BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 970
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 970 (Fong and Block)
As Amended August 24, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |51-23|(January 30, |SENATE: |23-13|(August 29, |
| | |2012) | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HIGHER ED.
SUMMARY : Establishes state policies applicable to resident
student financial aid and mandatory systemwide fees charged at
the University of California (UC) and the California State
University (CSU). Specifically, this bill :
1)Establishes state policies applicable to resident student
financial aid and mandatory systemwide fees charged at UC and
CSU, specifically providing that UC and CSU should do the
following:
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; and,
e) Make every effort to ensure increased transparency in
the uses of, and rationale for, increased fee revenue.
2)Requires the UC Regents and CSU 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 UC Regents or CSU Trustees, a list of factors to be
considered when developing recommendations to adjust fees.
3)Establishes the following notice, consultation, and timeframe
AB 970
Page 2
requirements for UC and CSU regarding the approval and
implementation of student fee increases:
a) Requires UC and 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 institutional representatives to
provide the following, 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; and,
iv) Alternative proposals to the fee increase.
d) Prohibits the UC Regents and CSU Trustees from adopting
a fee increase until at least 45 days after a public
meeting to discuss the fee;
e) Prohibits the UC Regents and CSU 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 UC or
CSU.
AB 970
Page 3
ii) The Legislature or Governor 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) UC and CSU discuss a proposal for a fee
increase with their respective statewide student
associations at least seven 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 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 UC Regents and CSU 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 UC Regents and CSU Trustees, by February 1, 2013,
and annually thereafter, to provide the Legislature
information on the following:
a) Expenditure of revenues derived from student fees;
b) Uses of institutional financial aid; and,
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 4
The Senate amendments :
1)Delete language prohibiting systemwide fees charged to
students from being known as "tuition."
2)Shorten the notice, consultation, and timeframe requirements
for UC and CSU regarding the approval and implementation of
student fee increases, and define "consultation."
3)Prohibit UC and CSU from increasing fees after 90 days from
the commencement of classes for the academic year, excepting
summer session fees.
4)Provide exceptions to 2) and 3) above in the case of a
mid-year cut or when the Governor's proposed budget includes a
reduction for UC or CSU from the prior year, and require
specified consultation and noticing requirements for fee
increases in these instances.
5)Delete language requiring UC and CSU to develop a methodology
for adjusting fees and to draft their budgets accordingly and
instead require the segments to develop a list of factors to
be taken into consideration when developing recommendations to
adjust fees.
6)Urge instead of require UC and CSU to maintain their
commitments to institutional aid programs, as specified.
7)Change UC and CSU legislative reporting requirements to
include the systemwide average total cost of attendance per
student instead of the cost of education as specified.
8)Delete language requiring the California Student Aid
Commission to report to the Legislature on the policies and
interactions between state and federal financial aid programs.
9)Make technical and clarifying changes.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was significantly broader
including longer notice, consultation and timeframe requirements
for fee increases to be approved and implemented and more
extensive reporting requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT : The Senate Appropriations Committee notes the
following costs:
AB 970
Page 5
1)CSU compliance: Minor and absorbable costs to comply with
notification and consultation requirements; current CSU
practices are similar to these provisions.
2)UC compliance: Minor and absorbable costs to comply with
notification and consultation requirements; current UC
practices are similar to these provisions.
3)Fee revenue: Potentially substantial revenue loss to the UC
and CSU, to the extent that this bill hinders or delays any
future ability to raise student fees.
4)LAO report: Minor costs, absorbable within existing
resources.
COMMENTS : Through 1996, fees at California public postsecondary
institutions were governed by the Maddy-Dills Act (Act), which
was enacted by the Legislature in 1985 to provide for a
statewide fee policy. The Act required fees to be gradual,
moderate and predictable; increases to be limited to 10% a year;
and fixed at least 10 months prior to the fall term in which
they were to become effective. The policy also required
sufficient financial aid to offset fee increases. Even with
this policy, when the state faced serious budgetary challenges
in the early to mid-1990s, these provisions were set aside,
typically through "notwithstanding" language in budget trailer
bills, in order to provide flexibility to UC and CSU in dealing
shortfalls in 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.
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
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 UC and CSU.
University Funding and Tuition Since 2007-08
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Academic Year |UC Budget | UC Fee | CSU | CSU Fee |
| |Reduction | Change | Budget | Change |
| | | |Reduction | |
AB 970
Page 6
|--------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
|2007-08 | None | 8.7% | None | 10.0% |
|--------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
|2008-09 | $201 | 7.4% | $172 | 10.0% |
|--------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
|2009-10 | $610 | 9.3% | $610 | 32.1% |
|--------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
|2009-10 midyear fee | -- | 15.0% | -- | -- |
|increase | | | | |
|--------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
|2010-11 | None | 15.0% | None | 5.0% |
|--------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
|2010-11 midyear fee | -- | -- | -- | 5.0% |
|increase | | | | |
|--------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
|2011-12 | $750 | 17.7% | $750 |22.0% |
| | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
FN: 0005668