BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Weber |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 28, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: July 15, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Kathleen Chavira |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: California State University: student success fees
SUMMARY
This bill deletes existing provisions and establishes new
requirements regarding the implementation, rescission and
reporting, of student success fees at the California State
University (CSU).
BACKGROUND
Existing law defines "student success fee" as a type of category
II campus-based mandatory fee that must be paid by a student to
enroll or attend a campus of the CSU, as determined by that
campus or the Chancellor of the CSU.
Existing law prohibits a CSU campus, or the Chancellor of CSU,
or both, from approving a student success fee, before January 1,
2016, and requires the Chancellor to review the CSU Student Fee
Policy relating to student success fees and to recommend any
changes to the trustees during the 2014-15 fiscal year.
Existing law requires a report to the Department of Finance and
the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature,
on or before February 1, 2015, regarding the chancellor's
proposed revisions to these policies.
Existing law requires the Chancellor's review and
recommendations to consider:
1)The approval process and the benefit of utilizing a student
AB 1000 (Weber) Page 2
of ?
election or the consultative process in the approval process.
2)The need for statewide policies governing a student election,
the consultative process, or both, for approving a proposed
student success fee.
3)The means to improve transparency and accountability regarding
a campus' use of student success fee funds.
4)The development of an annual report describing the use of
student success fee funds by each campus.
5)The approval of a statewide policy to prohibit a campus from
implementing a student success fee for a period exceeding five
years unless a continuance of that fee is approved by an
affirmative vote of the majority of the student body voting,
or through the consultative process.
6)The impact of student success fees on campuses' academic
programs and services available for students.
7)The provision for financial assistance to offset the cost of
the fee for low-income students. (Education Code § 89712)
ANALYSIS
This bill deletes existing provisions and establishes the
following new requirements regarding student success fees:
1)Prohibits a campus of the California State University (CSU), or
the Chancellor of the CSU or both from approving, or
increasing an existing, student success fee before doing all
of the following:
a) Undertaking a rigorous consultation process that
informs and educates students on the uses, impact and cost
of the proposed fee or fee increase.
b) Informing students that a student fee may be
rescinded by a majority vote of the students, but may not
be rescinded earlier than six years following the vote to
implement the fee, except that any portion of a fee
committed to a long-term obligation may not be rescinded
until the obligation has been satisfied.
AB 1000 (Weber) Page 3
of ?
c) Holding a binding student election in which a
majority of the student body votes to implement or increase
a student success fee, contingent upon final approval by
the Chancellor of the CSU.
d) Limiting the bringing of such a proposal to the
student body to once per academic year.
2)Authorizes student success fees to be rescinded with a binding
student vote of a simple majority of the students voting. It
requires that:
a) A student success fee in place on January 1, 2016 be
rescinded by a binding student vote only after six years
have elapsed following the implementation of the fee.
b) For rescission of all other student success fees it:
i) Provides that the fee may
be rescinded by a simple majority of the voting
students.
ii) Requires that a student vote be
formally approved by the recognized student
government, that rescission vote proposals be
brought to students only once per academic year,
and that prior to reconsidering a fee and before
a vote that students be informed of specified
information regarding the use of the fee for
long-term obligations.
3)Requires the Chancellor of the CSU to:
a) Ensure that any campus fee allocation oversight group
have majority student representation, that each campus
prepare an annual report, that there is uniform,
transparent, online accountability in the decision making
process for, detailed accounting of, the allocation of
student success fees.
b) Establish appropriate reporting procedures to ensure
compliance with requirements.
AB 1000 (Weber) Page 4
of ?
c) Report by December 1 or each year, a summary of the
fees adopted or rescinded in the prior academic year and
the uses of proposed and implemented fees.
4)Defines a "student success fee" as a category II campus based
mandatory fee that must be paid by a student to enroll or
attend a California State University (CSU) campus, as
specified.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author, this bill is the
next step in the process of addressing student success fees at
the CSU. Its provisions are generally based upon a recently
adopted resolution by the CSU Trustees regarding student
success fees. The author states that by putting into statute
many of these recommendations, the Legislature can ensure that
students will continue to have a voice in fees that directly
affect them.
2)History. In an attempt to make-up for budget cuts experienced
during the recession, a number of CSU campuses adopted student
success fees, which, in some cases, substantially increased
the cost of attendance at a CSU. Since 2011, 12 of the 23 CSU
campuses had adopted such fees. The process for determining
these fees differed at each campus. According to the author,
at some campuses this fee results in an additional cost of
$2000 annually.
As part of the 2014-15 Budget Act, SB 850 (Chapter 34,
Statutes of 2014) was enacted to prohibit a CSU campus, or the
Chancellor, from approving a student success fee before
January 1, 2016, and to require the Chancellor to conduct a
review of, and recommend changes to, the CSU student fee
policy during the 2014-15 fiscal year. The Chancellor was
required to report to the Department of Finance (DOF) and the
appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature,
on February 1, 2015, regarding proposed revisions to the CSU
student fee policy related to student success fees.
3)Related Report. In compliance with the requirements of SB 860,
the CSU issued its report January 30, 2015 summarizing the
process and findings of the Student Success Fee Working Group
AB 1000 (Weber) Page 5
of ?
and the recommendations of the Trustees. In addition, at its
January 27-28 meeting the Trustees adopted a resolution
memorializing the final recommendations of the working group
which required all the following:
a) A binding student vote, prior to the implementation of any
proposed new student success fee, and a rigorous
consultation process prior to the vote, to educate students
on uses, impact, and cost and to inform students that a fee
that supports ongoing and or long-term obligations will
remain in place until the obligation is satisfied
regardless of a subsequent vote to rescind the fee.
b) All student success fees currently in place remain
unchanged, however a new addition to an existing fee must
be approved by a binding student vote, the campus must
receive approval on the process for approval from the CSU
Chancellor's Office, and a fee proposal may only be brought
to the student body once per academic year.
c) Student success fees accepted by a majority of students
voting may not be implemented without the approval of the
California State University (CSU) Chancellor and the campus
president, and if for a proposed use historically covered
by tuition and state funding, the Chancellor is required to
consult with the Board of Trustees before granting final
approval.
d) Student success fees may be rescinded at any time after six
years with another binding majority student vote, except
that student success fees supporting ongoing and long-term
obligations may not be rescinded until the obligation is
satisfied. Current student success fees may not be
rescinded until after January 1, 2021.
e) Student success fee implementation and fee rescinding
proposals may only be brought before the student body once
per academic year.
f) Each campus is required to have transparent, online
accountability protocols that clarify the decision process
and allocation of the student success fees, with annual
reporting to the Chancellor by October 15th, and any campus
AB 1000 (Weber) Page 6
of ?
advisory group on student success fees is required to
include a majority student representation.
This bill is generally consistent with the provisions of
the resolution adopted by the Trustees.
4)Existing student success fees. Current law prohibits the
adoption of any new student success fees until January 1,
2016. As part of the report required by SB 850, the CSU was
required to examine the uses and processes related to existing
fees, and was specifically tasked with reviewing financial aid
considerations for low-income students. The Trustees formed a
working group to study the role, process, and enactment of
these fees, as well as make recommendations regarding their
future use.
According to the CSU, the Working Group determined that these
fees had been used for new technology, campus-wide Wi-Fi,
library hours, veteran services, career services, athletics,
and additional benefits for students. While one campus
rejected the use of these fees for purposes historically
covered by tuition and state funding, other campuses used fees
for purposes of funding educational needs traditionally
supported by these sources, including to hire additional
faculty, advisors, counselors, tutors, and to provide more
courses. The working group recommended no policy changes
relative to financial aid to offset costs for low-income
students as they found that there is sufficient coverage
through a variety of private, institutional, state, and
federal financial aid programs.
In addition, of the 12 campuses with success fees, two had
referendums, although one of these allowed students to vote
only if they attended alternative consultation meetings about
the fee proposal. A third campus imposed a fee without a
campus-wide referendum and despite a vote by the Student Fee
Advisory Committee rejecting the proposed fee.
5)Student Success Fees. According to the California State
University (CSU), student success fees are category 2
campus-based mandatory fees. This bill's provisions maintain
the definition to codify it as one of five categories of fees
which have been established by CSU Executive Order 1054, and
the provisions of this bill, as well the Trustees resolution
AB 1000 (Weber) Page 7
of ?
only affect category 2 campus-based fees. The chart below
summaries these fees.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| CSU FEES |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|---------+------------------------------+--------------------------|
|Types of | Description | Examples |
| Fees | | |
|---------+------------------------------+--------------------------|
|Category |Systemwide mandatory fees |Tuition fee, non-resident |
|1 |that must be paid to apply |tuition fee, application |
| |to, enroll in, or attend the |fee, professional program |
| |university, or to pay the |fee |
| |full cost of instruction | |
| |required of some students by | |
| |statute | |
|---------+------------------------------+--------------------------|
|Category |Campus mandatory fees that |Health facilities fee, |
|2 |must be paid to enroll in or |health services fee, |
| |attend the university |university union fee, |
| | |associated student body |
| | |fee, materials services |
| | |and facilities fee, |
| | |instructionally related |
| | |activities fee, |
| | |orientation fee, |
| | |athletics recreation and |
| | |transit fees |
|---------+------------------------------+--------------------------|
|Category |Fees associated with |Course fees, field trip |
|3 |state-supported courses. |fees |
| |Specifically for materials | |
| |and services used in concert | |
| |with the basic foundation of | |
| |an academic course offering | |
|---------+------------------------------+--------------------------|
|Category |Fees paid to receive |Late fees, library fees, |
|4 |materials services, or for |diploma fees, check |
| |the use of facilities |return fees, etc. |
| |provided by the university; | |
| |and fees or deposit to | |
AB 1000 (Weber) Page 8
of ?
| |reimburse the university for | |
| |additional costs resulting | |
| |from dishonored payments, | |
| |late submissions, or misuse | |
| |of property as a security or | |
| |guaranty | |
|---------+------------------------------+--------------------------|
|Category |Fees paid to self-support |Parking fees/fines, |
|5 |programs |housing fees/fines and |
| | |continuing or extended |
| | |education fees/fines, |
| | |student fees and fines |
| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Prior legislation. AB 938 (Weber) as amended by this Committee,
required that a campus of the CSU that has implemented a
"student success fee" must use its institutional aid to cover
the cost of these fees for low-income students, as defined.
Upon returning to the Assembly for concurrence, AB 938 was
referred to the Assembly Higher Education Committee, but was
never heard at the request of the author.
SUPPORT
California Federation of Teachers
California State Student Association
OPPOSITION
California State University
-- END --