“Holding a vote like that without giving the public their opportunity for input shows little respect for the public or their involvement in our public education system,” said public policy expert Chip Ahlswede.
The Orange Unified School District (OUSD) Board of Trustees just gave themselves each a raise—and did so at a time when the district is experiencing “shattered finances” and ever-declining student enrollment.
In a recent vote, OUSD trustees approved an increase to their monthly stipend from $700 to $2,000. That’s nearly a threefold jump, pushing total annual compensation for the seven-member board from about $58,800 to roughly $168,000. The increase delivers no new programs, no classroom resources, and no measurable benefit to students or parents. It is also assumed but not yet confirmed that they receive health care benefits which could push their total compensation even higher.
Parents in the districts have repeatedly been told that OUSD’s budget is tight and resources are limited. It is against that backdrop that trustees have chosen to more than double their own pay.
According to OUSD’s own website, the district has experienced an enrollment decline of approximately 15 percent over the last decade school year. Fewer students means fewer dollars. While school funding formulas are complex, enrollment is a core driver of state and local revenue. When students leave, funding follows.
That decline has already forced the district to contend with underutilized campuses, constrained offerings, and difficult long-term planning decisions. Among those decisions, OUSD’s trustees have had to weigh consolidation plans and, according to the California Policy Center, have allegedly “asked state officials for permission to sell school property in order to slow the collapse.”
“[The] student population is dwindling, schools are in disrepair—especially VPHS and the swimming pools—and student academic performance declines yearly. How can they in good faith give ‘themselves’ a raise?” asks user Anthony Olson in a comment thread about the story. “No ethics.”
What’s especially frustrating to many parents is how the decision was made. The stipend increase was placed on the consent calendar—a section of the meeting agenda typically reserved for routine, noncontroversial items that are approved in a single vote without discussion.
That means that unless a trustee explicitly pulls an item for separate consideration, consent calendar items pass quietly and as a whole package—often with little public awareness.
“Not one of the trustees pulled it to have an open public discussion about it,” said parent Crystal Hamilton Miles. “That’s not good governance in my opinion.”
Hamilton Miles argued her belief that adopting the raise on consent “was an attempt to suppress” or “hide it” and was “definitely not transparent.” She also pointed out that the $2,000 stipend makes OUSD’s trustees more highly compensated than other, much larger public school district trustees in California—and even here at home in Orange County.
Indeed, the largest school district in the county by student enrollment, is the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD), serving over 40,000 students. CUSD trustees earn $855 per month under existing law, which is much closer to OUSD’s prior rate of $700. For context, OUSD serves around 24,000 students.
Critics argue that transparency in this case matters a great deal since public school board trustees are elected officials charged with stewardship of public trust and public money.
Ironically, a lack of transparency was cited as one of the reasons unions and left-of-center activists led a recall effort against OUSD’s conservative majority. That effort succeeded and a new pro-union majority now holds control of the board. But have they fared any better on the issue they once claimed to champion?
“Holding a vote like that without giving the public their opportunity for input shows little respect for the public or their involvement in our public education system,” said public policy expert Chip Ahlswede. “Do they deserve a raise? Quite probably. But we not only deserve the right to speak on it—we have the right to. And taking that right away from a public hearing is wrong.”
