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