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;
Whereas, What is known as the “50% Law” is a reference to California Education Code §84362(d), which states that “There shall be expended during each fiscal year for payment of salaries of classroom instructors by a community college district, 50 percent of the district's current expense of education”;
Whereas, The 50% law is often cited as a disincentive to the hiring of faculty who provide vital support services for students, such as counseling and library faculty;
Whereas, The 50% Law was never revised to apply to community colleges post AB1725;
Whereas, The 50% Law has fostered division between instructional faculty and non-instructional faculty;
Whereas, The 50% Law has been used as a rationale for not spending general fund money on necessary student support services; and
Whereas, Life without the 50% Law would allow for honest discussions about planning and budget to better foster student success;
Whereas, Curriculum, program development, and standards regarding student success are areas of faculty primacy under Title 5 §53200;
Whereas, The timeframe in which courses and programs are offered is a curricular issue, and the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has resolutions that support the importance of the timeframe of courses and the impact on student success and retention;
Whereas, Student success should be the focus in the curricular process and not the time to completion; and
Whereas, The current political climate has directed attacks on public education and the California community colleges in such forms as cuts in funding and unsubstantiated reform efforts;
Whereas, The academic and professional work of the California community colleges is directly and significantly impacted by legislative actions and efforts; and
Whereas, California community college faculty, students and staff need the capacity, direction, and skills to counter attacks and advocate for California community colleges;
Whereas, Rising college costs threaten to put higher education out of reach for many students, including California community college students, and each legislative budget cycle seems to include discussion of a proposed increase in fees;
