BILL ANALYSIS
ACR 31
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
ACR 31 (Ruskin) - As Introduced: February 23, 2009
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:7-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This resolution expresses the Legislature's intent that
community college districts (CCDs) increase their proportion of
full-time faculty, consistent with the policy of the Board of
Governors, and provide comparable pay and benefits to part-time
faculty. Specifically, this resolution expresses legislative
intent that:
1)Commencing in 2010-11, each campus with less than 75% of its
full-time equivalent faculty being tenured or tenure-track
should increase this percentage by at least 10% each year and
should reach 75% no later than 2017-18.
2)Part-time and temporary faculty receive pay and benefits
proportionately equal to tenured faculty of comparable
qualifications and performing comparable work.
3)Each CCD determine a minimum salary goal for part-time and
temporary faculty that is prorated to the salaries of
comparable full-time tenured faculty, to increase salaries of
part-time faculty to close any salary gap by at least 15%
annually starting in 2010-11, and to close the salary gap by
2017-18.
4)A part-time or other non-tenure track faculty member teaching
at least 40% of the number of hours per week considered a
full-time assignment over a calendar year should be eligible
for the same health care benefits as a tenured or tenure track
faculty.
5)The development of plans for increasing the percentage of
ACR 31
Page 2
full-time faculty and closing the salary gap should be subject
to a collective bargaining process involving representative of
full-time and part-time faculty.
FISCAL EFFECT
No direct fiscal impact, as the resolution does not carry the
force of law. However, the implementation of the Legislature's
intent, as expressed in the resolution, would have the following
impacts, which are based on a similar measures, AB 1095 (Hill),
also before this committee today, and ACR 91 (Mendoza 2008) and
AB 1343 (Mendoza 2007), both of which were held by this
committee.
1)The estimated cost to increase the full-time/part-time ratio
is $45 million for every 2% increase. Based on the current
ratio of 61/39, implementation of the Legislature's intent, as
expressed in this bill, to reach 75/25 would cost $315 million
General Fund (Proposition 98), or annual increases of $40
million for eight years until 2017. This would represent a
reallocation of resources within the budgets of those
community college districts which do not meet the 75/25
standard. (The Chancellor's Office of the CCC estimates a
minimum cost of $32,000 to convert a part-time position to
full-time.)
2)The total cost to achieve pay parity by 2017-18 for 9,000 FTE
part-time faculty (based on 25% of the total of 36,000 FTE) is
unknown, but would probably exceed $100 million over eight
years. (In its 2007-08 budget proposal, the Chancellor's
Office requested $50 million to move toward part-time faculty
pay parity. A 2000 Bureau of State Audits study estimated the
cost for eliminating all existing pay differences in the CCC
to be $144 million annually. The 2001-02 budget included $57
million to address this issue.)
3)Additional health insurance costs for part-time faculty would
be in the tens of millions of dollars. Under the current
part-time faculty health insurance program, participating
districts paid $11 million for premiums in 2005-06. However,
only 3,000 part-time faculty members participated in this
program statewide. There were over 41,000 part-time faculty in
the system in 2006, though not all would be covered under the
bill, which is limited to those teaching at least 40% of a
full-time teaching load.
ACR 31
Page 3
CCC Facing Large Budget Reductions . The governor's recent May
Revision to the 2009-10 Budget Act proposes the following
reductions to the CCC's budget: $85 million in 2008-09 and $400
million in 2009-10 plus reduced property tax revenues of $42
million in 2008-09 and $117 million in 2009-10. In addition, if
the Propositions fail on the May 19 special election, an
additional reduction totaling $181 million is proposed for
2009-10.)
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, an increasing percentage of
courses in the CCC are being taught by part-time and other
non-tenure track faculty. The author maintains that the
community college system has become dependent upon a
contingent workforce that is poorly compensated and too often
lacks basic supports such as health insurance and paid office
hours.
2)Background . AB 1725 (Vasconcellos)/Chapter 973 of 1988,
required CCC districts below a 75/25 standard to use a portion
of their "program improvement" money to hire more full-time
faculty for credit instruction. The CCC Board of Governors
(BOG) adopted regulations regarding program improvement
funding, however, the state stopped providing this type of
funding soon thereafter. In subsequent years, the BOG adopted
regulations to require districts to provide a portion of their
growth funds to hiring more full-time faculty and then sought
and received statutory authority to continue this approach
toward achieving a 75/25 standard.
3)CCC Teaching Load and Salaries . According to the CCC
Chancellor's Office in its "Report on Staffing for Fall 2006,"
there are 59,821 faculty in the system. On a headcount basis,
18,196 are tenured or tenure-track faculty (30%) and 41,625
are academic temporaries (70%). When calculated on a FTE
basis, there are 36,025 FTE faculty, with 57% tenured or
tenure-track and 43% temporary. A June 2000 report by the
Bureau of State Audits (BSA), "Part-time Faculty Are
Compensated Less Than Full-time Faculty for Teaching
Activities," found significantly lower wages and benefits
provided to part-time faculty. The BSA estimated the cost for
eliminating all existing pay differences to be about $144
million annually. At the time of the report, the headcount
ACR 31
Page 4
ratio of full-time to part-time faculty was 67% to 33%. A
California Postsecondary Education Commission report produced
pursuant to AB 420 (Wildman)/Chapter 738 of 1999, echoed the
findings of the BSA, noting that on average part-time faculty
earned 50-60% of a comparable full-time faculty salary. CPEC
also noted that 41% of part-time faculty reported they
received no benefits.
4)The Efficacy of Full-Time Faculty . The Academic Senate for the
California Community Colleges (ASCCC) finds in its recent
report, "Part-time Faculty, A Principled Perspective" that,
"Maintaining a corps of full-time, tenured faculty is central
to academic excellence, academic integrity, and academic
freedom; it is key to serving our students well." Part-time
faculty are less able to serve students through regular office
hours and participation in other campus events and may be less
able to meet the unique needs of the CCC student population.
National research validates the importance of a sufficient
complement of full-time faculty, particularly for the
population served by the CCC.
5)On the Other Hand . The BSA report mentioned above states,
"Depending on one's policy perspective, the unequal
compensation of part-time faculty either creates problems that
should be addressed or reflects an appropriate balance of
market conditions at the local level that should not be
tampered with." In noting that the existing pay disparity
creates an incentive for districts to utilize part-time
faculty, BSA points out such an incentive is not in keeping
with standards that stress the importance of maintaining a
balance, but on the other hand, mandating equal pay for equal
work could interfere with the collective bargaining process
and limit local flexibility. (This resolution does not mandate
such action, but expresses legislative intent that it be
accomplished through the collective bargaining process.)
Districts interviewed for this report cited their dependence
on the state for financial resources and indicated funds are
not sufficient to meet all of their needs.
Is the 75/25 standard too rigid? Is it the right ratio? Should
the state even focus on faculty makeup and compensation, or
should it leave those decisions to the CCDs, through the
collective bargaining process, and instead hold the districts
accountable for outcomes measuring student success?
ACR 31
Page 5
6)Related Legislation . AB 1095 (Hill), also on today's
committee agenda, states legislative intent for districts to
reach the 75/25 standard by 2014.
7)Prior Legislation . In 2008, ACR 91 (Mendoza), which was almost
identical to this resolution, was held on this committee's
Suspense file.
In 2007, AB 1343 (Mendoza), which mandated the policies
expressed in ACR 91, was held on this committee's Suspense
File.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081