Higher Ed job security bill meets unexpected opposition
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
A bill which costs the state and the taxpayers nothing and is so innocuous that none of its sponsors would have imagined any opposition at all now faces criticism from an unexpected source.
AB 1807, the part-time faculty job security bill which was composed by and vetted via representatives from every faculty group in California**, now may find opposition from the Community College League: a group of college trustees, administrators, and district CEO's.
Scheduled for hearing before the Assembly Higher Education Committee on March 16th, the bill was so carefully crafted that most insiders considered its passage a slam dunk.
Now they're not so sure.
The CCL has murmured its discontent over several minor issues which have nothing to do with quality of education or student equity and everything to do with "convenience" for community college districts. These issues include a claim of hidden district "costs" related to maintaining a employment preference list, and a complaint that the bill is "too prescriptive."
Part-time faculty leaders who spent weeks crafting the bill gave extensive consideration to language, taking special note of most community college districts' continuing failure to comply with the California Education Code section 87482.9 regarding discussion of "annual reappointment rights" at the bargaining table.
"This issue has clearly been a matter of law since 2002, but the Ed Code failed to bring the issue home," says Robert Yoshioka, Legislative Analyst for CPFA.** "Districts are often happy to discuss the issue in order to comply with the law, but few remotely consider giving reappointment rights to