BILL ANALYSIS
SB 538
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 538 (Public Employment and Retirement Committee)
As Introduced February 27, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :37-0
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 6-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hernandez, Furutani, | | |
| |Beall, Conway, Nestande, | | |
| |Torrico | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires, in Los Angeles (L.A.) County only, a safety
member returning from disability leave be given the same
opportunity to receive certification as to his or her ability to
perform assigned duties as is available to other safety members
in the County, thereby avoiding being subject to the mandatory
retirement age provisions.
EXISTING LAW contains several optional provisions that counties
operating retirement systems established under the County
Employees' Retirement Law of 1937 ('37 Act) can adopt that
require safety members to retire once they reach a certain age
(60, 70, etc.). L.A. County's safety employees were subject to
those mandatory retirement age provisions but the county
subsequently elected to provide that all new employees would no
longer be subject to the mandatory retirement provisions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the sponsor, the California Professional
Firefighters, "Pursuant to a resolution adopted by Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors, county safety employees - hired
prior to March 31, 1997 - are subject to Government Code Section
31662.6, which is one such '37 Act mandatory retirement age
section. As such, a safety member, hired prior to March 31,
1997 is retired as of the first day of the calendar month
immediately following the month in which he or she attains age
60. In a later resolution, the Board rescinded the mandatory
retirement age provisions for safety members first employed
SB 538
Page 2
after March 31, 1997.
"Government Code Section 31663.15, which was enacted by SB 579
(Wiggins), Chapter 21, Statutes of 2008, and took effect June
22, 2008, permits those Los Angeles County safety members
subject to Section 31662.6 to work beyond the mandatory
retirement age provided that a physician, employed or approved
by the County, certifies that the safety member is capable of
performing his or her assigned duties pursuant to specified
standards. Although Section 31663.15 permits Los Angeles County
to allow its safety members to work beyond the mandatory
retirement age in accordance with the above-described
conditions, Section 31662.6 has unintentionally bound the Los
Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA) to
retire a safety member when he or she is on temporary disability
beyond 'the first day of the calendar month next succeeding that
in which he or she [safety member] attains age 60' and therefore
unable to timely receive the medical certification determining
'fitness for duty.'
"SB 538 simply clarifies Section 31663.15 to permit LACERA to
receive the necessary physical certification of a safety member
upon returning from his or her disability leave before making a
determination as to whether the member is subject to mandatory
retirement, even if that leave extends beyond the month in which
the member turns age 60."
SB 579 (Wiggins), Chapter 21, Statutes of 2008, permits L.A.
County safety members to work beyond the mandatory retirement
age provided that a physician approved by the County certifies
that the safety member is capable of performing his or her
assigned duties pursuant to specified standards.
SB 304 (Karnette), Chapter 33, Statutes of 2001, exempted any
assistant sheriff or a chief in a sheriff's office who is a
safety member and whose primary duties are administrative from
the '37 Act's mandatory retirement provisions for Los Angeles
County only and only upon the approval of the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors.
AB 2366 (Runner), Chapter 120, Statutes of 2006, allowed safety
members who retired because of the mandatory retirement age to
reinstate to active service after retirement if they could meet
the physical demands of their former position. However, because
SB 538
Page 3
employee contribution rates in the '37 Act were determined by
age of entry, the L.A. County Employees Retirement System would
have required that the reinstated safety member be charged a
monthly employee contribution at a significantly higher rate
based on their age at reinstatement. Under these conditions,
the provisions of AB 2366 proved unworkable to the county.
SB 134 (Cedillo), Chapter 290, Statutes of 2007, allowed a
safety member to continue in active employment after age 60, if
a physician employed by the county certifies that he or she is
capable of performing their assigned duties.
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN: 0001897