BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2210
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Jose Medina, Chair
AB 2210
(Harper) - As Amended March 17, 2016
SUBJECT: California State University: student success fees
SUMMARY: Requires a campus student success fee to be approved
by a two-thirds vote of the California State University (CSU)
campus student body voting on the fee.
EXISTING LAW: Establishes various requirements for the
implementation and rescission of CSU student success fees,
including:
1)Prohibits a CSU campus or the CSU Chancellor from approving a
new student success fee or increasing an existing fee until
the campus:
a) Undertakes a consultation process to inform students on
a fee's uses, impacts, and costs;
b) Holds a binding student election and a majority of
students voting affirmatively, the fee would then be
adopted contingent on final approval by the Chancellor;
and,
AB 2210
Page 2
c) Informs students that the fee may be rescinded by a
majority vote of the students, but not less than six months
after a vote to implement the fee. Rescission is not
allowed, however, for the portion of the fee committed to
support long-term obligations.
2)Stipulates that a fee proposal may not be brought before the
student body more than once per academic year.
3)Provides that a success fee in place as of January 1, 2016,
may be rescinded by student vote only after six years have
elapsed following implementation.
4)Requires the Chancellor to:
a) Ensure there is majority student representation in
success fee oversight groups, an annual report to the
chancellor from each campus on its success fee, and a
transparent process for allocation of success fee revenues;
and,
b) Report annually on December 1, to the Legislature and
the Department of Finance, a summary of fees adopt or
rescinded in the prior academic year, and on the uses of
proposed and implemented fees.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS: Background. A number of CSU campuses have adopted
student success fees, which, in some cases, substantially
AB 2210
Page 3
increase the cost of attendance at a CSU. Since 2008, 12 of the
23 CSU campuses have adopted such fees. These fees, which were
adopted largely in response to significant state funding
reductions, are required to be paid by students enrolling in
these campuses. Concern over the amount of these fees, the
process used for adoption on campuses, and the impact of the
fees on low-income students led to the Legislature placing an
18-month moratorium on new fees, and establishing CSU reporting
requirements in the 2013-14 Budget Act education trailer bill
(SB 860, Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 34,
Statutes of 2014).
In June 2014, the CSU Board of Trustees (BOT) formed a working
group to study the role, process and enactment of student
success fees. The working group found that fees had been used
in a number of ways by the different campuses. At some
campuses, fees support technology, campus-wide WiFi, library
hours, veteran services, career services, athletics and
additional otherwise unfunded services. Some campuses, however,
have used these fees to fund educational needs that have
traditionally been supported by tuition and state appropriation
such as faculty, advisors, counselors and tutors, and to provide
more courses.
According to the working group, of the 12 campuses with fees,
only two had referendums where a majority of students voted in
favor of the fee, and one of those two allowed students to vote
only if they attended alternative consultation meetings about
the proposal. At a third campus, students voted to reject the
proposed fee; yet, the fee was imposed despite the student
rejection. At remaining campuses "alternative consultation"
meetings were used instead of student votes.
At the January 27-28, 2015, meeting of the CSU Board of Trustees
(Trustees), the Trustees adopted a resolution memorializing the
final recommendations of the working group. AB 1000 (Weber,
AB 2210
Page 4
Chapter 636, Statutes of 2016) enacted current policy on CSU
student success fees that is consistent with the requirements of
the CSU BOT resolution.
Purpose of this bill. According to the author, "under
Proposition 26 (2010), the Legislature must meet a 2/3 vote
requirement to pass a fee, charge, or tax increase. Local
governments must also meet this higher requirement to impose a
special tax. A governing body asking voters to contribute
additional money towards operations is a serious question that
must not be taken lightly. It is appropriate to ensure that an
overwhelming majority of the student body approves any new
student success fees, which can make up a significant portion of
the money they have set aside for educational expenses. AB 2210
is needed to change the vote threshold for new student fees at
CSU campuses to match the current requirements at the state and
local government levels for new taxes or increases in existing
taxes. This change will make sure that these fees are imposed
fairly and only when a vast majority of the students believe it
is needed."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on File
Opposition
AB 2210
Page 5
California State University
Analysis Prepared by:Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960