Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Legal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legal counsel briefs ISERS on county‑appointed seat eligibility, PEPRA and pending state bills
Summary
ISERS legal counsel reported May 21 that ambiguity remains over whether a county retiree may fill a county‑appointed trustee seat under County Employees Retirement Law; counsel summarized split interpretations among county retirement systems and flagged pending state bills AB 569 and SB 853.
ISERS legal counsel briefed trustees on May 21 about an eligibility question for county‑appointed trustee seats after an appointed candidate, Kathleen Lang, resigned when she learned she was not eligible to be an elector of the county because she is not a U.S. citizen.
Counsel said the statutory language in the County Employees Retirement Law (cited at section 31520.1 in materials provided) requires that a county‑appointed seat not be occupied by someone “connected in capacity” with the county. The question raised was whether a county retiree is “connected in capacity” and therefore ineligible. Counsel reported that among county retirement systems contacted, opinions are split: approximately six systems have concluded a retiree may serve, while five have taken the opposite view.
Counsel also briefed trustees on related state legislation and background: the presenter referenced the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) as an historical change that ended supplemental defined‑benefit arrangements for new hires and noted pending bills AB 569 and SB 853 that could affect pension design and employer/union negotiation spaces. Counsel said AB 569 had been moving quickly in the Assembly and was re‑referred to committee at the last minute; SB 853 had passed the Assembly and was sitting in the Senate as of the briefing.
Why it matters: The board requested a fuller written packet for the next meeting containing the statutory language, the two differing legal analyses, sample county practices and the county’s application and appointment materials. Counsel recommended the board discuss whether it wants to adopt a formal position or policy to share with county appointing authorities; trustees indicated interest in a written follow‑up.
Ending: Counsel said staff will prepare a written agenda item with attachments for the next meeting so trustees can review the competing analyses and consider whether to formalize a board position.
