BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2163
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Low |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 22, 2016 Hearing |
| |Date: June 29, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Olgalilia Ramirez |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: California State University: appointment of campus
presidents
NOTE: This bill was previously heard by this Committee on June
15, 2016. No vote was taken. The author has amended the bill to
respond to concerns raised in the prior committee analysis. The
analysis has been updated to reflect those amendments.
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Trustees of the California State
University (CSU), in exercising its authority to appoint
presidents, to hold at least one public forum with an appointed
president of a campus within 15 working days after the
appointment is made.
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 requires the Trustees of the CSU, in exercising its
authority to appoint presidents, to require a person appointed
AB 2163 (Low) Page 2
of ?
as president of a campus to participate in at least one public
forum on that campus within 15 working days after the trustees
make that appointment.
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
finalists 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."
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
AB 2163 (Low) Page 3
of ?
by the staff;
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
AB 2163 (Low) Page 4
of ?
women presidents to 11 of the 23 campuses.
The California State University (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.
The provisions in this bill require an individual, within
15 days after being appointed president, to participate in
an open forum on campus. This would ensure that the campus
community has an opportunity to engage with a new president
shortly after the appointment as well as allow the
selection process to remain confidential for candidates
competing for the position.
SUPPORT
California State University
OPPOSITION
None received on this version.
-- END --