BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 970
AUTHOR: Fong
AMENDED: June 25, 2012
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 27, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : UC and CSU Systemwide Fees.
SUMMARY
This bill establishes requirements and timeframes for the
University of California (UC) and the California State
University (CSU) regarding the approval and implementation
of student fee increases, and requires the segments to
report annually on their use of student fee revenues.
BACKGROUND
Authorizes the UC Regents and the CSU Trustees to charge
various fees and prohibits certain fees from applying to
specified categories of students.
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. (EC � 67400)
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.
(EC � 66066)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Establishes state policies applicable to resident
student financial aid and mandatory systemwide fees
charged at the UC and CSU. More specifically it
provides that the UC and CSU should:
AB 970
Page 2
a) Explain to students the impact
that increased fees will have on them, as
specified.
b) Consult students prior to any
increase in fees so that they may provide input
and ask questions regarding the need for the
increase.
c) Provide students with adequate
advance notice regarding fee increases.
d) Provide current and prospective
students with timely information regarding
financial aid, as specified.
e) Make every effort to ensure
increased transparency in the uses of, and
rationale for, increased fee revenue.
2) Requires the regents and the trustees, by April 2,
2013, and in consultation with appropriate student
associations, to develop and formally adopt in an open
and public meeting of the regents or trustees, a list
of factors to be considered when developing
recommendations to adjust fees.
3) Establishes the following notice, consultation, and
timeframe requirements for the UC and the CSU
regarding the approval and implementation of student
fee increases:
a) Requires the UC and the CSU, 10
days prior to holding a meeting to discuss or
adopt a mandatory systemwide fee increase, to
provide public notice that includes, at a
minimum, specified information.
b) Requires the UC Regents and the
CSU Trustees to consult with their respective
statewide student associations, at least 30 days
prior to providing public notice of a proposed
mandatory systemwide fee increase.
c) Defines "consultation" with the
statewide student association to require
AB 970
Page 3
institutional representatives to provide, at
least five days before a meeting:
i) A justification for a
fee increase proposal, setting forth the
facts supporting the fee increase.
ii) A statement specifying the use of
the fee revenue from the increase.
iii) Potential impact to students,
including changes to the minimum workload
burden, institutional financial aid awards
and the average student loan debt for
undergraduates.
iv) Alternative proposals to the fee
increase.
d) Prohibits the regents and trustees
from adopting a fee increase until at least 45
days after a public meeting to discuss the fee.
e) Prohibits the regents and trustees
from adopting a fee increase after 90 days have
elapsed from the start of classes for an academic
year, except in the case of increases for summer
session.
f) Provides an exception to the
outlined timeframe and notice requirements if:
i) The Governor's
proposed budget reduces appropriations from
the prior annual Budget Act for the UC or
CSU.
ii) The Legislature enacts a budget
reduction for the support of UC or CSU in
the middle of a fiscal year.
iii) Requires that if (i) or (ii)
occur:
(1) The
UC and CSU discuss a proposal for a fee
AB 970
Page 4
increase with their respective
statewide student associations at least
7 days before posting notice of action
to increase the fees.
(2) Any
increase in fees is prohibited from
becoming effective until at least 30
days have elapsed from the date of
adoption.
g) Requires, upon the adoption of a
fee increase, that the UC and CSU notify
matriculated students of the upcoming assessment
of fees and inform students of the availability
of, and procedures for obtaining, financial aid
to assist with increased costs of attendance.
4) Urges the Regents and the Trustees to maintain their
commitment to institutional financial aid by ensuring
that at least 33% of increases to existing mandatory
systemwide fees be used for institutional financial
aid.
5) Requires the regents and trustees, by February 1,
2013, and annually thereafter, to provide the
Legislature information on the:
a) Expenditure of revenues derived
from student fees.
b) Uses of institutional financial
aid.
c) Systemwide average total cost of
attending per student.
6) Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to
annually review and report to the Legislature
regarding UC's and CSU's compliance with all of the
above.
7) Makes a number of technical, clarifying and conforming
changes.
AB 970
Page 5
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, this
bill, unlike prior measures, does not focus on how
much the state or students should pay for their
education or how much they can be raised in any given
year. This bill focuses upon the process by which
student fee increases are considered at the UC and
CSU, in an effort to ensure transparency and
accountability around the costs of educating students
and the uses of student fee revenues. In addition,
the author is concerned that the state does not
require any consultation with students or advance
notification of fee increases to students and
families.
2) Fee history. The Maddy-Dills Act previously required
fees to be (1) gradual, moderate and predictable, (2)
limited fee increases to not more than 10 percent a
year, and (3) fixed at least ten months prior to the
fall term in which they were to become effective. The
policy also required sufficient financial aid to
offset fee increases. However, even with this policy,
when the state faced serious budgetary challenges the
statute was "in-lieued" in order to provide the
institutions some flexibility in dealing with the lack
of state General Fund support. The Maddy-Dills Act
sunset in 1996 and, since then, the state has had no
long-term policy regarding the way in which mandatory
student fees are determined.
Historically, fees have fluctuated in response to the
State's fiscal condition and the stated needs of UC
and CSU, as negotiated in the budget deliberations.
The charts below illustrate the fluctuation in fees at
the UC and the CSU over the last several years.
--------------------------------------------
| UC |
| Mandatory Systemwide |
| Student Fees |
| Resident Undergraduates |
--------------------------------------------
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| | | |
AB 970
Page 6
| Year | Fee Amount | Percent |
| | | Change from |
| | | Prior year |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1996-97 | $3,799 | N/A |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1997-98 | $3,799 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1998-99 | $3,609 | -5.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1999-00 | $3,429 | -5.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2000-01 | $3,429 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2001-02 | $3,429 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2002-03 | $3,834 | 11.8% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2003-04 | $4,984 | 30.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2004-05 | $5,684 | 14.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2005-06 | $6,141 | 8.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2006-07 | $6,141 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2007-08 | $6,636 | 8.1% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2008-09 | $7,126 | 7.4% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2009-10 | $8,958 | 25.7% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2010-11 | $10,302 | 15.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2011-12 | $12,192 | 18.3% |
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
| CSU |
| Mandatory Systemwide |
| Student Fees |
| Resident Undergraduates |
--------------------------------------------
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| | | |
| Year | Fee Amount | Percent |
AB 970
Page 7
| | | Change from |
| | | Prior year |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1996-97 | $1,584 | N/A |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1997-98 | $1584 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1998-99 | $1,506 | -4.9% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 1999-00 | $1,428 | -5.2 % |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2000-01 | $1,428 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2001-02 | $1,428 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2002-03 | $1,500 | 5.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2003-04 | $2,046 | 36.4% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2004-05 | $2,334 | 14.1% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2005-06 | $2,520 | 8.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2006-07 | $2,520 | 0.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2007-08 | $2,772 | 10.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2008-09 | $3,048 | 10.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2009-10 | $4,026 | 32.1% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2010-11 | $4,429 | 10.0% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2011-12 | $5,472 | 23.5% |
| | | |
--------------------------------------------
3) Technical amendment . This bill provides an exception
to the notice and timeframe requirements in the event
of cuts in the Governor's proposed budget from the
prior year, or in the event of mid-year cuts.
Consistent with the intent of the author, staff
recommends the bill be amended to additionally allow
for an exception in the event the Governor implements
mid-year cuts.
AB 970
Page 8
4) Prior legislation . The Legislature has considered
several bills that proposed a number of variations on
a fee policy. Most recently, these have included:
a) SB 1461 (Negrete-Mcleod), as amended by this
committee, limited the amount by which the
California State University (CSU) Board of
Trustees could increase the mandatory system-wide
fees for resident undergraduate students, in a
given year, and requested the Regents of the
University of California (UC) adhere to the same
limit. SB 1461 passed out of this committee by a
vote of 8-0 in April 2012, but was subsequently
held under submission in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
b) SB 969 (Liu, 2010) placed an upper limit on
mandatory systemwide student fees, not to exceed
a fixed percentage of the cost of education as
defined, and prohibited annual mandatory
systemwide fee increases from increasing by more
than the implicit price deflator for state and
local government for goods and services. This
version of SB 969 combined elements of SB 969
(Florez) and SB 1199 (Liu). The bill was passed
by this committee by a vote of 8-0, but was
subsequently held on suspense in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
c) SB 969 (Florez, 2010) placed an upper limit
on mandatory systemwide student fees, not to
exceed a fixed percentage of the cost of
education, as defined, prohibited student fees
from ever increasing beyond the amount a student
paid at the time of enrollment, and prohibited
annual mandatory systemwide fee increases for
each new cohort of undergraduate students at the
UC, CSU, and California Community Colleges from
exceeding five percent of the preceding academic
year.
d) SB 1199 (Liu, 2010) required the governing
boards of the UC and CSU to develop student fee
increase methodologies consistent with specified
direction, and included many of the same concepts
found in SB 969. The bill's provisions were
AB 970
Page 9
combined with those of SB 969 and the hearing was
canceled at the request of the author.
e) SCA 26 (Denham, 2010) amended the State
Constitution and imposed upon the UC a waiting
period of 180 days before mandatory student fees
could take effect, and limited annual fee
increases to no more than a cumulative 10 percent
over the preceding academic year. SCA failed
passage in this committee by a vote of 2-2.
f) SB 917 (Denham, 2010) was similar to SCA 26,
however the application of the provisions in the
measure would have affected the CSU. The bill
failed passage in this committee by a vote of
2-2.
AB 69 (Duvall, 2009) was almost identical to this
bill. That bill was never heard and was
subsequently amended to address a different
issue.
SUPPORT
None received on this version.
OPPOSITION
None received on this version.