Existing federal law, known as Title IX, prohibits a person, on the basis of sex, from being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subject to discrimination, which includes sexual harassment, under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

The Donahoe Higher Education Act establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, as one of the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, declares, among other things, that sexual harassment of students is a form of prohibited sex discrimination and requires each postsecondary educational institution in the state to have a written policy on sexual harassment.

This bill would require the California State University, on or before December 1 of each year, to submit a report to the Legislature on the investigations and outcomes of sexual harassment reports and formal sexual harassment complaints, as provided, and would require the California State University to post these annual reports on its internet website. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to these provisions.

Existing federal law, known as Title IX, prohibits a person, on the basis of sex, from being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subject to discrimination, which includes sexual harassment, under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

The Donahoe Higher Education Act establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, as one of the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, declares, among other things, that sexual harassment of students is a form of prohibited sex discrimination and requires each postsecondary educational institution in the state to have a written policy on sexual harassment.

This bill would require the California State University, on or before December 1 of each year, to submit a report to the Legislature on the investigations and outcomes of sexual harassment reports and formal sexual harassment complaints, as provided, and would require the California State University to post these annual reports on its internet website. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to these provisions.

The Donahoe Higher Education Act establishes the California State University and provides for its University, under the administration by of the Trustees of the California State University. Existing law requires the trustees to provide by rule for the government of their appointees and employees. University, as one of the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. A portion of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, declares, among other things, that sexual harassment of students is a form of prohibited sex discrimination and requires each postsecondary educational institution in the state to have a written policy on sexual harassment.

This bill would require the California State University, on or before December 1 of each year, to submit a report to the Legislature on the investigations and outcomes of sexual harassment reports and formal sexual harassment complaints, as provided, and would require the California State University to post these annual reports on its internet website. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to these provisions.

Existing law establishes the California State University and provides for its administration by the Trustees of the California State University. Existing law requires the trustees to provide by rule for the government of their appointees and employees.

This bill would require the rules adopted by the trustees pursuant to those provisions to, among other things, (1) require each campus president and either a vice president or vice chancellor to approve all sexual harassment settlements, (2) require a report to the chancellors office and the Legislature on the number of sexual harassment complaints filed, the length of time taken to complete the investigative process, and the disposition of those cases, as specified, and (3) prohibit the opportunity to retreat rights for any campus president, provost, or other senior administrator who has for specified employees who have been determined, as provided, to have committed sexual harassment or have violated any the California State University or campus Title IX policy, as defined. IX, as defined, sexual harassment policy. The bill would prohibit a contract for the opportunity to retreat rights for any of those employees determined to have committed sexual harassment or violated any the California State University or campus Title IX sexual harassment policy from being entered into on or after January 1, 2024, or upon the expiration of a conflicting memorandum of understanding that was in effect before January 1, 2024, whichever is later. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to these provisions.

Existing law establishes the California State University and provides for its administration by the Trustees of the California State University. Existing law requires the trustees to provide by rule for the government of their appointees and employees.

This bill would require the rules adopted by the trustees pursuant to those provisions to, among other things, (1) require each campus president and either a vice president or vice chancellor to approve all sexual harassment settlements, (2) require a report to the chancellors office and the Legislature on the number of sexual harassment complaints filed, the length of time taken to complete the investigative process, and the disposition of those cases, as specified, and (3) prohibit retreat rights for any campus president, provost, or other senior administrator who has violated any California State University or campus Title IX policy, as defined. The bill would prohibit a contract for retreat rights for any of those employees determined to have violated any California State University or campus Title IX policy from being entered into on or after January 1, 2024, or upon the expiration of a conflicting memorandum of understanding that was in effect before January 1, 2024, whichever is later. The bill would make Legislative legislative findings and declarations relating to these provisions.

Existing law establishes the California State University and provides for its administration by the Trustees of the California State University. Existing law requires the trustees to provide by rule for the government of their appointees and employees.

This bill would require the rules adopted by the trustees pursuant to those provisions to, among other things, (1) require each campus president and either a vice president or vice chancellor to approve all sexual harassment settlements, (2) require a report to the Legislature on the number of sexual harassment complaints filed, the length of time taken to complete the investigative process, and the disposition of those cases, as specified, and (3) prohibit retreat rights for any campus president, provost, or other senior administrator who has violated any California State University or campus Title IX policy, as defined. The bill would prohibit a contract for retreat rights for any of those employees determined to have violated any California State University or campus Title IX policy from being entered into on or after January 1, 2024, or upon the expiration of a conflicting memorandum of understanding that was in effect before January 1, 2024, whichever is later. The bill would make Legislative findings and declarations relating to these provisions.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 808

Author: Dodd (D)

Amended: 6/15/23

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 3/29/23

AYES: Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Cortese, McGuire, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Glazer

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/25/23

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Min, Niello, Stern, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/18/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0, 5/25/23

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-0, 8/24/23 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: California State University: annual report: sexual harassment reports: formal sexual harassment complaints

SOURCE: California Faculty Association

California State University Employee Union

DIGEST:

This bill requires the California State University (CSU) to annually submit a report to the Legislature related to sexual harassment reports, complaints, investigations, hearings, and appeals.

Assembly Amendments

(1) delete provisions related to the approval of sexual harassment settlements and the opportunity to retreat; and, (2) recast provisions related to reporting on sexual harassment complaints.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

Title IX

1. Provides that, in part, "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program of activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act)
2. Requires each school district and county office of education, or a local public or private agency that receives funding from the state or federal government, to designate a person to serve as the Title IX compliance coordinator to enforce compliance at the local level, including coordinating any complaints of non-compliance. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act)
3. Requires each educational institution in California (K-12 and postsecondary education) to have a written policy on sexual harassment, and requires schools to display the policy in a prominent location in the main administrative building or other area of the campus or schoolsite, be provided as part of any orientation program for new students, provided to each faculty member, administrative staff and support staff, and appear in any publication of the school that sets forth the rules, regulations, procedures and standards of conduct. (Education Code (EC) § 231.5 and § 66281.5)

Sexual harassment

1. Defines “sexual harassment” as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, made by someone from or in the work or educational setting under the following conditions: quid pro quo, as defined, and hostile workplace, as defined. Existing law further defines “sexual harassment” as sexual violence, sexual battery, and sexual exploitation, as defined. (EC § 212.5 and §66262.5)

Existing reporting related to campus crime statistics

1. Requires, under the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, all higher education institutions that participate in federal student aid programs to prepare, publish, and distribute annual security reports disclosing specified campus crime statistics and campus security policies. Reportable crimes include homicides, sex offenses, robberies, aggravated assaults, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. (Unites States Code, Title 20, § 1092)
2. Requires the State Auditor to conduct an audit of a sample of at least six institutions of postsecondary education in California that receive federal student aid to do both of the following:
   1. Evaluate the accuracy of the institutions’ statistics and the procedures used by the institutions to identify, gather, and track data for publishing, disseminating, and reporting accurate crime statistics in compliance with the requirements of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics; and,
   2. Evaluate the institutions’ compliance with state law governing crime reporting and the development and implementation of related policies and procedures. (EC § 67382)

This bill:

1. Requires CSU, by December 1 of each year, to submit a report to the Legislature that includes all of the following:
2. The number of sexual harassment reports filed disaggregated by each individual campus and the Chancellor’s office.
3. The number of formal sexual harassment complaints filed with the campus-based or systemwide Title IX coordinator disaggregated by each individual campus and the Chancellor’s Office. Formal sexual harassment complaints shall include all formal sexual harassment complaints that have been submitted to a Title IX office regardless of whether or not an official investigation has begun.
4. The number of formal sexual harassment complaints under investigation, the length of time taken to commence an official investigation after a formal sexual harassment complaint is filed, and the length of time taken from the beginning of an investigation to the completion of a final investigative report, disaggregated by each individual campus and the Chancellor’s Office as follows:
   • 1. The length of time taken to begin an official investigation after a formal sexual harassment complaint is filed shall be grouped in the following categories:
        1. Less than two weeks.
        2. Two weeks to one month.
        3. One to three months.
        4. Three to six months.
        5. Six to 12 months.
        6. 12 to 18 months.
        7. More than 18 months.
     2. The length of time taken from the beginning of an investigation to the completion of a final investigative report shall be grouped in the following categories:
        1. Less than six months.
        2. Six to 12 months.
        3. 12 to 18 months.
        4. More than 18 months.
5. The number of hearings conducted for formal sexual harassment complaints and the outcomes of those hearings disaggregated by each individual campus and the Chancellor’s Office. The outcomes of those hearings shall be grouped in the following categories:
6. An informal resolution or settlement was agreed to by the complainant and respondent.

ii) A hearing was convened and a final administrative decision was rendered by the decisionmaker.

• • 1. A hearing is scheduled or has concluded, but the decisionmaker has not rendered a final administrative decision.

1. The number of appeals requested by either the complainant or respondent disaggregated by each individual campus and the Chancellor’s Office.
2. The outcomes of the appeals disaggregated by each individual campus and the Chancellor’s Office.
3. Requires the CSU to post the annual reports on its internet website.
4. Includes the following definitions:
5. “Chancellor’s office” means the Office of the Chancellor of the CSU.
6. “Final administrative decision” means the written determination of whether or not sexual harassment occurred as determined by the decisionmaker following the final investigative report and the subsequent hearing.
7. “Final investigative report” means the final report of the summary of relevant evidence provided by the Title IX investigator to the complainant and respondent.
8. States legislative intent that CSU annually report on the investigations and outcomes of sexual harassment reports and formal sexual harassment complaints.
9. States legislative findings and declarations relative to CSU’s handling of sexual harassment and sexual violence complaints.

Comments

Need for the bill. According to the author, “it is clear that despite existing Title IX protections and requirements already in law, there are deficiencies in how our CSU campuses carry out these duties that require immediate attention. In light of ongoing, egregious, and systemic sexual harassment and abuse allegations and settlements across the CSU system, SB 808 would increase transparency and accountability by requiring detailed public reporting of sexual harassment complaints lodged at each campus and to the CSU Chancellor’s office. The pervasive mishandling of harassment and abuse by senior administrators, staff, and faculty has eroded public trust and caused students to suffer, depriving them of equal and free access to education. In order to rebuild trust and confidence in the safety of our campus communities, additional transparency, oversight, and accountability of our campuses is sorely needed.”

Recent State Audit. On July 18, 2023, the State Auditor released an audit related to the CSU system’s handling of sexual harassment complaints involving executives, faculty, and staff at the Chancellor’s Office and three campuses (Fresno, San Jose, and Sonoma). The audit made several findings, including that without sufficient guidance, campuses did not appropriately investigate some allegations of sexual harassment; campuses have not always provided adequate discipline or corrective actions; and, the Chancellor’s Office must take a more active approach to overseeing campuses. The audit made several recommendations for actions that the CSU should take, including standardizing how campuses make and document their decisions about whether sexual harassment allegations warrant a formal investigation. [http://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2022-109/index.html]

Assessment of CSU’s practices. The CSU hired a private firm (Cozen O’Connor) in March 2022 to conduct a systemwide assessment of its Title IX and Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (DHR) programs. The stated goal is to “strengthen CSU’s institutional culture by assessing current practices and providing insights, recommendations, and resources to advance CSU's Title IX and DHR training, awareness, prevention, intervention, compliance, and support systems.” The Cozen O’Connor report was released on July 17, 2023; this report recommends that the Chancellor’s Office shift from the current consultative model to an active oversight model to introduce tiered accountability and ensure effective collaboration, leadership and advice. Recommendations are focused at both the system and campus level and fall into six general categories: strengthen the Chancellor’s Office oversight and supervision; address infrastructure challenges; prevention, education, training and awareness; recommendations to address other conduct of concern; address the trust gap; and enhanced accountability.

[https://www.calstate.edu/titleix/Documents/california-state-university_systemwide-report_july-17-2023.pdf]

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

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would impose minor and absorbable General Fund costs to CSU. According to CSU, it already collects most of the information required by this bill from its campuses.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/24/23)

California Faculty Association (co-source)

California State University Employee Union (co-source)

Cal State Student Association

Service Employees International Union, California

Solano County Board of Supervisors

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/24/23)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-0, 8/24/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Mathis, McCarty, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonta, Gallagher, Garcia, Jones-Sawyer, Maienschein, McKinnor, Ward

Prepared by: Lynn Lorber / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/25/23 13:37:45

**** END ****

Date of Hearing: August 16, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 808

Author:(Dodd) – As Amended Ver:June 15, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the California State University (CSU) to annually submit to the Legislature and post on its website a report on sexual harassment on CSU campuses.

Specifically, this bill requires CSU, by December 1 of each year, to submit a report to the Legislature with information, including disaggregated information, on:

1. The number of sexual harassment reports.
2. The number of formal sexual harassment complaints filed with the campus-based or systemwide Title IX coordinator.
3. The number of formal sexual harassment complaints under investigation, the length of time taken to commence an official investigation after a formal sexual harassment complaint is filed, and the length of time taken from the beginning of an investigation to the completion of a final investigative report.
4. The number of hearings conducted for formal sexual harassment complaints and the outcomes of those hearings.
5. The number of appeals requested by either the complainant or respondent and the outcomes of those appeals.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor and absorbable General Fund costs to CSU. According to CSU, it already collects most of the information required by this bill from its campuses.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

In light of ongoing, egregious, and systemic sexual harassment and abuse allegations and settlements across the CSU system, SB 808 would increase transparency and accountability by requiring detailed public reporting of sexual harassment complaints lodged at each campus and to the CSU Chancellor’s office. The pervasive mishandling of harassment and abuse by senior administrators, staff, and faculty has eroded public trust and caused students to suffer, depriving them of equal and free access to education. In order to rebuild trust and confidence in the safety of our campus communities, additional transparency, oversight, and accountability of our campuses is sorely needed.

1. Background. Federal Title IX regulations protect students participating in education programs from experiencing discrimination based on their sex, including sexual harassment. Title IX requires a postsecondary education institution receiving federal funding, including financial aid for students, to designate a Title IX coordinator and have a procedure in place for handling complaints of sexual harassment. In addition, Title IX requires institutions to track sexual harassment reports and complaints.

In March 2022, USA Today reported the mishandling of a sexual misconduct case by the then-Chancellor of the CSU. Over the course of several months, various Title IX issues at CSU were revealed by the media. In June 2022, the Board of Trustees of the CSU hired a law firm to conduct a systemwide Title IX assessment. The firm presented an overview of its findings in May 2023, which indicated various issues with Title IX implementation at CSU campuses, including inadequate data and information available at the systemwide level.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Mike Fong, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 808

Author:(Dodd) – As Amended Ver:June 15, 2023

SENATE VOTE: 40-0

SUBJECT: California State University: annual report: sexual harassment reports: formal sexual harassment complaints

SUMMARY: Requires the California State University (CSU) to annually publish a report on the grievance procedures for sexual harassment reports and formal sexual harassment complaints at CSU campuses and the CSU Chancellor’s office. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the CSU to publish and submit a report to the Legislature annually by December 1 of each year. The report will include the following data points disaggregated by campus and by those reported to the CSU Chancellor’s office:
   1. The number of sexual harassment reports;
   2. The number of formal sexual harassment complaints filed to the Title IX office.; and,
   3. The number of formal sexual harassment complaints under investigation;
   4. The length of time taken to begin an official investigation after a formal complaint is filed with the designated Title IX office. The data will be grouped into the following categories of time:
      1. Less than two weeks;
      2. Two weeks to one month;
      3. One to three months;
      4. Three to six months;
      5. Six to twelve months;
      6. Twelve to 18 months; and
      7. More than 18 months.
   5. The length of time between the beginning of an investigation and the completion of the final investigative report. The data will be grouped into the following categories of time:
      1. Less than six months;
      2. Six to twelve months;
      3. Twelve to 18 months; and,
      4. More than 18 months.
   6. The number of hearings conducted for formal sexual harassment complaints and the outcomes of those hearings. The outcomes will be grouped into the following categories:
      1. An informal resolution or settlement agreed to by the complainant and respondent;
      2. A hearing was convened and a final administrative decision was made by the decision maker; and,
      3. A hearing is scheduled or has concluded, but the decision maker has not made a final administrative decision; and,
   7. The number of appeals requested by either the complainant or the respondent and the outcomes of the appeals.
2. Defines the following:
   1. “Chancellor’s office” means the office of the Chancellor of the California State University;
   2. “Final administrative decision” means the written determination of whether or not sexual harassment occurred as determined by the decisionmaker following the final investigative report and the subsequent hearing;
   3. “Final investigative report” means the final report of the summary of relevant evidence provided by the Title IX investigator to the complainant and the respondent; and,
   4. “Sexual harassment” has the same meaning as sexual harassment in subdivision (a) of Section 66262.5.

EXISTING LAW: Federal law.

1. No person in the United States will, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance except for specified circumstances including membership of fraternities and sororities (United States Code Title 20, Chapter 38, Section 1681… colloquially known as Title IX).
2. Outlines the required response pursuant to Title IX, of a postsecondary higher education institution when the institution is made aware of an alleged sexual harassment incident on campus. The regulations include a requirement for a formal complaint, a grievance procedure for an investigation into whether the incident based on a standard of evidence occurred, and a method of appealing the outcome of the grievance process (Federal Code of Regulations Title 34, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subpart D, Section 106.45).

State law.

1. Defines “Sexual Harassment” as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, made by someone from or in the work or educational setting under the following conditions: quid pro quo, as defined, and hostile workplace, as defined. Further defines “Sexual Harassment” as sexual violence, sexual battery, and sexual exploitation, as defined (Education Code (EDC) Section 66262.5 and 212.5).
2. Outlines in state law the procedures an institution is required to take when it becomes aware of a complaint of sexual harassment on campus including, but not limited to, an investigation and live hearing with advisors for the complainant and respondent (EDC Section 66281.8 subdivision (b) subparagraph 3-4).
3. Establishes the CSU system, made of 23 campuses, and bestows upon the CSU Trustees, through the Board of Trustees, the powers, duties, and functions with respect to the management, administration, and control of the CSU system (EDC Section 66606 and 89030, et seq).

FISCAL EFFECT: Committee staff notes the bill has been amended since the Senate and could reduce the cost of the bill significantly.

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriation, the CSU estimates that the bill’s provisions regarding an opportunity to retreat and the reporting requirement should likely entail minor and absorbable costs. However, the CSU indicates that the bill may result in administrative confusion due to incompatibility with CSU terminology and processes. For example, the CSU does not have contracts; it has appointments. Additionally, the CSU’s definition of final administrative and judicial decisions includes the appeals process guaranteed to employees, while the bill does not. To the extent that this bill’s language leads to implementation issues, this could potentially result in additional, unknown General Fund costs for the CSU.

COMMENTS: Purpose of the measure. As expressed by the author, “it is clear that despite existing Title IX protections and requirements already in law, there are deficiencies in how our CSU campuses carry out these duties that require immediate attention. In light of ongoing, egregious, and systemic sexual harassment and abuse allegations and settlements across the CSU system, SB 808 would increase transparency and accountability by requiring detailed public reporting of sexual harassment complaints lodged at each campus and to the CSU Chancellor’s office. The pervasive mishandling of harassment and abuse by senior administrators, staff, and faculty has eroded public trust and caused students to suffer, depriving them of equal and free access to education. In order to rebuild trust and confidence in the safety of our campus communities, additional transparency, oversight, and accountability of our campuses is sorely needed.”

Under the current Title IX law and regulations, postsecondary education institutions that receive federal funding, including financial aid for students, are required to track sexual harassment reports/complaints through the process to the outcome of the complaints. This measure would require the “tracked” sexual harassment reports and complaints to become part of the public record through an annual report provided to the Legislature by the CSU.

Title IX and sexual harassment grievance procedures. Established in 1972, Title IX Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) protects students who elect to participate in education programs from experiencing discrimination based on their sex. The U.S. Department of Education confirmed in June 2021, that Title IX protections extend to protect students from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

On September 22, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, heard Alexander v. Yale (1980), 631 F.2^nd 178 (2^nd Cir.). The court ruled sexual harassment of female students was considered sex discrimination and, therefore, under Title IX was rendered illegal. The case found that a group of female students who had attended Yale College had been sexually harassed by their flute teacher and hockey coach, and Yale College had not provided adequate due process under the law for these students to have their complaints addressed. This case became the impetus for the grievance procedures found within subsequent regulations for Title IX.

Under Title IX each postsecondary education institution that receives federal funding must have a Title IX coordinator and have a procedure in place for handling complaints of sex-based harassment. According to the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, sex-based harassment or gender-based harassment which can be reported under Title IX reporting requirements include:

• Sexual Harassment – unwelcomed conduct of a sexual nature; including, unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature; and,
• Sexual Violence – physical sexual acts perpetrated against a person's will or where a person is incapable of giving consent; including, rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual abuse, and sexual coercion.

Should a campus Title IX coordinator receive a report of sexual harassment, the Title IX regulations dictate the following procedures should occur:

There are two pathways by which a Title IX complaint can be resolved, either the formal process, as enumerated above or through an informal resolution.

The informal resolution process or alternative resolution occurs when the complainant (the survivor), the respondent (the accused), and the Title IX Coordinator agree to an outcome of the complaint without determination of whether or not the sexual harassment occurred. The purpose of an informal resolution is to provide mitigating measures that all parties feel will prevent sexual harassment from continuing and to restore equal access to education programs for all parties. SB 808 (Dodd) is a unique measure as it represents the first time the Legislature has stepped into an oversight role in Title IX compliance by requiring tracking data from a postsecondary education institution. SB 808 (Dodd) will provide important data as the Legislature and advocates access to the current state of compliance with Title IX.

CSU Title IX investigations. In March 2022, as part of their multi-year investigation into Title IX compliance across the United States, USA Today disclosed to the public, the mishandling of a sexual misconduct case by the then-Chancellor of the CSU, Joseph Castro. Over the course of several months, as additional investigations by the Los Angeles Times and Ed Source revealed the pervasive number of Title IX cases across the system, the Board of Trustees of the CSU, in June 2022, hired a law firm, Cozen O’Connor, to conduct a systemwide Title IX assessment. On May 24, 2023, the firm presented an overview of its findings at a public board meeting of the Board of Trustees of the CSU. The findings included the following:

1. No oversight authority for Campus Title IX/Discrimination, Harassment, and Retailiation programs;
2. Limited education for Board of Trustees, Presidents, Senior leaders, and supervisors over Title IX DHR; and,
3. Inadequate data and information to track patterns and trends to inform prevention and remedial efforts.

While the finalized report from Cozen O’Connor has yet to be finalized and made available to the public, SB 808 (Dodd) is an initial response to some of the concerns expressed during the Board of Trustee presentation. The firm found there was inadequate data and information available at the systemwide level and this measure would rectify this inadequacy by requiring CSU Chancellor’s office to report on sexual harassment complaints procedures to the Legislature each year. The report as required by SB 808 (Dodd) will help fill policy gaps in the knowledge base of the Legislature as to what is occurring on campus with regard to Title IX complaints.

Will this measure be impacted by the changes in Title IX regulations at the Federal level? In June 2022, the Biden Administration announced changes to the Title IX regulations which would undo the Betsy DeVos regulations from 2020. Originally the final ruling was scheduled for release in the Spring of 2023; however, an unprecedented number of comments from the public have delayed the release date of the final ruling to October 2023.

Committee Staff have closely monitored the new proposed regulations and at this time, do not see conflicts between the measure and the pending regulations.

Arguments in support. As expressed by the California Faculty Association, “legislation like SB 808 (Dodd) is needed because there is systemic abuse and harassment happening at campuses across the CSU system. Unfortunately, despite existing Title IX requirements and protections, egregious allegations of sexual assault and harassment have been mishandled or swept under the rug by senior administrators at campuses across the CSU system.

Simply put, SB 808 would increase protections for CSU students by increasing transparency and accountability in the California State University system.”

Additional accolades for the need for SB 808 (Dodd) are enumerated by the California State University Employee Union as follows, “SB 808 (Dodd) seeks to add transparency to Title IX procedures across the CSU, the lack of which has significantly contributed to the pervasive abuse of power at the CSU. By requiring the CSU to provide detailed annual reports to the Legislature including the number of reports and official complaints lodged, the amount of time taken to commence and complete the investigatory process, and the disposition of those cases broken down by campus and the Office of the Chancellor, SB 808 (Dodd) will create much-needed accountability in Title IX investigations. SB 808 (Dodd) will begin to shine light on the egregious behaviors that have allowed systemic abuse and harassment to continue unchecked across the CSU for far too long. Students, faculty, and staff deserve to live, work, and learn in a safe environment. When the system put in place to provide that safety fails to investigate and discipline sexual misconduct, change is desperately needed.”

Committee comments. SB 808 (Dodd) represents an intermittent step the Legislature can take to maintain transparency moving forward. Title IX cases occur at all campuses and impact all postsecondary education institutions throughout the state. While CSU deficiencies have been emphasized by the press, the University of California and the California Community College system have had egregious Title IX cases featured in the Los Angeles Times. To remove the ambiguity around Title IX and to fully understand whether institutions in California have upheld their duty to protect students and staff, the Legislature is conducting legislative briefings to ascertain the scope of the problem and to provide legislative solutions. The reporting requirements in SB 808 (Dodd) will provide additional data points to help structure future policies around how to strengthen Title IX compliance.

Committee Staff acknowledges expanding reporting requirements to the CCC and the UC is sound policy; however, without additional knowledge as to the Title IX capacity of these institutions, Committee Staff recommends waiting until the completion of the legislative briefings before expanding the reporting requirement.

SB 808 (Dodd) requires the CSU to provide aggregated data on how long an institution takes to investigate sexual harassment complaints. Neither the federal Title IX regulations nor state law requires Title IX investigations to be concluded within a specific time period. A myriad of factors could influence the length of time a campus takes to investigate a Title IX complaint and many of the contributing factors are beyond the institution’s control. For example, the investigator may have difficulty finding key witnesses or may have to delay the investigation due to law enforcement involvement.

Committee Staff acknowledges there is no statutory requirement for the timeline of an investigation; however, providing timeframes as to how long an investigation is open is necessary for transparency and oversight.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Faculty Association
California State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU California)
California State Student Association
California State University Employees Union (CSUEU)
California Teachers Association
Solano County Board of Supervisors

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Ellen Cesaretti-Monroy / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 808

Author: Dodd (D)

Amended: 4/27/23

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 3/29/23

AYES: Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Cortese, McGuire, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Glazer

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/25/23

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Min, Niello, Stern, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/18/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener

SUBJECT: California State University: terms of employment: settlements and retreat opportunities

SOURCE: California Faculty Association

California State University Employee Union

DIGEST:

This bill requires the rules adopted by the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees relating to tenure, layoff, dismissal, demotion, suspension, and reinstatement of academic and administrative employees to (1) require specific personnel to approve sexual harassment settlements; (2) require a report on the number of sexual harassment complaints and disposition of those cases; and, (3) prohibit the opportunity to retreat for specified personnel who have been determined to have committed sexual harassment or who violated CSU Title IX sexual harassment policies.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

Title IX

1. Provides that, in part, "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program of activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act)
2. Requires each school district and county office of education, or a local public or private agency that receives funding from the state or federal government, to designate a person to serve as the Title IX compliance coordinator to enforce compliance at the local level, including coordinating any complaints of non-compliance. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act)
3. Requires each educational institution in California (K-12 and postsecondary education) to have a written policy on sexual harassment, and requires schools to display the policy in a prominent location in the main administrative building or other area of the campus or schoolsite, be provided as part of any orientation program for new students, provided to each faculty member, administrative staff and support staff, and appear in any publication of the school that sets forth the rules, regulations, procedures and standards of conduct. (Education Code (EC) § 231.5 and § 66281.5)

CSU appointees and employees

1. Requires the Trustees of the CSU to provide for, by rule, for the government of their appointees and employees, including but not limited to:  appointment; classification; terms; duties; pay and overtime pay; uniform and equipment allowances; travel expenses and allowances; rates for housing and lodging; moving expenses; leave of absence; tenure; vacation; holidays; layoff; dismissal; demotion; suspension; sick leave; reinstatement; and employer’s contribution to employees’, annuitants’, and survivors’ health benefits plans. (EC § 89500)

Existing reporting related to campus crime statistics

1. Requires, under the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, all higher education institutions that participate in federal student aid programs to prepare, publish, and distribute annual security reports disclosing specified campus crime statistics and campus security policies. Reportable crimes include homicides, sex offenses, robberies, aggravated assaults, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. (Unites States Code, Title 20, § 1092)
2. Requires the State Auditor to conduct an audit of a sample of at least six institutions of postsecondary education in California that receive federal student aid to do both of the following:
   1. Evaluate the accuracy of the institutions’ statistics and the procedures used by the institutions to identify, gather, and track data for publishing, disseminating, and reporting accurate crime statistics in compliance with the requirements of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics; and,
   2. Evaluate the institutions’ compliance with state law governing crime reporting and the development and implementation of related policies and procedures. (EC § 67382)

This bill:

1. Requires the rules adopted by the CSU Board of Trustees relating to tenure, layoff, dismissal, demotion, suspension, and reinstatement of academic and administrative employees to do all of the following:

Sexual harassment settlements

• 1. Require each campus president and, either a vice president or vice chancellor, to approve all sexual harassment settlements.

Report about sexual harassment complaints

• 1. Require a report, disaggregated by complaints files with each individual campus and complaints filed with the Chancellor’s office, to the Legislature and the CSU Chancellor’s office, and be posted on the CSU’s website, on all of the following:
     1. The number of sexual harassment complaints filed;
     2. The length of time taken to complete the investigative process; and,
     3. The disposition of those cases.

Retreat rights

• 1. Prohibit:
     1. The opportunity to retreat for any campus employee who is classified as executive management or management personnel and who has been determined in a final administrative decision or a final judicial decision to have committed sexual harassment or who has violated the CSU Title IX policy; and,
     2. A contract for the opportunity to retreat for any employee identified above who has been determined in a final administrative decision or a final judicial decision to have committed sexual harassment or to have violated the CSU Title IX sexual harassment policy from being entered into on or after January 1, 2024, or upon the expiration of a conflicting memorandum of understanding that was in effect before January 1, 2024, whichever is later.

1. Provides the following definitions:
   1. “Final administrative decision” means a final determination based on the investigative findings of a sexual harassment complaint by a Title IX compliance coordinator or other designated investigator at a college or university.
   2. “Final judicial decision” means a final determination of a matter submitted to a court that is recorded in a judgment or order of that court.
2. States findings and declarations relative to CSU’s handling of sexual harassment and sexual violence complaints.

Comments

Need for the bill. According to the author, “It is clear that despite existing Title IX protections and requirements already in law, there are deficiencies in how our CSU campuses carry out these duties that require immediate attention. In light of egregious and systemic sexual harassment and abuse allegations and settlements across the CSU system, SB 808 would increase transparency and accountability requirements by providing additional oversight and approval of sexual harassment settlements, limiting ‘retreat rights’ for senior administrators who have violated Title IX policies, and requiring detailed public reporting of sexual harassment complaints lodged at each campus. The pervasive and mishandling of harassment and abuse by senior administrators has eroded public trust and caused students to suffer, depriving them of equal and free access to an education. In order to rebuild trust and confidence in the safety of our campus communities, additional transparency, oversight, and accountability of our campuses is sorely needed.”

Context. Colleges and universities that receive public funds, or whose students receive federal or state financial aid, must adhere to the requirements of Title IX and follow specific procedures to protect students and employees. Audits conducted by the State Auditor, internal investigations, and news reports have shown long-standing weaknesses in how public postsecondary educational institutions, and individual campuses, prevent sexual harassment and handle Title IX complaints.

Pending State Audit. The State Auditor is currently preparing an audit related to the CSU system’s handling of sexual harassment complaints involving executives, faculty, and staff at the Chancellor’s Office and three campuses (Fresno, San Jose, and Sonoma). The scope of the audit will include a determination of whether CSU has adequate systemwide policies and procedures, a review of CSU’s process for investigating alleged sexual harassment, review of systemwide policies on return rights, assessment of policies related to letters of recommendation, and identification of the total number of sexual harassment complaints against employees of the CSU system during the past five years. This audit is expected to be released in June 2023. [https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/scope/2022-109]

Assessment of CSU’s practices. The CSU hired a private firm (Cozen O’Connor) in March 2022 to conduct a systemwide assessment of its Title IX and Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation programs. This assessment is to include a comprehensive analysis of CSU's systems of compliance and systems of care, and provide information on program strengths and opportunities.  This assessment  is designed to strengthen the CSU institutional culture by assessing current practices at the Chancellor’s Office (system-level) and at each CSU campus and providing insights, recommendations, and resources to advance training, awareness, prevention, intervention, compliance, and support systems.

Cozen O’Connor will work with each campus to provide iterative, collaborative and ongoing feedback during and after the campus assessment. Cozen O’Connor will meet with each campus president to describe the assessment, share observations and provide recommendations. As with all information gathered by Cozen O’Connor, all feedback will be shared without attribution and in the aggregate. Presidents will be encouraged and expected to update their university community about what they have learned during the assessment and anticipated action steps.

Cozen O’Connor has conducted x# of campus visits and is expected to present a written report of their assessment to the CSU Board of Trustees in May 2023, with recommended next steps. [CSU Systemwide Title IX & DHR Assessment by Cozen O'Connor | CSU (calstate.edu)]

Option to retreat. The CSU Board of Trustees approved new policies in July 2022, to bolster and clarify employment practices. The CSU now has a systemwide policy governing administrator employees’ option to retreat. The policy applies to all administrator appointments made at a CSU campus or the Chancellor’s Office which include the option to retreat to a faculty position. The policy is intended to be prospective and does not impact retreats granted prior to its effective dates except on a case-by-case basis in the event of a serious policy violation.

The opportunity to “retreat” to a faculty position is frequently offered to faculty who are required to relinquish tenure in order to become a university administrator.  The opportunity to retreat gives the new administrator the option to return to a faculty position when their administrative role at the university comes to an end. New or continuing administrators often negotiate the opportunity to retreat as a term of their employment as an administrator because university administrators, unlike tenured faculty, are at-will employees who have no assurance of permanent employment. 

The new policy includes the following guidance:

1. An administrator will be ineligible to exercise the option if there is a finding of misconduct or the administrator is under investigation for misconduct.
2. Memorialization of terms of the retreat will be placed in the administrative appointment letter.
3. There must be consultation with the tenured faculty in the respective department to which the individual would potentially return.

This bill essentially codifies CSU’s policy on the option to retreat. [Viewing Employment Policy Governing Administrator Employees' Option to Retreat (policystat.com)]

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the CSU estimates that the bill’s provisions regarding opportunity to retreat and the reporting requirement should likely entail minor and absorbable costs. However, the CSU indicates that the bill may result in administrative confusion due to incompatibility with CSU terminology and processes. For example, the CSU does not have contracts; it has appointments. Additionally, the CSU’s definition of final administrative and judicial decisions includes the appeals process guaranteed to employees, while the bill does not. To the extent that this bill’s language leads to implementation issues, this could potentially result in additional, unknown General Fund costs for the CSU.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/18/23)

California Faculty Association (co-source)

California State University Employee Union (co-source)

Cal State Student Association

Service Employees International Union, California

Solano County Board of Supervisors

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/18/23)

None received

Prepared by: Lynn Lorber / ED. / (916) 651-4105

5/20/23 13:09:40

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 808 (Dodd) - California State University: terms of employment: settlements and retreat opportunities

Bill Summary:

This bill requires the rules adopted by the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees to require specific personnel to approve sexual harassment settlements and report on the number of sexual harassment complaints and disposition of those cases. The bill also requires these rules to prohibit retreat rights for specified personnel who violate CSU or campus Title IX policies.

Fiscal Impact:

The CSU estimates that the bill’s provisions regarding opportunity to retreat and the reporting requirement should likely entail minor and absorbable costs. However, the CSU indicates that the bill may result in administrative confusion due to incompatibility with CSU terminology and processes. For example, the CSU does not have contracts; it has appointments. Additionally, the CSU’s definition of final administrative and judicial decisions includes the appeals process guaranteed to employees, while the bill does not. To the extent that the bill’s language leads to implementation issues, this could potentially result in additional, unknown General Fund costs for the CSU.

Background:

Existing law provides that, in part, "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program of activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. The law also requires each school district and county office of education, or a local public or private agency that receives funding from the state or federal government, to designate a person to serve as the Title IX compliance coordinator to enforce compliance at the local level, including coordinating any complaints of non-compliance.

Existing law requires each educational institution in California (K-12 and postsecondary education) to have a written policy on sexual harassment, and requires schools to display the policy in a prominent location in the main administrative building or other area of the campus or schoolsite, be provided as part of any orientation program for new students, provided to each faculty member, administrative staff and support staff, and appear in any publication of the school that sets forth the rules, regulations, procedures and standards of conduct.

Existing law requires the Trustees of the CSU to provide for, by rule, for the government of their appointees and employees, including but not limited to:  appointment; classification; terms; duties; pay and overtime pay; uniform and equipment allowances; travel expenses and allowances; rates for housing and lodging; moving expenses; leave of absence; tenure; vacation; holidays; layoff; dismissal; demotion; suspension; sick leave; reinstatement; and employer’s contribution to employees’, annuitants’, and survivors’ health benefits plans.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires the rules adopted by the CSU Board of Trustees relating to tenure, layoff, dismissal, demotion, suspension, and reinstatement of academic and administrative employees to do the following:

1. Require each campus president and, either a vice president or vice chancellor, to approve all sexual harassment settlements.
2. Require a report, disaggregated by campus and system level, to the Legislature and the CSU Chancellor’s office, and be posted on the CSU’s website, on all of the following: the number of sexual harassment complaints filed; the length of time taken to complete the investigative process; and the disposition of those cases.
3. Prohibit retreat rights for any campus president, provost, or other senior administrator who has violated any CSU or campus Title IX policy; and a contract for retreat rights for any employee identified above who has been determined to have violated any CSU or campus Title IX policy from being entered into on or after January 1, 2024, or upon the expiration of a conflicting memorandum of understanding that was in effect before January 1, 2024, whichever is later.

Staff Comments:

The State Auditor is currently preparing an audit related to the CSU system’s handling of sexual harassment complaints involving executives, faculty, and staff at the Chancellor’s Office and three campuses (Fresno, San Jose, and Sonoma). The scope of the audit will include a determination of whether CSU has adequate systemwide policies and procedures, a review of CSU’s process for investigating alleged sexual harassment, review of systemwide policies on return rights, assessment of policies related to letters of recommendation, and identification of the total number of sexual harassment complaints against employees of the CSU system during the past five years. This audit is expected to be released in June 2023.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 808 (Author:Dodd)

Version: March 30, 2023

Hearing Date: April 25, 2023

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: ME

SUBJECT

California State University: terms of employment: settlements and retreat rights

DIGEST

This bill requires the California State University (CSU) to require each campus president and a vice president or chancellor to approve all sexual harassment settlements. This bill also provides more transparency regarding sexual harassment complaints and in the investigative process and requires the posting of specified information on the CSU’s website. The bill also places retreat right prohibitions for specified campus employees who have engaged in sexual harassment or violated CSU’s Title IX sexual harassment policy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Committee has noted in several analyses that sexual harassment and abuse are systemic issues across our higher education system. Recent reports again show how despite Title IX and other sexual harassment protections and requirements in the law, perpetrators escape consequences by moving from one college to the next.

There have been revelations of mishandling of sexual harassment complaints in the CSU system.^[1] In response, The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) directed the California State Auditor to engage in an audit to “provide independently developed and verified information related to the California State University (CSU) system’s handling of sexual harassment complaints involving executives, faculty, and staff at the Chancellor’s Office, Fresno State, San Jose State, and Sonoma State.^[2]” The audit is expected to be released this summer.

This bill is in response to a continued history of sexual harassers escaping accountability at CSU campuses. A recent EdSource article provides shows how professors who had been found to have violated sexual harassment policies at one CSU campus ended up employed at other CSU campuses.^[3]

This bill mandates CSU to require each campus president and a vice president or chancellor to approve all sexual harassment settlements. This bill also provides more transparency regarding sexual harassment complaints, the investigative process, and requires the posting of specified information on the CSU’s internet website. The bill also places retreat right prohibitions for specified campus employees who have engaged in sexual harassment or violated CSU’s Title IX sexual harassment policy.

SB 808 is sponsored by the California Faculty Association and the CSU Employees Union. The bill is supported by other organizations that represent CSU employees and students. This bill passed the Senate Education Committee with a vote of 6 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. States that no person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.)
2. Specifies that it is the policy of the State of California, pursuant to Education Code Section 66251 that all persons regardless of their sex, should enjoy freedom from discrimination of any kind in the postsecondary educational institution of the state. (Educ. Code § 66281.5.)
3. Provides that is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons, regardless of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other basis that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code, including immigration status, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary educational institutions of the state. (Educ. Code § 66251.)
4. Defines sexual harassment as having the same meaning as defined in Education Code Section 212.5 and specifies that sexual harassment includes sexual battery, sexual violence, and sexual exploitation. (Ed Code § 66262.5.)
5. Defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature, made by someone from or in the work or educational setting, as specified. (Educ. Code § 212.5.)
   
6. Requires each educational institution in California (K-12 and postsecondary education) to have a written policy on sexual harassment, and requires schools to display the policy in a prominent location in the main administrative building or other area of the campus or schoolsite, be provided as part of any orientation program for new students, provided to each faculty member, administrative staff and support staff, and appear in any publication of the school that sets forth the rules, regulations, procedures and standards of conduct. (Educ. Code § 231.5 and § 66281.5.)
   
7. Requires the Trustees of the CSU to provide for, by rule, for the government of their appointees and employees, including but not limited to: appointment; classification; terms; duties; pay and overtime pay; uniform and equipment allowances; travel expenses and allowances; rates for housing and lodging; moving expenses; leave of absence; tenure; vacation; holidays; layoff; dismissal; demotion; suspension; sick leave; reinstatement; and employer’s contribution to employees’, annuitants’, and survivors’ health benefits plans. (Educ. Code § 89500.)
   
8. The federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act requires all higher education institutions that participate in federal student aid programs to prepare, publish, and distribute annual security reports disclosing specified campus crime statistics and campus security policies. Reportable crimes include homicides, sex offenses, robberies, aggravated assaults, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. (Title XX of U.S.C. § 1092.)
   
9. Requires the State Auditor to conduct an audit of a sample of at least six institutions of postsecondary education in California that receive federal student aid to do both of the following:
   
   1. Evaluate the accuracy of the institutions’ statistics and the procedures used by the institutions to identify, gather, and track data for publishing, disseminating, and reporting accurate crime statistics in compliance with the requirements of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics; and,
      
   2. Evaluate the institutions’ compliance with state law governing crime reporting and the development and implementation of related policies and procedures. (Educ. Code § 67382.)

This bill:

1. Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C Sec. 1681 et seq.); the importance of protecting university students from sexual harassment and violence; the inadequacy of CSU in handling complaints; and the consequences to survivors of sexual harassment and sexual violence.
2. Requires that rules adopted by CSU trustees require each campus president and either a vice president or vice chancellor to approve all sexual harassment settlements.
3. Requires that rules adopted by CSU trustees require a report to the Chancellor’s office and the Legislature on the number of sexual harassment complaints filed, the length of time taken to complete the investigative process, and the disposition of those cases, disaggregated by complaints filed with each individual campus and complaints filed with the chancellor’s office. Requires this report to be posted on the CSU’s internet website.
4. Requires that rules adopted by CSU trustees prohibit retreat rights for specified employees who have committed sexual harassment or violated the CSU Title IX policy on sexual harassment.
5. Prohibits the CSU from entering into a contract for retreat rights for specified employees who have committed sexual harassment or violated the CSU Title IX policy on sexual harassment.
6. Specifies Title IX to mean Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.).
7. Makes technical and conforming changes.

COMMENTS

1. Stated Need for the bill

According to the author:

It is clear that despite existing Title IX protections and requirements already in law, there are deficiencies in how our CSU campuses carry out these duties that require immediate attention. In light of egregious and systemic sexual harassment and abuse allegations and settlements across the CSU system, SB 808 would increase transparency and accountability requirements by providing additional oversight and approval of sexual harassment settlements, limiting “retreat rights” for senior administrators who have violated Title IX policies, and requiring detailed public reporting of sexual harassment complaints lodged at each campus. The pervasive mishandling of harassment and abuse by senior administrators has eroded public trust and caused students to suffer, depriving them of equal and free access to an education. In order to rebuild trust and confidence in the safety of our campus communities, additional transparency, oversight, and accountability is sorely needed.

Co-sponsor of the bill, California Faculty Association, explains that this bill “is needed because there is systemic abuse and harassment happening at campuses across the CSU system.” “Unfortunately,” they continue, “despite existing Title IX requirements and protections, egregious allegations of sexual assault and harassment have been mishandled or swept under the rug by senior administrators at campuses across the CSU system.”

As explained by The California State University Employees Union, a co-sponsor of the bill:

[I]t has become clear that allegations of sexual assault and harassment at the CSU have been systematically mishandled or ignored across the CSU system, and recent reporting by USA Today and other media outlets has only underscored the dire need for Title IX procedural reform at CSU.

2. Investigative Report by USA Today revealed mishandling of sexual harassment complaints by a CSU leader^[4]

A USA Today investigation detailed a history of ignored and covered up allegations of sexual harassment by a high ranking CSU employee. Among other things, the report details allegations of retaliation against employees who complained about sexual harassment. The report states that their investigation revealed “a university president who not only took little meaningful action in response to years of sexual harassment complaints, but who publicly praised the perpetrator even after he was found at fault.”

A summary of information provided by CSU officials detailed how professors who had been found to have committed violations of sexual harassment policies at one CSU campus ended up employed at other CSU campuses.^[5] As explained by the California State University Employees, “in the ensuing backlash from the publication of these reports, then-Chancellor Castro benefitted from ‘retreat rights’ that allowed him to accept a tenured faculty position at a CSU campus as well as other monetary benefits.”

As these articles show, the current process at the CSU is not working to hold sexual harassers accountable. The Cal State Student Association notes that this bill will “increase transparency and accountability at CSU campuses by providing additional oversight and approval of sexual harassment settlements, limiting ‘retreat rights’ for senior administrators who have violated Title IX policies, and requiring detailed public reporting of sexual harassment complaints lodged at each campus.”

3. Tackling the issue of sexual harassers at CSU moving to other positions at CSU

The bill, with the amendment described below, requires CSU trustees to adopt rules prohibiting the specified executive management employees from having an opportunity to retreat if they have committed sexual harassment or violated the CSU Title IX policy on sexual harassment. The bill, as proposed to be amended, also prohibits the CSU from entering into a contract for retreat rights for specified executive management employees who have committed sexual harassment or violated the CSU Title IX policy on sexual harassment.

Cal Matters explains that retreat right are common in higher education and “are a clause in some administrators’ contracts that allows them to leave their post and return to a faculty position[.]”^[6] The CSU defines “retreat” to mean “an Administrator's ability to be reassigned to a faculty position with or without tenure at a designated rank and within a designated department at the end of an administrative assignment.^[7]” The CSU Board of Trustees retreat policy “applies to all Administrator appointments made at any CSU campus or at the Chancellor's Office that include the option to Retreat to a faculty position.”

The author has agreed to accept the following amendment to define retreat rights and clarify that the retreat right prohibition applies to specified executive management employees who have committed sexual harassment or violated the CSU Title IX policy on sexual harassment.

Amendment:

Amend section 89500 (c)(3) as follows:

…

(3)(A) Prohibit the opportunity to retreat rights for any campus president, provost, or other senior administrator employee who is classified as executive management pursuant to the Executive Management Classification Plan (M98) or is classified as management personnel pursuant to the Management Personnel Plan (M80), as those policies read on January 1, 2023, and who has been determined in a final administrative decision or a final judicial decision to have committed sexual harassment or who has violated any the California State University or campus Title IX policy. sexual harassment policy.

(B) Notwithstanding subdivision (d), a contract for the opportunity to retreat rights for any employee identified in subparagraph (A) who has been determined to have in a final administrative decision or a final judicial decision to have committed sexual harassment or violated any the California State University or campus Title IX sexual harassment policy shall not be entered into on or after January 1, 2024, or upon the expiration of a conflicting memorandum of understanding that was in effect before January 1, 2024, whichever is later.

(C) For purposes of this paragraph, title IX the following definitions apply:

(i) “Final administrative decision” means a final determination based on the investigative findings of a sexual harassment complaint by a Title IX compliance coordinator or other designated investigator at a college or university.

(ii) “Final judicial decision” means a final determination of a matter submitted to a court that is recorded in a judgment or order of that court.

(iii) “Title IX” means Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.) seq.).

(d)…

SUPPORT

California Faculty Association (sponsor)
California State University Employees Union (sponsor)

Cal State Student Association
Service Employees International Union, California

Solano County Board of Supervisors

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation:

SB 791 (McGuire, 2023) requires the governing board of a community college district and the trustees of the CSU to require as part of the hiring process for an appointment to an academic or administrative position that the applicant disclose any final administrative decision or final judicial decision determining that the applicant committed sexual harassment, as specified. The bill requests the UC Regents to require as part of the hiring process for an appointment to an academic or administrative position with the University of California that the applicant disclose any final administrative decision or final judicial decision determining that the applicant committed sexual harassment. SB 791 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with a 7 to 0 vote and is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 942 (M. Fong, 2023) Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature to align provisions of the Education Code with Title IX and specified impending federal regulation. AB 942 is pending in the Assembly Higher Education Committee.

Prior Legislation:

SB 493 (Jackson, Ch. 303, Stats. 2020) required postsecondary educational institutions to, among other things, adopt rules and procedures for the prevention of sexual harassment, and adopt and post on their Web sites the grievance procedures to resolve complaints of sexual harassment.

SB 1375 (Jackson, Ch. 655, Stats. 2016) required all schools receiving federal funding post the following information on their website: the name and contact information of their Title IX Coordinator; the rights of a pupil and the public, and the responsibilities of the school under Title IX; a description of how to file a complaint under Title IX. SB 1375 also required the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to electronically send an annual letter to all schools notifying them of this responsibility.

SB 1435 (Jackson, Ch. 633, Stats. 2016) requested that the “Health Framework for California Public Schools” include comprehensive information on the development of healthy relationships and be age and developmentally appropriate.

AB 2654 (Bonilla, Ch. 107, Stats. 2016) required postsecondary educational institutions to post their written policy on sexual harassment on their websites. AB 2654 also required the policy to include information on the complaint process and the timeline for the complaint process. The policy must include information on where to obtain the specific rules and procedures for pursuing available remedies and resources, both on and off campus.

SB 186 (Jackson, Ch. 232, Stats. 2015) enabled the governing board of a California community college district to exercise jurisdiction over student conduct that occurs off district property in cases of sexual assault and sexual exploitation, regardless of the victim’s affiliation with the college.

SB 665 (Block, 2015) would have required the Attorney General to establish a statewide Title IX Oversight Office, required postsecondary educational institutions to report specific data to this office and required each student to complete training on rape and sexual assault awareness and prevention annually. SB 665 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 695 (De León, Ch. 424, Stats. 2015) required K-12 school districts that require completion of a course in health education as a condition of high school graduation to include instruction in sexual assault and violence.

SB 967 (DeLeón, Ch. 748, Stats. 2014) required the governing boards of California community college districts, the Trustees of the California State University system, and the Regents of the University of California, as well as the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions in California to adopt victim-centered sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking policies as a condition of receiving state funds for student financial assistance.

AB 1433 (Gatto, Ch. 798, Stats. 2014) required all California campuses to have policies in place to ensure immediate reporting and disclosure to law enforcement.

AB 3133 (Roos, Ch. 1117, Stats. 1982) enacted the Sex Equity in Education Act, which, similar to its federal Title IX counterpart, prohibits discrimination in California schools on the basis of sex.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Education Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

**************

1. See: “Fresno State president mishandled sexual harassment complaints. Now he leads all 23 Cal State colleges” by Kenny Jacoby, USA Today, Published Feb. 3, 2022 and updated Jan. 25, 2023. Available at Cal State chancellor Joseph Castro mishandled sexual harassment claims (usatoday.com) (as of 4/1/23.]. ↑

2. For information about the scope of this audit’s scope and objectives see 2022-109 Audit Scope and Objectives, available at: California State Auditor - 2022-109 Audit Scope and Objectives [as of 4/1/23.]. ↑

3. New batch of CSU records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment: Records show students suffered sexual advances from professors; EdSource (August 2, 2022) by Thomas Peele, Ashley A. Smith, and Daniel J. Willis; available at: New batch of CSU records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment | EdSource [as of April 9, 2023]. ↑

4. Fresno State president mishandled sexual harassment complaints. Now he leads all 23 Cal State colleges” by Kenny Jacoby, USA Today, Published Feb. 3, 2022 and updated Jan. 25, 2023. Available at Cal State chancellor Joseph Castro mishandled sexual harassment claims (usatoday.com) (as of 4/1/23.]. ↑

5. New batch of CSU records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment: Records show students suffered sexual advances from professors; EdSource (August 2, 2022) by Thomas Peele, Ashley A. Smith, and Daniel J. Willis; available at: New batch of CSU records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment | EdSource [as of April 9, 2023]. ↑

6. “Cal State sexual harassment scandal: Your questions answered” by Michaella Huck, Zaeem Shaikh, Julia Woock, and Felicia Mello, Cal Matters, April 11, 2022. ↑

7. (CSU Employment Policy Governing Administrator Employees’ Option to Retreat, PolicyStat ID 12715152, effective July 13, 2022, adopted by CSU Board of Trustees on November 16, 2022 by Resolution, Resolution No. RUFP 11-22-18, available at: https://calstate.policystat.com/policy/12715152/latest

   [as of April 9, 2023].) ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Josh Newman, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 808 Hearing Date: March 29, 2023

Subject: California State University: terms of employment: settlements and retreat rights.

NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on Education and Judiciary. A "do pass" motion should include referral to the Committee on Judiciary.

SUMMARY

This bill requires the rules adopted by the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees relating to tenure, layoff, dismissal, demotion, suspension, and reinstatement of academic and administrative employees to a) require specific personnel to approve sexual harassment settlements; b) require a report on the number of sexual harassment complaints and disposition of those cases; and, c) prohibit retreat rights for specified personnel who violate CSU or campus Title IX policies.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

Title IX

1. Provides that, in part, "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program of activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act)
   
2. Requires each school district and county office of education, or a local public or private agency that receives funding from the state or federal government, to designate a person to serve as the Title IX compliance coordinator to enforce compliance at the local level, including coordinating any complaints of non-compliance. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act)
   
3. Requires each educational institution in California (K-12 and postsecondary education) to have a written policy on sexual harassment, and requires schools to display the policy in a prominent location in the main administrative building or other area of the campus or schoolsite, be provided as part of any orientation program for new students, provided to each faculty member, administrative staff and support staff, and appear in any publication of the school that sets forth the rules, regulations, procedures and standards of conduct. (Education Code (EC) § 231.5 and § 66281.5)
   

CSU appointees and employees

1. Requires the Trustees of the CSU to provide for, by rule, for the government of their appointees and employees, including but not limited to:  appointment; classification; terms; duties; pay and overtime pay; uniform and equipment allowances; travel expenses and allowances; rates for housing and lodging; moving expenses; leave of absence; tenure; vacation; holidays; layoff; dismissal; demotion; suspension; sick leave; reinstatement; and employer’s contribution to employees’, annuitants’, and survivors’ health benefits plans. (EC § 89500)
   

Existing reporting related to campus crime statistics

1. The federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act requires all higher education institutions that participate in federal student aid programs to prepare, publish, and distribute annual security reports disclosing specified campus crime statistics and campus security policies. Reportable crimes include homicides, sex offenses, robberies, aggravated assaults, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. (Unites States Code, Title 20, § 1092)
   
2. Requires the State Auditor to conduct an audit of a sample of at least six institutions of postsecondary education in California that receive federal student aid to do both of the following:
   
   1. Evaluate the accuracy of the institutions’ statistics and the procedures used by the institutions to identify, gather, and track data for publishing, disseminating, and reporting accurate crime statistics in compliance with the requirements of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics; and,
      
   2. Evaluate the institutions’ compliance with state law governing crime reporting and the development and implementation of related policies and procedures. (EC § 67382)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Requires the rules adopted by the CSU Board of Trustees relating to tenure, layoff, dismissal, demotion, suspension, and reinstatement of academic and administrative employees to do all of the following:

Sexual harassment settlements

• 1. Require each campus president and, either a vice president or vice chancellor, to approve all sexual harassment settlements.
     

Report about sexual harassment complaints

• 1. Require a report, disaggregated by campus, to the Legislature and the CSU Chancellor’s office, and be posted on the CSU’s website, on all of the following:
     
     1. The number of sexual harassment complaints filed;
        
     2. The length of time taken to complete the investigative process; and,
        
     3. The disposition of those cases.
        

Retreat rights

• 1. Prohibit:
     
     1. Retreat rights for any campus president, provost, or other senior administrator who has violated any CSU or campus Title IX policy; and,
        
     2. A contract for retreat rights for any employee identified above who has been determined to have violated any CSU or campus Title IX policy from being entered into on or after January 1, 2024, or upon the expiration of a conflicting memorandum of understanding that was in effect before January 1, 2024, whichever is later.
        

1. States findings and declarations relative to CSU’s handling of sexual harassment and sexual violence complaints.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “It is clear that despite existing Title IX protections and requirements already in law, there are deficiencies in how our CSU campuses carry out these duties that require immediate attention. In light of egregious and systemic sexual harassment and abuse allegations and settlements across the CSU system, SB 808 would increase transparency and accountability requirements by providing additional oversight and approval of sexual harassment settlements, limiting ‘retreat rights’ for senior administrators who have violated Title IX policies, and requiring detailed public reporting of sexual harassment complaints lodged at each campus. The pervasive and mishandling of harassment and abuse by senior administrators has eroded public trust and caused students to suffer, depriving them of equal and free access to an education. In order to rebuild trust and confidence in the safety of our campus communities, additional transparency, oversight, and accountability of our campuses is sorely needed.”
   
2. Context. Colleges and universities that receive public funds, or whose students receive federal or state financial aid, must adhere to the requirements of Title IX and follow specific procedures to protect students and employees. Audits conducted by the State Auditor, internal investigations, and news reports have shown long-standing weaknesses in how the CSU, and individual campuses, prevent sexual harassment and handle Title IX complaints. Most notably:
   
   1. The most recent Chancellor of CSU, Joseph Castro, was found to have mishandled issues related to a pattern of sexual harassment complaints while serving as President of Fresno State, against a professor who Dr. Castro knew personally. Ultimately, Fresno State reached a settlement agreement with the professor to pay him $260,000 plus full retirement benefits, with a promise of a letter of recommendation for employment at a university other than CSU. Three weeks after the settlement agreement was finalized, Mr. Castro became Chancellor of the CSU system and its 23 campuses. Mr. Castro subsequently resigned in February 2022, and received a $400,000 settlement and has retreat rights to be a tenured professor at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. https://edsource.org/2022/csu-chancellor-joseph-castro-resigns-in-fallout-over-his-handling-of-sexual-misconduct-claims/667865cal
      
   2. In November 2021, students at the California Maritime Academy confronted campus President Thomas Cropper about Long-standing claims of sexual harassment and misconduct, homophobia, transphobia and racism on campus and during training cruises. Independent investigative reports revealed that cadets were reluctant to make formal complaints about misconduct out of fear of retaliation, and females expressed an understanding that it is not a matter of “if” they will experience sexual harassment or assault, but “when” and “how often.” A report detailed misconduct on two training cruises on the Golden Bear in summer 2021, including sexual harassment, and cited a “more systemic problem that should be carefully assessed.” President Cropper has announced that he plans to retire in August 2023. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-13/csu-maritime-academy-women-trans-nonbinary-harassment
      
   3. In 2020, a Chico State professor was found to have had a prohibited relationship with a graduate student whom he supervised, yet was allowed to enter a settlement agreement. The professor was subsequently awarded tenure and in 2021, allegedly made threats against two colleagues who cooperated in the investigation in 2020. https://edsource.org/2022/chico-state-professor-disciplined-for-student-affair-allegedly-threatened-colleagues-who-complained/682154
      
   4. A different professor at Chico State resigned before he could be disciplined while facing charges of sexual harassment of a student and having a prohibited relationship with a student. The professor was then hired to teach at Cal State East Bay in Hayward. https://edsource.org/2022/new-batch-of-csu-records-show-professors-disciplined-for-sexual-harassment/676217
      
   5. In 2016 at now Cal Poly Humboldt, a dean was given a tenured professorship under what's known as "retreat rights," even though he was fired from his administrative role after campus investigations found he had groped two female colleagues. His reinstatement after a three-month leave placed him back among the same faculty as the women he was found to have harassed. https://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2022/04/18/usa-today-highlights-case-of-hsu-dean-fired-for-harassing-colleagues-but-allowed-to-retreat-into-tenured-post
      
   6. Investigations and disciplinary actions are conducted differently across the CSU system. A news report found that four high-ranking employees at different CSU campuses were each accused of inappropriately touching women, yet each case was handled differently. Two of the accused men were allowed to continue working while under investigation, but a third was placed on leave. Two campuses hired outside firms to investigate, another had a different campus conduct the investigation, and no formal investigation was conducted in the fourth example. In the two cases in which misconduct was found to have been “severe, persistent or pervasive,” one university, which previously provided its administrator with executive coaching before any investigation, allowed him to retire with a lucrative payout and letter of recommendation; the other allowed its administrator to resign with a negotiated payout and paid time off before his leaving. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-13/four-men-at-csu-campuses-were-accused-of-sexual-harassment-all-were-treated-differently
      
3. Pending State Audit. The State Auditor is currently preparing an audit related to the CSU system’s handling of sexual harassment complaints involving executives, faculty, and staff at the Chancellor’s Office and three campuses (Fresno, San Jose, and Sonoma). The scope of the audit will include a determination of whether CSU has adequate systemwide policies and procedures, a review of CSU’s process for investigating alleged sexual harassment, review of systemwide policies on return rights, assessment of policies related to letters of recommendation, and identification of the total number of sexual harassment complaints against employees of the CSU system during the past five years. This audit is expected to be released in June 2023. https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/scope/2022-109
   
4. Assessment of CSU’s practices. The CSU hired a private firm (Cozen O’Connor) in March 2022 to conduct a systemwide assessment of its Title IX and Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation programs. This assessment is to include a comprehensive analysis of CSU's systems of compliance and systems of care, and provide information on program strengths and opportunities.  This assessment  is designed to strengthen the CSU institutional culture by assessing current practices at the Chancellor’s Office (system-level) and at each CSU campus and providing insights, recommendations, and resources to advance training, awareness, prevention, intervention, compliance, and support systems.
   
   Cozen O’Connor will work with each campus to provide iterative, collaborative and ongoing feedback during and after the campus assessment. Cozen O’Connor will meet with each campus president to describe the assessment, share observations and provide recommendations. As with all information gathered by Cozen O’Connor, all feedback will be shared without attribution and in the aggregate. Presidents will be encouraged and expected to update their university community about what they have learned during the assessment and anticipated action steps.
   
   Cozen O’Connor has conducted x# of campus visits and is expected to present a written report of their assessment to the CSU Board of Trustees in May 2023, with recommended next steps. CSU Systemwide Title IX & DHR Assessment by Cozen O'Connor | CSU (calstate.edu)
   
5. Option to retreat. The CSU Board of Trustees approved new policies in July 2022, to bolster and clarify employment practices. The CSU now has a systemwide policy governing administrator employees’ option to retreat. The policy applies to all administrator appointments made at a CSU campus or the Chancellor’s Office which include the option to retreat to a faculty position. The policy is intended to be prospective and does not impact retreats granted prior to its effective dates except on a case-by-case basis in the event of a serious policy violation.
   
   The opportunity to “retreat” to a faculty position is frequently offered to faculty who are required to relinquish tenure in order to become a university administrator.  The opportunity to retreat gives the new administrator the option to return to a faculty position when their administrative role at the university comes to an end. New or continuing administrators often negotiate the opportunity to retreat as a term of their employment as an administrator because university administrators, unlike tenured faculty, are at-will employees who have no assurance of permanent employment. 
   
   The new policy includes the following guidance:
   
   1. An administrator will be ineligible to exercise the option if there is a finding of misconduct or the administrator is under investigation for misconduct.
      
   2. Memorialization of terms of the retreat will be placed in the administrative appointment letter.
      
   3. There must be consultation with the tenured faculty in the respective department to which the individual would potentially return.

This bill essentially codifies CSU’s policy on the option to retreat. The author may wish to consider using the term “opportunity to retreat” rather than “retreat rights” to conform to terminology currently used by CSU. Viewing Employment Policy Governing Administrator Employees' Option to Retreat (policystat.com)

1. Settlements. This bill requires each campus president and, either a vice president or vice chancellor, to approve all sexual harassment settlements. Should a campus president and vice presidents or vice chancellors have the option to deny sexual harassment settlements? For sexual harassment settlements at the CSU system level be approved or denied by the CSU Chancellor? What happens when the settlement involves a campus president or Chancellor of the CSU system? The author may wish to consider defining sexual harassment, as the Education Code provides a broader definition than is in Title IX.
   
2. Reporting. This bill requires the CSU to report on specified information, including the number of sexual harassment complaints filed, disaggregated by campus. Will unresolved complaints be included in this report? Is the report to include only complaints that involve administrators or faculty? How often is the report to be provided to the Legislature? Should the report also be provided to the CSU Board of Trustees?
   
3. Technical amendments. Staff recommends clarifying amendments as follows:
   
   “Require a report to the Legislature and the chancellor’s office, consistent with the requirements of Section 9795 of the Government Code, on the number of sexual harassment complaints filed, the length of time taken to complete the investigative process, and the disposition of those cases, disaggregated by campus and system level the chancellor’s office. The report shall also be posted on the California State University’s internet website.”
   
4. Related legislation.

AB 942 (M. Fong, 2023) states legislative intent to amend state law to align with the impending updates to federal regulations relative to Title IX. AB 942 is pending in the Assembly Higher Education Committee.

SUPPORT

California Faculty Association (co-sponsor)

California State University Employee Union (co-sponsor)

Cal State Student Association

Service Employees International Union, California

Solano County Board of Supervisors

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --