This January, the members of the Orange Unified School District Board of Education gave themselves a massive 400% pay increase, raising their monthly stipend from $400 to $2,000.
From beginning to end, this naked cash grab has been an disturbing exercise in arrogance and contempt for the public.
The huge pay increase tucked into the consent calendar – meaning it would be publicly discussed unless one of the trustees requested it. Being politicians and naturally averse to drawing unwanted attention to unseemly actions, none of the trustees “pulled” the item for public discussion. That failure deprived their constituents of the opportunity to hear why their elected school board representatives feel they are entitled to a humongous pay hike while OUSD in the midst of a fiscal crisis.
Board members have compounded that by arrogantly refusing to provide any substantive explanation in response to subsequent requests for comments.
After reporting on the pay increase on January 26, the OC Independent planned on editorial critical of the pay increase. However, we wanted to give the Board of Education members the opportunity to defend their vote and justify the pay hike.
READ: OUSD Board of Education Members Vote Themselves A 400% Pay Increase
On January 30, we e-mailed each trustee the following questions, prefaced by noting that we “understand that state law allows (but does not require) this increase” and so the “questions do not pertain to laws and bylaws permitting this action“:
- Why do you believe you and the other Board members deserved such a large pay increase?
- Do you think you and your Board members were underpaid at $400 a month?
- Why didn’t you pull the item from the consent calendar and explain to the public your reasons for approving this pay increase?
- Whose idea was it to place a pay increase on the Board agenda?
As of today, only one trustee responded, and even that was a non-response.
Trustee Sierra Vane emailed this reply:
Apologies for the delay. Our Chief Communications Officer, who you are familiar with, will respond on my behalf.
Thank you,
Sierra
The next day, we received this e-mail from OUSD Chief Communications and Strategy Officer Jacqueline Perez:
Good afternoon, Matthew-
On behalf of Trustee Vane, please find a response to your questions below.
The Board of Education’s action on January 22, 2026, was a unified step to bring district policy into alignment with newly enacted state law. This item was agendized as a routine administrative update to comply with the revised California Education Code. The Board remains a unified governance team dedicated to providing a world-class education while maintaining professional oversight and fiscal transparency.
Thank you, Jackie
This isn’t communication – this is bureaucratic obfuscation. The Perez-channeled reply from Vane not only dodges our reasonable questions, but makes it seem as if state law forced OUSD Board members to give themselves a massive pay hike!
But give Ms. Vane credit for at least replying.
Trustee Stephen Glass? No response.
Trustee Ana Page Goodlander? No response.
Trustee Andrea Yamasaki? No response.
Trustee Sara Pelly? No response.
Trustee Matthew Thomas? No response.
If there was a Marie Antionette Award for Official Arrogance Toward The Commoners, Matthews would win it. Although he blew off our request, we obtained his internal response to the request via a public record act request.
OUSD Superintendent Rachel Monarrez forwarded our e-mail to Trustee Thomas (apparently his district e-mail bypasses him and goes straight to the superintendent).
Replying to Monarrez, Thomas snorted, “I will not be responding, as usual. Funny, I already read an article he wrote and now he’s reaching out?”
As we noted, our requests for comment were for this editorial, which obviously hadn’t been published yet. Thomas’ jab rings hollow given his haughty refusal to explain his vote.
Thomas is Director of Transportation for the Garden Grove Unified School District, where his total compensation (as of 2024) was $259,977.54.
We think it reasonable to ask why he believes he deserves another $20,000 per annum from taxpayers for a post of honor for which he campaigned.
His constituents certainly deserve to know.
Stephen Glass’ Deceptive Spin
While Trustee Glass ignored our request for an explanation, we were able to obtain a January 25 e-mail he sent to an OUSD resident seeking an explanation of his vote to raise his own pay. It’s long, rambling, dodges the issue of why he didn’t pull the item for public discussion and provides zero insight into why he voted to massively increase his pay:
“Thank you for your written comments and for your continued engagement with the work of the Orange Unified School District Board of Education. I regret that we were unable to hear your remarks in person, but I appreciate your decision to share them in writing for the public record.”
“I would like to offer clarification regarding the trustee compensation item you referenced, along with the process by which it was considered.”
“The Board’s decision to adjust trustee compensation is fully aligned with both state law and local board policy. Under Board Bylaw 9250, trustees may receive the maximum monthly compensation permitted by law, and the Board may act annually to increase compensation within that legal limit. On January 1, 2026, Assembly Bill 1390 took effect. This bill increased the statutory compensation ceiling for school board members across California. Under the new law, districts with fewer than 25,000 students, including ours, may set board stipends up to $2,000 per month, replacing the former $400 cap based on average daily attendance.”
“The Board’s action was to align with this updated statutory maximum. It did not exceed what is permitted by law. It is also important to note that in Summer 2025, this Board accepted a compensation reduction from $750 to $400 due to declining enrollment. The recent action restores compensation within the limits of new state law and board policy.”
“Your concern regarding the use of the consent calendar is acknowledged and appreciated. I would like to clarify that placing the item on consent was a routine procedural action and not intended to limit transparency. The consent calendar is reserved for items that are legally compliant, fully described in the public agenda, and unlikely to require discussion. The item in question included a clear explanation of the legislative basis, the proposed adjustment, and the rationale. Any member of the Board or the public may request that an item be pulled from consent and discussed separately. No such request was made at the time.”
“That said, I recognize that the optics of process are as important as process itself. Transparency and community trust remain core to our work, and your perspective is taken seriously.”
“You referenced Focus Areas 2 and 4, which prioritize equitable opportunities and community engagement. I agree that public confidence is built through open and honest governance. That is why this compensation decision was clearly noticed, grounded in law, and acted upon in accordance with our Board bylaws. This was not a raise in the traditional sense. It was a legal and policy-based adjustment tied directly to new state legislation. It is also about ensuring that Board service remains accessible to working professionals, caregivers, and diverse members of the community. The intent of AB 1390 is to encourage broader participation in school governance, and we believe this action is consistent with that goal.”
“Thank you again for raising your concerns. While we may differ in how we interpret the process, I believe we share a commitment to transparency, responsibility, and the long-term well-being of the Orange Unified School District. We welcome continued engagement from all members of our community, including those who challenge us to reflect and lead with intention.“
Respectfully,
Dr. Stephen Glass
Board President
Glass’s e-mail is masterfully misleading, but this one really stands out:
“It is also important to note that in Summer 2025, this Board accepted a compensation reduction from $750 to $400 due to declining enrollment.”
Glass makes it seem like the Board cut their own pay. He is a smart man who chooses his words carefully, and here he is being deliberately deceitful.
Glass’s inference was contradicted by the District. After obtaining Glass’s e-mail, OC Independent e-mailed the OUSD asking when the Board took action to cut their pay, and received this response from Perez:
“It is not accurate that the OUSD Board of Education voted in the summer of 2025 to reduce its maximum monthly compensation from $750 to $400.”
“Under California Education Code 35120, Board compensation is strictly tied to the district’s Average Daily Attendance (ADA). When OUSD’s enrollment dropped below 25,000, the district moved into a lower compensation tier resulting in the Board’s stipend automatically being adjusted to the appropriate level. At the time, the law set monthly Board Member stipends for districts with ADA of 10,001 to 25,000 at $400 per month. Previously, the District was in the higher tier for districts with ADA of 25,001 to 60,000, permitting a stipend of $750 per month.”
“The adjustment to board member compensation occurred automatically by operation of law based on the District’s enrollment certification and did not require Board action. As such, the matter was not agendized for discussion or action, including on the consent calendar, and no Board vote was taken.”
Contrary to Glass’s misleading inference that the Board took action to cut its pay, the reality is they had nothing to do with it.
During his Board president comments at the February 19 school board meeting, Glass had nothing to say about the pay increase. He did speak about Black History Month and rightly pointed out that the gains of the Civil Rights Era were “secured through organized struggle and moral courage.”
Is it moral courage to evade public accountability by sneakily voting oneself a huge pay increase, and then refusing to explain or justify that vote to your constituents?
Quite the opposite. It bespeaks a contempt for the public they’re elected to serve, and reflects a species of guilt about helping themselves so generously to the public weal.
