Monday, 4/28/97 Bills would stop public colleges from increasing
student fees UCs would still be allowed to impose hikes at their
discretion
By Brooke Olson Daily Bruin Staff Members of the California
legislature are desperate to keep higher education affordable –
although UC’s constitutional autonomy forbids the legislature from
fulfilling its intent. Nevertheless, legislators have proposed
various bills seeking to cap student fees for the next few years,
prevent public colleges from implementing technology fees and
retain financial aid. The latest proposal – the College
Affordability Act of 1997 (AB 1318) – aims to keep student fees at
their current level until the year 2000 while limiting fee
increases after the millennium to no more than the rise in personal
income from the previous year. With a 12-3 approval from the
Assembly Higher Education Committee, the bill is currently under
review by the Appropriations Committee, where it will be heard in
the next few weeks. If approved by a majority vote, the bill will
move to the Senate and then onto the Assembly, where a majority
vote is needed to bring the bill into law. Proponents of the
legislation argue that the bill will enable students and their
families to adequately plan and save for future college expenses.
"California students and their families cannot afford the sticker
shock of 300 percent fee hikes that hit them earlier this decade,"
said Lt. Governor Gray Davis. "AB 1318 guarantees that students
will never again be driven from colleges and universities by
skyrocketing fees." If it passes, the bill will go into immediate
effect for community colleges and the California State
Universities. For the UCs, though, the bill serves only as a
recommendation to the university to not impose fee hikes. The state
constitution allows the university to be governed internally,
thereby precluding the state legislature from enacting laws
directly impacting the university. University officials worry that
the bill will severely limit the amount of funding that UCs
receive. Although the bill contains a provision "expressing the
intent" of the legislature to fully fund and support the university
based on growth in enrollment and personal income, officials
believe this is an empty promise. "There’s no guarantee that we
would still receive adequate funding from the legislature," said
university spokesman Terry Colvin. "When the state comes under hard
times, funding for education will be the first to go." But
legislators argue that the bill is necessary in order to establish
a rational and reasonable amount for student fees. According to
legislators, the bill would also force the state to fully fund the
university on the basis of enrollment growth – a promise the
university currently lacks from the state. "Legislators have been
concerned about the skyrocketing fees of the early ’90s," said
Kevin McCarty, spokesperson for Assemblywoman Denise Ducheny. "All
three systems lost about 300,000 students over the last few years
and it’s important to retain students by keeping fees at a
reasonable rate," McCarty said. Although UC officials do not oppose
the bill, they noted that they prefer AB 1415 – the Higher
Education Partnership Act of 1997, which is currently being
reviewed by the Higher Education Committee. Similar to AB 1318,
this bill would also freeze fee increases. However,the bill would
specifically "enact state policies … that would require the
state, at a minimum" to support the UCs in accordance with personal
income increases and enrollment growth. "This bill would put into
effect our longterm college financing plan – which ties the
increase of state support to the increase of income levels," Colvin
said. "Bill 1415 specifically says the legislature will provide
adequate funding," while the other bill only recommends that the
state increases education spending when the cost of living
increases, Colvin added. The two bills vary only in their wording.
University officials believe that the Partnership Act, which
guarantees legislative funding, is more likely to provide financial
support than government "intentions" expressed in the College
Affordability Act. Legislators have hinted that, due to the strong
legislative support for both bills, it is possible the two bills
may be merged in the near future. However, neither of the two bills
will prohibit the regents from proposing fee increases. University
officials said such a proposal may be necessary if there are no
other alternatives for meeting UCs’ funding needs. Both officials
and students argue the best way to ensure the regents will consider
– and possibly follow – legislative advice is by involving the
university in the drafting of higher education bills. "In
situations like this, it’s best to bring the UCs on board and make
sure they’re aware of the bill," said Bo Thoreen, external
university and legislative affairs director for the UC Student
Association. "It is also important to make sure the university
receives enough money from the state because when the state goes
through hard times, all of these promises get thrown out the
window. "And when that happens, it’s the students who will foot the
bill." Text of AB 1318 Assembly Committee Analysis