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 Appropriations Committee on Education
BILL: CS/SB 958
INTRODUCER: Education Postsecondary Committee and Senator Perry
SUBJECT: Postsecondary Educational Institutions
DATE: April 11, 2023
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Jahnke Bouck HE Fav/CS
2. Gray Elwell AED Pre-meeting
3. FP
Please see Section IX. for Additional Information:
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE - Substantial Changes
I. Summary:
CS/SB 958 modifies provisions related to intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity, the use of
political loyalty tests in hiring and admissions, and due process for students participating in
student governments. Specifically, the bill:
Revises the date the State Board of Education and Board of Governors (BOG), respectively,
must annually compile and publish the Intellectual Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity survey
results.
Requires the BOG to create a Committee on Public Policy Events and each state university to
establish an Office of Public Policy Events, to organize, publicize, and stage debates, group
forums, and lectures at each SUS institution that address, from multiple, divergent, and
opposing perspectives, an extensive range of public policy issues widely discussed and
debated in society at large.
Prohibits the use of political loyalty tests in a state university’s hiring, admissions, or
promotion process.
Extends due process protections to each university’s student body president that serves on the
Florida Student Association.
The fiscal impact of the bill can be absorbed within the existing resources of the BOG and SUS
institutions. See section V.
The bill is effective July 1, 2023.
REVISED: BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 2
II. Present Situation:
The Present Situation is included in the Effect of Proposed Changes section of the analysis.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
Intellectual Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Assessments
Present Situation
Intellectual Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity in Higher Education
In January 2015, the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago
produced a free speech policy statement (referred to as the “Chicago Statement”) that affirmed
the centrality of unfettered debate to the university’s mission.
1
The statement provided in part:
[I]t is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and
opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the
University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community
share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about
civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion
of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our
community.
The Chicago Statement continues a tradition of institutions and organizations affirming the
importance of the free expression and sharing of ideas on college and university campuses.
2
The 2017 National Survey of Student Engagement revealed that most students surveyed (64
percent) felt that postsecondary coursework generally respected the expression of diverse ideas,
and that the postsecondary institution generally demonstrated a commitment to diversity (71
percent).
This was reflected when specific forms of diversity were considered, such as gender,
religious affiliation, or disability status. When political affiliation was considered, only half of
students surveyed felt their postsecondary institution was generally supportive of different
political ideas.
3
The Campus Free Expression Act became Florida law in 2018.
4
Under the law, outdoor areas of
campus are considered traditional public forums for individuals, organizations, and guest
speakers. A public institution of higher education may create and enforce restrictions that are
1
University of Chicago, Report of the Committee on Free Expression (2015), available at
https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf.
2
See American Council on Education, Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities (June 23, 2005), available at
https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Statement-on-Academic-Rights-and-Responsibilities-2005.pdf; American Association of
University Professors, 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1940), available at
https://www.aaup.org/file/1940%20Statement.pdf.
3
National Survey of Student Engagement, 2017 Topical Module: Inclusiveness and Engagement with Cultural Diversity,
available at
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/23392/NSSE_2017_Annual_Results.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=
y.
4
Ch. 2018-4, s. 6, Laws of Fla. BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 3
reasonable and content-neutral on time, place, and manner of expression, and that are narrowly
tailored to a significant institutional interest. Restrictions must be clear and published and must
provide for ample alternative means of expression.
A public institution of higher education may
not otherwise designate any area of campus as a free-speech zone or create policies restricting
expressive activities to a particular outdoor area of campus. A person whose expressive rights are
violated may bring an action against a public institution of higher education in a court of
competent jurisdiction to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable court costs, and
attorney fees.
5
In April of 2019, the Chancellor of the State University System (SUS), all twelve state university
presidents, and the chair of the Florida College System (FCS) Council of Presidents signed
resolutions affirming their commitment to providing for free expression on campus.
6
FCS
institutions and state universities further acknowledge their responsibility to foster and protect
faculty rights to intellectual freedom in their collective bargaining agreements with faculty
unions.
7
In 2023, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), only four out of
the eleven state universities in Florida that FIRE evaluated had policies that did not inhibit free
expression.
8
A national survey revealed, in part, that:
22 percent of students would have felt very uncomfortable publicly disagreeing with a
professor about a controversial topic;
29 percent of students felt that the college administration did not make it clear that free
speech was protected on campus;
60 percent of students had felt they could not express their opinion on a subject because of
how students, a professor, or the administration would respond; and
60 percent of students could recall at least one time during their college experience when
they did not share their perspective for fear of how others would respond. Students who
identified as conservative were more likely to report a prior self-censorship incident (72
percent for conservative students, 55 percent for liberal students).
9
5
Section 1004.097, F.S.
6
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Spotlight of Speech Codes 2023, https://www.thefire.org/research-
learn/spotlight-speech-codes-2023 (last visited Mar. 24, 2023) [hereinafter Spotlight on Speech]; Executive Office of the
Governor, Governor Ron DeSantis Calls on State Colleges and Universities to Adopt Free Speech Resolution (April 15,
2019), https://www.flgov.com/2019/04/15/governor-ron-desantis-calls-on-state-colleges-and-universities-to-adopt-free-
speech-resolution/ (last visited April 3, 2023).
7
See, e.g., Tallahassee Community College and United Faculty of Florida, Tallahassee Community College and United
Faculty of Florida 2020-2021 (Oct. 15, 2020), available at https://blogs.tcc.fl.edu/labor-negotiations/wp-
content/uploads/sites/13/2020/10/TCC-UFF_2020-21_FINAL.pdf; Florida State University and United Faculty of Florida,
Collective Bargaining Agreement: The Florida State University Board of Governors and the United Faculty of Florida
General Faculty Bargaining Unit 2019-2022 (October 30, 2020), available at
https://hr.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu2186/files/PDF/Publications/UFF_CBA_Updated_2021.pdf.
8
Spotlight on Speech, supra note 9. The four Florida universities with policies that were not found to inhibit free speech
include the University of Florida, Florida State University, the University of South Florida, and the University of North
Florida. Florida has twelve public universities but FIRE has never rated Florida Polytechnic University.
9
College Pulse, et al., College Free Speech Rankings: What’s the Climate for Free Speech on
America’s College Campuses? (2020), at 2 and 53-59,
https://marketplace.collegepulse.com/img/2020_college_free_speech_rankings.pdfs (last visited April 3, 2023). BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 4
In 2021, the Legislature passed legislation requiring an individual freedom and viewpoint
diversity survey to be administered by all FCS and SUS institutions. The State Board of
Education (SBE) and the Board of Governors (BOG) were required to select or create an
objective, nonpartisan, and statistically valid survey to assess intellectual freedom and viewpoint
diversity at Florida’s state universities and FCS institutions. The surveys were required to be
designed to capture the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented on
campus as well as the extent to which those surveyed feel free to express their beliefs and
viewpoints on campus and in the classroom. All FCS institutions and state universities must
conduct the survey annually and the SBE and the BOG must compile and annually publish the
survey results beginning September 1, 2022.
10
Board of Governors
The BOG operates, regulates, controls, and is fully responsible for the management of the whole
university system.
11
For each constituent university, the BOG, or the board’s designee, 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.
12
Effect of Proposed Changes
Intellectual Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Assessment
The bill modifies ss. 1001.03 and 1001.706, F.S., to revise the date the SBE and the BOG,
respectively, must annually compile and publish each institution’s intellectual freedom and
viewpoint diversity assessment from September 1 to December 31, beginning on
December 31, 2024.
Offices of Public Policy Events within the State University System
The bill creates s. 1001.93, F.S., to establish the Offices of Public Policy Events (OPPE or
office) within the SUS. The bill requires the BOG to establish a Committee on Public Policy
Events and each state university to establish an OPPE. Each state university is required to
appoint a Director of Public Policy Events who is responsible for the duties and reporting
responsibilities of the office.
The bill defines “debate” as an event at which two or more participants speak in favor or
opposing approaches to the same public policy dispute, after which each participant is allotted
time to address and rebut the position presented by the opposing speakers. Additionally, the bill
defines a “group forum” as an event at which two or more speakers address a public policy
dispute from divergent or opposing perspectives, after which each participant is allotted time to
address questions from the audience and to comment on the other speakers’ positions.
Each state university’s OPPE is required, at a minimum, to organize, publicize, and stage
debates, group forums, and individual lectures at the state university that address, from multiple,
10
Section 1001.706(13), F.S.
11
Fla. Const. Art. IX, s. 7.
12
Section 1001.706(1), F.S. BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 5
divergent, and opposing perspectives, an extensive range of public policy issues widely
discussed and debated in society at large. The bill requires the state university to hold no less
than four events each academic year, with at least two events occurring in the fall semester and at
least two events occurring in the spring semester.
The bill specifies that the debates, group forums, and lectures must include speakers who
represent widely held views on opposing sides of the most widely discussed public policy issues
of the day and who hold a wide diversity of perspectives from within and outside of the state
university community.
The bill specifies that if the OPPE is unable to readily find an advocate from within the state
university community who is well-versed in a perspective, the office is required to invite a
speaker who is able to represent such perspective. For those speakers from outside of the state
university community, the OPPE must provide per diem and travel expenses.
The bill requires the OPPE to maintain a permanent, publicly accessible, searchable, and up-to-
date calendar in print, on the office’s website, and on the state university’s website listing all of
the events sponsored by the office and all other debates, group forums, and individual lectures
open to the entire campus community at the state university that address public policy issues.
The calendar must be kept in the library system of the university, itemize the title of the event or
lecture, the name and institutional affiliation of all speakers, and the office, institute, department,
program, or organization that sponsored the event, excluding those events sponsored by off-
campus groups in rented state university facilities.
Beginning September 1, 2024, and annually thereafter, the OPPE is responsible for providing a
report to the BOG Committee on Public Policy and Events detailing the following prior year
academic statistics:
The number of debates, group forums, and individual lectures.
In chronological order, the itemized calendars.
The number of enrolled students attending the event.
Expenditure information relating to any per diem or reimbursement for travel expenses.
The OPPE is required to make publicly available, in an online format, a complete video record of
every debate, group forum, and individual lecture organized by the office. Such video recordings
must be made available on the office’s website within 10 days after the event and remain
accessible on the office’s website for five years. Additionally, the video recordings must be
permanently preserved, and made available to the public, through the library of the state
university where the event was held.
The bill authorizes the duties of the OPPE to be assigned to an existing administrative office
within the state university, upon the approval of the BOG and board of trustees of the state
university. Each OPPE is required to report directly to either the state university’s office that is
responsible for compiling and reporting the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System's
graduation rate survey or the Office of General Counsel.
BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 6
Finally, the bill requires each event or lecture organized by the OPPE to be open to all students,
faculty, and staff of the state university, and must unless restricting attendance to such an event is
necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest, be open to the general public.
Political Loyalty Tests in Hiring and Admissions
Present Situation
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are intended to provide equal access as well as
a more welcoming and inclusive environment for underrepresented minorities within the
institution. The impetus behind DEI initiatives is the belief that having a more diverse
representation coupled with creating space where everyone feels a sense of belonging and can
bring their authentic selves to work, is better for the business.
13
However, research indicates that DEI initiatives may have negative impacts that directly
undermine the reported goals of the programs.
The presence of DEI initiatives can lead to lower
evaluations and perceptions of members of the organization based on the implication that
individuals are not present due to merit but simply to satisfy the DEI initiative’s goals.
This
impact is not only external, the individuals themselves can be led to underestimate their own
competence and ability due to the presence of a DEI initiative.
14
The mere presence of a DEI
initiative within an organization can undermine the very purpose the DEI initiative allegedly
serves.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Florida Public Postsecondary Institutions
A position statement by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) describes the
benefits of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in postsecondary institutions.
By creating and sustaining an equitable and inclusive institutional culture, colleges and
universities can foster a community in which all members can be respected and
appreciated for their differences, and in which all learners can be engaged to reach their
full potential. Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion is an opportunity for institutions
to recruit students of all backgrounds, identities, and abilities; to support them, adapt
teaching methods and use technology to meet their needs and break down barriers to
learning; and to successfully guide, mentor, retain, and graduate them.
15
A statement by the presidents of the Florida College System (FCS) echoes the SACS statement
in its description of DEI as a tool “to increase diversity of thought as well as the enrollment and
the success of underrepresented populations.” However, this statement also warns that DEI
“initiatives and instruction in higher education under the same title have come to mean and
13
See Florida International University, Diversity Equity and Inclusion Institutional Goals, https://dei.fiu.edu/our-
foundations/institutional-goals/index.html (last visited March 28, 2023).
14
Fortune, Michelle Frank, The problem with diversity and inclusion initiatives, May 18, 2022,
https://fortune.com/2022/05/18/problem-diversity-inclusion-initiatives-dei-women-careers-work-leadership-stereotypes-
michele-frank/ (last visited March 28, 2023).
15
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (December
2020), available at https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2019/08/DiversityStatement.pdf. BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 7
accomplish the very opposite and seek to push ideologies such as critical race theory and its
related tenets.” The statement continues:
To be clear in this environment, the FCS presidents, by and through the FCS Council of
Presidents (COP), will ensure that all initiatives, instruction, and activities do not
promote any ideology that suppresses intellectual and academic freedom, freedom of
expression, viewpoint diversity, and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning. As
such, our institutions will not fund or support any institutional practice, policy, or
academic requirement that compels belief in critical race theory or related concepts such
as intersectionality, or the idea that systems of oppression should be the primary lens
through which teaching and learning are analyzed and/or improved upon.
Specifically, by February 1, 2023, the FCS presidents commit to having fully evaluated
and removed any institutional instruction, training, and policies opposed to the forms of
discrimination described in this statement.
16
On December 28, 2022, the Executive Office of the Governor directed the colleges and
universities to provide a comprehensive list of all staff, programs and campus activities related to
diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory. The list must include costs associated
with administration of each program or activity, including a description of the activities, paid
positions and how much of the money is provided by the state.
17
The results of the survey for the
State University System indicated that state universities spend approximately $34.5 million on
such activities, with about $20.7 million from state funds.
18
Compelled Speech
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.”
19
Stated even more plainly, the Court
has held that free speech principles prohibit the government from telling people what they must
say.
20
Additionally, an individual is also protected from being compelled to host or accommodate
the speech of another.
21
16
Florida College System, Florida College System Presidents Statement on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Critical Race
Theory (January 18, 2023), available at https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5673/urlt/FCSDEIstatement.pdf.
17
Executive Office of the Governor, Memorandum # 23-021, Higher Education Program and Activity Survey
(December 28, 2022).
18
Florida Board of Governors, Combined SUS DEI Response, available at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vQbcRDZmWzewqD_vuFx97zjTIscoG1O8/view.
19
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).
20
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006).
21
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). BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 8
The Court has consistently struck down mandatory political loyalty oaths, particularly in the
education setting.
22
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.
23
Equity and Access in Florida’s State Universities
The Board of Governors (BOG) Regulation 2.003 governs state university system institution
policies and procedure regarding equity and access for both students and employees.
The
regulation prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age,
disability, marital status, veteran status, or any basis protected by applicable law. Covered
individuals include prospective and enrolled students, prospective and current employees, and
university program invitees. However, this does not prohibit an institution from using legal
methods to achieve a broadly diverse student body, faculty and staff.
Each state university system institution must:
Make available classes, programs, facilities, employment, and services without regard to the
protected status or category of an individual;
Establish policies, procedures, and reporting mechanisms that prohibit and address unlawful
discrimination; and
Establish a designated office or person responsible for the development and implementation
of the equal employment opportunity program at each university.
Relating to equal opportunity in employment, each state university system institution must:
Offer equal opportunity and access in employment to all qualified individuals without regard
to the protected status or category of the individual.
Maintain an annual equity plan for remedying underutilization of women and minorities, as
applicable, in senior-level administrative positions and by faculty rank and/or tenure status.
In compliance with state, federal, and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
requirements regarding equal opportunity and access to students to participate in intercollegiate
athletics, as well as in intramural, club, or recreational athletics, each state university system
institution must develop an equity plan addressing sex equity in sports offerings and funding,
including the proper level of support for women’s athletic scholarships.
Finally, the BOG requires an annual Florida Equity Report, subject to the following
requirements:
22
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).
23
Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972). BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 9
At a minimum, each university’s equity report must include information on the institution’s
progress in implementing strategic initiatives and performance related to equity and access as
they pertain to academic services, programs, and student enrollment; equity in athletics; and
employment.
Each university’s equity report shall assess sex equity in athletics, as well as representation
by race and sex in student enrollment, senior level administrative positions and by faculty
rank and/or tenure status.
Each equity report shall include a web citation of the university’s nondiscrimination policy
adopted by its university board of trustees.
Such reports are to be submitted to the BOG by September 30th of each year.
Each university board of trustees or designee shall approve the annual Florida Equity Report
for its institution prior to submission to the BOG.
The BOG shall annually assess the progress of each university’s plan and advise the
Governor and the Legislature regarding compliance.
24
Preferences in State University Admissions
The BOG adopted regulation 6.001 prohibiting Florida’s universities from using admissions
criteria that include preferences on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, religion, or
sex.
25
Effect of Proposed Changes
The bill prohibits a public postsecondary institution from requiring or soliciting a person to
complete a political loyalty test as a condition of employment by, admission into, or promotion
within the institution. The bill also prohibits public postsecondary institutions from giving
preferential consideration to a person for an opinion or actions in support of a partisan, a
political, or an ideological set of beliefs or another person or group of persons based on the
person's or group's race or ethnicity or support of a specified ideology or movement.
The bill specifies that a political loyalty test includes compelling, requiring, or soliciting a person
to identify commitment to or to make a statement of personal belief in support of:
Any ideology or movement that promotes the differential treatment of a person or a group of
persons based on race or ethnicity, including an initiative or a formulation of diversity,
equity, and inclusion beyond upholding the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the
14th Amendment to the United States Constitution or a theory or practice that holds that
systems or institutions upholding the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution are racist, oppressive, or otherwise unjust.
A specific partisan, political, or ideological set of beliefs.
The bill explicitly states that a political loyalty test does not include fidelity to, or an oath or
effort taken to uphold, the United States Constitution or the Florida Constitution.
24
Florida Board of Governors, Regulation 2.003.
25
Florida Board of Governors, Regulation 6.001(3). BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 10
The bill authorizes the SBE and the BOG to adopt rules and regulations, respectively, to
implement these provisions. Such rules and regulations may provide penalties for the willful
violation of these prohibitions.
The bill provides a severability clause for these provisions.
Due Process for Students Participating in Student Government
Present Situation
Student Governments at State Universities
Each state university has a student government on its main. A state university student
government is required to be comprised of at least a student body president, a student legislature,
and a student judiciary. Each student government is required to adopt internal procedures that
provide for the operation and administration of the student government as well as the fulfillment
of all statutory duties including, but not limited to, establishing procedures for the suspension,
removal, and discipline of officers of the student government.
26
The statutory requirements for
university student governments are mirrored in Board of Governors (BOG) regulation.
27
Student government organizations are a part of the university at which they are established.
28
Actions taken by student government entities are subject to the approval of the university.
29
When a student government acts, it acts under the color of state law and such actions are
considered state action.
30
In 2021, the Legislature established additional due process protections for students participating
in student governments. Every university student government body must include a provision in
its internal procedures permitting an officer that is disciplined, suspended, or removed from
office to appeal directly to the vice president of student affairs or other designated senior
university administrator. Neither the student government nor the university may impose any
conditions precedent on such an appeal.
31
Florida Student Association
The Florida Student Association (FSA) is a nonprofit entity established to advocate on behalf of
Florida’s State University System (SUS) students. The FSA consists of the 12 university student
body presidents.
32
The president of the FSA serves as a student member of the BOG.
33
Additionally, the FSA nominates a student to serve on financial aid appeals committees.
34
26
Sections 1004.26, F.S.
27
Florida Board of Governors, Regulation 6.014.
28
Section 1004.26(1), F.S.
29
See, e.g., Florida Board of Governors, Regulation 6.014(5); Florida State University Board of Trustees Regulation FSU-
3.001(3).
30
See Ala. Student Party v. Student Gov’t Ass’n of the Univ. of Ala., 867 F.2d 1344, 1345 (11th Cir. 1989).
31
Section 1004.26(4)(d), F.S.
32
Florida Student Association, About FSA, https://www.floridastudentassociation.com/about (last visited March 29, 2023).
33
Art. IX, s. 7(d), Fla. Const. and s. 1001.70(1), F.S.
34
Section 1009.42(1), F.S. BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 11
Effect of Proposed Changes
The bill designates the FSA as the nonprofit advocacy group for SUS students. With the approval
of the BOG, the Chancellor of the SUS is authorized to designate an alternate entity if the FSA
fails to meet the standard established in law.
The bill codifies current practice that the governing board of directors of the FSA be comprised
of the 12 SUS institution student body presidents. The chair of the board of directors must be
annually selected by the members of the board and shall also serve as the president of the FSA.
Additionally, the bill requires the FSA to adopt bylaws similar to the internal procedures
required of student governments units at each state university. Specifically:
A due process for the removal or impeachment of the president of the association. The due
process must provide that the president of the association may be removed by the majority
vote of members of the board of directors. The bill specifies that grounds for removal of the
president of the association are limited to malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty,
incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or conviction of a felony.
Procedures for the suspension and removal of the president of the association following the
conviction of a felony.
Procedures for a president of the association who has been disciplined, suspended, or
removed from his or her position to directly appeal such decision to the Vice Chancellor for
Academic and Student Affairs for the Board of Governors. The bylaws may not place any
condition before a president may appeal such decision. The association may not elect a new
president until the exhaustion of the appeals process or any other due process rights
established in the bill.
The bill takes effect on July 1, 2023.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None. BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 12
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
None.
C. Government Sector Impact:
Each university must have an Office of Public Policy Events that is responsible for the
duties outlined for the office in the bill. The Board of Governors (BOG) estimates the
fiscal for each institution will vary, but will be approximately $484,718 and can be
absorbed within existing resources.
35
The bill allows for an institution to cover per diem and travel expenses for certain
speakers, which the BOG estimates to be approximately $200,000 per institution, which
can be absorbed within existing resources.
36
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
None.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends the following sections of the Florida Statutes: 1001.03, 1001.706,
1004.097, and 1004.26.
This bill creates section 1001.93 of the Florida Statutes.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Substantial Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
CS by Education Postsecondary on March 22, 2023:
The committee substitute retains requirements in the bill regarding intellectual freedom
and viewpoint diversity, the use of political loyalty tests in hiring and admissions, and
due process for students participating in student governments. The committee substitute
also:
35
Email, Tony Lee, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Public Policy and Advocacy, Board of Governors ((March 15, 2023) (on file
with Senate Committee on Education).
36
Id. BILL: CS/SB 958 Page 13
Requires the Board of Governors (BOG) to establish a Committee on Public Policy
Events.
Requires each state university within the state university system (SUS) to have an
Office of Public Policy Events (OPPE) and appoint a Director of Public Policy Events
responsible for the duties and reporting of the office.
Requires the OPPE at the university to hold no less than four events a year, with at
least two events occurring in the fall semester and at least two events in the spring
semester.
Specifies the OPPE at each SUS institution must provide the BOG an annual report
detailing the following:
o Number of enrolled students attending each event.
o Number of debates, group forums, and individual lectures.
o Calendar in chronological order itemizing the title of each event or lecture, name
and institutional affiliation of the speaker(s), and the office, institute, department,
program, or organization that sponsored the event.
o Expenditure information regarding per diem or reimbursements for travel
expenses.
Provides that upon approval of the board of trustees and the BOG, a state university
may assign the duties of the OPPE to an existing administrative office within the state
university rather than establish a separate office.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.