BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1826
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1826 (Hernandez) - As Amended: March 19, 2012
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:7-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill places a cap on full-time faculty workload at the
California Community Colleges (CCC). Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits a full-time faculty member, after January 1, 2013,
from being assigned a workload with an overload or extra
assignments exceeding 50% of the full-time semester or quarter
workload (excluding summer terms).
2)Stipulates that the above requirement does not supersede a
more stringent overload cap pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement.
3)Stipulates that for districts with a collective bargaining
agreement that prohibits more than a 50% overload for
full-time faculty, the requirement in (1) would become
operative on January 1, 2014.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time minor reimbursable cost, likely less than $50,000
statewide, for districts or colleges with a policy or
bargaining agreement allowing overload exceeded 50% to conform
to the statutory cap.
2)Potential minor savings to the extent part-time faculty teach
courses that otherwise would be taught by full-time faculty
with an overload exceeding 50%. According to the CCC
Chancellor's Office Report on Staffing for Fall 2010, the
average rate for overload instruction was $68.36 hourly, while
AB 1826
Page 2
the average hourly salary for part-time/temporary was $66.58.
COMMENTS
1)Background . The term "overload assignments" refers to the
practice of full-time faculty electing to teach additional
courses, with additional pay, beyond their normal full-time
teaching load. Many colleges and universities have established
policies regarding overload assignments. These policies appear
to vary significantly among colleges and departments but are
generally designed to ensure that the instruction, research,
and service obligations of faculty are not compromised by the
acceptance of overload assignments. Some colleges require
individual assignments to be approved by department deans
while others have negotiated district-wide caps that range
from one course to 67% of a full-time load. This bill,
sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers (CFT),
establishes a statewide limit of faculty overload assignments
to 50% of a full-time workload.
2)Purpose . According to the author, "The quality of instruction
at our CCCs is hampered when full-time faculty, by option, by
administrative fiat, or to address the need for additional
course sections, are assigned to teach course sections well
beyond their already heavy teaching loads. The state has an
interest in ensuring that our CCC students receive quality
instruction." Additionally, CFT argues that when full-time
faculty teaches overloads adjunct faculty lose income and
potentially their eligibility for health benefits.
3)Opposition . Antelope Valley and West Kern Community College
Districts argue that a one-size-fits-all approach neither
makes any accommodation for geographical differences among
districts nor addresses unique needs in certain specialized
subject areas. They believe the bill is particularly punitive
to rural colleges where there are not a large number of
part-time faculty members available to pick up extra
assignments.
4)Is This Bill Necessary ? Some, but not most, districts allow
more than 50% overload. In a recent survey done by the CCC
Chancellor's Office, 13 of 44 responding colleges indicated
that they have a policy or bargaining agreement allowing more
than 50% overload. (Several colleges have no policy on
overload.) Nevertheless, cases of full-time faculty taking
AB 1826
Page 3
advantage of such policies appear to be limited. According to
the Chancellor's Office, for the Fall 2011 semester, of 14,489
tenured or tenured track faculty teaching CCC classes, 6,102
had overload assignments, but only 172 (1.2%) had an overload
exceeding 50%. (The Los Angeles CCD, which encompasses about
8% of statewide CCC enrollment, is not yet included in this
data.)
Given the data above, and the apparent difficulties a hard cap
could place on rural districts, it is unclear what benefit a
rigid statewide policy on overload provides to the system.
5)Prior Legislation . AB 383 (Portantino), which proposed a
one-time stipend to a CCC district entering into a collective
bargaining agreement prohibiting more than a 50% overload,
failed passage in the Assembly Higher Education Committee in
January 2012.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081