BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1307
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Jose Medina, Chair
AB 1307
McCarty - As Amended April 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Working Families Student Fee Transparency and
Accountability Act
SUMMARY: Prohibits the California State University (CSU) and
the University of California (UC) from increasing fees above
2014-15 levels, except as authorized in the annual Budget Act.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits the CSU Board of Trustees (Trustees) from charging
more than $5,472 in systemwide tuition and fees, except as
authorized in the annual Budget Act, to a California resident
of the CSU.
2)Prohibits the UC Board of Regents, as a condition of receipt
of state funding in the annual Budget Act from charging more
than $12,192 in systemwide tuition and fees, except as
authorized in the annual Budget Act, to a California resident
of the UC.
3)Mandates CSU, and UC as a condition of receipt of state funds
for student financial assistance, compliance with specific
provisions of the Working Family Student Fee Transparency and
AB 1307
Page 2
Accountability Act (Student Fee Act), as follows:
a) Requires, instead of encourages, as changes in mandatory
systemwide fees and financial aid are being considered, the
impact of changes to be explained to students;
b) Requires, instead of encourages, students to be
consulted before increases on mandatory systemwide fees are
proposed;
c) Requires, instead of encourages, adequate advance notice
to be provided to students regarding future mandatory
systemwide fees;
d) Requires, instead of encourages, all current and
prospective students to be provided timely information
concerning student financial aid;
e) Requires, rather than encourages, the state's public
colleges and universities ensure transparency in the uses
of mandatory systemwide fee revenue and the rationale for
implementing mandatory systemwide fee increases; and,
f) Requires, rather than urges, CSU and UC to maintain
their commitment to institutional financial aid programs by
ensuring at least 33% of fee increase revenues are set
aside for institutional student aid.
EXISTING LAW: Requires, under the Student Fee Act, UC and CSU
follow specific notice, consultation, and timeframe requirements
when approving student fee increases. (Education Code Section
66028 - 66028.6)
AB 1307
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: Student fee policy. Fees and General Fund (GF)
support work interchangeably to fund the core instructional
missions of the segments. The state's portion essentially
subsidizes the amount paid by students in the form of fees.
Because of this link, fees have increased steeply during
difficult budget years (generally also years where a
down-economy makes families less able to pay for increases) and
then declined when state support could be provided to the
segments.
Through 1996, fees at California public postsecondary
institutions were governed by the Maddy-Dills Act, which
required fees to be gradual, moderate and predictable; increases
to be limited to 10% a year; and fixed at least ten months prior
to the fall term in which they were to become effective.
However, when the state faced serious budget challenges the
provisions of the Act were set aside in order to provide the CSU
Trustees and the UC Regents flexibility in dealing with the lack
of GF support. In 1996, the Act was allowed to sunset.
In 2012, AB 970 (Fong, Chapter 620) established the Student Fee
Act to require UC and CSU follow specific notice and
consultation requirements when approving student fee increases:
1)UC and CSU are required to follow prescribed public notice and
AB 1307
Page 4
student consultation procedures before adopting an increase in
mandatory systemwide tuition and fees for resident students;
2)UC and CSU are required to develop a list of factors to
consider when recommending a fee increase;
3)UC and CSU are required to provide the Legislature on annual
reports on tuition and fees, financial aid, and total cost of
attendance.
4)The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is required to report
on CSU and UC compliance with the Student Fee Act.
Governor's multi-year plan. Following the passage of
Proposition 30 in 2012, the Governor proposed a multi-year
funding plan that assumes no tuition fee increases over four
years; specifically, the plan called for 5% GF growth for CSU
and UC in 2013-14 and 2014-15, and 4% growth in 2015-16 and
2016-17. The Governor has also indicated that UC and CSU should
anticipate 4% increases in 2017-18 and 2018-19. Both CSU and UC
have indicated that the Governor's proposed 4% increases do not
sufficiently ensure access and quality.
CSU budget request. In response to GF support deemed inadequate
by CSU, since 2009, CSU indicates it has annually turned away
between 10,000 and 30,000 qualified California applicants. At
its November 2014 meeting, the CSU Trustees voted to approve a
budget that does not increase student fees, but instead calls
for the state to provide an additional $97 million in GF
support. With this additional funding, CSU would increase
enrollment by 3% (10,000 full-time students) and focus on
student success and completion initiatives.
UC budget request. UC indicates that despite inadequate GF
support in recent years, it has accepted all eligible students;
AB 1307
Page 5
although, not necessarily accepted to the campus or campuses to
which they applied. UC contends that it is currently serving
7,000 "unfunded" California students. On November 20, 2014, the
UC Board of Regents voted to increase (1) tuition, (2) student
services fees, and (3) professional degree supplemental tuition
by 5% in each academic year from 2015-16 through 2019-20. The
resident undergraduate tuition increase would raise tuition and
fees from the current $12,192 to $15,564 by 2019-20. UC
indicates that, depending on the level of state funding
received, charges may increase by a smaller amount or remain
flat over the course of the five-year period.
Governor's January budget proposal. In January of 2015,
Governor Brown proposed, consistent with the multi-year plan, a
4% increase in GF support for UC and CSU. The plan specifies
that the 4% increase for UC is contingent upon keeping tuition
at 2011-12 levels in 2015-16, not increasing nonresident
enrollment in 2015-16, and taking action to control costs. Of
note, Assembly and Senate leadership have called for increasing
funding to UC and CSU above the Governor's proposed increases.
UC response to Administrative and Legislative concerns. On
February 18, 2015, UC President Napolitano announced that UC
would not implement the proposed tuition increase for the 2015
summer quarter. On March 3, 2015, President Napolitano told the
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance that UC
campuses have been instructed to keep enrollment of California
students flat, and placing "unfunded students" on waitlists and
offering deferred enrollment. President Napolitano also
indicated that UCLA and Berkeley would cap nonresident
enrollment next year at this year's current levels.
UC noncompliance with the Student Fee Act. On March 25, 2015,
the LAO released its annual report regarding UC and CSU
compliance with the Student Fee Act. LAO found that CSU has not
increased resident mandatory systemwide charges in the past year
and therefore was not required to follow any consultation or
notification procedures required by existing law. UC, on the
other hand, was deemed by LAO to be not in compliance with most
AB 1307
Page 6
of the provisions of the law. According to the LAO, UC reported
it is not legally obligated to comply with the law because of
its constitutional autonomy. LAO noted that of the six
statutory requirements regarding public notice and student
consultation, UC failed to comply with four requirements.
Increasing fees, reducing access, controlling costs. As
previously noted, student fee levels are tied to GF support. In
budget years where GF support is not provided, traditionally UC
and CSU have responded through (1) increasing student fees, or
(2) reducing California resident enrollment (or both).
Arguably, controlling and reducing higher education costs is an
alternative; however, it is unclear how this alternative would
affect education quality. This bill would prohibit CSU and UC
from increasing fees absent approval in the Budget Act. The
Committee may wish to consider, if adequate GF support is not
provided and the Legislature does not authorize a fee increase,
the effect on CSU and UC access and quality.
The author and committee may wish to consider the following
amendments:
66028.7.
(a) Notwithstanding any other law, the trustees shall not
implement an increase charge more than five thousand four
hundred seventy-two dollars ($5,472) in systemwide tuition and
fees , except as authorized in the annual Budget Act, to a
California resident student of the California State University,
if the Legislative Analyst has determined, in the report
required pursuant to section 66028.6(b), that the trustees
failed to comply with the requirements of this article prior to
the approval of the increase.
AB 1307
Page 7
(b) Notwithstanding Section 67400, as a condition of the receipt
of state funding in the annual Budget Act, the regents shall not
implement an increase charge more than twelve thousand one
hundred ninety-two dollars ($12,192) in systemwide tuition and
fees , except as authorized in the annual Budget Act, to a
California resident student of the University of California, if
the Legislative Analyst has determined, in the report required
pursuant to section 66028.6(b), that the regents failed to
comply with the requirements of this article prior to the
approval of the increase.
(c) An increase in systemwide tuition and fees for California
resident students adopted pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) may
be rescinded by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act.
Related legislation. AB 42 (Kim), pending in this committee,
finds and declares the intent of the Legislature to increase
funding to the UC, CSU, and CCC to ensure that increases in
mandatory systemwide fees or tuition are not required during the
period when the higher tax rates imposed by the Schools and
Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 will be in effect;
and, prohibits, from the 2015-16 fiscal year to the 2018-19
fiscal year, mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged at
CCC, CSU and UC from exceeding the 2014-15 levels.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AB 1307
Page 8
None on File
Opposition
California State University
Analysis Prepared by:Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960