I'm going to start discussing your answers to the "what i wanna be" assignment soon. This will lead to a further discussion about what interest groups represent that profession before Congress and the Texas Legislature.
The interest group that represents my profession is TCCTA - the Texas Community College Teachers Association.
Each time the legislature meets their lobbyist follows - and tries to influence - legislation that could impact me. Here's what he sent out just before the end of the most recent session:
I'm passing along a legislative update from Beaman. Thank you, Beaman, for all your hard work, even on weekends, even during holidays, representing us. We appreciate you! I'm forwarding from Beaman:
"The 89th Regular Session is almost over, with most of the major policy bills related to higher education now settled. Below please find updates on the two critical bills we have ben following the past few weeks. We will provide a more complete list of bills and their fates once we get into the veto period in the next few weeks.
SB 37
SB 37, the omnibus higher education reform bill, is now finally passed and on the Governor’s desk. As with the big reform bills from last session, this bill underwent substantial back and forth changes all the way through the session, including in a late conference committee. The House generally turned most of the curriculum and hiring review provisions back to the internal operations of the institution. Similarly, the external curriculum review committee that was originally heavily staffed by political appointments but the Governor will now be composed of nominees from institutional chancellors, presidents, and provosts, and will include an equal number of 2 year and 4 year college recommendations. The “ombudsman” office section went through several back and forth changes, with the ultimate result of the office maintaining strong investigative powers, but being somewhat restricted both in the source of complaints, their regulatory powers. Importantly, provisions linking the office to the Office of the Attorney General were eliminated.
Sadly, the one area of clear agreement between the Senate and House was the faculty senate provision, which was virtually identical in every House and Senate version of the bill. As a reminder, the provision defines faculty senates and a creation of the institution’s board, limits them to 60 members, provides that the officers are named by the institution’s presidents, and requires that at least one member from every college or school at an institution be appointed by the president rather than elected by faculty peers. The bill language pointedly defines decisions of faculty senates as advisory only.
Interestingly, the bill went to conference committee over language related to critical race theory (Sec 51.315(b)(5)). That language was removed at the request of proponents of the legislation when they became concerned that the language could have unintended consequences for conservative ideas or could create a potential constitutional challenge for the entire bill. The removal of (b)(5) was the only change in conference committee.
In my opinion, the greatest effect this bill will have is on institutional boards and presidents. Though the powers enumerated in the bill are startling, it does not confer authority on boards or presidents that they did not already potentially have, had they chosen to exercise them. However, by statutorily mandating those powers and, in many instances, their use, the boards and presidents will likely now be held directly responsible for using those powers in the areas of curriculum, shared governance, and faculty relations. Given some of the well documented instances of political pressure on institutional decision making in the past few years, one may easily see how this bill will create a direct political avenue into institutions and a challenge to both boards and presidents to use the powers explicitly described by SB 37 to meet political expectations. The real determining factor of the impact of SB 37 will be the discipline, or lack thereof, of boards and presidents to resist political pressure in defense of institutional autonomy and academic freedom.
SB 2615
SB 2615 was concurred with by the Senate, and is on the Governor’s desk. The original bill was a draconic elimination of remote work in higher education without any clear regard to either efficiency or the varied work conditions that exist in our complicated institutions. During the bill’s journey through the legislative process, several exceptions were added as needs were explained to legislators. Amendments included two late floor amendments in the House. One dealt with telework in instances of emergency or catastrophe. The other sought to further clarify the exemption related to dual credit. Though the bill was somewhat improved in the process, it will likely have a serious negative impact, particularly in the area of hybrid work not associated with dual credit, and, because of the targeted and gratuitous restrictions on our flexibility, in recruiting and program design for our institutions.
Both of these bills will involve complex implementation. We will need to consider our strategies for working with institutional leadership, both at our schools and in the public policy space, as we move forward in the interim.
