The Cal State University system and Cal State Long Beach President F. King Alexander are speaking out against a new bill that could give students the final say in establishing mandatory fees on CSU campuses.
Last week, the bill, Senate Bill 960, passed through California’s Senate Education Committee. It was first proposed in January and amended in February. On Tuesday, it was amended in the Senate again and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
The bill, authored by Sen. Michael J. Rubio, D-Bakersfield, said that a majority of the student body must agree to the establishment of mandatory fees. Adjustments or reallocations of fees would also require a majority student vote or the approval of a campus fee advisory committee.
Currently, campus presidents must consult with student groups or take a vote before establishing a fee, but the role of students is advisory and the presidents and CSU chancellor make the final decisions.
According to CSU spokesman Erik Fallis, one reason the CSU is opposing SB 960 is because it wants to preserve its current relationship with student leaders.
He cited the ability of Associated Students Inc. to represent students and student interests both independently and together with CSU leaders. The CSU is concerned about anything that would change that balance.
“The dynamic of shared governance has been one that is good for the system and students in general,” Fallis said.
The CSULB ASI Lobby Corps is keeping an eye on the bill, but ASI has not officially taken a stance on it, according to ASI Vice President Stephen Thomas.
“Although the spirit of the bill would benefit students tremendously, the text of the bill appears to be too ambiguous and, from my interaction, I was able to gather that the board feels that it would could be effective if amended,” Thomas said via email.
Another reason the CSU is opposing the bill is the importance of some of the services that mandatory fees support. According to Fallis, if passed, the new bill could require urgent needs to go through alternative processes to get approved, which would use time and resources.
Alexander said public universities are given no choice but to raise tuition and fees due to a lack of funding by the state, and suggests a better bill would be one that allocates more state money to schools.
“We would not have to raise tuition and fees one dime if they would invest small amounts of state funding in our students,” Alexander said via email. “This could let state legislators off the hook so they could continue to cut public funding to protect their re-elections and then blame the colleges and universities for not providing access to all courses and programs.”