BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 969|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 969
Author: Liu (D) and Romero (D) et al
Amended: 6/1/10
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 8-0, 4/21/10
AYES: Romero, Huff, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian,
Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Maldonado
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 5/27/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Denham, Leno, Price, Wolk,
Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cox, Walters
SUBJECT : Public postsecondary education: mandatory
statewide student
fee
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill makes a variety of changes relating to
resident undergraduate fee policy at the California State
University and the University of California.
ANALYSIS : At present, there is no statutory guiding
policy on student fees beyond the current fiscal condition
and the stated needs of University of California (UC) and
California State University (CSU), as negotiated in the
budget deliberations.
CONTINUED
SB 969
Page
2
Current law further provides that statutes related to UC
(and most other aspects of the governance and operation of
UC) are applicable only to the extent that the Regents of
UC make such provisions applicable.
Current law confers upon the Trustees of the CSU the
powers, duties, and functions with respect to the
management, administration, and control of the CSU system.
Current law establishes the Cal Grant Entitlement Programs
to provide grant assistance for fee payment in the UC, CSU
and private institutions in California, to the extent that
students are financially and academically eligible for such
support.
This bill:
1.Limits fee increases to the percentage change in
California per capita personal income over the proceeding
fiscal year.
2.Prohibits fee increases from taking effect until six
months after the adoption of those increases, as July 1,
2011.
3.Requires the segments to develop a rational and
transparent policy for adjusting fees, in consultation
with student representatives.
4.Requires notification to students of upcoming fee
increases and of available financial aid.
5.Requires the California Postsecondary Education
Commission to annually review and report on the
institutional compliance an implementation of these
policies.
Related Legislation
SCA 26 (Denham), Session 2009-10, amends the State
Constitution and impose upon the University of California a
waiting period of 180 days before mandatory student fees
could take effect, and limits annual fee increases to no
more than a cumulative 10 percent over the preceding
CONTINUED
SB 969
Page
3
academic year. In Senate Education Committee.
SB 917 (Denham), Session 2009-10, similar to SCA 26,
however the application of the provisions in the bill would
effect the California State University. In Senate
Education Committee.
SB 1199 (Liu), Session 2009-10, requires the governing
boards of the UC and CSU to develop student fee increase
methodologies consistent with specified direction, and
includes many of the same concepts found in SB 969. In
Senate Education Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Per the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12
2012-13 Fund
Fee containment Unknown,
but significant pressure to General
to keep pace with the cost of
higher education, commencing in
2011-12 fiscal year
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/1/10)
California Federation of Teachers
California State University
University of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the various authors,
college students are being subjected to significant, and
for many, unaffordable increases in student fees. Tying
student fees to the overall cost of educating a student
provides more predictability for families, the
universities, and the state, but also, the process of
establishing and adjusting fees provides a measure of
transparency and accountability for university operations.
CONTINUED
SB 969
Page
4
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The opponents state that this
bill could add costs for California's higher education
entities without benefiting students or their families.
They see little need to establish such a policy and reject
the notion that fees must rise in higher education.
Additionally, the bill purports to establish a policy that
student fees should not exceed a specified portion of
undergraduate education costs. Establishing such a
percentage has proven evanescent at best in the past.
PQ:do 6/2/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED