|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pleasanton school board members have given themselves a raise, voting 3-2 last week to increase their monthly stipend from $463 to $1,200 beginning Jan. 1.
The board majority said the monthly increase of $737 would make it easier for working-class residents and those juggling careers and families to serve on the school board. Those who opposed the increase, however, questioned the timing amid budget challenges and contract negotiations.
Board President Kelly Baehr and colleagues Laurie Walker and Charlie Jones voted in favor of the increase at Thursday’s meeting, while Mary Jo Carreon and Justin Brown dissented.
“This isn’t about personal gain but attracting potential candidates moving forward,” Baehr said.Â
Assembly Bill 1390, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2026, raised the cap on board stipends to between $600 and $4,500 a month, depending on district enrollment. Previously, the maximum monthly stipend for a board member was between $60 and $1,500.
The Pleasanton district’s enrollment of about 13,000 students allows board members to receive up to $2,000 monthly under the change. Under the law, school boards can increase stipends by 5% annually, even if those increases push the amount beyond the maximum rate.
Baehr and Jones first brought up the idea of increasing the stipend at a district policy committee meeting in June, but the discussion was postponed after the proposal drew criticism from residents who questioned whether the increases are appropriate amid the district’s financial challenges.
Lawmakers have said the increases are meant to more adequately compensate board members for the hours they spend on what is typically viewed as a part-time job, as well as make it more feasible for all members of the community to run for school boards. Baehr said the last major update to the stipend range occurred in 1984.
At Thursday’s meeting, Jones reiterated his support for the increase, saying it would make board representation more equitable.
“Representation should reflect the actual community,” Jones said. “Working-class people should be able to serve in these seats as well, but low stipends create an environment that favors retirees and wealthy candidates.”
Jones said upon first review of the policy change, he was concerned about the district’s financial health. However, he said, the district is now on track to be financially solvent by early January, which made him feel better about supporting the raise.
He said increasing the stipend removes a financial barrier for people, allowing them to better juggle a career and the duties of an elected official.
Baehr requested the item be brought to the board for a vote, according to the district. She said while she didn’t run for the seat in 2020 and 2024 with an eye toward increasing the stipend, she agreed with Jones. She added that as a single mom to two high-schoolers, the additional money will help families like her own.
“I just want to have the conversation to have an equitable range,” Baehr said. “I’m not saying we have to go to the max, but I do think $463 per month is not adequate because it will eliminate potential candidates down the road.”
Baehr also pointed to neighboring district boards that also recently increased their stipends. She said the Antioch Unified School District board approved an increase to $2,000 a month, and in the Dublin Unified School District, which has also faced similar budget challenges recently, board members increased their stipends to $1,600.
She originally suggested a range of $1,600-$1,800 before compromising at $1,200.
Saachi Bhayani, the board’s inaugural student board member who served in the 2021-22 school year, spoke during public comment in support of the increase, as did longtime Pleasanton resident Bill Foley.
He said that in addition to preparing for and attending meetings, board members do a lot more work behind the scenes that most people don’t see, such as attending subcommittee and special meetings; representing the school district at other public agencies; visiting school sites; and attending public ceremonies.Â
“I firmly believe that the board is entitled to an increase,” Foley said, adding that the amount should be reasonable given all of the recent budget considerations.
However, not everyone supported the raise.
Association of Pleasanton Teachers union President Evan Branning voiced his opposition to the stipend as part of his regularly scheduled update to the board, which came before the formal board discussion. He said the district had recently put educators and staff through a difficult budget reduction process that involved eliminating positions and sending out pink slips, prompting teachers to secure new jobs in other districts only to find out some of the positions in Pleasanton had been restored.
Branning also noted that the teachers union has been negotiating new contracts with the district for about a year and a half. According to the district’s negotiation update page on its website, the two sides have yet to settle on key issues, including salary and benefits.
“This board itself recognizes that we’re in a time where money is tight,” Branning said. “You put on a (stipend) increase for yourselves, understanding that it is a challenge to make ends meet.”
Branning said he does recognize all of the work board members do in their positions and how they are underpaid, but he also noted that teachers are picking up second jobs, working extra hours and making other sacrifices. The district, he said, should focus on supporting its educators.
“All we are asking is for you to make sure to prioritize today’s dollars for today’s students, because Pleasanton students deserve the best,” Branning said. “And that includes the best teachers, the best services and teachers that can focus on just one job: this one.”
Brown, one of the two board members who voted against the increase, said he was conflicted in his opinion. He said he recognized that if the district doesn’t pay board members an equitable compensation, it may prevent some members of the community, such as single parents or those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, from joining the board.
On the other hand, he said, the board recently made some difficult budget cuts, and given those and the district’s financial state, he couldn’t support a stipend increase.
“If we’re telling our union partners that we have to separate ongoing costs to the district from one-time costs, this is an ongoing cost … for the board versus an ongoing cost for employees,” Brown said. “Either we have funds for ongoing cost increases, or we don’t have funds for ongoing cost increases.”
Carreon, who cast the other dissenting vote, said despite the countless hours she puts into her job as a board member, she couldn’t vote to increase her stipend when the district has not yet settled on a new contract with the teachers union.
“I cannot, at this time, support giving us a raise, and they have not got a raise,” Carreon said, adding that she would also like to see classified employee positions restored before any increase in board stipends.
“I think it’s the timing,” Carreon said. “I would love to see this come back at the same time we have our APT agreement.”
Walker, who spoke last during the discussion, broke the tie in supporting the increase. She echoed a lot of what Jones and Baehr said about wanting to attract a larger pool of board candidates, including people balancing careers and families.
She said while she recognized the current labor negotiations and recent budget cuts, she felt that a $1,200 stipend was the right thing to do.
“I do feel that a more reasonable stipend is called for,” Walker said.
