BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 960|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 960
Author: Rubio (D)
Amended: 5/29/12
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 8-0, 4/11/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Huff, Liu, Price,
Simitian, Vargas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Blakeslee, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/24/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Dutton, Lieu, Price,
Steinberg
SUBJECT : California State University: campus-based
mandatory fees
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill prohibits campus-based mandatory fees,
that are not specifically authorized by statute, at the
California State University (CSU), from being reallocated
without an affirmative vote of either the student body or a
campus fee advisory committee, as specified.
ANALYSIS : There is no statutory guiding policy on
mandatory system-wide 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.
CONTINUED
SB 960
Page
2
Campus-based fees are generally used to support on-campus
activities 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.
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.
This bill prohibits campus-based mandatory fees, that are
not specifically authorized by statute, at the CSU, from
being reallocated without an affirmative vote of either the
student body or a campus fee advisory committee, as
specified.
Comments
1. 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 been
used to supplement instructional related activities.
2. CSU process dealing with mandatory campus-based fees.
Consistent with Education Code Section 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.
CONTINUED
SB 960
Page
3
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.
(1) 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.
(2) Campus presidents shall consult with the fee
advisory committee before adjusting or requesting
the chancellor establish any category II fee.
(3) 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.
(4) 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
CONTINUED
SB 960
Page
4
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
This bill will likely result in minor costs to individual
CSU campuses, and potentially significant cost pressure to
the state to backfill CSU to the extent that it was
unsuccessful in passing fee increases.
Requirements to raise fees: To the extent that CSU
campuses use the student referendum option to pass new
fees, campuses will incur costs of approximately $25,000
to publicize the referendum. Seeking a vote of the
majority of a campus's fee advisory committee is likely
to result in only minor and absorbable costs.
Barriers to raising and reallocating student fees: If
this bill results in CSU campuses being unable to raise
or reallocate student fees to meet campus needs, it will
result in additional cost pressure for the state to fund
the CSU at a higher level, at a time when budget
reductions continue.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/29/12)
California Faculty Association
Numerous California State University students
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/29/12)
California State University, Chancellor's Office
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"?the current executive language overrides the rights of
students to self-govern and allocate fees that the student
CONTINUED
SB 960
Page
5
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."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to the CSU, a student
referendum costs approximately $25,000 to publicize and
hold. This includes advertisement in the campus newspaper,
printing a voter guide, and all other marketing costs
associated with promoting the referendum. The campus also
incurs the cost of printing and counting ballots. The
state does not reimburse CSU campuses for referenda or any
student election-related activity, but such activities do
put additional pressure on campus budgets.
If a referendum was not attempted, or was unsuccessful, the
CSU campus could not impose the fee changes it sought. An
inability for a CSU campus to change its fees to meet
campus needs creates pressure for the state to increase
funding to CSU because the state will have (in passing this
bill)
specifically made it more difficult for CSU campuses to
raise their own revenue.
PQ:kc 5/29/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED