1. United States
2. Calif.
3. Letter

California’s current budget environment demands disciplined, evidence-based decision-making. Declining revenues and long-term fiscal obligations require the state to scrutinize recurring costs and eliminate inefficiencies. Broad Return to Office (RTO) mandates, as currently implemented, fail that standard and conflict with basic principles of responsible governance. The State Auditor has identified a central flaw in RTO implementation: agencies did not demonstrate that increased in-office attendance improved productivity, service delivery, or cost efficiency. In multiple cases, departments reactivated or expanded office space without updated utilization studies or cost-benefit analyses. This is not a procedural oversight—it is a fiscal governance failure. Policies that create long-term lease and operating obligations must be justified with data, especially during a deficit. RTO is not cost-neutral. It reinforces one of the state’s largest structural expenses: underutilized office real estate. Even with elevated vacancy rates, agencies continue to pay for space, utilities, security, and maintenance that do not directly enhance public outcomes. Remote and hybrid work models have already shown that many state functions can be performed effectively with lower overhead and greater workforce flexibility. As a State employee, I work for the people of California. My personal finances should not be used to offset inefficient operational decisions when better cost-saving measures are available. RTO mandates shift costs from the state to individual workers through commuting expenses, parking fees, vehicle wear, childcare disruptions, and lost uncompensated time. These costs do not reduce the state’s structural deficit or improve service delivery; they simply externalize inefficiency. Using employee wallets as an informal budget tool is fiscally unsound. It obscures the true cost of maintaining excess office space while increasing turnover, recruitment, and training expenses that further strain agency budgets. These downstream costs are real, measurable, and avoidable. California has more responsible options. Reducing excess real estate, consolidating office footprints, renegotiating leases, and aligning in-office requirements to demonstrated operational need offer direct, auditable savings. Fiscal responsibility means addressing inefficiency at its source—not shifting financial strain onto public servants. In a constrained budget environment, data-driven workplace strategies are not optional; they are a governance obligation.