HB-1144: Authorizing Higher Education Multi-Year Contracts For Non-Tenure Track Faculty
Rep. Randy Fischer/Senator Bob Bacon
What the Bill Would Do:
· Amends Section 24-19-104 of state statute to enable, but not mandate, institutions of higher education to offer multi-year contracts to non-tenure track faculty members;
· Allows contracts to be terminated without penalty due to financial exigencies or if the institution lacks the cash reserves to satisfy the terms of the contract;
· Preserves the prohibition against post-employment compensation for public employees.
Why the Bill Is Needed:
§ Under Article 19 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, multi-year contracts for public employees are prohibited. Therefore, all employment agreements with non-tenure track instructors at Colorado’s colleges and universities are strictly “at will,” and the parties can terminate the agreements at any time with or without a reason.
§ Non-tenure track faculty are typically hired for a specified term, such as a semester or school year. This practice requires higher education institutions to re-hire instructors each semester or each year, which is disadvantageous to administrators, faculty, students, and higher education institutions generally.
§ The ability to offer multi-year term contracts to non-tenure track faculty would create efficiencies in the hiring and retention of instructors and would provide greater job stability and academic freedom for instructors.
§ Multi-year contracts would better enable colleges and universities to retain their top instructors, would strengthen the academic communities on college campuses, and would provide a more viable career option for Colorado’s dedicated, high-quality, professional college and university instructors.
What Public Benefits Are Furthered by the Bill?
§ The bill restores the integrity of contractual obligations between institutions of higher education and non-tenure track instructors. Under HB-1144, commitments made by the institution to faculty or by faculty to their students are strengthened.
§ By providing a measure of security and stability to the employment relationship, students, administrators, college teachers, and the public will benefit from the bill.
§ Non-tenure track teaching faculty are highly qualified, dedicated professionals who play an increasingly important role in higher education. These dedicated professionals perform essential instructional functions, particularly at the undergraduate and community college level. Yet, under current law, their importance to the academic community is often undervalued and their contributions frequently go unrecognized and poorly compensated.
§ Under this bill, students can reasonably expect that an instructor will have some continued involvement in their education and provide such necessary services as writing letters of reference, serving as mentors for projects, and maintaining intellectual relationships over time.
§ Non-tenure track faculty deserve a greater level of job stability and academic freedom than is currently afforded under state law.
§ Anyone involved in higher education should legitimately expect fairness, respect, and validation in the academic setting. This bill makes a substantial contribution to ensuring these values might be better served on Colorado’s college and university campuses.
Other General Discussion about HB-1144 (Based on Ray Hogler’s Previous Written Work)
HB-1144 is a permissive bill. It does not obligate higher education officials to do anything. No institution is required to offer any contract if they don’t want to, or they can continue to offer a contract “at will” just like they have been doing. However, there are several reasons this proposal would actually benefit higher education institutions.
First, under this bill a contract would become a contract, not a meaningless bunch of words. The parties to a contract are entitled to rely on the promises they make. This means that a contingent faculty member could expect some stable period of employment, if promised, and the institution could expect the employee to fulfill that promise. The ability to enter into multi-year term contracts benefits both parties.
Second, if an institution wanted to provide its own due process procedures, it could do so. If this proved to be a valuable benefit for good non-tenure track faculty members, then presumably all institutions would be motivated to follow the “best practices” established by the ethical first movers. If the better-qualified and more competent instructors chose to work at more welcoming institutions, competition could result in other institutions changing their practices and improving working conditions for instructors.
Third, HB-1144 leaves the intent of the existing statute intact, which was to prevent the State from buying out employee contracts. If the institution can’t afford to keep its contractual commitment because of financial considerations, it simply has to make that case to avoid any further obligations.
Fourth, this bill pertains only to a well-defined and specific class of workers. Contingent faculty work by contract because their work is for a set period of time and covers a designated amount of work. Because non-tenure track faculty are unique, they should be given different treatment under the statute.