BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2163
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Low |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 17, 2016 Hearing |
| |Date: June 15, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Olgalilia Ramirez |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: California State University: appointment of campus
presidents
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits the Trustees of the California State
University (CSU) from appointing a president of a campus 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 an appointment as president of that
campus.
BACKGROUND
Existing law establishes the CSU, under the administration of
the Trustees of the CSU, as one of the segments of public
postsecondary education in this state. The CSU comprises 23
institutions of higher education, each of which is headed by a
president who is appointed by the trustees. (Education Code §
66600)
ANALYSIS
This bill prohibits the Trustees of the CSU from appointing a
president of a campus 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 an
appointment as president of that campus.
AB 2163 (Low) Page 2
of ?
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Rationale for the bill. This bill emerges out of a concern
regarding the process for appointment of a CSU campus
president. Prior to 2011, the CSU required campus visits
that included an open forum with candidate(s). The slate of
final candidates who visit the campus were required to be
announced in advance of their visits. This policy changed
in 2011. Campus visits are now an optional component of
the search process.
According to the California Faculty Association, all but a
few CSU campus academic senates have adopted resolutions in
favor of reinstating campus visits within the hiring
process. The author asserts, "the CSU is the largest public
university system in the country, and there is an urgent
need for a more transparent selection process. Requiring
finalist to participate in a public campus based forum will
allow for the involvement and participation of the CSU
community, which includes students, parents, faculty and
staff."
This bill requires CSU to hold at least one public forum
before the final appointment as president of a campus is
made.
2) Current policy. The current Policy for the Selection of
Presidents was adopted by the Trustees in September of
2011. When there is an impending vacancy on a campus,
California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees policy
directs the chair of the board to appoint a Trustee
Committee for the selection of the President comprised of
the board's chair, four trustees and the chancellor. A
second committee is also empaneled, the Advisory Committee
to the Trustees committee, to provide advice and
consultation. The Advisory Committee is comprised of campus
representatives, including:
The chair of the campus Academic Senate;
Two additional faculty representatives,
selected by the campus faculty;
A member of the campus support staff, selected
by the staff;
AB 2163 (Low) Page 3
of ?
A student , selected by the constituted
representatives of the student body;
A member of the campus Advisory Board,
selected by that board;
An alumni of the campus, selected by the
campus Alumni Association;
A vice president or academic dean from the
campus;
The president of another CSU campus; and,
Two additional members from constituent groups
can be appointed by either the chair of the board or
the chancellor to ensure diversity of the campus
and/or service area is thoroughly considered during
the search.
At the front end of the selection process this Advisory
Committee and the Board of Trustees committee host an open
forum with the campus community at the campus to gain input
on the needs of the campus, and the desired attributes of
the new President. These committees determine the final
list of candidates to be advanced to the Board of Trustees.
The chancellor and chair of the Trustees Committee
determine whether to schedule a campus visit, which is
optional. The process is confidential until a finalist for
the position is announced.
1) Appointments made in the last three years. 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." According to
the CSU, candidate pools have greatly increased since CSU's
presidential selection process was modified in 2011 to make
a campus visit for semi-finalists optional. Fourteen campus
presidents have been appointed under the new policy in the
last three years. Among the campus presidents selected in
2016, all five are women, which bring the total number of
women presidents to 11 of the 23 campuses.
AB 2163 (Low) Page 4
of ?
2) Things to consider. The CSU notes that the appointments
made since the implementation of the new policy have
resulted in the most diverse cohort of campus presidents in
any system nationally. CSU believes eliminating the
confidentiality that is afforded candidates under the new
policy would adversely impact the applicant pool and that
CSU would lose the opportunity to attract the best
candidates both nationally and internally. This raises
several concerns for the committee.
a) Under current law, the Trustees of the California
State University are afforded the powers, duties, and
functions with respect to the management,
administration the system.
Should the Legislature insert itself in a university
hiring process that appears to be yielding both gender
and ethnic diversity in campus leadership?
b) Under the current policy the selection committees
host an open forum on campus to solicit input on the
needs of the campus, and the desired attributes of the
new President. These public forums are publicly
noticed, LiveStreamed, web archived, publicly
available and are provided to the candidates and to
the full Board of Trustees. An additional channel of
public input via a confidential email address is
provided to the campus community for those who were
unable to attend the public forum. Additionally the
Advisory Committee to the Trustees committee is
comprised of students, faculty, staff and alumni. The
current policy provides that any member of this
committee can object to advancing a candidate as
finalist.
It appears that the current process affords ample
opportunity for the involvement and participation of
the CSU community. How much more transparency is
necessary?
c) According to the CSU, policy changes in 2011 were
in part a response to calls from the Legislature to
address executive compensation issues by expanding
AB 2163 (Low) Page 5
of ?
opportunities to hire internal to the state and
system.
While proponents argue for more transparency, what
level of transparency is appropriate for a
presidential search? What is the trade-off between
transparency and affording qualified individuals from
within the CSU system to maintain professional
discretion? How would requiring a candidate to
participate in a public forum before a final
appointment is made limit the applicant pool? Would
this discourage qualified individuals from within the
CSU system from applying?
SUPPORT
California Faculty Association
California Labor Federation
California State University Employees Union
OPPOSITION
California State Student Association
California State University
-- END --