By John Martin, CPFA Chair
Since Governor Newsom’s veto on our bill, AB 2277 last September, CPFA fell into a bit of a funk—at least I did. But we’re pushing forward now with a renewed sense of purpose and determination.
Our legislative efforts resumed in late fall, with CPFA’s Legislative Committee drafting a new slate of bill ideas. A central priority has been to strengthen AB 190, the 2021 trailer bill that allocated $200 million to the part-time faculty health insurance program. This funding is one of three categorical programs designated for part-time faculty in California’s community colleges—the other two being office hours and “parity” wages. AB 190 was designed to incentivize districts to offer meaningful health coverage by reimbursing up to 100% of associated costs. It was also intended to empower local unions to negotiate real benefits for the majority of their faculty.
But that’s not what’s happening.
Despite the funding being available, most districts—and, unfortunately, many unions—have failed to take advantage of it. According to EdSource, “one survey shows that 6% of part-time faculty don’t have health insurance from any source. A third of respondents said they receive insurance from a college at which they teach. About a quarter relied on their spouse’s coverage, and 17% got theirs from Covered California or Medi-Cal.” It’s a grim reality—especially when, on paper, AB 190 promised so much.
So what went wrong?
As of last year, only 22 of California’s 72 community college districts were in compliance with Option 1 (100% reimbursement), and just $34.4 million—or 17.25% of the $200 million—was actually used.
Where’s the political will? Where’s the commitment to fairness, justice, and respect for part-time faculty, a super majority of educators who teach in California’s community college system? So far: Zero. Nada. Zip.
District administrators have no shortage of excuses:
- “It’s too complicated.”
- “It’s too expensive—we’d have to hire someone to manage it.”
- “The money might go away, and then we’d have to pay out of our own budget.”
- “It’s the provider that’s making things difficult, not us.”
Meanwhile, many districts have reserve funds exceeding 30%, on average. Kern Community College District reportedly has reserves over 70%—while also offering the lowest part-time faculty salary schedule in the entire state.
Needless to say, there’s a lot more to discuss here—but maybe next time.
Addressing Gaps in the Education Code: Seniority and Just Cause
Another serious issue facing part-time faculty is the weakness of the Education Code in two key areas: a real definition of seniority and the absence of a “just cause” provision.
When the legislation to establish a seniority system was passed, it lacked a clear definition of what “seniority” actually means. As a result, districts—and in some cases, unions—have interpreted it however they see fit. In one district, for example, a summer email declared that seniority would be determined on a first-come, first-served basis. Faculty were told that whoever replied first would be placed at the top of the list. The result? Instructors with 10, 15, even 20 years of service were suddenly pushed to the bottom.
Equally troubling is the complete absence of “just cause” protections for part-time faculty. While full-time instructors are entitled to due process, part-timers often receive no explanation when they’re denied course assignments. They may be removed from the classroom or a future schedule based solely on a student complaint, without investigation, documentation, or even notification—and in some cases, are informally banned from teaching in the district again.
We are not asking for tenure. What we’re asking for is basic professional courtesy and accountability. If classes are cut due to low enrollment, that should be stated clearly. If the cause is budget-related or due to program changes, that too should be communicated in writing. But too often, the district’s answer is simply: “We don’t have to tell you.” And technically, they’re right—because part-time employment is considered at-will.
This lack of transparency not only harms instructors but also destabilizes the system as a whole. If we value educational quality, we must begin by respecting the professionals delivering it.
What do these two proposals—mandating health care insurance (for those who want it) and implementing “just cause” or ensuring “due process” protections—have in common? They cost nothing.
The $200 million for health care is already allocated. No additional funding is required.
Establishing a clear seniority system and adding just cause protections doesn’t require new spending—just the will to implement them.
That’s what we’re fighting for: professionalism, fairness, and accountability in California’s community college system. We look forward to partnering with legislators who are ready to help us bring these values to life.