Copyright© 2000 by School Services of California, Inc.
"80/20" Ratios for Short-Term Classified
Employees
California Community College districts have been challenged for many years to meet the goal of "75/25" full-time faculty vs. part-time faculty. Now another proposed ratio involving the hiring of employees is on the horizon. SB 358, by Senator Ortiz (D-Sacramento), has been amended to prohibit the number of short-term employees in the classified service from exceeding 20% of a community district's total classified workforce.
Short-term employees, as defined in this legislation, are "anyone who is employed to perform service for the district, upon the completion of which, the service required or similar services will not be extended or needed on a continuing basis." The 20% limitation that SB 358 would impose would be exclusive of employees working in specially funded programs or projects that do not receive multi-year funding.
When SB 358 was originally introduced, it would have required community colleges to perform fingerprint background checks on prospective and current substitute and temporary classified and contract employees. Those provisions have since been deleted from the bill.
The California School Employees Association (CSEA), sponsors of the measure, are attempting to secure a comprehensive approach as to how short-term employees are used by community college districts. Another bill sponsored by CSEA, SB 360 (Solis, D-El Monte) has been "double joined" with SB 358. SB 360 would require a local district, before employing a short-term employee, to specify the service required to be performed by the employee and certify the ending date of the service. Additionally, the bill allows a court to award reasonable attorney fees to any petitioner who prevails in litigation filed to enforce this provision. SB 360 only has one more committee hearing (Assembly Appropriations) on its way to the Governor's desk.
Both SB 358 and SB 360 will have a chilling effect on the ability of local districts to manage the employment needs of the district and students they serve. More and more, the flexibility of local governing boards and administration is being eroded by legislation generated by employee organizations. Although the concept of providing more full-time classified positions may be the goal of SB 358, in effect, fewer employees will be hired and districts may even contract-out for certain services that could have been provided by short-term employees.
The primary issue-the need for adequate resources to meet the needs of the
district and the flexibility to manage limited resources effectively-remain
the same.
--Arnold Bray