Tennessee Senate Bill SB0913

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25

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

SB0913 amends Tennessee law governing the composition of higher education boards. The bill specifically revises the eligibility rules for members of a state university board by clarifying that a person may not simultaneously serve as a member of the governing body of another institution of higher education. In practical terms, it tightens the conflict-of-service rule for board membership across colleges and universities. The bill also includes a transition provision: 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. The appropriate appointing authority must then fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, citing the public welfare.

Impact

This bill affects Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49 by narrowing who may serve on governing boards of public higher education institutions and by creating an automatic vacancy rule for overlapping board service. It directly impacts state university board members, appointing authorities, and any individuals serving on multiple higher education governing bodies, while leaving the rest of the higher education governance structure unchanged.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears procedural and administrative rather than controversial. The measure seems aimed at clarifying governance standards and avoiding dual-board service, with no documented opposition or debate in the available record.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided committee transcripts or voting history. The only potentially sensitive issue apparent from the text is the restriction on dual service, which could affect current board members serving in multiple roles and require immediate replacement of any affected member’s seat. However, there is no evidence in the supplied materials of disagreement over that policy.