BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2163
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2163 (Low)
As Introduced February 17, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Higher |7-5 |Medina, Bloom, Irwin, |Baker, Levine, |
|Education | | |Linder, Olsen, |
| | | |Williams |
| | |Jones-Sawyer, Low, | |
| | |Santiago, Weber | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |13-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Calderon, Eggman, |Obernolte, Wagner |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Roger Hernández, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 2163
Page 2
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: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, CSU reports 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: Background. The Policy for the Selection of
AB 2163
Page 3
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."
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
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 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
AB 2163
Page 4
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.
Prior CSU policy. Under the CSU policy prior to 2011, the
Chancellor, working with the Advisory Committee to the Committee
for the Selection of the President (ACTCSP) and the chair of the
Trustee Committee for Selection of the President (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.
AB 2163
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:
Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN:
0003121