Now that the Legislature has stripped the elected State Board of Equalization of most of its tax-administration duties and given them to a new agency, can the Citizens Compensation Commission cut the Board members' salaries to match?

Plain-English summary

The State Board of Equalization (BOE) is one of California's oldest constitutional bodies, established in 1879 and traditionally responsible for administering the sales and use tax, motor vehicle fuel tax, cigarette tax, and dozens of other tax programs in addition to its constitutional duties of equalizing county property tax assessments and overseeing alcoholic beverage and insurance taxes. Its four district members are elected statewide.

In 2017, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 102, the Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act. The Act stripped most of the Board's statutory duties and transferred them to two new agencies: the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) for the bulk of the tax programs, and the Office of Tax Appeals for taxpayer appeals. What remained with the BOE was its constitutional core: equalizing county property tax assessments, alcoholic beverage and insurance taxes, and a small set of related duties.

The Citizens Compensation Commission, established in 1990 by Proposition 112 (Cal. Const., art. III, § 8), sets compensation for elected state officers, including the Governor, the Legislature, and the BOE members. Subdivision (h) tells the Commission what to consider: the duties, powers, and responsibilities of the office, comparable salaries, the state's economic condition, and other relevant factors. The Commission asked the AG whether it had authority to lower BOE member compensation in light of AB 102's reduction in BOE duties.

The AG said yes. Subdivision (h) explicitly directs the Commission to weigh duties, powers, and responsibilities. AB 102 substantially reduced those duties. The Commission therefore may, consistent with the Constitution, adjust BOE compensation downward to reflect the reduction. The opinion is careful: it does not order a cut, it does not specify how much, and it does not address mid-term reductions for currently sitting members (which would raise separate constitutional issues). It simply confirms that the Commission has the discretion.

What this means for you

If you sit on the Citizens Compensation Commission

This opinion gives you constitutional cover to revisit BOE compensation. The path: develop a record showing the pre-AB 102 portfolio (sales tax, motor vehicle fuel tax, cigarette tax, etc.) versus the post-AB 102 portfolio (constitutional property-tax equalization, alcoholic beverage and insurance taxes, related duties), document the reduction in workload, and explicitly tie any compensation adjustment to subdivision (h)'s factors. Adjustments tied to a documented record of duty reduction will be more defensible than ones based on policy preferences about elected tax administration.

If you are a sitting Board of Equalization member

A reduction in compensation set after this opinion is technically permissible, but the timing matters. The California Constitution generally protects elected officers' compensation during their existing term against adjustments that violate the takings or due process clauses. The opinion does not resolve whether a reduction would apply to currently sitting members or only to future-elected members. Your political and legal advisors will want to scrutinize any specific Commission proposal against that question.

If you are a state legislator

The opinion stops short of saying the BOE itself is now structurally underemployed. The Commission and the Legislature are different bodies with different roles. Whether to consolidate BOE duties further, expand them, or restore some of the AB 102 transfers is a legislative call. This opinion only addresses the Commission's compensation-setting authority within the existing constitutional framework.

If you are a journalist or a taxpayer organization

The legal context is important. AB 102 was a structural reform; the BOE's reduced portfolio has been the operating reality since 2017. The Commission has been setting BOE compensation each year throughout that period. This opinion does not announce that anything must change; it confirms the Commission has authority to act on the duty-reduction reality if it chooses.

If you are an attorney advising on California's other constitutional officers

The opinion's reasoning is portable. Whenever the Legislature substantially reduces the duties of a constitutional officer (without amending the constitution), the Commission can revisit compensation under subdivision (h). The same analysis would apply, for instance, if the Legislature shifted core duties of the Insurance Commissioner, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, or another elected officer to a different body.

Background and statutory framework

Article III, section 8 of the California Constitution, added in 1990 by Proposition 112, established the Citizens Compensation Commission as a seven-member body of private citizens appointed by the Governor. Subdivision (h) directs that "in establishing or adjusting the salaries of state officers and members of the Legislature, the commission shall consider all of the following:"

• the duties, powers, and responsibilities of the elected officer or member of the Legislature
• the compensation paid to comparable positions in other jurisdictions and in the private sector
• the state's economic condition
• such other relevant factors as the commission may consider

Subdivision (l) lists the constitutional offices the Commission's authority covers, which include the BOE members and the State Controller.

The State Board of Equalization is established under article XIII, sections 17 (composition: four district members plus the Controller as ex officio) and 8 (constitutional duties around county property tax equalization). Its non-constitutional duties have historically come from statutes (chiefly the Revenue and Taxation Code) that the Legislature has been free to amend.

Assembly Bill 102 (Stats. 2017, ch. 16, the Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017) created the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (codified at Government Code §§ 15570-15570.100) and the Office of Tax Appeals (Gov. Code §§ 15670-15680). It transferred to those bodies the BOE's authority over sales and use tax (Rev. & Tax. Code § 7051), motor vehicle fuel tax (§ 8251), cigarette tax (§ 30451), and dozens of other excise tax programs. Many regulations the BOE had administered (former Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, §§ 5260-5268, 5270-5271, 5510-5576) were repealed or transferred. What remained with the BOE: county property-tax equalization, alcoholic beverage taxes, and insurance taxes that the Constitution itself assigns or that the Legislature kept with the Board.

Common questions

Did the AG decide whether BOE members' salaries should be cut?
No. The AG decided only that the Commission has authority to consider a cut. The actual decision, and the size, is up to the Commission.

Can the Commission cut salaries for currently sitting members mid-term?
The opinion does not address that question. Mid-term salary adjustments for elected officers raise separate constitutional issues (potentially under takings, due process, or article III, section 8(g)'s "establishing or adjusting" language). The Commission and BOE members would need separate analysis on timing.

Why doesn't the Legislature just amend the Constitution to reduce the BOE further?
That is a constitutional amendment, requiring a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval. AB 102 reduced statutory duties without touching the BOE's constitutional duties precisely because the Legislature did not pursue a constitutional amendment.

Has the Commission ever cut a constitutional officer's pay before?
The Commission has reduced compensation in past years during fiscal emergencies. The novel question here is reducing it specifically because of a structural reduction in duties, rather than overall budget conditions. The AG's answer: this is within subdivision (h)'s express authorization.

What happens to the Controller, who serves on the BOE ex officio?
The Controller's compensation is set as the Controller, not as a BOE member, and the Commission has separate authority over that office. The opinion is limited to the four elected BOE district members.

Citations

• California Constitution, article III, section 8 (Citizens Compensation Commission)
• California Constitution, article III, section 8, subdivision (h) (factors for setting compensation, including duties, powers, and responsibilities)
• California Constitution, article XIII, section 17 (Board of Equalization composition)
• California Constitution, article XIII, section 8 (BOE constitutional duties)
• Assembly Bill 102 (Stats. 2017, ch. 16) (Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017)
• Government Code sections 15570-15570.100 (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration)
• Government Code sections 15670-15680 (Office of Tax Appeals)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.ca.gov/opinions/yearly-index
• Original PDF: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/24-404.pdf

Original opinion text

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of California
ROB BONTA
Attorney General

OPINION
of
ROB BONTA
Attorney General
SUSAN DUNCAN LEE
Deputy Attorney General

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 24-404
April 2, 2025

The HONORABLE MICHAEL SWEET, CHAIR OF THE CALIFORNIA
CITIZENS COMPENSATION COMMISSION, has requested an opinion on a question
relating to the scope of the Commission’s authority.
QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION
Does the California Citizens Compensation Commission have the authority to
adjust the compensation of the members of the State Board of Equalization to reflect a
substantial reduction in their duties, powers, and responsibilities due to the passage of
Assembly Bill 102 (The Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017)?
Yes, the Commission has authority to adjust the compensation of members of the
State Board of Equalization to reflect a substantial legislative reduction in their functions
and duties due to the passage of Assembly Bill 102.

1

24-404

BACKGROUND
California Citizens Compensation Commission
The California Citizens Compensation Commission exists to set compensation for
elected state officers. 1 Until 1990, the responsibility for determining elected state
officials’ compensation rested in the Legislature. In 1990, California voters reassigned
that responsibility to a citizen-led commission by approving Proposition 112, which
added Article III, section 8 to the California Constitution. The measure created a sevenmember commission, composed entirely of private citizens appointed by the Governor, to
establish and then annually adjust the salary and benefits of elected state officers,
including members of the State Board of Equalization. 2
Whether the Commission is establishing or adjusting compensation, the factors it
must consider are the same: the time commitment required to perform the official
responsibilities; the level of compensation provided to officials with similar
responsibilities; and the “responsibility and scope of authority of the entity in which the
state officer serves.” 3
Cal. Const., art. III, § 8, subds. (a)-(e) (establishing structure and criteria).
“Compensation” in this context means “the annual salary and the medical, dental,
insurance, and other similar benefits of state officers.” (Ibid.)

1

See Cal. Const., art. III, § 8, subd. (g) (“On or before December 3, 1990, the
commission shall . . . establish the annual salary and the medical, dental, insurance, and
other similar benefits of state officers. . . . Thereafter, at or before the end of each fiscal
year, the commission shall . . . adjust the medical, dental, insurance, and other similar
benefits of state officers” and “the annual salary of state officers”); id., subd. (l) (“‘State
officer’ . . . means the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller,
Insurance Commissioner, Secretary of State, Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Treasurer, member of the State Board of Equalization, and Member of the Legislature”).

2

Cal. Const., art. III, § 8, subd. (h). Subdivision (h) states: “In establishing or adjusting
the annual salary and the medical, dental, insurance, and other similar benefits, the
commission shall consider all of the following”:

3

(1) The amount of time directly or indirectly related to the performance of
the duties, functions, and services of a state officer.
(2) The amount of the annual salary and the medical, dental, insurance, and
other similar benefits for other elected and appointed officers and officials
in this State with comparable responsibilities, the judiciary, and, to the
extent practicable, the private sector, recognizing, however, that state
officers do not receive, and do not expect to receive, compensation at the
(continued…)
2

24-404

The Commission’s constitutional duty to establish and then annually adjust
compensation levels was explained to voters in the official ballot pamphlet, as follows:
“The commission would have until December 3, 1990, to set the salaries and benefits
which would be effective for one year beginning on that date. In the following years, the
commission could adjust annually the salaries and benefits of elected state officers.” 4
In 1990, the Commission conducted proceedings and officially established base
pay and benefits for all elected state officers except members of the Legislature. In 1994,
the Commission established base pay and benefits for legislators. 5 Since then, the
Commission has adjusted compensation rates annually. 6
Board of Equalization
The Board of Equalization was established in 1879 by Article XII, section 17 of
the California Constitution to regulate county property-tax-assessment practices, equalize
county-assessment ratios, and assess properties of intercounty railroads. 7 Over time, the
Legislature assigned additional duties to the Board, including administration of state sales
and use taxes and dozens of other business taxes and fees. 8 Adding to the complexity of
same levels as individuals in the private sector with comparable experience
and responsibilities.
(3) The responsibility and scope of authority of the entity in which the state
officer serves.
(4) Whether the Director of Finance estimates that there will be a negative
balance in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties in an amount equal
to or greater than 1 percent of estimated General Fund revenues in the
current fiscal year.
Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990) Analysis by the Legislative Analyst, p. 23,
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_props/1059 (as of Apr. 1, 2025).

4

See Cal. Citizens Compensation Commission, Salaries,
https://www.calhr.ca.gov/cccc/Pages/cccc-salaries.aspx (as of Apr. 1, 2025).

5

See Cal. Citizens Compensation Commission, Commission History,
https://www.calhr.ca.gov/cccc/Pages/cccc-commission-history.aspx (summary of
Commission’s actions) (“Compensation Commission History”) (as of Apr. 1, 2025).
7
See Cal. State Board of Equalization, About BOE,
https://www.boe.ca.gov/info/about.htm (as of Apr. 1, 2025); see Hanks v. State Bd. of
Equalization (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 427 (Board created by 1879 Constitution, which was
adopted by constitutional convention and ratified by voters).
6

See former Rev. & Tax Code, § 20 (repealed by Stats. 2017, ch. 16, § 14) (defining
“Board” as Board of Equalization); e.g., Rev. & Tax Code, § 7051 (sales and use taxes);
(continued…)
8

3

24-404

its portfolio, the Board also served as an administrative appeals body, hearing taxpayer
challenges to certain tax and fee assessments. 9 This combination of responsibilities led to
longstanding concerns that the Board’s structure combined incompatible legislative,
executive, and judicial features. 10 On top of those concerns, various state audits and
investigations in the years leading up to 2017 disclosed a variety of systemic problems,
which the Board was unable to fully remediate. 11
In 2017, the totality of these circumstances led to the adoption of Assembly Bill
102, The Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act, which created the new Department of
Tax and Fee Administration and transferred the bulk of the Board’s duties to the new
agency, along with the Board’s civil service employees, its properties, and its funding. 12
The Act also created the new Office of Tax Appeals and transferred to it the Board’s
duties relating to tax appeal hearings. 13 As a result of this restructuring, the Board is left
with only the three programs assigned to it by the Constitution: overseeing California’s
id., § 8251 (motor vehicle fuel tax); id., § 30451 (cigarette tax); see also, e.g.,
78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 26 (1995); 85 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 141 (2002).
9

See former Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, §§ 5260-5268, 5270-5271, 5510-5576.

See Legislative Analyst’s Office, The 2018-19 Budget: California’s New Tax
Departments, p. 3, available at https://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2018/3796/new-taxdepartments-040418.pdf (as of Apr. 1, 2025).
10

See ibid. For example, between 1992 and 1998, the Legislature added 250 audit
positions to the Board, only for a 1999 State Auditor’s report to find that members had
redirected more than half of the new positions to work as support staff for members’
activities. (See Department of Finance–Office of State Audits and Evaluations,
California State Board of Equalization: Sales and Use Tax Reporting [and] Retail Sales
Tax Adjustment (March 2017) p. 1, available at https://oreports.dof.ca.gov/reportPdf/370/
Board%20of%20Equalization%20Evaluation%20March%202017 (as of Apr. 1, 2025).)
The Auditor found that the Board’s response to audit recommendations was
unconstructive. Noting that the Board’s “operational culture” hampered its ability to
report reliable information to decisionmakers, the State Auditor reported that people
responsible for the Board’s operations “were unable to provide complete and accurate
documentation or answer basic questions regarding operations related to our evaluation
objectives. Additionally, various levels of management were not aware of and could not
speak to certain activities conducted within the districts for which they held oversight
responsibilities. Several individuals stated that board members, acting individually,
intervene in the daily operations within their respective districts. These individuals also
reported a fear of retaliation if staff did not respond or follow the directions of the
individual board members.” (Id. at p. 10.)
11

12

Stats. 2017, ch. 16 (AB 102) (adding Gov. Code, §§ 15570-15570.100).

13

Gov. Code, §§ 15670-15680.
4

24-404

property tax system, and administering the Alcoholic Beverage Tax Program and the Tax
on Insurers. 14
There are five voting members of the Board, comprising the State Controller (ex
officio) and four members elected to four-year terms (one for each equalization
district). 15 The structural changes wrought by AB 102 to the duties of the Board of
Equalization prompted the Compensation Commission to consider whether it has
authority to call for a commensurate reduction in the Board members’ compensation.
ANALYSIS
The question here is whether the Commission has authority to adjust Board
members’ base pay to reflect the significant reduction of the Board’s responsibilities. We
conclude that the Commission does have this authority.
Our analysis rests on our interpretation of the constitutional provisions creating the
Commission and guiding its operations. 16 As set out above, Article III, section 8 instructs
the Commission first to “establish,” and thereafter annually to “adjust,” the salary and
benefits to be paid to elected state officials. The first phase of establishing compensation
levels was completed by 1994 and the Commission has been annually adjusting those
levels ever since. 17 Some years compensation has gone up, some years it has gone down,

Gov. Code, § 15600; see Cal. State Board of Equalization, About BOE,
https://www.boe.ca.gov/info/about.htm (as of Apr. 1, 2025).
14

Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 17. The office of State Controller is one of the offices for
which the Commission has established compensation, and now adjusts compensation
annually. (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 8, subd. (l).) The State Controller’s duties as an ex
officio member of the Board can figure into the Commission’s evaluations of the
Controller’s compensation, but the Controller’s compensation is to be adjusted
individually on its own merits, while the elected Board members’ compensation is to be
evaluated and adjusted based on the Board’s particular duties and responsibilities. (See
Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 17 [Controller is Board member ex officio]; Cal. Const., art. III,
§ 8, subds. (h) [compensation factors], (l) [listing both Controller and Board member as
subject officers].)
15

Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento v. Saylor (1971) 5 Cal.3d 685, 691 (“In construing the
meaning and intent of the constitutional language, we are guided by established
principles of construction and other extrinsic aids to constitutional interpretation”).
16

See Cal. Citizens Compensation Commission, Commission History,
https://www.calhr.ca.gov/cccc/Pages/cccc-commission-history.aspx (summary of
Commission’s actions) (as of Apr. 1, 2025).
17

5

24-404

and occasionally it has remained level year to year. 18 Most of the time, compensation has
been adjusted at the same rate across the board for all elected officials, but sometimes one
or more offices are treated differently from the rest. 19
As the Commission’s actions show, there is no dispute that the Commission may
adjust compensation down as well as up. As discussed in more detail below, the word
“adjust” means to conform or adapt to the circumstances. Nothing in the text of Article
III, section 8 expressly limits the Commission to upward adjustments if the circumstances
suggest otherwise. 20 And even if the text’s silence were perceived to create an
ambiguity, the ambiguity would be resolved by reference to the original ballot pamphlet
statements, which informed the 1990 voting public in so many words that, “The
Commission is NOT a guaranteed pay raise. The opponents didn’t tell you that the
Commission has the power to lower salaries.” 21
The crux of the question here is not whether the Commission has authority to
reduce Board members’ compensation, but by how much. As explained by the
Commission, it “understands that it may reduce salary as part of its annual process to
‘adjust’ the salary of elected officials. The focus of this inquiry is specifically whether—
included within that power—the Commission may re-‘establish’ afresh the salary of
elected officials whose powers, duties and responsibilities have changed . . . .” 22 We
conclude that the Commission has the power to take a fresh look at the Board members’
work and to reduce their compensation if appropriate. In doing so, however, we see no
need to call or conceive of a significant salary reduction as a “re-establishment” of the
Board compensation level. As we see it, the establishment phase has already happened; it
See Cal. Citizens Compensation Commission, Recent Action,
https://www.calhr.ca.gov/cccc/Pages/cccc-recent-action.aspx (as of Apr. 1, 2025).
18

For example, in 2006, salaries were increased 18 percent for constitutional officers and
2 percent for legislators; in 2007 salaries were increased 5 percent for the Attorney
General and Superintendent of Public Instruction and 2.75 percent for legislators. (See
Cal. Citizens Compensation Commission, Commission History,
https://www.calhr.ca.gov/cccc/Pages/cccc-commission-history.aspx (summary of
Commission’s actions) (as of Apr. 1, 2025).)
19

20

Cal. Const., art. III, § 8, subd. (g).

Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990) Rebuttal to Arguments Against Prop. 112,
p. 25, https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_props/1059 (as of Apr. 1, 2025); see
People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 685 (“When the language is ambiguous, we refer to
other indicia of the voters’ intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in
the official ballot pamphlet” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
21

California Citizens Compensation Commission, letter to Senior Assistant Attorney
General Marc J. Nolan, Apr. 16, 2024 (on file).

22

6

24-404

is complete. According to the plain text of the constitutional provision, any decisions the
Commission makes now are “adjustments,” no matter the degree of the change. 23
When interpreting legal text, words that are not defined by the text itself should be
given their ordinary, everyday meanings. 24 The word “adjust” means “to bring to a more
satisfactory state,” or “to make correspondent or conformable,” or “to bring the parts of
to a true or more effective relative position.” 25 These definitions convey the sense of a
situation being changed in order to bring it into harmony with pertinent circumstances.
That sense is fully apt here, where the Commission is charged with overseeing
compensation packages for state elected officers for the very purpose of ensuring that
they remain anchored in current fact and law. Nothing in the text of the Constitution
limits the Commission to making adjustments that are small, or based on the cost of
living, or in synch with the adjustments made to other officers’ compensation. 26
To the contrary, the Commission is required to adjust each elected official’s
compensation to conform to their current responsibilities by applying the very same
criteria used for establishing compensation in the first place. 27 The Constitution requires
the Commission to consider four factors when it establishes or adjusts compensation:
(1) the amount of time required to do the job; (2) the amount of compensation provided to
other officials with comparable responsibilities; (3) the responsibility and scope of
authority of the entity in which the state officer serves; and (4) whether the State budget
permits a raise. 28 Here, the first and third factors—the time required to do the job and the
scope of authority of the office in question—have been radically changed by Assembly
Bill 102. We believe the Commission would be justified in applying those factors to

23

Cal. Const., art. III, § 8, subd. (h).

Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento v. Saylor, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 691 (“In construing the
meaning and intent of the constitutional language, we are guided by established
principles of construction and other extrinsic aids to constitutional interpretation”); see
People v. Killian (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 191, 205, 212.
24

Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/adjust. Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) defines “adjust”
as “to determine the amount that an insurer will pay an insured to cover a loss” or ‘to
arrive at a new agreement with a creditor for the payment of a debt.” Neither of those
definitions is apt here.

25

See, e.g., Komendat v. Gifford, 2024 WL 4847835, at *7 (Mich. Ct. App. 2024)
(discussing dictionary definitions of “adjust” and rejecting argument that only “small”
adjustments are possible).
27
Ibid.
26

28

Cal. Const., art. III, § 8, subd. (h).
7

24-404

adjust the compensation of Board members as appropriate to reflect their current
functions and responsibilities.
The powers and duties of the Board of Equalization have been reduced to the bare
constitutional minimum, and the bulk of its prior powers have been reassigned to sizeable
new agencies. We conclude that the Commission has authority to adjust Board members’
compensation consistent with Section 8(h) of article III of the California Constitution.

8

24-404