Tennessee House Bill HB1006

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/10/25
• Refer: 2/19/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29; Title 49, Chapter 7; Title 49, Chapter 8 and Title 49, Chapter 9, relative to the composition of governing boards of institutions of higher education.

Summary

HB1006 makes a narrow change to Tennessee law governing higher education boards. It amends the conflict-of-interest/eligibility rules for governing bodies of institutions of higher education so that a person serving on the governing body of one institution may not simultaneously serve as a member of a state university board. The bill specifically revises Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-8-201(f)(6) to list as a disqualifying condition membership on the governing body of another institution of higher education. The bill also includes a transition rule: if, on the effective date, a state university board member is already serving on another institution’s governing board, that person’s state university board seat is automatically vacated, and the appointing authority must fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, citing the public welfare.

Impact

HB1006 would directly affect the composition and eligibility of members serving on Tennessee state university boards and other higher education governing boards. It tightens statutory restrictions to prevent dual service across institutional boards, thereby changing appointment and vacancy procedures for affected boards and requiring replacement of any member who falls within the new prohibition. The bill amends Title 49 provisions related to higher education governance and may also interact with general board-qualification provisions in Title 4.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests little to no controversy. The bill received a unanimous 5-0 recommendation for passage in the House Higher Education Subcommittee, and there are no recorded committee transcripts indicating opposition or extended debate. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable and procedural, with the measure treated as a straightforward governance cleanup or conflict-avoidance provision.

Contention

No specific points of contention are reflected in the available record. The only likely issue is the policy choice to bar dual service on higher education governing boards, which could be viewed as promoting independence and avoiding conflicts of interest, but no member comments or recorded opposition identify any dispute. The bill’s immediate-vacancy provision could affect current board members, but there is no evidence in the provided materials of resistance to that consequence.