The Legitimacy of UVA’s Board of Visitors in Forming Its Presidential Search Committee
UVA’s Board of Visitors (BOV) has recently drawn public scrutiny amid ongoing political disputes between Governor Glenn Youngkin and members of the Virginia Senate concerning the confirmation of gubernatorial appointees. Notwithstanding this controversy, the Board’s establishment of its Special Committee on the Nomination of a President was clearly procedurally and legally valid under the governing provisions of Virginia law, despite suggestions to the contrary in a recent Cavalier Daily column.
The Special Committee on the Nomination of a President was constituted and then subsequently announced by the University on July 25, 2025. This occurred at a time when the BOV consisted of 16 uncontested members and prior to a Fairfax Circuit Court’s preliminary injunction filed by Senate Democrats, which temporarily suspended certain gubernatorial appointees—including Ken Cuccinelli at UVA. That dispute centered on whether the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee’s rejection of appointees constituted a “refusal to confirm” under Article V, § 11 of the Virginia Constitution. Senate Democrats asserted that merely the Committee’s vote was final, while the Youngkin administration maintained that only the full General Assembly can legally refuse confirmation
At the time of the special committee’s formation, only Cuccinelli possessed an unresolved appointment status. All other members were either (a) continuing holdovers serving pursuant to Virginia Code § 23.1-1300(D) (“members shall continue to serve until their successors are duly appointed and qualified”) or (b) confirmed appointees whose tenures were uncontested. Consequently, the Board not only retained a lawful quorum well in excess of the five members required under Virginia Code § 23.1-1303 and the University’s Board Manual, but also had the requisite number of Virginia residents and UVA alumni. The CD column did not take into account the timing of the committee’s creation.
Because the injunction was issued after the committee’s creation, it did not and could not retroactively invalidate actions lawfully taken beforehand. Accordingly, the Board’s decision to establish the Special Committee was both timely and legally effective at the moment of its adoption.
Furthermore, prior to the injunction, Attorney General Jason Miyares, in an advisory letter dated June 11, 2025, advised Virginia university rectors that appointees whose confirmations had not yet been acted upon by the General Assembly “remain fully vested with the rights and responsibilities conferred upon a member of a board of visitors.” The Attorney General’s guidance rested upon Article V, § 11 of the Virginia Constitution, which describes a formal refusal of confirmation by the General Assembly—not by a committee thereof—for an appointment to be lawfully nullified.
Although the letter did not constitute a formal opinion, it carried binding interpretive weight for state institutions pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-507(A). Acting in reliance on that official interpretation, the University’s Board of Visitors lawfully exercised its authority when it established the Special Committee in July 2025.
It must be noted that the Fairfax Circuit Court’s July 29 injunction was promptly appealed by the Commonwealth, and the matter remains pending before the Supreme Court of Virginia. Consequently, the underlying constitutional question has not yet been definitively adjudicated.
Pending such a determination, the Attorney General’s interpretation remains the operative guidance for public institutions. Moreover, the pending status of appellate proceedings does not retroactively impair actions that were valid and effective when taken. The University’s formation of its Special Committee on the Nomination of a President therefore remains legally sound and unaffected by the ongoing litigation.
At the time of its action, the University of Virginia Board of Visitors was duly constituted and lawfully empowered to form its Special Committee on the Nomination of a President. The committee was established when there was the requisite number of BOV members under all provisions of Virginia law, preceded any judicial injunction, was undertaken in reliance upon the Attorney General’s authoritative legal guidance, and occurred prior to any final resolution by the Supreme Court of Virginia regarding the confirmation dispute. Accordingly, the Board’s decision stands as legitimate, binding, and procedurally valid under both the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia.