State and Legislative Issues

Student Fees

Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has a long and consistent history of resolutions that oppose both the introduction of and subsequent increases in mandatory student fees in the California Community College System;

Whereas, Recent fee changes have increased student fees by 136%, have doubled the revenue collected in student fees and have reduced the level of state support (Proposition 98 dollars per funded FTES) and constitute an increased user tax on those least able to pay;

Fees Paper

Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges adopt the paper What's Wrong with Student Fees? Renewing the Commitment to No-Fee, Open-Access Community Colleges in California.

Yes On Proposition 47

Whereas, Proposition 47-the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002-provides $13.05 billion in bonds to relieve overcrowding; reduce class size; and repair and upgrade California's elementary, middle and high schools, community colleges, and universities; and guarantees California community colleges 40% of the higher education share;

Position on Master Plan Recommendations 34 through 34.5

Whereas, The Master Plan Recommendations 34-34.5, which include the proposal that "The California Community Colleges should be reconstituted as a public trust.," contain elements that have been supported by past Academic Senate resolutions;


Resolved, That the Academic Senate support Recommendations 34-34.5 to the extent that they propose making the California Community College System a full partner in the California postsecondary system of education, with the implication that this change would involve the achievement of equitable funding for the community colleges;

Response of the Academic Senate to the Master Plan

Whereas, The legislative Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education has published The California Master Plan for Education; and

Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has offered commentary on this plan through its several iterations, commentary which has been grounded in past positions of the Academic Senate;


Resolved, That the Academic Senate adopt the Response of the Academic Senate to "The California Master Plan for Education". MSC Disposition: Local Senates

Racial Privacy Initiative (Ward Connerly Initiative)

Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has adopted resolutions and position papers expressing its commitment to equity and diversity of the faculty, staff, and students of our community colleges and to programs and policies enacted to serve them;

Adoption of the Updated Paper, Student Equity: Guidelines for Developing a Plan

Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges adopted in 1993 the document Student Equity: Guidelines for Developing a Plan in furtherance of the Board of Governors' Student Equity Policy;

Whereas, The Board of Governors established in 1996 the adoption of a student equity plan as a minimum standard for districts' receipt of state funding but did not require that those plans be regularly updated;

Legislated Senate Responsibility

Whereas, Under Title 5 Regulations the local academic senates are authorized to name faculty representation on all task forces, committees, and other governance groups;

Whereas, SB 235 (Vasconcellos) as currently worded would transfer this vital academic senate responsibility to the local bargaining representative; and

Whereas, Some district AFT Guilds (San Diego Community College District) have already worded district agreements so that the local academic senates are now required to "recommend" faculty representation on key governance committees "to the AFT Guild";

Education Code Revision for Faculty Hiring

Whereas, California Education Code 87360(b) specifies that policies for faculty hiring shall be developed and agreed upon jointly by the governing board and the academic senate;

Whereas, Twelve years have elapsed since California Education Code 87360(b) was written pursuant to AB 1725 and new district faculty hiring policies were developed through joint agreement; and

Whereas, Districts may seek to revise their existing hiring policies;

Partnership for Excellence Funds and COLA

Whereas, Colleges have been encouraged to use and are using Partnership for Excellence (PFE) funds to hire for salaried positions;

Whereas, Salaried positions are eligible for annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) increases; and

Whereas, PFE funds currently do not receive COLA and therefore COLA adjustments on salaries for positions funded by PFE must then come from other general fund sources;


Resolved, That the Academic Senate work with the Chancellor to seek a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for PFE funds.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - State and Legislative Issues