BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1136
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1136 (Fong)
As Amended May 18, 2009
Majority vote
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 5-0 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hernandez, Furutani, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Beall, Conway, Torrico | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| | | |Hall, John A. Perez, |
| | | |Price, Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Permits, upon adoption by a county board of retirement, a
retired member of a county retirement system being operated under
the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937 ('37 Act) to change
previously elected optional settlements, as specified.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows a '37 Act retired member, in order to provide for his or
her spouse, to revoke an optional settlement, as specified, if
all of the following apply:
a) The retired member retired on or before the date the
post-retirement spouse provision was made applicable in the
county from which he or she retired
b) The member was unmarried or had been married less than one
year at the time of retirement; and,
c) The application requirements, including requiring
notification of, and acknowledgement by, beneficiaries who may
be affected by the revocation, have been satisfied.
2)Specifies that after revocation, the member's retirement
allowance will be adjusted prospectively to the amount he or she
would have been entitled to had they not elected an option and to
reflect any cost-of-living increases that would have been added
to the retirement allowance.
AB 1136
Page 2
3)Specifies that the spouse, after revocation, would be entitled to
any provisions for which he or she may qualify, as if no optional
settlement had been elected by the member.
4)Prohibits a retired member that has revoked an optional
settlement pursuant to these provisions from electing other
optional settlements.
5)Specifies that the retirement system is under no obligation to
locate or otherwise contact retired members who may qualify for
these provisions.
6)Specifies that any action taken pursuant to these provisions does
not excuse the obligation of a member to provide a continuing
benefit to a former spouse pursuant to a court order.
7)Specifies that these provisions will not become effective in a
county until adopted by the county board of retirement.
EXISTING LAW permits a member of a '37 Act retirement system, prior
to the first payment of any retirement allowance, to elect certain
optional settlements, which reduce the allowance payable to the
member through his or her life and provide for a subsequent payment
to another party or parties, including a spouse.
Upon the death of a '37 Act member who died after a service
retirement or non-service related disability and did not elect an
optional settlement, an allowance equaling 60% of his or her
retirement allowance will be continued throughout life to a
surviving spouse to whom he or she was married to for at least one
year prior to the effective date of retirement.
AB 979 (Negrete McLeod), Chapter 441, Statutes of 2004, allowed,
upon adoption by a county board of supervisors, retired '37 Act
members, who marry after retirement, to purchase, at no cost to the
retirement system, an optional survivor benefit in order to
increase the survivor benefit that would be paid to their new
spouse if the member dies first.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
no direct effect on the state. By requiring that information on
the revocation application be provided under penalty of perjury,
the bill contains a crime mandate, not state reimbursable.
COMMENTS : According to the sponsor, the California Retired County
AB 1136
Page 3
Employees Association, "This bill is of importance to older
retirees in counties where the retirement plan was established
under the '37 Act. In their case, they might have selected a
particular retirement option provided under the '37 Act because
what is commonly referred to as the 'post-retirement spouse
provision' had not yet been made applicable in their county. In
fact, the 'post-retirement spouse provision' may not have even been
a part of the '37 Act at the time they retired. This bill will
enable them to avail themselves of this provision if their life
circumstances have changed since retirement."
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN: 0001095