Legislation

From NACS:  Rich Hershman, Vice President of Government Relations

The California Board of Governors took action on their Burden Free Instructional Materials regulation item this afternoon.  As expected the Board approved the regulation, however they did go to some length to suggest that despite the plain reading of the regulatory text that there is no mandate for students to have burden free access as there are no funding or fiscal impact expected even though the staff acknowledged there were costs.  The meeting is still ongoing and OER and instructional materials came up a few times outside of this agenda.  As it will take a few days to  Bellow is a Apple Voice Memo transcript of this discussion with some editing on my end as it’s a little rough. 

Inclusive access came up a couple times.  I highlight those in red ink and yellow highlight.  The first set of comments were by the Chancellor’s staff and the second was public comments by Nagel of 20MM.   

Bookstores were also discussed by the main faculty union president I have been talking with.  I also briefly spoke and encouraged the system to engage with bookstores and other stakeholders who have been left out of such discussions to date.

This now moves to each elected District Board, but also  the Chancellor’s office has also talked on several occasions about issuing additional regulatory guidance and other efforts.

There is a package of legislative changes the Chancellor’s office is requesting to support the Z degree effort and related to this regulation so this will also be an issue before the California legislature as well.  

Rich

Burden Free Instructional Materials Action Item

Well, um, good morning, everyone. Um, President costa, vice president Arguonado. Chancellor Christian members of the board, I am Rebecca OShaughnessy, vice chancellor for student Services, here with me on James Todd, uh, the assist vice chancellor, who has been really supporting this work, both in ZTC implementation as well as our entire burden free movement for our system. So before I start to present the item, I would like to turn it over to a member Williams's first remarks, or would you Oh, okay, sounds good. I can't see the screen. Or do we have the PowerPoints pulled up?, pulling them up right now, just thank you. I wasn't changing the screeners anymore. All right, they're coming up, you should see them on the screen. Excellent. Thank you so much. 

So, this should hopefully be a fairly uh speedy item, but we're asking for your approval, for this action item, which is a proposed regulations on burden free access to instructional materials. Next slide please. 

The language was brought to you for first read in September, and since then we made two minor changes to the language. One is to make clear that these local policies shall maintain faculties responsibility and academic freedom to choose instruction materials, and the second change that we made is to make sure that the policies speak to the adoption an adoption of instructional materials. I'm sorry, open educational resources when they're both available and feasible. So, that's really the most changes that we have made to the language and with that next line, please.

Quick summary of what we have kind of accomplished with the field. This is really a testament of uh participation part of participate governance partnership at its best. you can see this regulation did not come to here in front of you easy, uh we have gone through two uh consultation council meetings, uh a 45 day comment period, followed by another 15 day public comment period, and that's just the formal process we have engaging multiple informal conversations with our stakeholders to get where we are, which is really striking that balance of making clear of the Boards expectation for the system to take on their collective responsibility to make sure our students have access, easy access to learning, and having materials at the time of learning is critical, and um and we also understand all the magic happens to the local level. So how do we really respect the local control as well as local innovation? So that's really what we're trying to accomplish here. 

Um, so um with that I want to also just share provide you with kind of uh some of the key themes that we have surface in the public comments. What we have gathered on the public comments, obviously through the entire process are already three pieces. 

The first one is related to the potential infringement on faculty academic freedom, which we really took that into consideration updated on language, I think to address that issue. 

The second one is related to the potential cause implication of this regulation, and this reg to just make it clear this regulation really only mandates local adoption of policies and also provided a list of students centered practices for local consideration. Some of them speak to the existing investment in this area, for example, ZTC and OER, and some of them speak to many of the students center practices there already happening on campus, so there's really no required additional dedicated funding to do what's required in this regulation.

Now, there's no question significant investments will be required to make all instructional materials free for our students, right? That's an audacious goal and um we are certainly partnering looking at this as a long-term game and really thinking about how do we partner and get investments to continue this effort. But we also know that many districts and colleges have been making investments in this area and they could certainly choose to make additional investments in this area, actually, as I was looking because some this river college, for example, they say reduced barriers and costs they have ZTC OER, right? So that's a clear evidence, maybe local investments and that's fantastic and that a really aligned with 2330, but um, so that's really what we're thinking about how do we make us system wide expectation and then encourage local innovations and investments happening?

On the third piece is really about inclusive access, which is a practice of automatic textbook billing that charges a per unit fee for cost for coarse materials provided by a vendor, selected by campuses you know, the major concerns that we're hearing are one, the fee can be high for students. Two is this practice can undermine our zero costs textbook effort or OER efforts. uh, which through effective implementation can get do zero. so why would you pay for a fee when the costs of courses can come to zero? Um although these are kind of outside of the scope of this regulation, but we acknowledge this is something that the Chancellor's office will have to continue to partner with the field on in terms of understanding before we move forward with a more definitive policy, a position as well as a path forward. Again it's about balancing system needs as well as encouraging local control.

For example, it's our understanding that some colleges initiate this practice due to student demand, right? So in the short term, some of these areas so we really have to think about what that looks like. Some of the areas of the Chancellor’s office are thinking about in terms of moving forward or to ask questions like, how do we make sure the fees charge are not mandatory? Right? So could students are clearly understanding their options, and they are making informed decisions, and also how do colleges can potentially benefit the support on system office related to contract negotiation with vendors and the terms, make sure that we don't have any predatory terms in the contract and we continue to move forward with the CUC program implementation OR, which is a much more sustainable and cost effective option for our students.

So that concludes, uh, my presentation, great thank you.

I'm gonna turn it over to a board member Williams.

Yeah, thanks for first, I just want to thank all of the staff, Rebecca and everyone that worked on this item, all of the colleges that provided public comment, and then for the chancellor's office for the clarifications and the revisions, this has been a work in progress. You've really work collaboratively with the system and I wanna be clear that my push for this has been about making access to uh textbooks and instructional materials that available to students, just day one when they go into their class, specifically general education um resources. It's what has been the push. I think that this resolution is a step forward and really helping to tackle make an instructional materials affordable and accessible to all students. um we're prioritized and affordability, we're empowering students to focus on academic goals without having financial stress.

Currently our students on average spend $938. annually on instructional materials, and this is an equity issue for many of our students. our students that have vulnerabilities face significant financial challenges, which can delay or even in their dreams to complete higher education. These hardships underscore the urgency of reducing the cost of renting students from choosing between essential materials and basic needs. This resolution is an opportunity to truly make California community colleges more accessible to everyone. I'm thrilled to champion, be a champion for this resolution. It commits our system to advancing affordability and equity due to development of local policies, ensuring burden-free access to instructional materials. 

Prioritizing zero costs general education textbooks would benefit a vast majority of our students and try progress as skill towards equitable baculore entertainment. With this resolution, we are building a brighter future, with our financial constraints need not stand in the way of educational success, and we are also ensuring that all students have access to materials that they need to be successful on day one. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We appreciate your leadership and working with staff on this issue for member Williams' colleagues, any other questions or comments regarding this topic for member Hank. Thank you. I just wanted to a personal experience as a trustee at Los Rios Comm community college district. um and that is because I'm this River College relatively small college up on the number of we have more colleges. leadership here, but upon themselves among the faculty to make a change and in a matter of about five years, including on the time that we were in Cvid, that particular campus is at 72% on OER or on CBCC. um it's it's amazing, but more amazing than that um is how much that benefit in our students. I mean, we're not talking $100,000 in savings. We're talking millions of dollars in savings, um, and so I want to commend the faculty that took it upon themselves with some with some with some additional money to fund this transformation. And it does take that kind of commitment, but but it's a little bit of money relative to the gains that we're making. I noticed that within the contracts that we will be approving is some additional money so that we can push this out to say, you know, sort of how it was done and and that it can be done. if there's a well of the college to do it. So thank you.

Well, I always appreciate when we look to the field and see the innovations in the field and one of the things I noticed was that we are partnering with, um consumedists and they were going to be developing a model, but then we can see a lot across the the process system. and providing professional development and conferences, tiny if a tiny uh well, it probably wouldn't appreciate that. If a smaller district like West Hills has invested because it's seen in their students, the importantance of OEER, then certainly in a in 116 campuses and campuses across are across California. We can find a way to do it. A willow, there's a way. I was just gonna say this is like a to be what I have three things that's students. several of them all from housing, cost of uh supplies and health surfaces. So I think it's like eating an elephant we chip away a little bit of time. We each one of these policies, but this is something that I think we'll go long ways to help a lot of students, so congratulations on the work on that..

Um, as a student, as a student who's paid for expensive taxbooks and expensive educational materials that aren't always the most helpful, I love the push for OER and ZTC. and seeing this and being on the board, um and thinking of all my um classmates and people I know within the system who really benefit makes me really excited for the future, and I think we're really on the right path in the right direction. I I'm a big fan of this. anything that saves money and gives the opportunity for people to learn when you take the information, you get knowledge when you understand it, and then you have the wisdom to apply that knowledge. And this you know, anything that saves our students some money will go a long way to give and where this is true democratization of information. And I think at this stage, with all the technology that exists, this is a smart investment and I make a motion to make this happen. So, kudos to the consultation process to the Chancellor's office for your work on this, um especially just the addition of the concept of supplies. I'm thinking about my art students who would choose certain classes not based on the fact that it would be helpful to them for articulation purposes or for their goals, but because of the costs of the supplies, we don't want students making choices for those reasons. We want students to have access to exactly what they need to reach their goals. So these efforts are really going to be felt throughout the system, and I'm very much appreciate.

I just want to echo a thank you for our faculty. I think um, I hope people have visibility into the fact that between common course numbering and this, it's a lot. We're asking a lot. This is a heavy workload and honestly, you know, we can all say and I think we all understand the value to our students. But it is really the faculty that have to dig in, do the work, determine what is available, determine if they have to make their own materials and so I just want to thank our faculty because I think, you know, their recognition and then doing the work towards this, it just simply wouldn't be possible without that. So thank you to our faculty. with that, is there any public comment on this topic? 

Item 4.5 is now open for public comment. We will begin with public comments in Sacramento. You will have two minutes. Presidenta, we have received in person remarks and we have a couple virtual hands raised, so I will hand it over to Vice President Aguinaldo to begin with public remarks in Sacramento. Thank you very much, Christina. We have three public comments, the first from Wendy Berling who, the second one from Kayli nagel and the third one from Eric Kalumatt. So if you could approach and speak that order, that would be one.

Good afternoon again, President costa vice President Aguinaldo Chancellor Christian and members of the board of governors. and Wendy Buraw Wynoop still Wendy Broawynoop, president of the faculty Association of California Community colleges, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this agenda item. I spoke on this item in September when the regulations were first heard for their first reading. At that time I communicated fax support of the regulations and I requested a change to the proposed language to include a reference to academic freedom within the regulation. So I want to express my appreciation to the board for listening to faculty feedback and incorporating um the suggested language in the revised proposal, the addition of the statement district policy shall maintain an instructor's responsibility underemic freedom to choose instructional materials is a vital acknowledgement of our rights as educators. This language ensures that we can continue to select the most appropriate materials to effectively meet the diverse needs of our students. Thank you again for your responsiveness and commitment to working collaboratively with faculty on important issues we look forward to continuing our partnership to provide burden free access to instructional materials and a sustainable manner. I also to thank Rebecca and James for all their work. This really was truly a beautiful example of complicution. It's much appreciated. Thank you.

Hello, Chancellor Christian. I President Costa, members of the board. um I my name is Kayla Nagel. I'm the senior program manager of open educational resources with the Michaelson 20 million minds foundation. We're a small family foundation that works on issues higher education, access and affordability. and I am so excited about the work that this system has continuously done to make sure that students have access to their course materials, particularly through the zero textbook cost degree program, and open educational resources. And I am so excited to one support the vision behind these policies and look for opportunities to be supportive in the rollout, because I think that these really speak to the needs of students and what faculty really want to happen in their courses, which people will get into the community college because they want to teach and they want to see students learn. And it's important to make sure students have the tools they need to do so.

I'm also incredibly heartened to hear the chancellor office, I'm taking very seriously the concerns raised run automatic textbooks family. these programs which automatically charge students with their materials, their opt out rather than opt in. um, can cost students over twice with the average community college student pays for course materials in the program sometimes up to $25 a credit hour and undermine this year textbook cost degrees that exist to those programs because the students are charged for the free materials and would also undermine the policy around supporting the work that libraries are doing to build course reserves because if you're being charged for the materials, what's gonna happen with that horse reserve? Our students really got gonna be able to access it if they're automatically charged for short term digital rentals primarily

So, thank you so much for taking these concerns seriously. for continually supporting the work of faculty and the work the chancellor's office has done around zero textbook cost degreerograms. And I'm so excited for these policies. Thank you.

Good afternoon members of the board. Uh, I'm still Eric Kalia Magu, the president of the Comm community College Association. Although CCA is not taking a position on the burden free instructional materials regulation, I would like to draw your attention to two matters that I believe will require future action.

First, the regulation encourages fair use, but doesn't define it. Copyright law is quite complex, and while small amounts of a work or one time use of a work, such as yesterday's headline news, are considered fair use, it's not at all likely that faculty can use even moderate portions of a copyrighted work on a ongoing basis. Faculty are at present not well prepared to understand copyright law and risk personal liability if they guess wrong. We will need support on this legal issue. The University of California currently provides its faculty with copyright law guidance and what more promises to defend faculty who follow the guidance. Our employers should do the same. 

Second, the increased use of OER obviously decreases revenue to college bookstores. At some point, well prior to the total elimination of commercial textbook use, bookstores will encounter a situation where they cannot break even, no matter how well they are run. What happens then? We will still need some entity to place the orders for the remaining books, receive and process the inventory and deal with returns, and thus we will need a plan to either use general funds to support what are at present mostly self sustaining bookstores, or to have someone else manage this work. This is not a task to expect of the faculty.

I welcome thy idea of making materials more available and have more limited possible, but do have to recognize that what's simple changes sometimes cause complex follow up issues. Thank you. Thanks.

Is there any online comments on this topic? There are several

My name is Richard Hershman and I am the Vice President of government relations for the National Association of College Stores. I'll keep my comments extremely brief. 

We're concerned with the amount of engagement with stakeholders, and we think the Chancellor's office needs to engage additional stakeholders that may not have been as involved in this process to date. These include, obviously, campus bookstores, but also non-profit auxiliaries, financial aid administrators, and the disability support services on campuses. And we really urged the chancellor's office to commit to regular meeting and collaborate with the bookstores in a system. There's an excellent model at the California State University system, Chancellor's office, has an affordable learning solutions, that takes a comprehensive approach to course materials and supplies and equipment, and I think that's a great model to emulate. There are other examples in Washington Community colleges.

So we just encourage the Chancellor and the board to to actively engage with additional stakeholders who really are going to be at the front lines working with faculty as well as librarians and OER  coordinators to implement the proposal before you today. Thank you.

Next we have uh Omar Savala. You have control of your miking can address the board. Hello, uh as a student I would like to say I'm really excited about materials and I hope this regulation goes further. I had my first open back class. It was pretty amazing because I could access that with giving limited information and I was I was able to access it over the tour network and anonymizing network. I don't wanna count. I don't want to have f books where I have to tell a business every time I open a book and log in so I hope the vendor is going forward, uh don't do that. I don't always have access to Internet all the time, but most of my classes have always online books, which makes it very hard to learn. I had a class that I dropped because there was just no transparency where our data was going with with the book and it was hard to use it all the time. So we do need access also in offline and downloadable book. I believe this could be a winwin for student access and restoring student right here. Thank you. 

Amy Costa (President of Board)  Okay, so I just do want to clarify the record on the stakeholder thing. all our agenda items at a bare minimum have a 72 hour notification requirement. This is a second reading. Also are our consultative process, the agendas and the materials are always publicly facing. So, you know, stakeholders, it's out there, man. Feel free to give us a call.

With that, we had a motion on the table from board member de La Fuente. We need a second with board member Williams with that. Can you please call the roll? Hildeg Agualdo. Adrian Brown. I. Casey Chang. Hi, Amy Costa. I Ricardo de La Fuente. Tom Epstein. Felicia Escobar Caro. Nan Gomez Heberg. Hi. Pamela Haynes, an enthusiastic eye. Harry Lagrand. Bill Rollings. Hi. Syrian Villaicenio. Joseph Williams. The motion carries. Thank you. Great job, staff.

From NACS Newsletter - Campus Marketplace

Proposed Cash Management Regs Pose Challenges for IA/EA

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is in the early stages of exploring potential regulatory changes to Title settle such charges.

ED is not proposing any changes to existing regulatory practices that involve regular student authorization and ability of students to use their financial aid at the campus bookstore. On Feb. 8, negotiators representing higher education institutions proposed a new alternative, which is under consideration by ED. That proposal would expand disclosure and guardrail requirements that closely align with existing best practices for existing programs. Negotiators are expected to meet for their third and final weeklong session the week of March 4.

As ED continues to negotiate the details of proposed changes, campus stores should be aware that IA and EA programs are facing greater interest and scrutiny in higher ed media.

Several recent articles and opinion pieces in higher-ed publications have taken issue with opt-out IA and EA programs. For example, an article in Inside Higher Ed (“Biden Administration Looks to Clamp Down on Inclusive Access,” Jan. 29, registration required) quoted critics who felt IA and EA cause many students to pay more for materials than if they could shop on their own, although no data was cited. The article also described the opt-out process as “opaque” and quoted a student leader in Florida as saying students don’t realize they can opt out or know how to do so.

A student government member also took aim at his Minnesota college’s proposed opt-out IA program in an editorial in the campus publication (“Inclusive access is a handout to a bleeding textbook industry,” Feb. 1) while an academic librarian voiced her misgivings about IA and EA and their potential impact on libraries on the Association of College and Research Libraries’ official blog(“Unveiling the Deceptive Duo: IA and EA—A Threat to Student Choice and Library Reserves,” Feb. 2).

Some of the criticism levied at IA and EA in these articles involve things that aren’t inherent to the programs at all. One interviewed a student who complained about a professor hardly using two of the textbooks in her IA program; another student was upset about a required access code for submitting homework.

NACS Government Relations continues to collaborate with other higher education associations and institutions as well as other industry stakeholders to gather and share accurate data with ED and the negotiating committee about the positive impact of IA and EA programs on affordability, access, and student success. If your store has data showing the impact of your IA or EA program, contact Rich Hershman, vice president of government relations, at rhershman@nacs.org.

Hershman will present an update on these developments in a session at CAMEX24 on Tuesday, Feb. 27, and will be available for members during the conference. Stay tuned for updates, alerts, and additional requests from NACS Government Relations via email, Campus Marketplace, and The Hub.

From John Valencia

Less-than-stellar fiscal news for California continued to be front and center for the Legislature and the Administration this week as the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported, “In the first few weeks of January, real-time personal income tax (PIT) revenue collections are running $3 billion to $4 billion short of the January target for current year revenue projections included in the 2024-25 Governor's Budget.”

The shortfall is over $3 billion in lower-than-anticipated capital gains tax revenue and near $1 billion in less-than-projected personal income tax revenue from January estimated tax payments by high wage earners.

Meanwhile, the pace of legislative proposals remains relatively slow as fewer than a combined 250 new pieces of legislation have been introduced in the Assembly and Senate.

NACS/CACS Retail Theft - https://fastdemocracy.com/shared-bills/?sharing-bill-list-id=lTR8ZXmyOmFI

California Bills - https://fastdemocracy.com/shared-bills/?sharing-bill-list-id=ac2Dgbvs1wZH

California Legislation - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/home.xhtml