The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) is the voice of the faculty of California’s 113 Community Colleges regarding academic and professional matters. In fulfilling this role, one of the ASCCC’s important functions is to represent faculty positions to the governor, the legislature, and other government agencies regarding potential, proposed, or chaptered legislation. The ASCCC accomplishes this function through legislative visits, written communication, cooperation with system partners, and other methods.
The intent of this page is to keep faculty statewide informed regarding the ASCCC’s positions and activities regarding legislation and legislative actions. Here you will find copies of communications sent by the ASCCC President to legislators, the governor, and others as well as other updates on legislative activity. We hope that this information will help to enable local senates in fulfilling their own roles in representing faculty in their districts and on their campuses.
To follow current legislation, the ASCCC recommends using the tracker on the FACCC web site. It can be found here.
Additional useful information regarding legislative activity can be found on the governmental relations tab of the website of the Community College League of California, which can be found here.
3. What We Do To Represent You
The ASCCC represents the faculty of California’s Community Colleges regarding legislation and legislative issues in various ways.
Several times each year, Academic Senate representatives take part in “legislative days” on which they hold a series of meetings with various legislators or their aids to express faculty perspectives and positions on pending or potential legislation. These activities are typically conducted as joint ventures with the Senate’s academic partners, including representatives of the CSU and UC faculty leadership, the Chancellor’s Office, the Board of Governors, The Student Senate for California Community Colleges, and other statewide organizations.
A similar activity in which the ASCCC participates may involve advocacy regarding a specific piece of legislation. In this case, ASCCC representatives may form part of a panel with system partners such as the Community College League of California (CCLC), the faculty unions, and others. The panel holds a series of interviews with legislators and legislative aids over the course of a day, delivering a common and consistent message on the bill in question in an attempt to sway the votes in the legislature.
The ASCCC also frequently sends written statements of support or opposition for specific bills to members of the legislature, legislative committees, and the governor. These letters may be the sole work of the ASCCC or may be composed jointly with our university colleagues or with other organizations.
The ASCCC also testifies before bodies such as the Education Committees of the legislature, the Little Hoover Commission, and others. In this role, ASCCC representatives deliver formal statements and answer questions regarding faculty positions and makes arguments in favor of or against specific bills or policy directions.
Finally, ASCCC representatives may work less formally to communicate faculty positions and views to the legislature. In Sacramento, numerous opportunities arise in which faculty leaders may speak individually to legislators or legislative staff at various types of events and meetings. ASCCC representatives take advantage of any opportunity to express faculty views and present faculty positions.
4. How ASCCC Differs from Local Academic Senates
In terms of legislative advocacy and lobbying, the rules governing the ASCCC and local academic senates differ. For the purpose of understanding these rules, lobbying is essentially a subset of advocacy. Advocacy involves active support for a cause, idea or policy and is a general term involving a broad set of activities. Lobbying is an attempt to influence specific legislation and is defined by the IRS as well as various states and localities, often because of the limitations on the ways in which funds can be used for lobbying purposes.
The restrictions and guidelines for local academic senate activities are defined by California Education Code sections 7050-7068. The following excerpt from “Advocacy at the Local Level: What Your Senate Can Do to Stay Informed and Active,” published in the November 2103 Senate Rostrum, explains the activities in which local academic senate can and cannot engage:
Ed Code section 7054 (a) states that “No school district or community college district funds, services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the governing board of the district.” In short, academic senates cannot use any district resources to support or oppose any candidate or ballot measure. This restriction applies not only to district funds but also to materials, email, and even employee time when the employee is scheduled to work. Any discussion of ballot measures or elections among senators therefore should not take place on campus or during academic senate meetings.
However, Ed Code section 7054 (b) adds that “Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of any of the public resources described in subdivision (a) to provide information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure if both of the following conditions are met: (1) The informational activities are otherwise authorized by the Constitution or laws of this state. (2) The information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.” Academic senates may therefore publish information to educate the public regarding the impact of a given ballot measure as long as they do not advocate either for or against the measure.
|Date||Bill||Author||ASCCC Position||Summary||Position Letter|
|April 26, 2016||AB 1837||Low||Support if amended||AB 1937 would establish the Office of Higher Education Performance and Accountability as the statewide postsecondary education coordination and planning entity.||AB 1837 Support if amended.pdf|
|April 28, 2016||AB 1892||Medina||Support||AB 1892 would reform the Cal Grant C awards for student financial aid in ways that would offer substantial benefits to community college students.||AB 1892 Support awb.pdf|
|April 28, 2016||AB 2009||Lopez||Support||AB 2009 would “require the California Community Colleges and the California State University, and would request the University of California to designate a Dream Resource Liaison on each of their respective campuses . . . to assist students meeting specified requirements, including undocumented students, by streamlining access to all available financial aid and academic opportunities for those students.”||AB 2009 Support.pdf|
|April 28, 2016||AB 2434||Bonta||Oppose Unless Amended||AB 2434 would establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on Public Postsecondary Education to “make recommendations on improving access to and affordability in postsecondary education for Californians.”||AB 2434 oppose unless amended.pdf|
|May 4, 2016||2016 Budget Trailer Bill - Section 308 Strong Workforce Program||Concerns regarding the allocation of funding for the Strong Workforce Program in the 2016 Budget Trailer Bill. Section 308 of the Trailer Bill as written would direct funding through a fiscal agent chosen by each regional collaborative.||Budget Trailer Bill Language Regarding Strong Workforce Program..pdf|
|May 26, 2016||Community College Budget Proposal 6870-101-0001||Support $300,000 Augmentation||The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) is seeking a $300,000 augmentation to increase funding to accommodate the increasing demands for faculty participation brought on by numerous legislative reforms, the CCC student success initiative, the CTE Task Force for Workforce, Job Creation, and a Strong Economy, the C-ID course numbering system, the high school to community college articulation coordination, as well as assisting California Community College with technical assistance in a number of areas including curriculum development/process and accreditation, providing professional development for improved online education, and engaging part-time faculty in student success initiatives.||AS CC Budget Proposal Letter Final 5_26_16.pdf|
|June 20, 2017||AB 204||Medina||Support||AB 204 would ensure fairness, consistency, and comparability in district appeals process across the California Community College System by requiring regular review and comment by the Chancellor’s Office.||AB204 Medina Support .pdf|
|September 18, 2017||AB 705||Irwin||Oppose||The current language of AB 705 seriously limits the ability of the colleges to recognize and respond to the needs of the diverse student populations we serve. The selection of appropriate multiple measures is dependent on the circumstance and life experience of each student. AB 705 limits the ability of colleges to select the most appropriate measures to best reflect the needs of the individual student by subjecting all students to the same measures.||
AB 705 Letter.pdf
Governor Brown AB705.pdf
|February 1, 2018||Community College Budget Proposal||Oppose||The online community college proposal includes $120 million from Proposition 98 dollars ($100 million one time, $20 million ongoing). The Academic Senate fully supports the goal of expanding access to working adults, particularly those individuals not currently well-served by the state’s higher education offerings, and we are committed to serving all student populations in California by exploring the feasibility of developing non-traditional online programs. However, the Academic Senate does not believe that the establishment of a separate, fully online college is a viable paradigm. Our primary concerns include the following.||Community College Budget Proposal|
|April 10, 2018||Community College Budget Proposal CAFYES Expansion||Support||While the passage of SB 12 (Beall, 2017) allowed for the doubling of participating community college districts from the original 10 to 20, additional funds were not allocated in the current year budget to support the expansion. EOPS professionals are working diligently with the California Community College Chancellor’s Office and others to develop a funding mechanism that allows for this expansion without taking funds from existing programs. Unfortunately, this has proven to be challenging.||CAFYES Expantion Letter|