BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1000
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1000 (Weber)
As Amended August 24, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |79-0 |June 2, 2015 |SENATE: |40-0 |(August 31, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HIGHER ED.
SUMMARY: Establishes various requirements for the
implementation and rescission of California State University
(CSU) student success fees (fees). Specifically, this bill:
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
AB 1000
Page 2
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c) Informs students that the fee may be rescinded by a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 long-term obligations.
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may be rescinded by student vote only after six years have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
transparent process for allocation of success fee revenues.
b) 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rescinded in the prior academic year, and on the uses of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.
The Senate amendments add a coauthor and make another
non-substantive change.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Prohibits a campus-based mandatory student fee at the CSU
AB 1000
Page 3
established through a student vote from being reallocated
without an affirmative student vote unless a majority of the
members of either the student body or a campus fee advisory
committee voting on the fee support the reallocation and the
fee authorized the alternative allocation mechanism.
(Education Code Section 89711)
2)Prohibits a CSU campus or CSU Chancellor from approving a
student success fee before January 1, 2016, and requires the
CSU Chancellor to conduct a review and report on student
success fees currently in place, as follows. (Education Code
Section 89712)
a) Requires, during the 2014-15 fiscal year, the CSU
Chancellor to conduct a review of the CSU Student Fee
Policy relating to student success fees and recommend to
the trustees changes to the fee policy; and requires the
review to consider:
i) The approval process for student success fees,
including the benefit of using a student election or the
consultative process in the approval process;
ii) The need for statewide policies governing a student
election, the consultative process, or both, for
approving a proposed student success fee;
iii) The means to improve transparency and accountability
regarding a campus' use of student success fee funds for
the benefit of members of the campus' community;
iv) The development of an annual report describing the
use of student success fee funds by each campus in the
prior academic year, to be posted on each campus'
Internet Web site;
v) The approval of a statewide policy to prohibit a
AB 1000
Page 4
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;
vi) The impact of student success fees on campuses'
academic programs and services available for students,
including, but not necessarily limited to, low-income
students; and,
vii) A provision for financial assistance to offset the
cost of the fee for low-income students.
a) Requires the CSU Chancellor to report to the Department
of Finance and the appropriate fiscal and policy committees
by February 1, 2015.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS: A number of CSU campuses have adopted student success
fees, which, in some cases, substantially increase the cost of
attendance at a CSU. Since 2008, 12 of the 23 CSU campuses have
adopted such fees. These fees, which were adopted largely in
response to significant state funding reductions, 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 an 18-month moratorium on new fees
and establishing CSU reporting requirements in the 2013-14
Budget Act education trailer bill (SB 860 (Budget and Fiscal
Review Committee), Chapter 34, Statutes of 2014).
In June 2014, the CSU Board of Trustees (BOT) 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. At some
AB 1000
Page 5
campuses, fees support technology, campus-wide WiFi, library
hours, veteran services, career services, athletics and
additional otherwise unfunded services. Some campuses, however,
have used these fees to fund educational needs that have
traditionally been supported by tuition and state appropriation
such as faculty, advisors, counselors and tutors, and to provide
more courses.
According to the working group, of the 12 campuses with fees,
only two had referendums where a majority of students voted in
favor of the fee, and one of those two allowed students to vote
only if they attended alternative consultation meetings about
the proposal. At a third campus students voted to rejected the
proposed fee and the fee was imposed despite the student
rejection. At remaining campuses "alternative consultation"
meetings were used instead of student votes.
At the January 27-28, 2015, meeting of the CSU Board of Trustees
(Trustees), the Trustees adopted a resolution memorializing the
final recommendations of the working group. This bill is
largely consistent with the requirements of the CSU BOT
resolution.
Analysis Prepared by:
Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN:
0001850