BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1307 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1307 (McCarty and Medina) As Amended June 1, 2015 Majority vote ------------------------------------------------------------------- |Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------| |Higher |10-3 |Medina, Bloom, |Baker, Chávez, | |Education | |Irwin, |Harper | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Jones-Sawyer, | | | | |Levine, Linder, Low, | | | | |Santiago, Weber, | | | | |Williams | | | | | | | |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------| |Appropriations |12-5 |Gomez, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, | | | |Calderon, Daly, |Gallagher, Jones, | | | |Eggman, |Wagner | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Eduardo Garcia, | | | | |Gordon, Holden, | | | | |Quirk, Rendon, | | | | |Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | AB 1307 Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Requires the California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC) to follow specified student fee consultation and notification provisions. Specifically, this bill: 1)Mandates CSU, and UC as a condition of receipt of state funds in the annual budget act, compliance with specific provisions of the Working Family Student Fee Transparency and 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, AB 1307 Page 3 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 Sections 66028 to 66028.6) FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor absorbable costs to the UC for compliance with the Student Fee Act. 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 (Act), which required fees to be gradual, moderate and predictable; increases to be limited to 10% a year; and fixed at least 10 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. AB 1307 Page 4 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 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. 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 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. AB 1307 Page 5 Analysis Prepared by: Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0000909