Board discusses legal ambiguity over whether county retiree may hold county-appointed seat

The board held an extended discussion June 18 about whether a county retiree may be appointed by the Board of Supervisors to one of the county-appointed seats on the retirement board.

Legal counsel Christopher ("Chris") told trustees the statute is ambiguous and that Attorney General opinions are persuasive but not binding; he said there is a split in practice among comparable systems. Chris recommended the board decide whether it wanted to take a position and, if so, how to express it — for example through a bylaw amendment that the county could adopt or by asking the county for an advisory position.

Trustees raised competing concerns: some said the plain-language reading and longstanding practice in ISERS suggested retirees should not occupy county-appointed seats; others noted several counties permit retirees in appointed seats and worried that a strict prohibition could make it harder to maintain a full board. Trustees also noted that the appointee at issue was later found ineligible for unrelated reasons.

Trustee Carl Armstrong and others proposed that the chair (Carl) confer with County Counsel (Ryan) to learn the county’s current view; the board agreed to ask staff to follow up. Counsel also suggested referral to an ad hoc governance committee (already scheduled to review policies) and the possibility of proposing a bylaw amendment if the board wanted a binding local rule approved by the county.

Chair Carl Armstrong said he would contact County Counsel and report back at the next meeting; the board gave staff that direction rather than taking immediate formal action.