Opinion ID: 1249253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Authority to Impose the Student Fee

Text: Plaintiffs also assert that the University lacks the requisite statutory and constitutional authority to impose a mandatory student activities fee. Several grounds are advanced to support this claim. As will appear, none is meritorious. Originally created by statute in 1867 (Stats. 1867-1868, ch. CCXLIV, p. 248), the University of California achieved constitutional status in 1879. (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9.) The California Constitution declares the University of California to be a public trust and places its governance in the hands of the Regents. (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9, subd. (a).) The Regents are vested with the legal title and the management and disposition of the property of the university.... (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9, subd. (f).) The Regents' authority includes all the powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of its trust, including the power ... to delegate to its committees or to the faculty of the university, or to others, such authority or functions as it may deem wise.... ( Ibid. ) The courts have construed this constitutional authority as giving the Regents virtual autonomy in self-governance. ( Regents of University of California v. City of Santa Monica (1978) 77 Cal. App.3d 130, 135 [143 Cal. Rptr. 276]; accord, Cal. State Employees' Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1968) 267 Cal. App.2d 667, 671 [73 Cal. Rptr. 449].) As we have stated: [T]he power of the Regents to operate, control and administer the University is virtually exclusive. ( San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of University of California (1980) 26 Cal.3d 785, 788 [163 Cal. Rptr. 460, 608 P.2d 277], internal quotation marks omitted.) In light of these provisions, plaintiffs' assertion that the University lacks the requisite authority to impose a mandatory student fee is patently without merit. The Legislature has expressly authorized the creation of a student body organization and the collection of mandatory student activities fees for the California State University system. (Ed. Code, § 89300.) The funds collected may be used for such purposes of the student body organization as are approved by the trustees. (Ed. Code, § 89302.) Although parallel statutory provisions are not provided for the University, none is needed. The University is a constitutional entity whose powers derive therefrom. The Regents' authority to exercise all the powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of its trust, including the power ... to delegate to its committees or to the faculty of the university, or to others, such authority or functions, as it may deem wise.... (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9, subds. (a), (f)) plainly encompasses the power to authorize the adoption, by a vote of two-thirds of the student body, a mandatory activities fee similar to that of the state college system. Plaintiffs further contend that the Regents have exceeded their constitutional mandate by delegating to the ASUC, which they characterize as a private entity, the authority to administer and manage the student funds. On the contrary, the ASUC is clearly a creature of the University; the Regents authorized it, and retain ultimate responsibility for its supervision of student affairs. The chancellor, by virtue of the authority of the Regents, regularly monitors the ASUC Senate and oversees and approves the annual ASUC budget. Moreover, under the University's written policies, the chancellor is empowered to make audits of the finances of student governments, exercise control over expenditure of their funds ... and where necessary may take action to ensure that any activity under control of student governments is operated in accordance with sound practices ... Thus, the ASUC plainly acts under the authority and close supervision of the Regents and the University. Relying on this court's decision in Stanson v. Mott, supra, 17 Cal.3d 206, petitioners further contend that the University lacks clear and explicit authority to use public funds for partisan campaign purposes. Stanson held that a public agency requires clear and explicit legislative authority to engage in what it characterized as informational lobbying ( id. at pp. 209-210), and suggested, without holding, that the use of public funds for partisan campaigning presented a serious constitutional question. ( Id. at p. 219.) Applying these principles, we held that the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation had exceeded his authority in authorizing the expenditure of more than $5,000 of public funds to promote passage of a bond issue for the acquisition of park land and recreational facilities. ( Id. at p. 220.) Although the ASUC Senate may adopt resolutions on political issues, the University does not sanction the expenditure of ASUC revenues to fund partisan election campaigning. Moreover, as previously noted, there is clear and express constitutional authority authorizing the expenditure of funds for the ASUC student government. (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9, subd. (f).) Stanson v. Mott, supra, 17 Cal.3d 206, is thus inapposite. Plaintiffs also assert that use of the mandatory activities fee to subsidize student religious groups violates the establishment clause (U.S. Const., Amend. I; Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.) and article IX, section 9, subdivision (f) of the California Constitution, which states that the University shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence.... As earlier noted, the trial court made a factual finding, sustained by the record, that while some religious groups had registered with the University, no group whose activities are essentially religious in nature, i.e., devoted to proselytizing, conducting religious services or restricting membership to persons of a particular faith, had received ASUC funds. Nor has the University violated the constitutional injunction against political influence. This section, by its terms, proscribes partisan interference in the internal affairs of the University, not political activity by the University. Moreover, as previously discussed, the ASUC may not fund activities designed to advance partisan political positions. Thus, the mandatory student fee does not contravene the political neutrality clause. [13]