BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2163
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Jose Medina, Chair
AB 2163
(Low) - As Introduced February 17, 2016
SUBJECT: California State University: appointment of campus
presidents
SUMMARY: Would prohibit the California State University (CSU)
Board of Trustees (Trustees) from appointing a campus president
unless that person has participated in at least one public forum
on that campus after being formally and publicly designated by
the Trustees as a finalist for appointment as president of that
campus.
EXISTING LAW: Provides that the CSU Trustees are responsible
for the government of their appointees and employees, including
appointment, terms, duties, pay and overtime, travel expenses
and allowances, housing and lodging rates, benefits, among other
items.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS: Background. The Policy for the Selection of
Presidents was adopted by the Trustees in September of 2011 and
provides that the Trustees, in partnership with the CSU
Chancellor, are responsible for the recruitment, selection and
appointment of CSU campus presidents. The policy indicates that
"there is a deep commitment throughout the process to the
principles of consultation with campus and community
representatives and diversity."
The Policy requires all of the following:
AB 2163
Page 2
1)The Chair of the Trustees appoints a Trustee Committee for
Selection of the President (TCSP) for any campus with an
impending vacancy. The TCSP is composed of the Chair of the
Trustees, four Trustees, and the Chancellor. The Chair
designates a Trustee as chair of the TCSP.
1)The TCSP, among other duties, identifies job responsibilities
and interviews candidates. Although the TCSP is the ultimate
body to make the final decisions, including the advancement of
candidates to the full Board, the process is to be conducted
in a manner that includes the campus representatives.
2)The Chair of the Trustees appoints an advisory group to the
TCSP, known as the Advisory Committee to the Committee for the
Selection of the President (ACTCSP). The ACTCSP is composed
of:
a) Chair of the campus Academic Senate;
b) Two faculty representatives selected by the campus
faculty;
c) One member of the campus support staff selected by the
staff;
d) One member of the campus Advisory Board selected by that
board;
e) One alumnus/alumna of the campus selected by the campus
Alumni Association;
f) One Vice President or academic Dean from the campus;
and,
g) The president of another CSU campus selected by the
Chancellor.
h) The Chair of the Board or the Chancellor may appoint up
to two additional members from constituent groups to the
ACTCSP "to strengthen its capacity to cope with the complex
requirements of a specific search, including diversity of
the campus, the service area or the state."
AB 2163
Page 3
3)ACTSCP provides advice and consultation regarding the position
and campus descriptions. ACTCSP members may also suggest
potential candidates. The ACTCSP reviews and comments on all
candidate applications, participates in candidate interviews
and the deliberations that lead to the selection of the final
candidate(s).
4)The process requires strict confidentiality among the TCSP and
the ACTCSP. The Chair may dismiss a member of the TCSP or
ACTCSP for violating confidentiality requirements.
5)The TCSP meets initially, together with the ACTCSP, to discuss
the needs of the campus and the desired attributes of a new
President. The policy specifies that the "committees also
receive information from the campus and the community on these
subjects."
6)After reviewing applicants and conducting interviews, the
Chancellor and the Chair of TCSP determine whether to schedule
campus visits, which are optional, or to schedule campus
visits on a modified basis, depending on the circumstances of
the search.
7)The Trustees will normally confine itself to the names
presented by the TCSP, but reserves the right to depart from
the recommended candidate(s) or from the procedures in the
policy.
Purpose of this bill. According to the author, "currently, the
selection process is confidential until the candidate for the
position has already been announced, leaving no opportunity for
a public forum. While the CSU has a policy in place for
president and chancellor searches, it is neither transparent nor
inclusive of the campus community. In the past several years,
CSU Channel Islands, Chico, Sacramento, San Jose, Sonoma,
Stanislaus and Humboldt have all conducted a president search.
According to their campus websites, they held public forums at
the beginning of the search to establish the search committee
and solicit feedback, but never held public forums with the
finalists. The CSU is the largest public university system in
the country, and there is an urgent need for a more open and
AB 2163
Page 4
transparent selection process. An open selection process will
allow for the involvement and participation of the CSU
community, which includes students, parents, faculty and staff."
Arguments in support. According to the California Faculty
Association (CFA), this bill will require the names of a
finalist for the position of a campus president be made public
and will require a finalist to participate in a public,
campus-based forum. According to CFA, "the CSU is at a critical
juncture and is in the midst of economic pressures from years of
decreased funding and a growing student population. An open
selection process will allow for the involvement and
participation of the CSU community, which includes students,
parents, faculty and staff. "
Arguments in opposition. According to CSU, the current Trustees
process aims to uphold the role of the campus community and
final authority of the Trustees in selecting a president. The
policy also respects the professional needs of candidates to
ensure the broadest and most exemplary leaders would be
comfortable in being part of the search process. According to
CSU, the existing policy ensures that all campus stakeholders
have a role in review and selection of candidates. According to
CSU, "beyond the campus itself, the two biggest criteria that
come into play when developing a final pool of candidates is the
ability to go through the process confidentially and executive
compensation." By eliminating the confidentiality that
candidates are currently afforded during the process, CSU
believes this bill would negatively impact the applicant pool
and that CSU would miss the opportunity to attract the best
candidates.
Scope of proposal. While not prohibited, this bill, as
currently drafted, does not require the submission of multiple
names to the public/campus. An interpretation of this bill
could be that only the finalist name is provided publically
prior to selection by the Trustees. For example, compliance
with the public disclosure of the candidate could be achieved by
CSU indicating the candidate name on the meeting agenda for the
AB 2163
Page 5
meeting where the appointment of that candidate will be made.
Trustees meeting agendas are released 10-days in advance of
meetings. The candidate would then have 10-days to hold a
public forum at the CSU campus. A narrow interpretation of this
bill may alleviate some of the concerns surrounding the
willingness of highly qualified candidates to apply and submit
to the open forum process.
Prior CSU policy. Under the CSU policy prior to 2011, the
Chancellor, working with the ACTCSP and the chair of the TCSP,
was required to determine nature of campus visits by the final
slate of candidates. The purpose of the campus visit was to
encourage candidates to remain interested in pursuing the
presidency by engaging in ideas with campus constituents groups
and through promotion of the campus and the community. While the
campus visits were not designed to be used for formal evaluation
of candidates, every effort was supposed to be made to shape the
visit so that it generated a foundation for the new president's
success on campus. The slate of final candidates who visit the
campus was required to be announced in advance of their visits.
According to communication from the CSU Trustees to the CSU
campus community, the 2011 changes to the policy "protects
internal candidates, while also increasing the available pool of
external candidates, by making the public campus visits
optional. Too often we have seen candidates, particularly
current presidents of other universities, withdraw from
consideration because of the high profile nature of campus
visits. It is important to understand that we are not
recommending the elimination of campus visits. The presidential
selection committee may choose to conduct campus visits publicly
or in a modified manner, whichever is in the best interest of
the campus." Committee staff understands that since the policy
change in 2011 campus visits have been rarely conducted.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Faculty Association (Sponsor)
California Labor Federation
California State University Employees Union
SEIU California
AB 2163
Page 6
Opposition
California State University
Analysis Prepared by:Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960