This case presents two related issues about the job classification and salary-setting authority granted to public pension boards and county boards of supervisors.
The first issue concerns power granted by the California Constitution giving public pension retirement boards “plenary authority and fiduciary responsibility for investment of moneys and administration of the system.” (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17 (section 17).) The question involves the scope of authority granted. Specifically, does that constitutional authority over the management of fund assets and delivery of benefits extend more broadly to empower a retirement board to unilaterally set civil service classification and salary levels for system employees?
The second issue concerns the statutory authority of county governments and retirement boards operating under the 1937 County Employees Retirement Law. (CERL; Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.) That inquiry addresses whether, apart from the Constitution, the CERL statutes separately grant county retirement boards the power to set classification and salary levels and compel county boards of supervisors to implement these retirement board decisions in the county’s salary ordinance.
The Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA) is a retirement system operating under the CERL statutory scheme. It petitioned for a writ of mandate compelling the County of Los Angeles (County) to implement its classification and salary decisions for certain staff positions. The trial court denied the writ but the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding retirement boards have the final authority to decide classification and salary setting. In so holding, the court disagreed with Westly v. Board of Administration (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1110 (Westly), which had construed the constitutional authority of retirement boards more narrowly.
We conclude Westly’s narrower construction was correct. Considered as a whole, the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions create a system of cooperative responsibility between retirement boards and governing bodies on issues related to employee classification and compensation. There is no indication that either the Legislature or the voters intended to upset that balance by leaving these decisions to retirement boards alone. We also reject the related argument that CERL imposes a mandatory duty on counties to automatically implement retirement board decisions on classification and salary setting. Instead, we hold that, while CERL grants retirement boards the power to “appoint,” or hire, necessary personnel (§ 31522.1), county governments retain final authority over their civil service classification and salaries. Such decisions are subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion, however, and a writ of mandate may issue if the county unreasonably delays or withholds its approval of the retirement board’s recommendations.
There are 0 comments