BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 24
AUTHOR: Block
AMENDED: July 1, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 8, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : California State University
SUMMARY:
This bill: 1) requires the Chancellor of the California
State University to complete and submit to the Trustees a
study about the feasibility of establishing a new university
campus at Chula Vista, and 2) requires the university to
permit students to take examinations at times that do not
violate the student's religious creed.
BACKGROUND
Existing law :
1) Establishes the California State University (CSU)
administered by the Board of Trustees, and provides that
the Trustees shall have the full power over the
construction and development of any CSU campus and any
buildings or other facilities or improvements with CSU.
2) Declares the intent of the Legislature that sites for
new institutions or branches of the University of
California (UC) and the CSU shall not be authorized or
acquired unless recommended by the California
Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC). Existing law
further requires CPEC to advise the Legislature and the
Governor regarding the need for, and location of, new
institutions and campuses of public higher education.
3) Requires the CSU, in administering any test or
examination, to permit any student who is eligible to
undergo the test or examination to do so, without
penalty, at a time when that activity would not violate
the student's religious creed. Existing law specifies
AB 24
Page 2
that the requirement does not apply if administering an
alternative date for the test would impose an undue
hardship on the institution.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires the Chancellor of the CSU to conduct a study
regarding the feasibility of establishing a satellite
program and ultimately, an independent CSU campus at
Chula Vista, and specifies the study should include
specified elements such as enrollment projections,
regional workforce needs and prospective economic impact
and job creation in the region, potential alleviation of
overcrowding and traffic at San Diego State University,
environmental impact, and support and capital outlay
projections.
2) Requires the Chancellor to submit the study to the
Trustees within 18 months of the effective date of this
bill (June 2011).
3) Removes the hardship exemption concerning alternative
testing times, thereby requiring CSU campuses to permit
a student to take a test at a time when it would not
violate the student's religious creed.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Existing process . Existing law requires CPEC to advise
the Legislature and the Governor regarding the need for,
and location of, new institutions and campuses of public
higher education as a means of carrying out their
responsibility to ensure the effective utilization of
public postsecondary education resources. Under the
existing process, institutions considering the
establishment of a new educational center file a notice
of intent with CPEC, followed by the submission of a
formal proposal that provides a comprehensive
feasibility analysis of the proposed facility. This
bill requires the Chancellor to submit a feasibility
study to the Trustees, but does not appear to require
the Trustees to take any action on the study. Further,
staff recommends the bill be amended to specify that
upon adoption of a formal resolution to propose a new
campus or off campus center at Chula Vista, the Trustees
AB 24
Page 3
will submit a formal proposal to CPEC for review,
pursuant to Education Code Section 66904.
2) Enrollment and access . According to the author's
office, the CSU system does not have the capacity to
accommodate the growing demand for students seeking a
four-year college degree. The author's office notes
that population growth in the southern San Diego region
is increasing enrollment demand for San Diego State
University (SDSU) and further notes that SDSU turned
away 68.8% of the 50,000 first-time freshmen who applied
for the fall 2008 semester. CSU indicates that, all
qualified students from the San Diego area were offered
admission to SDSU in 2008.
As a result of the state's current budget crisis, the CSU
expects to reduce overall systemwide enrollment by
approximately 40,000 students in 2009-10, further
reducing the number of students who will be able to
enroll at SDSU. Notwithstanding the merits of planning
for better times or creating opportunities for economic
development, the projections for continued budget stress
for both the state and CSU over the next few years
suggest that the feasibility study required by this bill
could be outdated by the time the state or CSU is in a
position to secure funding for the proposed new campus.
3) Fiscal impact . According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, this bill has a one-time cost of
around $600,000 for the feasibility study, which would
include physical, and academic planning and
environmental and traffic studies. The current version
of this bill deletes a provision that would have
required this feasibility study to be funded from
private sources, thereby requiring CSU to absorb the
cost of the study, potentially further impacting
resources available to serve students. In the long run,
this bill could result in unknown but significant
General Fund cost pressure for start up and ongoing
operations. Given that all Proposition 1D higher
education facilities funds have been apportioned it is
not clear how initial capital outlay may be funded. SB
271 (Ducheny), which proposed the Higher Education Bond
Act for 2010, was passed by this Committee on a 7-0 vote
and has been held under submission in Senate
Appropriations.
AB 24
Page 4
4) Testing accommodation . According to the author's
office, current law makes it too easy for professors to
claim "undue hardship" and deny student requests for
alternative testing times. Yet, by removing the
provision, this bill will have the effect of requiring
CSU campuses to accommodate any and all religious creed
requests for alternative testing times, regardless of
the reasonableness of the request and could conceivably
require faculty to permit multiple alternative testing
times for different students. Rather than deleting the
hardship provision altogether, would it make sense
instead to define what constitutes undue hardship?
SUPPORT
Allied Gardens Community Council
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
BIOCOM
California Communities United Institute
California State Employees Association
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
City of Chula Vista
College Area Community council
College View Estates Association
Council of Philippine American Organizations
County of San Diego
Crossroads II
Filipino American Community Empowerment
Letters from individuals
Mexican American Business and Professional Association
National City chamber of Commerce
National Federation of Filipino American Associations ,
Region X
Rolando Community Council
San Diego Councilmember Marti Emerald
South Bay Expressway
Southwestern Community College District
OPPOSITION
None received.