State and Legislative Issues

Whereas, The fiscal crisis in California threatens the future of California community colleges as never before;

Whereas, Budget shortfalls at the system, district, and college level threaten the ability of California community colleges to fulfill even their core missions as envisioned in the 1960 Master Plan;

Whereas, Meeting the challenges posed by the current fiscal crisis will require collaboration and creativity on the scale of that which led to the development and passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 1725 (1989); and

Whereas, California State University (CSU) system Title 5 §40409 is decades old and pre-dates the integrated teacher preparation program articulation agreements that have proliferated throughout the California Community College System since the year 2000;

Whereas, The current Title 5 regulations limit the number of education units a student may take at a community college to six that can count toward the baccalaureate degree, when currently there are articulation agreements between campuses that allow up to 12 units;

Whereas, The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) provides a review and analysis of the operations and finances of state government to the Legislature and is the office that acts as the main nonpartisan resource in fiscal matters to legislators and their staff members;

Whereas, The LAO has historically made recommendations about education in its publications, such as “The 2011-12 Budget: Prioritizing Course Enrollment at the Community Colleges”; and

Amend the resolve: Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges oppose educational legislation designed to alter the California Community Colleges’ funding structure to one based upon implementation of simplistic accountability measures of student success as the primary means of California community college funding.MSR: Referred to the Executive Committee for action as the Executive Committee deems appropriate.

Whereas, The original language in SB 1143 (Liu, 2010) predicated California community college funding on simplistic accountability measures of student success; Whereas, Performance based funding would likely have the unintended consequences of grade inflation, reduced funding for community colleges located in areas of low socio-economic status, and reduced access for students in need of remediation; andWhereas, The economic downturn has limited the type and number of course offerings, reduced overall student access, and, as a result, increased time to degree and certificate completion; Reso

Whereas, Title 5 §53021 provides that “no interim appointment or series of interim appointments exceed one year in duration” and that even with the approval of the Chancellor extensions of such appointments may not exceed a second year;

Whereas, Title 5 §53201 has been violated in various instances at community colleges throughout the State of California, with some interim appointments lasting as long as six years;

Whereas the State Auditor has investigated the application of the 50% law and found that 6 of the 10 surveyed districts were out of compliance, and that the Chancellor's Office has failed to exercise proper oversight of and compliance with the 50% law, and

Whereas only the salaries of instructional faculty, not counseling and library faculty, are included in the calculation of the 50% law, and

Whereas faculty are concerned that additional counselors and librarians, who do not count as classroom instructors, will not be hired,

Add a fourth whereas:

Whereas, There is clear agreement that the numbers of counselors, librarians, and other non-instructional faculty should not be reduced from present levels, which in many cases are insufficient to provide optimal services to support students and instruction,

Insert a new first resolve:

Whereas, Abolishing the 50% law creates an incentive to cut both instructional and non-instructional faculty;

Whereas, Removing non-instructional faculty from the 50% law, making them an entity by themselves, still provides no incentive for protecting or increasing non-instructional faculty funding; and

Whereas, Including non-instructional faculty and increasing the 50% law to 54% still leaves instructional faculty and non-instructional faculty in competition for funding;

Whereas, The 50% law mandates that at least half of a district’s unrestricted operational expenditures must be used for direct instruction, excluding the support services provided by counseling and library faculty from the calculation;

Whereas, The Academic Senate has passed a variety of resolutions concerning the 50% law and fully supports a higher percentage which would include all faculty on the same side of the calculation;