SB 1038 amends procedures governing audits under the Public Employees’ Retirement System by requiring the board to publish intended audits publicly and by imposing notice and information-forwarding duties on audited state and school employers and contracting agencies. The bill also sets rules for who receives lists of affected members and clarifies that the measures do not create new procedural or due-process rights for employee representatives.
This matters to audit teams, human-resources and labor-relations officers, and public-sector unions because it formalizes pre-audit transparency, creates tight operational notice duties for employers, and limits the legal remedies available to affected workers or unions. Agencies will need processes to track notices, certify delivery, and manage privacy risks tied to member information.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the CalPERS board to post on its website the employer(s) and the stated purpose and scope before starting certain audits, and it obliges audited agencies to notify exclusive representatives and provide lists and final reports to those representatives. It also limits any new procedural rights arising from those disclosures.
Who It Affects
State agencies, school districts and school employers, contracting agencies subject to CalPERS audits, CalPERS’ audit office, and exclusive representatives (unions) that represent affected classifications of members.
Why It Matters
By formalizing pre-audit notice and targeted disclosures, the bill changes how audits interact with collective bargaining structures and member privacy—shifting responsibility for front-line communications to employers and creating predictable, statutory steps that agencies must follow.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1038 layers a clear, employer-centered notification workflow on top of CalPERS’ existing audit authority. First, the board must make the public aware of a planned audit by posting who will be audited and what the audit will examine.
That public posting is designed to create transparency about audits before they begin. Separately, audited employers get direct written notice of the audit’s purpose and scope so they know what CalPERS intends to examine.
The bill then turns to labor relations: once an employer receives notice, it must turn around and notify the exclusive representative(s) for any members who may be affected. Employers must also certify to the board that they provided that notice.
Later in the audit timeline, employers must produce to both the board and the relevant exclusive representative lists identifying members affected by the final audit report—but the version sent to the representative is limited to names in classifications that representative actually represents.When the board issues its final audit report, the audited employer receives a copy and must quickly forward it to the exclusive representative(s) along with a certification of delivery to the board. The bill explicitly states that the new notification and disclosure steps do not create new rights for exclusive representatives—so the statute provides transparency and notice without opening a separate adjudicative or due-process pathway tied to the audit results.Practically, the statute pushes operational responsibility to employers: maintaining a website or intrastate posting is the board’s job, but day-to-day communications, list production, and certifications fall to agencies and districts.
That redistribution of work will require coordination among HR, payroll, and legal teams to identify affected members, manage PII, track representative coverage by classification, and document the statutorily required certifications.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The board must publish on its internet website the specific state or school employer, each school district represented, or contracting agency subject to an audit and the audit’s purpose and scope before initiating that audit.
Audited employers must send written notice of the intended audit’s purpose and scope to affected state agencies, school employers, or contracting agencies prior to the audit’s start.
Within three working days of receiving the board’s notice, an audited employer must forward the intended-audit notice to any exclusive representative(s) for members who may be affected and certify to the board that it did so.
Within 60 days the audited employer must provide the board and the exclusive representative a list of names of members affected by the final audit report; the list sent to the exclusive representative is limited to names of members in positions or classifications represented by that representative.
Upon issuance of the final audit report the audited employer must forward a copy to exclusive representative(s) within three working days and certify delivery to the board; the statute also provides that these certification statements are not made under penalty of perjury.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Board must post auditees and audit scope before starting
This subsection requires the system’s board to publish, on its public website, the identity of the employer(s) to be audited and a description of the audit’s purpose and scope prior to initiating an audit. The practical effect is a pre-audit transparency obligation on the board—stakeholders and the public can see planned audits, which short-circuits surprise and allows affected parties to prepare. For the board it creates an administrative step that must be integrated into audit start-up procedures and web publishing workflows.
Written notice to audited employer describing purpose and scope
This provision mandates written notice to the state agency, school employer (including each school district listed), or contracting agency that will be audited. The notice must describe the audit’s purpose and scope, so agencies receive a plain statement of what CalPERS intends to examine. That specificity reduces ambiguity about audit boundaries but also puts pressure on auditors to define scope sufficiently early and accurately to avoid disputes about notice adequacy.
Employer duty to notify exclusive representatives quickly and certify
After the employer receives notice, it has a short statutory window to inform any exclusive representative(s) representing members who may be affected, and it must certify to the board that it provided that notice. This shifts the duty of frontline labor communications to the employer and creates a traceable certification trail. Employers will need processes to identify which representatives cover which classifications, and labor offices will likely need templates and tracking systems to meet the statutory timeline.
Employer must produce lists of affected members — limited disclosure to reps
Within a set period after the audit concludes, the employer must give both the board and the representative a list of names of members affected by the final audit report. Importantly, the list the employer provides to the exclusive representative is limited to members in positions or classifications that representative actually represents. That carve-out narrows the union’s visibility and attempts to balance representative notice with limits on breadth of disclosure, but it also requires employers to map employees to represented classifications accurately.
Forwarding final report, certification formality, and no new rights
The board sends the final audit report to the audited agency, which then must forward it to exclusive representatives promptly and certify that it did so. The statute clarifies that such certifications are not statements made under penalty of perjury, and it explicitly states that the section does not grant additional rights to exclusive representatives, including due-process protections. That combination creates a formal notice regime while limiting legal avenues for challenging audits based solely on the notice and disclosure rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Exclusive representatives (unions): They gain earlier, statutory notice of audits and access to the final audit report and an affected-members list (albeit limited to represented classifications), which improves their ability to assess impact and engage on remedies or negotiations.
- Members/employees potentially affected by audits: The disclosure requirements increase transparency about audits that touch payroll, service credits, or benefit determinations and make it more likely employees will learn about issues affecting their records.
- CalPERS board and public watchdogs: Public website postings create a documented audit schedule that supports public oversight and can reduce claims that audits are arbitrary or secretive.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies, school districts, and contracting agencies: They must implement notice workflows, produce member lists, certify deliveries, and coordinate with labor representatives—creating administrative work for HR, payroll, and legal teams.
- Local HR and payroll systems: Systems will need matching routines to map members to represented classifications and to extract names for lists while protecting PII; small districts may lack ready capacity and face higher marginal costs.
- Legal and compliance counsel: Advising on certification language, privacy limitations, and handling disagreements about who is an 'affected' member will increase demand for counsel time and potentially litigation on ambiguous boundaries despite the statute's limits on new rights.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between making audits transparent and timely for affected employees and representatives, and preserving the efficiency and confidentiality of government audits: greater notice and disclosure help workers and unions respond, but they also increase administrative burden, risk premature public disclosure of sensitive information, and may complicate auditors’ ability to operate quickly and effectively—without offering clear enforcement tools or privacy safeguards to reconcile those competing goals.
The bill tries to thread two competing priorities—transparency to affected workers and unions, and limiting legal disruption to audits—by imposing notice duties while expressly declining to confer new procedural rights. That structure raises practical questions: the statute requires employers to produce lists of ‘affected’ members and to identify which names to share with a representative, but it does not define 'affected' in granular terms.
That opens disputes about inclusion thresholds (e.g., whether a systemic payroll error that potentially touches hundreds of members counts as 'affecting' them) and can generate contention about the sufficiency of the lists provided.
Privacy and data-protection tensions are also acute. Employers must produce member names to representatives and deliver reports that may include sensitive payroll or benefits information.
The statute contains no specific data-protection procedures, redaction rules, or secure-transfer standards. Employers will have to reconcile competing obligations under state privacy laws, collective-bargaining confidentiality clauses, and internal personnel policies without statutory guidance.
Finally, enforcement is thin: the framework relies on certifications of delivery but specifies that certifications are not under penalty of perjury and does not create a private right of action tied directly to the notice rules, leaving questions about remedies if employers fail to comply.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.