Name that Section - Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts

Code section 87360. The district argued that Section 87360 only applied to the initial adoption of a faculty hiring policy and did not provide the academic senate with an ongoing right to consultation on any subsequent modifications of the policies. The Court disagreed and found that “the Legislature intended the faculty, through the academic senates, to have an ongoing role in developing and consenting to faculty hiring policies and procedures.” 210 Additionally, the Court found that the existing policies must remain in effect until any proposed changes can be agreed upon by both the district and the academic senates. 211 The Court discounted the district’s argument that this provided the senates with a “veto” and allowed them to obstruct change. 212 “The bottom line is that the Legislature granted the Senates a role equal to the district’s in developing and adopting faculty hiring policies. They undoubtedly contemplated a balance between the interests of each party and that compromise would be required. Respondents may feel this decision was unwise and are free to seek a change in the law, but the law on the books is what this Court must follow.” 213 If districts follow the State Chancellor’s recommended structure and content for EEO Plans – they generally will not encompass hiring procedures. In developing processes adopting EEO Plans, it must be effectively communicated to all constituent groups what an EEO Plan is, and what it is not. Among other things, EEO Plans should not incorporate districts’ hiring procedures. Indeed, the State Chancellor specifically recommends (and we concur) that districts maintain their hiring procedures separate from their EEO Plans. (See discussion below.) We recognize that the line between EEO Plan components and actual hiring procedures can get a bit gray. To the extent EEO Plans do discuss or directly impact actual hiring procedures, districts may limit the requirement of faculty agreement over the EEO Plans in two ways: First, it is important to note these requirements only apply to faculty hiring procedures. 214 “Faculty” is defined in the Title 5 regulations as “those employees of a community college district who are employed in positions that are not designated as supervisory or management . . . and for which minimum qualifications for hire are specified by the Board of Governors.” 215 Therefore, faculty cannot exercise veto power over an entire EEO Plan because one component addresses faculty hiring procedures. Better that, one component might be subject to a “mutual agreement” standard pursuant to Irvine , but the rest of the EEO Plan would be subject to the collegial consultation process established for constituent groups. iii. Districts cannot be compelled to maintain unlawful procedures or violate legal mandates Finally, we note that despite the Court of Appeals’ emphatic holding that the plain language of Section 87360 requires mutual agreement, it also stated that: ii. Faculty agreement is only required for faculty hiring procedures The question here is: what does this mean for EEO Plan adoption procedures? We identify three important points for consideration: i. “EEO Plans” and “hiring procedures” are related but distinct and should be addressed in related but separate documents

Name that Section: Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts ©2020 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 70