California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB430

Introduced
2/21/19  
Introduced
2/21/19  
Refer
3/7/19  
Refer
3/7/19  
Report Pass
4/10/19  
Refer
4/10/19  
Refer
4/10/19  
Report Pass
5/17/19  
Report Pass
5/17/19  
Engrossed
5/21/19  
Engrossed
5/21/19  
Refer
5/30/19  

Caption

Public employees’ retirement benefits: judges.

Impact

The bill, if enacted, would modify the existing definition of new members within the public employees' retirement system, creating an avenue for certain judges to retain prior benefits not available under PEPRA. This legislation acknowledges the unique position of the affected judges, aiming to promote equity within the judicial retirement system. It does not affect other public officers or judges elected after this date, thereby maintaining the overarching structure of PEPRA for all other new public employees. Moreover, the bill emphasizes that the retirement system is not obliged to notify or locate eligible judges for this provision, placing the onus of action on the judges themselves.

Summary

Senate Bill 430, introduced by Senator Wieckowski, proposes amendments to the California Public Employees Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) specifically concerning judges' retirement benefits. The bill is tailored to address a unique circumstance faced by judges elected in 2012 but who did not officially assume office until January 1, 2013. The legislation seeks to allow these judges a one-time, irrevocable option to elect a pre-January 1, 2013, membership status in the Judges Retirement System II for service accrued from July 1, 2020, onwards. This exception is intended to ensure that they receive retirement benefits comparable to those judges who were able to assume office before the PEPRA changes took effect.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 430 appears to be supportive among legislators and stakeholders who advocate for equitable treatment of judges. Proponents argue that it addresses an unfair disparity created by PEPRA, which inadvertently placed newly-elected judges at a disadvantage regarding retirement benefits. On the other hand, some may view this exception with skepticism, questioning the implications of granting such exemptions and whether it could set a precedent for similar demands from other public sector employees. Overall, the dialogue appears to be constructively focused on fairness and justice within the retirement system for judges.

Contention

There are potential points of contention related to the bill regarding the broader impacts of making exceptions within the public employee retirement framework. Questions arise around whether similar provisions could be requested by other categories of public employees who feel similarly impacted by PEPRA's stipulations. Furthermore, the bill does not mandate the retirement system to actively inform eligible judges, which could lead to inequities if those judges are unaware of their option. This legislation thus highlights a delicate balance between pursuing equity for specific judges while maintaining the established rules under PEPRA for all new public employees.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB548

Public employees’ retirement: joint county and trial court contracts.

CA SB443

Retirement: joint powers authorities.

CA AB1366

California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013.

CA AB1140

Insurance.

CA SB853

Public employees’ retirement.

CA AB102

Retirement savings.

CA SB696

Enhanced infrastructure financing districts: housing: underutilized or deteriorated retail property: covenants and restrictions: eminent domain.

MS HB1368

School districts; authorize certain districts to employ retired teachers while they continue to draw retirement allowance.