To amend sections 113.70, 113.73, 3345.45, and 3345.454; to enact sections 107.037, 3345.0220, 3345.0221, and 3345.0222; and to repeal section 3345.456 of the Revised Code to enact the S.B. 1 Compliance Supplemental Appropriation Act regarding the operation of state institutions of higher education.
HB698 is a higher-education compliance and funding bill that creates a new set of reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements for Ohio state institutions of higher education. It directs the governor’s budget recommendations to include a set-aside of state share of instruction funds tied to compliance with specified higher-education laws, and it authorizes the chancellor of higher education to withhold those funds if an institution fails to certify compliance or submits a recklessly false or fraudulent certification. The bill also makes certifications, inventories, and reports signed by university leadership public records.
The bill further expands state oversight of university personnel and academic policies. It requires institutions to report employees who performed diversity, equity, and inclusion functions and were reassigned, and it prohibits institutions from disguising or reclassifying positions to continue DEI functions barred by existing law. It also revises faculty workload and tenure-related policy requirements, including mandatory workload standards, multiple tenure pathways, and disciplinary options for noncompliance with workload policies. In addition, it imposes detailed retrenchment policy requirements for tenured institutions and requires elimination of undergraduate degree programs that average fewer than five degrees per year over a three-year period unless waived by the chancellor.
HB698 would significantly amend Ohio law governing state institutions of higher education by adding new compliance reporting duties, public-records obligations, and funding penalties tied to state share of instruction dollars. It would also alter the statutory framework for faculty workload, tenure, retrenchment, and low-enrollment academic programs, shifting more authority to boards of trustees while giving the chancellor enforcement and review powers. The bill would affect public universities, their presidents, boards of trustees, faculty, and administrative staff, as well as the Department of Higher Education and the state budget process.
Because the bill was only introduced and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, there is no formal vote history to gauge legislative support. The bill’s structure suggests a strong policy preference for tighter oversight of universities, especially around DEI-related staffing, compliance certification, and program accountability. The overall tone of the legislation is directive and enforcement-oriented rather than collaborative, indicating that supporters likely view it as a mechanism to ensure compliance with state higher-education mandates.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion functions, the public disclosure of employee inventories and reports, and the threat of withholding state funding for noncompliance or false certifications. Faculty workload mandates, tenure pathway requirements, and retrenchment rules may also draw opposition from universities and faculty groups because they constrain institutional discretion and could affect academic governance and job protections. The requirement to eliminate low-producing degree programs, unless waived, may be controversial for institutions that argue such programs serve important academic or regional needs despite low graduation numbers.