Equivalence to the Minimum Qualifications

Download this Document in Word
Download this Document in PDF

Spring 1999 

1989 Educational Policies Committee
Revised by the 1998 - 99 Standards and Practices Committee
Standards and Practices Committee
Mark Snowhite, Crafton Hills College, Chair
Kate Clark, Irvine Valley College
Edith Conn, Ventura College
Sally Flotho, Golden West College
Gary Morgan, Oxnard CollegeJoan Stroh, Southwestern College

ABSTRACT
This paper was originally prepared by the Educational Policies Committee of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges in 1989 and adopted by the Academic Senate Plenary Body the same year.

It has been revised by the Standards and Practices Committee at the direction of Resolution 10.1.0, Fall 1996: "Be it resolved that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges direct the Executive Committee to review and update the 1989 paper 'Equivalency to the Minimum Qualifications' [for the Spring, 1997, session]."

In its revised form, the paper addresses the historical context within which equivalency was established, the precise meaning of the term "equivalency," and how districts address the issue of equivalence vis-a-vis the published minimum qualifications for hire. The paper also reviews what constitutes appropriate criteria for determining equivalent qualifications and suggestions for defining a process for determining equivalent qualifications. Finally, the paper identifies and addresses faculty responsibilities and comments on the issue of single-course equivalency.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL PAPER (1989) AND THIS REVISED PAPER
The original paper was written to explain the concept of equivalency so that local faculty could negotiate effective policies of equivalency that would meet statutory and regulatory requirements. The paper stressed the importance of faculty judgment in determining equivalency. This revised paper, with minor changes in wording and updated information, contains the same principles and facts that appear in the original; however, the information has been put into an historical context and important information has been added. The revised paper contains a section identifying the statutory and regulatory authority for equivalency, an expanded section on faculty responsibility for determining equivalency, and a discussion of recent suggestions to permit single-course or specialization equivalencies.

Because the original paper was about two and a half pages and the revised paper is nearly seven, it did not seem useful to indicate minor word changes and additions. It is more useful to regard the revised paper as a reconstruction necessary to bring it up to date.
 

INTRODUCTION

When originally passed, AB1725 specifically provided for the hiring of faculty who do not meet the precise letter of the minimum qualifications, provided that "the governing board determines that [the applicant] possesses qualifications that are at least equivalent" (Education Code 87359). It remained for the criteria and processes for determining "equivalency" to be worked out between the local governing board and the local academic senate. Since that time, a variety of interpretations, as well as a variety of policies, have been put forward. The Academic Senate has conducted several breakouts at plenary sessions in an attempt to clarify the uses for, as well as the meaning of, equivalency.

The purpose of this paper is to review the meaning of equivalency, re-examine state law on the subject, present some ideas that are intended to help faculty and administrators in local districts, and address some questions about equivalency which have consistently arisen. The paper was originally prepared by the Educational Policies Committee of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges in 1989 and adopted by the Plenary Body of the Academic Senate the same year. It has been revised by the Standards and Practices Committee at the direction of Resolution 10.1 F96: "Be it resolved that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges direct the Executive Committee to review and update the 1989 paper 'Equivalency to the Minimum Qualifications' [for the Spring, 1997, session]."

In its revised form, the paper addresses the historical context within which equivalency came to be, the precise meaning of the term "equivalency," and how the issue of equivalence is addressed vis-a-vis the published minimum qualifications for hire. The paper also reviews what constitute appropriate criteria for determining equivalent qualifications and suggestions for defining a process for determining equivalent qualifications. Finally, the paper identifies and addresses faculty responsibilities and comments on single-course equivalency.

Note, however, that neither this paper nor any other state organization's position paper is more than advisory; the equivalency process is by statute one that the local governing board and the local academic senate must jointly agree upon (Title 5 53430).
 

THE MEANING OF "EQUIVALENCY"
Equivalency means equal to the state-adopted minimum qualifications for a particular discipline. In some cases, this means equal to a Master's degree in a discipline. In disciplines for which a Master's degree is not generally available or expected, it means equal to either a degree, or a combination of degree and experience.

Equivalency may come in three distinct ways: by course work, by work experience, or by eminence in the field. Equivalency may never mean fewer qualifications than the published minimum qualifications.

Every district must have an equivalency process. By 1993, every community college district was required to have adopted such a process. That process needs to specify what the district expects in terms of course work, work experience, or eminence when considering equivalency applications. Granting equivalencies through such a process must not mean lowering standards. Nor are standards raised by avoiding equivalencies.

One benefit of the equivalency process is that hiring remains less bureaucratic, less rigid. Applicants who can provide conclusive evidence that they have education or experience at least equal to what is required by the minimum standards deserve careful consideration, even if their degrees have titles different from those recognized in the "Disciplines List" or if they acquired their qualifications by a route other than a conventional one. If the equivalency process were not used at all, some fully qualified candidates would not receive consideration.

On the other hand, the authority to determine equivalent qualifications does not give a district the authority to waive or lower standards and accept less qualified individuals. The fact that a particular candidate is the best a college can find does not change the requirement that he or she possess qualifications at least equal to the published minimum qualifications.

An applicant who is granted equivalency and subsequently hired maintains that status for his entire career in the district which granted that equivalency. However, when a faculty member applies for a position in another district, she or he may need to go through equivalency processes in those other districts because equivalency is not transferable from district to district.
 

THE LAW ADDRESSES EQUIVALENCY
AB1725 provisions chaptered into the California Education Code (Chapter 2.5, 87359) states that it is possible to have earned the equivalent of the published minimum qualifications in ways other than the method traditionally identified (degree, or degree plus experience). In addition, Title 5 directs districts to develop and maintain a policy jointly agreed to by its governing board and academic senate for granting equivalencies. Title 5 mandates "reasonable procedures to ensure that the governing board relies primarily upon the advice and judgment of the academic senate to determine that each individual faculty employed possesses qualifications that are at least equivalent to the applicable minimum qualifications specified in this Division" (Title 5, 53430 (b)) (Italics added). Clearly, the faculty, through its academic senate, and with concurrence of its board, is responsible for defining equivalency and maintaining a process for determining equivalent status for individual applicants.
 

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING EQUIVALENT QUALIFICATIONS
Many criteria for determining equivalency seem obvious and can be handled in a simple manner. Others are more complicated. One easy-to-address situation occurs when someone has all the appropriate courses for the relevant degree but lacks the diploma or got the degree in another area or has the degree with a different label. For example, if one earned a degree in business because a particular college or university combined its economics and business programs, but a review of the transcript shows academic work the same as that for an economics degree, then obviously that business degree is equivalent to a degree in economics.

The more difficult case comes when experience or independent learning is proposed as the equivalent of academic work. The problem is not that material learned in a classroom could not also be learned in other ways. The problem lies in obtaining evidence to establish that a candidate really does have enough background to be judged "eminent" and as knowledgeable as someone with the appropriate degree.

The candidate should be expected to provide evidence of equivalent preparation, and the evidence must be as reliable and objective as a transcript. Specifically, the candidate should provide evidence that he or she possesses the equivalent not only of specialized knowledge of a particular discipline, but also of the General Education component. Realistically, this is what the appropriate degree would provide a candidate who meets published minimum qualifications. Thus, the candidate seeking equivalence should be measured by the same yardstick. For example, a journalist with a bachelor's degree in English who has a great many years of work experience in journalism might well be judged to possess the equivalent of a Master's degree as far as the General Education component is concerned. (The General Education required for the bachelor's degree would have been essentially the same, despite the difference in disciplines.) If another person has worked in the computer industry for years but has no degree specifically in computers, then the committee at his or her college would look at evidence addressing the elements of the experience, its quantity as well as its diversity, to see whether this person's background does meet or exceed the preparation of someone who holds a Master's degree in computer science in terms of not only specialized knowledge in the computer industry but also of the General Education component. Evaluating experience depends on the candidate's ability to provide objective, detailed information about what exactly he or she did.

Of course, no set amount of experience is unquestionably equivalent to a particular degree; ten years of experience may not be the equivalent of even an undergraduate major. Equivalency depends on the nature of the experience.
 

A PROCESS FOR DETERMINING EQUIVALENT QUALIFICATIONS
As difficult as it can be to make the judgment of whether, for example, experience with computers really is the equivalent of academic preparation, it is clear that faculty in the discipline carry most of the responsibility for making such a decision. However, to ensure that colleagues in various disciplines function with some consistency across the campus, the process for determining equivalency should include a way for faculty from outside the discipline to have a role.

To ensure that relevant information is available for the discipline committee, the application for employment must provide a place for candidates to indicate whether they possess the minimum qualifications or, if not, why they think they possess equivalent qualifications. The latter part could be a separate page with some extremely detailed inquiries. Note the sample below:

1. For what degree do you claim equivalency?

2. Do you claim the equivalent of the major for that degree? If so, what courses have you had on which to base this claim?

3. Do you have the equivalent of the General Education requirements for that degree?

4. What relevant courses have you taken? What other evidence can you provide that you have the equivalent of the General Education portion of this degree?

5. If you are using courses to establish equivalency, please submit both an official transcript and copies of the appropriate pages from the college catalog.

6. If you are using publications or other work products, please submit them if possible.

7. Describe in detail work experience which you believe establishes equivalency to the minimum qualifications. If you are using work products or other items which cannot be submitted, provide detailed information from an objective source about the nature of this work product or experience.
 

FACULTY RESPONSIBILITIES
Determination of equivalency is a faculty responsibility. Faculty possess the academic expertise and currency needed to determine necessary qualifications in any discipline. Thus, while the governing board may, indeed, ultimately provide the legal cachet for equivalencies, no one can reasonably argue that anyone besides faculty in a discipline is capable of determining whether a person possesses the equivalent of the published minimum qualifications.

The role of the human resources office should be limited, most appropriately, to collecting, date stamping, and forwarding applications and other pertinent information to the appropriate screening committee. A college that attempts to use its human resources office staff to establish equivalence not only risks creating a situation in which candidates are not evaluated appropriately but is out of compliance with the Education Code and Title 5 Regulations.

The committee should review for equivalency before beginning the paper screening process. If faculty in the discipline participate at the heart of the equivalency process, and if care is given when establishing the criteria and when drafting an application page to elicit relevant information, then determining equivalence can be done fairly and expeditiously while still maintaining the standards set in Title 5 Regulations. Lastly, a hiring process enacted without an equivalency process is unlawful.

It is vital to remember that minimum qualifications in a discipline (and, by extension, equivalency) are the same whether the position is full- or part-time.
 

THE SINGLE-COURSE EQUIVALENCY ISSUE
Title 5, 53430, states, "No one may be hired to serve as a community college faculty unless the governing board determines that he or she possesses qualifications that are at least equivalent to the minimum qualifications specified(italics added)." In addition, minimum qualifications are determined for disciplines, not for courses or subject areas within disciplines.

There are those responsible for hiring who regard these regulations as impediments and fail to comply with them. And some people may simply not understand the requirements. Reasons for circumventing these regulations may stem from practical difficulties that are understandable. For example, a college may find that it has no applicants with minimum qualifications to staff a class or classes in a particular discipline. However, this problem is no excuse for hiring someone who is not qualified to teach in the discipline.

Those responsible for staffing may attempt to craft special adaptations of equivalency to the minimum qualifications to justify hiring applicants who are qualified to teach only a certain course or subject within a discipline. For example, a department head of Physical Education may request an equivalency committee to grant equivalency to a person who has taught Karate on the basis of being an experienced expert in that specialty and holding a Bachelor's degree in exercise physiology, a related discipline. This candidate may seem to be very well qualified to teach a karate class, even though the minimum qualifications are not met. And the department head might assure all concerned that this individual would be assigned to teach only karate and no other course offered by the Physical Education Department. Thus it may be tempting to hire this applicant to teach only karate. But, according to the Title 5 Regulation 53430 (cited above), this action would be out of compliance.

Currently there are districts that have an equivalency standard for part-time faculty positions different from the one used for full-time faculty positions. Yet, Title 5 Regulations does not allow for a different standard of equivalency for part-time faculty. An applicant is either qualified to teach the full range of courses in a discipline or not, regardless of whether applying for a full-time position or a part-time position.

Misapplications of equivalency regulations clearly undermine the required standards of minimum qualifications. As stated above, equivalency means that an applicant's preparation is equal to the published minimum qualifications for a particular discipline. Those hired as full-time faculty members are expected to have the expertise to teach a full range of courses in the discipline for which they were hired, and part-time faculty are expected to possess the same qualifications as full-time faculty. To require less from faculty hired to teach only one course or in one limited subject area would be to develop a second class of less qualified faculty. And, if such hiring were permitted to occur, colleges would be encouraged to rely on less qualified faculty. Colleges can solve some of the hiring problems they face by creating more attractive full-time positions to attract fully qualified applicants.

Another solution, which is both expedient and appropriate, invokes the process of assignment of courses to disciplines. (See "Placement of Courses in Disciplines"). Assignment of courses to a varied range of related disciplines will frequently solve practical problems which occur from time to time. It is perfectly appropriate, for example, to assign a course associated with coaching soccer to the discipline of coaching as well as to the discipline of physical education. In that way, an applicant pool might become larger. Such a cross listing will also address the claim that if a college grants someone a physical education equivalency to coach soccer, it must let that individual teach any course in physical education. If the individual were granted equivalency only in coaching, that claim would become groundless.

Likewise, it would be pedagogically sound and appropriate to assign a course such as word processing to a range of disciplines. Instead of assigning a word processing class only to the discipline of business, it could also be cross listed under computer applications, computer science, and office management. An instructor with minimum qualifications in office management who is hired to teach a word processing class could not then legitimately claim right of assignment to other courses in business without meeting the minimum qualifications (or equivalent) for business.
 

DETERMINING EQUIVALENCY IN MULTI-COLLEGE DISTRICTS
It is important to understand that when a faculty member is hired, he or she is hired by a district, not a college. In most multi-college districts, faculty members can be assigned to any facility, or combination of facilities, in that district, although practice varies according to negotiated policies defining rights of assignment and transfer. A variety of possibilities exist for establishing and applying equivalency in multi-college districts.

Each college may have its own equivalency policy and procedures that the local board accepts, although the local board is likely to insist on consistency between or among the colleges in the district. If colleges have different policies and procedures, each college would have to accept the possibility that some one hired under the equivalency policy in a sister college may be assigned to that college, unless bargaining agreements or other policies preclude this possibility.

An alternative arrangement is to have a district-wide equivalency policy and set of procedures to which the academic senate of each college agrees. Hiring committees would submit the documentation of applicants who claim equivalency to a district equivalency committee, which would make a decision. This arrangement has the advantage of allowing a part-time instructor whose equivalency has been established to teach in any college in a district.
 

CONCLUSION
AB1725 is explicit concerning faculty responsibility: "Faculty members derive their authority from their expertise as teachers and subject matter specialists and from their status as professionals. As a result, the faculty has an inherent professional responsibility in the development and implementation of policies and procedures governing the hiring process." Equivalency considered in this light will remind us that our guide must be the published minimum qualifications. As such, to maintain the academic integrity of the community colleges and their faculty, equivalency to those minimum qualifications for hire must be granted with careful consideration.

APPENDIX A  EQUIVALENCY POLICY: A PROPOSED MODEL POLICY
It is the policy of the ______________________________ Community College District that faculty hiring procedures and guidelines be established to provide for college faculty of highly qualified people who are expert in their subject areas, who are skilled in teaching and serving the needs of a varied student population, who can foster overall college effectiveness, and who are sensitive to and themselves represent the racial and cultural diversity of the adult population of the state of California. ¹
 

The governing board, represented by the administration, has the principal legal and public responsibility for ensuring an effective hiring process.² The faculty, represented by the academic senate, has an inherent professional responsibility in the development and implementation of policies and procedures governing the hiring process, ³ which is to ensure the quality of its faculty peers.⁴
 

One part of the process needed to fulfill these responsibilities is a procedure for determining when an applicant for a faculty position, though lacking the exact degree or experience specified in the Disciplines List as minimum qualifications, nevertheless does possess qualifications that are at least equivalent
 

The procedure will require that the basis to establish equivalency be the responsibility of discipline faculty selected by the Academic Senate. The Academic Senate and college administration will be responsible for establishing and monitoring the process to assure its fairness, efficiency, and consistent adherence to maintaining standards.
 
 

PROCEDURES
 

Qualifications
 

Only infrequently will candidates meet the minimum qualifications through the equivalency process. Candidates who have completed all the appropriate course work for a particular degree but do not possess the specific degree named on the Discipline List may possess equivalent qualification. Very rarely, a candidate who is obviously well qualified will be able to demonstrate through publications or other substantial achievements that he or she has qualifications equivalent to those specified in the Disciplines List. However, an applicant who claims equivalent qualifications will have to provide conclusive evidence, evidence as clear and reliable as the college transcripts being submitted by the other candidates, that he or she has qualifications that are at least equivalent to what is required by the minimum qualifications. Specifically, an applicant making the claim must provide conclusive evidence in regard to the following:

I. For establishing the equivalent of a required degree, possession of at least

the equivalent in level of achievement and breadth depth of understanding, and

rigor for each of the following as separate and distinct criteria:
 

A. The General Education required for that degree; and

B. Course work required for the degree major.
 

A candidate must provide conclusive evidence in regard to both A and B above to be considered to possess the equivalent of the degree in question.
 

II. For the equivalent of required experience, possession of thorough and broad

knowledge for each of the following as separate and distinct criteria:
 

A. Mastery of the skills of the vocation thorough enough for the proposed

specific assignment and broad enough to serve as a basis for teaching

the other courses in the discipline; and
 

B. Extensive and diverse knowledge of the working environment of the

vocation.
 

A candidate must present conclusive evidence in regard to both A and B above to be considered to possess the equivalent of the experience in question.
 
 

Evidence
 

Conclusive evidence shall be:

1. A transcript showing that the applicant successfully completed appropriate

courses at a regionally accredited college or equivalent foreign institution whose

accredited status is recognized by the district;

2. Publications that show the applicant's command of the major in question,

his or her general education, or his or her writing skill;

• Other work products that show the applicant's command of the major or

occupation in question; and

• Work experience verification.

Selection Committee Procedures
 

Prescreening of applications shall be done in accordance with the district hiring policy as jointly developed and agreed upon by the academic senate and the governing board (See Education Code 87358). Prescreening minimum qualifications or pre-established equivalence may be done by the discipline members of the selection committee if there are three or more discipline members on the selection committee. If there are not at least three full-time members of the discipline in question, the academic senate equivalency committee may call on part-time faculty or faculty members from a related discipline to help in this task.

The selection committee shall determine which candidates will receive an interview. No candidate shall receive an interview unless the minimum qualifications or the equivalent of the minimum qualifications as specified in the current Chancellor's Office Minimum Qualifications are meet. If the committee has chosen any candidates for interview who do not meet these minimum qualifications or pre-established equivalencies, then the committee shall evaluate these applicants' claims of equivalency according to the process described below.
 

The application and supporting materials for any candidate who does not meet the minimum qualifications or the pre-established equivalency shall be forwarded to the equivalency committee of the academic senate for review prior to any candidate receiving an interview. The selection committee shall also send to the equivalency committee a separate statement for each criterion of equivalency claimed by the applicant. (For better communication between selection committees and the equivalency committee, the college may choose to have a member of the equivalency committee actually sit with any selection committee whenever it is considering equivalency. Some colleges may choose to have the equivalency committee composed of a specified number of permanent members from the discipline in question whenever it is necessary to consider equivalency.)
 
 

SENATE AND BOARD PROCEDURES
 

The responsibility of the academic senate's equivalency committee is to ensure that selection committees all follow the same process for determining equivalency. The academic senate equivalency committee shall consist of three or more members, each member selected for a term of at least one year, and at least one member who is also a member of the senate's affirmative action (or diversity) committee. One or more of the faculty appointed by the academic senate shall be from ethnic, racial, and protected groups underrepresented among the faculty as a whole. The committee shall meet within five working days of receiving materials from the selection committee to review that work. At least one member of the screening committee shall meet with the senate equivalency committee.
 

If a candidate who has been judged to have met equivalency to the minimum qualifications is recommended for hire to the governing board, the board shall provide an opportunity for the academic senate to present its views before the board makes a determination as to the person's having equivalent qualifications, and the written record of the decision -- including the views of the academic senate and the criteria and evidence used by the governing board in making the determination -- shall be reflected in the governing board's action employing the individual and shall be available for review pursuant to 87358 of the Education Code.
 

The equivalency committee of the academic senate shall, by the end of its first year of operation, adopt policies further defining what evidence shall be required for establishing equivalency. These policies shall address such issues as the following:
 

• For the equivalent of a Master's degree, shall the General Education courses required for any bachelor's be regarded as sufficient (since there is no General Education requirement at the graduate level)?

• For the equivalent of an Associate's degree, shall the six years work experience required by the minimum qualifications be accepted as the equivalent of the major? Thus, a candidate with six years of experience would need to show courses or other evidence only in order to establish the equivalent of the General Education for that degree.

• For establishing the equivalent of any degree or requirement, is providing evidence that the courses taken would have met the requirement of at least one accredited college be sufficient or would these courses have to meet the requirement of the college at which they were taken or would they have to meet the requirement for the Associate's degree of the college for which the candidate seeks to work?

The academic senate's equivalency committee can establish specific criteria for determining the equivalent of the General Education component of a degree since those requirements are rather similar for most degree programs. On the other hand, establishing the equivalence of work experience will be unique to each discipline. A committee composed of faculty from the same discipline should list the specific skills mastery which will establish equivalence to the applicable years of experience. For establishing the equivalency of the major, such a committee shall recommend measures of the quality of the experience, publications, or other work products that will establish equivalence to the major. That committee may be either a department committee or the committee which writes the job announcement or the selection committee. In any case, it must complete its work before any applications are reviewed. The proposal of the committee shall be reviewed by the academic senate's equivalency committee, which must be satisfied that the requirements of each department are substantially similar to the requirements of other departments in level of proficiency required and that all departments are acting consistently with the letter and spirit of Assembly Bill 1725.
 

Setting out criteria in advance can make the process of determining equivalency efficient and consistent. However, there will always be candidates with claims for equivalency based on unforeseeable qualifications. Therefore, the list of criteria shall only indicate what evidence will definitely be accepted. The qualifications of individual candidates may still be evaluated individually on the specific evidence submitted through the process indicated above.
 
 

FULL-TIME FACULTY SEEKING TO SERVE IN AN ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE OR TO QUALIFY FOR ADDITIONAL FACULTY SERVICE AREAS
 

Faculty who are already employed under a contract may acquire new assignments or additional faculty service areas only if they meet the requirements specified in the Disciplines Lists, possess qualifications that are at least equivalent to those specified in the Disciplines Lists, or possess an appropriate credential. Those who believe that, although they lack both the specified qualifications or credential, they do possess the equivalent shall be subject to the process described above except that the process shall begin when a faculty member submits a request together with the information required of candidates for hire as indicated above. A committee of discipline faculty, the same as that established for selection committees in the hiring policy agreed upon jointly between the academic senate and the governing board, shall review that material and make a recommendation to the equivalency committee. That committee will make its recommendations to the governing board directly, since no interview or selection is involved. (This process resolves only whether the instructor has the equivalent of the minimum qualifications, not whether instructor may be assigned to a new discipline.)
 
 

REVIEW AND REVISION
 

This equivalency policy and its procedures are subject to review and revision at the request of either the academic senate or the governing board. Changes in this policy require the joint agreement of the academic senate and the governing board. Until there is joint agreement, this policy will remain in effect.

______________________

1. Assembly Bill 1725, Section 4 (p) (1) "The laws, regulations, directives, or guidelines should help the community colleges ensure that the faculty and administrators they hire and retain are people who are sympathetic and sensitive to the racial and cultural diversity in the colleges, are themselves representative of that diversity, and are well prepared by training and temperament to respond effectively to the educational needs of all the special populations served by community colleges."

2. Assembly Bill 1725, Section 4 (s) (2) "The governing board of a community college district derives its authority from statute and from its status as the entity holding the institution in trust for the benefit of the public. As a result, the governing board and the administrators it appoints have the principal legal and public responsibility for ensuring an effective hiring process."

3. Assembly Bill 1725, Section 4 (s) (3) "Faculty members derive their authority from their expertise as teachers and subject matter specialists and from their status as professionals. As a result, the faculty has an inherent professional responsibility in the development and implementation of policies and procedures governing the hiring process."

4. Assembly Bill 1725, Section 4 (t) "While the precise nature of the hiring process for faculty should be subject to local definition and control, each community college should in a way that is appropriate to its circumstances, establish a hiring process that ensures that" (1) Emphasis is placed on the responsibility of the faculty to ensure the quality of their faculty peers."

5. Assembly Bill 1725, Section 87359 "No one may be hired to serve as a community college faculty member, instructional administrator, or student services administrator under the authority granted by the regulations unless the governing board determines that he or she possesses qualifications that are at least equivalent to the minimum qualifications specified in regulations of the board adopted pursuant to Section 87356. The criteria used by the governing board in making the determination shall be reflected in the governing board's actions employing the individual. The process, as well as criteria and standards by which the governing board reaches its determinations, shall be developed and agreed upon jointly by representatives of the governing board and the academic senate, and approved by the governing board. The agreed upon process shall include reasonable procedures to ensure that the governing board relies primarily upon the advice and judgment of the academic senate to determine that each individual employed under the authority granted by the regulations possesses qualifications that are at least equivalent to the applicable minimum qualification specified in regulations adopted by the board of governors. The process shall further require that the governing board provide the academic senate with an opportunity to present its views to the governing board before the board makes a determination; and that the written record of the decision, including the views of the academic senate, shall be available for review pursuant to Section 87358."

6. Assembly Bill 1725, Section 87359 (quoted in footnote 5).