HOUSE BILL REPORT

 

 

                                   SSB 6306

 

 

BYSenate Committee on Higher Education (originally sponsored by Senators Saling, McDonald, Stratton, Bailey, McCaslin, Benitz, Thorsness, Barr and Amondson)

 

 

Revising provisions for tenure at community colleges.

 

 

House Committe on Higher Education

 

Majority Report:  Do pass as amended.  (12)

      Signed by Representatives Jacobsen, Chair; Spanel, Vice Chair; Van Luven, Ranking Republican Member; Bennett; Doty, Fraser, Heavey, Jesernig, Miller, Prince, Rector and Wood.

 

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (1)

      Signed by Representative Basich.

 

      House Staff:Susan Hosch (786-7120)

 

 

                         AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 1, 1990

 

BACKGROUND:

 

State law outlines a process for granting tenure to full-time community college faculty members.  Each community college governing board must award tenure following a probationary period lasting up to three consecutive regular college years, excluding summer quarter.  The board may award tenure at any time, after giving reasonable consideration to the recommendations of the tenure review committee.

 

Currently there is no system wide salary schedule for community college faculty.  Salaries for faculty with similar experience, performing similar tasks, may vary across the districts.  These variations, coupled with sporadic payments for increments earned for experience and added education, have caused discord periodically within the community college system.

 

SUMMARY:

 

Beginning on July 1, 1990, each community college governing board must award tenure to eligible community college faculty following a probationary period lasting up to nine college quarters, rather than three consecutive regular college years.  Summer quarter is excluded from the probationary period.  With the consent of the appointing authority and the probationary faculty member, the probationary period may be extended up to three additional college quarters.  The revised probationary period applies only to persons who are awarded faculty appointments after July 1, 1990.

 

The State Board for Community College Education will review and study salaries for community college faculty and administrators.  By January 1, 1991, the board will report the results of the study to the Legislature.  The report will include the board's recommendations on salary levels, payments for increments and advancements, bargaining, and allocation of salary funds.

 

Nothing in the bill will be construed to alter existing collective bargaining units or agreements.

 

Fiscal Note:      Available.

 

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Ron Bell, Shoreline Community College.

 

House Committee - Testified Against:      John Winesdorfer, Washington Education Association; and Greg Alarid, Washington Federation of Teachers.

 

House Committee - Testimony For:    During the upcoming years, community colleges will experience a faculty turnover rate of about 40 percent.  Decisions made in replacing those faculty will shape the future of the system.  In awarding tenure to a full time member of the faculty, the college has made a permanent decision. Permitting community colleges to have more time to make these important decisions will benefit the system and the students it serves.  Extending the probationary period for faculty may also benefit persons who are turned down for tenure because the review committees needed more time to award permanent status to that individual.  Finally, extending the period might also result in the hiring of more full time rather than part time faculty.

 

House Committee - Testimony Against:      Extending the probationary period will increase the workload of members on the faculty tenure review committee.  Asking faculty to make a five year commitment to the committee may well inhibit members from serving on those committees.  The present system is rigorous, and is functioning well, so changing it will not enhance the quality of faculty appointments.  Finally,  the proposal for a state-wide salary allocation model may preempt local bargaining, and presupposes that the community college system should have a salary system similar to that in the common schools.

 

VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:

 

      Yeas 96; Excused 1 - 3/1

 

Excused:    Representative Hankins