BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 960
AUTHOR: Rubio
AMENDED: February 27, 2012
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 11, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : California State University (CSU): Campus-based
mandatory fees.
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits campus-based mandatory fees at the CSU,
that are not specifically authorized by statute, from being
established, adjusted or reallocated without an affirmative
vote of either the student body or a campus fee advisory
committee, as specified.
BACKGROUND
At present, there is no statutory guiding policy on
mandatory systemwide student tuition and fees beyond the
current fiscal condition and the stated needs of University
of California and CSU, as negotiated in the budget
deliberations.
Current law prohibits the CSU from allocating any student
imposed athletic fees, for the purposes of supporting
intercollegiate athletics programs, in either amounts or
purposes other than those voted on by the students.
Current law specifies the pro-rata refund of any portion of
the student imposed athlete fee that is collected but not
allocated. (Education Code § 66152)
Current 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.
(EC § 89035)
ANALYSIS
This bill prohibits CSU campus-based mandatory fees, other
SB 960
Page 2
than those fees specifically authorized by statute, from
being established without an affirmative vote of either the
student body or a campus fee advisory committee, as
specified. In addition, the bill:
1) Specifies that any CSU campus-based mandatory fees
established through a vote of the student body cannot
be adjusted or reallocated without an affirmative vote
of either the student body or a campus fee advisory
committee.
2) Requires the majority of the membership of the campus
fee advisory committee must be comprised of student
members elected by the student body who may hold other
offices. Specifies the campus fee advisory committee
may include nonstudent members who are appointed or
elected as authorized.
3) Prohibits the CSU from issuing any rule, order, or
other action that provides authority to campus
presidents, or any other person, to use an alternative
consultation mechanism to establish, adjust, or
reallocate campus-based mandatory fees without an
affirmative vote of either the student body or campus
fee advisory committee, as specified.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
"?the current executive language overrides the rights
of students to self-govern and allocate fees that the
student body established and voted on through the
referendum process. Several student bodies throughout
the CSU system have had their existing fees
reallocated or new fees established without a vote of
the student body."
2) Campus-based fees are used to support on-campus
activities that are considered essential to student
success and the college experience. For example,
campus-based fees funds services and programs such as
health facilities and services, student university
unions, athletic programs, transit/transportation
systems, and recreational opportunities. The state
does not provide funding to support these activities.
However, there are instances where these fees have
SB 960
Page 3
been used to supplement instructional related
activities.
3) CSU process dealing with mandatory campus-based fees .
Consistent with EC § 89035, the Trustees adopted
standing orders providing the Chancellor the authority
and responsibility to take whatever actions are
necessary for the appropriate functioning of the CSU
including, but not limited to, establishment,
oversight, and adjustment of campus-based mandatory
fees (also known as category II fees). As it relates
to mandatory campus-based fees, the Chancellor
provided campuses direction under Executive Order
1054. Among other things, under Executive Order 1054:
a) Authority . The Chancellor is delegated
authority for the establishment, oversight and
adjustment of category II fees. Campus presidents
are not delegated authority to establish category
II fees. The president is delegated authority
for the oversight and adjustment of category II
fees.
b) Responsibility . Campus presidents are
responsible for assuring
that appropriate and meaningful consultation
occurs prior to adjusting any campus-based fee
and before requesting the Chancellor establish a
new category II fee.
i) Campus presidents shall establish
fee advisory committees, as specified, in
consultation with the student body
association. Students appointed by the
student body association constitute a
majority of the voting members of the fee
advisory committee.
ii) Campus presidents shall consult
with the fee advisory committee before
adjusting or requesting the chancellor
establish any category II fee.
SB 960
Page 4
iii) The policy presumes that a student
fee referendum will be conducted prior to
adjusting / establishing category II fees.
The president, however, may waive the
referendum requirement if he/she determines
that it is not the best mechanism to achieve
appropriate and meaningful consultation, an
alternative consultation process may be
utilized.
iv) Alternative consultation
strategies are to be developed with input
from the student body association and the
fee advisory committee to ensure the process
is transparent, and meaningful, and will
solicit the input of a representative sample
of the student body. Results of the
alternative consultation process should be
summarized and put in writing and used as
additional advisory material to be taken
into consideration by the fee advisory
committee and the president.
c) Accountability . Campus presidents must
provide a report of all fees, including category
II fees, as specified. In addition, the
president has authority to decrease, suspend or
eliminate fees as needed.
4) Balance between student representation and
administrative responsibilities . This measure attempts
to ensure that student imposed fees are used for their
intended purpose, and any changes must be done through
a process that requires an affirmative student
participation. However, from time-to-time there may
be exceptions to any process. And the administration
of a campus is responsible for insuring the well-being
of an entire campus and the imposition of additional
requirements or constraints may inhibit immediate
action - particularly when it comes to budget issues.
The CSU has attempted via Executive Order 1054, to be
as inclusive, transparent, and accountable to student
input and participation in the mandatory campus-fee
policies. The question is whether there is a
compelling case that warrants broad policy action to
SB 960
Page 5
change the current process.
If it is the desire of the Committee to move this
measure, staff recommends the following amendments:
a) Consistent with the intent of the author,
clarify the process of
establishing campus based mandatory fees is
prospective in nature and not intended to require
an affirmative vote of the student body to
"re-establish" campus-based fees currently
assessed.
b) Clarify that any new campus-based mandatory
fees, other than
those for instructionally related purposes,
cannot be established without an affirmative vote
of the student body.
c) Provide that campus based mandatory fee
established through a
vote of the student body shall not be adjusted or
reallocated without either an affirmative vote of
the student body or a majority vote of a campus
fee advisory committee (that meets membership
criteria), or unless the terms of the referendum
of a mandatory campus-based fee assessed through
the affirmative vote of the student body allows
for an alternative or automatic adjustment or
reallocation mechanism.
d) On page 2, strike lines 16 through 25. This
paragraph would not be
necessary in light of the clarification of (c)
above.
e) Specify the majority of the membership of a
campus fee advisory
committee shall be comprised of student
representatives from the student body
organization of the campus or selected by the
student body organization. The campus fee
advisory committee may include nonstudent members
who are appointed or elected as authorized.
SUPPORT
SB 960
Page 6
California Faculty Association
2 individual CSU students
OPPOSITION
California State University, Chancellor's Office