Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. The California State University comprises 23 institutions of higher education, each of which is headed by a president who is appointed by the trustees.

Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. The California State University comprises 23 institutions of higher education, each of which is headed by a president who is appointed by the trustees.

This bill would prohibit the trustees from appointing a person as president of a campus of the California State University unless that person has participated in at least one public forum on that campus after being formally and publicly designated by the trustees as a finalist for appointment as president of that campus.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2163

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 8-1, 6/29/16

AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Vidak

NOES: Huff

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-27, 6/1/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill requires the Trustees of the California State University (CSU), in exercising its authority to appoint presidents, to hold at least one public forum with an appointed president of a campus within 15 working days after the appointment is made.

ANALYSIS: Existing law establishes the CSU, under the administration of the Trustees of the CSU, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. The CSU comprises 23 institutions of higher education, each of which is headed by a president who is appointed by the trustees. (Education Code § 66600)

This bill requires the Trustees of the CSU, in exercising its authority to appoint presidents, to require a person appointed as president of a campus to participate in at least one public forum on that campus within 15 working days after the trustees make that appointment.

Comments

1. Rationale for the bill. This bill emerges out of a concern regarding the process for appointment of a CSU campus president. Prior to 2011, the CSU required campus visits that included an open forum with candidate(s). The slate of final candidates who visit the campus were required to be announced in advance of their visits. This policy changed in 2011. Campus visits are now an optional component of the search process.

According to the California Faculty Association, all but a few CSU campus academic senates have adopted resolutions in favor of reinstating campus visits within the hiring process. The author asserts, “the CSU is the largest public university system in the country, and there is an urgent need for a more transparent selection process. Requiring finalists to participate in a public campus based forum will allow for the involvement and participation of the CSU community, which includes students, parents, faculty and staff.”

1. Current policy. The current Policy for the Selection of Presidents was adopted by the Trustees in September of 2011. When there is an impending vacancy on a campus, CSU Board of Trustees policy directs the chair of the board to appoint a Trustee Committee for the selection of the President comprised of the board’s chair, four trustees and the chancellor. A second committee is also empaneled, the Advisory Committee to the Trustees committee, to provide advice and consultation. The Advisory Committee is comprised of campus representatives, including:

• The chair of the campus Academic Senate;
• Two additional faculty representatives, selected by the campus faculty;
• A member of the campus support staff, selected by the staff;
• A student, selected by the constituted representatives of the student body;
• A member of the campus Advisory Board, selected by that board;
• An alumni of the campus, selected by the campus Alumni Association;
• A vice president or academic dean from the campus;
• The president of another CSU campus; and,
• Two additional members from constituent groups can be appointed by either the chair of the board or the chancellor to ensure diversity of the campus and/or service area is thoroughly considered during the search.

At the front end of the selection process this Advisory Committee and the Board of Trustees committee host an open forum with the campus community at the campus to gain input on the needs of the campus, and the desired attributes of the new President. These committees determine the final list of candidates to be advanced to the Board of Trustees. The chancellor and chair of the Trustees Committee determine whether to schedule a campus visit, which is optional. The process is confidential until a finalist for the position is announced.

1. Appointments made in the last three years. According to CSU, "beyond the campus itself, the two biggest criteria that come into play when developing a final pool of candidates is the ability to go through the process confidentially and executive compensation." According to the CSU, candidate pools have greatly increased since CSU’s presidential selection process was modified in 2011 to make a campus visit for semi-finalists optional. Fourteen campus presidents have been appointed under the new policy in the last three years. Among the campus presidents selected in 2016, all five are women, which bring the total number of women presidents to 11 of the 23 campuses.

CSU notes that the appointments made since the implementation of the new policy have resulted in the most diverse cohort of campus presidents in any system nationally. CSU believes eliminating the confidentiality that is afforded candidates under the new policy would adversely impact the applicant pool and that CSU would lose the opportunity to attract the best candidates both nationally and internally.

The provisions in this bill require an individual, within 15 days after being appointed president, to participate in an open forum on campus. This would ensure that the campus community has an opportunity to engage with a new president shortly after the appointment as well as allow the selection process to remain confidential for candidates competing for the position.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/1/16)

California State University

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/1/16)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-27, 6/1/16

AYES: Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Achadjian, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chu, Cooley, Maienschein, Ting

Prepared by:

8/3/16 18:36:24

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 2163

Subject: California State University: appointment of campus presidents

NOTE: This bill was previously heard by this Committee on June 15, 2016. No vote was taken. The author has amended the bill to respond to concerns raised in the prior committee analysis. The analysis has been updated to reflect those amendments.

SUMMARY

This bill requires the Trustees of the California State University (CSU), in exercising its authority to appoint presidents, to hold at least one public forum with an appointed president of a campus within 15 working days after the appointment is made.

BACKGROUND

Existing law establishes the CSU, under the administration of the Trustees of the CSU, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. The CSU comprises 23 institutions of higher education, each of which is headed by a president who is appointed by the trustees. (Education Code § 66600)

ANALYSIS

This bill requires the Trustees of the CSU, in exercising its authority to appoint presidents, to require a person appointed as president of a campus to participate in at least one public forum on that campus within 15 working days after the trustees make that appointment.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Rationale for the bill. This bill emerges out of a concern regarding the process for appointment of a CSU campus president. Prior to 2011, the CSU required campus visits that included an open forum with candidate(s). The slate of final candidates who visit the campus were required to be announced in advance of their visits. This policy changed in 2011. Campus visits are now an optional component of the search process.

According to the California Faculty Association, all but a few CSU campus academic senates have adopted resolutions in favor of reinstating campus visits within the hiring process. The author asserts, “the CSU is the largest public university system in the country, and there is an urgent need for a more transparent selection process. Requiring finalists to participate in a public campus based forum will allow for the involvement and participation of the CSU community, which includes students, parents, faculty and staff.”

1. Current policy. The current Policy for the Selection of Presidents was adopted by the Trustees in September of 2011. When there is an impending vacancy on a campus, California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees policy directs the chair of the board to appoint a Trustee Committee for the selection of the President comprised of the board’s chair, four trustees and the chancellor. A second committee is also empaneled, the Advisory Committee to the Trustees committee, to provide advice and consultation. The Advisory Committee is comprised of campus representatives, including:

• The chair of the campus Academic Senate;
• Two additional faculty representatives, selected by the campus faculty;
• A member of the campus support staff, selected by the staff;
• A student, selected by the constituted representatives of the student body;
• A member of the campus Advisory Board, selected by that board;
• An alumni of the campus, selected by the campus Alumni Association;
• A vice president or academic dean from the campus;
• The president of another CSU campus; and,
• Two additional members from constituent groups can be appointed by either the chair of the board or the chancellor to ensure diversity of the campus and/or service area is thoroughly considered during the search.

At the front end of the selection process this Advisory Committee and the Board of Trustees committee host an open forum with the campus community at the campus to gain input on the needs of the campus, and the desired attributes of the new President. These committees determine the final list of candidates to be advanced to the Board of Trustees. The chancellor and chair of the Trustees Committee determine whether to schedule a campus visit, which is optional. The process is confidential until a finalist for the position is announced.

1. Appointments made in the last three years. According to CSU, "beyond the campus itself, the two biggest criteria that come into play when developing a final pool of candidates is the ability to go through the process confidentially and executive compensation." According to the CSU, candidate pools have greatly increased since CSU’s presidential selection process was modified in 2011 to make a campus visit for semi-finalists optional. Fourteen campus presidents have been appointed under the new policy in the last three years. Among the campus presidents selected in 2016, all five are women, which bring the total number of women presidents to 11 of the 23 campuses.

The California State University (CSU) notes that the appointments made since the implementation of the new policy have resulted in the most diverse cohort of campus presidents in any system nationally. CSU believes eliminating the confidentiality that is afforded candidates under the new policy would adversely impact the applicant pool and that CSU would lose the opportunity to attract the best candidates both nationally and internally.

The provisions in this bill require an individual, within 15 days after being appointed president, to participate in an open forum on campus. This would ensure that the campus community has an opportunity to engage with a new president shortly after the appointment as well as allow the selection process to remain confidential for candidates competing for the position.

SUPPORT

California State University

OPPOSITION

None received on this version.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No:

Subject:

SUMMARY

This bill prohibits the Trustees of the California State University (CSU) from appointing a president of a campus unless that person has participated in at least one public forum on that campus after being formally and publicly designated by the trustees as a finalist for an appointment as president of that campus.

BACKGROUND

Existing law establishes the CSU, under the administration of the Trustees of the CSU, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. The CSU comprises 23 institutions of higher education, each of which is headed by a president who is appointed by the trustees. (Education Code § 66600)

ANALYSIS

This bill prohibits the Trustees of the CSU from appointing a president of a campus unless that person has participated in at least one public forum on that campus after being formally and publicly designated by the trustees as a finalist for an appointment as president of that campus.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Rationale for the bill. This bill emerges out of a concern regarding the process for appointment of a CSU campus president. Prior to 2011, the CSU required campus visits that included an open forum with candidate(s). The slate of final candidates who visit the campus were required to be announced in advance of their visits. This policy changed in 2011. Campus visits are now an optional component of the search process.

According to the California Faculty Association, all but a few CSU campus academic senates have adopted resolutions in favor of reinstating campus visits within the hiring process. The author asserts, “the CSU is the largest public university system in the country, and there is an urgent need for a more transparent selection process. Requiring finalist to participate in a public campus based forum will allow for the involvement and participation of the CSU community, which includes students, parents, faculty and staff.”

This bill requires CSU to hold at least one public forum before the final appointment as president of a campus is made.

1. Current policy. The current Policy for the Selection of Presidents was adopted by the Trustees in September of 2011. When there is an impending vacancy on a campus, California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees policy directs the chair of the board to appoint a Trustee Committee for the selection of the President comprised of the board’s chair, four trustees and the chancellor. A second committee is also empaneled, the Advisory Committee to the Trustees committee, to provide advice and consultation. The Advisory Committee is comprised of campus representatives, including:

• The chair of the campus Academic Senate;
• Two additional faculty representatives, selected by the campus faculty;
• A member of the campus support staff, selected by the staff;
• A student , selected by the constituted representatives of the student body;
• A member of the campus Advisory Board, selected by that board;
• An alumni of the campus, selected by the campus Alumni Association;
• A vice president or academic dean from the campus;
• The president of another CSU campus; and,
• Two additional members from constituent groups can be appointed by either the chair of the board or the chancellor to ensure diversity of the campus and/or service area is thoroughly considered during the search.

At the front end of the selection process this Advisory Committee and the Board of Trustees committee host an open forum with the campus community at the campus to gain input on the needs of the campus, and the desired attributes of the new President. These committees determine the final list of candidates to be advanced to the Board of Trustees. The chancellor and chair of the Trustees Committee determine whether to schedule a campus visit, which is optional. The process is confidential until a finalist for the position is announced.

1. Appointments made in the last three years. According to CSU, "beyond the campus itself, the two biggest criteria that come into play when developing a final pool of candidates is the ability to go through the process confidentially and executive compensation." According to the CSU, candidate pools have greatly increased since CSU’s presidential selection process was modified in 2011 to make a campus visit for semi-finalists optional. Fourteen campus presidents have been appointed under the new policy in the last three years. Among the campus presidents selected in 2016, all five are women, which bring the total number of women presidents to 11 of the 23 campuses.
2. Things to consider. The CSU notes that the appointments made since the implementation of the new policy have resulted in the most diverse cohort of campus presidents in any system nationally. CSU believes eliminating the confidentiality that is afforded candidates under the new policy would adversely impact the applicant pool and that CSU would lose the opportunity to attract the best candidates both nationally and internally. This raises several concerns for the committee.
   1. Under current law, the Trustees of the California State University are afforded the powers, duties, and functions with respect to the management, administration the system.

Should the Legislature insert itself in a university hiring process that appears to be yielding both gender and ethnic diversity in campus leadership?

• 1. Under the current policy the selection committees host an open forum on campus to solicit input on the needs of the campus, and the desired attributes of the new President. These public forums are publicly noticed, LiveStreamed, web archived, publicly available and are provided to the candidates and to the full Board of Trustees. An additional channel of public input via a confidential email address is provided to the campus community for those who were unable to attend the public forum. Additionally the Advisory Committee to the Trustees committee is comprised of students, faculty, staff and alumni. The current policy provides that any member of this committee can object to advancing a candidate as finalist.

It appears that the current process affords ample opportunity for the involvement and participation of the CSU community. How much more transparency is necessary?

• 1. According to the CSU, policy changes in 2011 were in part a response to calls from the Legislature to address executive compensation issues by expanding opportunities to hire internal to the state and system.

While proponents argue for more transparency, what level of transparency is appropriate for a presidential search? What is the trade-off between transparency and affording qualified individuals from within the CSU system to maintain professional discretion? How would requiring a candidate to participate in a public forum before a final appointment is made limit the applicant pool? Would this discourage qualified individuals from within the CSU system from applying?

SUPPORT

California Faculty Association

California Labor Federation

California State University Employees Union

OPPOSITION

California State Student Association

California State University

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2163

Author:(Low)

As Introduced Ver:February 17, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Would prohibit the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees (Trustees) from appointing a campus president unless that person has participated in at least one public forum on that campus after being formally and publicly designated by the Trustees as a finalist for appointment as president of that campus.

EXISTING LAW: Provides that the CSU Trustees are responsible for the government of their appointees and employees, including appointment, terms, duties, pay and overtime, travel expenses and allowances, housing and lodging rates, benefits, among other items.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, CSU reports the Trustees meet with presidential finalists the day prior to a regularly scheduled board meeting to select the president. Under this bill, this selection meeting would have to occur earlier, so that the finalist could subsequently attend the campus forum, after which the finalist would presumably be approved at the regularly-scheduled board meeting. An extra board meeting would cost about $30,000. In addition, conducting a public forum would involve travel for the finalist, the non-campus members of the search committee, and support staff, and live-streaming of the publicly-noticed event, would be about $20,000. Based on a recent average of three to four presidential appointments annually, total costs would be $150,000 to $200,000 annually. These costs would be less to the extent a finalist for more than one campus would be determined simultaneously.

COMMENTS: Background. The Policy for the Selection of Presidents was adopted by the Trustees in September of 2011 and provides that the Trustees, in partnership with the CSU Chancellor, are responsible for the recruitment, selection and appointment of CSU campus presidents. The policy indicates that "there is a deep commitment throughout the process to the principles of consultation with campus and community representatives and diversity."

Purpose of this bill. According to the author, "currently, the selection process is confidential until the candidate for the position has already been announced, leaving no opportunity for a public forum. While the CSU has a policy in place for president and chancellor searches, it is neither transparent nor inclusive of the campus community. In the past several years, CSU Channel Islands, Chico, Sacramento, San Jose, Sonoma, Stanislaus and Humboldt have all conducted a president search. According to their campus websites, they held public forums at the beginning of the search to establish the search committee and solicit feedback, but never held public forums with the finalists. The CSU is the largest public university system in the country, and there is an urgent need for a more open and transparent selection process. An open selection process will allow for the involvement and participation of the CSU community, which includes students, parents, faculty and staff."

Arguments in opposition. According to CSU, the current Trustees process aims to uphold the role of the campus community and final authority of the Trustees in selecting a president. The policy also respects the professional needs of candidates to ensure the broadest and most exemplary leaders would be comfortable in being part of the search process. According to CSU, the existing policy ensures that all campus stakeholders have a role in review and selection of candidates. According to CSU, "beyond the campus itself, the two biggest criteria that come into play when developing a final pool of candidates is the ability to go through the process confidentially and executive compensation." By eliminating the confidentiality that candidates are currently afforded during the process, CSU believes this bill would negatively impact the applicant pool and that CSU would miss the opportunity to attract the best candidates.

Prior CSU policy. Under the CSU policy prior to 2011, the Chancellor, working with the Advisory Committee to the Committee for the Selection of the President (ACTCSP) and the chair of the Trustee Committee for Selection of the President (TCSP), was required to determine nature of campus visits by the final slate of candidates. The purpose of the campus visit was to encourage candidates to remain interested in pursuing the presidency by engaging in ideas with campus constituents groups and through promotion of the campus and the community. While the campus visits were not designed to be used for formal evaluation of candidates, every effort was supposed to be made to shape the visit so that it generated a foundation for the new president's success on campus. The slate of final candidates who visit the campus was required to be announced in advance of their visits.

According to communication from the CSU Trustees to the CSU campus community, the 2011 changes to the policy "protects internal candidates, while also increasing the available pool of external candidates, by making the public campus visits optional. Too often we have seen candidates, particularly current presidents of other universities, withdraw from consideration because of the high profile nature of campus visits. It is important to understand that we are not recommending the elimination of campus visits. The presidential selection committee may choose to conduct campus visits publicly or in a modified manner, whichever is in the best interest of the campus." Committee staff understands that since the policy change in 2011 campus visits have been rarely conducted.

Analysis Prepared by: Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0003121

Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2163

Author:(Low) – As Introduced Ver:February 17, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees (Trustees) from appointing a campus president unless that person has participated in at least one public forum on that campus after being designated by the Trustees as a finalist for appointment as president.

FISCAL EFFECT:

According to CSU, the Trustees meet with presidential finalists the day prior to a regularly scheduled board meeting to select the president. Under this bill, this selection meeting would have to occur earlier, so that the finalist could subsequently attend the campus forum, after which the finalist would presumably be approved at the regularly-scheduled board meeting. An extra board meeting would cost about $30,000. In addition, conducting a public forum would involve travel for the finalist, the non-campus members of the search committee, and support staff, and live-streaming of the publicly-noticed event, would be about $20,000.

Based on a recent average of three to four presidential appointments annually, total costs would be $150,000 to $200,000 annually. These costs would be less to the extent a finalist for more than one campus would be determined simultaneously.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Under the Trustees current policy for selecting presidents, a committee made up of trustees is appointed to do the search and selection. This trustees' committee in turn appoints an advisory committee, which is mostly made up of campus representatives. After reviewing applicants and conducting interviews, the CSU Chancellor and the chair of the trustees committee determine whether to schedule campus visits. The Trustees typically select a president from the candidates submitted by the trustees committee.
2. Purpose. According to the author, "currently, the selection process [for campus presidents] is confidential until the candidate for the position has already been announced, leaving no opportunity for a public forum…An open selection process will allow for the involvement and participation of the CSU community, which includes students, parents, faculty and staff." This bill is sponsored by the California Faculty Association.
3. Opposition. According to CSU, "beyond the campus itself, the two biggest criteria that come into play when developing a final pool of candidates is the ability to go through the process confidentially and executive compensation." By eliminating the confidentiality that candidates are currently afforded during the process, CSU believes this bill would negatively impact the applicant pool and that CSU would miss the opportunity to attract the best candidates.

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Jose Medina, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2163 (

Author:Low) – As Introduced Ver:February 17, 2016

SUBJECT: California State University: appointment of campus presidents

SUMMARY: Would prohibit the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees (Trustees) from appointing a campus president unless that person has participated in at least one public forum on that campus after being formally and publicly designated by the Trustees as a finalist for appointment as president of that campus.

EXISTING LAW: Provides that the CSU Trustees are responsible for the government of their appointees and employees, including appointment, terms, duties, pay and overtime, travel expenses and allowances, housing and lodging rates, benefits, among other items.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS: Background. The Policy for the Selection of Presidents was adopted by the Trustees in September of 2011 and provides that the Trustees, in partnership with the CSU Chancellor, are responsible for the recruitment, selection and appointment of CSU campus presidents. The policy indicates that "there is a deep commitment throughout the process to the principles of consultation with campus and community representatives and diversity."

The Policy requires all of the following:

The Chair of the Trustees appoints a Trustee Committee for Selection of the President (TCSP) for any campus with an impending vacancy. The TCSP is composed of the Chair of the Trustees, four Trustees, and the Chancellor. The Chair designates a Trustee as chair of the TCSP.

1. The TCSP, among other duties, identifies job responsibilities and interviews candidates. Although the TCSP is the ultimate body to make the final decisions, including the advancement of candidates to the full Board, the process is to be conducted in a manner that includes the campus representatives.
2. The Chair of the Trustees appoints an advisory group to the TCSP, known as the Advisory Committee to the Committee for the Selection of the President (ACTCSP). The ACTCSP is composed of:
   1. Chair of the campus Academic Senate;
   2. Two faculty representatives selected by the campus faculty;
   3. One member of the campus support staff selected by the staff;
   4. One member of the campus Advisory Board selected by that board;
   5. One alumnus/alumna of the campus selected by the campus Alumni Association;
   6. One Vice President or academic Dean from the campus; and,
   7. The president of another CSU campus selected by the Chancellor.
   8. The Chair of the Board or the Chancellor may appoint up to two additional members from constituent groups to the ACTCSP "to strengthen its capacity to cope with the complex requirements of a specific search, including diversity of the campus, the service area or the state."
3. ACTSCP provides advice and consultation regarding the position and campus descriptions. ACTCSP members may also suggest potential candidates. The ACTCSP reviews and comments on all candidate applications, participates in candidate interviews and the deliberations that lead to the selection of the final candidate(s).
4. The process requires strict confidentiality among the TCSP and the ACTCSP. The Chair may dismiss a member of the TCSP or ACTCSP for violating confidentiality requirements.
5. The TCSP meets initially, together with the ACTCSP, to discuss the needs of the campus and the desired attributes of a new President. The policy specifies that the "committees also receive information from the campus and the community on these subjects."
6. After reviewing applicants and conducting interviews, the Chancellor and the Chair of TCSP determine whether to schedule campus visits, which are optional, or to schedule campus visits on a modified basis, depending on the circumstances of the search.
7. The Trustees will normally confine itself to the names presented by the TCSP, but reserves the right to depart from the recommended candidate(s) or from the procedures in the policy.

Purpose of this bill. According to the author, "currently, the selection process is confidential until the candidate for the position has already been announced, leaving no opportunity for a public forum. While the CSU has a policy in place for president and chancellor searches, it is neither transparent nor inclusive of the campus community. In the past several years, CSU Channel Islands, Chico, Sacramento, San Jose, Sonoma, Stanislaus and Humboldt have all conducted a president search. According to their campus websites, they held public forums at the beginning of the search to establish the search committee and solicit feedback, but never held public forums with the finalists. The CSU is the largest public university system in the country, and there is an urgent need for a more open and transparent selection process. An open selection process will allow for the involvement and participation of the CSU community, which includes students, parents, faculty and staff."

Arguments in support. According to the California Faculty Association (CFA), this bill will require the names of a finalist for the position of a campus president be made public and will require a finalist to participate in a public, campus-based forum. According to CFA, "the CSU is at a critical juncture and is in the midst of economic pressures from years of decreased funding and a growing student population. An open selection process will allow for the involvement and participation of the CSU community, which includes students, parents, faculty and staff. "

Arguments in opposition. According to CSU, the current Trustees process aims to uphold the role of the campus community and final authority of the Trustees in selecting a president. The policy also respects the professional needs of candidates to ensure the broadest and most exemplary leaders would be comfortable in being part of the search process. According to CSU, the existing policy ensures that all campus stakeholders have a role in review and selection of candidates. According to CSU, "beyond the campus itself, the two biggest criteria that come into play when developing a final pool of candidates is the ability to go through the process confidentially and executive compensation." By eliminating the confidentiality that candidates are currently afforded during the process, CSU believes this bill would negatively impact the applicant pool and that CSU would miss the opportunity to attract the best candidates.

Scope of proposal. While not prohibited, this bill, as currently drafted, does not require the submission of multiple names to the public/campus. An interpretation of this bill could be that only the finalist name is provided publically prior to selection by the Trustees. For example, compliance with the public disclosure of the candidate could be achieved by CSU indicating the candidate name on the meeting agenda for the meeting where the appointment of that candidate will be made. Trustees meeting agendas are released 10-days in advance of meetings. The candidate would then have 10-days to hold a public forum at the CSU campus. A narrow interpretation of this bill may alleviate some of the concerns surrounding the willingness of highly qualified candidates to apply and submit to the open forum process.

Prior CSU policy. Under the CSU policy prior to 2011, the Chancellor, working with the ACTCSP and the chair of the TCSP, was required to determine nature of campus visits by the final slate of candidates. The purpose of the campus visit was to encourage candidates to remain interested in pursuing the presidency by engaging in ideas with campus constituents groups and through promotion of the campus and the community. While the campus visits were not designed to be used for formal evaluation of candidates, every effort was supposed to be made to shape the visit so that it generated a foundation for the new president’s success on campus. The slate of final candidates who visit the campus was required to be announced in advance of their visits.

According to communication from the CSU Trustees to the CSU campus community, the 2011 changes to the policy "protects internal candidates, while also increasing the available pool of external candidates, by making the public campus visits optional. Too often we have seen candidates, particularly current presidents of other universities, withdraw from consideration because of the high profile nature of campus visits. It is important to understand that we are not recommending the elimination of campus visits. The presidential selection committee may choose to conduct campus visits publicly or in a modified manner, whichever is in the best interest of the campus." Committee staff understands that since the policy change in 2011 campus visits have been rarely conducted.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Faculty Association (Sponsor)

California Labor Federation

California State University Employees Union

SEIU California

Opposition

California State University

Analysis Prepared by: Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960