BILL ANALYSIS
ACR 138
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
ACR 138 (Nava) - As Introduced: February 23, 2010
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:6-0
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:
1)Expresses legislative intent that part-time and temporary
faculty receive pay and benefits proportionately equal to
tenured faculty of comparable qualifications who perform
comparable work.
2)States that each CCD should adopt plans for increasing the
percentage of full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty
consistent with the Board of Governors policy that 75% of
credit instruction should be by full-time faculty.
3)States that each CCD should determine a minimum salary goal
for part-time and temporary faculty that is prorated to the
salaries of comparable full-time tenured faculty, and should
reduce the salary gap between part-time and full-time faculty
by at least 15% annually.
4)States that a part-time or other adjunct 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)States that the development of plans for increasing the
percentage of full-time faculty and closing the salary gap
ACR 138
Page 2
should be subject to a collective bargaining process involving
representatives of full-time and part-time faculty.
FISCAL EFFECT
No direct fiscal impact, as the resolution does not carry the
force of law. However, implementation of the Legislature's
intent, as expressed in the resolution, would have the
following impacts, which are based on a similar measures (see
Comment #6):
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, reaching 75/25 would cost $315 million General
Fund (Proposition 98) over a multi-year period. This would
represent a reallocation of resources within the budgets of
those community college districts that 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 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. (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.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, an increasing percentage of
courses in the CCC are being taught by part-time and other
ACR 138
Page 3
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 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
ACR 138
Page 4
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?
6)Prior Legislation . In 2009, ACR 31 (Ruskin), which was similar
to this resolution, and AB 1095 (Hill), which stated
legislative intent for districts to reach the 75/25 standard
by 2014, were both held on this committee's Suspense File.
In 2008, ACR 91 (Mendoza), which was almost identical to ACR
31, 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.
ACR 138
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081