Sheehy Testifies on Local Control Before Assembly Education Committee
Senate Bill 249, authored by Sen. Tom Umberg, seeks to change how county boards of education conduct their elections by requiring the use of district-based elections rather than at-large systems. Supporters argue the bill would create more equitable representation, but opponents warn it would impose costly new requirements on counties and undermine local decision-making.
In testimony before the Assembly Education Committee, Sheehy Strategy Group principal Tom Sheehy raised concerns about SB 249, warning lawmakers that the proposal would create significant state mandates and erode local control.
Sheehy, representing the Orange County Board of Education, noted his extensive background in state government. He previously served as chief deputy director of the California Department of Finance and chaired the Commission on State Mandates, giving him firsthand experience with how state-imposed requirements translate into long-term costs for taxpayers.
“This bill has been labeled by Legislative Counsel as a mandate,” Sheehy said. “That means if it becomes law, counties will file test claims with the Commission on State Mandates — and those claims will be approved. The state’s general fund will be responsible for paying the costs.”
According to Sheehy, those costs are not speculative. The Senate Appropriations Committee staff has already projected that Orange County alone would need several hundred thousand dollars to cover new expenses such as printing additional ballot cards, implementing information technology upgrades and adding staff. When multiplied across multiple counties — including Orange, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Alameda and Riverside — the total cost could exceed $1 million. Many of these expenses would be ongoing, reappearing every election cycle.
“Your constituents will be paying for these costs, not the residents of the counties choosing to adopt these changes,” Sheehy said. “That’s not fair to taxpayers across the state.”
Sheehy also underscored the principle of local control, noting that counties already have the authority to make these changes voluntarily without a state statute. By passing SB 249, the Legislature would not only burden the state’s general fund but also set a precedent of overriding local decision-making.
“This can be done by counties on their own,” Sheehy said. “They don’t need the state to mandate it. Once the state steps in, it becomes a costly obligation that taxpayers everywhere are forced to cover.”
Sheehy concluded his testimony by urging lawmakers to consider both the financial and governance implications of SB 249. “This isn’t necessary, and it isn’t fair,” he said. “Local governments should retain the ability to act without the state imposing costly mandates.”
Need help dealing with California lawmakers or regulators? Contact us for a free consultation or for information on proposals to represent you.