Governor’s Veto of AB 2277: A Missed Opportunity Based on Speculative Costs

By Scott Douglas, CPFA SoCal Regional Representative

In September 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 2277, which proposed increasing part-time faculty workloads in California Community Colleges from 67% to up to 85% of the full-time faculty load. Newsom’s veto was based on concerns about “potentially significant costs,” which seem to be grounded in speculative rather than substantive analysis.

The fundamental issue with the veto lies in a misinterpretation of the bill’s likely fiscal impact. AB 2277 would have allowed part-time faculty to teach up to 85% of a full-time load, increasing individual faculty hours but not increasing the number of part-time faculty in the system. It would have consolidated teaching hours among fewer instructors, stabilizing their work but without adding significant costs or new hiring. The governor’s office, however, warned that it could lead to fiscal pressures. These concerns are speculative at best, especially given the protections already in place through the Faculty Obligation Number (FON).

The FON requires community colleges to maintain a minimum number of full-time faculty positions. Even with increased part-time faculty workloads, the FON would still ensure that full-time faculty levels are met. Therefore, AB 2277 would not have led to an increase in the reliance on part-time instructors. The only likely change would be a more efficient use of part-time faculty, leading to a more stable workforce.

Had the governor considered the FON’s protective role, he would have realized that AB 2277 wouldn’t create the financial strain feared by his office. Instead, the bill would have stabilized part-time faculty positions, reduced turnover, and created a more sustainable teaching environment.

Governor Newsom’s veto also mentioned concerns over the state budget. While fiscal caution is necessary, the concerns about AB 2277’s financial impact are overstated. The bill would not have created new benefits or compensation structures, but simply aimed to improve the stability of the current workforce without requiring new funding.

Moreover, increasing part-time faculty workloads could help alleviate the shortage of fully-engaged instructors, potentially reducing the need for part-timers to work across multiple institutions. This would lead to a more stable workforce and better student outcomes.

Governor Newsom’s veto of AB 2277 was based on unfounded speculation about future costs, rather than a careful analysis of the bill’s impact. By rejecting the bill, he missed an opportunity to address the reliance on part-time faculty in a fiscally responsible way, stabilizing the workforce and benefiting both faculty and students in California’s community colleges.

---