Board of Governors Adopts New 75/25 Regulations

At its September meeting, the California Community College Board of Governors (BOG) adopted new Title V regulations regarding full-time/part-time faculty obligation hiring criteria. These regulations had been under review by the Chancellor’s Office since January 2003. The purpose for amending the regulations was to improve system progress toward the goal of 75 percent credit instruction provided by full-time faculty, while recognizing the challenges posed at times by funding reductions to core programs.

The Chancellor’s Office convened meetings that included faculty and administrators in an attempt to reach consensus on the proposed regulatory changes. Consensus was reached on some changes, however, no consensus was reached on some issues, such as deferral of penalties versus waivers and expanding the definition of “core programs” to include CalWORKs.

The changes approved by the BOG to Section 51025 of the code include the following:

§ Advancing the date by which the BOG determines whether adequate funds have been provided for purposes of implementing increases in district obligations for full-time faculty hiring from January 20 of each year to November 20, in order to better fit the recruitment/hiring cycles of districts.

§ Taking into account reductions in specified core program areas as part of the determination of funding adequacy.

§ Specifying that the BOG may revise its determination of funding adequacy in the event the state enacts mid-year cuts in core programs.
§ Providing districts an option, in difficult fiscal years, to meet their hiring obligation by maintaining actual percentages of hours taught by full-time faculty, instead of reaching an absolute number of full-time equivalent faculty positions.

§ Providing the Chancellor the option, in difficult fiscal years, to defer the payment of funding reductions assessed against districts that fall short of hiring obligations. Under limited circumstances, these deferred payments could be made on an “installment plan” not to exceed three fiscal years.

§ Introducing further potential increases in district obligations that would result in real advancement toward the 75 percent goal in fiscal years in which the state provides additional funds for that specific purpose.

The Chancellor’s Office believes that these changes will provide a measure of flexibility and potential relief for districts that may have difficulty maintaining the requisite number of full-time faculty positions under current fiscal circumstances. Almost ten districts have requested a deferral from the BOG this year due to fiscal constraints that prohibit them from meeting their full-time faculty hiring obligation.

Administrative groups viewed the changes to Section 51025 as a minor victory, especially since there were faculty groups who maintained that local districts should be meeting their obligations even in times of funding reductions.

By the Way . . .
Assembly Higher Education Committee to Study Community College Funding.

The Assembly Higher Education Committee, chaired by Carol Liu (D-La Canada Flintridge), will hold a series of four hearings during the legislative recess. The purpose of the hearings is to study the impacts and hopefully find solutions to the state’s structural deficit regarding higher education funding. Among the options being considered is a plan to remove community colleges from under Proposition 98 and treat them more like the four-year public colleges and universities—that is, make their state funding discretionary but give local colleges more control over how to spend their money.

The hearings will also explore alternative ways of funding the University of California and California State University systems. Among the plans being considered will be a voucher plan in which the state gives every student attending UC or CSU a fixed amount of money as a subsidy to pay for all school costs. The committee may also explore a model that includes higher fees, but simultaneously ramps up financial aid programs.

The first hearing is scheduled for September 23, 2003, with additional meetings scheduled for October 21, November 18 and December 9. All of the hearings will be in the State Capitol, Room 437, starting at 1:30 p.m.

By the second hearing in October, committee staff hopes to present 10 different financial options for the committee to consider. The committee will then vote on three or four ideas they feel merit further study. By December, the goal is to make a number of policy recommendations, and introduce legislation that reflects those recommendations in the 2004 legislative session.

Legislature Adjourns 2003 Session

Working late into the wee hours of Saturday morning, September 13, 2003, the legislature adjourned after rounding up the necessary votes to pass significant health care and Workers’ Compensation reform bills.

Internal and partisan politics made this year’s end of session a particularly tense state of affairs. The riff between Republicans and Democrats was exacerbated by recall politics and the Assembly Republicans’ anger over the Senate Democrats’ refusal to honor a deal they believed they had with Assembly Democrats regarding the 2003-04 budget. As a result, Assembly Republicans refused to vote on several bills requiring a two-thirds vote, thus, these bills failed passage during the final hours of the legislative session. Since legislation containing an urgency clause (effective upon the signature of the Governor) requires a two-thirds vote, Republicans were able to halt passage of bills during the final hours of the legislative session. This bargaining chip gave them control over legislation that they typically don’t have, especially as the clock was winding down late Friday night.

One of the key bills for education that made it to the Governor’s desk after the urgency clause was removed was AB 1266 (Oropeza, D-Long Beach). AB 1266 is a education “trailer bill” to the 2003-04 State Budget that clarifies several budget-related issues for education. The major provision in the bill that applies to community colleges is a change in how declining enrollments will be calculated. (Refer to previous article)

Some of the key bills that made it to the Governor include:

§ A change in layoff notice requirements (AB 290), from 30 days to 45 days, and a requirement that community college employees who transport students in a 15-passenger van (AB 626) have a Class B drivers license

§ AB 1051, which gives public utility companies greater power when it comes to raising rates on educational entities

§ AB 457, which authorizes a “Golden Handshake” for classified employees

§ AB 654, which would expand the rights of part-time faculty to include their names in course selection catalogs and notification in a timely manner if their class is cancelled

§ Community colleges would not have to stop using social security numbers until 2007 under the provisions of SB 25

§ Students enrolled concurrently in some community college classes will face restrictions under the provisions of SB 338, and

§ A bill that was amended during the final hours of the session (SB 644), which would expand the membership of the Board of Governors to include a classified employee.

The Governor has until October 12, 2003 to sign or veto legislation.

Some of the bills that did not make it to the Governor’s desk during the 2003 legislative cycle include an equalization funding mechanism (AB 40) and property tax backfill legislation (AB 1417). These bills will likely resurface during the 2004 legislative session, scheduled to start on January 5, 2004.

Golden Handshake Legislation for CalPERS Members on Governor’s Desk

Legislation, AB 457 (Negrete McLeod, D-Chino), that would authorize state, local, and school employees to receive credit for up to two additional years of service, two additional years of age, or both was approved by the legislature during the final hours of the 2003 legislative session and sent to the Governor for his consideration.

There was considerable uncertainty as to whether AB 457 was going to be approved by the legislature, as the bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee in early August. However, behind the scenes negotiations took place, and the urgency clause was removed from the bill. Thus, if the bill is signed by the Governor, it will become effective January 1, 2004.

The provisions (Section 20904.5) of the bill specify that when the county superintendent of schools or chancellor of a community college district determines that the best interests of the district would be served by encouraging the retirement of school members, the superintendent or chancellor may adopt a resolution to grant all school members employed by the district additional service credit, or credit for additional age, or both (2+2), if the following conditions exist:

1. The member is eligible to retire and retires within the period designated in and subsequent to the effective date of the contract amendment. The designated period may not be less than 30 days or no more than 120 days in length (prior to January 1, 2005).

2. The superintendent or chancellor agrees to transmit to the retirement fund an amount determined by the board that is equal to the actuarial equivalent of the difference between the allowance the member receives after the receipt of credit for additional service or age, or both, and the amount he or she would have received without that credit. The transfer to the retirement fund shall be made in a manner and time period acceptable to the employer and the board.

3. The member is employed in a job classification, or other organizational units designated by the county superintendent of schools or chancellor of a community college district.

Further, the county superintendent of schools or chancellor shall demonstrate and certify that implementation of these provisions will result in a net savings to the county or community college district. The demonstration and certification shall take into account the expected rate of retirement absent the retirement incentive and the fiscal impact of providing the additional benefits to those employees. Keep in mind that if any member who qualifies under Section 20904.5 reenters the system, that member shall forfeit the age and service credit acquired under this Section.

Questions have been raised as to whether or not AB 457 applies to all K-14 school employees who are members of CalPERS because of the references to county superintendent of schools and chancellors of a community college district. The answer is yes—a county superintendent of schools or chancellor of a community college district has the responsibility of certifying retirement benefits to CalPERS. Therefore all K-14 school employees who are members of CalPERS are eligible.

The provisions of AB 457 that apply to schools shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2005, and as of that date are repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2005, deletes or extends that date.

Governor Davis is expected to sign AB 457, and has until October 12, 2003 to do so.