BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                    AB 1307

                                                                    Page  1


          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  

          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  

             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  

          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


          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: