BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 970|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 970
Author: Fong (D) and Block (D), et al.
Amended: 8/24/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-2, 6/27/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Liu, Price, Simitian, Vargas
NOES: Blakeslee, Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Hancock, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-1, 8/6/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Dutton, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 51-23, 1/30/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : University of California and California State
University: systemwide fees
SOURCE : California State Student Association
University of California Student Association
DIGEST : This bill establishes requirements and
timeframes for the University of California (UC) and the
California State University (CSU) regarding the approval
and implementation of student fee increases, and requires
the segments to report annually on their use of student fee
revenues. This bill also requires the Legislative Analyst's
Office (LAO) to annually review and report on CSU and UC
compliance with these provisions.
CONTINUED
AB 970
Page
2
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/24/12 add language to: (1)
reorganize the findings and declarations in the bill; (2)
make a technical rephrasing of the definition of
"consultation"; (3) replace the term "tuition" with
"mandatory systemwide fees"; and (4) clarify that the
exemption from some of the bill's requirements applies if
the Governor and/or the Legislature propose or enact a
reduction in General Fund appropriations from the prior
annual Budget Act, or in the middle of a fiscal year, for
the support of the operations at the UC or CSU.
ANALYSIS : Existing law further provides that statutes
related to UC (and most other aspects of the governance and
operation of UC) are applicable only to the extent that the
Regents of UC make such provisions applicable. (Education
Code (ED) Section 67400)
Existing law confers upon the Trustees of the CSU the
powers, duties, and functions with respect to the
management, administration, and control of the CSU system.
(ED Section 66066)
This bill:
1. Establishes state policies applicable to resident
student financial aid and mandatory systemwide fees
charged at the UC and CSU. More specifically it
provides that the UC and CSU should:
A. Explain to students the impact that increased fees
will have on them, as specified.
B. Consult students prior to any increase in fees so
that they may provide input and ask questions
regarding the need for the increase.
C. Provide students with adequate advance notice
regarding fee increases.
D. Provide current and prospective students with
timely information regarding financial aid, as
specified.
CONTINUED
AB 970
Page
3
E. Make every effort to ensure increased transparency
in the uses of, and rationale for, increased fee
revenue.
2. Requires the regents and the trustees, by April 2, 2013,
and in consultation with appropriate student
associations, to develop and formally adopt in an open
and public meeting of the regents or trustees, a list of
factors to be considered when developing recommendations
to adjust fees.
3. Establishes the following notice, consultation, and
timeframe requirements for the UC and the CSU regarding
the approval and implementation of student fee
increases:
A. Requires the UC and the CSU, 10 days prior to
holding a meeting to discuss or adopt a mandatory
systemwide fee increase, to provide public notice
that includes, at a minimum, specified information.
B. Requires the UC Regents and the CSU Trustees to
consult with their respective statewide student
associations, at least 30 days prior to providing
public notice of a proposed mandatory systemwide fee
increase.
C. Defines "consultation" with the statewide student
association to require institutional representatives
to provide, at least five days before a meeting:
(1) A justification for a fee increase proposal,
setting forth the facts supporting the fee
increase.
(2) A statement specifying the use of the fee
revenue from the increase.
(3) Potential impact to students, including
changes to the minimum workload burden,
institutional financial aid awards and the average
student loan debt for undergraduates.
(4) Alternative proposals to the fee increase.
CONTINUED
AB 970
Page
4
D. Prohibits the regents and trustees from adopting a
fee increase until at least 45 days after a public
meeting to discuss the fee.
E. Prohibits the regents and trustees from adopting a
fee increase after 90 days have elapsed from the
start of classes for an academic year, except in the
case of increases for summer session.
F. Provides an exception to the outlined timeframe
and notice requirements if:
(1) The Governor's proposed budget reduces
appropriations from the prior annual Budget Act
for the UC or CSU.
(2) The Legislature enacts a budget reduction
for the support of UC or CSU in the middle of a
fiscal year.
(3) Requires that if (1) or (2) occur:
(A) The UC and CSU discuss a proposal for
a fee increase with their respective statewide
student associations at least seven days before
posting notice of action to increase the fees.
(B) Any increase in fees is prohibited
from becoming effective until at least 30 days
have elapsed from the date of adoption.
G. Requires, upon the adoption of a fee increase,
that the UC and CSU notify matriculated students of
the upcoming assessment of fees and inform students
of the availability of, and procedures for obtaining,
financial aid to assist with increased costs of
attendance.
4. Urges the Regents and the Trustees to maintain their
commitment to institutional financial aid by ensuring
that at least 33% of increases to existing mandatory
systemwide fees be used for institutional financial aid.
CONTINUED
AB 970
Page
5
5. Requires the regents and trustees, by February 1, 2013,
and annually thereafter, to provide the Legislature
information on the:
A. Expenditure of revenues derived from student fees.
B. Uses of institutional financial aid.
C. Systemwide average total cost of attending per
student.
6. Requires the LAO to annually review and report to the
Legislature regarding UC's and CSU's compliance with all
of the above.
7. Makes a number of technical, clarifying and conforming
changes.
Comments
Fee history. The Maddy-Dills Act previously required fees
to be (1) gradual, moderate and predictable, (2) limited
fee increases to not more than 10% a year, and (3) fixed at
least 10months prior to the fall term in which they were to
become effective. The policy also required sufficient
financial aid to offset fee increases. However, even with
this policy, when the state faced serious budgetary
challenges the statute was "in-lieued" in order to provide
the institutions some flexibility in dealing with the lack
of state General Fund support. The Maddy-Dills Act sunset
in 1996 and, since then, the state has had no long-term
policy regarding the way in which mandatory student fees
are determined.
Historically, fees have fluctuated in response to the
State's fiscal condition and the stated needs of UC and
CSU, as negotiated in the budget deliberations. The charts
below illustrate the fluctuation in fees at the UC and the
CSU over the last several years.
--------------------------------------------
| UC |
| Mandatory Systemwide |
| Student Fees |
CONTINUED
AB 970
Page
6
| Resident Undergraduates |
--------------------------------------------
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| Year | Fee Amount | Percent |
| | | Change from |
| | | Prior year |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1996-97 | $3,799 | N/A |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1997-98 | $3,799 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1998-99 | $3,609 | -5.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1999-00 | $3,429 | -5.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2000-01 | $3,429 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2001-02 | $3,429 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2002-03 | $3,834 | 11.8% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2003-04 | $4,984 | 30.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2004-05 | $5,684 | 14.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2005-06 | $6,141 | 8.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2006-07 | $6,141 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2007-08 | $6,636 | 8.1% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2008-09 | $7,126 | 7.4% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2009-10 | $8,958 | 25.7% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2010-11 | $10,302 | 15.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2011-12 | $12,192 | 18.3% |
| | | |
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
| CSU |
CONTINUED
AB 970
Page
7
| Mandatory Systemwide |
| Student Fees |
| Resident Undergraduates |
--------------------------------------------
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| Year | Fee Amount | Percent |
| | | Change from |
| | | Prior year |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1996-97 | $1,584 | N/A |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1997-98 | $1584 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1998-99 | $1,506 | -4.9% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1999-00 | $1,428 | -5.2 % |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2000-01 | $1,428 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2001-02 | $1,428 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2002-03 | $1,500 | 5.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2003-04 | $2,046 | 36.4% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2004-05 | $2,334 | 14.1% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2005-06 | $2,520 | 8.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2006-07 | $2,520 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2007-08 | $2,772 | 10.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2008-09 | $3,048 | 10.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2009-10 | $4,026 | 32.1% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2010-11 | $4,429 | 10.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2011-12 | $5,472 | 23.5% |
| | | |
--------------------------------------------
Prior Legislation
CONTINUED
AB 970
Page
8
SB 969 (Liu, 2010) would have placed an upper limit on
mandatory systemwide student fees, not to exceed a fixed
percentage of the cost of education, as defined, prohibited
student fees from ever increasing beyond the amount a
student paid at the time of enrollment, and prohibited
annual mandatory systemwide fee increases for each new
cohort of undergraduate students at the UC, CSU, and
California Community Colleges from exceeding 5% of the
preceding academic year.
SB 1199 (Liu, 2010) would have required the governing
boards of the UC and CSU to develop student fee increase
methodologies consistent with specified direction, and
included many of the same concepts found in SB 969. The
bill's provisions were combined with those of SB 969 and
the hearing was canceled at the request of the author.
SCA 26 (Denham, 2010) would have amended the State
Constitution and imposed upon the UC a waiting period of
180 days before mandatory student fees could take effect,
and limited annual fee increases to no more than a
cumulative 10% over the preceding academic year. The bill
failed passage in the Senate Education Committee by a vote
of 2-2.
SB 917 (Denham, 2010) was similar to SCA 26, however the
application of the provisions in the bill would have
affected the CSU. The bill failed passage in the Senate
Education Committee by a vote of 2-2.
AB 69 (Duvall, 2009) was almost identical to this bill. AB
69 was never heard and was subsequently amended to address
a different issue.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
CSU compliance: Minor and absorbable costs to comply
with notification and consultation requirements; current
CSU practices are similar to these provisions.
CONTINUED
AB 970
Page
9
UC compliance: Minor and absorbable costs to comply
with notification and consultation requirements; current
UC practices are similar to these provisions.
Fee revenue: Potentially substantial revenue loss to
the UC and CSU, to the extent that this bill hinders or
delays any future ability to raise student fees.
LAO report: Minor costs, absorbable within existing
resources.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/27/12)
California State Student Association (co-source)
University of California Student Association (co-source)
AFSCME, Local 3299
California Faculty Association
California State University
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Greenlining Institute
Institute for College Access and Success
UAW, Local 2865
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
this bill, unlike prior measures, does not focus on how
much the state or students should pay for their education
or how much they can be raised in any given year. This
bill focuses upon the process by which student fee
increases are considered at the UC and CSU, in an effort to
ensure transparency and accountability around the costs of
educating students and the uses of student fee revenues.
In addition, the author's office is concerned that the
state does not require any consultation with students or
advance notification of fee increases to students and
families.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 51-23, 1/30/12
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Chesbro, Davis,
Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hernández,
Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
CONTINUED
AB 970
Page
10
Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea, Portantino,
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wagner, Wieckowski,
Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Miller, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cedillo, Gorell, Lara, Mansoor, Norby,
V. Manuel Pérez
PQ:k 8/27/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED