BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2163
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2163 (Low) - As Introduced February 17, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Higher Education |Vote:|7 - 5 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill prohibits 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 designated by the Trustees as a finalist
for appointment as president.
FISCAL EFFECT:
AB 2163
Page 2
According to CSU, the Trustees meet with presidential finalists
the day prior to a regularly scheduled board meeting to select
the president. Under this bill, this selection meeting would
have to occur earlier, so that the finalist could subsequently
attend the campus forum, after which the finalist would
presumably be approved at the regularly-scheduled board meeting.
An extra board meeting would cost about $30,000. In addition,
conducting a public forum would involve travel for the finalist,
the non-campus members of the search committee, and support
staff, and live-streaming of the publicly-noticed event, would
be about $20,000.
Based on a recent average of three to four presidential
appointments annually, total costs would be $150,000 to $200,000
annually. These costs would be less to the extent a finalist for
more than one campus would be determined simultaneously.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. Under the Trustees current policy for selecting
presidents, a committee made up of trustees is appointed to do
the search and selection. This trustees' committee in turn
appoints an advisory committee, which is mostly made up of
campus representatives. After reviewing applicants and
conducting interviews, the CSU Chancellor and the chair of the
trustees committee determine whether to schedule campus
visits. The Trustees typically select a president from the
candidates submitted by the trustees committee.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "currently, the selection
process [for campus presidents] is confidential until the
candidate for the position has already been announced, leaving
no opportunity for a public forum?An open selection process
AB 2163
Page 3
will allow for the involvement and participation of the CSU
community, which includes students, parents, faculty and
staff." This bill is sponsored by the California Faculty
Association.
3)Opposition. 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.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081