BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2482
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2482 (Furutani) - As Amended: February 19, 2010
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Board of Governors (BOG) of the
California Community Colleges (CCC) to include two classified
employees-one from each of the two statewide collective
bargaining organizations representing such employees-on the
BOG's Consultation Council.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible costs to provide orientation and agendas to
additional Council members.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Current law requires the BOG to establish and
carry out a process for consultation with institutional
representatives of CCC districts in order to ensure their
participation in the development and review of policy
proposals. Through Standing Orders, the BOG established the
basic structure of the consultation process and required the
CCC Chancellor to adopt Executive Orders to implement the
consultation process, including convening and regularly
meeting with the Council to discuss various policy matters.
The Chancellor's Executive Orders establish Council
membership, the respective responsibilities of Council members
and the Chancellor's staff, the Council meetings process and
participant training, and the availability of consultation
materials.
2)Purpose . According to the author, the present Council
disproportionately represents CCC faculty and administrators.
AB 2482
Page 2
The author argues that legislation is necessary to include
additional membership that represents classified employees.
The author notes that this bill is intended to create parity
in the representation of classified employees, in order to
ensure that the development and review of policy proposals
affecting CCC is adequately informed by its respective
constituencies.
3)Precedent ? This bill statutorily mandates the inclusion of
specified representatives on a body that is not currently
identified in statute. Is it appropriate to establish such a
requirement when neither the Council nor its membership is
currently defined in state law? Moreover, the Chancellor
could administratively revise the Council membership, as
outlined in the Executive Orders.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081