At a meeting of the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee, members heard testimony on House Bill 129, a measure that would reduce the probationary period for classified state employees from one year to 180 days (about six months).

The bill’s sponsor’s representative explained that an amendment adopted in the House clarified how probation interacts with transfers: the amendment replaces language about moving to a different service assignment with a provision that an employee who “commences another classified service assignment” does not restart the probationary period unless the employee has a break in service.

Supporters told the committee the change would improve recruitment and retention and align New Mexico with other jurisdictions. John Lipschutz of the New Mexico Federation of Labor said, “we stand in strong support of this measure and in support of our public sector, workers.” Dylan Lang, the state personnel director for New Mexico, called the bill “a great compromise between the benefits and the interests of employees and employers for the state” and asked the committee to pass it. Ann Keller, an 11‑year state employee and treasurer of CWA Local 7076, said a six‑month probationary period would bring New Mexico closer to Albuquerque and more than 20 other state governments, including Texas, Colorado and Utah.

Committee members asked how the change would affect training and evaluation. Senator Scott asked whether typical training programs are completed within six months or run longer. Lindsey Hurst, the expert witness at the hearing, replied that it depends on the position: some roles have short initial training, while others — particularly specialized field positions — may have ongoing training that lasts years. A committee staff statistic cited during the hearing said 66% of classified employees completed their probationary period in fiscal year 2024 and that 8% were involuntarily separated, with additional clarification provided during discussion about the breakdown of that figure.

No roll‑call vote on the bill was recorded during the hearing; the committee took testimony and stood for questions.

The bill remains before the committee pending further action.