Revise board of regents laws to remove statutory requirement for student regent
Summary
SB 210 revises Montana law governing the Board of Regents by removing the statutory requirement that one regent seat be reserved for a student member. Under current law, the governor appoints a student regent from nominees submitted by a designated student organization, and that student serves a one-year term. The bill strikes that student-regent provision from statute and keeps the remaining appointment rules for the board, including district and political-party balance requirements and seven-year terms for appointed members.
The bill also creates a transition plan for the vacancy left by eliminating the student regent position. It directs the governor to appoint a replacement regent on July 1, 2025, to serve a term ending January 31, 2030, and then to appoint a full seven-year regent term beginning February 1, 2030. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
SB 210 would amend section 2-15-1508, MCA, by deleting the statutory language that guarantees a student seat on the Board of Regents and by replacing it with a standard appointed regent seat. This changes the composition of the board and removes the nomination process involving a student organization and the special one-year term for a student regent. The bill affects the governor’s appointment authority, the structure of the Board of Regents, and the representation of students in higher-education governance.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had some support in committee, passing a Senate Education and Cultural Resources motion to table by a 13-1 vote. However, the bill ultimately died in process, indicating it did not advance through the full legislative process. With no committee transcript provided, the record shows procedural support at one stage but not enough momentum to become law.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether the Board of Regents should continue to include a statutorily required student member. Supporters of the change likely favored a more traditional appointed board structure and the removal of a special seat that is not subject to the same district and party-balance rules. Opponents would likely have objected to eliminating direct student representation in higher-education decision-making and to replacing a student voice with a standard regent appointment. The close 13-1 committee vote on the motion to table suggests the issue was considered, but the lack of further progress indicates unresolved disagreement or limited legislative priority.