Retirement-Sign.jpg

This blog post was authored by Liara Silva

On February 26, 2015, Assembly Member Susan Bonilla introduced Assembly Bill 963.  The bill addresses concerns regarding membership in the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“STRS”) that originally arose out of STRS’ audit of the San Francisco Community College District (SFCCD) in August 2012.  In its

Breaking News.jpgPension reform might still have a fighting chance.  As we mentioned in yesterday’s Special Bulletin, Governor Brown announced that he had reached an agreement with Legislative Democrats to move forward on pension reform with the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (”CPEPRA”).  

At the eleventh hour, the joint Conference Committee on

CA Seal.jpgDoes your public agency contract with, or a member of, CalPERS, STRS, or a ’37 Act system?  Have you exhausted all possible ways under those systems to reduce pension costs such as reducing benefits for new hires, eliminating or reducing employer paid member contributions, or reducing special compensation?  Do you want to achieve

San Jose-San Diego Sign.jpgTwo pension reform ballot measures were overwhelmingly passed by voters in San Diego and San Jose last week.  Now, other cities, counties and districts in California that participate in CalPERS or STRS, or maintain a ’37 Act system are asking, “can we do the same thing?”  The short answer is, “no,” at least not at

Retirement Sign.jpgThe vested nature of public employee retirement benefits is a hot topic. On the one hand, there are municipalities dealing with increasing pension costs and unfunded liabilities. On the other hand, there are often times a vested right to future pension benefits for employees and retirees cannot be impaired except under very limited circumstances.  Most