Sponsor pitches amended higher-education hiring transparency bill; institutions warn of lost flexibility

Representative Eric Murphy opened a reopened hearing on House Bill 11 61, an amended proposal to require institutions under the State Board of Higher Education to list newly created and vacant full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions and to place funding for those positions into a central institutional pool. Murphy told the committee the amended draft was designed to increase transparency about hiring and vacancy management while maintaining institutional autonomy to use funds for personnel or operations, subject to reporting to the legislative budget section.

Murphy said the amended bill would require institutions to list newly created and vacant positions by December 1 of an even-numbered year and place the salaries and benefits associated with those positions into a centrally held campus pool. Upon hiring, funds would be released to the hiring unit; funds could be used for permanent or temporary hires, Murphy said, and any transfers from the pool for operational uses would have to be reported to the budget section. Murphy described the bill’s aim as improving planning and speeding hires, while giving the legislature a clearer picture of why positions remain unfilled.

Representatives of the State Board of Higher Education, campus presidents, faculty leaders and campus finance officers testified in opposition or with caution. Mark Sanford, a state representative and former interim higher-ed committee member, said reporting is healthy but warned that sweeping vacant-line funds into a pool risks reducing flexibility for facilities upkeep, tuition waivers and start-up costs for new programs — all areas institutions use to attract students and meet operational needs. He cited a earlier system report estimating “between a billion and a billion and a half in deferred maintenance” and said campuses must sometimes reallocate vacancy savings to address pressing facility needs.

Tim Mahalik, chair of the State Board of Higher Education, said the board opposed the original bill as introduced and cautioned that shifting FTE management could “muddle” accountability. Chancellor Mark Hagerot and university leadership echoed concerns that the measure might slow institutions’ responsiveness to fast-moving workforce and curriculum needs, interfere with fund flows tied to tuition and grants, and disrupt the state funding formula. Lisa Montplaisir, NDSU faculty senate president, explained the faculty view that hiring follows an academic rhythm; many faculty searches are finalized in spring for August starts, and a December listing could misrepresent ongoing searches or force temporary hires that jeopardize candidate recruitment.

University finance officers warned that tuition and other non-general-fund revenue account for a substantial portion of salary funding (Murphy and witnesses spoke of general-fund shares ranging roughly in the low-to-mid 20s up to mid-30s percent depending on institution). Speakers repeatedly urged that transparency is appropriate but that imposing a statutory pooling requirement would remove necessary local discretion.

No committee vote on HB1161 is recorded in the transcript. The hearing concluded after several hours of testimony; the committee closed the record on the amended bill and moved on to other items.

Why it matters: The bill would alter how institutions manage monies for vacant positions and add reporting to the Legislature’s budget section. Proponents say this will speed hiring and increase transparency; opponents say it would reduce local flexibility, risk unintended interference with program and facilities funding and could impede rapid institutional responses to changes in workforce demand.

Key quotations from the hearing: "What I present today is radically different, but yet it maintains sort of the same context of giving some legislative oversight in a way to hiring practices in higher education," Representative Eric Murphy said when introducing the amended draft.

"I have no objection to what the previous presenter was talking about in terms of reporting. I think that's healthy to report. But let me just give you a couple of examples why this creates what I think is a dilemma for smooth operation of an institution," Representative Mark Sanford said in opposition, citing deferred maintenance and student-support uses of funds.

"This bill shifts FTE management to the SBHE. . . I'm not so sure we do follow a lot of things," Tim Mahalik, chair of the State Board of Higher Education, told the committee, noting the board’s existing oversight and audit procedures.

What the transcript records: Sponsor proposal and extended testimony from multiple higher-education officials and faculty leaders. No committee motion or roll-call vote on final action is recorded in the provided transcript portion.

Next steps: Because no committee final vote was recorded on the amended bill in the transcript, interested stakeholders should watch for any committee motion, amendment or scheduling update on subsequent committee calendars.