AB 2528 rewrites the statutory caps on monthly compensation for community college district governing board members. It preserves the attendance-based structure and tiering by prior-year full‑time equivalent students (FTES), but increases the maximum pay in each FTES tier and keeps a board‑level mechanism for modest annual raises subject to voter override.
This matters because it moves a meaningful portion of trustees’ compensation decisions to local boards, increases recurring personnel costs on district budgets, and creates a new local governance calculation for recruiting and retaining board members. District finance officers, trustees, county elections officials, and anyone who budgets at the campus or district level should evaluate the fiscal and political implications of these higher caps and the referendum backstop.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill keeps the existing FTES-based tier structure that conditions full monthly pay on ‘actually attending all meetings’ and raises the statutory maximums that boards may prescribe for each tier. It also preserves a prorated payment method for missed meetings, a narrow exception process to pay absent members when they are performing district work (or for illness, jury duty, or hardship), and lets boards enact up to a 5% annual increase above the statute unless voters repeal it in a referendum.
Who It Affects
Elected community college trustees and district chief business officers are directly affected because trustee compensation is a line-item in local budgets; larger districts (by FTES) will see the largest authorized increases. County election officials and district clerks are affected insofar as the statute references a voter referendum process for rejecting board-approved increases.
Why It Matters
By raising the statutory ceiling, AB 2528 changes the local calculus about whether to pay trustees more to attract and retain candidates, potentially increasing recurring district expenditures. The combination of board discretion plus a voter referendum creates a new political feedback loop that could politicize routine compensation choices or, alternatively, make raises easier when local voters do not act.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2528 modifies the state law that sets maximum monthly compensation rates for governing board members of California community college districts. The law keeps the five FTES tiers used to determine a district’s compensation ceiling and keeps the longstanding condition that a member must “actually attend all meetings held by the board” to qualify for the full monthly amount.
When trustees miss meetings, the statute continues to authorize pro rata payments based on meetings attended and the applicable maximum.
The bill also keeps a mechanism allowing boards to pay a member for a meeting missed when the board finds, by resolution included in the minutes, that the member was performing district business outside the meeting, was ill, on jury duty, or absent for another hardship the board accepts. Newly organized or reorganized districts still use the FTES from the college year when the organization became effective to determine the appropriate compensation tier.Finally, AB 2528 preserves a local‑level path for incremental raises: the governing board may increase individual member compensation annually by up to 5 percent of the current monthly rate, with such action effective immediately unless a majority of district voters reject it in a referendum established under the Elections Code.
That creates a two‑step local control model—board action plus voter check—rather than shifting compensation setting to state or county actors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill increases the maximum monthly compensation caps (by FTES tier) to these amounts: up to $4,500, $3,000, $2,000, $1,200, and $600 respectively for the five FTES tiers.
The statute applies only to community college districts 'not located in a city and county,' preserving an exclusion for consolidated city‑and‑county jurisdictions.
A trustee who does not attend all board meetings in a month may receive a pro rata share of the maximum compensation based on the number of meetings actually attended.
Boards may adopt a resolution to pay a trustee for an absence if the member was performing district work outside the meeting, was ill, on jury duty, or absent for a board‑accepted hardship; the payment is charged to district funds.
The governing board may increase member compensation annually by up to 5% of the present monthly rate, but that action can be overturned by a majority of district voters in a referendum under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 9100) of Division 9 of the Elections Code.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Tiered compensation ceilings tied to prior‑year FTES
Subdivision (a) preserves the five‑tier FTES framework used to determine the maximum monthly compensation a board may set, and it raises the statutory ceiling for each tier. Practically, this means districts must determine the correct FTES tier using the prior college year totals to know the ceiling they may adopt. The clause excluding districts ‘‘located in a city and county’’ narrows the statute’s universe and will require local counsel in unusual jurisdictions to confirm applicability.
Pro rata pay for partial attendance
Subdivision (b) keeps the attendance‑based pay model and authorizes boards to pay a pro rata amount when a member misses meetings. That creates a straightforward recordkeeping obligation: boards and district clerks will need an auditable system to track meeting attendance and calculate per‑meeting pay fractions against the applicable monthly ceiling.
Newly organized/reorganized district FTES rule
Subdivision (c) ties compensation for newly organized or reorganized districts to the total FTES in the college year when the organization became effective, treating that year as the 'prior college year.' This avoids transitional ambiguity but requires districts undergoing consolidation or reorganization to document and publicize the FTES basis used to select a compensation tier.
Board resolution required to pay for certain absences
Subdivision (d) allows payment to an absent member only if the governing board adopts a resolution, entered into the minutes, finding one of several narrow reasons for the absence (performing district work, illness, jury duty, or acceptable hardship). In practice this creates a discretionary board review step and a public record that justifies charging the payment to district funds; it also invites scrutiny about what qualifies as a legitimate 'hardship' or 'district work.'
Local annual increases (up to 5%) with voter referendum override
Subdivision (e) lets governing boards increase individual compensation up to 5 percent annually above the statutory monthly rate without further state action, but it also builds in a voter check: the raise is subject to rejection by a majority of district voters via a referendum process set out in the Elections Code. That dual mechanism gives immediate local flexibility while preserving a path for voters to block raises, and it imposes coordination needs with election officials if a referendum is triggered.
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
- Elected community college trustees — The higher ceilings allow boards to authorize materially larger monthly pay, making service more financially feasible for trustees who would otherwise face greater opportunity costs.
- Larger community college districts (by FTES) — Because ceilings scale upward with FTES, large districts gain the most nominal increase in authorized trustee compensation and therefore have more local discretion to raise pay.
- Boards seeking to recruit experienced candidates — Higher allowable compensation reduces the financial barrier for professionals to run for trustee and may broaden the applicant pool for open seats.
Who Bears the Cost
- Community college district budgets and taxpayers — Any board decision to raise trustee pay consumes district funds that might otherwise support programs, staffing, or student services; the cost is local and recurring.
- District chief business officers and clerks — Administrators must implement attendance tracking, calculate pro rata payments, prepare resolutions for absence payments, and manage the mechanics of 5% annual increases and potential referendums.
- Local election officials — If voters exercise the referendum option, county registrars will face additional administrative work and costs associated with placing and administering a district referendum under the Elections Code.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether increasing allowable trustee pay better professionalizes and diversifies governing boards—by easing financial barriers to service—or whether it diverts finite local educational resources and creates incentives that reward attendance rather than effective oversight; the bill hands more discretion to local boards while giving voters a backstop, but that split authority creates new administrative friction and political risk.
The bill raises compensation ceilings without specifying any new state funding source, so districts choosing to pay up to the new caps must absorb the cost within existing local budgets. That trade‑off is especially consequential for smaller districts or those already facing constrained reserves.
The statute’s reliance on attendance as the primary qualification for full pay creates operational issues: it incentivizes physical attendance but does not define remote participation, hybrid meetings, or what constitutes 'actually attends' for purposes of hybrid governance. Districts will need clear written policies to avoid disputes and to ensure compliance with open‑meeting rules.
The resolution requirement to pay absent members for performing district work or for hardship gives boards discretion but also invites public scrutiny and potential politicization: a board can justify an absence payment by adopting a resolution, but opponents may challenge the sufficiency of the board’s finding. Likewise, the referendum safety valve preserves voter control but can chill board action; placing routine compensation decisions at the intersection of board discretion and potential referendums may turn otherwise administrative matters into political contests.
Finally, the bill’s exclusion of districts 'located in a city and county' could produce litigation or interpretation questions in atypical jurisdictions, and the statute does not spell out enforcement or reporting requirements that would enable statewide monitoring of the new pay levels.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.