California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: To Executive

SB 519 — Public employment.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 188, Statutes of 2009.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

The Public Employees' Retirement System provides preretirement death benefits for the surviving spouse or children, or both, as specified, of state members and specified school members not covered by the federal Social Security Act and provides that a surviving spouse becomes eligible for certain of these benefits when he or she attains 60 years of age and meets other specified criteria. Existing law provides that on January 1, 2010, the surviving spouse's eligibility age will increase to 62 years of age, and the financial monthly benefits to the survivors would decrease. This bill would delete the provisions that would change the law on January 1, 2010, and would instead maintain indefinitely the benefits that are currently in effect. Existing law requires the state to pay sworn members of the California Highway Patrol who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 5 the estimated average total compensation for each corresponding rank for the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, San Diego Police Department, Oakland Police Department, and San Francisco Police Department, as specified. Existing law requires the state and the exclusive representative for State Bargaining Unit 5 to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average total compensation based on projected average total compensation for the above-named departments as of July 1 of the year in which the survey is conducted. Existing law requires any increase in total compensation resulting from those provisions to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding negotiated pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act. This bill would instead use any amount that would otherwise be used to permanently increase compensation for those members of State Bargaining Unit 5 pursuant to those provisions, effective on July 1, 2009, and on July 1, 2010, to permanently prefund postemployment health care benefits for patrol members, as defined. The bill would prohibit any amount used to prefund postemployment health care for patrol members pursuant to that provision from being included in any calculation for benefits using final compensation. The bill would require patrol members to contribute an additional 0.5% of base pay toward prefunding retiree health benefit obligations effective on the first day of the pay period following the effective date of this act and the ratification of the addendum by the members of State Bargaining Unit 5. The bill would also require the state to contribute toward prefunding retiree health benefits, on a prospective basis, as specified, effective July 1, 2012. The bill would provide that if those provision are in conflict with the provisions of a memorandum of understanding, the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further legislative action, except that if those provisions of a memorandum of understanding require the expenditure of funds, the provisions would not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Existing law requires the Department of Personnel Administration to provide any side letter, appendix, or other addendum to a properly ratified memorandum of understanding that requires the expenditure of $250,000 or more related to salary and benefits and that is not already contained in the original memorandum of understanding or the Budget Act to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Existing law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, within 30 days after receiving the side letter, appendix, or other addendum, to determine if the addendum presents substantial additions that are not reasonably within the parameters of the original memorandum of understanding and thereby requires legislative action to ratify the addendum. This bill would approve an addendum to a memorandum of understanding entered into by the state employer and State Bargaining Unit 5 that require the expenditure of funds. The bill would approve provisions of the addendum that require the expenditure of funds. The bill would provide that those provisions shall not take effect unless the funds are specifically appropriated by the Legislature or already exist within available appropriations, and would allow the reopening of negotiations if the Legislature does not approve or fully fund any addendum included in the bill.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 188, Statutes of 2009.

  2. Approved by Governor.

  3. Enrolled. To Governor at 1 p.m.

  4. Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2418.) To enrollment.

  5. From committee: That the Assembly amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 2399.)

  6. From committee: Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10 be re-referred to Com. on P.E. & R. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 2391.) Re-referred to Com. on P.E. & R.

  7. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.

  8. In Senate.

  9. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 73. Noes 2. Page 3205.) To Senate.

  10. Read second time. To third reading.

  11. (Heard in committee on September 3.)

  12. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.)

  13. Joint Rule 62(a) file notice suspended. (Page 2949.)

  14. Re-referred to Com. On P.E.,R. & S.S. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  15. Read third time. Amended. (Page 2924.)

  16. Read second time. To third reading.

  17. (Received by Desk on August 28 pursuant to Joint Rule 61(a)(11).)

  18. (Heard in committee on August 27.)

  19. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.)

  20. Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  21. (Heard in committee on July 8.)

  22. From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  23. Hearing postponed by committee.

  24. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on P.E.,R. & S.S.

  25. To Com. on P.E.,R. & S.S.

  26. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  27. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 1099.) To Assembly.

  28. Read second time. To third reading.

  29. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 1072.)

  30. (Suspense - for vote only.)

  31. Set for hearing May 28.

  32. Placed on APPR suspense file.

  33. Set for hearing May 4.

  34. From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 557.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  35. Set for hearing April 20.

  36. Hearing postponed by committee.

  37. Set for hearing April 13.

  38. To Com. on P.E. & R.

  39. From print. May be acted upon on or after March 28.

  40. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Ashburn · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Ashburn

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 37001
Democratic 1001
Republican 1000
Total 39002
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (41)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Harman — Yea
Hollingsworth — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Benoit — Yea
Oropeza — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Runner — Yea
Florez — Not Voting
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wiggins — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Yea
Huff — Yea
Liu — Yea
Maldonado — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Correa — Yea
Cox — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Not Voting
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 85 Yea · 2 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 79204
Democratic 3000
Republican 3000
Total 85204
% of votes cast 93%2%0%4%
How each member voted (91)
Member Party Vote
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Bill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Charles — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Eng — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Audra — Yea
Davis — Yea
Duvall — Not Voting
Feuer — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Bass — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Knight — Yea
Krekorian — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Logue — Nay
Mendoza — Not Voting
Monning — Yea
Nava — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Tran — Yea
Adams — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Ma — Yea
Miller — Not Voting
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Villines — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 5 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5001
Total 5001
% of votes cast 83%0%0%17%
How each member voted (6)
Member Party Vote
Furutani — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Nestande — Not Voting
Beall — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Conway — Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 22 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 20000
Democratic 1000
Republican 1000
Total 22000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (22)
Member Party Vote
Fuentes — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Conway — Yea
Charles — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Audra — Yea
Miller — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Hill — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 37 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 34003
Democratic 2000
Republican 1000
Total 37003
% of votes cast 93%0%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Ducheny — Not Voting
Hancock — Yea
Harman — Yea
Huff — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Yea
Leno — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Oropeza — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Benoit — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Yea
Hollingsworth — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Maldonado — Yea
Romero — Yea
Wiggins — Yea
Cedillo — Not Voting
Wyland — Yea
Correa — Yea
Cox — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea
Florez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11002
Total 11002
% of votes cast 85%0%0%15%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Runner — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Leno — Yea
Oropeza — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Wolk — Not Voting
Wyland — Yea
Cox — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11002
Total 11002
% of votes cast 85%0%0%15%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Runner — Yea
Leno — Yea
Walters — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Oropeza — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Cox — Yea
DeSaulnier — Not Voting
Denham — Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 519 do?
The Public Employees' Retirement System provides preretirement death benefits for the surviving spouse or children, or both, as specified, of state members and specified school members not covered by the federal Social Security Act and provides that a surviving spouse becomes eligible for certain of these benefits when he or she attains 60 years of age and meets other specified criteria. Existing law provides that on January 1, 2010, the surviving spouse's eligibility age will increase to 62 years of age, and the financial monthly benefits to the survivors would decrease. This bill would delete the provisions that would change the law on January 1, 2010, and would instead maintain indefinitely the benefits that are currently in effect. Existing law requires the state to pay sworn members of the California Highway Patrol who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 5 the estimated average total compensation for each corresponding rank for the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, San Diego Police Department, Oakland Police Department, and San Francisco Police Department, as specified. Existing law requires the state and the exclusive representative for State Bargaining Unit 5 to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average total compensation based on projected average total compensation for the above-named departments as of July 1 of the year in which the survey is conducted. Existing law requires any increase in total compensation resulting from those provisions to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding negotiated pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act. This bill would instead use any amount that would otherwise be used to permanently increase compensation for those members of State Bargaining Unit 5 pursuant to those provisions, effective on July 1, 2009, and on July 1, 2010, to permanently prefund postemployment health care benefits for patrol members, as defined. The bill would prohibit any amount used to prefund postemployment health care for patrol members pursuant to that provision from being included in any calculation for benefits using final compensation. The bill would require patrol members to contribute an additional 0.5% of base pay toward prefunding retiree health benefit obligations effective on the first day of the pay period following the effective date of this act and the ratification of the addendum by the members of State Bargaining Unit 5. The bill would also require the state to contribute toward prefunding retiree health benefits, on a prospective basis, as specified, effective July 1, 2012. The bill would provide that if those provision are in conflict with the provisions of a memorandum of understanding, the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further legislative action, except that if those provisions of a memorandum of understanding require the expenditure of funds, the provisions would not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Existing law requires the Department of Personnel Administration to provide any side letter, appendix, or other addendum to a properly ratified memorandum of understanding that requires the expenditure of $250,000 or more related to salary and benefits and that is not already contained in the original memorandum of understanding or the Budget Act to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Existing law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, within 30 days after receiving the side letter, appendix, or other addendum, to determine if the addendum presents substantial additions that are not reasonably within the parameters of the original memorandum of understanding and thereby requires legislative action to ratify the addendum. This bill would approve an addendum to a memorandum of understanding entered into by the state employer and State Bargaining Unit 5 that require the expenditure of funds. The bill would approve provisions of the addendum that require the expenditure of funds. The bill would provide that those provisions shall not take effect unless the funds are specifically appropriated by the Legislature or already exist within available appropriations, and would allow the reopening of negotiations if the Legislature does not approve or fully fund any addendum included in the bill.
Who sponsors SB 519?
SB 519 is sponsored by Ashburn.
What is the current status of SB 519?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 519?
Track SB 519 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 519

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of SB 519

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →