2009 was a challenging year for the CSU and higher education overall given the state’s fiscal condition and the political agendas of constituents and elected officials. In particular the CSU and the University of California (UC) faced several efforts to limit the ability of the systems to govern themselves.

The UC and the American Federation of State and County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) have an ongoing disagreement over compensation that has been a great source of animosity. At one point this year two constitutional amendments were introduced (SCA 21, Senator Leland Yee and ACA 24 Assembly member Anthony Portantino) that AFSCME gave their support to. These two measures were intended to remove the University of California’s from its place in the state constitution, and make them more like the CSU as far as their governance structure was concerned. Both of these measures were never referred or heard in a policy committee after much work by the UC and the distraction of the budget crisis.

Despite the work of the CSU to seek full funding to the system in the state budget and in turn honor its recently reached labor agreements, it became readily apparent that the California Faculty Association (CFA) was going to work through the legislature to improve their position with the Board of Trustees and the CSU. To that end they supported legislation that was intended to alter the governance structure of the system.

AFSCME and CFA both supported AB 690 by Assembly Member Tom Ammiano; SB 217 (which became SB 86) and SB 218 by State Senator Leland Yee, which were aimed at the CSU and UC. At a recent hearing on government reform, a former Assembly Republican leader and current lobbyist, Bob Naylor noted that the policy committee process has almost become useless in this term limit era. This observation seems to ring true, especially for those measures that have a special interest supporting it, as these did. A cautious critical policy committee debate where members are willing to vote against a bill was sometimes missing with these bills this year instead deferring decisions to the fiscal committee or the other legislative house stop them.

Unfortunately, 2010 is an election year and members will continue on this path as they seek to positions themselves for their next seat, office or leadership post. Many members will continue to seek legislation that attracts press attention rather than help California’s public systems of higher education recover from another dreadful round of cuts. Special interests, including those of organized labor, will also press their friends in the legislature in pushing their agenda through again as they begin the work on 2010 elections. Most of these measures that were either held by the appropriations committee or vetoed by the Governor will likely be introduced again as California will simply not have the money to address the needs of the higher education segments and its students.