JFAC splits on higher-education budget; orders DEI audits and oversight language

The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) on the morning of the session debated multiple amendments to the fiscal year 2026 college and university budget, including a contentious proposal to cut $2 million each from Boise State University and the University of Idaho and a companion substitute that sought to remove those cuts.

Kevin Campbell, budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, opened the item with a summary of the line items under consideration and the committee’s options, telling the committee it was reviewing the college and university budget and the set of requested line items before them.

Representative Bryce moved a compromise package that would add $3,369,900 for operational capacity enhancements, make technical corrections for health benefits and the CEC calculation, provide $1,388,700 from dedicated funds for endowment adjustments and add salary funding for Lewis‑Clark State College, while reducing $2,000,000 each from Boise State and the University of Idaho. “I move for fiscal year 2026 for the college and universities an additional 1,784,000 from the general fund an additional 1,388,700 from dedicated funds for a total of 3,172,700,” she said when making the motion.

A substitute motion from Senator Galloway removed the $2 million reductions from the two research universities and increased other targeted funding. Galloway argued the universities had begun to change course on issues raised by the legislature and said punishing institutions after they have begun reforms would undercut future leverage: “If we continue to punish and be punitive to our universities, we lose our negotiating power,” she said.

Representative Petzke pressed for specifics about what program or staff reductions the $2 million cuts would target, asking, “What exactly are we reducing here? ... What programs are we cutting? What employees?” Committee members repeatedly said allocation decisions would be made by the institutions if reductions were required.

The substitute motion failed on a 10–10 tie; the original motion then moved forward. The committee recorded disagreement between the House and Senate members during roll calls: while the House side supported the original package, the Senate did not reach a majority in the affirmative on that motion, and committee leadership said the motion will be sent to the Senate for further action.

Separately, the committee adopted several pieces of language related to higher-education oversight. Members approved transparency and oversight language that assigns Idaho State University lead agency status for certain negotiations (referred to as ICOM negotiations in committee materials), prohibits state officers from signing nondisclosure agreements tied to those negotiations, and requires information be made available on request to the Legislative Services Office. The committee also added $1,000,000 general fund ongoing for the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute and language that allows legislative input on a transition to outcomes‑based funding for higher education in FY 2028.

The committee also adopted language directing an audit of Boise State University, Idaho State University, Lewis‑Clark State College and the University of Idaho by the Legislative Audits Division on compliance with Idaho code relating to diversity, equity and inclusion, with a required report back to JFAC by Dec. 1, 2025. Senator Wintrow, who spoke against broad restrictions on campus programs, said the universities’ own audit filings showed they did not spend appropriated money on DEI and warned that removing programs could cut supports for students.

A separate motion that would have required any funds recovered in negotiations over the University of Phoenix purchase to revert to the general fund failed on a committee vote and was not included in the package.

Why it matters: The committee’s choices thread together budgetary decisions and policy oversight. Cuts proposed to two of the state’s largest universities were framed by some members as a response to concerns about programming and governance; other members said removing the cuts would reward institutions that had shown progress, and that punitive reductions would reduce legislative leverage. At the same time, the committee voted language to increase transparency about negotiations and to have legislative auditors review campus compliance with state DEI law, which will produce formal findings reported back to JFAC later this year.

The packet and language adopted by JFAC will move forward for further action in each chamber; several contested items (including the original college and university motion) will require follow-up votes and cross-chamber negotiation.