A universal approach to collective bargaining at community colleges would create considerable costs for counties that provide a significant amount of funding to community colleges. House Bill 667 would apply a one-size-fits-all approach that limits local decision making and excludes counties from collective bargaining negotiations. This tactic could also result in an increase in tuition rates and could upend already established collective bargaining agreements at certain community colleges throughout the State.

MACo Policy Associate Kevin Kinnally testified in opposition to HB 667 seeking to address these concerns. From MACo Testimony:

Current state laws include distinct collective bargaining processes for community colleges in several jurisdictions. Several colleges already have some locally-authorized collective bargaining. This bill allows for collective bargaining contracts at those colleges to continue only until they expire. After that point, the existing systems must be repealed and substituted for the far more detailed and restrictive collective bargaining process required by HB 667.

As partners in the network of community colleges serving the states’ residents, county governments reserve the ability to have input into potentially costly shifts in community college administration.”