BILL ANALYSIS
SB 969
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 969 (Liu and Romero)
As Amended August 17, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :26-7
HIGHER EDUCATION 6-1 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Block, Chesbro, Fong, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Bradford, |
| |Galgiani, Portantino, | |Huffman, Coto, Davis, De |
| |Ruskin | |Leon, Gatto, Hall, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Adams |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes various findings, declarations and
policies regarding mandatory systemwide undergraduate resident
student fees (fees). Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that an increase in fees adopted by UC or CSU after
July 1, 2011, shall not become effective before three months
after the date of adoption.
2)Requires UC Regents and CSU Trustees to adopt a rational and
transparent methodology for adjusting fees, requires the
methodologies to be developed in consultation with student
representatives, requires the methodologies to be adopted in
open public meetings, and provides that annual budgets of UC
and CSU shall be drafted on the basis that fees will change in
accordance with the methodologies and shall specify the
purposes for which any revenues derived from an increase in
fees will be used.
3)Requires UC and CSU to employ appropriate procedures to notify
students of fees to be assessed in the upcoming academic year
and to simultaneously provide students with information
concerning the availability of and procedures for obtaining
financial aid.
SB 969
Page 2
4)Requires, beginning with the 2011-2012 academic year, the UC
Regents and CSU Trustees to annually report to the Legislative
Analyst's Office (LAO) estimates of the total cost of
education, categorized specifically by per student
undergraduate and graduate education costs and by fixed costs,
variable costs, administrative costs, instructional costs, and
student services costs.
5)Requires, beginning with the 2012-2013 academic year, the LAO
to report annually to the Legislature on compliance with the
policies required in this bill, any findings and
recommendations, and an assessment of the information on cost
of education as provided by UC and CSU.
6)Establishes that the provisions of this bill only apply to UC
to the extent that the UC Regents adopt a resolution making
these provisions applicable and requests that the UC Regents
adopt policies consistent with those outlined in this bill.
7)Makes the provisions of this bill operative on July 1, 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, any costs to the segments and the LAO should be
absorbable.
COMMENTS : Through 1996, fees at California public postsecondary
institutions were governed by the Maddy-Dills Act. The Act
required fees to be gradual, moderate and predictable; increases
to be limited to 10% a year; and fixed at least ten months prior
to the fall term in which they were to become effective. Even
with this policy, when the state faced serious budgetary
challenges the provisions of the Act were set aside in order to
provide the institutions some flexibility in dealing with the
lack of state General Fund support. In 1996, the Act was
allowed to sunset, and since that time, the state has had no
statutory long-term policy to set fees.
Currently, the state sets UC and CSU fees each year through the
Budget Act with complementary actions on the part of the UC
Regents and the CSU Trustees to adopt these fee policies. There
is an implicit policy whereby students and the State are
expected to share educational costs, but the relative
proportions are dependent on the State's fiscal situation. As a
SB 969
Page 3
result, fees have increased steeply during difficult budget
years and then gradually declined when the state's fiscal
situation improved and more General Fund support could be
provided to the higher education segments.
According to the author, faced with a state budget deficit and
cuts in state support for higher education, CSU and UC students
are being subjected to significant increases in fees, often
without adequate notice of proposed fee increases. According to
the author, rising costs have been particularly hard on lower-
and middle-income families. This diminished capacity for
students and their families to afford a college education occurs
at the same time the state faces an increasing demand for a
college-educated workforce in order to compete in the national
and international marketplace. The author believes that
creating a process for establishing and adjusting fees and
ensuring students are provided with some notice of fee increases
will provide a measure of transparency and accountability for
university operations.
Analysis Prepared by : Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
FN: 0006102