BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 266|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 266
Author: Mullin (D)
Amended: 5/8/03 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE : 3-2, 6/9/03
AYES: Soto, Escutia, Karnette
NOES: Ashburn, Oller
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-31, 5/15/03 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : County employees retirement: San Mateo County
SOURCE : American Federation of State, County and
Municipal
Employees
San Mateo County
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the San Mateo County Board
of Supervisors to negotiate through collective bargaining,
a phased-in implementation of survivor benefits for
domestic partners.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes the San Mateo County
Board of Supervisors, among others, to provide specified
benefits to the surviving domestic partners of a member of
the county's retirement system.
According to the author's office, in 1999 joint
negotiations between San Mateo County (County) and the
County Unions resulted in an agreement for domestic
CONTINUED
AB 266
Page
2
partners of County employees to receive survivor and death
benefits, under the County Employees' Retirement Act of
1937 ('37 Act). The retirement benefit is the only benefit
available to married couples that is not available to
domestic partners.
The author's office also states that an actuarial study
done in 2002 concluded that the cost of the benefit was
$987,000. In the 2002 negotiations, the Unions were told
that the County could not afford to implement the benefit.
It was then negotiated that the County would support
legislation that would allow a negotiated phase-in of these
benefits.
This bill is sponsored by the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees Local 829 and San Mateo
County in accordance with negotiations with Service
Employees International Union Local 715 and the County.
The County has been unable to provide these benefits
because a law change was needed. The economic status of
the County has worsened and therefore a phase-in of the
benefit would allow earlier implementation of this benefit.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/11/03)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (co-source)
San Mateo County (co-source)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez,
Chu, Cohn, Corbett, Correa, Diaz, Dutra, Dymally,
Firebaugh, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jackson, Kehoe,
Koretz, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville,
Lowenthal, Montanez, Mullin, Nation, Negrete McLeod,
Nunez, Oropeza, Pavley, Ridley-Thomas, Salinas, Simitian,
Steinberg, Vargas, Wiggins, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Bogh, Campbell, Cox,
Daucher, Dutton, Garcia, Harman, Haynes, Shirley Horton,
AB 266
Page
3
Houston, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Maddox,
Maldonado, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Pacheco,
Plescia, Richman, Runner, Samuelian, Spitzer, Strickland,
Wyland
TSM:mel 6/11/03 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****