BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1010
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Medina |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 27, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: June 24, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lenin Del Castillo |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Community colleges: part-time, temporary employees
SUMMARY
This bill requires community college districts to have
collective bargaining agreements with part-time faculty that
include specified conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND
Existing law defines "faculty" as those employees of community
college districts who are employed in academic positions that
are not designated as supervisory or management, as specified.
Faculty include, but are not limited to, instructors,
librarians, counselors, community college health services
professionals, handicapped student programs and services
professionals, and extended opportunity programs and services
professionals. (Education Code § 87003)
Existing law also defines any person who is employed to teach
for not more than 67% of the hours per week considered a
full-time assignment to be a part-time, temporary employee. (EC
§ 87482.5 and § 87882)
The Board of Governors (BOG) of the California Community
Colleges (CCC) has had a longstanding policy that at least 75%
of the hours of credit instruction in the community colleges, as
a system, should be taught by full-time instructors (commonly
referred to as "75/25"). Existing law requires the BOG to adopt
AB 1010 (Medina) Page 2
of ?
regulations regarding the percent of credit instruction taught
by full-time faculty and authorizes CCC districts with less than
75% full-time instructors to apply a portion of their "program
improvement" funds toward reaching a 75% goal. However, the
state has stopped providing program improvement funds and the
BOG has since required CCC districts to provide a portion of
their growth funds to hiring more full-time faculty. (EC §
87482.6)
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1)Requires community college districts that do not have a
collective bargaining agreement with part-time faculty in
effect as of January 1, 2016, to commence negotiations with
exclusive representatives for part-time, temporary faculty
regarding specified terms and conditions, including:
a) Upon initial hire, requirements for the evaluation of
part-time faculty members, as specified, including, but not
necessarily limited to, a contract or regular faculty peer
evaluator who has expertise in the subject matter of the
part-time, temporary faculty member's assignment.
b) Evaluation at least once every six semesters or nine
quarters of service, exclusive of summer and intersession
terms.
c) Placement on a seniority list for assignments, following
six semesters of satisfactory service. The seniority for
all assignments shall be determined based on the first date
of hire at the applicable college and seniority lists shall
be by campus unless otherwise locally negotiated between
the community college district and the exclusive
representative for part-time, temporary faculty.
d) Maintenance of the faculty member's workload for
semester seven or quarter ten and beyond, as specified. As
new assignments become available due to growth or
AB 1010 (Medina) Page 3
of ?
attrition, these assignments shall be offered in seniority
order to those part-time, temporary faculty members who
have qualified to be placed on the seniority list, as
specified. In cases where a reduction in assignment needs
to occur due to program needs, budget constraints, or more
contract faculty hires, the reduction shall occur first
from among those part-time, temporary faculty members who
have not yet qualified to be placed on the seniority list,
and thereafter in reverse seniority order (i.e., use of
"last in, first out" for reductions in assignments), as
specified.
e) Procedures governing refusal or rejection of offered
assignments, diminution or loss of seniority rights, and
additional leave or break-in-service provisions that are
locally negotiated between the community college district
and the exclusive representative for part-time faculty.
f) Requirement that in cases where a part-time faculty,
subsequent to qualifying to be placed on the seniority
list, receives a less-than satisfactory evaluation, as
defined, the faculty member shall be provided a written
plan of remediation with concrete suggestions for
improvement, as specified. The faculty member shall be
evaluated again the following semester and if the outcome
is less than satisfactory, the faculty member shall lose
all seniority rights and may be dismissed at the discretion
of the district. Appeal and grievance rights and
procedures, if any, shall be subject to local collective
bargaining.
g) Requirement that part-time faculty assignments are
temporary in nature, contingent on enrollment and funding,
and subject to program changes, and no part-time faculty
member has a reasonable assurance of continued employment
at any point, as specified.
2)Provides that a community college district with a collective
bargaining agreement with part-time faculty in effect as of
January 1, 2016, shall be exempt from the above requirements
AB 1010 (Medina) Page 4
of ?
if the agreement takes into account all of the following:
a) Part-time faculty assignments are based on seniority up
to 60% to 67% of a full-time equivalent teaching load.
b) A regular evaluation process for part-time faculty.
c) Due process for termination for part-time faculty that
have qualified for negotiated provisions.
3)Provides legislative intent language, as specified.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author's office, job
instability, lack of promotion to full-time positions, and
limited engagement with students are some of the biggest
concerns for part-time/temporary faculty. The inability to
negotiate reemployment policies at most community college
districts has resulted in unreliable reemployment practices,
which leave many part-time faculty wondering if they will have
a job the following semester. Additionally, many
part-time/temporary faculty are left with no option but to
piece together full-time teaching schedules through employment
in two or more community college districts. The various
differences in reemployment policies in these community
college districts also make it difficult for
part-time/temporary faculty to plan their upcoming teaching
schedules. The author's office contends that in most cases,
part-time instructors are paid significantly less than
full-time faculty for the same duties of preparation, teaching
and grading, and assessment. In addition to receiving
significantly less in compensation than their full-time
counterparts, in most cases PT faculty receive no health
coverage and are not compensated for office hours outside of
class to meet with students. The author argues that, "This
lack of dignity, fairness, and equity translates to poor
prospects for career advancement, resulting in many qualified
part-time faculty leaving the profession annually."
AB 1010 (Medina) Page 5
of ?
2)Existing reemployment policies. Current law requires that
reappointment rights for temporary faculty are a subject of
negotiation during collective bargaining and provides that
reappointment rights may be based on whatever factors are
agreed to by both parties. Accordingly, many community
college districts have established policies and practices
regarding reappointment rights through the bargaining process.
Additionally, several community college districts have
successfully negotiated bargaining agreements that contain
standards that are similar to those proposed by this measure,
including the Grossmont-Cuyamaca, Los Angeles, San Diego, San
Francisco, and Ventura community college districts. While
this bill is intended to provide job security for part-time
faculty and minimum standards for how they are treated, the
Committee may wish to consider whether this bill is necessary
as community college districts and local bargaining units
already have the ability to negotiate reemployment policies.
Should all community college districts be mandated to do so or
should this continue to be left to local discretion?
3)Limits discretion of the community college districts. In
providing job security and establishing minimum standards for
how part-time faculty are treated, this bill specifies
prescriptive requirements for local bargaining agreements that
all community college districts would be required to adhere
to. The Committee may wish to consider whether this bill could
reduce the ability of the districts to meet their local
community needs in offering course selections and quickly
responding to changing market demands. The Community College
League of California indicates, "By mandating a one-size fits
all approach, this bill will impose conditions of employment
that may not reflect local district needs, increase costs for
districts and ultimately reduce student success."
4)Conflicts with existing contracts? The bill provides that a
community college district with a collective bargaining
agreement with part-time faculty in effect as of January 1,
2016, shall be exempt from its requirements if the agreement
takes into account specified requirements, including seniority
based assignments and a regular evaluation process. It
appears that if an existing contract does not meet these
requirements, the community college district would be required
to commence negotiations pursuant to the bill's provisions.
Therefore, the bill could have the effect of abrogating an
AB 1010 (Medina) Page 6
of ?
existing contract and have potential legal ramifications.
5)Part-time faculty. For some time, the Legislature has considered
various efforts to address the issue of community college
districts hiring 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 community
college districts 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.
According to the Center for Community College Student
Engagement's (CCCSE) April 2014 report, entitled, "Contingent
Commitments: Bringing Part-Time Faculty Into Focus," 70% of
the 400,000 faculty members of public, two-year colleges hired
in 2009 were part-time instructors. The CCCSE report also
found that the part-time faculty, teach 58% of community
college classes and 53% of community college students.
Additionally, the CCCSE report found that differences in the
actions of part-time and full-time faculty cannot necessarily
be attributed to differences in the will or abilities of
part-time faculty. The report contends that, "Most likely,
they exist at least in part because colleges too often are not
fully supporting part-time faculty or engaging them in
critical elements of the faculty experience."
According to the California Federation of Teachers, nearly 50%
of the California Community College (CCC) course selections
are taught by part-time faculty and part-time faculty out
number full-time faculty by two to one.
6)Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, all districts currently have collecting bargaining
agreements that include provisions regarding part-time
faculty. At least 41 community college districts, however, do
not maintain a seniority list. Assuming costs of $5,000 to
$10,000 per district to establish such lists, presumably for
each academic department, one-time Proposition 98 General Fund
reimbursable state-mandated costs would be $205,000 to
$410,000 per district. Once established, the ongoing cost to
maintain the seniority lists should be minor and absorbable.
AB 1010 (Medina) Page 7
of ?
7)Related and prior legislation.
SB 373 (Pan) proposed a cap on the number of part-time
faculty for each community college district based on the
2014-15 fiscal year, thereby limiting new hires to only
full-time faculty until the district reaches a 75%
threshold of full-time faculty. This bill failed passage
in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 626 (Low) requires community college districts to
provide funding to increase their full-time/part-time
faculty ratio and to increase support for part-time
faculty. This bill is pending referral in the Senate.
AB 1807 (Fong, 2010) proposed to require community college
districts, through collective bargaining, to establish and
implement reemployment preference lists for part-time
faculty. This measure was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Teachers (co-sponsor)
California Labor Federation
California Part-time Faculty Association
California Teachers Association (co-sponsor)
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
OPPOSITION
Community College League of California
Riverside Community College District
-- END --