BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1000
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1000 (Weber) - As Amended May 6, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Higher Education |Vote:|13 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill imposes several requirements on the California State
University (CSU) regarding the implementation and rescission of
student success fees. Specifically, this bill:
AB 1000
Page 2
1)Prohibits a CSU campus or the CSU Chancellor from approving a
new student success fee or increasing an existing fee until
the campus:
a) Undertakes a consultation process to inform students on
a fee's uses, impacts, and costs.
b) Holds a binding student election and a majority of
students voting vote affirmatively. The fee would then be
adopted contingent on final approval by the Chancellor.
c) Informs students that the fee may be rescinded by a
majority vote of the students, but not less than six months
after a vote to implement the fee. Rescission is not
allowed, however, for the portion of the fee committed to
support ongoing or long-term obligations until satisfied,
unless the campus has identified an alternative funding
source.
2)Stipulates that a fee proposal may not be brought before the
student body more than once per academic year.
3)Provides that a success fee in place as of January 1, 2016,
may be rescinded by student vote only after six years have
elapsed following implementation.
4)Requires the Chancellor to:
a) Ensure there is majority student representation in
success fee oversight groups, an annual report to the
chancellor from each campus on its success fee, and a
AB 1000
Page 3
transparent process for allocation of success fee revenues.
b) Define an ongoing or long-term obligation for purposes
of the above.
c) Report annually on December 1, to the Legislature and
the Department of Finance, a summary of fees adopt or
rescinded in the prior academic year, and on the uses of
proposed and implemented fees.
FISCAL EFFECT:
The bill's requirements are generally consistent with a recent
policy adopted by the CSU Trustees, though placing these
requirements in statute would reduce CSU's flexibility to adjust
its policy in reaction to reductions in state support. There
would be potential cost pressure to substitute, with other CSU
funds (including state General Funds), the portion of any
rescinded fee dedicated for a long-term obligation. CSU
indicates that, of the $95 million in student success fees
generated systemwide, about $38 million are for long-term
obligations, ranging from $2 million to $9.5 million on
individual campuses.
COMMENTS:
Background and Purpose. Since 2008, 12 of the 23 CSU campuses
AB 1000
Page 4
have adopted student success fees, which were adopted largely in
response to significant state funding reductions, and are
required to be paid by students enrolling in these campuses.
Concern over the amount of these fees, the process used for
adoption on campuses, and the impact of the fees on low-income
students led to the Legislature placing a 18-month moratorium on
new fees and establishing CSU reporting requirements in a
trailer bill to the 2014-15 Budget Act (SB 860, Chapter 34,
Statutes of 2014).
In June 2014, the CSU Trustees formed a working group to study
the role, process and enactment of student success fees. The
working group found that fees had been used in a number of ways
by the different campuses, such as to support technology,
campus-wide WiFi, library hours, veteran services, career
services, athletics and additional otherwise unfunded services.
Some campuses have used these fees, however, to fund educational
needs traditionally supported by tuition and state
appropriation, such as faculty, advisors, counselors and tutors,
and to provide more courses.
In January 2015, the Trustees adopted a resolution memorializing
the final recommendations of the work group. The CSU
Chancellor's Office is reportedly in the process of establishing
an Executive Order consistent with the requirements of the
resolution. This bill is largely consistent with the
requirements of the trustees resolution.
AB 1000
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081