This bill adds new sections to chapter 28B.07 RCW to require state institutions of higher education to reduce their counts of "nonfaculty exempt employees" to a ratio based on fiscal year 2008 by June 30, 2025. For each institution the required method is to calculate the 2008 ratio of full‑time equivalent (FTE) nonfaculty exempt employees to FTE enrollments, multiply that ratio by the institution's FY2024 FTE enrollments, and ensure the resulting number of FTE nonfaculty exempt employees is no greater than the institution employed in 2008. The Office of Financial Management must adjust general fund state appropriation allotments to reflect these funding changes, and any allotment reductions must be placed in reserve and remain unexpended. The act is declared necessary for immediate preservation of public government functions and takes effect immediately. The bill specifies minimum FTE reductions and associated FY2026 fiscal impacts for named institutions and systems: University of Washington reduce 45.4 FTE per 1,000 enrollments (at least 2,381 FTE) with FY2026 general fund reduction $17,627,000 and anticipated tuition reduction $23,467,000; Washington State University reduce 24.5 FTE per 1,000 (at least 563 FTE) with GF reduction $11,339,000 and anticipated tuition reduction $7,973,000; Eastern Washington University reduce 20 FTE per 1,000 (at least 128 FTE) with GF reduction $4,616,000 and anticipated tuition reduction $2,735,000; Central Washington University reduce 26.7 FTE per 1,000 (at least 206 FTE) with GF reduction $5,770,000 and anticipated tuition reduction $3,794,000; The Evergreen State College reduce 43.7 FTE per 1,000 (at least 96 FTE) with GF reduction $5,189,000 and anticipated tuition reduction $1,620,000; Western Washington University reduce 0.7 FTE per 1,000 (at least 8 FTE) with GF reduction $398,000 and anticipated tuition reduction $359,000; State Board for Community and Technical Colleges system reduce 13.9 FTE per 1,000 (at least 1,414 FTE) with GF reduction $68,575,000 and anticipated tuition reduction $21,983,000. The bill also requires the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to allocate the system reduction to individual colleges based on growth in nonfaculty exempt employees at those colleges since 2008 and to allocate a portion to the state board based on its share of system nonfaculty exempt staff. The text does not define "nonfaculty exempt employees," "FTE nonfaculty exempt employees," or "FTE enrollments" in the provided excerpts, does not specify the method for counting or classifying such employees or FTE enrollments, and does not describe compliance verification, enforcement mechanisms beyond placing allotment reductions in reserve, or how reserved allotment reductions may be used or reallocated later. The source for cited historical statistics referenced in the bill text is not provided in the extracted facts.

If enacted, state colleges and universities will need to cut the number of nonfaculty exempt staff to levels that match each institution’s 2008 ratio of those workers to student enrollments by June 30, 2025. The Office of Financial Management will lower general fund allotments to match those cuts and hold the reduced amounts in reserve rather than allowing institutions to spend them. The bill lists specific minimum FTE reductions and the expected FY2026 budget impacts for each institution — for example, University of Washington about 2,381 FTE and a $17.6 million general fund reduction (with a $23.5 million anticipated tuition spending reduction), Washington State University about 563 FTE and $11.3 million less general fund, and the SBCTC system about 1,414 FTE and $68.6 million less general fund — and gives SBCTC responsibility to apportion reductions across individual colleges based on their growth since 2008. Practically, university and college leaders will face near-term pressure to cut or reclassify nonfaculty exempt positions and to reorganize services to fit smaller staffing levels, and state budgets will show the specified reductions held in reserve rather than spent by campuses. The immediate effective date raises the chance of rapid personnel actions, but key implementation details are unclear in the text provided — notably how “nonfaculty exempt” and FTE enrollments are defined, how counts will be verified, and whether or how reserved allotments might later be used — creating uncertainty and the risk of disputes over who must be cut and how savings are measured.