BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
AB 2610 (Williams) - California State University: Special
Sessions
Amended: July 2, 2014 Policy Vote: Education 6-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 2610 defines "supplanting" for purposes of
special session instructional programs offered at the California
State University (CSU), and expands oversight and reporting
relative to special session instructional programs.
Fiscal Impact: Significant ongoing General Fund costs to the CSU
to comply with the course tracking and data reporting
requirements, and to provide guidance to each campus on
compliance with this bill.
Background: Existing law authorizes the CSU to require and
collect tuition fees from students enrolled in each special
session adequate in the long run, to meet the cost of
maintaining special sessions. "Special sessions," at the CSU are
defined to include, but not be limited to, career enrichment and
retraining programs. Existing law also declares the intent of
the Legislature that these programs, offered on a
self-supporting basis by the CSU during summer sessions, may be
provided throughout the year. Existing law prohibits these
courses from supplanting state-supported course offerings during
the regular academic year. (EC � 89708)
Proposed Law: This bill defines "supplanting" for purposes of
special session instructional programs offered at the CSU, and
makes the following changes:
1) Prohibits a campus from requiring a state-supported
matriculated student to enroll in a special session course
to fulfill graduation requirements.
2) Authorizes a campus to, with approval from the CSU
Office of the Chancellor, add a self-supporting section of
AB 2610 (Williams)
Page 1
a course in a state-supported undergraduate degree program,
add a self-supported undergraduate degree program, or
increase the number of self-supporting sections of an
undergraduate course offering only if certain conditions
are satisfied.
3) The bill would require the CSU Chancellor to provide
guidance to each campus on how to comply with the
requirements of this bill. The bill would, commencing in
the 2016-17 academic year, require the trustees to receive
an annual report at a noticed public meeting on the status
of undergraduate self-supported courses and programs, as
specified. The bill would make conforming and technical
changes.
Staff Comments: The costs of this bill are driven by its new
requirements on the CSU to "prove" its campuses are not
supplanting regular session course or program offerings with
self-supporting special session offerings. Existing law already
prohibits supplanting, but there are no statutory standards for
demonstrating that campuses are complying with the requirement.
Among the requirements, this bill provides that campuses "shall
not reduce the number of state-supported undergraduate course
offerings while increasing the number of state-supporting
versions of that course." The CSU Chancellor's office has
indicated that this is problematic, because it does not
currently count course sections at each campus. This bill would
functionally require course section counting, because it makes
the CSU Chancellor's office responsible for providing guidance
to campuses and ensuring their compliance with the prohibition
on supplanting.
The requirement to count state-supported courses, and compare
them to special session offerings will likely result in
significant new workload for each of the campuses, and for the
CSU Chancellor's office. The Chancellor's office has estimated
that it will incur $200,000 to upgrade its central system and
that each of the 23 campuses will incur $50,000 in systems
upgrade costs (for a total of $1,150,000). The Chancellor's
office also believes that it, and each of the 23 campuses, will
require a dedicated full-time position to collect this data, and
part time-positions dedicated to ongoing system maintenance, for
an additional cost of $2.3 million ongoing. It is unclear,
AB 2610 (Williams)
Page 2
however, with technological upgrades for data collection and
staff time to maintain those systems, why each campus would also
require a full-time dedicated staff person to manage course
section counting.