If you ask me

One bill that's long overdue

State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, represents the 11th State Senate District, which includes portions of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. He serves on the Senate Education Committee, the Budget Subcommittee on Education, and the State Allocation Board. Senator Simitian is the author of Senate Bill 909.

I don’t know why, but I remember the conversation quite clearly, more than 20 years later.

It was December of 1983. I was a newly seated board member of the Palo Alto Unified School District, having just been elected the month before.

I had just about finished my orientation session when district staff mentioned in passing that I was entitled to compensation of $40 a month, but that none of the other board members took it.

“I beg your pardon,” I said.

“None of the board members take the stipend,” I was told. “They never have.”

“What do you mean, never?” I asked.

“Well,” explained staff, “compensation’s been offered for the past seven years, but no one’s ever taken it.”

“Why not?” I asked.

“Well, when the board adopted its policy, one of the board members declined, saying he wouldn’t think of taking money away from programs for the kids, and that made it awkward for everyone else. So they all declined,” it was explained.

“I see,” I said. “Well, I want my $40.”

A look of disbelief. An awkward silence. And then, “Are you serious?”

“Absolutely,” I said.

“Do you need it?” asked staff.

“Not the point,” I explained. “The point,” I said, “is that I’m entitled to it, and neither I nor any other member of the board should be shamed into declining this rather modest compensation, simply because some other board member declined.”

In fact, I not only intended to collect my compensation, I intended to encourage my colleagues to collect theirs, as well. My reasoning, which I believe has stood the test of time, was as follows.

First, to decline the compensation was to suggest that the work of the board, indeed the work of the district, was somehow unworthy of even this decidedly token compensation; when, rather obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it perpetuated the notion that somehow board service was “less than” comparable service on a local city council, water board or mosquito abatement district.

In a district which typically required 15-20 hours a week of its board members, managing a budget into the tens of millions (a lot of money in 1983) and helping to shape the lives of 8,000 kids every day, I thought that was the wrong message to send.

More significant, however, I knew that there were costs routinely incurred by board members that would never be reimbursed. The costs of a babysitter or child care in order to get to a meeting. Pizza on the table as “dinner” for the family in lieu of a home-cooked meal. Breakfasts and lunches with colleagues, constituents and staff. Mileage, telephone and copying costs.

Hidden costs that were likely to add up to far more than that monthly stipend that nobody ever took—costs that many of my colleagues, I’m sure, could easily absorb. But then, that was really the point I was trying to make: that board service—indeed, more broadly, public service—should not be limited to only the more prosperous members of our community. That people of modest means ought to have access to the system, and that their perspectives are important to good government.

In all my life I’ve never met anyone who ran for school board for the salary; but I have met too many good people who’ve declined to run. Eliminating even one deterrent to service seemed to me a step in the right direction.

So I took my $40. Eventually, so did others. In fact, by the time I left my board (after eight years of service), the compensation had been raised to $150 per month.

And while I remember it quite clearly, I frankly had given it no thought in years until just this last fall.

I was holding one of my twice-annual “Education Updates” for the folks in my district when one of the board members in attendance asked if there was any chance that the state would ever increase the authorized limits on board compensation contained in the Education Code.

And it was only then that I discovered that the maximum board compensation authorized in the Code hadn’t been updated since 1984.

The result is Senate Bill 909, which I introduced in February of this year, and which has passed both houses of the Legislature. If signed by the governor (the measure is on the governor’s desk as I write this commentary), the measure will take effect on Jan. 1 of the coming year.

SB 909’s provisions are simple: The measure would simply double the maximum compensation for K-12 school board members that is currently authorized by law.

The increase in the authorized maximum is in fact less than the increase in the cost of living during that same time; and the actual decision about compensation will continue to be a matter of local control.

It may not be the most important education bill I’ll ever author, but I think SB 909 is a worthwhile effort.

It reflects my beliefs about the value of board service, and the importance of the work our districts perform. It acknowledges the out-of-pocket costs that inevitably are a part of board service. And finally, and most importantly, it helps to ensure that people of modest means are not precluded from taking their rightful place at the dais when it comes time to make the decisions that shape the lives of the 6.3 million kids in our K-12 districts.

On a personal note, I suppose I can tell you after all these years that during my tenure on the board, I never cashed a stipend check. Instead, I endorsed the checks to local programs and organizations that served our kids and our schools. But that was my choice.

I took my $40 a month, and I was proud of the way I earned it. When you accept your check, I hope you are, too.

Editor's note: The governor released the following veto message as California Schools was being readied to go to press:

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 909 without my signature.

While I recognize the important work of school boards, this bill would allow school board members to reduce funding for direct classroom instruction in order to give themselves generous pay increases. To the extent possible, I believe funding should remain in the classroom to improve student achievement.

Furthermore, instead of doubling the maximum compensation at one time, as this bill would allow, current law already provides reasonable flexibility to governing boards to increase their own compensation, by not more than five percent annually, beyond the limits already established in statute.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

—Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor, state of California