AB 290 Affects More Than the Layoff Notice Time Frame

Much has been discussed about AB 290 (Chapter 880/2003), which is a new law that increases the time frame for the notice of layoff of classified employees from the current requirement of 30 days to the new requirement of 45 days.

There is another provision to this new law that can also have a significant effect on community colleges: a classified employee cannot be laid off if there are any short term employees providing a service that the classified employee is qualified to perform. This does not apply to short term employees hired for a period of less than 45 days, after which they cannot be extended or renewed. This provision also does not create a 45-day layoff notice for short term employees hired for less than 45 days.

This is yet one more constraint placed upon community college districts that are already struggling with financial issues. Districts that have to go through the unfortunate process of classified employee layoffs now need to take more care and time in ensuring that this new law is complied with. These provisions are effective January 1, 2004.

Should Part-Time Faculty Be Treated Like Full-Time Faculty?

The question, “Should part-time faculty have all the rights and privileges of full-time faculty?” has been an interesting discussion around the academic table. That debate may have gotten just a little more interesting with the passage of AB 654 (Chapter 882/2003). The question following the passage of AB 654 is: will services to students will be improved, or will it simply provide an improvement in working conditions for part-time faculty?

The important text in the provisions of AB 654 for local community college districts to keep in mind is that the new law, effective January 1, 2004, is an expression of legislative intent. Thus, there are no penalties if a local district does not or cannot comply with the intent of the legislation. On the other hand, part-time faculty can now point to E.C. Section 87482.8 and say to you at the district that you should be complying with the law.

Again, keep in the mind that AB 654 is an expression of legislative intent and is not a state mandate—no appropriations were included in the legislation to fund the legislative intent.

AB 654 specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature to accomplish the following:

1. Limit the total number of student hours taught by part-time faculty. These part-time faculty members should serve less than 25 percent of the full-time FTES at any community college.
2. Specify that decisions regarding the appropriateness of part-time faculty should be made on the basis of academic and program needs and not for financial savings.
3. Require that part-time faculty be hired well in advance of the beginning of instruction, and that only in the event of genuine emergencies should instructors be hired on shorter notice than one month before the beginning of instruction.
4. Prohibit part-time faculty from being used to provide teaching or professional services formerly performed by full-time faculty. The conversion of full-time positions into several part-time faculty positions needs to be discontinued.
5. Allow part-time faculty the opportunity to participate in the full range of professional responsibilities, including student advisement, committee work, and departmental and campus-wide faculty meetings, and to pay them for this involvement. If a part-time faculty member prepares a course that is cancelled for any reason, that faculty member should be compensated for that preparation.
6. Require that salaries for part-time faculty be proportionate to the salaries paid to full-time faculty with similar qualifications who do the same work.

Additional provisions of AB 654 specify that, whenever possible:

1. Part-time faculty should be informed of assignments at least six weeks in advance.
2. Part-time faculty should be paid for the first week of an assignment when class is cancelled less than two weeks before the beginning of a semester. If a class meets more than once per week, part-time faculty should be paid for all classes that were scheduled for that week.
3. The names of part-time faculty should be listed in the schedule of classes rather than just described as “staff.”
4. Part-time faculty should be considered to be an integral part of their departments and given all the rights normally afforded to full-time faculty in the areas of book selection, participation in department activities, and the use of college resources—including, but not necessarily limited to, telephones, copy machines, supplies, office space, mail boxes, clerical staff, the library, and professional development.

Conclusion

This legislation is another example of community colleges being asked to do more with less, and would have the effect of reducing administrative flexibility. Good luck at the bargaining table.

PERS Employer Rate Estimated to Increase to 12.2 Percent

The CalPERS employer rate is estimated to be 12.2 percent for fiscal year 2004-05. Uncertainty about the increase in the PERS rate had been circulating for some time. We were hearing estimates from 12.2 percent to 20 percent. However, CalPERS staff has confirmed that the rate currently being proposed is based on the most recent financial and actuarial data available. If the 12.2 percent rate is officially adopted by the CalPERS Board, it will be an increase from the current 10.4 percent rate. Earlier this year, CalPERS staff was estimating that the rate for 2004-05 would be 18 percent.

Although any increase in the PERS rate is a significant non-reimbursed cost to local community college districts, 12.2 percent is certainly better than 18 percent.

Will Governor Schwarzenegger Support Community Colleges?

Now that the election is over and the people have spoken—what’s next? Will the California community colleges benefit from a change in Administrations? During the campaign, Governor-elect Schwarzenegger generally ignored higher education issues. What impact the new Governor will have on the state’s public higher education systems seems to be a big question mark.

Although Schwarzenegger indicated that he would not cut education, we can assume he was talking about K-12 schools. On a positive note, according to Schwarzenegger’s web site on education issues, “I will propose the Legislature fully fund community colleges under Proposition 98 requirements.” If the Governor-elect holds to that commitment, it means that he would propose that community colleges receive at least the statutory required 10.93% of Proposition 98 funds in his 2004 proposed State Budget, introduced on January 10, 2004.

With the State Budget crisis, estimates are being kicked around that the state deficit could rise to approximately $20 billion. These estimates are based on the $8 billion that still remained after closing the books on the 2003-04 budget, another $4 billion that could be in the mix if Schwarzenegger is successful in repealing the vehicle license fee and $2 billion to $10 billion that could be lost in the 2003-04 budget as a result of pending lawsuits.

Thus, mid-year cuts are being talked about, but will community colleges be affected? No one knows at this point.

In testimony to the Assembly Higher Education Committee on September 23rd, the Chancellor’s Office estimated that funding community colleges at 10.93% in 2004-05 would increase community college funding by almost $700 million. To put this amount in perspective, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) indicated that state and property tax funding for community colleges in 2003-04 is approximately $4.5 billion. A $700 million augmentation would thus represent an increase of more than 15%.

Note that community colleges only received a 9.6% share of Proposition 98 funds in the current year. One can only imagine that if the Legislature and Governor were serious about allocating community colleges their fair share of Proposition 98 funds, a conflict would occur with K-12 schools. With limited resources available, if community college received 10.93% of Proposition 98 funds, K-12 schools would receive less on a percentage basis than they have received over the past decade.

Stay tuned.

—Arnold Bray

Governor-elect Schwarzenegger Could Have an Early Say on Who is a Member of the Community College Board of Governors

The September 6, 2003 Update (see page 196, “Senate Republicans not Voting for Governor Davis’s Appointees”) contained an article which pointed out that Senate Republicans were withholding votes on the Governors appointments to various boards and commissions that required a two-thirds vote. Although Republicans are in the minority in the Senate, they have the ability to block confirmation of gubernatorial appointments that require a two-thirds vote. Community College Board of Governor members require a two-thirds vote for confirmation.

Currently there are three members of the Board of Governors awaiting confirmation. They are: Melinda F. Guzman, Fahari Jeffers, and Ronald W. Wong. These appointments were held up by the Senate Republicans. Appointees who have not been confirmed, of course, could be withdrawn by the Governor-elect once he becomes Governor.

Also, there are two members of the Board whose terms expire on January 15, 2004. They are: Brian E. Conley (trustee representative) and Catherine L. Unger. In addition, the two student members of the Board could be replaced in 2004. And the Governor-elect could potentially appoint a classified staff member to the Board, as a result of pending legislation (SB 644, Burton, D-San Francisco) currently awaiting Governor Davis’ signature.

Thus, Governor-elect Schwarzenegger could potentially appoint eight new members to the Board of Governors by June 30, 2004.

Other key appointments from the perspective of the community college system are the Director of Finance and the Secretary for Education. Those positions are currently held by Steve Peace and Kerry Mazzoni, respectively. Traditionally, the weeks from the end of the election until the Governor-Elect takes office (officially November 15th) are filled with news of key appointments to the new administration. Press reports indicate that the Governor can make approximately 1,400 discretionary appointments.

The ripple affect of the historic recall could have a major impact on the California Community Colleges because the Board responsible for establishing fiscal and policy direction for the system could see a 50% change in its membership during the crucial 2004-05 budget process.

Time will tell whether all of these changes will be good, bad, or indifferent.

—Arnold Bray

Davis Takes Final Action on Legislation as Governor

Completing one of his final acts as Governor of the state of California, Gray Davis took action on more than 200 bills on his desk just two days prior to the October 12, 2003, deadline for signing and vetoing legislation. Davis had rejected a request by Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger that he not sign any legislation during his final days in office. Apparently, Schwarzenegger was not aware that if Davis took no action on the 200 bills sitting on his desk, they would have automatically become law on January 1, 2004. If Governor-elect Schwarzenegger doesn’t like any of the bills signed into law by Davis, he may ask the Legislature to help him repeal those laws. This may be a quick lesson in politics for the new Governor if he thinks the Democratically controlled Legislature will vote to repeal the majority of the new laws they authored.

Governor Davis took action on the following bills that have an impact on community colleges:

Chaptered Legislation (new law becomes effective January 1, 2004)

 AB 109 (Chapter 276/2003) would define the prohibition on the refusal or failure to meet and negotiate in good faith to include the knowing provision by a public school employer to an exclusive representative of inaccurate information regarding its financial resources, whether or not it is provided in response to a request for information.

 AB 290 (Chapter 880/2003) would require that classified employees to be laid off be given a written notice on or before April 29, or not less than 45 days prior to the effective layoff date, if the termination date of any specially funded program is other than June 30, or if classified employees are subject to layoff as a result of a bona fide reduction or elimination of a service performed by any department.

 AB 310 (Chapter 344/2003) would require the governing board of a community college district that collects or deducts dues, agency fees, fair share fees, or any other fee or amount of money from an employee’s salary for the purpose of transmitting the money to an employee organization, to transmit the money to the employee organization within 15 days of issuing the paycheck containing the deduction. The legislation contains a penalty if the district fails to comply with the 15-day requirement.

 AB 593 (Chapter 819/2003) would require the Secretary of State to provide voter registration forms and information to students in all high schools, community colleges, and campuses of the California State University or University of California.

 AB 626 (Chapter 559/2003) makes legislative findings that 15-passenger vans are unsafe and declares the intent of the Legislature that all school districts, private schools, community colleges, and the California State University should require that 15-passenger vans owned by those entities only be driven by a person holding a commercial driver’s license.

 AB 654 (Chapter 882/2003) provides that, whenever possible, part-time faculty should be paid for the first week of an assignment when class is cancelled less than two weeks before the beginning of a semester. This bill also provides that part-time faculty should be considered to be an integral part of their departments and given all rights normally afforded to full-time faculty in the areas of book selection, participation in department activities, and the use of college resources.

 AB 719 (Chapter 838/2003) allows members of CalPERS to purchase up to five years of service credit in order to enhance their retirement benefit. This a cost neutral bill because the member pays the entire cost of the benefit.

 AB 1082 (Chapter 764/2003) allows a local agency that adopted a local definition of domestic partnership prior to January 1, 2004, to provide health care benefits to those domestic partners.

 SB 25 (Chapter 907/2003) would, operative July 1, 2004, provide that any person who uses a consumer credit report in connection with the approval of credit, may not lend money, extend credit, or complete the purchase, lease, or rental of goods or noncredit related services without taking reasonable steps to verify the consumer’s identity, to ensure that the consumer is not the victim of identity theft. In addition, the bill specifies that community college student’s social security numbers may not be used for identification purposes after 2007.

 SB 259 (Chapter 783/2003) authorizes school or community college districts to pay school employees the difference between their civilian pay and their military pay for up to 180 days, if the employee, as a member of the California National Guard, is order to active military duty.

 SB 338 (Chapter 786/2003) makes several changes in current law relative to community college concurrent enrollment, including the specification of eligible courses, the determination of academic credit for courses completed, appropriate claiming of per-student funding for courses offered and the disclosure of course availability.

 SB 644 (Chapter 860/2003) revises the composition of the Board of Governors to require that one of the 17 gubernatorial appointments to the Board be a classified (non-teaching) community college employee.

 SB 955 (Chapter 25/2003) would, for persons employed under this provision, prohibit service in professional ancillary activities, including, but not necessarily limited to, governance, staff development, grant writing, and advising student organizations, from being used for purposes of calculating eligibility for contract or regular status, unless otherwise provided for in a collective bargaining agreement applicable to a person employed under this provision.

Vetoed Legislation
To our surprise, Governor Davis vetoed the following bills:

 SB 328 (Escuita, D-Whittier) targeted the same group of undocumented immigrants who were singled out two years ago by a new state law granting them “resident” rates to attend California colleges rather than pay much higher out-of-state tuition rates. To qualify, those students must have attended a California high school for three years, obtained a California high school diploma or its equivalent, and signed an affidavit stating that they have applied to become a legal resident. The bill vetoed by Governor Davis took the concept a step further by allowing these students to seek waivers from the $18-per-unit fee community college fee.

If SB 328 had been signed into law, an estimated 1,500 undocumented immigrants currently attending community colleges would have qualified for a waiver of the $18 fee. SB 328 would have cost the state an estimated $315,000 to $500,000 annually in lost tuition revenue.

Governor Davis cited the state’s shaky economic condition in rejecting SB 328. He stated in his veto message, “I believe deserving immigrant students should have an opportunity to pursue a good quality education so that they can productively contribute to our economy. In future years when our economy has recovered, I would recommend that the governor and Legislature seriously consider providing financial aid to deserving immigrant students.”

 AB 457 (Negrete-McLeod, D-Chino) (see article on page of this Update) would have allowed state and local governments and schools to offer workers an incentive to retire early, including two years of service credit and two years of age credit.

In his veto message, Davis said that the bill would have created “the very real potential” that government would pay more to encourage workers to retire who would have done so anyway. It appears that the Governor was more concerned about the impact on state workers than local school employees. He also pointed out that he already had signed a bill (AB 719) that allows workers to purchase up to five years of service credit to enhance their retirement benefits at no cost to the public employer.

 AB 1051 (Goldberg, D-Los Angeles) would have revised and recast the statutory provisions that govern the methodology by which public agencies providing public utility services assess their capital costs for providing those services to school districts, community college districts, the California State University, the University of California, and state agencies.

The public educational agencies were opposed to AB 1051, contending that they could be unfairly charged new fees or fee increases. In his veto message, Governor Davis stated that fee increases and surcharges could be imposed without mutual agreement and removes the “actually serving” and price deflator limitations. In addition, he expressed concern about the short statute of limitations on recovering past overcharges, and the little in the way of notice and disclosure for new fees and fee increases. Due to the potential negative fiscal impact on educational institutions he could not support the measure.

Conclusion
During the past five years of his tenure in the Governor’s Office, Davis has signed approximately 5,000 bills into law. The state of California probably could have done without at least half of those bills (editorial comment). This time next year, a new Governor will be signing or vetoing bills. Since the majority of all the legislation that is placed on the Governor’s desk is authored by a Democrat, it will be interesting to see if the number of new laws being enacted stays the same or is reduced.

Stay tuned.

—Arnold Bray

Community College System May Have A New Chancellor By November

After eight years on the job, Tom Nussbaum is stepping down as Chancellor of the largest postsecondary education system in the world. As you are aware, Tom has announced his intention to leave the position of Chancellor in January 2004. As a result, the Board of Governors has been searching for a replacement.

A search committee, which reviewed candidates from within and outside of California, has narrowed the list to seven candidates. The selection process has been somewhat secretive, but Catherine Unger, president of the Board of Governors, has indicated that a decision on a new chancellor might come as early as their November 3 and 4 meeting at Cuesta College.

Of course, rumors abound as to who the new chancellor may be—those rumors include the possibility that the top three candidates are all from California, with specific California community college experience at the CEO and community organization levels.

The attributes that the search committee is looking for in the new chancellor are someone who can articulate a vision that will be heard by the system, the Legislature, and the Governor; and someone who can work with a variety of interest groups from within the community college system.

Whoever gets the job of Chancellor will immediately be presented with numerous challenges. The system is still trying to rebound from significant budget cuts, increased student fees, and lost enrollments. The budget process for 2004-05 doesn’t appear to hold much hope for any significant increases in the funding levels for community colleges. Also, the Chancellor’s office is underfunded and under staffed to meet the needs of the system and accountability demanded by the state.

Nussbaum knows well the constraints of a job that requires working with 72 community college districts, teacher unions, and various interest groups. He had viewed the job as a coalition building role that brings different groups together and hopefully achieve consensus. When asked what advice he would offer to his successor, who will come to work in then midst of a crisis, he offered: “Remember, 95 percent of this position is persuasion.”

—Arnold Bray

Is Out-of-State Sick Leave Transferable into California?

Q. I have a certificated employee that comes to us from the state of Washington. Is his sick leave balance transferable from the state of Washington to California?

A. Under California’s Education Code, a district is required to accept transfer of all accumulated but unused sick leave from a school district or community college district (ref. Education Code Sections 44979 and 87782) within the state of California. There are no requirements, however, to recognize accumulated sick leave from another state.

You might review your collective bargaining agreement to make sure there are no provisions regarding out of state transfers. It is not likely that there are any contract provisions, but it should be checked just to make certain.

—Ken Hall

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.