Docstoc

Board of Governors

Document Sample
Board of Governors Powered By Docstoc
					                                         Board of Governors
                                   California Community Colleges
                                          July 14-15, 2003


  POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION                                                        4.1
  ACTION SCHEDULED
  Presentation:   Mary Gill, Interim Vice Chancellor
                  Governmental Relations




Issue

This item presents recommendations for positions on legislation pending before the California
Legislature.


Background

Legislative bills brought before the Board of Governors are organized in two categories: Consent
Calendar and Regular Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of bills on which the
recommended position is consistent with the consensus advice of the Consultation Council and
bills on which the Chancellor has taken a position pursuant to the limited authority granted under
Section 317 of the Board’s Standing Orders. An analysis or other substantiating background
material is included in the Agenda for each bill on the Consent Calendar. Staff will respond to
questions from Board members but will not make formal presentations on these bills unless
requested to do so. Public testimony may be heard at the discretion of the Chair. Any member
may ask the Chair to remove a bill from the Consent Calendar and have it considered on the
Regular Calendar, with complete staff presentation, public comment, discussion, and a separate
vote. Recommended positions on bills remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved by a
single vote of the Board.

The Regular Calendar consists of bills that do not meet criteria for inclusion on the Consent
Calendar because there is no clear Board policy basis to guide the recommended position or the
Consultation Council has been unable to reach consensus.

Bills before the Board at this time are anticipated to be on both the Consent Calendar and the
Regular Calendar.
2        Item 4.1



Recommended Action

That the Board of Governors adopt the positions on state legislation, as presented.

Staff:   Michael Magee, Specialist
         Governmental Relations




Positions on State Legislation
                              Positions on State Legislation


                                      Consent Calendar

                                                                    Recommended
    Bill            Author                    Subject                  Position
AB 825         Firebaugh         Student Aid Study              Support (317)
AB 1241        Parra             Nursing Scholarships           Support (317)
ACA 13         Pacheco           CCC Funding                    Support (317)


                                      Regular Calendar

                                                                   Recommended
    Bill             Author                   Subject                  Position
AB 655         Liu               Consolidation of               Watch (Update)
                                 CPEC, CSAC, BPPVE
SB 6           Alpert            Governance                     Support, if Amended
                                                                (Changed Position)
SB 25          Bowen             Privacy of the SSN             Support, if Amended
                                                                (Changed Position)
SB 338*        Scott             Concurrent Enrollment          Support
                                                                (Changed Position)
SB 823         Karnette          Master Plan: Adult Education   Watch (Update)

*The analysis of SB 338 will be sent under separate cover.




                                                                Positions on State Legislation
                                                           California Community Colleges
                                        Governmental Relations & External Affairs Division
                                                             2003 Legislative Bill Analysis


BILL NO.     AUTHOR     SUBJECT                     BILL VERSION     STATUS/LOCATION
                                                    (DATE)
AB 655       Liu        Consolidation of CPEC,      Amended          Senate Rules Committee
                        CSAC and BPPVE              June 26, 2003
POSITION      POSITION STATUS ANALYSIS                GR STAFF       DIVISION LIAISON
                                  VERSION (DATE)
Watch         Recommended to      6/26/03        Mary Gill           Exec. – Tom Nussbaum
              Board of Governors
              – Regular Calendar
              – Updated
              Information

Summary

This bill creates a new commission, the California Postsecondary Education Policy and Finance
Commission (CPEPFC), under which the California Postsecondary Education Commission
(CPEC), the California Student Aid Commission (CSAC), and the Bureau of Private Postsecond-
ary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) shall be consolidated. The bill provides for the goals,
responsibilities, membership and administrative structure of the new agency.

Analysis of Specific Features

Existing law provides for a 17-member California Postsecondary Education Commission to plan
and coordinate higher education policy and research in California. Existing law provides for a
California Student Aid Commission as the primary agency to administer state student aid pro-
grams, including an auxiliary organization, EdFund to serve as the state guarantor of student
loans. Existing law also provides for a Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Educa-
tion in the Department of Consumer Affairs for the purpose of reviewing and investigating pri-
vate postsecondary institutions and programs. This bill contains the following provisions:

1.      A new agency is created called the California Postsecondary Education Policy and
        Finance Commission (CPEPFC).

2.      This new agency consolidates the functions of CPEC and CSAC as of July 1, 2005, and
        BPPVE as of January 1, 2006.

3.      The new agency is expected to accomplish the following:

        a.     Consolidate higher education planning and analysis, program administration and
               information system management,



                                                                       Positions on State Legislation
4        Item 4.1—AB 655


         b.       Maintain capacity to coordinate all sectors of higher education,

         c.       Serve as the primary entity for independent and objective higher education plan-
                  ning and analysis,

         d.       Facilitate coordination to achieve a more effective use of privately and publicly
                  funded education in promoting economic growth in California,

         e.       Integrate student fee and financial aid policies with institutional funding and
                  finance policies,

         f.       Maintain a statewide postsecondary education accountability structure that
                  periodically assesses progress in meeting the needs of Californians, and

         g.       Establish and maintain a comprehensive postsecondary education information
                  system.

4.       CPEPFC is established as an advisor to the Governor, the Legislature and the segments of
         higher education and as the principal fiscal and program advisor to the Governor and the
         Legislature on postsecondary educational policy.

5.       CPEPFC’s responsibilities include:

         a.       Providing long-range planning, including facilities, programs and campuses and
                  advising policymakers on priorities,

         b.       Providing fiscal and policy analysis on critical issues including student access and
                  successful completion,

         c.       Annually advising and making recommendations to the Governor and Legislature
                  regarding financing and resource needs,

         d.       Maintaining a statewide accountability framework that identifies goals and a
                  means for assessing those goals,

         e.       Reporting periodically to the Governor and the Legislature on the results of the
                  accountability system including reporting on the state’s progress and recommen-
                  dations on needed adjustments,

         f.       Advising the Governor and the Legislature on the need for, and the location of,
                  new public institutions and campuses,

         g.       Reviewing proposals by the public segments for new programs, including the
                  priorities to guide them and the degree of coordination, and making recommenda-
                  tions regarding those proposals,

         h.       Serving as the state-level repository for postsecondary education data and the lead
                  agency for coordinating with K-12 data systems,


Positions on State Legislation
                                                                         Item 4.1—AB 655             5


      i.     Administering state student financial aid programs in a manner that encourages
             access, and

      j.     Approving and regulating private postsecondary institutions and developing poli-
             cies to enhance their role in training the workforce.

6.    CPEPFC will be required to consult with stakeholders but shall remain independent and
      nonpartisan in the provision of an integrated and unbiased view on higher education.

7.    CPEPFC will administer the state student aid programs and is given the appropriate
      authority vis-à-vis the federal government. CPEPFC is also given the necessary statutory
      authority to administer EdFund as a nonprofit public benefit corporation.

8.    The new commission shall be constituted as follows:

      a.     There shall be nine public members, three each appointed by the Governor, the
             Speaker and Senate Rules respectively, serving six-year terms (staggered
             initially). The bill provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that the commis-
             sion be broadly and equitably representative of the general public and various
             regions, independent of higher educational institutions, and knowledgeable about
             key issues.

      b.     There shall be one representative each from the UC Regents, the CSU Trustees
             and the CCC Board of Governors, chosen from among their respective boards,
             which shall serve at the pleasure of the respective boards.

      c.     There shall be one representative each from independent colleges and private
             postsecondary institutions, selected by the Governor and serving six-year terms.

      d.     There shall be two student representatives, serving two-year terms, rotated among
             the five segments, and selected by the Governor.

      e.     The president of the State Board of Education or a designee from that board, serv-
             ing a six-year term.

      f.     No person shall be allowed to be a current employee of public or private higher
             education (except if that person has part-time teaching duties).

9.    The commission will have an executive director, appointed by the commission and serv-
      ing at the pleasure of the commission.

10.   The new agency will be comprised of four units. The first three units listed below will be
      independent of one another, while the 4th unit, Information Systems, will serve all units.
      Each unit will have a deputy director, appointed through a career executive assignment.

      a.     Policy and Planning




                                                                         Positions on State Legislation
6        Item 4.1—AB 655


         b.       Licensure and Quality Review of Private Postsecondary Institutions

         c.       Student Financial Aid and Auxiliary Organizations

         d.       Information Systems

11.      CPEPFC will be required to submit annual reports to the Legislative Analyst’s Office
         (LAO) and the policy and fiscal legislative committees on the progress toward meeting its
         goals. The LAO will also report periodically on the effectiveness of the commission and
         make recommendations for improvement.

12.      There will be an advisory committee to the commission and the executive director
         consisting of the heads of the public higher education segments and an executive officer
         from the independent and private sectors as well as the Superintendent of Public Instruc-
         tion. This committee will be responsible for identifying issues and problems in higher
         education, working to develop a common approach on major issues, responding proac-
         tively to policy initiatives of the commission and providing support for commission
         projects.

13.      There will be an advisory committee to the deputy director of the student financial aid
         and auxiliary organizations unit consisting of two representatives of each segment and
         two students. The deputy director shall be required to convene this group at least every
         two months. The committee will have the authority to make recommendations to the
         commission. Three commissioners shall serve as members of this committee and will
         serve as a review and appeals body for institutional matters regarding rules and regula-
         tions.

14.      A similar advisory committee will be required for the deputy director of the licensure and
         quality review unit.

15.      Within 60 days of the operative date of this measure, the Governor, in consultation with
         legislative leadership, is to appoint an independent three-person task force to work with
         the affected agencies to guide the transition and merger.

16.      The bill states it is the intent that the current relationship between CSAC and EdFund
         continue beyond July 1, 2005.

Fiscal Analysis

This measure contains no appropriation. The actual consolidation of these functions, programs
and employees will have some unknown amount of transition cost. The bill is also silent on the
funding for on-going, permanent operations of the new consolidated agency, however, it is pre-
sumed the budgets of the three agencies will be consolidated in some manner.

Arguments For and Against




Positions on State Legislation
                                                                         Item 4.1—AB 655             7


For: The functions now assigned to CPEC should be maintained. This bill provides a vehicle to
maintain a strong, independent higher education policy body—a function that is otherwise
threatened in this difficult fiscal situation. The bill provides for a much-needed centralized
Information Systems Unit that could be very beneficial for California. Proponents believe this
measure will reduce bureaucracy as well as coordinate and improve the administration of student
aid and the regulation of private postsecondary institutions. Overall policy development for
higher education particularly in regard to the financing of higher education, will be improved.
The current policy structure has not proven successful in terms of integrating student aid policy
with other higher education policies. Current outreach efforts could be consolidated and
strengthened. Less fragmentation in higher education could lead to better coordination with
K-12. Many states report this to be a successful model.

Against: Those opposed to this measure believe the status quo represents an appropriate and
successful governance structure. Others opposed to this measure are concerned that student aid
issues will not receive sufficient public attention from a small commission with a significantly
broader charge than student aid alone. Some opponents are concerned the student aid issues will
overwhelm the new commission and leave little time and staff attention for other policy matters.
Concerns are expressed regarding the appropriateness of combining student aid policies with
other higher education policies. A different set of concerns relates to the role of the new agency
in accountability and evaluation of institutions.

Recommended Position

Current position: Watch (Update information being provided to the Board)

Reason for Position as Recommended

The changes contained in this bill are of considerable significance for the California Community
Colleges and should be discussed thoroughly. Staff is generally supportive of the concept and
believes the management of higher education in California could be well served by this consoli-
dation. The maintenance of an independent policy agency, the development of a centralized
information system and the integration of student aid policy into higher education financing
issues are strong reasons to continue our participation in the design of this new agency. Since the
amendments have just come into print, and since the new provisions have yet to be discussed in
Consultation Council meetings, we believe the Board should have a discussion and consider
testimony before giving staff further direction regarding this measure.

Support
None known at this time.
Opposition
The California Student Aid Commission




                                                                         Positions on State Legislation
                                                            California Community Colleges
                                         Governmental Relations & External Affairs Division
                                                              2003 Legislative Bill Analysis

BILL NO.     AUTHOR     SUBJECT                       BILL VERSION      STATUS/LOCATION
                                                      (DATE)
AB 825       Firebaugh Cal Grant Transfer             Amended           Senate Education
                       Entitlement                    5/15/03           Committee: July 2
                                                                        Hearing
POSITION      POSITION STATUS      ANALYSIS       GR STAFF              DIVISION LIAISON
                                   VERSION (DATE)
Support       Recommended to       6/24/03        Mary Gill             SS – Linda Michalowski
              Board of Governors                                        SS – Marianne Estes
              Consent Calendar                                          SS – Tim Bonnel

Summary

The bill declares the Legislature’s intent to modify the current Cal Grant programs to clearly
address the needs of older, adult, nontraditional, returning and reentry students, including those
students in vocational and technical programs as well as those desiring to transfer. The measure
requires the California Student Aid Commission (CSAC) to convene a group to determine the
extent to which existing programs meet such needs.

Origin of the Bill

The California State University (CSU) is the sponsor of this bill. The bill originally called for
the elimination of the age requirement in the Cal Grant Transfer Entitlement Program, but the
fiscal estimates for this initiative were in the $40 million range, which obviously doomed the bill
in this fiscal climate. The bill has been transformed into a study bill with a somewhat broader
scope than the original focus on the Transfer Entitlement Program.

Analysis of Specific Features

The bill contains findings and declarations and requires certain actions predicated on those find-
ings.

1.     Findings and Declarations

       a.      The Master Plan recommends that all students who can benefit, regardless of age,
               should have postsecondary education opportunities. Provisions of the Cal Grant
               Transfer Entitlement are contrary to that plan because they deny opportunity to
               some of the state’s most needy students.

       b.      Prior to 2000, the state financial aid programs provided assistance in a manner
               consistent with the Master Plan.


                                                                         Positions on State Legislation
10       Item 4.1—AB 825



         c.       Existing law establishes several Cal Grant programs and eligibility requirements
                  for those awards.

         d.       Eligibility provisions were amended in 2000 in an act of cost containment, result-
                  ing in a denial of awards to needy and deserving students.

         e.       As the state looks for new investments in financial aid, it is the intent of this
                  legislation to keep access consistent with the Master Plan. The Governor, the
                  Legislature and the Student Aid Commission should review the structure of the
                  existing Cal Grant transfer program to ensure it meets the needs of nontraditional,
                  returning and older adult students, providing access irrespective of age.

2.       Recommended Actions

         CSAC should convene a group of interested parties to prepare a report to the Legislature
         to be submitted no later than December 1, 2004, which addresses:

         a.       The extent to which the current Cal Grant Transfer Entitlement Program ade-
                  quately addresses the needs of students desiring postsecondary education,

         b.       The means by which the existing program has disenfranchised nontraditional,
                  returning and older adult students, as well as students who may not be pursuing
                  traditional programs,

         c.       The current limitations including high school graduation date, age and minimum
                  grade point average, and

         d.       Alternatives for expanding the existing program.

Program Background

There are six Cal Grant Programs that provide a network of assistance. Each is briefly described
below along with notes about elements common to all programs.

1.       The Cal Grant A Entitlement Program: This program allows applications by high school
         seniors and those in their first year out of high school. The family must meet certain
         income and asset ceilings (e.g., a family of five must have total income below $71,500)
         and the student must have a minimum high school GPA of 3.0. The student must submit
         a FAFSA and arrange for his/her GPA to be verified by March 2. All qualified applicants
         receive grants to pay tuition and fees (up to $9,708 in the independent colleges). Students
         who choose to attend a community college receive no benefit but the award is held in
         reserve to provide transfer assistance with tuition and fees.




Positions on State Legislation
                                                                       Item 4.1—AB 825             11


2.   The Cal Grant B Entitlement Program: This program allows applications by high school
     seniors and those in their first year out of high school. The family must meet certain
     income and asset ceilings (e.g., a family of five must have total income below $39,200)
     and the student must have a minimum high school GPA of 2.0. The student must submit
     a FAFSA by March 2 and arrange for his/her GPA to be verified by March 2. All
     qualified applicants receive grants to pay tuition and fees (up to $9,708 in the
     independent colleges) and an annual stipend of $1,551 toward books, supplies and other
     indirect costs. Students who choose to attend a community college receive only the
     $1,551 but the tuition component of the award is held in reserve to provide transfer
     assistance. Students who choose to attend a four-year college do not receive tuition and
     fee benefits in the first year (and thus have a lower lifetime award than the middle-class
     recipients of a Cal Grant A) and are therefore given the chance to accept a Cal Grant A
     instead of a B, if qualified for both. Students in vocational programs at least one year in
     length are eligible as well as future transfer students.

3.   The Cal Grant A and B Competitive Programs – March 2 Competition: These two pro-
     grams are operated together. Students who apply for Cal Grant are first screened for the
     two entitlement programs above. All students who are too old to qualify (out of high
     school for more than a year) are then placed in a competition for 11,250 available grants.
     Through an elaborate scoring procedure that provides points for a high grade point aver-
     age, low family income, parents” lack of college, time out of high school, and single-par-
     ent status, the winners of the “most disadvantaged” contest are provided with either a Cal
     Grant A or Cal Grant B depending upon their profile. The award benefits are the same as
     those described above.

4.   The Cal Grant A and B Competitive Programs – September 2 Competition: These two
     programs are operated together each September for community college applicants only.
     All students who have submitted a FAFSA by September 2, and who are enrolled in
     community college for the fall semester, and for whom a grade-point-average verification
     is on file by September 2, compete for 11,250 awards. Through the same elaborate
     scoring procedure noted above, the winners of the “most disadvantaged” contest are pro-
     vided with either a Cal Grant A or Cal Grant B depending upon their profile. Those
     selected for a Cal Grant B receive $1,551 (for one year of full-time attendance) and those
     selected for a Cal Grant A have their tuition benefits placed in reserve.

5.   The Cal Grant Transfer Entitlement Program: This program permits applications by
     March 2 each year for community college students who have at least 24 units of credit-
     applicable coursework and who intend to transfer to a four-year institution in the follow-
     ing academic year. The student must have graduated from high school (or the equivalent)
     by June 30, 2001. The student must also be under 24 years of age. (The program uses a
     complicated statute related to federal independence rules as a proxy for age, however, age
     is the defacto eligibility rule.) Students apply and are selected for either Cal Grant A or B
     depending upon their financial profile. The student and/or the family must meet certain
     income and asset ceilings (e.g., a family of five must have total income below $71,500 to
     qualify for Cal Grant A or $39,200 for Cal Grant B), All students (A or B) must have a


                                                                        Positions on State Legislation
12       Item 4.1—AB 825


         community college GPA of 2.4. The student must submit a FAFSA by March 2 and
         arrange for his/her GPA to be verified by March 2. All qualified applicants receive grants
         to pay tuition and fees (up to $9,708 in the independent colleges) and, if qualified for a
         Cal Grant B, also receive $1,551 for indirect costs.

6.       The Cal Grant C Program: The program functions as a default selection mechanism.
         All students are screened for entitlement eligibility and for the competitive selection.
         Students who remain in the pool without an award are then screened for potential voca-
         tional goals and attendance in a vocational program of four-months minimum length
         (based upon FAFSA questions). If the student meets that profile and further meets the
         Cal Grant A income and asset ceilings, the student is sent a “Cal Grant C Supplement” to
         complete. The small number of awards in this program (currently under 5,000 statewide)
         are given to the top “scores.” The scoring includes grade point average, family/student
         income and various items from the Cal Grant C Supplement.

The programs described above have only been operating in this configuration for three years.
Early data indicate there are unused funds for younger students and significant unmet need
among older students. More than 60,000 fully eligible older students were denied competitive
grants last year while several million dollars allocated for younger students in the entitlement
programs remained unspent.

Fiscal Analysis

The study itself will have costs that should be negotiated between the Student Aid Commission,
the Administration and the Legislature. Community college participation will carry minimal
cost.

If this study affirms that older students are underserved, the solutions can be revenue neutral or
expensive; there is nothing inherent in the study itself that will require expenditure by the state.

Arguments For and Against

For: The current program configuration will eventually discriminate against all students over the
age of 24; currently it discriminates against all students but those recently out of high school.
Similarly, grade-point-average restrictions may be operating to limit or deny opportunity in a
manner that does not serve the state’s interests. A thorough study of the intended and unintended
consequences of recent program reform is warranted and could yield recommendations to support
more effective use of state funds in the provision of opportunity.

Against: The implementation of the new Cal Grant entitlement program was focused on ensur-
ing that all eligible California high school students who wanted to enroll in college were able to
attend without financial barriers. A second entitlement program was established to support the
state’s transfer function. Eligibility for the transfer program was prioritized to focus on younger
students. These priorities were established through full and open deliberation and should be
allowed to operate. It is too soon to question these decisions.


Positions on State Legislation
                                                                      Item 4.1—AB 825            13



Recommended Position

Support

Reason for Position as Recommended

There are tens of thousands of needy community college students being denied assistance while
other program funds go unused. A study of this nature will, at a minimum, bring focus and
attention to the unintended consequences of recent reforms and could result in highly desirable
program adjustments.

Support

The California State University (Sponsor)

Opposition

None known at this time.




                                                                      Positions on State Legislation
                                                              California Community Colleges
                                           Governmental Relations & External Affairs Division
                                                                2003 Legislative Bill Analysis

BILL NO.     AUTHOR       SUBJECT                      BILL VERSION      STATUS/LOCATION
                                                       (DATE)
AB 1241      Parra      Nursing Scholarships for       June 2, 2003      Senate Health and Human
                        Associate Degree Students                        Services: July 2 Hearing
POSITION      POSITION STATUS ANALYSIS            GR STAFF               DIVISION LIAISON
                                  VERSION (DATE)
Support       Recommended to      June 12, 2003   Mary Gill              ES – B. Whitney
              Board of Governors                                         SS – Tim Bonnel
              Consent Calendar

Summary

This bill adds Section 128401 to the Health and Safety Code. It directs the Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development to establish regulations to establish a statewide Associate
Degree Nursing (ADN) Scholarship Pilot Program to be administered by that office and to be
funded by the Registered Nurse Education Fund.

Origin of Bill

There is a severe nursing shortage in California, with an especially acute shortage in the Central
Valley. This bill provides a mechanism to serve students in this area.

Many other efforts, initiatives and reports cite the current nursing shortage and indicate the lack
of student financial support as one significant factor in that shortage. The February 2003 CPEC
report entitled “Admission Policies and Attrition Rates in California Community College Nurs-
ing Programs,” found that many nursing program students work full-time while attending school.
Full-time employment can have a negative effect on student performance, length of time it takes
the student to complete the program, and eventual licensure.

Specific Features

1.     The bill does not establish a pilot scholarship program. It directs the Office of Statewide
       Health Planning and Development to use the regulatory process to establish such a pro-
       gram.

2.     The pilot program is to be for Associate Degree Nursing (ADN) students.

3.     The scholarships shall only be available to students in counties determined to have the
       most need. County need shall be based upon:

       a.        A registered nurse to population ratio equal to or less than 500:100,000.


                                                                           Positions on State Legislation
16       Item 4.1—AB 1241


         b.       The county unemployment rate.
         c.       The county level of poverty.

4.       Students shall be required to complete, at a minimum, an associate degree in nursing and
         required to work in a medically-underserved area in California.

5.       The pilot program is to be funded from the Registered Nurse Education Fund currently
         administered by the Health Professions Education Foundation.

6.       No additional General Fund may be expended.

Program Background

There is a well-documented nursing shortage in California. There are 264,000 licensed nurses in
California, or 544 working nurses per 100,000 people. California ranks next to last among the 50
states. The national average is 782:100,000. The Central Valley has the lowest ratio in
California at 466:100,000

Governor Davis announced on January 22, 2002, a groundbreaking nurse-to-patient ratio that is
expected to result in the hiring of up to an additional 5,000 licensed nurses. More nurses may be
needed when the Medical-Surgical unit minimum ratio changes from 1:6 to 1:5 within one year
after the new regulations take effect.

The nursing programs of the community colleges will play a vital role in meeting the state’s need
for nurses in the years ahead. Recent Legislative initiatives including SB 655 (Scott) in 1999 and
SB 664 (Poochigian) in 2001 have focused on the shortage and made various recommendations.

The scholarship program established by this bill is in addition to the nursing education scholar-
ship program from an existing program administered by Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development. The existing program was established by sections 128375-128400 of the Health
and Safety Code and establishes a Registered Nurse Education Program within the Health Pro-
fessions Education Foundation and provides scholarships to:

(a)      Assure an adequate supply of appropriately trained professional nurses.

(b)      Encourage persons from populations that are currently underrepresented in the nursing
         profession to enter that profession.

(c)      Encourage professional nurses to work in medically-underserved areas.

Currently, within this Registered Nurse Education Program 5 percent of the funds are available
for a pilot project designed to test whether it is possible to encourage articulation from associate
degree nursing programs to baccalaureate of science degree nursing programs.




Positions on State Legislation
                                                                          Item 4.1—AB 1241            17


The Registered Nurse Education Program requires repayment for the scholarship. The recipient
of the award signs a standard contractual agreement to work in an eligible county health facility,
an eligible state-operated health facility, or in a health manpower shortage area for a period of
obligated professional service in the areas of California designated by the Health Manpower
Policy Commission as deficient in primary care services. The obligated professional service is to
be in direct patient care. The agreement includes a clause entitling the state to recover the funds
awarded plus the maximum allowable interest for failure to begin or complete the service
obligation.

Fiscal Analysis

The bill contains no appropriation. The pilot program would be entirely funded by the Regis-
tered Nurse Education Fund, which is supported through a $5 surcharge fee for the renewal of the
Registered Nurse license in California. RNs renew their licenses every two years. Currently,
there is a bill, SB 358, Figueroa, which would raise the surcharge to $10.

It is unclear if the current condition of the fund is sufficient to provide a significant number of
these scholarships, but that is the business of the agency that administers the fund. The number
and value of potential scholarships is unknown.

There are no known fiscal consequences for the community colleges.

Arguments For and Against

For: This bill should be supported as it provides a mechanism to assist ADN students who meet
certain criteria to complete their education and become registered nurses. Medically underserved
areas of the state would benefit from the program. There is a clearly documented critical nursing
shortage in California and lack of financial assistance is repeatedly cited as an exacerbating
factor in that shortage. While only establishing the authority for a small pilot program, this bill is
a highly needed step in the right direction. The bill makes no demands on the General Fund in
these difficult times, but could develop a program to serve as a later model for nursing assistance
when funds are again available for worthy state projects. ADN students are currently eligible for
scholarship assistance under this fund only if they complete a BS program within five years.
This pilot program does not contain such a restriction, which helps to recognize the value of the
ADN, in and of itself.

Against: This bill provides for a program that selects students on county need, rather than
student need. Thus a student is assisted based upon geographic location, rather than financial
need, which is not the usual paradigm for student assistance. The bill leaves all details up to the
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (determination of financial need, amount
of award, identification of county/counties to be served, rules for repayment, etc.), which could
result in a program that does not meet the state’s goals. This bill is clearly designed to benefit
students in the Central Valley when there are highly needy and highly deserving nursing ADN
students throughout California. The program contains no references to coordination with other
student aid programs. The program should be called a loan program with loan repayment bene-


                                                                           Positions on State Legislation
18       Item 4.1—AB 1241


fits, because it apparently turns into a loan if the student cannot follow through on obligations.
This is not the most fair and accurate representation of a scholarship. In student aid, “scholar-
ship” denotes aid that does not have to be repaid except in rare circumstances.

Recommended Position

Support

Reason for Position as Recommended

There is a statewide nursing shortage. Students statewide are suffering from financial obliga-
tions. This bill would provide for a pilot program to include ADN students in an existing pro-
gram so that there would be an opportunity for interested students to participate without addi-
tional costs to the state. Areas of California that are medically underserved could benefit from
the program. While the program is not designed with many of the features found desirable in a
mainstream student aid program, it can be of value for community college students and should be
supported as a pilot.




Positions on State Legislation
                                                               California Community Colleges
                                            Governmental Relations & External Affairs Division
                                                                 2003 Legislative Bill Analysis

BILL NO.     AUTHOR        SUBJECT                BILL VERSION STATUS/LOCATION
                                                  (DATE)
ACA 13       Pacheco Constitutional Amendment Introduced         Assembly Higher
                        Related to Community      March 20, 2003 Education Committee
                        College Finance
POSITION      POSITION STATUS ANALYSIS              GR STAFF     DIVISION LIAISON
                                   VERSION (DATE)
Support       Recommended to       5/9/03           Mary Gill    Fiscal – R. Turnage
              Board of Governors
              Consent Calendar

Summary

This bill seeks to place a Constitutional amendment before the voters to ensure the California
Community Colleges receive a 10.93 percent share, or greater, of the Proposition 98 guarantee.

Analysis of Specific Features

The measure contains a resolution for the ballot and specific constitutional amendments.

1.     It is resolved by the Legislature:

       a.         This measure shall be known as “Our Local Community College Funding Act of
                  2004.”

       b.         The people of the State of California find and declare that access to community
                  college education is a fundamental right.

       c.         In approving the Constitutional amendment, it is the intent of the people to
                  accomplish:

              i.         Clarification of the intent of Proposition 98.

             ii.         A guarantee that community college districts receive a minimum 10.93
                         percent share of Proposition 98 funds.

            iii.         An increase in funding for community colleges to begin to close the gap
                         between California and the national average in funding per student.

            iv.          An increase in funding for community colleges without raising taxes or
                         taking funds from existing programs.


                                                                            Positions on State Legislation
20       Item 4.1—ACA 13



2.       The Constitution shall be amended to provide:

         a.       A guaranteed Proposition 98 split: In any fiscal year, the amount of funds
                  appropriated by the state for the community colleges, as a percent of the total
                  appropriation required for school districts and community college districts in that
                  fiscal year, shall be not less that the percentage of total funds appropriated for
                  community college districts in the 1989-90 fiscal year (10.93%).

         b.       A suspension mechanism that requires an explicit vote: The Legislature would be
                  authorized to suspend this requirement in any fiscal year by a two-thirds vote of
                  the membership of each house.

         c.       A restoration mechanism that guarantees maintenance of funding in a manner
                  that parallels the overall Proposition 98 mechanism: If the Legislature would
                  suspend the requirements of this measure, the appropriation for the community
                  colleges in the fiscal year immediately following the suspension would be
                  increased by the additional amount that would have been appropriated in the pre-
                  vious fiscal year had the suspension not occurred.

Program Background

The existing provisions of the California Constitution, as amended through Proposition 98 and
Proposition 111, provide specific procedures to determine a minimum guarantee for annual K-12
and community college funding. There are three methods (called “tests”) for calculating the
minimum-funding guarantee:

1.       Test 1 guarantees K-14 education will receive at least the same funding share of the state
         General Fund budget it received in 1986-87.

2.       Test 2 provides K-14 education will receive, as a minimum, its prior year total funding
         (including state General Fund and local revenues) adjusted for enrollment growth (ADA)
         and COLA (per-capita personal income).

3.       Test 3 is an alternative calculation of the funding base in years in which state per-capita
         General Fund revenues grow more slowly than per-capita personal income. When this
         condition exists, K-14 minimum funding is determined based on the prior year funding
         level, adjusted for changes in enrollment and COLA measured by the annual increase in
         per-capita General Fund revenues.

There is a statutory provision of a 10.93 percent split. The existing constitutional provisions do
not specify the precise “split” between K-12 and the community colleges. Under implementing
legislation for Proposition 98, each segment of public education (K-12 districts, community
college districts, and direct elementary and secondary level instructional services provided by the
State of California) has a separately calculated amount under the Proposition 98 tests. In every


Positions on State Legislation
                                                                        Item 4.1—ACA 13             21


year beginning with 1992-93, this statutory split has been suspended by the Legislature. In each
of those years, community colleges have received less than was required from the statutory split.

Fiscal Analysis

The Proposition 98 allocation to community colleges in the 2003-04 Governor’s January budget
is under $4.1 billion, representing 9.2 percent of Proposition 98. If this measure were currently
in effect the Governor would have been required to propose (1) an additional $750 million for the
community colleges or (2) that the Legislature suspend the higher funding requirement for one
fiscal year.

Arguments For and Against

For: This measure guarantees a 10.93 percent Proposition 98 split for the community colleges,
which is consistent with the system’s fiscal policies and priorities. Constitutional recognition of
the fundamental right to a community college education would be of great value. Similarly,
recognition that the people want to close the gap between California and the national average
would provide a strong foundation for advancement of the “Real Cost of Education” initiative.
The mechanism for suspension and the subsequent restoration of funding are well structured and
provide important protection. If enacted, this constitutional amendment would provide a strong
foundation of stable support for our colleges.

Against: Can the community colleges ever be full partners with UC and CSU if their financial
foundation is tied to K-12? This constitutional amendment is premature; the state would be best
served by a fundamental, comprehensive review of community college financing prior to taking
such action.

Recommended Position

Support

Reason for Position as Recommended

This bill provides an outstanding opportunity for the people to vote upon a well-crafted, sensible
financing and policy guarantee for our colleges. Continued lack of such a guarantee is having a
devastating effect upon the community colleges” ability to provide an excellent education at an
affordable price.

Support

None known at this time.




                                                                         Positions on State Legislation
22       Item 4.1—ACA 13


Opposition

None known at this time.




Positions on State Legislation
                                                             California Community Colleges
                                          Governmental Relations & External Affairs Division
                                                               2003 Legislative Bill Analysis

BILL NO.     AUTHOR      SUBJECT              BILL VERSION              STATUS/LOCATION
                                              (DATE)
SB 6        Alpert    Governance              Amended                   Senate Appropriations
                                              5/15/03                   Committee
POSITION POSITION STATUS         ANALYSIS        GR STAFF               DIVISION LIAISON
                                 VERSION (DATE)
Support, if “Oppose Unless       6/20/03         Mary Gill              Exec. – Tom Nussbaum
Amended Amended” Position
            Adopted by Board of
            Governors 5/5/03;
            Change in Position
            Recommended to
            Board of Governors

Notes

   It has been agreed SB 6 is a “two-year” bill. This means the author does not intend to work
    toward immediate passage of this measure, but rather will continue to consult on these issues
    and return to take action on this bill in the second half of the 2003-04 Legislative Session.

   For additional background on this measure, please see the previous analyses on SB 6 pro-
    vided to the Board at its January 2003, March 2003 and April 2003 meetings.

   Previous analyses of SB 6 contained summaries of the K-12 provisions in the bill. This
    analysis is solely focused on the community college aspects of the measure.

Summary

The original version of SB 6 (as introduced 12/02/02) contained several items specifically related
to the community colleges.

   Specified that the California Community Colleges would be a “public trust.”

   Added and amended statutes related to the mission of the community colleges, primarily add-
    ing a section on the joint provision of four-year degrees with UC, CSU and private colleges.

   Deleted the section directing the board of governors to maintain local authority and control to
    the maximum degree permissible.

   Added a rewritten set of specific functions for the board of governors and maintained the
    existing set of functions.


                                                                         Positions on State Legislation
24       Item 4.1—SB 6



    Deleted existing statutes on the specific functions of the local boards of trustees and substi-
     tuted a new set of functions.

    Provided the board of governors with the authority to fix the compensation of the executive
     staff it appoints.

    Expanded the membership of the board of governors to include the Governor, Lt. Governor,
     Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Speaker of the Assembly as voting members,
     serving ex officio.

The 4/24/03 version of SB 6 made several changes in items specifically related to the
Community Colleges.

    Deleted the reference to “public trust.”

    Reinstated the section directing the board of governors to maintain local authority and control
     to the maximum degree permissible, but amended the section to provide specific exceptions
     to the restored directive, exceptions that do not exist in current code.

    Amended the already rewritten set of specific functions for the board of governors and
     deleted the existing functions now contained in Education Code Section 70901.

    Amended Education Code Section 70901.5 to add language to allow the community college
     system, working in a bilateral process, to determine whether or not its regulations contain a
     state-mandated cost.

    Made additional amendments to the newly written set of local boards of trustees” functions in
     Education Code Section 70902.

    Deleted the Speaker of the Assembly from the new, ex officio members of the board of
     governors.

    Specified the board of governors shall appoint and fix the compensation of the chancellor and
     up to six deputy and vice chancellors and repealed Education Code Section 71090.5, which
     assigned this responsibility to the Governor as a complement to his authority provided in the
     California Constitution.

    Specified it is the intent of the Legislature to provide a process by which employees of the
     Chancellor’s Office may be compensated at a level comparable to district employees who
     perform similar functions.




Positions on State Legislation
                                                                             Item 4.1—SB 6            25


The 5/15/03 version of SB 6 makes additional amendments:

    All revisions to the community college mission statement are removed. The mission state-
     ment is restored to its original (existing) language.

    All revisions to Education Code Section 70901 are removed. The local authority language,
     its linkage to the functions of the Board of Governors and the original functions of the Board
     are all restored to the original (existing) language.

    All revisions to Education Code Section 70902 are removed. The functions of the local
     Boards of Trustees are restored to the original (existing) language.

    The section on determination of state-mandated costs in the system’s regulatory process is
     slightly amended. The prior version of the bill stated that it would take action by “two-
     thirds” of the local Boards to disagree with the Board of Governors determination of cost.
     The bill now has a blank in that sentence to indicate the author’s willingness to discuss a dif-
     ferent formulation.

Origin of Bill

This is the omnibus governance bill coming forth to implement the recommendations of the
Master Plan for Education, K-16. The Joint Committee on the Master Plan drafted the bill. The
amendments partially reflect recommendations made by the Chancellor’s Office.

Analysis and Background for Specific Amendments Taken in the 5/15/03 Version of the
Bill

1.      All revisions to the community college mission statement are removed. The mission state-
        ment is restored to its original (existing) language. SB 6, in its original and 4/21/03, and
        5/5/03, amended versions, made changes to the mission statement. The Board of Gover-
        nors, in its 5/5/03, adoption of a position on SB 6, agreed to the following suggested
        amendment:

                 “The rewrite of the mission statement is a bit awkward, places the lan-
                 guage regarding joint provision of four-year instruction in an area reserved
                 for primary or core missions, and contains some technical omissions. It is
                 recommended the Board direct staff to work with the author to offer a
                 rewritten version of the mission statement that makes desired changes and
                 that the Board direct staff to return with a suggested version at its next
                 meeting.”

        The Board did not oppose the inclusion of the language related to four-year instruction,
        but wanted it to be placed in a more appropriate section. A complete reversion to the
        original mission statement removes this language rather than placing it in another section.



                                                                           Positions on State Legislation
26       Item 4.1—SB 6


2.       All revisions to Education Code Section 70901 are removed. The local authority lan-
         guage, its linkage to the functions of the Board of Governors and the original functions of
         the Board are all restored to the original (existing) language. As supported by the Board
         and the districts, the author agreed to withdraw the amendments to the Education Code
         section 70901. The author and her staff express a desire for a comprehensive and con-
         sultative review of the Board of Governors” statutory functions and express their inten-
         tion to amend these sections in a future version of the bill, after the appropriate delibera-
         tion with a representative working group.

3.       All revisions to Education Code Section 70902 are removed. The functions of the local
         Boards of Trustees are restored to the original (existing) language. As supported by the
         Board and the districts, the author agreed to withdraw the amendments to the Education
         Code section 70902. The author and her staff express a desire for a comprehensive and
         consultative review of the local Board of Trustees” statutory functions and express their
         intention to amend these sections in a future version of the bill, after the appropriate
         deliberation with a representative working group.

4.       The section on determination of state-mandated costs in the system’s regulatory process
         is slightly amended. The Chancellor drafted language regarding the determination of
         state-mandated costs, which was partially adopted by the author in the 4/21/03, amended
         version of SB 6. Both the 4/21/03, and the 5/5/03, versions of the bill stated that it would
         take action by “two-thirds” of the local Boards to disagree with the Board of Governors
         determination of cost. The Chancellor’s language indicated it would take half of the dis-
         tricts, rather than two-thirds, to accomplish this official action. While the author does
         not yet agree to the half formulation as proposed by the Chancellor and supported by the
         Board, the bill now has a blank in that sentence to indicate the author’s willingness to
         discuss a different formulation.

Fiscal Analysis

The bill still provides for the addition of three members to the Board of Governors, which will
create a small, marginal increase in the Chancellor’s Office budget, estimated to be less than
$10,000 annually.

The Board is granted authority to set the salaries of its executive staff. It is presumed such an
authority would result in higher salaries and thus, higher personnel costs for the Chancellor’s
Office. However, the Board is not given the necessary constitutional authority to actual appoint
those employees, so cost factors are moot at this time.

Additionally, the Board is granted authority to set the salaries of its other staff in a manner that
will achieve parity with comparable positions in the districts. This authority would result in
higher salaries in many classifications, but the amount is unknown. It is not anticipated this
action would be taken until such time as the state budget could provide necessary resources to
support such salary increases.




Positions on State Legislation
                                                                            Item 4.1—SB 6           27


The newly envisioned process by which the community college system will determine whether or
not regulations contain a state mandate is revenue neutral. Unless Department of Finance cer-
tifies a source of funds exists for regulations found to have a mandated cost, the regulations
cannot be implemented.

Arguments For and Against

The arguments on various issues in SB 6 relate to specific features of the bill, rather than the
overall measure. The relevant points are thus placed in the section on recommended amend-
ments.

Position

Support, if Amended

(Staff is recommending a change in position from that taken by the Board on May 5, 2003.)

Reason for Position as Recommended:

In its 5/5/03 adoption of an “Oppose, unless Amended” position, the Board agreed with the fol-
lowing statement:

       “As written and as amended, SB 6 threatens to weaken the bilateral governance
       system of the California Community Colleges. It is imperative certain features of
       the bill be amended to avoid this effect. This measure, however, does contain
       some valuable features designed to strengthen the system, features that deserve
       support, but not at the expense of the bilateral governance agreement. Until cer-
       tain items are amended we cannot offer support for this measure.”

Staff note, with gratitude, the author has now agreed to restore the original delineation of bilat-
eral governance and work within a consultative framework to determine whether or not statutory
amendments in this area will strengthen the system. With these important amendments, SB 6
becomes a vehicle with the potential for desirable change and staff now recommends “support, if
amended”, with two important caveats:

1.     The changes in local autonomy, Board of Governors’ functions, local Boards of Trustees
       and the mission statement caused great consternation and opposition within the commu-
       nity college system. The author has expressed her intent to revisit these issues in a con-
       sultative framework and the Board is supportive of that process. The Board will find it
       difficult to support future revisions of these items unless such amendments arise from a
       representative consultation process that involves the community college stakeholders.

2.     The Board reiterates its strong desire to see community college issues separated from the
       K-12 governance items that remain in this bill. Final, full support (without qualification)
       will be difficult to achieve without this separation.


                                                                         Positions on State Legislation
28       Item 4.1—SB 6



Suggested Amendments

1.       The language that provides the system with authority to determine whether or not its
         regulations constitute a state mandate is welcome and worthy of support. However, two
         amendments were made to the language as recommended by the Chancellor.

         a.       The Chancellor recommended the determination of state mandate could be chal-
                  lenged by half of the districts. If one half of the districts find a state mandate, that
                  should be sufficient to establish a mandate.

         b.       The Chancellor recommended language be inserted into existing Education Code
                  to state the board of governors cannot exercise their option to overcome the dis-
                  tricts” disapproval of a regulation, if that disapproval was based upon the asser-
                  tion the regulation creates a new mandate that has not been funded. This amend-
                  ment was not included in the amended version of SB 6. The Board should not
                  have the authority to impose a regulation if the districts have determined there is a
                  mandate.

         It is recommended the Board direct staff to work with the author to make these two
         amendments in language related to regulatory process.

         Arguments For the Proposed Amendment

         The determination of state-mandated costs affects all districts. Neither the Board nor the
         Chancellor would desire to move forward without the support of a majority of districts. If
         one-half (or two-thirds) of districts disagree with a finding on mandated costs, the Board
         should not have the authority to act to override that expression.

         Arguments Against the Proposed Amendment (in favor of the 5/15/03 version)

         The State should retain ultimate control over its regulations. The language suggested by
         the Chancellor’s Office cedes too much control to the districts.

2.       (Added by the Board of Governors 5/5/03): The Board directs staff to suggest to the
         author that the community college items in SB 6 should be placed into a separate bill
         rather than remain tied to the K-12 governance items. Note: No arguments for or against
         are included here, as the Board has already adopted this recommended amendment.

3.       The bill, since its introduction, has provided for an expansion of the Board of Governors
         to include the Governor, the Lt. Governor and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
         (The Speaker of the Assembly was included in the original version and later removed.)
         Staff does not recommend amendment of this portion of the bill at this time, however
         arguments for and against this expansion are provided at the request of the Board to
         inform their deliberation of this item. The Board may wish to indicate to the author that


Positions on State Legislation
                                                                             Item 4.1—SB 6           29


       this feature of the bill be examined further as deliberations proceed and remain neutral on
       this feature at the moment.

       Arguments For Expansion of the Board

       The inclusion of these elected officials will bring visibility to the issues and the delibera-
       tions regarding community college policies. These individuals (and the Speaker of the
       Assembly) are members of the UC and CSU governing boards and both systems report
       advantages to this relationship. The primary advantaged cited by both systems is the
       opportunity for communication with the elected official on a regular basis related to on-
       going policy issues. Additionally, both systems indicate that while these officials rarely
       attend the actual meetings (with the exception of the Lt. Governor), there is an increased
       communication between agency staff and the staff of the elected officials due to regular
       sharing of the agenda and related materials. Finally, representatives of both systems
       indicated their governmental relations functions are strengthened by the regular contact
       and the shared information on items that do not reach the Legislature. Neither system
       found “politicizing” to be a major problem; but rather felt that absence of communication
       would be a much greater problem. The expansion of the Board will provide the Chan-
       cellor with better access to these officials.

       Arguments Against Expansion of the Board

       The inclusion of elected officials will politicize discussions and make it more difficult for
       the Board to deliberate in a thoughtful manner in open session. The Board is freer to
       express ideas, try out new ideas and ask difficult questions, than it might be in the pres-
       ence of such officials. These officials might focus on single issues to the exclusion of
       important, but less visible policy matters. A stronger central Board could be a threat to
       local authority and local autonomy.


Support

None known at this time.

Opposition

(The opposition below was expressed prior to the 5/15/03 amended version of the bill. Some
positions may have changed.)

Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
Allan Hancock Community College Board of Trustee
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Antelope Valley Community College Board of Trustees
California Community College Trustees
California Federation of Teachers


                                                                          Positions on State Legislation
30       Item 4.1—SB 6


California Teachers Association
Citrus Community College Board of Trustees
Community College League of California
Hartnell Community College Board of Trustees
Long Beach Community College District Board of Trustees
Mt. San Jacinto Community College Board of Trustees
Palo Verde Community College Board of Trustees
Pasadena Area Community College District Board of Trustees
Redwoods Community College District Board of Trustees
San Jose/Evergreen Community College District
San Luis Obispo County Community College District Board of Trustees
San Mateo Community College Board of Trustees
Santa Barbara City College Board of Trustees
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Community College Board of Trustees
State Superintendent of Public Instruction




Positions on State Legislation
                                                            California Community Colleges
                                         Governmental Relations & External Affairs Division
                                                              2003 Legislative Bill Analysis

BILL NO.     AUTHOR     SUBJECT                   BILL VERSION STATUS/LOCATION
                                                  (DATE)
SB 25       Bowen      Restrictions on Use of the 6/02/03      Assembly Banking and
                       Social Security Number                  Finance – Hearing July 7th
POSITION POSITION STATUS           ANALYSIS         GR STAFF    DIVISION LIAISON
                                   VERSION (DATE)
Support, if Recommended to the 6/27/03              Mary Gill   SS – Linda Michalowski
Amended Board of Governors
             – Regular Calendar
Change in
Position

Summary

This bill contains numerous provisions regarding consumer security alerts in credit reports; these
provisions are not related to the community colleges. In addition, the bill extends to state and
local agencies (including community colleges) restrictions on the use of social security numbers
that previously applied only to private institutions.

Origin of Bill

There is considerable concern regarding identity theft and, among other issues, this author is con-
cerned that student ID cards no longer carry social security numbers.

Bill Analysis

Current law provides that no person or entity (except a state or local agency) may undertake any
of the activities listed below. This measure (SB 25) removes the exemption for state and local
agencies. Thus, on or after January 1, 2004, a state or local agency may not:

(1)    Publicly post or publicly display an individual’s social security number.
(2)    Print an individual’s social security number on any card required for the individual to
       access products or services provided by the entity.
(3)    Require an individual to transmit his or her social security number over the Internet,
       unless the connection is secure or the social security number is encrypted.
(4)    Require an individual to use his or her social security number to access an Internet web
       site, unless a password or unique personal identification number or other authentication
       device is also required to access the Internet Web site.




                                                                         Positions on State Legislation
32       Item 4.1—SB 25


(5)      Print an individual’s social security number on any materials that are mailed to the
         individual, unless state or federal law requires the social security number to be on the
         document to be mailed. Notwithstanding this paragraph, social security numbers may be
         included in applications and forms sent by mail, including documents sent as part of an
         application or enrollment process or to establish, amend or terminate an account, contract
         or policy, or to confirm the accuracy of the social security number.

The bill also permits agencies to continue using social security numbers in a manner inconsistent
with these provisions if the number has been in continuous use and there is an annual disclosure.

Fiscal Analysis

At this time, two concerns have arisen regarding the potential cost of compliance with this bill.
One concern relates to the prohibition against the use of the SSN on student ID cards. All but
about 20 of our colleges have moved beyond the visible use of the SSN and the remainder plan to
do so. However, the bill also prohibits the imbedding of the SSN in a barcode or magnetic strip.
This presents a greater problem for some of our colleges. At this time we cannot be specific, but
several colleges indicate the adoption of this measure would require significant programming
expense for which they have not currently provided in their budget planning.

The second concern arises from an interpretation recently shared by the author’s staff that asserts
that point #5 above prohibits the colleges from using the SSN on student loan account statements
sent through the mail. In our initial analysis of this bill, we considered student loan account
statements to be forms or documents, and more specifically, we considered them to be related to
establishing, amending or terminating an account or contract. The author’s staff vehemently
states that student loan account statements are not about establishing, amending or terminating an
account or contract so we must exercise caution in this area although we do not agree with the
interpretation. An inquiry to the colleges yielded significant evidence of student loan billing
activity that includes the SSN. The SSN is the required federal identifier in order to qualify for
the loan and is frequently used as the continuing identifier throughout the life of the loan.

Many colleges do not have the system hardware and software necessary to maintain both the SSN
and an alternate student ID. If a student receives student financial aid (state or federal) the SSN
is mandatory and therefore becomes the only identifier in the system for that student. Many
colleges have been able to upgrade to systems that have the capability to build a bridge between
two numbers although this is the trend when systems are modernized. Those colleges who do not
yet have this capability would have serious non-reimbursable, state-mandated cost issues with
this bill.

We do not have the resources necessary to conduct a full fiscal analysis of potential cost for all
72 districts, but the partial, informal analysis conducted to date indicates a cost in the $16 million
range for the system, if the colleges were forced to comply by January 1,2004.




Positions on State Legislation
                                                                        Item 4.1—SB 25            33


Arguments For and Against

For: Proponents argue that student privacy laws need to be strengthened to prevent fraud and
abuse. Many of our colleges are in the forefront of this effort.

Against: Opponents argue that colleges are already in the process of improving security meas-
ures and this bill is unnecessary. The bill will require expenditures by our colleges and these
requirements are not a fiscal priority. Some colleges indicate the changes are a priority but no
funds are available.

Recommended Position

Support, if amended. (Change in position.)

Reason for Position as Recommended

The measure complements current college efforts to guard against identity theft, but some of our
colleges cannot afford the upgrades required by this measure, particularly if required by
January 1, 2004. Our earlier recommendation to the Board of Governors was to “Oppose, unless
Amended.” The author has signaled her willingness to consider a three-year blanket extension
for the community colleges to allow time for these changes to be accommodated in the normal
process of software and hardware changes at the colleges that are not yet in compliance. With
this amendment, the system would have time to comply.

Suggested Amendments

We recommend the Board direct staff to work with the author to secure a three-year extension for
community colleges, thus making this measure effective January 1, 2007.

Support

American Civil Liberties Union; Attorney General; California Alliance for Consumer Protection;
California Association of Health Underwriters; California District Attorneys Association; Cali-
fornia School Employees Association; Congress of California Seniors; Consumer Action;
Consumers Union; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse; Consumer Action; Congress of California
Seniors; Grey Panthers; Identify Theft Resource Center; Internet Alliance; Los Angeles County
District Attorney’s Office; Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association; Los
Angeles Police Protective League; Older Women’s League of California; Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse

Opposition

None known at this time.




                                                                       Positions on State Legislation
                                                            California Community Colleges
                                         Governmental Relations & External Affairs Division
                                                              2003 Legislative Bill Analysis

BILL NO.     AUTHOR         SUBJECT         BILL VERSION STATUS/LOCATION
                                            (DATE)
SB 823     Karnette and Master Plan:        6/03/03      Assembly
           Alpert       Adult Education                  Held at Desk
POSITION POSITION STATUS       ANALYSIS       GR STAFF    DIVISION LIAISON
                               VERSION (DATE)
Watch      Recommended to      6/12/03        Michael     Educational Services:
(Continued Board of Governors                 Magee         Dona Boatright
Position,                                                   LeBaron Woodyard
Update
from March
2003)

Summary

This bill states the Legislature’s intent to make future amendments to provide adequate funds for
priority adult education courses including basic education, English as a Second Language, and
vocational training. This bill would also establish reciprocity of instruction credentials by
encouraging the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the Board of Governors of the
California Community Colleges to jointly establish minimum qualifications. This bill would also
encourage the State Board of Education to develop skill standards for adult education.

Prior language in this bill (now deleted) included a task force to develop a strategic plan for
assessing the adult education system. This task force would have followed recommendation 37
in the Master Plan for Education. In hearings, the author agreed to ask the Senate Rules Com-
mittee to create the task force without legislation, and there are plans to do so.

Origin of Bill

This is one of several bills that have resulted from the Joint Legislative Committee on the Master
Plan for Education. This bill would enact the Master Plan’s recommendations 37.1 and 37.2 for
California’s adult education system. Recommendation 37.1 is for reciprocity of instruction
credentials, and 37.2 describes state priorities for adult education. As is the case with other
Master Plan legislation begun this year, this is a two-year bill that requires ongoing efforts by
staff to communicate with the Legislature.




                                                                        Positions on State Legislation
36       Item 4.1—SB 823


Analysis of Specific Features

This bill, as currently written, makes no changes in law or budget. This bill states it is the intent
of the Legislature to amend this bill to include the following provisions:

1.    Provide adequate funds to enable adult education providers to give priority to courses in
      basic education, English as a Second Language, and vocational training.

2.    Establish reciprocity of instruction credentials in the adult education systems. This would
      be done by encouraging the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the Board of Gover-
      nors of the California Community Colleges, on or before June 1, 2004, to jointly establish
      minimum qualifications that will permit an instructor to teach adult education courses in a
      high school district, unified school district, or community college district.

3.    Encourages the State Board of Education to develop skill standards for adult education pro-
      grams similar to those developed by the National Skills Standards Board (NSSB), the Sec-
      retary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), and Equipped for the
      Future.

Program Background

Often referred to as adult education by the K-12 system, and/or noncredit education in the com-
munity college system, noncredit education provides adults the opportunity to earn a high school
diploma or a general equivalency diploma (GED), increase literacy skills, learn English, learn to
read and write, gain American citizenship, become an effective parent, and/or learn a specific job
skill. Noncredit education provides the entry point for many Californians who were unsuccessful
in high school; who require retraining for employment advancement; who desire a vocational
trade or who need a helping hand to acquire the basic skills necessary to complete collegiate level
work. Education Code section 8530 provides that adult education is the responsibility of the K-
12 district, except where responsibility is assigned to a community college district by mutual
agreement.      However, the Legislature subsequently adopted Education Code section
66010.4(a)(2)(B) which includes the provision of adult education in the community colleges”
mission and functions. A court ruling in 1994 clarified this contradiction, holding that the more
recent code provided community colleges” clear authority to offer such courses without mutual
agreement with a K-12 district.

Community colleges play a crucial role in providing students with skill upgrades that equate to
higher paying jobs, promotion of higher education attainment, and advancements in the concept
of life long learning. Many of our students use noncredit courses as a bridge to higher education.
For example, in four of the larger noncredit community college districts, 63 percent of the total
college student population that achieved a transfer-prepared status in 1999-2000 availed them-
selves of noncredit instruction.

Noncredit courses offered in community colleges have a collegiate-level orientation and
matriculation standards in place to ensure that students are assured of the path to achieve their


Positions on State Legislation
                                                                          Item 4.1—SB 823            37


goals. Noncredit is often the initial entry point to a college experience for many students,
evidenced by the fact that more than 25 percent of all noncredit students enroll concurrently in
credit courses. In 2000, there were a total of 71,564 noncredit Full-Time Equivalent Students
(FTES) statewide.

Fiscal Analysis

California Community Colleges enroll over 97,953 full-time equivalent students (FTES) in non-
credit instruction. In 2001-02, colleges received over $202.9 million in state General Funds for
noncredit instruction. There is nothing in the bill that would specifically change the enrollment
in, or funding for, noncredit instruction. If the Legislature adopted statewide priorities for such
instruction, districts might experience changes in funding related to the degree to which their
programs conformed to those priorities (if the Legislature were specifically to relate noncredit
funding to such priorities). There may be significant costs associated with the establishment of
reciprocity for credentials, including consultation and administrative effort. A full analysis of
such costs will be prepared at a later date if necessary. Also, although not required in the bill,
there might be indirect and direct costs associated with participating in and supporting a task
force to develop a strategic plan for assessing the adult education system.

Arguments For and Against

Arguments For

(1)    Regarding providing funding to establish priorities for adult education: As is the case
       with many community college programs, adult education is not adequately funded. Given
       sufficient funding, English as a Second Language, basic education, and vocational
       training should be considered priorities for adult education because these categories con-
       stitute the greatest needs for the majority of adult education participants. Other categories
       of instruction provide valued services to local communities and may be provided as
       resources permit.

(2)    Regarding reciprocity of credentials: The authorized categories for noncredit instruction
       are identical for community colleges and adult schools. Adult schools require creden-
       tialed instructors while community college noncredit instructors must meet minimum
       qualifications established by the Academic Senate. The different requirements by each
       system restrict local hiring capabilities. Establishing reciprocity for instruction creden-
       tials would enable individuals to provide instruction in both systems.

(3)    Regarding establishing skill standards by the State Board of Education: The competen-
       cies outlined in skill standards for adult education programs similar to those developed by
       the National Skills Standards Board (NSSB), the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving
       Necessary Skills (SCANS), and Equipped for the Future are critical to successful
       employment, a major goal of most adult education and community college students.
       Establishing skill standards would continue the collaborative work between adult educa-




                                                                          Positions on State Legislation
38       Item 4.1—SB 823


         tion and noncredit education providers that has already occurred in the development of
         model standards for English as a Second Language and other program areas.

Arguments Against

(1)      Regarding providing funding to establish priorities for adult education: If the
         Legislature sets priorities for adult education, local priorities will be usurped. Besides
         basic education, English as a Second Language, and vocational training, adult education
         also encompasses instruction in civic, literacy, health, homemaking, and technical
         education. These categories may be priorities at the district level. Local officials and
         educators are in the best position to act on the needs of the community and can be the
         most responsive to changing conditions. Additionally, while some areas of instruction
         may only serve small numbers, they are highly valuable and should not be lacking in
         priority. The current Education Code language in this regard is sufficient.

(2)      Regarding reciprocity of credentials: Requirements for teaching adult education in K-12
         calls for a credential, yet the credential may not require the stringent, rigorous require-
         ments for study in the subject matter that are met by community college faculty. The
         statewide Academic Senate identifies and defines minimum qualifications for each posi-
         tion. The local academic senates may adopt more stringent local qualifications and are
         responsible for determining whether or not a candidate meets those qualifications through
         a locally-adopted equivalency process. The determination of competence to teach in a
         college should remain purely a college responsibility. While it might benefit the individ-
         ual instructor to have only one set of credentials, it does not address the needs of the
         students who are best served by a rigorous qualification system. Currently, the represen-
         tatives of the governing board and the Academic Senate jointly agree upon the qualifica-
         tions and hiring criteria for credit and noncredit instructors in community colleges.
         Therefore, rules for establishing reciprocity by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing
         and the Board of Governors could serve to further undermine local authority.

(3)      Regarding establishing skill standards by the State Board of Education: The State Board
         of Education (SBE) is responsive to K-12 districts. Standards developed by the SBE may
         not meet college districts” needs for noncredit education. Faculty at community colleges
         are responsible for establishing course outlines and learning objectives for students
         enrolled in college programs. Statewide skills standards for adult education, if imposed
         on community colleges, are not likely to take into account the local needs that the faculty
         has already addressed. Adult education is not a monolithic program and therefore defin-
         ing statewide skills for each course and each component of those varied programs that
         have been designed to meet local needs may not be possible, nor desirable.

Recommended Position

Watch (serious concerns)




Positions on State Legislation
                                                                            Item 4.1—SB 823            39


Reason for Position as Recommended

The current version of the bill only states intent and one of its worthy goals is adequate funding
which is a positive feature of this bill. There is significant support in our system for adequate
funding of adult education as well as other basic skills instructional efforts. However, the current
provisions intend to diminish local control by establishing state priorities for adult education or
by tying funding to such priorities, or by usurping credentialing authority, which are significant
issues and contrary to the basic provision that maintains maximum local flexibility and control in
the system. It is vital that only the community college system be responsible for determining the
qualifications for teachers in the colleges. With respect to encouraging the SBE to establish
Skills Standards for adult education, we are also concerned because the establishment of stan-
dards for K-12 might be imposed on community colleges, which would also diminish local
authority. Staff will assure the author that our serious concerns related to the current legislative
intent do not represent a lack of support for adequate funding of this critical part of our mission.

Suggested Amendment(s)

It is recommended that the Board direct staff to express support for the intent of the Legislature
to ensure adequate funding and express our desire to work together on that goal, but to remove
provisions that suggest priorities should be set at a statewide level (in greater detail than currently
expressed in the Education Code). In addition, we recommend the Board direct staff to oppose
the movement toward reciprocity of credentials and the imposition of K-12 skill standards on
community colleges.

Support

California Federation of Teachers
Los Angeles Unified School District

Opposition

None known at this time.




                                                                            Positions on State Legislation

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:15
posted:4/21/2012
language:
pages:41