SHB 1337
In CommitteeHouse
Higher education presidents
Concerning the appointment of presidents of institutions of higher education.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill establishes new rules for how Washington’s public colleges and universities hire their presidents, requiring more transparency and public involvement. It mandates that candidate information be made public in advance and that candidates appear at public forums to answer questions.
- Requires governing boards of public colleges and universities to publicly list up to four priority candidates for president at least 30 days before the final vote.
- Mandates that candidate materials—including resumes, applications, reference letters, and transcripts—be made publicly available with the notice.
- Requires a public forum on campus where candidates can speak and answer questions from students, faculty, staff, media, and the public.
- Ensures all steps comply with the Open Public Meetings Act, meaning meetings must be open and accessible to the public.
- Declares the law an emergency, making it effective immediately upon passage.
Who is affected
- Students, faculty, and staff at public colleges and universities — Must participate in public forums and provide input on presidential candidates; gain access to candidate materials and meet candidates in person.
- Governing boards of public higher education institutions (e.g., WSU, UW, EWU, etc.) — Must follow new procedures for selecting presidents, including public notice, candidate forums, and open meetings.
- General public and media — Will have greater access to candidate information and opportunities to ask questions or give feedback on presidential candidates.
- Higher education administrators and search committee members — May be involved in candidate selection as part of the governing board or search committees.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Increases transparency and public accountability in presidential hiring, enabling students, faculty, staff, and community members to evaluate leadership candidates and provide meaningful input—potentially improving trust in institutional leadership and aligning leadership priorities with stakeholder needs.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a) & (b)Public forums give students, faculty, and staff direct access to presidential candidates, fostering academic partnership and democratic engagement in governance—potentially strengthening campus climate and reducing alienation among key stakeholders.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)Mandating public access to candidate materials (resumes, applications, reference letters, transcripts) enhances civic right-to-know principles and enables informed public participation in high-stakes institutional decisions.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)Aligns presidential hiring with the Open Public Meetings Act, reinforcing institutional accountability and reducing risk of backdoor decision-making—potentially improving public confidence in higher education governance.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1 & 2Early public disclosure of up to four candidates may encourage more competitive and thoughtful candidate pools, as candidates know their full credentials will be scrutinized—potentially raising overall leadership standards over time.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates that governing boards publicly disclose candidate materials—including reference letters, transcripts, and applications—at least 30 days before the final vote, increasing administrative burden and requiring staff time to prepare and publish materials.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)Requires hosting public forums on campus for candidates, which may incur costs for venue setup, security, staffing, and media coordination—costs that fall on institutional budgets, potentially diverting resources from academic programs or student services.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)Mandatory public disclosure of reference letters and transcripts may deter high-caliber candidates from applying due to privacy concerns, potentially narrowing the pool of qualified applicants and reducing the quality of leadership selection.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)The 30-day notice requirement may slow hiring timelines, especially if candidate pools shift unexpectedly, potentially leaving presidential positions vacant longer than necessary and creating leadership instability during critical transitions.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)On-campus public forums may require additional law enforcement or security presence to manage disruptions or protests, straining campus safety resources during a period already under budget pressure.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)
Who Is Most Affected
Students, faculty, and staff gain formal opportunities to evaluate and question presidential candidates, strengthening shared governance and potentially improving alignment between leadership priorities and campus needs.
Governing boards face increased administrative and procedural obligations, but benefit from greater public legitimacy in hiring decisions and reduced risk of controversy or legal challenge over opaque processes.
The general public and media gain unprecedented access to candidate vetting, enabling more informed civic engagement—but may also experience longer timelines for final appointments and potential disruptions from public forums.
Administrators and search committee members face added transparency and procedural steps, but may benefit from clearer public expectations and reduced political pressure behind closed doors.
Prospective presidential candidates may be deterred by increased scrutiny of personal and professional materials, potentially reducing applicant pool diversity and quality—especially for candidates seeking privacy or who are risk-averse.