In an effort to stabilize increasing fee levels for California students, state assemblymen Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, and Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, visited UCLA on Friday morning to promote Assembly Bill 1038.
The bill, which will be heard Tuesday by the Committee on Higher Education, places University of California and California State University student fees and state funding in a direct relationship, making fees a fixed percentage of funding.
It also stipulates that fees do not increase more than 7 percent from one year to the next and never decrease.
But the UC has opposed the bill, expressing concern that it may prevent the university from receiving adequate funding.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, UC undergraduates were responsible for paying 21 percent of their education costs in the 2000-2001 school year and 36 percent in 2003-2004 ““ which Feuer said is too great an increase.
“In a four-year period, UC fees have gone up 72 percent,” he said, adding that he believes the unpredictable escalation of fees is problematic.
CSU fees, though lower, have increased with similar volatility.
“Who’s bearing the brunt?” he asked. “It’s the families.”
The assemblymen expressed concern for middle-class families specifically, since low-income families often receive financial aid and high-income families can afford rising fees.
“It’s the kids in the middle who no one is taking care of,” Feuer said.
The assemblymen said the bill would stabilize student fees as well as the state economy.
Another element of the bill which the assemblymen emphasized is that it will force the state to commit to funding the university and maintaining the high quality of the UC and CSU systems.
“It puts more pressure on state leaders to assume responsibility,” Feuer said.
Portantino added that he anticipates support from student groups.
Eunice Kim, a first-year graduate student in the School of Public Policy who attended the assemblymen’s presentation, did express support for the bill.
“To see you come out with this bill is really exciting,” she told Feuer and Portantino.
Feuer credits mixed responses to the bill to a lack of similar bills in the past.
But UC officials pointed to some flaws they see in the bill.
Karl Engelbach, legislative director for Undergraduate and Graduate Education for the UC, said the bill leaves out safeguards.
“We need to ensure that the university has adequate resources to provide quality instruction to our students,” he said. “The (bill) being proposed here doesn’t include insurances of adequate other sources of funding to provide a quality education.”
Ricardo Vazquez, a UC spokesman, said the UC is concerned the bill could prevent the system from receiving adequate funding.
“It would be difficult for us to maintain quality and access if the fees were tied to a percentage of the instructional cost, especially in those years where we got, for example, budget cuts,” he said.
Vazquez compared the UC to other state-funded institutions in that it may take cuts during budget crises, which under AB 1038 would cut total funds for the UC because student fees will not be able to increase and fill in the gap.
“What we’re asking is to look into the future,” he said. “There may be circumstances in the past where the state confronted a budget crisis, where the state expects not only UC but also other state-funded institutions to take cuts in order to help alleviate a situation like that.”
But Feuer said the burden of funding then falls on students’ families.
Vazquez, though, said the UC is still concerned with stabilizing fees.
“We are interested in fees that are moderate and predictable, and the regents will be looking at that,” he said.
The bill was introduced Feb. 22 and was amended once on April 10. It was authored by Feuer and Portantino.