BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1807
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 19, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                      AB 1807 (Fong) - As Amended:  May 6, 2010 

          Policy Committee:                              Higher  
          EducationVote:8-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:  Yes

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires community college districts (CCDs), through  
          collective bargaining, to establish and implement reemployment  
          preference lists for part-time faculty, based on specified  
          criteria.  Specifically, this bill:

             1)   Requires the CCDs, through local collective bargaining,  
               to do all of the following:

             a)   Determine designated discipline areas of faculty  
               assignments, as specified, and place part-time faculty  
               meeting the following criteria on a reemployment preference  
               list for each discipline area:

               i)     Completion of a locally-bargained minimum number of  
                 semesters or quarters and no break in service exceeding  
                 24 months, at a community college within the most recent  
                 four academic years.

               ii)    At least one assignment per term of employment  
                 within a designated area of faculty assignment, at a  
                 minimum of 20% of a full-time load.

               iii)   The employee's most recent performance evaluation is  
                 satisfactory and the employee is in good standing.

             b)   Prioritize the names on the reemployment list and  
               provide employees, according to their ranking on the list,  
               with the right of first refusal to teach in their  
               designated area of faculty assignment.









                                                                  AB 1807
                                                                  Page  2

             2)   Stipulates that, if a reduction in course offerings,  
               funding, or enrollment results in a suspension of  
               employment of a part-time employee, the employee shall  
               remain on the list for up to two years after the last date  
               on which the employee would have been eligible to be placed  
               on the list.

             3)   States that, to the extent the above provisions conflict  
               with a bargaining agreement in effect on January 1, 2011,  
               the terms of bargaining agreement shall apply until its  
               expiration.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          A number of the 72 CCDs currently have reemployment policies,  
          though it is unlikely that many of these policies conform to the  
          parameters specified in this bill.

          Most districts would incur costs for additional collective  
          bargaining associated with establishing or modifying faculty  
          assignment areas (for purposes of the reemployment list) and  
          establishing or modifying a reemployment policy within the  
          specified parameters. The state currently is required to pay  
          about $7.5 million annually (GF/Prop. 98) to reimburse districts  
          for mandated costs associated with collective bargaining. If the  
          additional tasks increased bargaining costs by just five  
          percent, state reimbursable costs would increase by $375,000.   
          Assuming all districts would complete new bargaining agreements  
          within the first two years, total one-time costs related to  
          bargaining would be $750,000.

          In addition to the bargaining costs, each community college will  
          incur one-time costs to train staff implementing the policy and  
          to establish the initial lists or, for those districts with an  
          existing reemployment policy, to revise their existing lists  
          into conformance with the new policy. It is assumed that  
          reemployment lists would be established and maintained at the  
          department level or some similar academic unit within a college.  
          Assuming costs averaging $10,000 per college, total one-time  
          reimbursable costs for 109 colleges would be $1,090,000, or  
          $545,000 per year over two years. It is assumed that costs of  
          maintaining the reemployment list would not be significant.

          In summary, GF/Prop. 98 costs would be around $920,000 per year  
          for two years.








                                                                  AB 1807
                                                                  Page  3


           COMMENTS  

              1)   Background  .  For over 20 years, the Legislature has  
               considered various efforts to address the issue of CCDs  
               hiring temporary (part-time) faculty members in lieu of  
               full-time faculty. Much of the reason to utilize temporary  
               faculty is the lower costs associated with such faculty.  
               Several studies on temporary faculty found that CCDs pay  
               temporary faculty significantly less than full-time faculty  
               performing the same duties, and nearly half of temporary  
               faculty reported not receiving any type of benefits from  
               their district. In 2008, 18,200 members of CCC teaching  
               faculty were full-time (tenure or tenure track) and 45,257  
               classified as temporary. 

            Current law requires that the issue of reappointment rights  
            for temporary faculty be a subject of negotiation during  
            collective bargaining and provides that reappointment rights  
            may be based on whatever factors are agreed to by both  
            parties.  Many districts have thus formalized such practices  
            through the bargaining process. This bill mandates that every  
            CCD establish and implement a reemployment scheme, to be  
            bargained within certain parameters specified in the bill.

              2)   Purpose  . The California Federation of Teachers (CFT)  
               argues that California's higher education system has become  
               far too dependent on a poorly compensated, temporary  
               workforce lacking basic support and benefits. According to  
               CFT, the flexibility to negotiate reemployment policies at  
               each CCD has resulted in unfair and unreliable reemployment  
               practices in some districts. Additionally, many temporary  
               faculty create full-time teaching schedules through  
               employment in two or more districts. The varying  
               reemployment policies among CCDs make it difficult for  
               temporary faculty to plan their teaching schedules. CFT  
               contends that establishing a more uniform reemployment  
               policy requiring preference lists, and ranking employees  
               with rights of first refusal to teaching assignments in  
               their faculty service area will ensure fair reemployment  
               practices, thus increasing stability for temporary faculty  
               and their students.

              3)   Opposition  .  The Community College League argues that  
               "While the bill may echo the best practices of a few  








                                                                  AB 1807
                                                                  Page  4

               community college districts, the League is concerned that  
               mandating one system for all districts at a time of  
               significant cutbacks could adversely impact the courses  
               available for students, could significantly increase the  
               cost of compliance and legal risk of districts implementing  
               the system, and thwart achievement of the diversity goals  
               and objectives of local community college districts." 

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081