Opinion ID: 1249253
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Collection of the Mandatory Fee.

Text: (1) Plaintiffs Kistler and Taylor contend that the Regents do not have sufficient authority to collect a mandatory student activities fee. The contention lacks merit. The California Constitution expressly invests the Regents with full powers of organization and government over the University. (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9, subd. (a).) This general grant of power, which has been described 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]), is plainly adequate to permit the Regents to levy a student activities fee in the absence of a constitutional or statutory prohibition. Plaintiffs suggest that language with the effect of prohibiting the collection of a mandatory fee can be found in several authorities, namely, article IX, section 9, subdivision (f), of the state Constitution; [5] section 13 of the Organic Act establishing the University (Stats. 1867-1868, ch. CCXLIV, § 13, pp. 253-254); [6] and our decision in Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, 213-223 [130 Cal. Rptr. 697, 551 P.2d 1]. The constitutional and statutory provisions just cited declare, in essence, that the University shall be kept free of political and sectarian influence. Stanson v. Mott, supra , held that a state official acted improperly by spending public funds to campaign in favor of a ballot proposition. While these authorities might support an argument against some of the uses to which the fee has been put, they do not appear to affect the Regents' power to collect a fee, assuming its use is proper. We thus turn to plaintiffs' claims regarding the use of the fee.