⚖️ "Stay and Rescind" Power: How the Fiscal Advisor Impacts SFUSD’s Future
In the context of widespread parents’ concern around SFUSD budget cuts, Executive Director Vanessa Marrero arranged a meeting on March 24 with Elliott Duchon, currently a fiscal advisor appointed by the California Department of Education to the District. Vanessa invited Havah Kelly, Chair of the Special Education Citizens’ Advisory Committee (SpEd CAC Chair) and Noah Sloss, SFUSD parent and PPSSF board member, to participate.
Fiscal Advisor’s role and authority. Since the Spring of last year, the fiscal advisors (Elliott is one of two assigned to the district) have had a “stay and rescind” authority over any decisions made by the SF School Board that impact SFUSD’s budget. This authority was triggered by SFUSD’s multi-year budget projection showing a total budget balance below a required minimum 2% reserve at the end of the next two years. Given SFUSD’s recent budget presentations it seems likely the advisor’s stay and rescind authority will continue into next year, even if the proposed $113 million cuts are approved. Elliott compared the fiscal advisors’ current role as similar to that of a County Superintendent in other districts. He referred to AB 1200 as the law that governs their authority.
Effect of hiring freeze on funded positions. SFUSD agreed to a hiring freeze at the end of the 2024 fiscal year and it is still in effect. Havah asked if school sites were able to use funding from local sources like the Student Success Fund (SSF) and the Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF) this fiscal year. Elliott replied that neither the fiscal advisors or the Central Office have blocked sites from spending their allocations. But in response to a clarifying question, Elliott confirmed that sites were not allowed to add any new employees to the District’s payroll even if those positions were fully funded by SSF, PEEF or any other source. As an example of a possible workaround, Elliott said that an SFUSD employee with a teaching degree currently employed by the District as a janitor could be reassigned to a teacher position.
Effect of unspent funding on next year’s budget. Noah asked about the potential for PEEF funding to be returned to the city if it went unspent this fiscal year. The language of San Francisco Proposition J, passed in November 2024 seems like it could have this effect. Elliott replied he was under the impression all unspent funding for SSF and PEEF would roll over but he had not looked into Prop J.
Special Education. Even as Chair of the SpEd CAC Havah hasn’t received a satisfactory answer from the Central Office about the exact amount of this fiscal year’s Special Education budget. Two numbers, $266 and $230 million have been mentioned by District staff but it remains unclear as to which is correct. Havah asked Elliott if he had any insight into this issue in his role as fiscal advisor. Elliott did not, but he mentioned a report on SFUSD’s Special Education budget and spending that is being prepared by the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team (FCMAT).
Elliott wondered if districts are striking the right balance between frugality and needs when it comes to Special Education spending. To illustrate, he recounted a case in the Jurupa Unified School District when he was the Superintendent there: as the result of a lawsuit, his district had to pay for a student to travel by airplane to another district so they could receive accommodation for their learning disability. The student went on to become a millionaire, he said. Elliott also informed the participants that his district never hired a speech or language pathologist during his tenure of about 16 years as Superintendent.
Overall, the meeting was enlightening and Elliott Duchon’s generous contribution of his time was greatly appreciated.