Public employment.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 519 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 519.
You're tracking SB 519
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 519 — Public employment.
Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 188, Statutes of 2009.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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
- Chaptered 10/11/09 - Chaptered Current pdf October 11, 2009
- Enrolled 09/15/09 - Enrolled pdf September 15, 2009
- Amended 09/02/09 - Amended Assembly pdf September 02, 2009
- Amended 06/25/09 - Amended Assembly pdf June 25, 2009
- Introduced 02/26/09 - Introduced pdf February 26, 2009
- SB519 View text html
Action History
-
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 188, Statutes of 2009.
-
Approved by Governor.
-
Enrolled. To Governor at 1 p.m.
-
Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2418.) To enrollment.
-
From committee: That the Assembly amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 2399.)
-
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.
-
Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.
-
In Senate.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 73. Noes 2. Page 3205.) To Senate.
-
Read second time. To third reading.
-
(Heard in committee on September 3.)
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.)
-
Joint Rule 62(a) file notice suspended. (Page 2949.)
-
Re-referred to Com. On P.E.,R. & S.S. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
-
Read third time. Amended. (Page 2924.)
-
Read second time. To third reading.
-
(Received by Desk on August 28 pursuant to Joint Rule 61(a)(11).)
-
(Heard in committee on August 27.)
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.)
-
Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
(Heard in committee on July 8.)
-
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Hearing postponed by committee.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on P.E.,R. & S.S.
-
To Com. on P.E.,R. & S.S.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 1099.) To Assembly.
-
Read second time. To third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 1072.)
-
(Suspense - for vote only.)
-
Set for hearing May 28.
-
Placed on APPR suspense file.
-
Set for hearing May 4.
-
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.
-
Set for hearing April 20.
-
Hearing postponed by committee.
-
Set for hearing April 13.
-
To Com. on P.E. & R.
-
From print. May be acted upon on or after March 28.
-
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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 37 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 39 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Correa | — | Yea |
| Ducheny | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Benoit | — | Yea |
| Wiggins | — | Yea |
| Ashburn | — | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 79 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 85 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (6)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Conway | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Nestande | — | Yea |
| Torrico | — | Yea |
| Furutani | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 34 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 37 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Correa | — | Yea |
| Ashburn | — | Yea |
| Benoit | — | Yea |
| Ducheny | — | Yea |
| Wiggins | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
Subjects
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 →