![\"In](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/SAC_837_ZJZ_20260706_BuildingMugs.JPG\" "\\"In")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
In the final days of California\u2019s legislative session, a proposal to limit the state superintendent\u2019s power to intervene in school district fiscal crises is circulating at the Capitol.<\/p>\n
ZIYU JULIAN ZHU<\/p>\n
julian.zhu@sacbee.com<\/p>\n
In the final days of California\u2019s legislative session, a proposal to limit the state superintendent\u2019s power to intervene in school district fiscal crises is circulating at the Capitol \u2014 a change that could have immediate consequences for Sacramento City Unified as it faces unprecedented financial distress.<\/p>\n
California County Superintendents<\/a>, a statewide association representing all 58 county offices of education that oversee school district finances, sent lawmakers a proposal Tuesday to require approval from the State Board of Education<\/a> president before the state superintendent can assume a county office\u2019s fiscal oversight authority.<\/p>\n \u201cStripping a county superintendent\u2019s statutory oversight authority is an extraordinary exercise of state power,\u201d the background document read.<\/p>\n \u201cUnilateral state intervention creates the risk that the perspectives of local leaders and communities will be replaced by state politicians.\u201d<\/p>\n The association sent a legislative alert supporting the proposed amendment to all members of both houses. The full background document, reviewed by The Sacramento Bee, was shared more selectively with legislative leaders\u2019 offices, budget and policy committee staff, and the governor\u2019s administration, according to Kindra Britt, a spokesperson for the association.<\/p>\n The development came weeks after Sacramento City Unified made two requests<\/a> of State Superintendent Tony Thurmond \u2014 to overturn the Sacramento County Office of Education\u2019s rescission of the district\u2019s new agreement with its teachers union and to assume some of the county office\u2019s fiscal authority.<\/p>\n The district made the intervention request under Education Code Section 42127.6(k), arguing that the county office\u2019s efforts had been \u201cineffective\u201d in resolving its financial problems. Although Thurmond rejected the district\u2019s appeal of the rescission<\/a>, he put the county office on notice regarding the intervention request, warning that he could step in if its future efforts failed to resolve the district\u2019s financial problems.<\/p>\n That provision is what California County Superintendents now wants lawmakers to limit. If the proposed amendment passes, Thurmond would need approval from the president of the State Board of Education \u2014 or the president\u2019s designee \u2014 before taking over the county office\u2019s duties.<\/p>\n \u201cFor 35 years, the Legislature has called upon county offices of education to provide impartial and independent oversight over school district budgeting,\u201d the alert read. \u201cHowever, an outdated and never-used code section allows a single state official to unilaterally seize oversight duties from local county leaders without any checks-and-balances.\u201d<\/p>\n Derek Lennox, senior director of governmental relations for the superintendents association, said developments at Sacramento City Unified prompted the proposal, though it is not specific to the district.<\/p>\n \u201cIt just revealed that there is this existing loophole\u201d in Section 42127.6(k), which does not include a concurrence requirement found in other fiscal oversight provisions of the Education Code, Lennox said.<\/p>\n The proposal cited Assembly Bill 1200, the 1991 law that established county superintendents as the primary fiscal overseers of school districts, and Assembly Bill 1840, which expanded their responsibilities over districts receiving emergency state loans in 2018. It argued that the proposed amendment would protect county officials\u2019 decisions from intervention by state officials who may lack familiarity with local financial conditions or a community\u2019s history.<\/p>\n \u201cCounty superintendents must be able to make difficult decisions and speak with candor to keep a school district solvent and ensure continuous instruction to students,\u201d the background document continued.<\/p>\n \u201cRequiring concurrence provides an additional safeguard for independent fiscal judgment and reinforces the county superintendent\u2019s role as an objective fiscal oversight authority.\u201d<\/p>\n Although the association\u2019s alert calls for urgency legislation, Lennox said the proposal\u2019s final vehicle remains undecided. It could be added to a budget trailer bill or amended into an existing bill, depending on how legislative leaders choose to proceed. Lawmakers have until Monday, the final day of the legislative session, to pass the proposal.<\/p>\n The California Department of Education declined to comment.<\/p>\n Opponents warn of new barriers to fiscal review<\/p>\n California County Superintendents has worked with two Sacramento-area lawmakers on the proposal. Sen. Angelique Ashby, D-Sacramento, and Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove, have been legislative partners in the effort, according to Britt.<\/p>\n Sacramento City Unified School District is opposing the proposal, arguing in a planned news release reviewed by The Bee that county officials are trying to change the very law involved in the district\u2019s pending request for state intervention.<\/p>\n In the release, the district argues that such a significant change should not be enacted at the end of the legislative session without public hearings and input, warning that the amendment would create a new barrier to state intervention when county oversight is deemed ineffective.<\/p>\n \u201cOur District understands the seriousness of the work ahead,\u201d SCUSD Superintendent Cancy McArn said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe projections being cited assume the District does not act. We are acting. Our Board has approved a significant fiscal plan, we are implementing those solutions, and we will continue making the difficult decisions necessary to reach solvency, protect our classrooms, and retain local control.\u201d<\/p>\n District trustee Jasjit Singh, who has participated in every meeting involving the district, county office and California Department of Education during the recent escalation of the district\u2019s financial troubles, called out the county office for failing to disclose its support for the proposal as the three agencies worked to address the crisis.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have discussed the District\u2019s finances, the MOU, county oversight, and our options under the law as it exists today. At no point was our District told that SCOE was supporting an effort to change the very provision of law that is now part of this process,\u201d Singh said in the release.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we are going to solve these problems together, we need to be candid with one another. Trust requires transparency.\u201d<\/p>\n The rescinded agreement with the Sacramento City Teachers Association was projected to provide Sac City Unified District about $98 million in financial relief<\/a> over three years, including nearly $68 million that the district planned to draw from a retiree health trust fund to reimburse its general fund for retiree health costs. It also would have extended the teachers\u2019 contract by three years, from June 2027, to June 2030.<\/p>\n Without the agreement, district officials project<\/a> that Sacramento City Unified could run out of cash by February. If that disputed relief materializes, officials say the district\u2019s cash could last until April, providing additional runway to identify longer-term solutions.<\/p>\n But the Sacramento County Office of Education has firmly defended<\/a> fiscal adviser Luz C\u00e1zares\u2019 decision to rescind the agreement, saying it merely redirected assets and restricted the district\u2019s long-term options by locking in the labor contract for three additional years.<\/p>\n The California Teachers Association also issued a letter Tuesday urging lawmakers to reject the amendment, arguing that it would make it harder for financially troubled districts to obtain timely state review.<\/p>\n \u201cRequiring an additional concurrence before state officials can act weakens local accountability, causes critical review delays, and interferes with local collective bargaining when county-level fiscal oversight fails to resolve a district\u2019s financial distress,\u201d wrote Bryant Miramontes, legislative advocate with the California Teachers Association.<\/p>\n The teachers association President David Goldberg echoed Miramontes\u2019 concerns, describing the last-minute proposal as \u201charmful political interference\u201d that would provide no benefit to students.<\/p>\n This story was originally published August 26, 2026 at 8:19 AM.<\/p>\n Related Stories from Sacramento Bee<\/p>\n
![\"Profile](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Chaewon-Chung.jpg\")