BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 806
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 24, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 806 (Wilk) - As Amended: April 29, 2013
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:7-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)For purposes of determining a community college district's
compliance with the 50% law, includes the salaries and
benefits of academic counselors and librarians, and faculty
salaries associated with instructional support and
professional development activities, as counting toward
compliance, commencing with the 2014-15 academic year.
2)Authorizes the California Community Colleges (CCC) Board of
Governors (BOG) to establish a compliance committee to:
a) Review the auditing procedures to develop ways to ensure
compliance with the 50% law as revised by this bill.
b) Review local district auditing procedures and recommend
to the BOG any necessary changes to procedures published in
the CCC Budget and Accounting Manual to achieve the
accounting requirements as revised by this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT
No direct state costs. The bill changes how districts calculate
their compliance with the 50% law. Allowing more current campus
functions (counseling, etc.) to count toward compliance will
make compliance easier, and may change how districts allocate
their resources among the various campus functions and
activities. To the extent the BOG elected to establish a
compliance committee, it is assumed this would be accomplished
within existing resources.
AB 806
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Background . State law since 1961 has required each CCC
district to expend 50% of its "current expense of
education"-generally the district's unrestricted general fund
expenditures-for "salaries of classroom instructors"--salaries
paid to instructors for the actual portion of the salary spent
in the classroom, salaries of instructional aides performing
duties under the supervision of an instructor, and the cost of
all benefits provided to instructors.
2)Purpose . According to the author, the 50% law was originally
enacted to promote class size reduction when junior colleges
and K-12 were one system, by allocating more funding to hire
instructors to reduce the number of students in each
classroom. Since that time, there have been considerable
changes to CCC instruction, authorizing more responsibility
for faculty members. Many of these activities, such as
counseling and librarian services, are not considered part of
"classroom instruction," thus falling on the "wrong" side of
the 50% calculation. This bill would count faculty who serve
in roles related to instruction but do not provide "classroom
instruction" on the same side of the 50% law as classroom
instructors, including counselors, librarians, faculty
coordinators, department chairs, and faculty directors of
programs (such as Extended Opportunity Programs and Services
and Disabled Support Programs and Services).
3)In support , the Association of California Community College
Administrators states this bill would make some small but
needed adjustments to keep the 50% rule in place, but
modernize the definition of true costs directly associated to
instruction and include them in the right side of the
equation.
4)Opposition . The California Teachers Association argues this
bill will dilute the funding spent on classroom instruction,
thereby providing a net gain to the amount of monies spent
outside the classroom on administration and other purposes.
The Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
(FACCC) states, "?Additionally, passage of this measure could
actually limit the hiring of this corps and/or decrease the
AB 806
Page 3
percentage of full-time faculty in a district. This is because
unless a counselor or librarian is teaching a class, they do
not produce Full-Time Equivalent Students, a calculation used
by the state to determine funding levels per student." FACCC
suggests that instead of altering the 50% law, the Legislature
increase funding for counselors and librarians, both of which
are integral to student success.
5)Recent reports by the Legislative Analyst's Office and the
Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy have
highlighted the constraint that the 50% law puts on districts'
ability to determine the best mix of instructional and support
services resources for their particular student population.
Ultimately, the Legislature should consider to what extent it
is in the state's interest to maintain control on system
inputs, such as limiting local decision-making authority
regarding resource allocation, or to allow more local
discretion in this regard and instead hold districts more
accountable for student outcomes.
6)Prior Legislation . In 2007, AB 906 (Eng), which increased the
50% threshold to 53% and included the salaries of counselors
and librarians, failed in the Senate Education Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081