AB 1390 prescribes a tiered schedule of maximum monthly compensation for regular members of city boards of education and governing boards of school districts based on prior‑year average daily attendance (ADA). It preserves a special pathway for very large, chartered city districts (ADA > 250,000) to set salaries under local charter rules and a compensation review committee, and it expressly allows boards to grant pupil members course credit or a board‑determined monthly payment.
The bill matters because it converts an otherwise discretionary local decision into a structured, ADA‑based statewide framework with numeric caps, a built‑in 5 percent annual raise authority, rules for proration and exceptions, and explicit budgetary treatment. District finance officers, payroll administrators, school governance lawyers, and compensation committees will need to reconcile local policy, city charter provisions, and district budgets with these new limits and reporting mechanics.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates six ADA bands with fixed maximum monthly pay for regular board members (ranging from $600 to $4,500) and a separate local‑charter/compensation‑committee process for districts with ADA above 250,000; allows pupil members to receive elective credit or monthly pay and permits boards to raise member pay up to 5% annually.
Who It Affects
School district governing boards and city boards of education, district payroll and finance offices, compensation review committees in chartered cities, and pupil board members. It also affects districts that share a governing board across multiple districts because of apportionment rules.
Why It Matters
The bill standardizes pay limits across most districts while preserving local salary‑setting for the largest chartered districts, creating predictable budget exposure and new compliance touchpoints for district staff responsible for payroll, budgeting, and governance procedures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1390 ties school board compensation to the district’s average daily attendance in the prior school year. For most districts it imposes six ADA bands with explicit monthly caps; boards may pay up to the capped amount for members who attend all meetings.
Members who miss meetings are paid proportionally based on meetings attended. The statute treats compensation as a district expense, specifies how to allocate costs when one board governs multiple districts, and reduces district pay by any amounts the city pays out of city funds.
For the very largest districts—those with prior‑year ADA exceeding 250,000—the bill departs from numeric caps and instead defers to local city charter law or applicable local rules, with salary determinations made by a local compensation review committee. That creates a two‑track system: most districts operate under fixed ceilings, while chartered mega‑districts follow local charter procedures and a compensation review process.
Boards may also increase regular member pay annually by up to 5 percent of the current monthly rate; these increases take effect once the governing board approves them.The bill includes operational mechanics: a proration formula (maximum allowed amount divided by meetings held, multiplied by meetings attended) for partial attendance; a carve‑out allowing pay for absences when members perform district services, are ill, on jury duty, or face a hardship as the board finds; and a legacy‑style adjustment allowing ADA to be increased by a district’s percentage of excused absences reported for the 1996–97 fiscal year. Pupil members are treated separately: the board may grant elective-course credit tied to minutes served or provide monthly financial compensation at the board’s discretion.Finally, AB 1390 establishes definitions for 'regular member' and 'pupil member,' clarifies treatment of newly organized or reorganized districts (using ADA in the year organization became effective), and makes compensation a charge against district funds with proportional allocation rules where appropriate.
Implementation will require districts to update payroll practices, meeting records, and internal controls to align with the new caps, proration rules, and funding apportionment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill sets six ADA bands with numeric monthly caps: ≤1,000 ADA = $600; >1,000–≤10,000 = $1,200; >10,000–≤25,000 = $2,000; >25,000–≤60,000 = $3,000; >60,000 (non‑city‑and‑county districts) = $4,500; districts with ADA >250,000 follow local charter/compensation‑committee procedures instead of these caps.
Members who miss meetings get prorated pay: the board may pay (maximum cap ÷ number of meetings held) × number of meetings attended for that month.
Boards may adopt an annual increase in regular member compensation of up to 5% based on the present monthly rate; the increase becomes effective on board approval alone.
Compensation is charged to district funds; when one board governs multiple districts, the cost is apportioned in the same ratio as the city superintendent’s salary is charged, and compensation must be reduced by any salary paid from city funds.
Pupil members may receive either elective course credit based on minutes served or monthly financial compensation as the governing board decides; the statute expressly authorizes board discretion on the financial amount.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Local charter route for very large districts (ADA > 250,000)
For school districts with prior‑year ADA above 250,000, the bill removes numeric state caps and defers salary setting to local city charter law or applicable local rules, with the salary determined by a local compensation review committee. Practically, this places the largest urban chartered districts outside the tiered cap structure and requires formation or use of a compensation review body to set pay consistent with local charter procedures.
ADA‑based monthly caps for most districts
The statute prescribes fixed maximum monthly compensation for regular board members across five ADA bands (from $600 up to $4,500). Subdivision (a)(2) applies a $4,500 monthly cap specifically to districts that are not in a consolidated city and county and have ADA over 60,000; the remaining paragraphs create lower caps as ADA declines. These are hard ceilings for boards that follow the state schedule.
Proration when members miss meetings
If a regular or pupil member does not attend all meetings in a month, the board may pay a prorated amount equal to (the applicable monthly maximum ÷ number of meetings held) × number of meetings attended. That formula creates a direct link between attendance records and payroll and requires accurate meeting counts and documented member attendance to compute pay.
ADA calculation quirks and newly organized districts
The bill allows a district’s ADA for compensation‑band purposes to be increased by the district’s percentage of excused absences reported in fiscal year 1996–97—a legacy adjustment that can alter band placement. For newly organized or reorganized districts, the ADA used is the total ADA in the year the reorganization became effective, treated as the prior year’s ADA for compensation purposes.
Permitted payment for specified absences
A board may pay a member for a meeting they missed if, by resolution recorded in minutes, the board finds the member was performing district services outside the meeting, was ill, on jury duty, or absent due to an acceptable hardship. This preserves board discretion to avoid penalizing members for certain absences but requires an affirmative, documented board finding.
Budget charge, multi‑district apportionment, and city offset
Compensation is a charge against district funds. If a city board governs multiple districts, each district pays its share in the same proportion as the city superintendent’s salary is charged. Additionally, any salary or compensation paid from city funds must reduce the amount charged to the district. Those mechanics matter for budgeting, inter‑district reconciliations, and audits.
Annual 5% increase authority
Governing boards may increase regular member compensation annually by up to 5 percent of the present monthly rate. The increase is effective upon board approval; the statute does not require voter approval or external review for that annual uplift, which allows modest, board‑approved compounding over time.
Pupil member compensation/options and definitions
Subdivision (f) permits boards to award pupil members elective course credit based on minutes served and/or monthly financial compensation set by the board. Subdivision (g) defines 'pupil member' and 'regular member' for clarity and ties the statute to Section 35012’s member selection mechanisms.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Regular board members in mid‑sized districts: They gain clear, predictable pay ceilings tied to ADA, which can improve recruitment and compensation transparency for candidate evaluation and personal financial planning.
- Pupil board members: The bill authorizes either elective credit or board‑determined monthly pay, giving school boards flexibility to reward student participation and potentially broaden access to student governance roles.
- Compensation review committees and local charters in the largest districts: Districts with ADA above 250,000 that operate under city charters retain local salary‑setting authority, increasing the role and influence of local compensation review bodies and city governance structures.
Who Bears the Cost
- District finance and payroll offices: They must implement new caps, proration calculations, recordkeeping for attendance and resolution findings, and apportionment across multiple districts—adding administrative load and potential system changes.
- Smaller districts with tight budgets: Even modest increases or the requirement to pay monthly compensation out of district funds will compete with instructional and operational spending, particularly where multiple members claim pay or boards adopt the maximum.
- Taxpayers and local governments: Where city funds previously supplemented board pay, districts will adjust charges accordingly; municipalities that contribute may see offsets, while taxpayers ultimately fund district charges through existing revenue sources unless budgets are rebalanced.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between two legitimate goals: expand and normalize compensation to attract a broader, diverse pool of board members and give large chartered districts local control, versus impose statewide fiscal discipline and uniformity to protect district budgets and ensure transparent, auditable compensation practices. The statute solves one problem (predictability) but creates friction where local autonomy, historical adjustments, and sparse procedural safeguards collide.
The bill balances standardization and deference but leaves several operational and interpretive questions. The legacy adjustment that permits boosting ADA by the district’s percentage of excused absences reported in 1996–97 is opaque: it can materially shift a district’s compensation band yet relies on a single historical fiscal year that may not reflect current attendance patterns.
Districts and auditors will need guidance on applying that calculation and whether any modern data reconciliation is necessary.
Another unresolved implementation issue is the interaction between the local‑charter salary route for ADA > 250,000 districts and the rest of the statute: the bill defers to 'applicable rules and regulations' without specifying minimum transparency, public‑notice, or conflict‑of‑interest safeguards for compensation review committees. Likewise, the 5 percent annual increase authority is silent on compounding limits, multi‑year fiscal impact analysis, or whether increases require a public hearing or specific findings, creating potential governance and budgetary friction.
Finally, the proration formula ties pay strictly to meeting attendance, but it does not address hybrid or emergency meetings, or how to treat partially attended meetings, which may complicate payroll calculations and open minor disputes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.