HOUSE BILL NO. 10 "An Act relating to the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska." Co-Chair Foster relayed that HB 10 had two prior committee hearings [March 10, 2025, and March 20, 2025]. 1:45:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE ASHLEY CARRICK, SPONSOR, briefly reviewed the bill. She summarized that the legislation would add one tenured faculty member to the University of Alaska Board of Regents for a two-year term after a thorough selection process. The addition of a faculty member would help the Board of Regents advance its mission and provide representation to this key stakeholder group. Representative Tomaszewski asked whether she had any dialog with the regents regarding adding the faculty member and what their thoughts on the bill were. Representative Carrick responded that she had spoken to several current regents, and the opinions were "mixed." She offered that the board was slow to make changes and were "reticent" toward operative changes. She disclosed that some were in support, some were neutral, and some were opposed to the idea. Representative Tomaszewski asked if there had been any letters of support or opposition from regents. Representative Carrick answered that the board was officially neutral towards the bill. Representative Allard voiced that she had spoken to every member of the board and maintained that the members did not agree with the legislation. 1:48:30 PM Representative Stapp asked if anything prohibited current faculty members from being appointed to the board. Representative Carrick replied that she did not think it was restricted, but a faculty member had never been appointed, and HB 10 rectified a longstanding stakeholder input issue. The bill clarified that the legislature was in support of faculty representation. She added that the same idea had benefited the states that had adopted similar provisions. Representative Stapp was curious why a faculty member appointment had never happened. Representative Carrick responded that typically a board of trustees or a board of regents typically wanted the base of the governing body to be members of the business and professional community to promote workforce development. She expounded that a board seat was competitive, and the term lasted for 8 years in Alaska. The legislation limited the faculty member to a two year term, which was requested by the faculty. They favored turnover to afford broader representation from other campuses. She believed the longer term was positive and created stability. Representative Stapp asked if any other states mandated a faculty regent via statute. Representative Carrick answered that there were six state university systems that mandated a faculty regent. The faculty regent was a full voting member and in other states they were non-voting. The six states included: Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Representative Galvin appreciated the concept brought forward around stakeholders being part of the decision making. She asked about the process regarding the decisions that must be made concerning faculty salaries. Representative Carrick deferred the question. 1:53:35 PM CADENCE CONNER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ASHLEY CARRICK STAFF, responded that there was a thorough process related to conflict of interest according to AS 39.52.220 a member of the board or commission who was involved in a prohibited matter may result in a violation. She read AS 39.52.110, shall disclose the matter in writing and on the public record to the designated supervisor and to the attorney general." A regent would have to conform to statute regarding a conflict of interest. Representative Carrick interjected that a conflict would likely happen very infrequently. The salary negotiations took place outside of the Board of Regents. In addition, the student regent was expected to recuse themselves of issues like a vote that might cut their program. She offered that potential for conflict issues existed and a current robust process concerning conflicts also existed. Representative Bynum wondered whether increasing the number of members would change the requirement for a quorum and if it would have caused quorum issues in past meetings. Representative Carrick responded that typically, board meetings were fully attended and there were rarely absences. The board met infrequently and paid for travel to the meeting. She deemed it unlikely that quorum issues would arise. Representative Johnson referenced the six states with faculty regents, and she could not find that they had full membership without restrictions. She interpreted that it was due to a general recognition of concern with a faculty member being a regent. She had concerns over the issue. Representative Carrick answered that the six states she listed were full voting members. She maintained that many states had an ex-officio or non-voting faculty member(s). She informed the committee that the structure of the board looked radically different depending on the state. She provided other states' examples. The trustee board in Pennsylvania had 38 members and one full voting faculty member that was elected by the board. House Bill 10 provided a robust process for appointment by the governor and a robust process for conflict of interests. 1:59:11 PM Representative Johnson asked if one of the states was Oregon and pointed out that the governor appointed the faculty member and decided if they had voting rights. She reiterated that in many states a faculty member was not equal to other members regarding voting rights. Representative Carrick affirmed that Oregon was one of the states she had listed. 2:00:21 PM Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to report HB 10 out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Allard OBJECTED. Representative Tomaszewski maintained that he did not support the bill. He commented on the conflict of interest generated by the addition of a faculty member and determined that it would be a burden for regents. He believed that faculty had a way to have their voices heard through existing processes. Representative Bynum shared that he was unsure how he would ultimately vote on the bill. He saw no harm in passing the bill out of committee. Representative Stapp had reservations about the bill but would support moving it from committee. 2:02:49 PM A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Bynum, Johnson, Jimmie, Stapp, Hannan, Galvin, Schrage, Josephson, Foster OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Allard HB 10 was REPORTED OUT of committee with six "do pass" recommendations, two "do not pass" recommendations, and three "no recommendation" recommendations and with one previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (UA). 2:03:58 PM Representative Carrick thanked the committee. Representative Hannan and Representative Stapp made amusing closing remarks. 2:04:53 PM