Tennessee House Bill HB2287

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/24
• Refer: 2/1/24
• Refer: 3/11/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 9, relative to advisory boards.

Impact

This legislation will alter the composition and functioning of advisory boards at state universities, creating a more structured approach to their formation and operation. The bill sets clear terms for board members, specifying terms of service for university faculty and student representatives, thus potentially affecting the continuity and experience in advisory roles. By defining these roles more clearly, HB2287 could enhance accountability and duties among board members, strengthening their contributions to university governance.

Summary

House Bill 2287 aims to amend the Tennessee Code Annotated, specifically Title 49, Chapter 9, which outlines the framework for advisory boards associated with the University of Tennessee institutions. A key provision of this bill mandates that each University of Tennessee institution must establish an advisory board consisting of five appointed members. These members will provide advice and recommendations pertinent to the governance of the institutions. The appointment process requires collaboration between the University president, the governor, and legislative leadership, ensuring state oversight in advisory roles.

Notables

The bill also includes provisions for the removal of members based on misconduct or failure to meet attendance criteria. Such rules are proposed to ensure a high standard of participation within advisory boards. The change in legislative language, which emphasizes the role of the University president in member appointments and board processes, highlights a shift towards increased accountability in university governance at a state level. This bill, if enacted, will take effect on July 1, 2024.

Contention

Discussion around HB2287 may center on the balance of power between state officials and university autonomy. While proponents argue that structured oversight enhances accountability and governance within University of Tennessee institutions, critics may view this as a potential overreach, limiting the ability of universities to select board members based solely on institutional needs. The amendments to the term lengths and conditions for filling vacancies may also raise concerns regarding the independence of boards in representing diverse stakeholder interests.