which require urgent adoption may be immediately approved on a provisional basis and assigned for immediate review by only the UAC.
- The Proposal Packet shall be returned to the UGC. UGC will prepare a Routing Form to conform to the AAG’s review and comment assignments, and will transmit the Routing Form and a copy of the signed Review Track Form to the Proposal Sponsor.
D. 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 procedures and restrictions:
- The Proposal Sponsor is responsible for identifying at least one willing faculty senator sponsor (FS Sponsor) who will be responsible for obtaining Faculty Senate approval and for coordinating the review and comment process described in Section F. below.
- Academic Track proposals shall not be submitted to the reviewing entities for consideration, nor shall the review and comment period be deemed to commence, until after the Faculty Senate Sponsor agrees that the proposal is ready to proceed.
- Faculty Senate Propositions may be brought into the ARP 1.10 approval process before, during or after enactment in the Faculty Senate.
- 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.
- Academic track proposals shall 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 without change, or to withdraw the proposal for reconsideration by the Faculty Senate.
E. 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.
F. Review and Comment Period
Both Academic Track and Administrative Track policy and rule Proposals will be subject to a review and comment period, which shall be conducted as follows:
- The Proposal Sponsor shall transmit a copy of the Routing Form and the Proposal Packet to the leadership of the appropriate reviewing groups indicated on the Routing Form. The Proposal Sponsor or designee will arrange to present the proposal to any of the reviewing groups as may be requested. The reviews may be conducted in any order and the Routing Form may be signed in counterparts.
- The proposal may be submitted to UAC for an informational “first read” at any point during the review and comment period. UAC will take no formal position on the proposal at this stage.
- Each reviewing group will indicate its support for or opposition to the proposal on the Routing Form, and may also elect to attach a memorandum in support or opposition. Within 6 weeks after the Proposal Sponsor’s request for review, each reviewing organization will return the signed Routing Form and any memorandum to the Proposal Sponsor. Upon request of a Reviewing Group, the review and comment period may be extended by the Proposal Sponsor, or by the Chancellor upon adequate justification, and shall be automatically extended for an additional week when the 6 weeks includes Spring Break, the Winter Holiday or the Thanksgiving Week.
- Once all reviews are complete, or at the conclusion of the review and comment period, whichever occurs first, the Proposal Sponsor shall remit the Proposal Packet to UGC. In the event the proposal was modified by the Sponsor during the review and comment process, a copy of the proposal as it was presented shall be attached to the Routing Form(s) indicating which version was approved by each reviewing unit. In situations where an Administrative Track Proposal is modified in response to comments during the review and comment process, the Proposal Sponsor shall seek guidance from UGC to determine whether such changes are sufficiently significant to require re-review by the reviewing groups which did not have the opportunity to comment upon the final version. If the Policy Sponsor and UGC disagree about the need for re-review, the Chancellor may be consulted on this issue. If re-review is required, UGC will prepare a Supplemental Routing Form to indicate the necessary additional reviews. Once all reviews are complete, or the time period for review has expired, UGC shall submit the proposal to the Office of the Chancellor for inclusion on the agenda of the next UAC meeting.
G. UAC Recommendation
All policy and rule proposals will be submitted for review and recommendation by the UAC. If the proposal was presented to UAC for first read during the review and comment period, then the proposal will receive a second reading and an advisory vote at the first UAC meeting following the review and comment period. Otherwise, absent a vote waiving the first reading, the proposal will stand for a first read and will appear on the agenda of the following meeting of the UAC for second reading and a vote on whether to recommend approval to the Chancellor.
H. Chancellor Approval or Veto
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 on the Routing Form, and the decision will be announced at the next UAC meeting. 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.
Following the Chancellor’s decision, the Proposal Packet shall be returned to UGC. The UGC shall submit a copy of the signed Routing Form reflecting the Chancellor’s decision and a copy of the proposal to the Proposal Sponsor. The Proposal Packet shall be retained by UGC for record retention purposes.
In the case of new or revised rules approved by the Chancellor, the UGC will make the approved changes and additions to the ARP. UGC will also submit a summary of ARP revisions as an informational item for placement on the Board of Regents regular meeting agenda.
In the case of Regents Policy proposals, UGC will submit the proposal for placement on the Board’s next regular meeting agenda.
12/07/15 Rule adopted by Chancellor
10/21/15 former Policy 1.10 replicated by Board of Regents as initial Rule 1.10