Legislation Restructuring Board Dies
The Virginia General Assembly adjourned its 2026 session Saturday, with lawmakers approving a study of Virginia Military Institute, but stopping short of making direct changes to its governing board, instead passing a bill that ensures legislators get the final say of when appointees can take their board seats.
House Bill 1377, introduced by Del. Dan Helmer, passed both chambers and now heads to Gov. Abigail Spanberger for consideration. The bill establishes an advisory task force to examine VMI’s governance, educational practices and response to a 2021 state-commissioned report on the Institute.
The measure passed the House 66–29 and the Senate 21–18 on the final day of session, following negotiations between the chambers in a conference committee. As part of that compromise, the number of state senators serving on the task force was reduced from four to two.
Earlier versions of the bill had included language directing the task force to examine whether VMI should continue receiving state funding, but that provision was removed before final passage. VMI leadership later expressed support for the revised version of the bill. Meanwhile, a separate proposal that would have altered the composition of VMI’s board of visitors failed to advance before adjournment.
House Bill 1374, introduced by Del. Michael Feggans, passed the House but was effectively set aside in the Senate, where lawmakers voted to recommit it to committee rather than take a final vote. The bill died when the session ended.
The measure had undergone significant changes dur- ing the legislative process. Initially introduced as a plan to dissolve VMI’s board of visitors and transfer oversight of the Institute to another university, the bill was later rewritten to instead adjust the board’s composition. The amended version would have limited the number of alumni members, increased the number of non-alumni Virginia residents and required that at least five members have senior-level U.S. military experience.
VMI officials had supported the amended version, but the proposal did not clear the Senate.
Even as lawmakers declined to restructure VMI’s board directly, they approved broader changes to how boards of visitors are appointed across Virginia’s public colleges and universities.
House Bill 1385, introduced by Del. Lily Franklin, requires that gubernatorial appointees to boards of visitors must be confirmed by the General Assembly before taking office. Previously, appointees could begin serving immediately upon selection by the governor.
The bill passed the House and Senate following close votes, including a 20–20 tie in the Senate on an earlier version of the bill that was broken by Lt. Gov. Ghazala Hashmi. It now heads to the governor’s desk.
The legislation follows a legal dispute last year that brought the state’s appointment process into question.
In June 2025, Democratic leaders in the Virginia Senate filed a lawsuit against Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Attorney General Jason Miyares over their handling of university board appointments, including at VMI. The case arose after a Senate committee voted to reject several of the governor’s appointees, but the administration instructed universities to seat them anyway, arguing the governor retained authority to make temporary “recess appointments.”
Senate leaders disputed that interpretation, pointing to a separate constitutional provision barring individuals from serving after being rejected by the General Assembly. The conflict led to a lawsuit in Fairfax County Circuit Court, where a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking some of the appointees from serving while the case moved forward.
The dispute exposed a gray area in Virginia law over when board appointees can assume their roles and what constitutes formal rejection by the legislature.
House Bill 1385 directly addresses that ambiguity. The measure clarifies that appointees to boards of visitors do not take office until confirmed by the General Assembly and that rejection by a legislative committee constitutes a formal refusal to confirm.
By codifying those rules, lawmakers effectively reinforced the General Assembly’s authority in the appointments process and sought to prevent similar conflicts in the future.
