The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Fiscal Policy
BILL: CS/CS/CS/SB 266
INTRODUCER: Fiscal Policy Committee; Appropriations Committee on Education; Education
Postsecondary Committee; and Senator Grall
SUBJECT: Higher Education
DATE: April 21, 2023 REVISED:
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Bouck Bouck HE Fav/CS
2. Gray Elwell AED Fav/CS
3. Bouck Yeatman FP Fav/CS
Please see Section IX. for Additional Information:
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE - Substantial Changes
I. Summary:
CS/CS/CS/SB 266 includes a number of provisions intended to focus state university
administrative and curricular activities on education that benefits students and the state.
Specifically, the bill:
 Requires the Board of Governors (BOG) of the State University System to:
o Include in the alignment of university missions, and in its strategic plan, economic
development needs of the state and nondegree credential attainment, respectively.
o Provide a directive for universities regarding their programs for any violations of state
law regarding discrimination and those based on specified theories.
 Modifies personnel policies at each university by:
o Assigning hiring authority to the president, who may delegate authority to the executive
team or individual deans.
o Prohibiting a pledge or oath in the admissions or personnel process except those to state
or federal law, or the State or United States Constitution.
o Specifying that the faculty grievance process terminates with the university president.
o Requiring the university president to present to the university board of trustees
evaluations and salaries for personnel earning over $200,000.
 Provides additional restrictions on public education institution spending, to include diversity,
equity, and inclusion and social and political activism, with exceptions for students
organizations, compliance with law, accreditation, and access programs.
BILL: CS/CS/CS/SB 266 Page 2
 Adds to the preeminent state research universities program a metric regarding STEM-related
research, and revises the number of standards an institution must meet to earn a designation.
 Modifies the general education program to:
o Require a periodic review of general education core courses.
o Specify standards for general education core course.
o Require the Articulation Coordinating Committee to submit to the state-level governing
boards for approval institution-approved general education course.
 Creates the Institute for Risk Management and Insurance Education, and modifies the
purpose, goals, or authorized activities of the Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic
Education, Florida Institute of Politics, and the Adam Smith Center for the Study of
Economic Freedom.
 Specifies that a required change in accreditation for public postsecondary institutions is a
one-time-only change, and prohibits an accrediting agency from compelling an institution to
violate state law.
 Modifies the “buy one, get one free” tuition waiver program to include up to two state-
approved teacher preparation programs, and specifies that students may not lose the tuition
waiver if the program is removed from the approved list after enrollment.
The bill takes effect on July 1, 2023.
II. Present Situation:
The Present Situation is included in the Effect of Proposed Changes section of the analysis.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
Board of Governors
Present Situation
Powers and Duties
The State University System (SUS) is composed of 12 public universities. The Board of
Governors (BOG) is responsible to operate, regulate, control, and be fully responsible for the
management of the whole SUS. Fourteen of the 17 members of the BOG are appointed by the
Governor and confirmed by the Senate. 1
For each constituent university, the BOG, is responsible for cost-effective policy decisions
appropriate to the university’s mission, the implementation and maintenance of high-quality
education programs within law, the measurement of performance, the reporting of information,
and the provision of input regarding state policy, budgeting, and education standards.2 The BOG
is, among other duties, responsible for defining the distinctive mission of each constituent
university, accounting for expenditures, adopting a strategic plan for the university system and
each university, and taking action on proposed or current degree programs.3
1
FLA. CONST., art. IX, s. 7.
2
Section 1001.706(1), F.S.
3
Section 1001.705(2), F.S.
BILL: CS/CS/CS/SB 266 Page 3
Tenure Review
The BOG may adopt a regulation requiring each tenured state university faculty member to
undergo a comprehensive post-tenure review every 5 years. The board may include other
considerations in the regulation, but the regulation must address:
 Accomplishments and productivity;
 Assigned duties in research, teaching, and service;
 Performance metrics, evaluations, and ratings; and
 Recognition and compensation considerations, as well as improvement plans and
consequences for underperformance.4
On March 29, 2023, the BOG approved its regulation requiring each university BOT to adopt
policies regarding a post-tenure faculty review. 5
According to Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, in Fall 2021, there were 12,435
individuals with faculty status at Florida public universities, of those, 5,652 are tenured, 2,058
are on a tenure track, and 4,725 are not on a tenure track or are at an institution without a tenure
system.6 Florida Gulf Coast University and Florida Polytechnic University do not have a tenure
system.
Effect of Proposed Changes
Powers and Duties
The bill modifies s. 1001.706, F.S., to require the BOG, in its alignment of the mission of state
universities to specified goals, include the existing and emerging economic development needs
of the state. Similarly, the bill requires the BOG to include in its strategic plan criteria and
metrics for non-degree credentials.
Tenure Review
The bill modifies s. 1001.706, F.S., to require, rather than authorize, the BOG to adopt a
regulation requiring each tenured state university faculty member to undergo a comprehensive
post-tenure review every 5 years.
Personnel
Present Situation
University Board of Trustees
Each local constituent university is administered by a board of trustees (BOT) composed of 6
citizen members appointed by the Governor and 5 citizen members appointed by the Board of
Governors (BOG), all confirmed by the Senate.7 The BOG establishes the powers and duties of
4
Section 1001.706(6)(b), F.S.
5
Board of Governors Regulation 10.003.
6
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Statistical Tables: Fall 2021; (Report on file with Senate Committee on
Education).
7
FLA. CONST., art. IX, s. 7(c).
BILL: CS/CS/CS/SB 266 Page 4
the BOT. The university president serves as the chief executive officer to the board of trustees
and is responsible to the board of trustees for all operations of the university.8
Responsibilities of a university BOT include:
 Administration of the university in a manner that is dedicated to, and consistent with the
university’s and system’s mission.
 Preparing a workplan to outline strategic directions and specific actions, and performance
expectations and outcomes for institutional and systemwide goals.
 Adopting university regulations regarding degree programs, access, academic performance
standards, student activities, and student code of conduct.
 Establishing a personnel program for all employees of the university.
 The financial management of the university.
 Compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and requirements.9
Each board of trustees establishes the powers and duties of the university president. The
university president serves as the chief executive officer to the BOT and is responsible to the
board of trustees for all operations of the university.10
Pledges and Oaths
Nearly one in five professors are now being selected based on not only academic merit but also
their commitment to a particular ideological vision.11 In a 2020 survey, most college students
believe efforts at diversity and inclusion “frequently” (27%) or “occasionally” (49%) come into
conflict with free speech rights.12
At the University of North Carolina, the BOT recently approved a change to its policy regarding
political activities, to read:
[T]he University shall neither solicit nor require an employee or applicant for academic
admission or employment to affirmatively ascribe to or opine about beliefs, affiliations,
ideals, or principles regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action as
a condition to admission, employment, or professional advancement. Nor shall any
employee or applicant be solicited or required to describe his or her actions in support of,
or in opposition to, such beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principles. Practices prohibited
here include but are not limited to solicitations or requirements for statements of
commitment to particular views on matters of contemporary political debate or social
8
Board of Governors Regulation 1.001.
9
Id.
10
Board of Governors Regulation 1.001(2).
11
American Enterprise Institute, Other Than Merit: The Prevalence of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statements in
University Hiring (Nov. 2021) available at https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Other-than-merit-The-
prevalence-of-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-statements-in-university-hiring.pdf?x91208, at 10.
12
Knight Foundation, The First Amendment on Campus 2020 Report: College Students’ Views of Free Expression (2020)
available at https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/First-Amendment-on-Campus-2020.pdf, at 1.
BILL: CS/CS/CS/SB 266 Page 5
action contained on applications or qualifications for admission or employment or
included as criteria for analysis of an employee’s career progression.13
The U.S. Supreme Court (Court) has repeatedly held that the right to free speech protected by the
first amendment to the constitution protects an individual from being compelled to speak. “If
there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can
prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or
force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”14 Stated even more plainly, the Court
has held that free speech principles prohibit the government from telling people what they must
say.15 Additionally, an individual is also protected from being compelled to host or accommodate
the speech of another.16
The Court has consistently struck down mandatory political loyalty oaths, particularly in the
education setting.17 The Court established a four-part test for reviewing the constitutionality of
such oaths, requiring that:
 The oath may not infringe on First or Fourteenth Amendment rights;
 Employment may not be conditioned on an oath that one has not engaged in, or will not
engage in, protected speech activities;
 Employment may not be conditioned on an oath denying past or avoiding future associational
activities protected by the Constitution; and
 The oath may not be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence must guess at its
meaning.18
Grievance Procedures
Each public employer and bargaining agent is required to negotiate a grievance procedure to be
used for the settlement of disputes between employer and employee, or group of employees,
involving the interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement. The grievance
procedure must have as its terminal step a final and binding disposition by an impartial neutral,
mutually selected by the parties. If an employee organization is certified as the bargaining agent
of a unit, the grievance procedure then in existence may be the subject of collective bargaining,
and any agreement which is reached shall supersede the previously existing procedure. All public
employees shall have the right to a fair and equitable grievance procedure administered without
regard to membership or nonmembership in any organization.19
13
University of North Carolina, UNC Policy Manual 300.5.1, Political Activities of Employees,
https://www.northcarolina.edu/apps/policy/doc.php?id=125 (last visited Apr. 13, 2023).
14
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).
15
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006).
16
See Hurley v. Irish–American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (state law cannot
require a parade to include a group whose message the parade's organizer does not wish to send) and Miami Herald
Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (right-of-reply statute violates editors' right to determine the content of their
newspapers).
17
See, e.g., Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966); and Keyishian v. Board of
Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).
18
Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972).
19
Section 447.401, F.S.
BILL: CS/CS/CS/SB 266 Page 6
Effect of Proposed Changes
Hiring and Personnel Authority
The bill creates s. 1001.741, F.S., to assign final authority for hiring the provost, deans, and full-
time faculty to the president of the university. The president may delegate hiring authority to
individuals on the university’s executive management team, to the provost, or to individual
deans; however, the bill specifies that the president or the person delegated hiring authority is not
bound by the recommendations or opinions of faculty or other individuals.
The bill specifies that the president has an ongoing duty to assess the performance, productivity,
and employment practices of the university’s provost and deans. The president of the university
is encouraged to engage in faculty recruiting as appropriate, and shall provide a regular report
and recommendations on employment practices to the university board of trustees at least twice
annually.
The bill requires each state university board of trustees to have procedures for the review of the
president’s selection and reappointment of each member of the university’s executive
management team, and his or her respective contract and annual salary, before such contracts and
salaries become effective, in accordance with the personnel program established by the BOG.
Finally, the bill requires each university president to annually present to his or her board of
trustees for review the results of performance evaluations and associated salaries of all evaluated
personnel earning an annual compensation of $200,000 or more, regardless of fund source.
Pledges and Oaths
The bill prohibits a state university from requiring any statement, pledge, or oath other than to
uphold general and federal law, the United States Constitution, and the State Constitution as a
part of any admissions, hiring, employment, promotion, tenure, disciplinary, or evaluation
process.
Grievance Procedures
The bill replaces the requirement in law regarding grievance procedures to specify that personnel
actions or decisions regarding faculty, including in the areas of evaluations, promotions, tenure,
discipline, or termination, may not be appealed beyond the level of a university president or
designee. Such actions or decisions must have as their terminal step a final agency disposition,
which must be issued in writing to the faculty member, and are not subject to arbitration. The
filing of a grievance does not pause o