BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 960
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 3, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Marty Block, Chair
SB 960 (Rubio) - As Amended: May 29, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 37-0
SUBJECT : California State University: campus-based fees.
SUMMARY : Prohibits campus-based mandatory fees at the
California State University (CSU) established through an
affirmative vote of the majority of the student body voting on
the fee, but not specifically authorized by statute, from being
reallocated without an affirmative vote of either the student
body or a campus fee advisory committee, as specified.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits campus-based mandatory fees at CSU established
through an affirmative vote of the majority of the student
body voting on the fee, but not specifically authorized by
statute, from being reallocated without an affirmative vote of
either the majority of the student body or a campus fee
advisory committee, as specified in #3 below.
2)Authorizes the reallocation of a student-approved campus-based
fee established through an affirmative vote of the majority of
the student body voting on the fee, but not specifically
authorized in statute, to be reallocated without an
affirmative vote of the majority of the student body or a
campus fee advisory committee if the vote that established the
fee authorized an alternative or automatic reallocation
mechanism for that fee.
3)Requires the majority of the membership of the campus fee
advisory committee to be comprised of student who are
representatives of the student body organization of the campus
or who are selected by that student body organization.
Specifies the campus fee advisory committee may include
nonstudent members who are appointed or elected as authorized.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits CSU from allocating any student imposed athletic
SB 960
Page 2
fees, for the purposes of supporting intercollegiate athletics
programs, in either amounts or purposes other than those voted
on by the students, and specifies the pro-rata refund of any
portion of the student-imposed athlete fee that is collected
but not allocated. (Education Code � 66152)
2)Confers upon the CSU Board of Trustees the powers, duties, and
functions with respect to the management, administration, and
control of the CSU system. (EC � 89035)
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill will likely result in minor costs to
individual CSU campuses and potentially significant cost
pressure to the state to backfill CSU to the extent that it was
unsuccessful in passing fee increases.
1)Requirements to raise fees: To the extent that CSU campuses
use the student referendum option to pass new fees, campuses
will incur costs of approximately $25,000 to publicize the
referendum. Seeking a vote of the majority of a campus's fee
advisory committee is likely to result in only minor and
absorbable costs.
2)Barriers to raising and reallocating student fees: If this
bill results in CSU campuses being unable to raise or
reallocate student fees to meet campus needs, it will result
in additional cost pressure for the state to fund the CSU at a
higher level, at a time when budget reductions continue.
COMMENTS : Background . Campus-based mandatory fees are used to
support on-campus activities essential to student success and
the student experience, including health facilities and
services, student university unions, athletic programs,
transit/transportation systems, and recreational opportunities.
The state does not provide funding to support these activities.
There is no statutory guiding policy on mandatory systemwide
tuition and fees beyond the current fiscal condition and the
stated needs of CSU and UC, as negotiated in budget
deliberations. Campus-based fees currently average $1,047 per
year.
Need for this bill . Under its policy, CSU presidents have the
authority to use an alternate consultation process to divert
funds and/or establish campus-based mandatory and
instruction-related fees without consulting the student body.
SB 960
Page 3
The author states, "This executive language overrides the rights
of students to self-govern and allocate fees that the
student-body itself established and voted on through a
referendum process. Several student bodies throughout the CSU
system have had their existing fees reallocated or new fees
established without a vote from the student body."
CSU process related to campus-based fees . Consistent with
existing law, the CSU Trustees adopted standing orders providing
the Chancellor the authority and responsibility to take whatever
actions are necessary for the appropriate functioning of the
CSU, including but not limited to, establishment, oversight, and
adjustment of campus-based mandatory fees (also known as
category II fees). As it relates to mandatory campus-based
fees, the Chancellor provided campuses direction under Executive
Order 1054. Among other things, under Executive Order 1054:
1)Authority. The Chancellor is delegated authority for the
establishment, oversight and adjustment of category II fees.
Campus presidents are not delegated authority to establish
category II fees; they are delegated authority for the
oversight and adjustment of category II fees.
2)Responsibility. Campus presidents are responsible for
assuring that appropriate and meaningful consultation occurs
prior to adjusting any campus-based fee and before requesting
the Chancellor establish a new category II fee.
a) Campus presidents shall establish fee advisory
committees comprised of students, faculty, staff, and
administrative representatives, in consultation with the
student body association. Students appointed by the
student body association constitute a majority of the
voting members of the fee advisory committee.
b) Campus presidents shall consult with the fee advisory
committee before adjusting or requesting the chancellor
establish any category II fee.
c) The policy presumes that a student fee referendum will
be conducted prior to adjusting / establishing category II
fees. The results of the referendum shall be advisory to
the fee advisory committee and the president, unless the
education code requires that the referendum pass. The
president, however, may waive the referendum requirement if
SB 960
Page 4
he/she determines that it is not the best mechanism to
achieve appropriate and meaningful consultation, an
alternative consultation process may be utilized.
d) Alternative consultation strategies are to be developed
with input from the student body association and the fee
advisory committee to ensure the process is transparent,
and meaningful, and will solicit the input of a
representative sample of the student body. Results of the
alternative consultation process should be summarized and
put in writing and used as additional advisory material to
be taken into consideration by the fee advisory committee
and the president.
3)Accountability. Campus presidents must provide a report of
all fees, including category II fees, as specified. In
addition, the president has authority to decrease, suspend or
eliminate fees as needed.
Suggested amendments .
1)It is unclear if this bill could apply to current campus-based
fees. Staff recommends an amendment to clarify that this
policy would apply prospectively.
2)It is unclear how the provision of this bill pertaining to the
composition of the fee advisory committee differs from the
composition required in existing CSU policy. Staff recommends
this provision be removed (page 2, lines 29-34 and page 3,
lines 1-2).
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
SB 960
Page 5