A RESOLUTION confirming the appointment of Garth Bustle to the Eastern Kentucky University Board of Regents.
Summary
SR175 is a simple confirmation resolution for Garth Bustle’s appointment to the Eastern Kentucky University Board of Regents. The resolution states that Governor Andy Beshear appointed Bustle on October 15, 2024, under KRS 164.321 and Executive Order 2024-699, to fill the seat previously held by Lynn Tye for a term ending June 30, 2030. It also notes that the appointment is subject to Senate confirmation and that Bustle meets the statutory qualifications for the position.
The resolution does not create new policy or alter the governance structure of Eastern Kentucky University; instead, it exercises the Senate’s confirmation role over a gubernatorial appointment to a public university board. Its practical effect is to officially place Bustle on the Board of Regents, which helps maintain the board’s membership and oversight of the university.
Impact
SR175 affects Kentucky’s higher education governance by confirming a member of the Eastern Kentucky University Board of Regents under KRS 164.321. It does not amend substantive law, but it completes the appointment process required for a regent to serve, thereby affecting the composition of the board that oversees EKU’s administration, policy direction, and institutional governance. The resolution also reinforces the Senate’s constitutional and statutory role in confirming certain executive appointments.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the resolution was generally supported, passing the Senate on third reading by a wide margin of 37 yeas to 1 nay. No committee transcripts were provided, and the bill text is routine and noncontroversial in nature, indicating the measure was likely viewed as a standard personnel confirmation rather than a policy dispute. The strong vote total points to broad acceptance of the appointment.
Contention
Because SR175 is a confirmation resolution, the main point of possible contention would be the suitability of the appointee rather than the policy merits of the resolution itself. However, no committee testimony or debate is available showing specific objections, and the near-unanimous vote suggests little recorded opposition. Any disagreement likely centered on the appointment process or the individual nominee, not on the legal framework governing the Board of Regents.