Background

On September 27, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 278, which adds Government Code section 20164.5 and will go into effect on January 1, 2022. SB 278 greatly increases the potential costs to CalPERS agencies for reporting errors, by creating new and in some cases retroactive financial exposure for CalPERS agencies already

The problems facing public agencies, many of which are struggling just to keep their heads above water, may get much worse in the near future.  The California Legislature is currently debating Senate Bill (SB) 278 (Leyva), which if passed would create new and in some cases retroactive financial burdens and uncertainties for local public agencies

This post was authored by Frances Rogers and Brett A. Overby

A California Court of Appeal recently issued a decision with implications that can affect all public employers in California and in contrast to a decision by another Court of Appeal just over a year ago.  The decision issued in Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn.

The CalPERS Board of Administration recently adopted the final regulations concerning the administration of pensionable compensation for “New Members” as defined under the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA).

Initially, employers should be familiar with the nomenclature that is used in reference to compensation that is reported to CalPERS. Compensation that may be

Retirement-Sign.jpg

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) has significantly increased the number of contracting agency audits to ensure that agencies’ practices are consistent with CalPERS’ interpretation of governing law.  At the same time, CalPERS has increased its vigilance in reviewing compensation reported for recent retirees.  Increasingly, CalPERS has contacted agencies regarding compliance with applicable CalPERS

Retirement-Sign.jpg

The Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) recently found that the City of San Diego violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act when it failed to meet and confer over the language of Proposition B, a popular pension reform initiative which passed by 67 percent of the majority vote in the 2012 local election.  However, as the Board recognized,