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