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

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

struggling with the course chosen. Districts that want to revisit how they are working with

various constituencies to develop their Advisory Committees and EEO Plans should consult with

legal counsel.

2. EEO Plans and Faculty Agreement on Hiring Procedures

Separate and apart from the participatory governance obligations discussed above, the Education

Code also provides academic senates with certain rights and responsibilities concerning

procedures for faculty hiring. The Education Code states: “No later than July 1, 1990, hiring

criteria, policies, and procedures for new faculty members shall be developed and agreed upon

jointly by representatives of the governing board, and the academic senate, and approved by the

governing board.”

197

This provision has been construed by the California Court of Appeal to

require agreement with the academic senate before any policies concerning faculty hiring can be

modified.

198

Irvine Valley College Academic Senate v. South Orange Community College District

199

the

Academic Senate brought a writ of mandate against the South Orange County Community

College District in an attempt to stop the district’s implementation of new faculty hiring

procedures that had not been “agreed upon jointly” with the senate as required by Education

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.”

200

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.

201

The Court discounted the district’s argument that this provided the senates with a “veto” and

allowed them to obstruct change.

202

“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.”

203

The question here is: what does this mean for EEO Plan adoption procedures? We identify three

important points for consideration:

“EEO Plans” and “hiring procedures” are related but distinct and

should be addressed in related but separate documents

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.)