Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Higher Education Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee weighs bill to clarify replacement of inactive Higher Education Commission members
Summary
Lawmakers debated HB443, which would give explicit authority to replace Higher Education Commission appointees who are not attending or no longer represent their appointing organization. The subcommittee took no action and agreed to caucus and revisit the measure.
A House education subcommittee on higher education discussed HB443, a bipartisan bill proposing explicit authority to replace members of the state Higher Education Commission who do not attend meetings or no longer represent the organization that appointed them.
Chair opened the hearing by describing the bill’s purpose: “a bill which was looking at changing and giving the authority to replace members on that commission, if they're not attending or if they're no longer representing the organization which they've been appointed from,” and said the measure had bipartisan sponsorship.
The major factual difference raised during discussion was the governor’s position. The chair reported the previous governor supported the change but said the new governor’s office told the committee the bill is “not needed,” because the governor’s staff view prolonged nonattendance or loss of representation as effectively a resignation.
Representative Pomsen asked whether the committee had a legal opinion on which position is correct, saying, “I’m concerned that if we don't give the governor the authority… there could be legal challenges.” The committee did not have an immediate written legal opinion to present; the chair noted the governor’s office would rely on its counsel.
Representative Fellows asked why, if the governor already has authority to replace a nonattending appointee, that authority would be limited to this particular commission rather than applying broadly to other boards and commissions.
No members moved to take action. The chair said he was personally “leaning on saying that the bill is not needed” but allowed caucuses and directed members to confer before the subcommittee’s next meeting; the subcommittee intends to return to HB443 at a later date and make a recommendation during the November cycle.
The discussion was procedural and legal in nature; there were no formal amendments or votes on the bill during the meeting.
