BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1307
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1307 (McCarty and Medina)
As Amended September 3, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 3, 2015) |SENATE: |40-0 | (September 8, |
| |52-25 | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HIGHER ED.
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 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;
AB 1307
Page 2
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) Clarifies that CSU and UC are urged to maintain their
commitment to institutional financial aid programs by
ensuring at least 33% of undergraduate fee increase
revenues are set aside for institutional student aid for
undergraduate resident students.
The Senate amendments remove language that would have required,
rather than urged, CSU and UC to maintain their commitment to
institutional financial aid programs by ensuring at least 33% of
undergraduate 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 Senate Appropriations
AB 1307
Page 3
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
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.
In 2012, AB 970 (Fong), Chapter 620, Statutes of 2012,
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
AB 1307
Page 4
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.
Analysis Prepared by:
Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN:
0002275